There are several opinions being expressed about the
acquisition of Ukrainian territory by Russian forces, operating under the
leadership of Russian President, Vladimir Putin. I would like to share,
and subsequently comment upon, a most curious and interesting commentary from
the esteemed American conservative columnist, former Presidential advisor and
political candidate, Patrick Buchanan. In a column published on April 18
on the www.humanevents.com website,
the following passage was included.
"Perhaps some history is in order.
Compare how
Putin brought about the secession and annexation of Crimea, without bloodshed
but with popular approval, with how Sam Houston and friends brought about the
secession of Texas from Mexico, and its annexation by the United States in
1845.
When the
Mexicans tried to retrieve a disputed piece of their lost Texas territory,
James K. Polk accused them of shedding American blood on American soil, had
Congress declare war, sent Gen. Winfield Scott and a U.S. army to Mexico City,
and annexed the entire northern half of Mexico, which is now the American
Southwest and California.
Compared to
the Jacksonian, James Polk, Vladimir Putin is Pierre Trudeau."
Knowing that Patrick Buchanan had served in the Nixon and
Reagan administrations, I can only imagine that former Canadian Prime Minister
Pierre Trudeau would be seen as the epitome of a leader advocating peace and
civil liberties, as demonstrated in a most tangible manner by the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Trudeau’s recognition in 1984 of receiving
the Albert Einstein Peace Prize. Notwithstanding the fact that both Putin
and Trudeau were advanced practitioners of judo and similar martial arts, and
both demonstrated their physical fitness during their times in power, the two
leaders frankly have very little in common.
What I would prefer to address is the implicit slandering of
two formidable American historical figures who were
instrumental in overcoming the tyranny of Mexican oppression led by General
Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna. As Buchanan correctly stated, Polk was such
a close protégé of President Andrew “Old Hickory” Jackson that his nickname was
“Young Hickory”. In addition to the southern border, Polk peacefully
negotiated with the British Empire to divide the then termed “Oregon Country”
at the 49th parallel, avoiding a return to a potentially costly and
destructive war with the British.
Unlike the Crimean region, which was already populated and
civilized within the established sovereign state of Ukraine (the violation of
which contravened the stipulations of the Budapest Memorandum of 1994), the
Texas region of the 1840s was dependent on American settlers to populate and
civilize the vast and expansive agricultural area. Mexico itself was an
unstable and volatile nation, having recently gained its independence from the
rule of the Spanish Empire.
Sam Houston, with previous political experience that
included a stint as the Governor of Tennessee, served the Republic of Texas as
its military Commander in Chief and President. His defeat of Santa Anna’s
army at San Jacinto put an end to the ruthless and inhumane tactics of the
Mexican army, who were merciless against their defeated adversaries. In
contrast, Houston demonstrated his statesmanship and gained tremendous stature
with the respectful treatment of the captured Mexican army and
leadership.
Unlike the militaristic Putin, who stands proudly as his
military demonstrates their might during Red Square parades, President Polk would
be described in today’s terms as a dry technocrat. According to a
description within Lions of the West by Robert Morgan,
“Polk was solemn and serious, sober and industrious, and
apparently without a sense of humor. For all of that, he was a master
politician, sometimes described as the most successful president in American
history. … By the time he left office in 1849, he would have accomplished all
he had promised.”
The immense and advanced Russian military would easily
overwhelm that of Ukraine, a bankrupt and destitute nation currently dependent
on extensive foreign aid. In the Mexican-American war, it was the
American army at a disadvantage. Polk’s generals, Zachary Taylor (who
would eventually become President) and Winfield Scott distinguished themselves
and their armies by overcoming a larger army and capturing territory rapidly,
with an impressive battle record. As quoted in Lions of the West, “Impressed
by his leadership and humanity, a delegation of Mexican leaders would offer the
presidency of the country to Winfield Scott, but he would refuse.”
Another historian, Daniel Walker Howe, quoted in his volume What
Hath God Wrought, “The conquest of that large republic (Mexico) by the
small armed forces of the United States, despite formidable geographical
difficulties and in the face of a hostile population, constituted one of the
most amazing military achievements of the nineteenth century.”
The tyranny of Mexican dictators was replaced by American
democracy. The legacy today is that Texas is a prosperous and innovative
state within the United States of America. Its people are not oppressed
by tyranny, and Texas is one of the most influential states of the nation,
characterized by its libertarian and free enterprise mentality. In
contrast, the Russian dominated Soviet Union overtly intervened not only within
its own territories, but in Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968 to
strongly discourage and oppress those contrary-minded individuals with
political opinions at a variance to the established order.
Interestingly, if history does repeat itself, then there is
a curious fact. Two junior officers who distinguished themselves during
the Mexican-American war were Captain Robert E. Lee and Captain Ulysses S.
Grant. A generation later, these distinguished officers would oppose each
other during the U.S Civil War as they were the respective commanders of the
Confederate Army and the Union Army. It is reasonable to speculate that
today’s Russian officers could one day oppose each other in the largest civil
war the world will ever observe.
To summarize, I respectfully disagree with Buchanan that on
an historical continuum, patriots like Sam Houston and James Polk are
considered to be more extreme imperialists than Vladimir Putin. Polk
continued the work begun by Jefferson, with his Louisiana Purchase, to settle
and civilize a sparsely populated land mass toward the Pacific Ocean. In
contrast, Putin, with his command of espionage, insurgency, commerce, and
technology, is a more formidable and threatening figure to the civil liberties
of citizens in adjacent countries. Through the deployment of intensive
and interactive techniques, Putin has demonstrated his capability to disrupt
and disconnect entire territories from sovereign states, absorbing them into
Russia, without retaliation or consequence from the international community.
As for Pierre Elliott Trudeau, his response to an insult by
President Richard Nixon (Buchanan’s former boss) still applies perfectly to
Buchanan comparing him to Putin, “I’ve been called worse things by better
people”.
