Welcome To The Fringe

I have just a few counter-points for your response, which I thank you for providing.

First, you seem to believe that my understanding of history, at least the importance of isolationism in America before WWI and WWII, is a “revisionist approach”. I regret to inform you that “revisionism” and “revisionist” are relative terms. I could just as easily call your understanding of history revisionist. I prefer to consider our understandings as different schools of thought. To call another understanding or depiction of history revisionist, as if it were a bad thing, just because it does not agree with yours is not exactly fair.

Second, a simple question about American involvement in WWII: Would the United States have entered WWII and sacrificed blood and treasure for the sole purpose of liberating Europe if we had not been attacked at Pearl Harbor? I am sure you can guess my answer to this question, but I ask it to raise the point that we only liberated France and the rest of Europe because our national security and economic interests were at stake. We did not go to war with Hitler and the Nazis or the Japanese out of a compassionate, humanitarian effort to liberate the oppressed peoples of Europe and Asia. That was a secondary consideration, icing on the cake. Also, I know you have no love for Wilson and FDR, sorry if you thought I was implying that.

Third, based on your response, I am now confused as to what you meant when you originally wrote, “Where else in the history of the world would people willingly enter a conflict that would kill 620,000 of its citizens for the sake of freeing other men?” You correctly claimed in your response that you mentioned neither the Union soldiers (who entered the conflict and did the fighting) nor Lincoln (who lead the Union in the conflict) in your op-ed. If you weren’t referencing the Union soldiers or Lincoln when you said “people”, however, then who exactly are you talking about? It is vitally important to discuss the intentions and motives of the Union soldiers and Lincoln if you are going to discuss the Civil War. To that point, Lincoln did not wage the Civil War “for the sake of freeing other men”, that was a secondary consideration. As I have said, Lincoln’s number one goal was preserving the Union. More importantly, only an incredibly small minority of Union soldiers fought and died “for the sake of freeing other men”. Most did it because of the pay, the food, patriotic fervor, belief in the preservation of the Union, or because they were drafted. These are the “people” you speak of and their intentions and motives do matter.

Also, two factual matters I want to clear up. First, Lincoln was not an ardent abolitionist. The South perceived Lincoln as such, but in truth, Lincoln promised to leave slavery alone during the 1860 campaign. Second, the majority of casualties in the Civil War (approximately 410,000) died from disease and other causes; only about 200,000 died on the battlefield (which I fully admit is still an astonishing figure).

Fourth, do you really think Obama’s understanding of American history is that shallow? I am not saying this as a partisan, but he seems a bit more intelligent than you give him credit for.

Finally, as much as you may disagree with me, I find the use of phrases like “throughout our countries brief history we’ve generally been on a ‘fringe’ compared to most countries” and “Americans, throughout our history have fought and acted differently than people in other countries” as nothing more than thinly veiled promotions of American Exceptionalism. This may not have been your original intention, but it is hard to argue that those phrases don’t support the concept of American Exceptionalism.

I want to thank you for writing your original op-ed and response. It is nice to debate somebody as well-informed and intelligent as you.

Yours in history,
Louis Rocco

Well, I guess we’ve basically touched on all the major arguments historians have bickered over for decades on each of these issues (and we could probably go on forever fight over them). As I said though my intent with this article has nothing to do with America being Exceptional (although I do believe it is, and have written so in the past). What this article does have to do with is the fact that throughout our countries brief yet fast rise to prominence many of the things that it has taken part in have been on the fringe of what would be considered the norm in the world. I think it is very clear that Americans, throughout our history have fought and acted differently than people in other countries- for better or for worse (and I would bet people in other countries would agree). I simply find it shocking that when a portion of the population begins to speak out against the government our President is oblivious to the fact that many points in American history have been shaped by the “fringe”.

I take little issue with the political statements and messages encompassed in this op-ed. I find the description of certain events in American history quite unsettling, however, and in need of correction.

First, Ed says of Crispus Attucks, "He’s buried with four other people who spoke their mind by protesting against British soldiers in Boston only to be gunned down in the Boston Massacre." The use of the phrase "gunned down" is misleading. By using that phrase, he is making it seem that the British fired on the protestors indiscriminately and without provocation. It should be known that the protestors were hurling snowballs and other projectiles at the British troops as well as taunting them to fire their weapons. The entire incident was spontaneous and some-what of an accident. The British troops most likely fired out of fear, rather than murderous rage. Of course, men like Paul Revere spun this event as a massacre of freedom-loving Bostonians by bloodthirsty British troops. He did this to gain empathy and build support for the brewing rebellion, which he succeeded in doing.

Second, Ed asks, "Where else in the history of the world would people willingly enter a conflict that would kill 620,000 of its citizens for the sake of freeing other men?" Once again, it should known that the Civil War was not originally fought for the purpose of ending slavery. Lincoln’s primary goal during the entire Civil War was to preserve the Union, which he would do just about anything to accomplish. This included abolishing slavery despite his campaign promises not to meddle with the “peculiar institution”. Lincoln did later change his mind about slavery, but his motives for doing so were not entirely altruistic. Freeing and taking the slaves from the South and putting them to work for the North was a double win for Lincoln, a potent means to the end of reuniting the country.

As for the Union soldiers, many if not most did not care much for freeing slaves. In fact, early in the war, Union soldiers and commanders were ordered to return escaped slaves to their masters. Also, not all Union soldiers “willingly” entered the war, as the Union draft and the violent opposition to it (which was curiously omitted) can attest to.

Third, Ed asked “What other country would liberate France twice?” Once again, I find it odd that one would take President Wilson and Roosevelt’s altruistic, humanitarian rhetoric at face value. It should be known that there was massive resistance on the part of the American people toward getting involved in both WWI and WWII. Most Americans (minus recent immigrants with family still in Europe) cared very little about the well-bring and freedom of Europeans; they wanted nothing to do with the chaos in Europe. Omitting the popularity of isolationism among the American people is suspect, to say the least.

Somebody reading this may be wondering why does all this matter? Why did I take the time to write this rather lengthy response? Do I have a personal vendetta against Ed? In fact, I respect Ed very much and consider him to be one of the most intelligent and level-headed people I know. The version of American history put forward by Ed, however, goes a long way in contributing to the phenomenon known as "American Exceptionalism". It seems as though in this country, questioning the inherent greatness of the United States (which is based in the mostly-fabricated history of America liberating the oppressed and defending freedom) is worse than questioning the existence of God. “American Exceptionalism” is a dogma, and those that question it risk being labeled traitors, freedom-haters and (worst of all) elitists. Americans are brought up on the myth that we are the guardians of freedom and that we have a divine mission to spread freedom across the globe. If this is in fact true, we are very selective with our “God-given” responsibility. Why else would the Communist Party still rule in China, or Kim Jong-Il still rule North Korea if the United States was truly dedicated to spreading freedom across the globe? To believe that the United States is better than any other country in the history of mankind based on a patriotically skewed version of history is arrogant and just plain wrong. There are some great things about this country, but that doesn’t give it a pass on criticism or question, nothing is above criticism or question.