Tag: history

What History Says About Biden’s Power to Strike Back Against the Houthis

Posted on by Lone Candle

“During the Constitutional Convention in 1787, the framers debated how to allocate military and war powers among the branches of government. Some, like Pierce Butler of South Carolina, thought that power should lie with the president, while most others, including Elbridge Gerry, “never expected to hear in a Republic a motion to empower the Executive alone to declare war.” (Emphasis added.) Reflecting this consensus, James Madison successfully moved to change a draft sentence that empowered Congress to “make” war to language empowering it to “declare” war — the implication being that “the Executive should be able to repel and not commence, war,” in the words of Connecticut delegate Roger Sherman.”

…

“Convinced that paying off the pirates was both costly and without an end in sight, Jefferson resolved to take military action. For weeks, his cabinet debated whether the president had sole authority as commander-in-chief to send naval forces to the Mediterranean in a defensive posture. Only one, Attorney General Levi Lincoln, argued that he needed congressional approval even for this limited measure. But the cabinet’s general consensus held that Jefferson enjoyed some prerogative.

Jefferson agreed. Without congressional approval, he sent an American fleet to the Mediterranean, with detailed instructions of what to do — and what not to do. Commodore Richard Dale, the officer in charge, was ordered to “sink, burn, capture, or destroy vessels attacking those of the United States.” But his men were not to initiate combat or step foot on Barbary land. Only after the Republican Congress authorized “warlike operations against the regency of Tripoli, or any other of the Barbary powers,” did Dale’s forces proactively attack the pirate states on their own land. Ultimately, American military success, particularly at the Battle of Derna in 1805, convinced the Barbary authorities that it was time to call a truce. The Treaty of Peace and Friendship, signed the same year, effectively drew a close on Jefferson’s Barbary wars.”

…

“Contrary to the assertions of progressives like Jayapal and conservatives like Greene, presidents since the founding have affirmed their authority and responsibility to deploy military forces defensively without congressional approval.
To date, Biden has unilaterally ordered targeted strikes against Houthi military targets to diminish the terrorists’ ability to persist in their piracy. He hasn’t ordered a ground invasion of Yemen, a wider offensive against civil and governmental assets or an initiative to depose the Houthi government. He has followed closely in Jefferson’s footsteps, even if 250 years of evolution in technology and warfare make a direct comparison complicated.”

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/01/24/biden-power-houthis-history-00137185

Part of a Discussion on Robert E. Lee

Posted on by Lone Candle

Lee’s decision to fight for Virginia, and effectively the Confederacy, WAS a moral decision. Whether the south should have the right to secede by itself has moral elements, but so does why the south would risk war to secede. The south seceded primarily to protect the institution of slavery. We know this because they told us at the time that was why they were seceding. That’s extremely anti-freedom and anti-human dignity to think slavery was okay in the first place, so those are negative moral marks right there. U.S. slavery was justified on the belief that blacks were inferior, so based on racism. The south seceded because they lost a presidential election and were afraid the new president would take away their slaves. That’s not how democracy works; you don’t just get to leave when you lose an election, so that is anti-democratic. Finally, by seceding they were in open rebellion against the United States of America, meaning, they were traitors. This isn’t just an ahistorical lookback, they knew they were rebelling. They accepted certain authority of the U.S. and then rejected it, rejected it with the threat of force to defend their new authority. They took over federal facilities. Lee agrees with me on this point. A few months before the Civil War he said, “Secession is nothing but revolution” and implied that it would be “treason”. The way he used revolution seems like how we would normally say rebellion. Lee also seems to be implying that secession itself is resorting to force: “I hope therefore that all Constitutional means will be exhausted, before there is a resort to force.”

A larger quote: “The South in my opinion has been aggrieved by the acts of the North as you say. I feel the aggression, & am willing to take every proper step for redress. It is the principle I contend for, not individual or private benefit. As an American citizen I take great pride in my country, her prosperity & institutions & would defend any State if her rights were invaded. But I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than a dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, & I am willing to sacrifice every thing but honour for its preservation. I hope therefore that all Constitutional means will be exhausted, before there is a resort to force. Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labour, wisdom & forbearance in its formation & surrounded it with so many guards & securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the confederacy at will. It was intended for pepetual [sic] union, so expressed in the preamble,4 & for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established & not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison & the other patriots of the Revolution. In 1808 when the New England States resisted Mr Jeffersons Imbargo law & the Hartford Convention assembled secession was termed treason by Virga statesmen. What can it be now?” ~ Lee
https://leefamilyarchive.org/reference/essays/rachal/index.html

The south didn’t simply secede on the principle of states rights. They weren’t thinking that we must stand up for states rights for the principle of states rights in and of itself. They weren’t inspired by the value of states rights. They wanted to maintain the institution of slavery. That is why the south risked war. That is why they seceded. Lee knew that. Lee knew that the south didn’t like the outcome of a presidential election, didn’t want Lincoln to take their slaves away, justified slavery based on racism, and were rebelling against the United States by non-Constitutional means. Despite knowing this, he chose loyalty to his beloved Virginia above all else. That is not simply a civics question, but a deeply moral choice.

I don’t condemn Lee for his choice. I think we can clearly say that it was the morally wrong choice, but also understand him in his time and his culture and have sympathy with why he made that decision. And understand that he was in many ways a good man despite certain mistakes and blind spots.