Gay Marriage, Redux

Wherein Jason re-visits the topic of gay marriage in the United States, with an additional promise that he'll get back to your regularly scheduled historically-themed blogging soon.

I know, I know, I usually try to stay away from these kinds of issues these days and instead focus my blog on historical issues- I swear I'll get back to my American History series in a bit. I do, however, want to re-visit some of the issues raised by my last post on gay marriage.

~

Firstly, I want to reiterate my call to civility and decency in discourse. This is important in all areas of life, really. Whatever your opinions- and whatever your opinions of other peoples' opinions- we have a duty, an obligation, to be kind, to be charitable, to be polite, to be nice. Societies which purport to be based upon the will of the people (that is, "democracies" and "republics") and the open debate of ideas require civility. A shouting match doesn't get anyone anywhere, and it usually makes the situation worse. That isn't to say that you can't disagree- even strongly- with someone, that you can't attack their ideas, their logic, but it does mean that, as I've said before, you should be able to sit down to a cup of tea afterwards and not, well, kill each other.

In a related matter, this blog, though a product of a society which believes in free and open discourse (at least in theory), is not a public forum. I, personally, do not necessarily subscribe to those views and, as such, I reserve the right to refrain from publishing any comment which I feel does not constructively contribute to the overall discourse of the blog itself. I will, sometimes, let comments with an obviously malicious intent stand, but usually only if they serve to make a point of mine. On the other hand, a polite, reasonable comment is something I will almost invariably publish, even if it is in sharp disagreement with something I've said.

~

I appreciate the Catholic Church's position on the issue of gay marriage, but the insistence of some to provide me with explanations of and links to its teachings leads me to think that some people missed the point of my last post. I am perfectly aware of the Church's teachings on this and many things, and so it should not be assumed that merely pointing them out to me will change my mind.

In fact, an attempt to "change my mind" on this subject would be a bit ill-founded, since, as I noted numerous times, I have not come down on one side of the issue or the other; in fact the only position re: gay marriage that I have actually enumerated is the total removal of the Federal government from the institution of marriage- heterosexual or homosexual- as a means of making the issue writ large irrelevant, so quoting the Church's position at me is little more than chasing a paper tiger.

It is, however, worth noting that the principle difficulty I have posited for opponents of gay marriage (and I think I may not have made this clear enough in my last post, which is part of the reason I am posting again), is that the United States enjoys a secular government, whose laws are not supposed to enshrine a particular religion's views.

~

It is very tempting to want to legislate morality. Gay marriage might contravene the laws of Nature, God and the Church, but the point I'm trying to make here is that it is not the job of the United States government to enforce those kinds of laws.

History is littered with examples of governments that attempted to legislate morality; it is also littered with the disastrous consequences of these attempts. These kinds of governments are usually called theocracies and, if you would like to see what they're like, there are plenty in the Middle East right now. They are not vibrant societies, they are places of oppression and darkness. Incidentally, they are not societies free of sin, either.

These kinds of things usually remind me of the movie Serenity (okay, okay, I know, it's not the most scholarly of examples). The main Alliance in the setting is trying to create a society without sin; eventually, the main character says, "Let me show you a world without sin," and we see a world full of the dead. The point here is that legislating morality, trying to eradicate sin by force, by using the government, is impossible.

~

Let me again visit my example of Prohibition. This was an attempt by Protestants (some groups, not all, of course) to get rid of alcohol and make society more "godly". As everyone should be aware, the attempt was an appalling failure which resulted in sky-rocketing crime rates and the amendment was eventually repealed. Although these aren't precisely parallel examples, the point is that a group of people attempted to impose their personal, religious beliefs by utilizing the secular state to enforce this will.

We can all agree that Prohibition was, aside from being simply a bad idea, an inappropriate use of the government and its power. The question, then, that I would pose, is how do you get around this argument re: gay marriage. If we accept that the government should not be used to impose the religious views of some members of society on the rest, how is this answerable by Catholics? Is there an answer, other than the one that I've posed (namely, the make the issue irrelevant by removing the government from the institution entirely)?

I freely admit that I could be wrong here, and so I'm not asking these questions rhetorically. But, for the sake of logical consistency, it must be asked: If we oppose gay marriage on religious grounds, does it not logically follow that we should begin enacting other laws of the Church? Should we forbid divorce, and make adultery criminal? These things threaten the "sanctity of marriage", do they not? Should they not be similarly opposed? And if they are merely matters for personal choice, how is gay marriage not the same as them?

~

As I've said, my readers shouldn't read what they think is my personal position into this post. They should, however, ponder, consider, think, over what I've said. Can Catholicism be completely reconciled with a secular government? Should it be? And so on. And thank you, in advance, to those readers who provide polite, reasonable and thoughtful responses to my posts.

~

Our Lady of the Snows, pray for us.

