No American soldier since 1812 has fought to preserve our right to protest or speak freely

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

Thoughts while watching Palin's assault on her own supporters...

No foreign power has threatened our expressive rights or our voting rights.

Americans have fought for a variety of things, some good, some bad. And I honor those who served in the bad causes even more because such obedience is a tragic necessity in an effective military.

But nobody ever fought for our expressive rights. No foreign government has ever threatened our expressive rights! (Except in the worldview of prime paranoiacs who think North Vietnam was likely to conquer the US.)

War, on the other hand, has always resulted in suppression of our rights by our government.

The sedition acts of WWI, the internment of Japanese-Americans in WWII, McCarthyism connected to Korea, shooting protesters during Vietnam, the familiar abuses of the GWOT...

We are not unique in that, of course. All wars result in the censorship and suppression of the citizens of nations involved. Interestingly, militarists are demographically among the voting groups most hostile to expressive rights and keenest to eliminate them. Hmmmm....

(If people in South Korea or France want to thank American service men for their rights that's another matter.)


A Question for Sarah Palin: Which soldiers should we thank for our right to reproductive choice?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

1. how about a kick with those recs?

[Jokerman]

2. K & R

[Raineyb]

3. I am never surprised by the irony of people who claim to be so patriotic

who are so ignorant of the rights that they seem to be under the delusion is being protected by our soldiers. (All while suppressing the speech of those who oppose the conflict in question.)

Regards

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

6. They fought for my right to shut up about Iraq.

[codjh9]

36. I'm always surprised by that insane irony...

[progressivebydesign]

4. thanks, I've been wanting to say that! We're fighting NOW for Iraqi's rights.. not ours.

But the flag-wearin' crowd uses this circuitous logic that if we don't beat Iraq (who exactly are we fighting there?) then they'll come over here and take away our right to vote and speak. Or something like that.

[slampoet]

5. "Which soldiers should we thank for our right to reproductive choice?"

Palin - "Um ..uh Private Benjamin?"

[nichomachus]

7. Not only that

our right to speak freely has been seriously infringed by George Bush and Dick Cheney -- and the military, active duty or veterans, have done absolutely nothing to help us. So, we really don't have anything to thank them for.

[OwnedByFerrets]

8. K and R

[Clio the Leo]

9. But I thank our men and women for helping make sure we have cheap gas!

..... because gas is cheaper right?


Whoops.

This is a sticky wicket though because while you and I both know that those serving in Iraq are NOT literally defending OUR freedom, they WOULD in a heartbeat if asked.

It's the promise, not the actual effort, IMO.

[progressoid]

10. The only freedom you need is the freedom to say "God Bless America"

I'm paraphrasing.

I actually heard someone say, "They're defending our right to say, 'God Bless America'" :eyes:

[DavidDvorkin]

11. 1812 was an American war of aggression that failed

It was not a defense of our rights.

[14thColony]

14. True that

We tried to take advantage of Britain's war with Napoleon to grab Canada. When that resulted in a big fail, Britain sent a fleet and some troops to smack us around a little in retaliation. Never planned on conquering us, and even the 'invasions' were more punitive raids because there were so few British troops available.

[DavidDvorkin]

21. Exactly.

[rockymountaindem]

32. That's an incorrect interpretation

The reasons we started the War of 1812 were more than just a power grab. They were:

1) To end impressment of US sailors into the Royal Navy
2) To end interdiction of US trade with France and the embargo placed on US cotton by Britain in 1811
3) To end British support for Native raids on US settlements in the west

The invasion of Canada was not undertaken with the aim of controlling it permanently. Sec. of State James Monroe summed up our aim rather well when he stated after the outbreak of the war that we only hoped to occupy Canada as a means of getting leverage against Britain to secure our other aims. In short, we would trade occupied Canada back to Britain in exchange for a promise to halt impressment and trade interdiction. Wikipedia says:

