A Revolution of My Own: Why I No Longer Hate the United States of America

The Great Seal of the United States of America

Background

Before you read on, I would like to give you a warning: yes, this is exactly what it looks like. My old confederates will be disappointed to know I am no longer a Tory. I know for many of you this means I've been, quote, "seduced by the dark side." You're like me; you've learned to find facts yourself and not rely on anyone else or their judgment. So, I would like to direct you here, where the I began this intellectual odyssey. Read about those mentioned; do some real sweat-work and don't give up at the first sign you're right. Exhaust all possibilities, and see what you find out. Now that I've got that disclaimer out of the way, let me tell you how exactly this all came about. 

Now, before you all say the beads for me, yes, I am still a Monarchist. I still hold all my former political beliefs. I haven't changed much in that regard, and I still think America can do better. In short, what has happened is that I have gained a renewed respect and understanding for its past. It wasn't easy, and believe it or not mainstream sources were actually the least helpful! In fact if it hadn't been for me working in a library I probably wouldn't have found the majority of sources which piqued my interest. Rest assured, the only thing that's changed - and I daresay this is a positive change - I can love my country again for the first time in almost five years. I cannot tell you how good that feels.

"These are regulars, by God!"
British General upon seeing the American Army at the Battle of Chippawa during the War of 1812
July 4, 1814

A friend of mine who could make a stable career out of pointing out my fallacies once pointed out to me the absurdity of my statement, "I know everything I need to know about that." The fact is that there is always more to know, just like there is always a bigger fish. That was the beginning, I think, of me going back and digging through things I thought I knew. I am a better man - and a better Traditionalist - for it.

As most all of you know, I've been beating the war-drum pretty hard on the subject of a necessity for armed conflict against ISIS. I've said multiple times I would enlist in the US military the minute the US declared war on the Caliphate and made protecting Christians and returning them to their homes the number one priority. I've also said any Catholic of fighting ability should also do so; if we flood the ranks with an able and willing supply of men, that might make the US more willing to continue the war and it would be the greatest act of Catholic Faith and Unity thus far in the 21st century. It would set a precedent and send a clear message to Islam: we are back, and if we go back down we're taking you with us.

The Battle of Derne, in which the US Marine Corps landed on the Barbary
Coast during the Barbary Wars and proceeded to do what no Catholic power
since the Holy Roman Empire had done: rip the Ottomans' Corsairs a new one.

But, of course, it's common among Traditionalists to dislike America. I mean, why not? They're the product of a rebellion against their lawful sovereign, and no Monarchist worth his salt could stand for something like that! Anti-Catholicism was rampant among the 13 colonies, the United States going on into the 19th century, it cost a presidential candidate during the 20th, and by all accounts it continues today in the form of our present administration. The Orthodox are really out of the loop; this isn't their country at all. I mean, Alaska was part of the Russian Empire, but it wasn't even a state until the 20th century! As far as most are concerned it's the number one exporter of liberalism, Anti-Monarchism, irreligion, Merchant-Oligarchy, and by all accounts it's the polar opposite of everything Traditionalists stand for. Most of US policy supports this view, as well!

Principality of Liechtenstein

Here I was thinking all these things and yet, I was willing to enlist in its army to fight ISIS. How hypocritical (and downright stupid) is that? To insult a country and it's patrimony while demanding it by virtue of justice alone assist you! I mean, there's magnanimity, and then there's just opening a can of worms. I mean, it didn't have to be the US Military. There were tons of nations I would fight for, but the last one fell apart as a result of the First World War. The rest are either no longer officially Catholic or less significant than some African Countries.

It was this intrinsic ideological problem that drove me to really think more about what my relationship to my nation was. I knew in my gut that I wanted a military career. It was something I'd known I was always meant to do. Every thing I loved, was good at, and was capable of doing lent itself to that. I enjoyed numerous pastimes and hobbies that had either some basis in strategy or force of arms. But there was just one problem: no nation I would serve still existed. Catholicism is, in a word, disarmed.

My answer to this dilemma was simple: just don't enlist until war is declared. But then I realized something: what if I enlist, go to boot camp, arrive, and it's all over by then? What if I've missed my chance to contribute? An infantile way to look at it, maybe, but why do men sign up to soldier if they don't want to fight? So, I had to re-evaluate. I sat down and talked to some of my family members who knew me very well - my godfather, namely, - and asked them if I was right on my hunch. They said it wasn't impossible. So I talked about possibly enlisting before hand. After all, you prepare for war during peace. If you've waited until the enemy is upon you to prepare, you've waited too long.

Owen Roe, an ancestor of mine who fought
with the Spanish Tercios.