1 Year Anniversary

A moment to reflect on a year of Summorum Pontificum. We have come such a long way since Vatican II and even now its been twenty years since the release of Ecclesia Dei Afflicta. Let us thank God and sing a Te Deum for a Pope who has finally given some much needed attention to the liturgy and its proper orientation towards Christ.

On Gay Marriage

Wherein Jason discusses a pertinent political issue, rather than discussing the American War Between the States, as he had planned to do.

I have, of late, decided something. This something is this: namely that, since my political/etc. beliefs tend to irritate both conservatives AND liberals for various reasons, I am clearly doing something correctly.

Or perhaps I'm disastrously wrong.

I am, however, unwilling to concede the latter possibility, and shall instead steam forward with the first assumption! Huzzah! Given the first, opening, statement, I am quite certain that this post is going to be almost totally unsatisfactory to just about everyone. But, hey, this is my blog, so there!

I would like to talk about "gay marriage".

~

I have lots and lots of problems with "gay marriage", but probably not the problems that you're expecting. In fact, when I say "problems", I mean with the overall argument, not with gay marriage itself. I hope, indeed, not to actually give my readers any idea of whether I am "for" or "against" gay marriage at all; I've outlined my position in the past- namely, that I think the government should be removed from "straight" marriage, too, thus rendering arguments on both sides irrelevant.

So we begin!

~

The controversy surrounding the legalization of gay marriage in California is what makes this post "timely". Licenses began being issued, why, just the other day, and, naturally, the photos of happily married same-sex couples are starkly juxtaposed to the images of hatred and anger, malice and wrath, of the protesters insisting that "Jesus hates fags" and the like.

Whatever your position on homosexuality, its employ and "gay marriage", I would first like to point out that the latter kinds of displays are horrifying. Horrifying.

You are free to find homosexuality and its practice immoral; I am not here to dispute, disagree with or silence you. I am here, however, to note that these kinds of "protests" are, essentially, demonic. "But Jason, they're protesting grave sin! How is that possible?"

Well, firstly, I'll note that God doesn't "hate" "fags". I know this because a) He loves everyone (wow, what a concept) and b) see a). Given, furthermore, the connotations that the word "fag" has, it is hideously insensitive, not to mention totally inappropriate and borderline vulgar, practically in a war the "n-word" is. This kind of hatred- for there is no other word for it- is completely opposite the Gospel. Completely opposite. There is not, and never will be, an excuse, under a Christian guise, for the kind of malice, hatred and vitriol spewed forth by these people. No. excuse. whatsoever.

You are perfectly free to espouse a "hate the sin, love the sinner" doctrine, but I will note that hatred is only acceptable when one is speaking of hating sin and is never morally justified nor correct when it is targeted at a person or a group of persons.

This kind of rhetoric must stop. It must stop not just because it merely drives people into the "opposing" camp, but because it is morally reprehensible, it is unkind, it is rude, it is impolite, it is mean it is garish and it is uncivilized. The hallmark of a mature, civilized society is the ability to sit down to reasonable, polite discourse with someone who holds opinions with which you strongly disagree, then get up after the debate and go out for a cup of tea (or whatever).

You know what an uncivilized, immature society looks like, don't you? It's the kind of society that throws a fit, a tantrum, when it doesn't get its "way", when it doesn't get what it "wants", when it is confronted by non-conformity and "difference". Why, it looks like the mobs in the streets, protesting the cartoons of the prophet Muhammed, protesting the "defiling" of Korans, etc.. THAT is what it looks like. I do not want- nor should anyone want- that kind of idiocy to spread into the West. You may say what you want, yes, fine, but you may not burn buildings, overturn cars or kill people; in that vein, you may disagree with gay marriage, but you should not use hateful invectives, malicious tirades that demonstrate nothing more than your own blindness to the underlying message of the Christian Gospel.

~

"Jason, why do you feel so strongly about this?"

Because I am tired of people being mean, rude, cruel, hateful. There is no excuse for it. We have one brief, ephemeral existence here on this miserable rock of a planet and we do not need to spend it flinging hateful tirades at each other.

(Brief side note: this works both ways, you know. If I am tired of the "God hates fags", I am tired of the anti-Christian venom that comes right back. It's just that the protesters are often much more visible in their hatred and malice.)

~

Next item of business: I am tired of "gay marriage" being such a looming political issue. There are more important issues than whether or not two women want to get married in California. Oh my goodness people, not long ago Iran's president called the United States "Satanic", he routinely calls for the complete destruction of Israel, the Chinese continue in their crackdown on their people (as ever), wars and genocides rage on in Africa and even if you think that extra-US issues are of secondary importance, there are economic and political issues (Social Security anyone? dependence on foreign oil? Russia's increasing belligerence towards NATO?) of far greater concern.

Can we all chill out a little and worry about something that, I don't know, matters?

~

"But Jason, gay marriage does matter! It's totally altering the social landscape and will have disastrous effects on our society?"

Thanks for playing. Would you like to try again in Double Jeopardy, where the scores can really change?