"Before 1940 some historians held that United States expansionism or desire for Canadian land was a reason for the war, but the theory lost supporters.<16> Some Canadian historians propounded the notion in the early 20th century, and it survives among most Canadians.<17>

Madison and his advisors believed that conquest of Canada would be easy and that economic coercion would force the British to come to terms by cutting off the food supply for their West Indies colonies. Furthermore, possession of Canada would be a valuable bargaining chip. Frontiersmen demanded the seizure of Canada not because they wanted the land, but because the British were thought to be arming the Indians and thereby blocking settlement of the west. <18> As Horsman concluded, "The idea of conquering Canada had been present since at least 1807 as a means of forcing England to change her policy at sea. The conquest of Canada was primarily a means of waging war, not a reason for starting it."<19> Hickey flatly stated, "The desire to annex Canada did not bring on the war." <20> Brown (1964) concluded, "The purpose of the Canadian expedition was to serve negotiation not to annex Canada."<21> Burt, a leading Canadian scholar, agreed completely, noting that Foster, the British minister to Washington, also rejected the argument that annexation of Canada was a war goal. <22>"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812#Causes_of_the_war

Having been to school in Canada I can tell you that many still believe that the US had hoped to permanently annex Canada during the War of 1812. During my study of the war I undertook in a Canadian history course, it became obvious that was not the case. Even most Canadian historians don't cling to that interpretation anymore.

It is also worth noting that the British suffered many setbacks in the war. Their navy was serious humiliated by the US fleet, and more importantly they lost all their claims to northern Maine and, most significantly, navigation rights on the Mississippi river. While the US invasion of Canada was a failure, the US did not get "smacked around" on its own turf. Washington D.C. was not really defended, as the main target of the British invasion was Baltimore, which was never really attacked. That same army then decamped for New Orleans, where they suffered the most lopsided military defeat up to that time at the hands of Andrew Jackson. Ultimately, even though we never got the use of Canada as a bargaining chip, the US still achieved its war aims and proved that our military power was not to be underestimated.

[PVnRT]

41. New Orleans - don't forget Jean Lafitte

He had a thing or two to do with that victory.

[14thColony]

44. Well...

More to the story:

- Both France and Britain were interdicting and seizing US merchantmen, Britain just had more opportunity to do so due to geography

- Interdiction of trade went both ways - France was also running a counter-blockade that US merchantmen ran afoul of

- Whether it was a goal of the US or not once war commenced, the War Hawks under Clay and Calhoun were very much agitating for American territorial expansion in the years before the war, often citing Canada and Florida as prime directions for said expansion; had the US seized Canada, with the power the War Hawks wielded in Congress it would have been very interesting to see if the US ever gave it back or not. I tend to think 'not.'

As for whether or not the US Army and Militias got smacked around or not, it ain't pretty. Certainly during 1812 to 1813 you can count all American land victories on one hand, and some of the defeats were horrendous - at the Battle of Chrysler's Farm 800 British regulars routed 8,000 American troops attempting to invade Canada. Things got a bit better in 1814, but even then the Battle of Bladensburg was yet another unmitigated disaster for American forces.

Thank God the the US Navy at least, which bested the British most of the time and kinda kept the war 'equal' overall.

[On the Road]

46. The Most Far-Reaching Effect

was the annexation of the territory between the original 13 states and the Mississippi. Whether that counts as a cause of the war, the territorial expansion was not an accident.

[smoogatz]

12. I disagree.

After Pearl Harbor and the Japanese and German declarations of war against the U.S., our national survival was very much at stake in the outcome of the war. Had we been defeated in WWII (if Hitler had developed the nuclear bomb before we did, say), it's likely that we'd have a very different sort of government now.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

13. I disagree back

Neither Germany or Japan ever had the slightest intention of conquering America and imposing a new political system here.

Had they developed the atomic bomb that would make for an interesting alternate history discussion, but it's more than sideways to the question. The heroes of the Manhattan project were scientists and bureaucrats.