My godfather who was most notably a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom and had served in the
Navy for many years prior (went over to the Army after he retired; basically enlisted because he had no other way to provide for his family). He knew me very well and said that, given my intelligence and level of acumen for strategy, I should consider not going into the infantry first and enter as an officer. Now, to me that was poppycock! What sort of man goes for the top position first when he hasn't even proved he can hold up under fire, much less lead men? Despite everything I was told, I wanted to be at the front and in the thick. Call me crazy, call me ignorant, call me whatever you like, but it's in my family's blood to fight and by God I wanted to continue that tradition! Of course a career as an officer was a goal of mine, but I didn't want to lead from the back! It would haunt me internally to send my men into something I wouldn't go into myself, to ask them to kill men I couldn't kill. As a favorite military historian of mine once said, real leaders don't point their swords and say, "Charge," they take up their swords and say, "Follow me!" Those were the kind of generals I idolized and I wanted to be one.

So my godfather helped me find a middle road that would allow me to do just that, and gave me a bit of a run-down on how things work (even though I've lived around the military all my life I confess a willful ignorance at times for how it works, being forever stuck in the past). I got a basic plan out, started a PT regimen to drop pounds, and planned to go to college and start ROTC to become an officer as soon as I could.

But, as I sat down to tell everyone, I realized... I still had reservations. As I began to really read into the Army (and the Marines; forgot to mention that the Marines were actually my first choice, but now I lean to the Army) I found myself looking at fabulous art I didn't even know existed from the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Revolutionary War, and reading heroic tales to inspire when I realized... this wasn't me. I was a Tory, and proud of it! Hell, I did nothing this last 4th of July than watch British war movies and blast British Army music through my house! For a straight week my social media profiles were nothing but King George III! This just wasn't me.

Coat of Arms of King George III

So I found myself in a pickle. Even if I kept my mouth shut and never said anything, someone would find out and my career would be shot through. The oath to join the US Military (any branch) requires you swear you have "no mental reservations (abbreviated; varies)" about serving the US government. I couldn't swear an oath to something I didn't believe in. That's the behavior of a traitor, and I'm not and never have aspired to be a traitor to anyone.

Casimir Pulaski

So, I decided to retread some old ground. I decided to look into Catholic support for the American Revolution. The discerning Catholic historian will know that many Catholics with strong ties to Europe and Christendom were in support of the Patriots and fought right along side them and until recently were as much military icons of Americans as Washington himself. Speaking of Washington, I have some important things to say about him. But we'll get to him in a minute.

So that is where we find ourselves now. We are in the aftermath of those results. If you were paying attention, the first link that caught my eye is up above. I won't bore you with a chronological story of how I came to my conclusion. Instead, we'll tackle the top reasons why I up until recently disdained America. There are lots of minor things not worth taking up space in this lengthy dissertation; I'm more focusing on major political issues and important events that really shaped American history. If you want me to go looking for every bad thing the US ever did, I would be here a while, and I would be here even longer if I did that for Rome, Spain, or the Holy Roman Empire, but that's just because they've been around for three times the amount of time the United States has even existed - but that still doesn't diminish that I like them, and it doesn't change that anyone else does.

We'll work through these one at a time and then wrap up with a conclusion. So without further ado, let's go to the list of what we have to cover.

1. The Prevalent Anti-Catholicism in America's History.
2. The Unlawful Nature of the War of Independence.
3. The American Government Itself.
4. The Aggressive and Unjust Wars it Has Raged.
5. The Genocide of the Native Americans.  

Those are the top six gripes I had. Now, let's one at a time go through them, starting with number one.

1.) The Prevalent Anti-Catholicism in America's History.

It's very easy to point out how the Founding Fathers were hypocritical and claim they were complicit in it. As the full rhetoric of the Revolution came to be realized, they came to understand they were indeed a bit deficient in living up to their own ideals. One issue in particular is slavery, and legislation was in the works to at least cease the slave trade, and abolitionist parties were practically grid-locking Congress with demands that new territories forbid slavery. Another easy one is Anti-Catholicism. How can a country make the Freedom of Religion one if its principles while still preying upon the Anti-Catholicism of the Thirteen Colonies to stir people up against Britain, which under the Hanoverians was ending Recusancy after the Pope had declared the Hanoverians legitimate Kings of Great Britain?

Some Anti-Catholic Propaganda Made by None Other than Paul Revere

Well, it wasn't quite that simple. While elements of the Revolution were certainly Anti-Catholic, it's believed by some that elements of the Revolution were made up even of Muslims, and supporters of this idea show how in the muster rolls for Valley Forge there appear names on the Continental side that appear distinctly Arabic in origin. Does that mean America is Islamic? Not anymore than it means America is Anti-Catholic because some of its members were. That's something I've put together about Republics: they don't seem to really be represented by one entity but rather by the people that make it up. That's the difference between monarchies and republics, and what I think can make monarchies or strong federal republics superior to simple democratic republics. I mean, the best years of the US are when we've had strong Presidents who lead almost as or are looked up to like kings, working Congress not unlike a monarch would his nobles. Case in point: George Washington.