I am sorry- no, I'm not, really- but I am entirely unconvinced by any argument or line of reasoning made to this effect. The massive upheavals society is undergoing and has undergone are not a consequence of "gay marriage". You want to know what the biggest shift in attitudes towards marriage was in the last thousand years?

Wait for it.

Wait for it.

Marriage for love, not property.

Holy saints preserve us! Marriage for love? But, but, there's nothing wrong with a man and a woman getting married if they love each other! If someone marries someone else because that other person has a lot of money or property, why, that's a mercenary marriage!

One of the reasons I attempt to place my beliefs (political and otherwise) into an historical context is because you can, at times, discover some surprising things. People who argue things like, "Marriage has always been between a man and a woman", or "Marriage has never changed, why should it, now?" would be very, very surprised if they did some actual historical research.

Fact: Same-sex marriage existed thousands of years ago, in ancient Rome.

Fact: Marriage has undergone serious changes in its past.

Fact: Marriage used to be illegal between a white woman and a black man.

Fact: Marriage used to be done "by proxy" in medieval Europe to secure thrones.

Fact: Marriage, for literally thousands of years, was not an institution about "love", but rather one about bettering the standing of a family.

Fact: In the middle ages, the tradition of courtly love actually considered love within marriage impossible.

Fact: Women used to be the property of their father until their marriage, whereupon they became property of their husband.

Not a fact: Marriage has never changed.

~

What do these things mean? Does it mean I support gay marriage? No, I told you I wasn't going to favor one side or the other. What these things do mean is that we need to step back, take a deep breath, and dispense with the "The sky is falling!" attitude, as it is 1) inane and 2) wrong.

The far biggest changes to marriage, in recent memory, have been 1) inter-racial marriage and 2) marriage for love (the bigger change). Interestingly, you might be hard-pressed to find any anti-gay-marriage protesters to also disagree with those two points.

~

Finally, I need to point out that the United States is a secular nation.

I understand that people will say things like, "But it was founded on Judeo-Christian values", but I need also point out that adultery is not illegal, and I don't see people clamoring for that to be made into law. Why is homosexuality being targeted? There are a whole host of things that are immoral under Judeo-Christian moral systems that are completely legal within the United States.

Good thing we live in a theocracy, where we can pass laws like that!

Oh, wait. Well, isn't that interesting?

Look, the point here- sarcasm aside- is that the function of government is not the eradication of sin. Show me a world without sin and I'll show you a world without people. They are the same.

It is entirely hypocritical to simultaneously clamor, for example, to retain anti-homosexuality laws and NOT clamor for anti-adultery laws. They're both against God's commandments, aren't they? So why can't we outlaw adultery?

Furthermore, I would like to know if anyone in America would like to live under Islamic Sharia law. What's that, every Christian in the world? You wouldn't like to live under it? Interesting. And, therefore, I must, inevitably, ask: how is being opposed to the institution of Islamic Sharia law in the United States any different from opposing something's legalization based on your religious beliefs?

Short answer: it isn't.

~

Summary

I am not, it should be noted, favoring one side or the other here. What I am doing is imploring that we realize, collectively, a number of things. Firstly, that we must stop the hysteria. Both sides must do this. The sky isn't falling, the world isn't ending, and there are more important issues at hand. Secondly, as in most things, history can be an extremely valuable guide when discussing important political or social issues. And finally, we need to remember that the United States is a secular country, and many, many people of many, many different backgrounds and beliefs live there and, as such, it is not only illegal but also highly hypocritical to want to impose a certain set of religious beliefs- by force- on the entire nation.

But of all these things, I think the thing I most want changed is the language, the tone, the tenor, of the debate. I'm tired of the hate, the malice, the vitriol, that comes from both sides. It needs to stop. It's rude, it's mean, it's cruel, it's impolite, it's hypocritical, it's un-Christian, it's unkind.

~

Our Lady of the Snows, pray for us.

Re-Thinking the War of 1812

I hope that my dear readers are finding my posts at least marginally interesting. Of course, if you aren't, there are plenty of other things to do on the internet, like visit the fun blogs we link to, for instance.

The point of this series of posts on American history is to re-think and re-consider many of the myths we believe about the founding and early years of the United States. As I've said before, I'm not attacking the country or anything, merely trying to point out that many of the myths that surround US history are completely false. Once we cut through the propaganda, we can appreciate the country (or not, if it please you) for what it actually is, rather than for what other people want us to think it is.

Anyway, since I've covered the Seven Years' War and the American War for Independence, it's time to move on to the United States' first post-independence conflict: the War of 1812.

~

Considerable time is spent on the War of 1812 in American textbooks for a couple of reasons. Firstly, because American history itself is fairly short (at least as far as these things go), so lots of time is spent on subjects that, in a country with a longer history, might be glossed over. Secondly, there aren't that many wars in general in American history, and so, again, they get more pages than they probably should, and thirdly, because, as I said, this was the United States' first inter-country conflict.