[SidneyCarton]

18. Ok, you raise an interesting point here.

You're right, from a certain point of view, our entrance into the Second World War was, at least in part, to protect our hegemonic position in geopolitics, which had been effectively established since 1918. That said, the collapse of the other allied governments to the Axis, would have resulted in a latter-half of the 20th century which would have been far worse for democracy than it already was. Sure, there would be no Soviet Union, but the Third Reich would have likely succeeded in its plans for the Endlosung dem Judenfrage, and the "Greater East Asian Co-prosperity Sphere" would certainly not led to an East Asia that looks anything like the one we see now. In particular China would have fared very poorly under these circumstances.

Instead of a bipolar nuclear world in the 1950's, we would likely see a tripolar nuclear world with the Japanese and Germans rivaling each other over Eurasian hegemony, and the US on the sidelines, or allied to one or the other in order not to face nuclear annihilation from both. World War II might not have been for our freedom, but it did effect both our security and conversly our future. Facing the Soviet Union as victors of World War II during the Cold War led to an erosion of our freedoms, can you imagine what facing both a victorious Third Reich and a Japanese Empire in the late 40's would have done to them?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

25. As a practical matter, yes, an insecure nation would have a more liberty-hostile government.

I am not suggesting that the US would be better off if we had not fought WWII and the Cold War.

We would have been economically weaker and our territory would be far less secure. And we would have fewer like minded allies.

And, as a practical matter, a besieged nation would likely jettison most civil liberties.

But that's sideways to the question because the process you describe trips a thousand switches on things we WOULD fight for long before we ever got to civil liberties.

We fight, first and foremost, for our standard of living. And that's a reasonable thing to fight for. I'm not knocking it.

And, of course, the one group of soldiers who fought and died most directly for our freedoms, as secured through the incorporation of the 14th Amendment, were the guys the Palin types never honor... the Union Army.

[smoogatz]

23. Got a link?

I'd be interested in seeing your documentation for that assertion of fact. Given his European and African ambitions, I think it's likely that Hitler had every intention of conquering the U.S.; he had plenty of wealthy and influential supporters here who were prepared to help him do just that. I mention the atom bomb for obvious reasons: the Nazis had an active atomic weapons program: if they'd developed and detonated an A-bomb over London or Moscow, the tide of the war would likely have turned very quickly. If they'd detonated one in New York, we'd all be speaking German now. Except for Hawaii and most of the west coast, where they'd be speaking Japanese.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

28. That's some serious ignorance.

Sorry to be rude, but no Manchurians or Koreans spoke Japanese. Poles speak Polish and East Germans spoke the same language as West Germans.

The fact that nations long held in the Russian empire didn't speak Russian was a key operational challenge for the Russian military in WW II.

When you throw out John Birch Society type bluster about how we would be speaking German you forfeit all credibility.

(There's an actual bumper-sticker that says, "If you can read this thank a teacher. If it's in English thank a soldier.)

[smoogatz]

30. It's a form of metaphor known as "metonymy."

A short-hand way of saying we could well have become a client state of Nazi Germany. And in fact both the Russians and the Germans did try to impose their own cultures on their conquered territories, just as the English imposed theirs on Ireland, say, and white Europeans imposed theirs on the Native Americans: it just takes a few generations to sink in.

[Every Man A King]

49. Hitler didn't even want to fight Great Britain after France fell

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolph_Hess

[damonm]

24. And I must in return disagree

...as the Japanese and Germans DID in fact have intentions of conquest. And even if they did not, we would have remained a deadly threat to them and they would eventually have been forced to destroy us. To say otherwise simply ignores history.

In all other points, however, your OP is correct. I would amend it only to read in no war since 1812 (save WWII), did our soldiers fight to directly defend our rights.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

34. The US cannot be invaded and everyone knew that

Obviously if we had no military at all we would be conquered by Mexico or Canada or even the Michigan Militia in short order. I am not suggesting that having a military isn't essential to our ongoing survival.

But we have such an amazing array of natural protections and industrial advantages that as a practical matter all anyone ever planned was to isolate us. The fact that some people in Germany and Japan and Russia said it would be nice to conquer the US isn't the same as actual intention.