I wish. Okay, I know it's Assassin's Creed, but at least that DLC gave us probably the
coolest piece of George Washington fan-art ever.

That works.

George Washington was ardently opposed to the Anti-Catholicism rampant in the Revolutionary Army and in the Thirteen Colonies. He ordered all Continental soldiers cease to celebrate Guy Fawkes Day by burning the Pope in effigy. He was a close friend of the Carroll family, arguably the first very wealthy and powerful Catholic family in the United States. Two members of the Carroll family signed the Declaration of Independence, and one was the first Papal-Appointed Archbishop in the United States of America. Stephen Moylan, the first Muster-General of the Continental Army, was a Catholic. Captains Joshua and John Barry, two of the most daring and swashbuckling sailors in the United States Navy and Revolutionary Warriors, were Catholics. Vicar-General Pierre Gibault, a French Jesuit, assisted in the conquest of the Northeastern US by the Continental Army by acting as a guide. Thomas Fitzsimons, commander of the Pennsylvania Militia and and signer of the Declaration of Independence, was a Catholic. Colonel Thomas Moore, leader of the Philadelphia Regiment, was a Catholic. Major John Doyle, captain of an elite company of rifleman, was a Catholic. Let's not forget foreign volunteers like LaFayette (though he would stain himself by partaking in the French Revolution, albeit he despised radical elements that were killing nobility and clergy left and right), Durportail, and the aforementioned Pulaski. The first Funeral Mass in US-controlled Boston was for French soldiers who died fighting for the Colonies, and the Founding Fathers were in attendance. In addition, whilst Congress was in session, George Washington would often accompany his Catholic friends to observe Mass and invited others to join him.

None of these men were bad Catholics. None of them were heretical in religious thought. They all

loved their faiths, and George Washington wouldn't have anyone obstructing the religious rights of even a small body of people who had assisted in the founding of the nation which made him President. For several decades, George Washington's example would be remembered as far as Rome, when Leo XIII in his encyclical to the American Bishops "Longinqua" said this:

"Nor, perchance did the fact which We now recall take place without some design of divine Providence. Precisely at the epoch when the American colonies, having, with Catholic aid, achieved liberty and independence, coalesced into a constitutional Republic the ecclesiastical hierarchy was happily established amongst you; and at the very time when the popular suffrage placed the great Washington at the helm of the Republic, the first bishop was set by apostolic authority over the American Church. The well-known friendship and familiar intercourse which subsisted between these two men seems to be an evidence that the United States ought to be conjoined in concord and amity with the Catholic Church. And not without cause; for without morality the State cannot endure-a truth which that illustrious citizen of yours, whom We have just mentioned, with a keenness of insight worthy of his genius and statesmanship perceived and proclaimed. But the best and strongest support of morality is religion.”

His Holiness acknowledges the US as a good, but that it still is not the best it can be. This to me is a proper attitude to take on the subject, seeing as how it's the same one most Catholic Tories take toward Great Britain during the Revolution even though the monarchy was officially Protestant. Unlike the United States, which officially isn't religiously anything.

David Porter

Gen. Cadwalader

Later Anti-Catholicism would be the by-product of the Nativist party, which became known as the "No-Nothing" party because of how unpopular they were with mainstream Americans, which is important to note. The vast majority of Americans did see the persecution of Catholics as a horrendous evil and wanted prejudices removed. Unfortunately, certain people in the halls of power didn't. It has also often been said that the US government was silent and passive in the face of No-Popery Riots attacking Catholic Churches and so-on, but that's not entirely the case. We must consider three figures: Major General Robert Patterson and General George Cadwalader, who lead the Pennsylvania State Militia to violently suppress the Anti-Catholic riots in Philadelphia and the governor, David R. Porter, who ordered the militias to set up garrisons and arm Catholics to protect themselves until the riots had ended.

Robert Patterson

From all this, we can deduce that Anti-Catholicism is not an institutionalized part of American culture. It is an aberration started by anti-immigration parties in the United States. The Chief Himself was against the principle and moved against it. Catholics should make it their business to show why Anti-Catholicism isn't an American principle, rather than feeding the fire by striking out against the government.

2.) The Unlawful Nature of the War of Independence

It should come without saying that a Revolution tends to be, well, illegal. So why should I even criticize a revolt by questioning its legitimacy? Well, even Catholicism recognizes there are times where armed revolt is a must, and is even sanctioned. One of the powers of the Papacy is to, "free serfs from fealty to wicked men," meaning they can sanction a revolt against an otherwise legitimate government if it becomes corrupt and tyrannical. This was a right invoked back in the Middle Ages during the kingship of John of England and again during the reign of the Tudors with respect to the fealty the Kingdom of Ireland owed to the English Monarchs. Simply revolt against legitimate authority for rebellion's sake or to cease power is of course illegitimate. But did the colonists have a case against Great Britain?

