Are we the Baddies?

I was reading an entry on The Firearms Blog that had a photo of some Peruvian soldiers in skull warpaint that made one commenter post the following video:

I have to wonder how many Germans during WWII actually had this conundrum. I would imagine quite a few. In the modern era Germans seem to be decent people, and their current prohibition of anything Nazi shows their repentance to an extreme.

The current American situation, fighting an ambiguous war against "Terror" in which we can point to no nation as our enemy while engaging religious fanatics on their own soil, makes me wonder: Are we the baddies? Our enemies, a contingent of followers of the Islamic religion (I am told they hold a minority opinion within that faith) have declared a holy war against us. They call America the "Great Satan", yet in our modern, secular, and borderline atheist culture, we cannot rally around God to renounce the claim, for far too many amongst our population have never known Him.

In the scheme of Divine Providence, is America just the latest iteration of Babylon or Assyria, a great power being utilized to accomplish the Lord's works against the unjust, only to find itself destroyed when it has fulfilled His objective? Are we so consumed in our idolatrous worship of science, celebrity, and self that we cannot see this? I only pray that just as God spared a remnant of the kingdom of Judah, who then turned back to Him, He will spare a remnant of America as well when the day of His judgement comes upon us. We are not a covenant nation, as Israel of old was; our only hope is in the covenant God made to all through the blood of the Christ.

In the light of this it is imperative to realize that whether Americans are the baddies or not is irrelevant, each has a personal accountability for his own actions, and while punishment in this life often rains down on the just and the unjust alike, each will account for his own actions in the life to come. No matter what national allegiance one holds on earth, those of us who desire citizenship in the Kingdom of Heaven must remember this teaching:

But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.” (Matthew 22:34-40, ESV)

Do we love our neighbors as ourselves? In many ways, I would contend, that America, in general, does. Even when we "invade" a country, we make great efforts to improve their infrastructure, assist their needy, and practice a form of benevolence. Is it out of our selfish, national desires? Maybe so. However, for the soldier in that foreign land sharing the candies he received in his latest care package with the children he meets on the street, I would argue that he is loving his neighbor as himself.

We are told:

“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him,then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these,you did not do it to me.’ And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” (Matthew 25:31-46, ESV)

Field-stripping a Jeep

Does a nation need a standing army?

Below is an excellent post from the Russian newspaper Pravda:

Does Russia need its own army?: If we have a conflict like the one with Georgia, it requires a professional army. But if we have a conflict like the one in Syria, which is somewhat forced upon us, then we need every man in the country to be able to use a gun, prevent an invasion of the terrorist enemy forces on the territory of the Russian Federation

Ignoring Pravda's place in history as the voice of the communist party, this article is worthy of discussion. It seriously debates the matter of having a standing army vs. a ready militia. I can't think of a  mainstream news outlet in the US that would even consider running such an article.

Such a discussion needs to take place within the United States. "Militia" has become codeword for "domestic terrorist" here in the U.S.A., but this should not be so. We were founded on the premise that all males of a certain age should be prepared to defend their home and homeland. Colonial militia service was compulsory and "everyone" was expected to maintain certain equipment and be ready to take up arms should the need arise.

Most people assume that the National Guard is the militia, but it ceased to be, in my opinion, when the National Guard was federalized under the Militia Act of 1903. During WWII many states saw a need for a non-federal militia and established Home Guard units that formed the basis for modern state defense forces(SDFs)[1]. Many of these SDFs have limited support from their states and are a hint of a memory of a notion of a militia. They are un(der)funded and most are unarmed. They take backseat to FEMA and local EMAs in emergencies. For a period of time I "served" in the Alabama State Defense Force, and I commend those who serve in their states' SDF. They hearken back to the colonial era where every able-bodied male was a member of the militia (SDFs have males and females amongst their ranks today). I support the objectives of the SDFs, but I question their effectiveness due to the neutered capacity that they exist in. This is unfortunate.

Amendment II of the United States Constitution states:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 Most people just focus on the right to keep and bear Arms. While this is important, it overlooks the fact that the Founding Fathers believed it necessary to maintain a well regulated militia. This is foundational.  Compulsory service in the militia placed a vested interest in the survival of the State into the hands of the citizens. They had "ownership" and a share in the corporate body that is the United States. We were and are a republic, res publica, literally in Latin the "public thing". We are not subjects of the Federal Government. We are the sovereign, and we elect those who are sent to represent our will at a national assembly. I think we have lost track of that concept, and thus relegated our common defense solely to the professional Armed Forces, and less consciously to local law enforcement.

