Apr

27

Since Americans have been messing with the rest of the world ever since 1775 (our first act of rebellion was to invade Quebec), could we begin looking for historical parallels from our own history before we get to the Turning Points view? The first reference to The Art of War in U.S. military literature does not appear until the 1939 article in U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings (“The Constancy of Fundamental Military Considerations”). I realize that it is now one of the fundamental texts that is part of the military coursework, but those of us who were raised in the textbook business have learned to appreciate how little of what people actually do and think about money and power can be traced back to what they read in school. The List may want to consider looking back to the specifics of our country's history in the 1850s for a useful parallel to current events.

Viewed through that lens, President Trump seems to be following very closely Millard Fillmore's Whig plan to divorce the United States from the opinions of the rest of the "civilized" world and have our tariffs answer all questions about the price of the dollar in foreign exchange. By 1851 the United States of America was the world's largest exporter of what were considered to be the world's two most important commodities: gold and cotton fiber. In 1852 you had Admiral Perry setting out for Japan, the French being told to surrender all claims to Hawaii (they had occupied Honolulu in 1849), Taylor's Clayton-Bulwer Treaty being vigorously enforced, and a pro forma apology for the failure of the second Narciso López Filibuster expedition to Cuba was combined with a pointed declaration to both Britain and France by Secretary of State Edward Everett that Cuba was "almost essential" to U.S. safety. Central Europe did engage Americans public attention; Kossuth was invited to come and address Congress. But it was not at all comparable to the Zelensky show under the Biden Administration; the Europeans, and the Austrians in particular, were told that the U.S. had no interest at all - financial or otherwise - in Central European affairs.

There is only one reason this parallel does not fit rather neatly. A decade later the U.S. would be in a Civil War. Fillmore, Pierce and Buchanan all have to be blamed for it by all the people who get paid to look backwards. No doubt the same future textbooks that will look to Sun Tzu for wisdom will be grading Donald J. Trump with the same terrible marks that the first New Yorker President has gotten. But it does help to remember that during Sun Tzu’s traditional lifetime (c. 544–496 BC, late Spring and Autumn period), "the war" he writes about was entirely about the civil war among the vassal states of Zhou. There were no "foreign" wars during this period according to the records of the Zuo Zhuan.

(Correction: Martin Van Buren was the first New Yorker to become President. Millard Fillmore was the second.)


Comments

Name

Email

Website

Speak your mind

Archives

Resources & Links

Search