Johnny Tremain

While this is in our Netflix Queue, should I tell Stacy about the evils of watching the movie instead of reading the book? You may remember the book, Johnny Tremain. I read it in the 4th grade, you probably did too. Stacy is reading it in the 3rd so it is a little hard for her. I decided to read it to her. Reading it reminded me how much I enjoyed it when I was Stacy's age. (Stacy is also reading Meet George Washington. She just read to me the story about Washington and the cherry tree I mentioned last week. At least the book said that it was a story and probably not true. This is an improvement over what I was taught.) 

Johnny was an apprentice who hurt his hand. This made his job very difficult. He became acquainted with the Sons of Liberty—the heart of New England's Revolution. He also participated in the Boston Tea Party. 

What is interesting is Ester Forbes’ description of the Sons. She makes it very clear that they were not interested in compromise. She described a scene where the Sons beat up a Tory shopkeeper. She also describes their private meetings where they planned their revolt. The Sons understand that the people must be manipulated to achieve the goal of revolution. This got me to thinking. It is always true that most people are manipulated to achieve the desired ends of a small elite. The question is, will you be manipulated?  

While Johnny Tremain is a novel, it contains a lot of what one needs to know about this period in terms of the actions and motivations of the Sons of Liberty. They worked the mob and public opinion to achieve their elitist goals. I worded this last sentence in order to shock you. Yes they were elitists. The fact that you might agree with their goals does not change that. 

Will you be played like the people of Boston who were conned into becoming a mob during the Boston Tea Party? Or will you look at all the facts and come to your own conclusions? This is a theme I have been developing in the series on war. Will you think for yourself, or will you let Faux News, or for that matter MSNBC con you? 

While I hope you will agree with me on everything I write, as I resemble what  my mother often said of my father, "He may not always be right, but he is never wrong," my purpose here is to remind us all to think. Maybe you will give different weight to the various facts and come to a different conclusion than I do. Fox News, or MSNBC for that matter, have their place. Unless we all look behind the rhetoric we will be conned.  

Libya & Journalism

I remember all the hype about the evils of Gaddafi. I have no real disagreement with Gaddafi being evil. However, I wondered at the time if what I was hearing about events in Libya was true. What makes this video interesting is that one NGO official (NonGovernment Official) says that there were mercenaries hired by Ghadafi, and then 5 months later she says that there were no mercenaries. 

You can not trust what you read or even see. You can be conned if you are not careful. To answer a question that was posed on Facebook, no you can't trust me either. I might have been conned as well. 

Surely this is not happening in Syria. 

Yes the video is obviously a pro-Syrian video. I heard another video on a podcast, where "Danny" admits that the video is fake. "Syria Danny," where do they get these names, in this other video says that everything he said was true, but the video was faked. This may be true. This happens all the time in televison. But think about what I just said, fake video is common in television-remember this. 

I Cannot Tell A Lie. I Did Cut It With My Little Hatchet.

Stacy and I are going through Early American history. I appreciate the curriculum we are using as it is less dogmatic than one would expect from conservative Christians. This curriculum is “Sonlight.”

Do we remember the stories, the hagiography (“a worshipful or idealizing biography”) we were told as children? How George Washington cut down his family's cherry tree? Do you remember his response? "I cannot tell a lie, father, you know I cannot tell a lie! I did cut it with my little hatchet.'' An early biographer, Mason Weems, just invented the story. Nor did Washington throw a silver dollar one mile across the Potomac. 

Patrick Henry may not have said, "Give me liberty, or give me death."  It is possible, I would say even likely, that a biographer invented that catchy slogan. But my purpose here is not to rehash the lies we learned as Americans in school, no more true than Paul Bunyan, or John Henry "was a steel driving man." My purpose  is to ask the question: "Was the American Revolution justified in light of Romans 13?" 

 The French and Indian Wars were pivotal in the background of the American Revolution. The continental European rivalries were transplanted to the new world. In addition was the question of who would control the potentially fecund Ohio Valley? The French were allied with the Indians, who controlled this region. The "Americans" were still subject to the English Crown. England won the war. Since the Englishmen who lived in American colonies were the primary recipients of all this land, and protection from the Indians, it seemed reasonable and just that the colonies pay their fair share. The colonists did not agree. 

Remember what Romans 13 said? 

^6-7That's also why you pay taxes—so that an orderly way of life can be maintained. Fulfill your obligations as a citizen. Pay your taxes, pay your bills, respect your leaders.

I do not look upon this as an absolute—yes, there are times that excess taxes are a cause for revolt. But it must be remembered that Paul’s advice here was to obey the Roman Empire. Rome was an almost absolute monarchy where the traditional Senate, while retaining some powers, was not in charge anymore. Yet Paul told us to pay our taxes.  

In the case of Rome, there was no representation, yet Paul expected his readers to pay their taxes. Were the taxes that England imposed outrageous? 

Adopting the policy that the colonies should pay a token proportion of the costs associated with defending them, Britain imposed a series of direct taxes followed by other laws intended to demonstrate British authority, all of which proved extremely unpopular in America despite the level of taxation being only 1/26 that paid by British taxpayers.  

