“It is a fact, that the United States Army, in marching to the Rio Grande, marched into a peaceful Mexican settlement, and frightened the inhabitants away from their homes and their growing crops.” (Lincoln)
By the time Lincoln took his congressional oath, the combat had come to an end. The peace treaty had ony to be signed, on terms spectacularly advantageous for the victorious United States. At this point, Lincoln conceded, it would have been easier to remain silent about the questionable origins of the war. The Democrats however, would “not let the whigs be silent.” When Congress reconvened, they immediately introduced resolutions blaming the war on Mexican aggression, thereby demanding that Congress endorse “the original justice of the war on the part of the President.”
A few weeks later, Lincoln voted with his Whig brethren on a resolution introduced by Massachusetts congressman George Ashmun, which stated that the war had been “unnecessarily and unconstitutionally” initiated by the president.
The following week, on Jamuary 12, 1848, Lincoln defended his spot resolutions and his vote on the Ashmun resolution in a major speech. he claimed that we would happily reverse his vote if the president could prove that first blood was shed on American soil; but since “can not, or will not do this,” he suspected that the entire matter was, “from beginning to end, the sheerest deception.” Having provoked both countries into war, Lincoln charged, the president had hoped “to escape scrutiny, by fixing public gaze upon the exceeding brightness of military glory…that serpent’s eye, that charms to destroy.”
The Democratic Illinois State Register charged that Lincoln had disgraced his district with his “treasonable assault upon President Polk,” claimed that “henceforth” he would be known as “Benedict Arnold,” and predicted that he would enjoy only a single term. Lincoln sought to clarify his position, arguing that although he had challenged the instigation of the war, he had never voted against supplies for the soldiers. To accept Polk’s position without question, he claimed, was to “allow the President to invade a neighboring nation…whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary.”
Quoted from ‘Team of Rivals’ by Doris Kearns Goodwin
I thought this was something worth sharing here a week ago, but the recent debate between Frodo, Paul, Right, Wisenheimer and I in the Miner thread has recently disolved into the unfortunate pattern seen throughout history.
A war is initiated, and once that happens, those who oppose the war are called traitors. As we see here in this excerpt…Lincoln was once one of those voices of dissent. His argument was that President Polk had no right to invade Mexican territory, and to keep discussion away from the justification, he’d herald the achievements of our forces.
This man ended up changing our country for the better. He had an opinion and wasn’t afraid to share it. So for political purposes, he was branded as a traitor. The insecurities of those who backed the war and didn’t care whether it was the right thing to do or not, were projected onto whoever spoke out against it.
The facts didn’t dictate the course of their debate. Polk could have instigated the entire thing and it wouldn’t have mattered to some. So with the Iraq War in mind, couldn’t the ones pointing fingers and labeling people ‘traitor’ or ‘anti-American’ be in for a surprise once the history is written on this chapter?
Chris,
You are pushing my buttons again with the Miner thread has recently disolved into the unfortunate pattern seen throughout history .
My response to this should be clear and written without the pressures from my real life that I am currently under. I will respond as soon as I can give it the attention it deserves.
Well I screwed up that italics tag above. IT should have looked like this:
Chris,
You are pushing my buttons again with the Miner thread has recently disolved into the unfortunate pattern seen throughout history.
My response to this should be clear and written without the pressures from my real life that I am currently under. I will respond as soon as I can give it the attention it deserves.
Frodo
Frodo – The situation where there’s a war, and automatically the voices of disent are labeled ‘traitor’ or ‘w/ the enemy’ – so and so.
Here is the greatest American president ever, and he’s against the Mexican-American War. He was called a traitor…
The comments you wrote indicated that I, and people on the left, were aiding the enemy or doing the country as a whole a disservice. Why? They disagree w/ policy.
The Mexican-American war was a product of Amercian expansion, Texas independance from Mexico and the ancient idea Manifest Destiny. With that said, Tyler’s actions leading up to his final days in office matter quite a bit as Polk continued what his predacessor had started.
With that said, it’s easy to look back and criticize what government did back then. The reason this Lincoln issue is apples to oranges is that America was attacked and not just engaging in a land grab. Mexica, Spain, America, Brittan and France were in a land grab race and Aerica won the race, hooray for us.
Today there is a religious power seeking to take over the world through terrorsim and murder. Therefore, giving aid and comfort to this eenmy, as the NYT, Murtha, Sheehan and most Democrats do, is bad. Our entire way of life is at stake, just look at Europe.
They came to us, we didn’t choose this war on terror and liberal actions these days just show their true colors. Even though Democrats overwhelmingly voted to protect America, the moment they had an chance they turned on us(no surprise to me, I expected and predicted it).