For most Monarchists, the answer to that question is no. The colonists were subjects of Great Britain and by God that's how it should say. They rebelled for the simple reason the Colonists were angry about not being able to cash in on the fur trade in the Ohio country or expand further west into French territory due to the outcome of the French and Indian War - part of the Seven Years' War - which while a victory for the British didn't get them the Ohio Territory. This caused quite a bit of miff among the colonists. It also started the tradition of the colonists really not liking Native Americans for the most part. The French didn't have much going for them in the region, but the Iroquois were huge supporters of France. So they fought for them, and, well, let's just say that if you think Native Americans were all peace-loving hippies who only fought when provoked you should do some reading on what a Native American Warpath looks like. It's not pretty, and while even the French didn't like what the Indians got up to (further reading: Louis-Joseph de Montcalm and the Siege of Fort William Henry) they couldn't deny their effectiveness.

Keeping all this in mind, the colonists fought willingly even in spite of crushing defeats. The thought was that once they got the Ohio territory, it would all be worth it. But there was a real problem with that: the British Crown decided to leave the Ohio Territory in the hands of the Iroquois, which was just as good as leaving it with the French, seeing as how they maintained strong relations. With the colonists debarred from settling there, all the suffering they had endured at the hands of defeats by the French and Indian raids upon civilian settlements was pointless. They had literally shed their blood for nothing. But the colonists, by and large, let it go. They were still wealthy, they were still healthy, what else could go wrong?

Well, Parliament - in another glorious display of why it never should have existed - started levying taxes from the colonies to pay off the debt that had been doubled by the Seven Years' War. The argument was that since the colonists wanted it, they should shoulder the burden. A perfectly reasonable request, had these colonies been given something out of the war anyway. The fact is, yes, most of the colonists were businessmen. They either lived in the colonies to or sold all their possessions in England to come make money in America. Their livelihoods depended solely upon the wealth of the colonies. If the colonies started doing bad, well, no one wanted to go back to what it was like under the Puritans or go the way of Roanoke.

But didn't Parliament have the right to tax the colonies? After all, weren't they virtually represented as British subjects, thereby making the issue of "No Representation" null and void? No, and I don't base my arguments from colonials. There were two very notable, conservative men in parliament who saw "Virtual Representation" as absolute rubbish while not in the least bearing ill-will towards the king - and most Colonists didn't yet either! They appealed directly to King George III himself some times, but of course bloody Parliament was running the show.

Charles I of England

Before I get to those guys I mentioned, we have to focus on the Colonial arguments that weren't Anti-Monarchy. The colonists based their arguments off of the, "Rights of Englishman" which were laid out following the deposition of King Charles I. Though a tragedy (I am something of a Cavalier), a regime change did take place and new laws were in affect. One of these laws was indeed No Taxation Without Representation. Taxes had to be basically voluntarily given from the Commons. Where did this come from? Well, during his reign at a time when he was strapped for cash to fight the Republican and Radical Puritan elements arrayed against him, His Majesty created a new title for himself: King of the Sea. Well, not really, but basically his logic was that as King of England he was also king of the seas surrounding England. I mean, who else would own them, the feudal lords of those coastlines? Wait...

Regardless, Charles II decided that everything within 15 miles of a coastline was his now because of that, so he could levy taxes from these areas, even though the Lords hadn't agreed to it and the people weren't honestly even made aware and it was more like royal soldiers just came by and collected money from the people. Was Charles II right to do this? Probably not, but absolutism does some funny things to the brain sometimes, like forgetting what feudalism is or that it was the mainstay in England for over one and a half thousand years and people generally don't like radical change enforced by men with war implements. That and the Republicans were, well, evil, for lack of a better word. Maybe if he'd won we'd have a different opinion on it. Regardless, this basically caused taxation to be a big deal in the new government. Taxes had to be voluntary to an extent and were very much up for debate now. No longer could an executive government simply collect whatever taxes it needed in Merry England.

This was a central issue for the colonies. See, the colonies were self-managing, and not just the 13 in America. All over the world, most of Britain's colonies only ever saw the British if the colonies were under threat of conquest or revolt and military force was needed. This system of "benign neglect" basically solved the problem of managing all these overseas territories. The regional governors simply told the monarch what was up and did their jobs as cash candy-jars. Other than that, the colonies were pretty self-sufficient. The American Colonies had their own representative houses, courts, and military defense. They collected their own taxes and as long as they could do it themselves, they weren't going to ask London to help. So when suddenly taxes come in from the mainland and you had no knowledge of them, it provoked quite the violent reaction. Mobs tarring and feathering excise men, for example. From what the English knew, this was flat-out illegal taxation.