As we progressed from a primarily agrarian society toward an urban lifestyle, we determined it better to pay others for our defense, both domestic and abroad. There are many merits to this, but we surrendered quite a bit of freedom in the process.

Today, the act of enforcing the laws and ordinances of a local have been delegated to professional police forces, a concept that would have been quite foreign to our Founding Fathers[2]. This is a supercession of  the common law concept of posse comitatus. As we have accepted less and less responsibility for the welfare of ourselves and our communities, the police forces have had to step up to fill that gap. This assumption of power relegated to them by an inability of communities to police themselves internally has led to many of the egregious oversteps by that we have read about in recent years. The problem with a select few enforcing the law is that rogue elements amongst them fall victim to the notion that they are above the law. I am confident that they are the minority of law enforcement officers. I would be remiss, however, if I did not stop and thank those who have stepped up and put themselves in harm's way to "protect and serve" their communities against those who would willfully and violently disobey the law and harm their fellow man. It is a thankless job, and I am thankful for those who are willing to do it.

We also have relegated our National defense to a professional force, which in modern society is also necessary. Due to downsizing in active components, many of those serving in combat are National Guardsmen and Reservists. These citizen soldiers are put on Active Duty for extended and repeat deployments. They attend the same training that everyone else in the military attends and are indistinguishable in combat. They are a far cry from the rag-tag militia that General George Washington lamented over in the early years of the American Revolution. Militarism has advanced to a precise science, as is attested by our service academies. We have a strong, well-educated, and dedicated professional military. We should ever be proud of those who serve. As excellent as our military is, however, it is comprised of only a fraction of our overall population.

The majority of the populace reap the benefits without ever making any of the sacrifices. Maybe this is a benefit of professional domestic and national defense forces, but it offloads one's civic responsibilities and makes the society stagnant. Without a vested interest, people begin voting for those who offer them "bread and circuses" and public interest gives way to self interest. We forget to "ask not what our Country can do for you" and we never ask "what you can do for your Country". We are more than willing to send the sons and daughters of someone else to die to protect our liberties. I think this is one of the reasons Roman citizenship was tied so strongly to military service. I'm not saying that America should limit its citizenship in such a manner; that is foreign to our Nation and should be. We should be shareholders in the nation, we each have an obligation to ensure its continued success.

So back to the question of does a nation need a standing army? That's a question each nation must answer for itself. Does it plan to engage in foreign conflict perpetually? If so, then yes, it needs a standing army. Is the population at large capable of defending its own borders? If not, then it needs a standing army. Is it at peace with its neighbors and those capable of doing it immediate harm? Can its militia defend its own borders? If that is the case, then maybe it doesn't need a large standing army. What say you?

References:

[1] I can't speak for other states, but the Alabama Code still allows for a state militia. You can read more about it in my post on Honorary Colonelcy in the State of Alabama.

[2] The notion of modern police forces was invented by Sir Robert Peale in 1829, when he established the Metropolitan Police Force in London.

Veterans Day

I didn't have a chance to comment Sunday on Veteran's Day, but I wanted to share a post from a French heraldry blog I follow:

Armistice 1918 - Si vis pacem to ... pacem:

Signed on 11 November 1918 near Rethondes Armistice put an end to the First World War in which more than one million deaths and nearly six times more wounded and maimed among the French troops. Despite the extent of destruction was immense relief and joy seized each municipality.

On 11 November 1920, the remains of an unknown soldier was buried under the Arc de Triomphe in Paris, where the flame is rekindled every evening by the Committee of the flame and representatives of associations.

Day of homage and reverence, November 11 each year resulting in commemorative ceremonies at war memorials of communes of France. The Poppy (poppy) is the symbol of remembrance for the Anglo-Saxons. Annually families and veterans of the British Army come to lay poppies on the graves of soldiers killed in combat.

All municipalities in France have their memorials in tribute to the fallen soldiers on the battlefield, but few are those who criticize human folly and clearly express an opinion against the war, in contrast to monuments focused on the glorification of heroes died for their country. These memorials appear timid peace after the First World War.