From American textbooks, I was fed the following information about the War of 1812 (neatly condensed into bullet points for your quick and easy edification- super!):

-The war was largely a cause of the policy of "impressment" utilized by the British navy.
-The American navy was hugely victorious in the war.
-Dolly Madison rescued the portrait of George Washington from the burning White House.
-The war ended with a return to the status quo.

So, let's deal with what actually happened, because the American version is extremely distorted.

~

First, I want to point out that the War of 1812 was fought between the United States and Britain in, um, you guessed it, 1812, and officially ended in 1814. At the time, Britain was engaged in an heroic struggle against Napoleonic France. In fact, this was one of the largest reasons that the US went to war, but we'll get to that. Anyway, the War of 1812 is barely a blip on the British historical radar. You could ask an American if they'd heard of the War of 1812 and they might say yes; if you asked a Briton, they would almost certainly say no. And why? Well, because the war is totally irrelevant in many respects. As I noted, the British were fighting Napoleonic Europe, a conflict which was a teensy bit more important (and by teensy bit, I mean "vastly").

The cause of the War of 1812 is largely touted in American history textbooks to be the issue of the "impressment" of American seamen by the British. "Impressment" here is to understood to be the policy of the British Royal Navy to board ships, seize men from them and force them to serve in the Royal Navy (literally, to "impress" them).

A great deal of work has been done on the issue of impressment in the past few decades, work which has basically totally dispelled the myth of the British system of impressment. The idea that roving gangs of Navy officers went around on land and seized men from their beds to serve in the Navy is totally ridiculous. In fact, it would be a better comparison to say the British system was more like a conscription of men, and even then it was -only- aimed at trained seamen. Furthermore, by this time in history, impressment was fading away.

The claim that the British were stopping American ships and seizing huge numbers of their crew for service in the Royal Navy is totally ridiculous. The -actual- problem was multi-faceted. British ships were, occasionally, stopping American merchant shipping to search for British deserters from the Navy and the merchant marine to conscript them for serve in the Royal Navy. The problem, however, was an issue of citizenship. At the time, if you were born in Britain, you were British, period. This policy was the same basically the world over, except in the United States, which was the only country where you could elect to become a citizen. So basically what was happening was that the British were impressing men who had deserted from the British navy and had become American citizens, but the British didn't recognize their American citizenship as valid.

I should also point out that the number of incidents of this was extremely small. It became nothing more than a propaganda weapon in the hands of the United States government, and the President at the time, James Madison, adopted a diplomatic position that literally made it impossible for negotiation.

There were, additionally, some other trade disputes which helped to fuel the claims of the so-called "War Hawks", who wanted war with Britain. It is worth pointing a few things out here. Firstly, the British did not want war with the United States; there were a number of reasons for this (largely trade-related), but there simply wasn't any point to a war with them anyway, oh and also they were a bit busy with Napoleon. Secondly, the British actually caved in to all of the American demands in the trade disputes that Washington was attempting to use as a causus belli against London.

Shortly after the British agreed to the American negotiations, the American declared war.

~

Why declare war? The REAL reasons for the War of 1812 go back to the American War for Independence. They have nothing to do with protecting American liberties or any of that kind of nonsense; that is simply propaganda. The real reason for the War of 1812: the conquest of Canada.

In my previous post on the American War for Independence, I noted that it was not a total victory for the Americans, as everyone had widely expected that ALL of North America would become independent in the event of a colonial victory. This did not happen and North America was partitioned. A large number of people in the government, by this point, had set their sights on conquering Canada. James Madison was personally convinced (somewhat bizarrely) that Canada was Britain's economic heart and, as such, Britain would be forced to concede defeat if US forces could overrun it.

~

After the declaration of war, the United States invaded Canada. This was a largely unsuccessful campaign and, following its defeat, the United States never again went on the offensive. (On an interesting side note, there were actually some naval operations on the Great Lakes, which is kind of cool.)

In the meantime, Britain was, as noted, a bit busy with more important things than swatting at a third-rate power like the US, so it sent some frigates to blockade the coast. It is in this war that the USS Constitution ("Old Ironsides") made its reputation. The US Navy scored a few victories against these British frigates early in the war. The British quickly realized they had underestimated the strength of the US navy (at the time, the US navy had about 12 ships; the British had a couple hundred), and sent some real warships. After that, the US Navy scored no more victories and the US coast was effectively blockaded.

It is also worth noting that the War of 1812 was deeply unpopular in the New England states, where the merchants made their money by trading with Britain. This was fine with James Madison and his political cronies, as the New England merchants were his political enemies. But anyway, during this time the New England states seriously considered seceding from the Union and joining Canada (I'm not kidding), something which provided political precedent for the secession of the Southern states from the Union later in the 1800s. Also during this time the New Englanders freely traded with and assisted the British (and made a nice profit doing so), engaging in activities that would technically be treasonous if they happened today.