So now we go back to the two big opponents of the taxation measures in Parliament: Charles Pratt, 1st Earl Camden and William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham. Here are there two arguments against the taxes on the basis of English Constitutional Law and the Parliament.

Charles Pratt

"I am no courtier of America. I stand up for this kingdom. I maintain that the Parliament has a right to bind, to restrain America. Our legislative power over the colonies is sovereign and supreme. When it ceases to be sovereign and supreme, I would advise every gentleman to sell his lands, if he can, and embark for that country. When two countries are connected together like England and her colonies, without being incorporated, the one must necessarily govern. The greater must rule the less. But she must so rule it as not to contradict the fundamental principles that are common to both...let the sovereign authority of this country over the colonies be asserted in as strong terms as can be devised, and be made to extend to every point of legislation whatsoever; that we may bind their trade, confine their manufactures, and exercise every power whatsoever, except that of taking their money out of their pockets without their consent. [T]he British Parliament have no right to tax the Americans. I shall not consider the Declaratory Bill now lying on your table; for to what purpose, but loss of time, to consider the particulars of a Bill, the very existence of which is illegal, absolutely illegal, contrary to the fundamental laws of nature, contrary to the fundamental laws of this constitution? A constitution grounded on the eternal and immutable laws of nature; a constitution whose foundation and centre is liberty, which sends liberty to every individual who may happen to be within any part of its ample circumference. Nor, my Lords, is the doctrine new, it is as old as the constitution; it grew up with it; indeed it is its support; taxation and representation are inseparably united; God hath joined them, no British parliament can separate them; to endeavour to do it, is to stab our very vitals. ... My position is this—I repeat it—I will maintain it to my last hour,—taxation and representation are inseparable; this position is founded on the laws of nature; it is more, it is itself an eternal law of nature; for whatever is a man's own, is absolutely his own; no man has a right to take it from him without his consent, either expressed by himself or representative; whoever attempts to do it, attempts an injury; whoever does it, commits a robbery; he throws down and destroys the distinction between liberty and slavery. Taxation and representation are coeval with and essential to the constitution. ... [T]here is not a blade of grass growing in the most obscure corner of this kingdom, which is not, which was not ever, represented since the constitution began; there is not a blade of grass, which when taxed, was not taxed by the consent of the proprietor. ... I can never give my assent to any bill for taxing the American colonies, while they remain unrepresented; for as to the distinction of a virtual representation, it is so absurd as not to deserve an answer; I therefore pass it over with contempt. The forefathers of the Americans did not leave their native country, and subject themselves to every danger and distress, to be reduced to a state of slavery: they did not give up their rights; they looked for protection, and not for chains, from their mother country; by her they expected to be defended in the possession of their property, and not to be deprived of it: for, should the present power continue, there is nothing which they can call their own; or, to use the words of Mr. Locke, ‘What property have they in that, which another may, by right, take, when he pleases, to himself?"

William Pitt

"It is my opinion, that this kingdom has no right to lay a tax upon the colonies...The taxes are a voluntary gift and grant of the Commons alone...When, therefore, in this House we give and grant, we give and grant what is our own. But in an American tax, what do we do? “We, your majesty’s Commons for Great Britain, give and grant to your majesty”—what? Our own property! No! “We give and grant to your majesty” the property of your majesty’s Commons of America! It is an absurdity in terms...There is an idea in some that the colonies are virtually represented in the House. I would fain know by whom an American is represented here. Is he represented by any knight of the shire, in any county in this kingdom? Would to God that respectable representation was augmented to a greater number! Or will you tell him that he is represented by any representative of a borough? — a borough which, perhaps, its own representatives never saw! This is what is called the rotten part of the Constitution. It can not continue a century. If it does not drop, it must be amputated. I myself would have cited the two cases of Chester and Durham...to show that, even under former arbitrary reigns, Parliaments were ashamed of taxing a people without their consent, and allowed them representatives...[A] higher example [might be found] in Wales — Wales that never was taxed by Parliament till it was incorporated. India company, merchants, stockholders, [and] manufacturers have it in their option to be actually represented...have connections with those that elect, and...have influence over them."

NOTE: There are various quotes from both men on the subject; they have been spliced together.

Even the British saw what was happening to the colonies as being in violation of English Law. Both these lords were masters of English Law and very intelligent individuals. They were not propagandists. They were not puppets. They were not paid off; they had no dog in this war, in fact they had a lot to lose from making these statements - and they lost their entire political careers. It was not as if these men were against the Monarchy, and Parliament was for it. Parliament was for itself as it often is, and these men spoke against its violation of its own writ.