One of them was outstanding, I know well, is the memorial of Saint-Martin-d'Estréaux, a small town located in the department of the Loire, near Roanne, which consists of three panels with one column. Presents a list of the war dead with their photo. Amid these names, a mourner was sculpted in bas-relief. On the other side of the monument, three panels resolutely pacifist. A sign says: "Si vis pacem, para pacem" or "if you want peace, prepare for peace." A second panel ends with "Cursed be war and its authors." The third panel provides an overview of the war, detailing the deaths (12 million) and the suffering of the people. Finally, with the inscription: "The Innocents to the firing squad," he is reported the plight of soldiers shot for example. To respect the grief of the families and of the nation, the monument was inaugurated in 1947. This text was the subject in the 1930s, which were accused of degradation members of the French Action, right-wing movement.

 

 

If vis pacem, para pacem! ... If you want peace, prepare for peace!

     


Kuttolsheim

Who opposed the War of 1812?

I sadly must admit that my knowledge of many of the wars the United States have engaged in is limited, but I am proud to share this article from the Oxford University Press on the War of 1812:

Who opposed the War of 1812?:
By Troy Bickham
As North America begins to mark the bicentennial of the War of 1812, it is worth taking a brief moment to reflect on those who opposed the war altogether. Reasons for opposing the war were as diverse as justifications for it. Ideology, religious belief, opportunism, apathy, and pragmatism all played roles. Unlike Europeans caught up in the Napoleonic Wars ravaging that continent, the vast majority of free males in North America had — whether by right of law or the by the fact that military service was easy to avoid — choice of whether or not to participate. And, interestingly, most of them chose not to participate.

Like all wars, the War of 1812 is shrouded in myths and legends. One is the myth of American perseverance and bravery celebrated in the US national anthem (based on Francis Scott Key’s poem in the wake of the British naval bombardment of Fort McHenry at Baltimore in 1814). The reality is that the Americans lost most of their battles, and far more often than not they retreated or surrendered after suffering light casualties. At the start of the war, William Hull led a US invasion force into Canada. After meeting moderate resistance, which his force outnumbered, he quickly retreated back to a well-supplied fort at Detroit and then promptly surrendered it, the Michigan Territory, and all American troops and militia in the territory in a matter of days. A furious Thomas Jefferson remarked to President James Madison that “Hull will of course be shot for cowardice and treachery.”

Bombardment of Fort M'Henry. From An illuminated history of North America, from the earliest period to the present time by John Frost, 1856. Source: NYPL.

Another myth is that ordinary Canadians rallied around the British standard to heroically thwart a series of invasions from the US and gave birth to Canadian nationalism in the process. While the invasions were stifled, military historians have long credited this to the poor quality of the US forces and to the superior organization of the small force of British troops defending Canada. While there are numerous recorded actions of Canadian heroism, the truth is that the vast majority of eligible men avoided their legal obligation to serve in the militia. In fact, the Francophone population rioted when the militia was called up in Quebec. The largest turnout of the militia of Upper Canada (now largely Ontario) in the war came following the US capture of what is now Toronto. But they didn’t show up to fight. Instead, they appeared after the brief battle to accept the US Army’s offer of a parole to any militiaman who surrendered. A parole was a legally recognized document by which a combatant was released on his promise not to fight in the war (effectively a pass to sit out the remainder of the war).

The truth is that the War of 1812 was a conflict that few wanted. Not a single member of the Federalist party in Congress voted for a declaration of war. Governors and legislatures of New England states, where the Federalists were strong and anti-war sentiment even stronger, announced statewide days of fasting and prayer in mourning. In a public address sent to Congress in the response to the declaration of war, the Massachusetts House of Representatives declared that: “An offensive war against Great Britain, under the present circumstances of this country, would be in the highest degree, impolitic, unnecessary, and ruinous.” New England clergymen used their pulpits to rail against the war and discourage young men from service, with such ministers as Nathan Beman of Portland describing the army camps as “the head quarters of Satan.”

United States army and navy uniforms in the War of 1812 by Henry Alexander Ogden, 1897. Source NYPL.

Even amongst members of Madison’s own Republican party, sentiment regarding the war was lukewarm. Owing to the compromises which proved necessary to secure enough votes in Congress for a war declaration, Madison and the war hawks were unable to pass adequate financing bills to raise, equip, and train a decent army. The result, as historian John Latimer recently summarized, was that “defeat was practically guaranteed from the moment Madison and Congress stepped onto the warpath.” DeWitt Clinton, the popular Republican mayor of New York City and later state governor, ran against Madison in the presidential election that year on a largely anti-war platform. And while the South was predominately Republican, plenty of newspaper editors and politicians spoke out against the war.