With regard to saving of the portrait of Washington by Dolly Madison, that did indeed happen. This is, however, a highly romanticized episode of history to deflect attention from that context: namely, that the British landed an army on American soil and burned the capital of the United States of America. This should give you some indication of how successfully the war effort was going for Madison's administration.

Eventually, the Treaty of Ghent was signed and things basically went back to the status quo antebellum.

~

So, what did the War of 1812 accomplish? In short: nothing. The -only- significant consequence of the war was that both the British and the Americans took the United States navy more seriously than they had before. Other than that, the war was a total disaster and a complete humiliation for the United States, as it had seen its coast blockaded and its capital burned. The war marked the last time the US and Britain were officially at war with each other, however.

The wrapping of the War of 1812 in propaganda is, frankly, more than a little bit silly. It functions only as a major historical event in the minds of American patriots, and even then, well, frankly it shouldn't, because the war aims were grossly immoral and the conduct of the war itself was wholly embarrassing.

So there it is, the War of 1812 in a nutshell. Far less important than American textbooks will have you believe, not fought for the reasons most people are told and, ultimately, an embarrassingly vainglorious episode in American history.

~

St. Dymphna, pray for us!

Our Lady of Walsingham, pray for us!

On the American Revolution

Wherein Jason offers some analysis and some unconventional views of the so-called American Revolution.

As I've noted in previous posts, there are a lot of myths that surround the stories of the creation of the United States. I think it's important to challenge these assumptions for a lot of reasons- not, mind you, because I'm attempting to undermine the love that someone feels for the United States, but rather because I think that our attempts at getting at some level of historical truth are necessary and relevant.

First, I would like to note that I dislike the term "American Revolution." I find "American War for Independence" to be much more accurate. It might seem like I'm just dithering about semantics here, but I do think that these kinds of historical terminologies are important to get right. An excellent example of this is the term "Dark Ages", which is variously used to describe a period of time from around the 5th to the 9th centuries AD, during which time apparently everything was dark and dreadful. The consequence of this term has been a widespread public perception that this period was, in fact, positively dreary, when the truth is quite different.

A revolution, then, seems to imply an overthrow of the current regime or prevailing mode of thought in an area. The French Revolution and the Communist revolutions in China and Russia are good examples of revolutions- they occurred in their respective countries and were overthrows of the present regimes. The American Revolution, on the other hand, was an attempt to break away from a country, not to change its government, and the regime of the British Empire did not, in fact, change as a result (well, you could argue about the fall of Parliamentary governments, but that's totally a side issue and would be silly). As such, I find War for Independence to be a much more accurate descriptor of the events and shall, therefore, use that instead.

~

Why the American War for Independence Happened

There are a lot of reasons that the American colonists broke away from Britain, but first I should like to point out that, at no time during the War for Independence did the pro-independence rebels actually have a majority of the popular support, except in a few localized areas. It is wildly incorrect to think that the American colonists all supported independence from Britain- or even that most of them did. The truth is that, generally speaking, about 1/3 of the colonists favored independence, 1/3 didn't care much, and 1/3 was staunchly Royalist.

The war itself found most of its support among the middle class merchants of the mid-Atlantic and New England states [side note: interestingly, the New England states remained incredibly friendly to Britain hereafter, and even considered seceding from the Union to re-join Britain at one point], and was least popular in the glorious Southern colonies.

Anyway, there are a number of reasons that the rebellion against the Crown took place. The posturing in the Declaration of Independence about the various grievances against King George III are largely fabricated- or, at least, totally exaggerated out of reasonable proportion- and the posturing in the Constitution about liberty and equality are, well, they're a bit silly, don't you think? I mean, slavery still existed, and the 3/5 Compromise (wherein slaves were considered to count for 3/5 of a person in the annual census) kind of gives lie to these vaunted ideals.

One of the driving motivations behind the war was actually taxation. The mantra "no taxation without representation" is a famous one, and I'll get to that in a minute. First, I should note that the taxes that were being levied by the British government were, in many respects, totally reasonable. They were (largely) very old taxes that had simply never been enforced, and were being enforced now to help pay off the war debt Britain had accrued during the Seven Years' War, a war which, it should be very distinctly noted, removed the principle threat (France) to the security of the British colonies in North America.

Viewed in this light, the taxes seem perfectly reasonable. However, the British had two things working against them here. Firstly, there was a widespread perception in the colonies that the colonists were being unfairly and excessively taxed, and secondly that these taxes were being levied quite unfairly, as they had no representation in Parliament.

In fact, neither is true. The British Parliament operated under a system of "universal representation", wherein the MPs were supposed to (in theory) represent everyone in all the realms, and their respective concerns, and, as such, direct geographical representation was unnecessary. Furthermore, the perception that the colonists had that they were unduly taxed is totally absurd. Modern historical economic work has shown that the American colonists were, in fact, among the most lightly taxed peoples in the world. However, the perception was there, and that is, in some sense, what mattered. Additionally, the War for American Independence actually represents a struggle that the British Empire was facing- and would face later, in the second phase of its empire- namely, that it was unsure as to how exactly to govern a colonial empire. This problem of centralized vs. decentralized government is one that it would resolve to a much better degree later, but at the moment it is worth considering that the British had never had an empire of this sort before and, as such, weren't entirely sure how to properly govern it, which gave rise to some of these problems.