Their rights being abused, the British encroaching upon them and ignoring the Rule of Law by which all Englishmen prided themselves on and lived by, violent reprisal was the only option left. In this war Just War Doctrine is fulfilled. The Revolution was justified; the monarch had taken the side of Parliament, and Parliament wasn't even following its own laws. The Revolution was not out of any necessary animosity towards England but an outrage at how it defied its own laws. The monarch was barely a factor, as Parliament practically put King George III in the inevitable position of tyrant.

American soldiers in the Battle of Long Island, 1776.

3.) The American Government Itself

The United States Government is often reviled, even among its own people, as a wretched hive of scum and villainy always getting things wrong. They can't do anything right, according to most. The deficiencies of Republics and Democracies are manifold, and I won't bother to recite them. Many Traditional Catholic Monarchists not only disdain it for the fact it isn't a monarchy, but because it is absolutely 100% free of religion. These are legitimate criticisms, however I would like to remind everyone of how one of the greatest monarchies in history began: when a virtuous military leader was named its Imperator and deposed the corrupt republic that lead it (see: Rome).

But, see, that's not going to happen if we just give up on it. If we attack it from the inside. If we let it die because we think we deserve it. It's going to get conquered by someone else and eventually divided up, and history tells us that except in one case I can think of (Poland) countries conquered and divided do not rise again. I love the past more than anyone, and I think it is valuable to us as a guide. But we cannot rewind time anymore than rewinding our watches can make us arrive somewhere on time. Tell me what is better: that we work and show ourselves loyal to and a competitive power-base in our host countries, or we simply pine for what once was? I do not ask that we forget the past, nor that we do not use the standards of our ancestors. I simply ask we be realistic. I ask that we adapt and overcome.

For many Catholics, I know, only Monarchy is the option. But does no one else here know about Garcia Moreno, President of the Republic of Ecuador? He made his country strong militarily and economically. He opened his cabinet meetings with the Rosary. He carried a cross in Good Friday parades for his country. He consecrated Ecuador to the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts. All from the office of an elected leader. While the Church prefers monarchy, any system of government that protects the common good and does not oppress the Catholic faith is a good. Sure, Ecuador is one tiny republic out a million that are not Catholic and influential, but consider again the example of Rome in conjunction with Ecuador. It can happen here, but it will never happen if we don't try. It certainly won't happen if we tear it down. Even so, there are many good principles of America that aren't exactly incompatible with Catholicism. Though it prefers a government working with the Church, anyone should be able to follow the religion they choose. No one is denied the right to bear arms to defend themselves, and of course everyone is entitled to their opinion via Free Speech. Many of the judiciary principles in the Constitution were pioneered in the Middle Ages by Catholicism no less (habeas corpus, etc.)

Now, who would be our Julius Caesar? I don't presume to know. Maybe it wouldn't even be like that. Who knows? I don't. Would I be for any monarchistic movement that wasn't hostile to America or the American people? Of course! I still think we would do best under a monarchy, but that doesn't mean I hate America. That means I want America to evolve and be better. I still believe individual liberties are best preserved under a monarchy, but we must convince the American people of that. They'll never listen to us if we're outright hateful of their entire history - if they do, we don't make what we want to see.

So while the American government isn't ideal, it's better than nothing and provides Catholics - anyone, really - the best chance we have for positive change. It has its flaws, but America's story is not ever yet. There is still yet time to reach the real Imperial age!

4.) The Aggressive and Unjust Wars it Has Waged

Battle of Churubusco. Mexican-American War.

There is nothing Traditionalists and Paleo-Conservatives love to do more than hate on the wars the US wages. Literally absolutely nothing makes them happier than tearing apart any reason any man has put on the uniform of a US soldier and gone to war for his country. I am guilty of this, but I hold to the old idea that any soldier is worth at least a small amount of respect for his willingness to fight for a cause he believes in. Not so for some people when it comes to US soldiers. They're literally the scum of the earth, according to some. Every American War is a Banker's War, fought for trade and trade alone, as if the US ability to make high-quality exports - in effect turning mercantilism on its head - which it can sell to international markets is what made it an international power in the first place. Oh wait...

Like it or not, yes. Trade is important to the survival of a nation. Resources are important. Columbus sailed to find a new trade-route to India to bring the Catholic faith to the heathen as much as he did to find a new trade route in to the Far East that the Ottomans didn't control. That doesn't make him any less noble; in fact, it makes him twice as noble. He not only worked for his faith, but his country. Now, would going to war solely to open markets be wrong? Yes. But that's not the only reason the US has ever gone to war with someone. To make it simple, we'll list the wars in chronological order and why they happened. We're going to ignore the Indian Wars, and save them for part five. Besides, most of them are so spread all the Hell over I would literally be here another four hours going over them. Nobody wants that, right? I'm also going to ignore the Revolution, as we already explained that. I will also not be covering numerous small rebellions that mean nothing.

