Reflections on Independence Day, 2016

This post addresses the Fabulous Fourth, not the movie sequel, which it seems based on reviews is unworthy of reflection.

For two hundred and forty years, our Great Republic has existed and more or less thrived.  Particularly in the last one hundred years, it has been a dominant if not the dominant nation of this Earth.  The United States has been compared to ancient Rome for quite some time.  That comparison has become commonplace.  Those who make the comparison generally mean to condemn Rome if not us, or at least warn us to take care that the fate of our nation not be that of Rome.  Let's indulge in the comparison for a brief time.

The First Punic War commenced in 264 B.C.E.  Augustus established the principate in 27 B.C.E.  During that period of time, Rome grew from a city which held sway over a good chunk of the Italian peninsula to the master of the Mediterranean world and most of Europe, successively defeating and destroying Carthage and the successors states formed from the dissolution of Alexander's empire.  The United States has in a similar period done much the same, relatively speaking.  This seems appropriate as Rome, or at least the Roman Republic, served as a model of sorts to the Founding Fathers as they created the U.S.

It's doubtful, though, that the Founders thought they were founding an empire like that of Rome.  We have for the most part denied imperial ambitions at least though the presidency of Woodrow Wilson, though Wilson submitted meekly enough to the imperial ambitions of England and France, thus participating in the drafting of the Treaty of Versailles, reluctantly signed by many in 1919.  Even before then, though, America had acquired by conquest the American West and a good part of the American East, Puerto Rico and the Philippines and other territories from Mexico, Spain and the indigenous people of North America.  The U.S. managed to buy a great deal of land as well, through the good offices of Napoleon.  So, if imperialism consists of the conquest of territory and its rule by the conquerors, it would seem that America has been de facto an imperial power.

So simplistically far, so simplistically good.  So we carry on.

It's generally thought by many that the fall of Rome began when the Empire replaced the Republic.  If that's so, however, then it was a long, slow fall.  What's usually considered the end of the Empire in the West took place about five hundred years later, and the Empire in the East vanished about a thousand years after that (though it slowly became a very small empire).  Moralists of all kinds seem to be unaware of or ignore the longevity of the decadent Roman Empire.  If it fell due to the sexual and moral corruption they're fond of citing (usually by reference to Nero), we shall be lucky if we last as long no matter how we conduct ourselves or what God we choose to worship (and then ignore when it's convenient to do so, that being our usual practice).

It happens, though, that at its end the Roman Republic was dominated by several gifted and ambitious men, e.g. Caesar, Pompey, Crassus, Marcus Antonius, Cicero, Cato, Octavian the Augustus to be.  Most of them weren't particularly moral in our sense, though Cato certainly was ostentatiously virtuous and Cicero at least contemplated what was and was not moral.  Cicero, though, faulted Cato for his stubborn, uncompromising virtue, famously remarking that Cato thought he lived in Plato's Republic, not Romulus' shithole.

While America is full of ambitious men and women at this time, none seem particularly gifted, or moral for that matter.  Given the civil wars which resulted from the conflicting desires of the great of the Roman Republic, perhaps we should be thankful for this lack of ability.

Unfortunately, though, it's ability that might make the difference in the type of empire America will become if it follows the path of Rome.  Augustus, who created the Roman Empire, was a remarkably able politician.  Our politicians are craven and venal and have been for some time, and it may be that the political success of a capering, stridently ignorant man indicates that in the future they'll be craven, venal and boisterously stupid as well.

It's amusing to indulge in comparisons of this kind.  Overall and in the context of history I think the United States has done well in becoming what it is, but just what the future holds can't be predicted through the study of ancient Rome or any other Empire or nation.

There is one sense in which America now resembles old Rome, however, which may give us a hint as to our political future.  Money was of great importance at the end of the Roman Republic; votes were bought, directly or indirectly.  Roman politicians came from a restricted class, but required the support of the people at election time and treated them very generously in return for their support.  Money dominates our politics now, as well.

The difference is that money isn't used as it was in ancient Rome, to pacify and reward common people for their support.  It's used instead by the rich and powerful to pacify and reward politicians who require it to be elected.  Perhaps this accounts for the quality of our politicians.  It's demeaning to be, for all practical purposes, a lackey, a mere chattel in effect, of special interests, corporations, the very rich.  It's demeaning to be a panderer, and an American politician must pander.  What self-respecting, intelligent, able person could stand such a life?

Now, the votes of electors aren't bought; legislators and their votes are bought instead.  It's hard to say which practice will promote a greater degree of corruption in a nation.