Finally, as I've noted before, the removal of France as a threat to the security of the American colonies meant that, well, they didn't need Britain and her military anymore. Although perhaps not a conscious decision- or at least not one that was said aloud a lot- it certainly factored into the decision of the revolutionaries to rebel.

~

Why Britain lost the American War for Independence

Contrary to what some American textbooks might tell you, the British did not lose the American War because the American soldiers were just so super duper and righteously awesome. They didn't lose the war because their redcoats could be so easily seen by daring American snipers (oh, jeez, I really hate that nonsense- and yes, you definitely hear it).

They lost the war because of the combined power of France and Spain.

Now just wait a minute, Jason, you might be saying. I didn't know Spain had anything to do with this war in the first place, and it's certainly true that the French helped us out, but what about George Washington and his valiant army of volunteers?

Yes, well, that's a charming myth, but what made George Washington a great general was not his glorious victories in battle, nor his repeated triumphs over the British. No, rather, what made him a great general was his ability to keep the American army from falling apart despite being ragtag, largely unpaid and being defeated in battle after battle.

In fact, although the British regarded military action against the colonists as ultimately inevitable- although unfortunate- once France and Spain entered the war the American colonies became a complete side show. France's entry into the war wasn't exactly a disaster for Britain, as she could still field a bigger and better navy than France's anyway, and France's war aims at this point were totally unclear, other than a vague sense of "hey, let's help these colonists out, because we totally got humiliated by Britain in the last war."

The entry of an European Great Power into the war meant, therefore, that Britain's war aims became knocking France out and -then- dealing with the American rebels. What really made the war difficult for Britain was the subsequent entry of Spain into the war on France's side.

Spain was reluctant to enter the war, knowing, as she did, that her military was inferior, in many ways, to Britain's, and her capacity for waging war was fairly limited. In this, Spain showed herself capable of learning from the past, unlike France. However, Spain saw an advantageous situation and entered into the war with France on the condition that they were basically in control of the foreign policy. Upon Spain's entry into the war, Madrid, not Paris, was in control.

Spain entered into the war with a veritable laundry list of things they wanted to achieve, and they knew that they had to achieve them quickly, because Britain's strength lay in her ability to wage long, protracted wars. However, if they could achieve a bunch of aims quickly and knock Britain out fast, they might have a chance. These war aims (many of which they achieved, it is worth noting) included things like re-taking Gibraltar (this one they did not achieve, nor have they, since), Minorca, etc..

The reason that the entry of France and Spain into the war makes Britain's defeat inevitable (well, not inevitable, but there it is) is that the combined fleets of France and Spain were large enough to challenge Britain's dominance of the seas. The Royal Navy allowed Britain to project her power around the globe and was what allowed, for example, the invasion of Long Island in 1776 (a devastating defeat for the American colonists). Furthermore, control of the seas around the American colonies was particularly important, because the colonies themselves were heavily dependent on them for communications and trade (in fact, far, far more so than on inter-colonial roads, which were more or less non-existent).

The combination of the French and Spanish fleets, then, meant that two European powers now had the theoretical power to invade Britain itself, which was a far greater concern than the American rebels running around. This combination, therefore, meant that Britain had to recall significant portions of its fleet to defend the Channel, a recall which therefore prevented the effective exercise of British power in the colonies and therefore directly resulted in the colonists being able to achieve a military victory at Yorktown with the aid of the French.

The myth of American colonists winning the war because of- or primarily because of- French military assistance is totally false. While French contributions to the American war effort were valuable in certain circumstances, the actual myth of it was actually a product of foreign propaganda. It came at a time when the French were looking around the world for friends (as they couldn't find any in Europe), and so they concocted (or at least wildly exaggerated) this charming story of how the Americans owed their freedom to the French and wasn't it a splendid time to pay the French back with some friendship?

~

Did the Americans win the American War for Independence? Or, rather, did the British actually lose it?

In some sense, the base answer to these questions is simply "yes". The more nuanced answer, however, is a bit more complicated. You see, when the war was going on, everyone expected- British, French, Americans- that, should the Americans be successful in their revolt against London, all of the North American colonies would gain their independence.

As you know, this did not happen. No, indeed, not even a majority of them did. In fact, at the time of the war, there were twenty-seven colonies in North America, of which only thirteen gained their independence. The war was, then, only really a partial defeat for the British and only a partial victory for the Americans. [Reverberations of the desire of the United States for the rest of North America is seen throughout the coming centuries, in the policy of so-called Manifest Destiny, but also in the War of 1812, which was nothing more than the government's attempt at conquering Canada.]