First Barbary War: Ottoman Turk-funded Barbary Corsairs commit acts of piracy against American

shipping lanes, going so far as to enslave those on the ships they capture. America is outraged and attacks the Barbary States, eventually forcing a peace treaty in which America is left alone by the Ottomans. Second war follows in the mid-1800s, but the same thing happens. The Second War essentially wipes out Barbary Piracy in the Mediterranean.

 

Stephen Decatur boarding the Tripolitan gunboat, 3 August 1804

War of 1812: In an effort to increase British hegemony over France during the Napoleonic Wars, Britain began harassing the neutral United States' merchant lanes and impressing American sailors. That is, forcing them to serve in the British Navy - under pain of death. This begins to cause outrage among the American people. The British also from Canada arm and incite Native Americans to violent, near-racially-fueled wars against the American settlers moving west. No territorial changes take place, but America remains independent and repels Native American raids.

American infantry attacks at the Battle of Lundy's Lane. Painting by Alonzo Chappel in 1859.

Mexican-American War: Anglo-English settlers from the US were invited to Mexico by the Mexican government shortly after Mexico became independent of Spain. The settlers revitalize the economy and act as a buffer against Native American raids into Mexican territory. General Santa Anna leads a coup that topples the Mexican Government, and he begins to revoke the rights the settlers had under the previous government. Seeing the current government as illegitimate, the Texans resist and attempt to secede and become independent, with the US backing them. The US, Texas, and Mexico argue over the border. The US sends a team of surveyors escorted by some military personnel to the area between the Rio Grande and Nueces River. Mexican troops ambush the Americans, killing them all. The US retaliates, invades Mexico, topples the government, and gets Texas' independence. It eventually becomes a state.

U.S. Marines storming Chapultepec castle under a large American flag.

The Civil War: The South secedes from the Union on the question of State's Rights versus the Federal Government due to its continued desires for abolition. Disagreement over the question boils over to armed conflict. The Union is preserved by force and the Confederacy re-incorporated into the Union. I know people will complain about this one, but you tell me what civilized nation is going to let one whole half of it just leave willy-nilly over a political disagreement. Particularly when those seceding fire the first shot in aggression. Particularly when the reason is because they don't like the new elected leader. Go ahead, name one and back it; I'll wait.

Battle of Antietam by Kurz and Allison.

Spanish-American War: Contrary to popular belief, the reasons the US Government went to war with Spain for Cuba and its island nations are completely separate from why the Yellow Journalists wanted to get people ready for war to sell papers. The war for independence was threatening US interests in the area as violence escalated. They sent the USS MAINE into the bay of Cuba, it blew up for at the time unknown reasons, and the rest is history. If anything, Spain's inability to hold onto Cuba and American unwillingness to allow foreign powers to have leverage close to home made the war happen more than anything else. If Spain could keep the place stable and American interests hadn't been hurt, Cuba would probably still belong to Spain today.

Detail from Charge of the 24th and 25th Colored Infantry and Rescue of Rough Riders at San Juan Hill, July 2, 1898 depicting the Battle of San Juan Hill

World War I: Unrestricted German Submarine warfare forces the US to join the Allies against Germany, particularly after the sinking of the Lusitania. People argue that the Americans were smuggling arms to the Brits in the cruise liners and the Germans knew that and acted on it in the same way America probably would. This argument is a half-truth. The munitions carried on the Lusitania were small-arms; shells used for rifles and sidearms, which were usually on all ships for protection in the event of piracy or mutiny. Underwater archaeology has confirmed this, and the small arms were hardly smuggled in any event; they were recorded on the ship's cargo manifesto. Also, the 14 Points aren't really to blame for the break-up of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Wilson wasn't really actually listened to that much at the making of the Treaty of Versailles. That was all Europe's doing.

American Marines in Belleau Wood (1918)

World War II: America had been playing an economic game with Japan for a long time because they threatened already-existing American interests in the Pacific. It really is that simple. Also, I think we can agree no one needed a reason to kick Nazi ass.

Battle of Crucifix Hill by Don Stivers.

The Korean War: North Korea was a puppet-state of the Soviet Union at the time and a left-over from Soviet Russia's occupation of Korea. The South was part of America's holdings against them. Neither side accepted the other government as legitimate and the US backed South Korea. Do I really need a reason to explain this one, or Vietnam? The same people who think the US should've kept going and destroyed the USSR after they'd beaten Nazi Germany don't seem to like the fact we waged wars to try and stop Communism from getting control in two more countries. We basically had them beat, but Chinese interference caused us to pull back as we didn't have the manpower anywhere near able to fight China. For Christ's sake, World War II had just ended five years ago. That's not even enough time for a second generation of soldiers to be born.