What was the real unspoken reason for the Revolution? The Indians had land and the colonists want it: 

The British sought to maintain peaceful relations with those Indian tribes that had allied with the French, and keep them separated from the American frontiersmen. To this end, the Royal Proclamation of 1763 restricted settlement west of the Appalachian Mountains as this was designated an Indian Reserve. Disregarding the proclamation, some groups of settlers continued to move west and establish farms.

As John Wayne said, "We needed the land and the Indians were selfish." 

The slogan, “taxation without representation is tyranny,” was just a propaganda piece. The leaders of the rebellion did not want representation in Parliament. They wanted independence. One of the fears of the leadership of the rebellion was that representation would have been offered to the colonists! 

While I said recently that the Texas Revolution was justified, I cannot say the same for the American Revolution based on Romans 13. The average American just replaced one master for another. They could not vote unless they were well-to-do. 

The point of this is simple: do not believe what you are told by the media. It does not matter if it is Fox, or the newspapers of 1776. Instead look for the money. Look to see who financially benefits. They are the ones to watch. Look behind the scenes—they do not hide all that well. You can see them if you look. I suggest you look. 

We Are Americans

In God We Trust, Pass Me The AmmunitionIn the Election of 1844 the country was evenly divided into two political parties—the  Whigs and the Democrats. Henry Clay was the candidate of the Whigs, and James Polk was the candidate of the Democrats. James Polk was elected with 50% of the vote verses Clay's 48%. The big political issues of the day were slavery and tariffs. 

Polk was a believer in Manifest Destiny. Here is the first use of the term:

In 1845, he (John L. O'Sullivan) published a piece entitled Annexation in the Democratic Review, in which he urged the U.S. to annex the Republic of Texas, not only because Texas desired this, but because it was "our manifest destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence for the free development of our yearly multiplying millions".

How could America have gone against the will of God? Yet the war did not go unopposed. 

Whig politicians, including David Wilmot, Abraham Lincoln and John Quincy Adams contended that the Texas Annexation and the Mexican Cession enhanced the pro-slavery factions of the United States. Unsatisfactory conditions pertaining to the status of slavery in the territories acquired during the Polk administration led to the Compromise of 1850, one of the primary factors in the establishment of the Republican Party and later the beginning of the American Civil War

How did the powers that be encourage a war with Mexico?

John Stockwell, former CIA agent, summed it up this way:

“they offered two dollars-a-head to every soldier who would enlist. They didn't get enough takers, so they offered a hundred acres to anyone who would be a veteran of that war. They still didn't get enough takers, so [General] Zachary Taylor was sent down to parade up and down the border -- the disputed border -- until the Mexicans fired on him.... And the nation rose up, and we fought the war.” John Stockwell, “The CIA and the Gulf War,” Speech, Santa Cruz, CA, Feb.20, 1991, aired by John DiNardo, Pacifica Radio.

The independence of Texas was never recognized by Mexico.  There was also the issue of conflicting claims as to where the boundaries were, as Stockwell mentioned. Wikipedia provides us with the details about the conflict over this strip of land north of the Rio Grande but south of the Nueces: 

President Polk ordered General Taylor and his forces south to the Rio Grande, entering the territory that Mexicans disputed. Mexico laid claim to the Nueces River—about 150 mi (240 km) north of the Rio Grande—as its border with Texas; the U.S. claimed it was the Rio Grande, citing the 1836 Treaties of Velasco. Mexico, however, under the leadership of General Lorenzo Chlamon, rejected the treaties and refused to negotiate; it claimed all of Texas. Taylor ignored Mexican demands to withdraw to the Nueces. He constructed a makeshift fort (later known as Fort Brown/Fort Texas) on the banks of the Rio Grande opposite the city of Matamoros, Tamaulipas. Mexican forces under General Mariano Arista prepared for war. On April 25, 1846, a 2,000-strong Mexican cavalry detachment attacked a 70-man U.S. patrol that had been sent into the contested territory north of the Rio Grande and south of the Nueces River. The Mexican cavalry routed the patrol, killing 16 U.S. soldiers in what later became known as the Thornton Affair, after Captain Thornton, who was in command.

Americans In Mexico CityNote that the United States provocatively entered the disputed area. The size of the force was large enough to cause a response by the Mexican Army, yet small enough that their defeat was assured. This was of course the plan. 

This was the false flag of the war. The superior party maneuvers the inferior into attacking. This led to the "self defense" of the country against the "aggressor." Well, we did need the land. 

One of the things that amuses me is the selective use of the Bible to justify these kind of thefts. Yes, God did order the removal of the Canaanites from Palestine. But somehow I doubt that God was whispering in President Polk's ear. This was a war between one “Christian nation” and another. 

Manifest destiny was opposed by the Whigs because it was felt that it would lead to the extension of slavery to the new territories. It seems likely that the expansion of slavery and the Mexican War led to the American Civil war. U.S. Grant, Civil War general and president, agreed. 