Indeed, we might actually say that the biggest losers of the War for Independence were the French. The ideological and financial consequences of the War played significant roles in bringing on the French Revolution, which was, of course, a horror and a disaster for all involved.

The real winner is probably Spain, given that they got back a lot of the territory they wanted. Not all of it, of course (especially Gibraltar, which continued to rankle them), but enough of it for it to be considered a successful war for them, with minimal loss.

Rather than seeing the outcome of the War as the independence of the 13 colonies, it would be more accurate for us to see it as the Partition of America, a partition of Canada and the United States, a partition which has endured to this day.

~

What, then, are we to think of the American War for Independence?

You may think what please you about the War. I am not trying to undermine anyone's patriotism, or advance some kind of anti-American agenda here. I do, however, think it's important that we cut through a lot of the myths surrounding the war itself. The great and noble ideologies which the so-called Founding Fathers used to wrap their rebellion in are certainly noble, but they're also not the real reasons for the war. The defeat of the British was far from inevitable and was certainly not due to the great military prowess of the colonists. Nor, indeed, was France's help what really sealed the deal- Spain, really, is probably the country we ought to be thanking (if, of course, you think we ought to be thanking someone at all, which is a reasonable question, since neither France nor Spain entered the war on the side of the American colonists because they believed in their "cause").

~

Our Lady of Walsingham, pray for us!

Understanding the Context: The Seven Years' War

Wherein Jason discusses the Seven Years' War, which may be called the "context" in or from which the American War for Independence occurred.

Things don't usually happen in a vacuum (unless, you know, they're actually in a vacuum), by which I mean that historical events don't just *happen*. The fall of the Roman Empire didn't just *happen* (side note: yes, I'm aware that you could argue that it never actually fell, or that it fell in stages, or that the terms "fall" and "Empire" and "Roman" are relative and, therefore, debatable, but none of that is relevant here), wars and migrations and whatnot don't just *happen*- there are reasons and causes for all of them.

A consideration of the founding of the United States of America, then, need to be placed in its proper context. For many American textbooks, this context is, roughly speaking, "America is amazing and wonderful, Britain was bad, so we broke away, because we're awesome and amazing and we don't like tyranny, so we have FREEDOM and LIBERTY and EQUALITY for everyone!"

Nevermind the slaves, I suppose.

But anyway, the point is that the American War for Independence didn't just *happen*. The so-called Founding Fathers weren't just tottering around one day having biscuits and tea when they thought, "Aha! Now would be a good time for a rebellion against the greatest military power in the world!"

Much of the proper and appropriate context for the American Revolution is, of course, the Seven Years' War, the war that gave Britain its empire in a very real sense. This war is also called the French and Indian War in the United States.

~

The Seven Years' War was the first real global conflict- the first real world war, if you will. The war raged from 1756-1763, and arrayed Britain, Prussia (and later Portugal) against Austria, Russia, France, Sweden and, later, Spain. Although the powers here are all European, this can be considered the first truly global conflict because of the colonies of the aforementioned powers, which were in the Americas, Africa and Asia.

The war had a number of very significant consequences, one of which being the almost total loss of French colonial possessions in North America to Britain, and France's elimination as the leading power of Europe.

The war is known as the French and Indian War in the United States because American textbooks take the view that the primary aggressors in the war were- you guessed it- the French and the Indians, and that a lot of fighting was done in the colonies.

This is, loosely speaking, "not true". It is worth noting- and I will discuss this more in my subsequent post on the American Revolution- that the important fighting was done, largely, in Europe. Conflicts between European powers were decided in Europe, not in colonies, and this was a maxim that remained true until the 20th century.

[Side note: One of the principle causes of Britain's slide from greatness was not, in fact, her being overshadowed by other European powers. One of the primary real reasons was the rise of non-European powers like Japan and the United States, which forced her to shift forces away from the European theater. Behind this is a relatively simple strategic problem: if the great powers of the world are all located in Europe, then you can concentrate your forces in the European theater, and the colonies become a sideshow, regardless of how important they are economically. When you are no longer able to concentrate great masses of forces like this, you get the "imperial overstretch" that Britain suffered- but not because of falling numbers of troops or ships, but because, instead of having to worry about the European theater, Britain had to being worrying about every theater in the world, which is more or less impossible to do.]

Anyway. The fighting in the colonies was, as I noted, not terribly important. It is worth noting, of course, that a number of significant battles DID occur in the colonies, but none of them were in the current United States. The most important of these was actually the capture of Havana by Britain, which shattered the Spanish colonial empire forever.

For our purposes, it is worth noting that the Seven Years' War left Britain in control of almost all of North America and a great deal of the Caribbean. This is important because many have postulated that the removal of the French threat to the British colonists was one of the reasons that they were then free to shake off the protection of Britain, whereas previously they needed Britain to protect them from potential aggression by Papist France.