Few suffered more than the group that defended Alexander Contee Hanson’s right to publish the flamboyantly anti-war Federal Republican paper in Baltimore in June 1812. A heavily-armed group defended the publishing house against a riotous Baltimore crowd that boasted an artillery piece manned by none other than the editor of the rival Sun newspaper. When the affair ended, one of the defenders was dead and eleven more were physically broken following hours of physical torture. These were hardly anti-American radicals. Among the severely wounded was Henry “Light-Horse Harry” Lee: Revolutionary War hero, former governor of Virginia, and father to the Confederate army general, Robert E. Lee. The dead man was James Lingan, another Revolutionary War veteran and former senior officer of the Maryland State Militia. George Washington’s adopted son, George Washington Parke Custis, gave the funeral oration.

While the war was less divisive amongst the political elites of the British Empire, a number of politicians spoke out against the war. In open debate in the House of Commons, one member called the war “a great evil,” while another lamented that Britain’s mean-spirited “detestation of liberty” and jealousy of post-revolutionary America’s success drove Britain into an unjust war. In Upper Canada, the provincial assembly initially refused to grant the commanding British general emergency powers for fear, at least according to the general, that resisting an American invasion would only agitate the invaders. Some Canadian legislators actually joined the US forces, and then raised and led Canadian troops on the side of the US.

Most North Americans on either side of the Canadian border were far less vocal in their opposition to the war. They simply refused to participate. Despite adding tens of thousands of troops to its paper army each year, the US never met its pre-war recruitment goal of 30,000 men. Desertion was rife in the British Army, which ran short on supplies throughout the hard Canadian winter, just as it was in the US Army, particularly when the bankrupt US government could no longer afford to pay or feed its soldiers in the last year of the war. Often backed by their governors, state militia regularly refused to cross borders, particularly when it meant fighting the enemy on the other side. A furious Madison tried but failed to place them under federal authority. The militia in Canada was not substantially different. Most men refused calls into service and those who did typically deserted by the autumn harvest. In order to persuade the militia in his command to march on the invading Americans in the summer of 1812, the British commander of Upper Canada had to trick the men into thinking they were simply going on an exercise.

George Cruikshank, “State Physicians Bleeding John Bull to Death!!” In one of innumerable public complaints about high taxes in Britain, this image shows John Bull, the personification of the British people, is being bled, or taxed, to death in order to support the massive military establishment that surrounds him. The British taxpayer proved to be one of the most influential opponents of the war. Fed up with decades of unprecedented levels of taxation, they demanded that Britain’s war machine be dismantled. Fearing a backlash of angry taxpayers if it continued the war, the British government signed a quick status quo antebellum treaty with the US in late 1814 — despite that the fact that Britain had tens of thousands of veteran troops massing in Canada, complete control of the seas, and the US government was bankrupt and unable to pay its dwindling army.

So as guns fire, re-enactors march, and replica ships set sail, remember that what we are recollecting is an important but ultimately just a small slice of the story of the War of 1812. A better representation might be the inhabitants of Nantucket. After public deliberation, a delegation from the island approached the British in the summer of 1814 and signed their own separate peace agreement, whereby the islanders would no longer pay federal taxes or fight in the war and Britain would release any of the island’s men being held prisoner and no longer molest its ships.

Troy Bickham is an Associate Professor of History and a Ray A. Rothrock Fellow in the College of Liberal Arts at Texas A&M University. He is the author of The Weight of Vengeance: The United States, the British Empire, and the War of 1812, Making Headlines: The American Revolution as Seen Through the British Press, and Savages within the Empire: Representations of American Indians in Eighteenth-Century Britain.

Subscribe to the OUPblog via email or RSS.
Subscribe to only American history articles on the OUPblog via email or RSS.
View more about this book on the

Military tradition under fire

I've read in several British and Scottish news outlets lately that historic regimental names are at risk of being done away with. From the BBC:

MoD to 'protect' regiment names: The Ministry of Defence says it is seeking to preserve the regimental cap badges of Scotland's historic army regiments.

I am very much an advocate for worthy traditions, and having served in the military, it would be a shame for any nation to strip its services of historic institutions and emblems. This is akin to telling the 1st Infantry Division that they can't be the "Big Red One" anymore. I doubt that US military advocates would stand for this, and I hope that our UK counterparts will likewise stand for the Black Watch and protect their military heritage.