Hitler gave up all plans for the conquest of Great Britain well before we entered the war, and that was nothing compared to the idea of conquering the US.

Either way, however, even if invasion and conquest is on the table then nobody is fighting for expressive freedoms. (One can argue that most troops on the Russian side in WWII were fighting for less freedoms!)

Defensive wars are fought for 1) retention of ones' land, and 2) to safeguard ones' women from rapine by foreigners. The fact that those goals may be compatible with retention of liberties is a stretch. (People will fight harder for their land and family than for their right to yell shit at Sarah Palin so the theoretical fight for liberties never arises.)

[LanternWaste]

56. Not everyone knew that

Not everyone knew that. The War Plan Rainbow authored by the US military in the 20's and 30's looked at various scenarios of different alliances, some of which which would have enough power of force projection to engage in a land war on US soil which was gamed out time and time again.

[LanternWaste]

55. Germany was engaged in talks with MX

Germany was engaged in talks with MX and some South American governments (pre- and post- Pearl Harbor) re: a partition of the US when/if the Axis won the war in an attempt.

Although it didn't work at that time much as the same tactic didn't work in WW I, there are cases out there that point towards the Tripartite powers consolidating manufacturing regions on the east coast and the industrial belt.

(See 'Roosevelt's Secret War' by Joseph Persico)

[14thColony]

15. I understand your line of thought

and it might very well have come out that way had things gone differently, but in the end they didn't - at no point in WWII were US troops facing a concerted attempt to invade the United States and overthrow our government, like happended to so many European and Asian countries.

[smoogatz]

19. Oh, come on.

WWII was very much a war of national survival for the U.S., just as it was for Britain. The Nazis never tried to invade Britain, either--they just bombed the hell out of them. Are you saying that British troops didn't fight to defend the freedom of British subjects?

[14thColony]

45. To a certain extent you're mixing apples with oranges

Although again, I see your point even if I can't quite agree.

By the autumn of 1940, Britain was clearly in a war of national survival, no question at all. Her European army had been rendered combat-ineffective due to Dunkirk (where most equipment and many troops were left behind), and the RAF had taken heavy losses in the Battle of France. German forces sat as close as 20 miles away at Calais, and the German navy was readying a massive flotilla in support of Operation Sea Lion. Germany had more troops, more aircraft, and more resources. The British had nothing left but the Home Fleet and RAF Fighter Command. Had Hitler played ANYTHING right in the Battle of Britain, he would have been in a position to launch the amphibious assault he was planning, and it is very unlikely the British Home Guard and the remnants of the Imperial Army could have held out for long. The odds were very much against Britain due to proximity and previous events.

Compare that with the US situation in 1941-1942, and let's even assume Britain indeed surrendered, fell, or sued for peace by summer 1941. Nonetheless, even with the POSSIBLE addition of the Home Fleet and the French fleet (assuming the British didn't scuttle their ships or flee to North America with them, which they undoubtedly would have) the German navy would still at best have been on even terms with the untouched US Atlantic Fleet, and we and the Canadians would have the advantage of short supply lines and unstoppable land-based air power. The German navy would have needed an amphibious fleet capable of carrying on the order of 100,000 troops and thousands of tanks at once, plus at least a dozen aircraft carriers, none of which they would have had for a very long time. Even then it would have been such a gamble as to make Normandy look like a sure thing by comparison. And even if they gained a small beachhead, while the fleet ran home to embark the second wave (weeks away) the combined US and Canadian armies in the East (which had not seen any combat losses at all yet) would have promptly crushed the beachhead, in spades. This would have been suicidal to the point that the Germans would not even have seriously considered it.

The Japanese might have fared a BIT better, but only if they could have neutralized massive Australia and not-a-pushover New Zealand first. But they might have had some luck seizing Hawaii, where due to location and forces we would have been more evenly matched. And maybe they could have grabbed a few more of the Aleutian Islands besides Attu and Kiska. But aside from that? Invading Alaska, Canada, or the mainland US would have posed the same insurmountable problems as faced the Germans, even worse due to the much wider Pacific Ocean in fact.