It is also worth noting that the war left Britain with a sizable (but by no means unmanageable or unreasonable) debt. This would have eventual consequences when Britain attempted to levy taxes on the American colonists to help pay for the war.

~

Other things to consider:

Why does Britain always win the wars they fight?

Well, I'm glad you asked. Of course, the first answer is that they don't always win, but they usually do, so the question is still more or less valid. In fact, in Britain's long history (let's say, back to about 1066), only a handful of wars stand out as "lost"- and one of those is the American Revolution (although I will be discussing whether or not they really lost this war, of course).

One of the primary reasons (at least in the post-medieval period) is that Britain developed a much more advanced economic system than any of her continental opponents (primarily France and Spain) that allowed her to borrow money. As such, despite being a much smaller country, she was able to consistently best France in long-term conflicts because she could continue fielding armies/navies by borrowing money. These is some truth to the maxim that, "Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies."

In a related vein, why does France always lose the wars she fights?

A common French conception- up until the 19th century- was that land was the most valuable commodity one could have. As such, the French almost invariably went into wars with England fully expecting that they would win, since they had so much more land than England. This is a very medieval way of looking at things (and I don't mean that in a derogatory, "archaic", way- I mean literally medieval), as in the Middle Ages land was, indeed, far and away the most important thing you could have.

Unlike England, however, France did not develop a mercantile class in any significant fashion and, as a result, never really saw the value of merchants. In England, the Crown was very directly interested in the mercantile classes, as its primary income was drawn from the taxes it placed on imports and exports.

Anyway, as a result of all this, the French continued to believe that the English economic system was very fragile and would shatter under the strain of war. In reality, it was always the French system which broke, and the French, time and time again, found themselves unable to continue fielding an army or a navy. (Of course, it is unfair to blame their failures solely on this- the English also had a good tendency to trounce them in naval battles.)

Is Spain actually relevant?

There is a tendency in American textbooks to totally write off Spain as a world power after the defeat of the Spanish Armada in the 16th century. This is completely unfair and totally false. I'll especially be challenging this assumption when we discuss the American Revolution (wherein Spain played a far more important role than most people know).

One of the things which characterizes the British navy and government in the post-Spanish Armada period is a fear of the combination of the French and Spanish navies. Although the defeat of the Armada shattered the myth of Spain's invincibility and its subsequent decline removed it from being the world's superpower, the combination of French and Spanish arms was something which Britain- rightly- feared for a long time. In fact it is reasonably fair to say that Spain, as a world power, really only ceased to be hugely relevant by the end of the Napoleonic conflicts in the early 19th century.

~

Alright, well, this was a bit rambling and probably a bit scattered, but there it is, a bit of context for my upcoming post on the American Revolution.

Things to be considered:

Why did the American Revolution happen?
Why did Britain lose?
Did Britain lose?
Was the primary military theater of the American Revolution... America?
Was France actually that important?

~

St. Thomas More, pray for us!

Mystical Rose, pray for us!

Borromean Chasuble: A Debate

The pope in the past year has sported some very interesting chasubles, two of which come to mind, that is, the one for Ash Wednesday and the one used for Pentecost this past Sunday. I believe that these two chasubles are the only new ones the pope is wearing, and I have heard some reason debate about them. Specifically they are called Borromean chasubles after St. Charles Borromeo who is attributed as having championed them as an ideal. Most portraits of St. Ignatius of Loyola and St. Philip Neri depict the saints wearing this type of chasuble. Below are some pictures from the Mass of Pentecost at St. Peters. None of the pictures contain the dalmatics worn by the deacons, which is a shame because they were incredible.






One of the first criticisms I have heard is the relevance of this style. Granted Benedict wants to demonstrate continuity and tradition as something within the liturgy, but is it good to choose a style that was little used and existed only for a brief time? Of all the chasubles both Gothic and Roman cut that are within the papal sacristy, why go out of the way to have such expensive vestments made from such an obscurely random period of time?

An answer that I have heard in response to this criticism is the importance of the chasuble within the frame of time, namely it was popular post Trent. Perhaps by wearing this type of chasuble the Holy Father is identifying himself with figures like St. Ignatius of Loyola, in that his mission is one of re-affirmation of Catholic Orthodoxy and the re-Evangelization of Europe. Who knows, its an interesting idea.

Another criticism is the awkwardness of the chasuble. The front is shorter than the back, exposing the pontifical dalmatic underneath. Also, because of the weight of the fabric, the chasuble is constantly being pulled back, which means constant adjustment. I have also heard complaints about how the older styled pallium sits on the chasuble. You can also see from the pictures that when his hands are clasped, the awkward cut of the fabric leads to it being folded up in the front.

I kind of like the chasubles, at least there use of materials. I don't know, I also think some valid points were raised against it. I realize this post is rather esoteric and somewhat superficial. Granted the pope's vestments are not the primary importance of his papacy, but I am interested in hearing the thoughts of others.

Our Lady of Wisdom, pray for us!!!