War Guilt

The Treaty of Versailles, the one that resulted at the end of the First World War, contained the following, commonly known as the "war guilt clause" (Article 231):

"The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies."

This clause and its consequences have been the subject of considerable dispute over the years.  It was of course much resented by Germans at the time.  Was it inserted merely to provide a more or less legal foundation for the reparations Germany was required by the treaty to pay?  Was it an expression of the desire which may have been honest or dishonest to characterize Germany as an evil aggressor?  Was it a just assessment of "war guilt" or unjust and hypocritical?

It's been called an incitement to future war, and a cause of the rise of Hitler.  I'm not sure if that's entirely the case, however.  I think it's likely war would have come regardless of any sense of injustice experienced due to the clause itself.  The treaty as a whole made war probable, I think.  It was well called an armistice for twenty years by some Frenchman, whether Marshal Foch or an adviser to Clemenceau or someone else (this seems a matter of some dispute as well).  It created quite a mess by arbitrarily establishing borders, creating new and sometimes remarkable states, and trying to satisfy the imperial and otherwise territorial claims of the victors.  We're victimized by its nation-building still.  Wilson, for all his pontificating, caved in dreadfully to demands made by Britain and France, leaving Germany and others feeling betrayed.

I'm one of those who think the U.S. should not have become involved in that war, and so have no fondness for Wilson or for the leaders of France and Great Britain at the time.  However, I also feel that Germany was primarily responsible for the war if by "responsible" we mean causing it to take place.  I also feel that although Allied propaganda was extreme and irresponsible in its characterization of the Germans as barbarians, and the Allies themselves were guilty of atrocities in that war, the Germans' conduct in Belgium, their destruction of people and historic properties in that small nation, their initiation of the use of poison gas on the battlefield, all were indicative of a ruthlessness and disregard of the accepted rules of war of that time which could be called barbaric.  Perhaps surprisingly, German apologists of the time, when they did not deny atrocities took place, justified them on the grounds that the end (protecting the lives of German soldiers, for example) justified the means.

Of course, we then had much to learn of cruelty and barbarism in wartime, and proved to be eager students.  Lately, we in the U.S. have taken to justifying torture and other things on the grounds that the end (protecting American lives) justifies the means.  It doesn't put us in the best of company.

The concept of "war guilt" had its place at the end of the Second World War as well.  We saw it in the Nuremberg trials and other war trials and the occupation of Japan and Germany.

Does it remain a useful or at least existent concept at this time?  Was it ever useful or proper?  Is it inappropriate or unhelpful to assign blame for war?

It may be useful and possible as to wars of aggression, and could be if there is a rule of law applicable to wars.  The Allies, and particularly the French after WWI, in that case would have had a legal claim for damages.  On the Western front, the great majority of the fighting took place on French soil.  The war guilt clause would thus be a kind of legal finding or conclusion if there was a governing tribunal.  The treaty might in that case be considered a settlement, but if it was a settlement Germany may have been able to agree to reparations without admitting liability and expressly denying it, which is typical in settlement agreements entered into to resolve a dispute.

Whether there is any rule of law is questionable, though; even if there is one applicable to war, it seems it will be disregarded when necessary.  But there is especially no rule of law where there is a conflict, but no war, which is the situation we find ourselves in now and have been in for some decades  There seem to be no rules where there is no war; not even rules that can be disregarded.

Accepting that some people or some nation can be responsible for a war in certain cases (to have caused a war), reparations would seem appropriate in that case.  But it's possible to cause a war without commencing military hostilities.  It's possible to be forced into war.  In that case, though, there is still someone causing a war, which could be subject to penalty.  This is something the law can handle, provided all agree to laws and a method of resolving dispute as to causes.

We've been hesitant to accept any laws, or courts, which are not our laws and our courts, however.   We're unwilling to leave the determination of responsibility to others.  We are willing to leave the determination to the victor, as we think we are likely to be the victor.  This is all well and good when we are the strong nation.  But all things pass. 

It is one of the benefits of law that it would have application regardless of whether one is or is not strong or likely to win.  It is in fact this which would make war less of a desirable option than it currently is--those nations which are victorious on the field may otherwise lose.  If we're serious about peace, we may have to accept the concept of war guilt and be willing to have that guilt assessed by an impartial decision maker.  This is much as we do among ourselves.  What is it that prevents us from doing so in our external as well as internal relationships?

Distrust, it would seem.  There are of course those who think that a single world government is being planned and sought by various people and powers.  But in essence it seems we simply don't trust the other residents of this world to properly judge citizens of the United States, nor do we trust them to participate in the creation of laws which we would find acceptable.