The realistic 'alternate reality' would have been a global stalemate - the US/Canada and Aus/NZ unable to get back into Europe or Asia, but the Axis unable to seriously threaten invasion of any of the four. Once nuclear weapons were developed and deployed by all sides, the stalemate would have fossilized into a global Cold War, but with the Anglo-Saxon alliance in more of a disadvantageous position than was the case with the Soviet Union. Nonetheless, invasion would have remained an impossibility, with the threat of nuclear holocaust being the only realistic threat.

Therefore I still can't see how WWII was a war for national survival for the US. Yes, we would have changed politically, possibly even adopting a pseudo-fascism or authoritarian permanent wartime government structure, our post-war economic boom would never have happened, and our standard of living might be more like it was in the 1930s, but sovereignty and territorial integrity of the United States was never in jeopardy.

Edited to add:

And by the way post-war research strongly indicates that the German nuclear program had gone down a theoretical blind alley - possibly an intentional act of intellectual sabotage by Professor Heissenburg, in fact. In any event, it appears the US was destined to have a nuclear weapon first, and with a similar crash program probably would have had a functional ballistic missile before Germany could untangle their bomb program.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

50. Excellent post, and an additional thing about the A-bomb

The big trick to the A-bomb isn't figuring out how to do it. It is doing it.

The Manhattan project used something like 10% of all electricity generated in the US. It was a significant percentage of our war budget during WWII.

The separation of fissionable quantities of U-235 isotope is a non trivial industrial problem. We had massive plants in Tennessee running 24/7 for years just to get a few pounds of the stuff.

Even with a perfect road-map to the bomb I don't see how Germany could have developed it while in a land war with Russia. And, as woefully ineffective as our strategic bombing was it wouldn't take much to derail such an effort.

Our unassailable geographic position was quite useful. If Tennessee was bombed every night for years I doubt we would have had a working bomb by 1945 either.

Recommended reading:
NO SIMPLE VICTORY Norman Davies
THE MAKING OF THE ATOMIC BOMB Richard Rhodes

[14thColony]

16. Agree Agree Agree

Except that even in the War of 1812 Britain had not the slightest intent of conquering us or overthrowing our government; the war was a series of punitive campaigns to punish the US for trying to grab Canada while Britain was preoccupied fighting Napoleon in Europe. They came, they spanked, they left.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

17. Yes, but if I hadn't phrased it that way then the thread

would be 50% "What about 1812?"

And there were restrictions of liberty imposed on some US citizens by a foreign power during the conflict, whatever the British intentions longer term.

When the power we secured our rights from in the first place is on US soil burning stuff down I would not question any US soldier as to whether he was fighting for my liberties.

Look at it this way... if there was NO US military resistance of any kind the British would not have left, no matter their original intentions.

Slaves could take the counter view, of course. Had their been NO US resistence at any point (Army, militia or individual armed farmer) the British would have re-taken the colonies by default, much to their surprise, and freed the slaves.

[14thColony]

38. These are valid points you raise

Although (and at the risk of belabouring the point) I'd point out that if certain elements in the US gov't had not agitated for war and seized on anything they could find as a causus belli, leading to the US invasion of Canada, Britain would never have been marching on US cities in the first place. With war raging in Europe, that was one headache they really did not need.

And you're right, it would have been a slew of "what about 1812?s" if you'd done it any other way.

[cali]

20. I almost posted much the same this morning, though it wouldn't

have been expressed nearly so well. Great OP.

[Chloroplast]

22. How dare you bring historical fact into this election? How DARE you?

Next you'll be saying that our Founding Fathers didn't write the Pledge of Allegiance.

[dsc]

26. African Americans might disagree

I think they directly got the rights of the bill of rights out of the Civil War (as did anyone living in a state which didn't guarentee them previous to 1865).

