A review of “The U.S.-Mexican War 1846-1848” (PBS series)

"The occupation, separation, and annexation [of Texas] were, from the inception of the movement to its final consummation, a conspiracy to acquire territory out of which slave states might be formed for the American Union."

"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."

- Ulysses S. Grant, in "Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant," Chapter III

I live in a region of the United States that was once controlled by Mexico (in the state of Arizona), so I live daily with the effects of a war from the 1840's. Few people could put this war in the right half-century, let alone the correct decade; and fewer still could name any major battles or players in this war. Nonetheless, the effects of the war are all around us, and it has entered discussions about contemporary politics on more than one occasion. On topics ranging from illegal immigration to anti-Hispanic racism to foreign policy towards Mexico, we in the American Southwest are often reminded of this war. In less controversial ways, we are reminded of it in the many place names of Spanish origin that surround our homes. From names of streets to names of cities to names of entire states, the influence of Spanish place names are all around us, which were often borrowed in their turn from the native peoples of the region. Mexican culture is all around us, from Spanish taught in schools to the remarkable Mexican food that many of us eat; and the region would belong to Mexico still, if not for a long-ago war from the 1840's.

Mexico lost half its territory to the United States in this war ...

The war was, of course, fought between the United States and Mexico, and was the only major war between our two nations. There have been border skirmishes since then (notably one in the 1910's), but nothing on the massive scale of this one from the 1840's. Mexico lost half its territory to the United States in this war, and several American states were formed out of the land transferred in the peace treaty. The war was undoubtedly an act of imperialist aggression motivated (to some degree, at least) by racism. But there's more to the story than that. Imperialism and racism are favorite topics of liberal PBS; but surprisingly, the network manages to tell the story in a documentary for television with a minimum of political correctness, and manages to stick to the facts about this topic most of the time. My judgments might not completely agree with theirs, but I have to hand it to them that their documentary about this war is extremely interesting, and it is of tremendous value to the student of American history, particularly those who (like me) live in the Southwest. Thus, I thought I would offer my review of this documentary here.

Adam Smith and slavery

Liberals love to give scathing denunciations of plantation slavery (denunciations I agree with), as well as declare their support of socialism and communism (which I don't agree with). But therein lies an interesting contradiction: Socialism and communism are both organized assaults on economic freedom, which is a feature that they share with plantation slavery.

Some fun facts about our solar system

Most of us know that the years on other planets seldom (if ever) correspond to the years on our own. Here are some fun facts about the years of our solar system's outer planets:

Montesquieu quoted in Federalist Papers: Separation of powers

This post is the last half of a two-part blog post. To see the first half, click here.

Montesquieu quoted in Federalist Papers: “Confederate republics”

Introduction

During the debates over whether or not to ratify the United States Constitution, both sides in the debate quoted from a French philosopher named Montesquieu. They did so in an attempt to show that their views conformed more with Montesquieu's than their opponents' views did. (This might aptly be compared to different religious groups claiming to have better conformity with scripture than rival religious groups have.)

There were Founding Fathers on both sides of the ratification debates - which could have gone either way, as they were close and hard-fought. But among the ones on the pro-Constitution side were Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, two of the most prestigious. These two men co-wrote a series of articles that we today call "The Federalist Papers," in which they use Montesquieu's name no less than 12 times. This post, strictly speaking, is not about either Montesquieu or the Founding Fathers per se; but about Montesquieu's influence on the Founding Fathers, as evidenced by what these two particular Founders (Hamilton and Madison) said about him in the Federalist Papers.

Title page of the Federalist Papers (first printing)

I have divided this blog post into two parts, because I discovered when writing it that there was enough material for two separate blog posts. This part is the first half, dealing with the topic of "confederate republics" (a major source of interest at the time of the ratification debates), and how Montesquieu influenced our Founding Fathers on this topic. The second half deals with the topic of separation of powers, where Montesquieu did his most famous work; and how he influenced our Founding Fathers with regards to this topic.

A review of Muffie Meyer’s “Benjamin Franklin” (PBS)

"Neither of the two Parties [France or America] shall conclude either Truce or Peace with Great Britain, without the formal consent of the other first obtain'd; and they mutually engage not to lay down their arms, until the Independence of the united states shall have been formally or tacitly assured by the Treaty or Treaties that shall terminate the War."

- "Treaty of Alliance between the United States and France," Article 8 (6 February 1778)

He is one of the most respected Founding Fathers in America, but spent most of his life patriotic to Great Britain. He spent his later years warring against Great Britain, but had a son that was loyal to the Empire. He wrote an autobiography that is a classic of American literature, but did not discuss his Founding Father accomplishments in it at all.

The man is Benjamin Franklin, and he is still today one of the most respected men in our history. His autobiography was one of the first American books to be taken seriously by Europeans as literature; yet he does not discuss in it his role in the Declaration of Independence, the treaty of alliance with France, the peace treaty with Britain, or the United States Constitution. Why is this? Quite simply, it's because these were in the later portion of his life; and his autobiography deals mainly with the early portion. He didn't finish his autobiography, because old age caught up with him before he could; but his later years are well-covered in his own diary, and allow modern storytellers to finish the biography for him. One of those modern storytellers is a team at PBS, which made a documentary about his life - the film that I will review now.

A review of PBS’s “Alexander Hamilton” movie

"There is an elegant memorial in Washington to Jefferson, but none to Hamilton. However, if you seek Hamilton's monument, look around. You are living in it. We honor Jefferson, but live in Hamilton's country, a mighty industrial nation with a strong central government."

- George Will, in "Restoration: Congress, Term Limits and the Recovery of Deliberative Democracy" (1992), Chapter 2, page 167

He was one of America's Founding Fathers, but was born on the Caribbean island of Nevis - far away from the country he would help found. He was one of the most self-made men in America, but owed much of his career success to the generous help of someone else. And he died young while fighting a duel in his late forties, but had a great life of massive accomplishment despite this.

The man was Alexander Hamilton, and he was a tremendously obstinate man who made as many enemies as friends. Nonetheless, he led one of the most remarkable lives in American history. He was a brilliant man, and he knew it; possessing enough ego to sink a battleship; but he was a deeply good man as well, and always wanted what was best for his country. PBS's documentary about him is among the best that they've aired, and so I thought I'd offer a review of it here, for those interested in this amazing man.