President GrantPresident Ulysses S. Grant, who as a young army lieutenant had served in Mexico under General Taylor, recalled in his Memoirs, published in 1885, that:

Generally, the officers of the army were indifferent whether the annexation was consummated or not; but not so all of them. For myself, I was bitterly opposed to the measure, and to this day regard the war, which resulted, as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation. It was an instance of a republic following the bad example of European monarchies, in not considering justice in their desire to acquire additional territory.

Grant also expressed the view that the war against Mexico had brought punishment on the United States in the form of the American Civil War:

The Southern rebellion was largely the outgrowth of the Mexican war. Nations, like individuals, are punished for their transgressions. We got our punishment in the most sanguinary and expensive war of modern times."

Grant knew his Bible, as this echoes the book of James.  Here is James 4, from the version The Message, where James tells us where war ultimately comes from. 

^1-2Where do you think all these appalling wars and quarrels come from? Do you think they just happen? Think again. They come about because you want your own way, and fight for it deep inside yourselves. You lust for what you don't have and are willing to kill to get it. You want what isn't yours and will risk violence to get your hands on it. ^2-3You wouldn't think of just asking God for it, would you? And why not? Because you know you'd be asking for what you have no right to. You're spoiled children, each wanting your own way.

Words to consider as we probably head toward another war in the Middle East. Do we think that we will be immune from the inevitable consequences of the war? Many do think that—after all, we are Americans. 

The Texicans

I remember a discussion on a forum I frequent about America's wars. I mentioned the War with Mexico as an example of a war based on the desire to steal land. I thought that maybe everyone would see that this was a bad war based on greed. I was wrong. While I did not find the defense that war received very coherent, a defense was made. Ultimately the defense seems to be the same one John Wayne gave in his infamous Playboy interview for the way we treated the Indians: "We needed the land, and the Indians selfishly wanted to keep it for themselves." (While I have not found a good reference for this, there are enough secondary references that I think he did say this.) 

Before we can discuss the War with Mexico, we need to discuss the Revolution of Texas. 

The movie that John Wayne starred in and directed naturally comes to mind in the context of the War with Mexico. That movie was The Alamo. As is natural in such propaganda efforts, the Mexicans were portrayed as evil. (It should be pointed out that Wayne married three Hispanic women.)

Here is what John Wayne's character said about the war:

“I may sound like a bible beater yelling up a revival at a river crossing camp meeting but that don’t change the truth none, there’s right and there’s wrong. You gotta do one or the other. You do the one and you’re living, you do the other and you may be walking around but you’re dead as a beaver hat.”

- Col. Davy Crockett in The Alamo 1960, directed by John Wayne

Why did the Texicans throw off Mexican rule? No doubt the fact that most of them wanted to have a system of government similar to what they had in America. Wikipedia tells us this about the war:

Animosity between the Mexican government and the settlers in Texas, including many settlers of Mexican ancestry, began with the Siete Leyes of 1835, when Mexican President and General Antonio López de Santa Anna abolished the federal Constitution of 1824 and proclaimed the more centralizing 1835 constitution in its place. The new laws were unpopular throughout Mexico, leading to secession movements and violence in several Mexican states.

There were religious elements as well. 

Some American immigrants and Mexican citizens were accustomed to the rights they had in the U.S. that they did not have in Mexico. For example, Mexico did not protect Freedom of Religion, instead requiring colonists to pledge their acceptance of Roman Catholicism; Mexican Law also required a tithe paid to the Catholic Church.

John Wayne converted to Catholicism, so this aspect was not mentioned in the movie. His conversion was probably later, but all his wives were Catholic. 

Another aspect that was not mentioned is that in Mexico slavery was illegal. Since there were 5000 slaves in Texas, you can see the economic aspects of the Texas revolution as well. So for good and bad reasons, Texas became independent in 1836.

The pattern we have been seeing for false flags continues in the Texas Revolution. We have a false cinematic impression of the war. Brave fighters against the evil, dark skinned foe is the meme. Important issues like slavery are ignored. While if I had been a Texican, I would have supported the revolution, hopefully I would have seen the whole picture.

As America leaves two wars and prepare to head to another war, can we see the big picture? 

Saturday I will talk about the American-Mexican War. 

Update on Friday, February 24, 2012 at 11:12AM by [Positive Dennis]

Todd Suave sent me the following:

Dennis,

I Googled the John Wayne quote and found this for you:

The interview is reprinted in The Playboy Intervew (Wideview Books, c1981). Here is the text of one answer about the Indians:

"I don't feel we did wrong in taking this great country away from them, if that's what you're asking. Our so-called stealing of this country from them was just a matter of survival. There were great numbers of people who needed new land, and the Indians were selfishly trying to keep it for themselves." -p.269

It is apparently available on this Playboy interview CD-ROM:

Of course John Wayne was already dead in 1981 so I have no idea when he may have said this. Since Playboy only started publishing in the early 1950s, it was obviously somewhere in that 25 year or so period. It sounds 1950-60's-ish.

Thanks Todd.