[goodgd_yall]

43. Yes, important to point out

I think the OP, unintentionally, spoke through a white-centric point of view.

[Guaranteed]

52. LOL

Yeah, I think you might be right.

I'm betting there was at least one or two more that were pretty important to actually fight, as well.

[RollWithIt]

27. I disagree, WWII most certainly counts towards that question...

And Afghanistan could be considered. Both were prefaced by an attack on US soil or territory.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

29. Generally, troops fight because older people tell them too.

They usually haven't got much care for somebody else's rights.

But you're right about the War of 1812. Fricking Canada, sitting all up there peacefully just waiting to steal our freedoms.

[Overseas]

31. K&R because I really hadn't asked myself that question.

I'd just gone along with it. But for heaven's sake, of course you are right. It has only been our own government that's tried to suppress our free speech.

And I love your final question and would like to hear her answer to that.

[rockymountaindem]

33. How come you skipped right over the Civil War?

I don't want to start arguing about WWII right now, but the Civil War seems like a glaring omission.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

35. Because the Sarah Palins of the world never honor the Union dead.

I was addressing Palin's comments.

Sarah Palin would never make those comments about the civil war. But I have noted in comments elsewhere in this thread that since the Revolution the US soldiers who have fought most directly for our liberties were the Union soldiers, and that the Sarah Palins of the world are more interested in honoring the Confederacy.

[rockymountaindem]

37. Fair enough

Edit:

I do think about the Union dead a lot. I think that not too many northerners think about the Union soldiers in the way that so many southerners seem to think about the Confederate dead. I always try to be an exception. Despite being a huge history buff (if I do say so myself) I have never been one of those who learned everything there was to know about the Civil War, since WWII and the 20th century in general have always been more my thing. However, whenever I think about the Civil War, or watch a film about it, I can't help but feel a huge debt to the Union soldiers who, though not always 100% honorable in their personal conduct or intentions, did preserve our country and make it a better place (at least in the long run). Most movies about WWII, my real passion, don't move me personally, but Civil War movies most always bring a tear to my eye for some reason I can't explain. I wish that more people cared about the memory of the Union men. Even though I'm not from a state that contributed much to the Union cause, I'm proud that Colorado and our friends from New Mexico helped repel a Confederate invasion of the Rockies in 1862. It wasn't a huge victory, but at least we did something.

As for WWII, I do think that was a war for our personal liberties. Of course it is unlikely, to say the least, that the Germans or Japanese would ever have actually been able to conquer the US. However, a victory for fascism in that war would have lent great credibility to the fascist ethic, which had no shortage of supporters worldwide. By defeating them, we were able to reveal fascism for the evil, unhuman ideology that it is/was, and therefore prevent it from snowballing into an even greater force. So for that reason, I think that our WWII vets were the biggest heroes since the Civil War generation.

[The Stranger]

39. No government can ever give man liberty -- he is born with it.

Government cannot bestow or protect liberty -- only take it away.

[mitchum]

40. K & R for the truth

[goodgd_yall]

42. I think one might say WWII preserved those rights

As aggressive as Hitler was to conquer Europe, there's no saying what might have happened had he been successful at that. On edit: Not to mention Japanese aggression against the U.S.

But, otherwise I agree. There's always the spiel about "fighting for our freedom" in whatever war the U.S. military is sent to fight and it's a mere catch phrase to attempt to ennoble the war effort.

[cameozalaznick]

47. MEMORIZE this and use as talking point

The military does not confer and protect our rights. The Constitution does!

[Danger Mouse]

48. Civil War. World War 2. You forgot those.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

51. Both discussed extensively throughout the replies

[milkyway]

53. I posted about what Palin said yesterday and that the AP and WaPo "misquoted" her--

deliberately?--to soften her quote.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=7443089&mesg_id=7443089

[tomp]

54. obeying an illegal order is a war crime.

an order to attack innocent civilians is a war crime.

shock and awe is a war crime.

you honor that if you want to, not me.