3 ms·

Great post! It's always instructive to me how the primary purpose and usage of the US military from inception was truly centered around global commerce rather t

Great post! It's always instructive to me how the primary purpose and usage of the US military from inception was truly centered around global commerce rather than defending the national territory. Unburdened by a legacy of monarchy but well-acquainted with mercantilism, the merchant paternalists of the early US instead decided to focus on unfettered (for them) trade even if that meant fetters for others both iron and more structural. I refer of course to the numerous examples stretching back to the Barbary Pirates, United Fruit etc. Military force was also used internally in the US to protect monied interests against more democratic forces, like the Ludlow Massacre.

emodendroket 9y ago
This was in some sense preordained, given that it was Shay's Rebellion that motivated the creation of a strong federal government and the Whiskey Rebellion was one of the earliest usages of the standing army. But the other obvious purpose was expanding the territory of the United States. Hogeland's Autumn of the Black Snake details how defeating Indians in Ohio was the impetus to create a standing army, an idea that was quite controversial.
- ataturk 9y ago
  Everyone is pissed off about the Whiskey Rebellion as if those farmers didn't understand the basic aspects of what was agreed upon and what it means to pay taxes. It was a moment where Washington had to put his foot down in order to demonstrate that the new government meant something and was capable of collecting taxes. But everyone is so butt hurt about it as though it was unethical when in fact the only people being unethical were the distillers playing fast and loose with law, just like always. As far as defeating Indians goes, my own family history includes a story about an Indian raid that went pretty badly for the settlers in NY. I don't think a lot of people had much sympathy for the savages back then. Having your wife/daughter scalped or kidnapped makes a man rethink his civilized nature.
ameister14 9y ago
The Barabary Pirates wasn't really a paternalist imperial action - the Pirates had a better navy than we did and were enslaving our sailors when they caught our ships, so it's funny that you talk about fetters for others.
- wavefunction 9y ago
  I think you're missing my point that we didn't fight the Barbary Pirates because we particularly cared about them enslaving people (even our own) but because they were disrupting our commerce through the Mediterranean. And the Barbary Pirates and American slave trade could and did coexist. You seem to be quite emotional on that point.
  - ameister14 9y ago
    I'm not emotional about the Barbary Pirates. I simply think that pointing out that a country cared more about its merchant interests than another country's citizenry isn't exactly deeply insightful. Also, I don't agree that a country that had freed itself from monarchy less than a generation earlier can be described as 'unburdened by the legacy of monarchy' particularly given the origin of common law in the US. To be a merchant paternalist, you generally need to be powerful. I thought it was important to point out that the United States was not powerful at that time, and barely managed to protect its merchant's interests some of the time. Your comment about merchant paternalists not caring about leaving others in fetters, both iron and structural, doesn't really apply to that particular conflict.

emodendroket 9y ago

This was in some sense preordained, given that it was Shay's Rebellion that motivated the creation of a strong federal government and the Whiskey Rebellion was one of the earliest usages of the standing army. But the other obvious purpose was expanding the territory of the United States. Hogeland's Autumn of the Black Snake details how defeating Indians in Ohio was the impetus to create a standing army, an idea that was quite controversial.

ataturk 9y ago
Everyone is pissed off about the Whiskey Rebellion as if those farmers didn't understand the basic aspects of what was agreed upon and what it means to pay taxes. It was a moment where Washington had to put his foot down in order to demonstrate that the new government meant something and was capable of collecting taxes. But everyone is so butt hurt about it as though it was unethical when in fact the only people being unethical were the distillers playing fast and loose with law, just like always. As far as defeating Indians goes, my own family history includes a story about an Indian raid that went pretty badly for the settlers in NY. I don't think a lot of people had much sympathy for the savages back then. Having your wife/daughter scalped or kidnapped makes a man rethink his civilized nature.

ameister14 9y ago

The Barabary Pirates wasn't really a paternalist imperial action - the Pirates had a better navy than we did and were enslaving our sailors when they caught our ships, so it's funny that you talk about fetters for others.

wavefunction 9y ago
I think you're missing my point that we didn't fight the Barbary Pirates because we particularly cared about them enslaving people (even our own) but because they were disrupting our commerce through the Mediterranean. And the Barbary Pirates and American slave trade could and did coexist. You seem to be quite emotional on that point.
- ameister14 9y ago
  I'm not emotional about the Barbary Pirates. I simply think that pointing out that a country cared more about its merchant interests than another country's citizenry isn't exactly deeply insightful. Also, I don't agree that a country that had freed itself from monarchy less than a generation earlier can be described as 'unburdened by the legacy of monarchy' particularly given the origin of common law in the US. To be a merchant paternalist, you generally need to be powerful. I thought it was important to point out that the United States was not powerful at that time, and barely managed to protect its merchant's interests some of the time. Your comment about merchant paternalists not caring about leaving others in fetters, both iron and structural, doesn't really apply to that particular conflict.