Right – I didn’t bring this up as an angle in the debate over whether the Iraq War was right or wrong, but instead to show that Lincoln was denounced as a traitor for his position, and later he would become the greatest President we’ve ever had.
If a politician can go from traitor to the highest office in the land, then there’s hope for me yet!
The brilliance of Lincoln’s politics was that he maneuvered within a polarized environment and managed to bring people together. Years after the Civil War ended and the country was united, I’m sure there were plenty of people who still regarded Lincoln as a traitor for his position on the Mexican-American war. Those people were wrong.
Their idea of a traitor, was a man who eventually saved the republic.
Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it…
I enlisted at 17 and served 4 years in the Army. I have political opinions that my friends here at deadissue.com disagree with. I am not a traitor. I’m the same as all of you…my goals are to provide love, wisdom and a safe home for my family. Right, Frodo, Paul, Wisenheimer, Michael…we all do it the same way when it comes to the most important aspects of our lives.
We have a lot in common, and I think that for the sake of our continued debate and sharing of ideas, we should all make sure to keep this in mind. We all have the best interests of the country in mind. None of us are traitors.
This is politics. It’s a dirty business.
Right – I didn’t bring this up as an angle in the debate over whether the Iraq War was right or wrong, but instead to show that Lincoln was denounced as a traitor for his position, and later he would become the greatest President we’ve ever had.
I know and my point is he was called a traitor for a different reason. Applying todays values to 150 years ago it is easy for even me to say that agresssion for land is not the right thing to do. He was called a traitor for not going with the imperialsim crowd. If lincoln were alive today and President you better believe that we would be occupying all of the middle east and, as Ann Coulter put it, killing their leaders and converting everyone to Christianity., Europe be dammed.
If a politician can go from traitor to the highest office in the land, then there’s hope for me yet!
Or there is the Jane Fondas and John Kerrys of the world. I never labeled you as a traitor anyway. I think the NYT should be shut down, though, being that they actively support the taliban, terrorists and just about anything else that is bad for America.
The brilliance of Lincoln’s politics was that he maneuvered within a polarized environment and managed to bring people together.
The way I read it was that he maneuvered in such a way as to no tcross the line with any one person but to play the polarized people off each other. That Marshall law-esqe think helped also, when he suspended many of the liberties. Bush has done much the same as Linclon in that almost everyone is out for themselves (Kerry, Dean. Murtha, Reid) but Bush is able to continue to do what is best for the country.
Right, Frodo, Paul, Wisenheimer, Michael…we all do it the same way when it comes to the most important aspects of our lives.
What about Karl???
None of us are traitors.
Even Joe Wilson?
I think that the point of the war is irrelevant. If you come out against a war the United States is engaged in, you will be wrongly branded a traitor by those who support it. The time period has nothing to do with it. This dynamic is seen throughout world history, let alone our own.
I think this is absurd. Now…MediaMatters.org tracks the lies of right-wing media, as well as the NYTimes and other organizations. Where is the website that lists instances where the NYTimes has supported terrorism?
I can say, “Rush Limbaugh lied about such and such”, make a few clicks, and present the proof. Where is your proof?
Good question – where has he been lately?
Is he in jail right now?
I think that the point of the war is irrelevant. If you come out against a war the United States is engaged in, you will be wrongly branded a traitor by those who support it. The time period has nothing to do with it.
No, you are branded a traitor when you take actions that go above and beyond just making your thoughts and feelings know. Printing false news stories such as the Newsweek, 60 minutes and all of 2005 editions of the NYT are great examples.
False, misleading and biased propaganda with the express purpose of harming the President, our allies and our troops. Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame are great examples of people who indirectly support the enemy for their own persoanl gain.
MediaMatters.org tracks the lies of right-wing media, as well as the NYTimes and other organizations.
I’ve been to their site and their criticisms of the NYT is that they don’t call for the assassination of the President enough. Mediamatters is strictly a liberal hype machine.
Where is the website that lists instances where the NYTimes has supported terrorism?
Their biased reporting empowers the terrorists, gets them and our allies confused as to our commitment to freedom and democracy. The NYT gives classified information on anti-terrorism measures to the enemy and is a platform for our enemies to get their word out to the U.S. population. It’s the American Al-Jazera.
Is he in jail right now?
Is being in jail the only criteria for treason?
Chris you are no traitor and I believe that you are a decent human being albeit misguided at times. 🙂
Thanks for the endorsement Paul – – – we should cross post a collaboration on ACC football…6-2 in the bowls, only Miami and Florida St. losing!
They calculate strength of schedule with tricks in my opinion…Texas had the toughest schedule in the country??!!?? ACC football had a lot to prove this year, and they did just that.