Soldiers from the U.S. 2nd Infantry Division in action near the Ch'ongch'on River, 20 November 1950

The Vietnam War: This one is really close to me and ticks me off as I have family who were a part of this war and everyone bad-mouths it for no reason. It was the same as Korea. We had the Vietcong beat. But the Press was squarely against the war. It marked the real beginning of a biased, politicized press. In spite of the fact the Tet Offensive actually failed and we were beating the North Vietnamese, public pressure forced a US withdrawal. People throw around "baby-killer" but have no idea what they're talking about. My godmother's dad was a Vietnam vet. One night he was a sleep outside the wire in his tent with a buddy and this kid crawled into the tent with a grenade. Just as he was about to pull the pin and kill them all, he shot and killed the kid. Tough call, but was it going to be him and his buddy or this kid? I'd like to see anyone else here make a similar decision.

U.S. Marines fighting in Huế.

Wars in the Middle-East: These are, by far, the simplest to explain. Sure, Bush lied about WMDs. Investigations to this day prove the weapons either weren't there or had been moved a long time ago. They got screwed on bad intel, or lied; either is plausible and it's probably going to be a decade or more before we know as things declassify. Yeah, we've made a lot of mistakes. As far as I'm concerned, we're not done there yet, so it's too soon to judge anything right now. I disagree with some things that have happened, but again, it ain't over yet. There's still time to turn it around - and a war with ISIS might just be the gateway to do that.

War is a complicated business. But as a historian, I have to say, these aren't the worst reasons in the world to go to war. It's what most countries can't say they do: looking out for themselves. Do I agree with everything done in some of them? No. Is this an exhaustive list of all the wars the US has undertaken? No. But like I said: America isn't over yet. There's still time to make it better, and as Americans it's our job to do that.

5.) The Genocide of the Native Americans

An 1896 depiction of the Battle of Fallen Timbers from Harper's Magazine.

This is going to be a tough one for most people, and it was tough for me. As I started doing all of this, I had a theory I was slowly building in my mind. That, basically, the reason for the removal of Native Americans was over fear they might be used by European or foreign powers to begin wars against the US. Why not? Largely nomadic (by this point), mostly guerrilla fighters, easily bought, and don't have a problem going to war just for battle's sake. As we saw in the War of 1812, Native Americans could and might represent a threat to people who were just minding their own business. It was a problem and it had to be fixed. I think we need to do away with the reservations; they're broken as all Hell. We need to integrate these people into American society and stop treating them like they're a conquered people. I hate to sound rude, but they're not a threat. Hell, the Navajo were a key part in World War II and one Native American was the best sniper in the Vietnam War. It's time we buried the hatchet and moved on with history. It happened. We can't change that. Our ancestors made a decision based on self-preservation. Things like Wounded Knee and Sandy Creek were monstrous, but to the US' credit, there were federal investigations into such incidents that ruled it all massive acts of misconduct. I think it's fair to say we've come a long way in recognizing Native Americans, but we can do more. Both sides have to be willing to accept the present state of things and move on as Americans toward the future, because bickering over this at this point solves nothing. If we abolish reservations, Native Peoples can move back to where their tribes were if they so wished. As someone who knew people who worked charity and missions work on reservations, they're not pretty.

The Chase at Rattlesnake Springs by Don Stivers

Just as much as Natives raided settlements, the US government did decide to end treaties because they didn't see them as worth keeping. For both sides it was a desperate war for existence. The Anglo-Americans weren't just going to go back to Europe and the Natives weren't just going to let them move in. But, again, we've made progress. I would've preferred things were done differently, say akin to the policy of the Spanish of trying to force more fair treatment of natives. But even then, the situations aren't really comparable. Spain just wanted colonies, and the Anglo-Americans were trying to carve out a nation for themselves. I think the best thing we can do as Americans is to continue to celebrate and recognize Native culture while not trying to make people feel bad for something unnecessarily. We shouldn't shame people just for the sake of making them feel ashamed. There's no point to arguing about this anymore. What's important is that something like that doesn't happen again and that we can legitimately let what is past be what is past. We can use the examples of monarchies before us of a better way to interact with natives, and we can see this as an example of what can happen when communication breaks down. But again, we must remember: colonies are different from building a nation, and ultimately any nation that cannot defend itself from or by force will fade away.

Conclusion

The Declaration of Independence: the Committee of Five presenting their draft to the Second Continental Congress in 1776

So that's what brought me around to America. I ask pardon if I became curt toward the end; I was determined to write this out all at once and it is very late, if I may say so. In reality, it's very simple: I educated myself, found out more that I didn't know and was never taught, and applied it. I've never 100% despised America. I simply had bad feelings toward it because of the way I viewed its history. But what really began my search is the need to come to grips with the facts: we all have to make do with what we've been given. We must play with the hand we are dealt. I will never stop loving Christendom, but I have to reconcile that with a love for my own present nation as well. Because while it does have flaws, it is not the "Evil Empire" some make it out to be - what I believed it to be. But the problem is what it always is: ignorance. Willfully or accidentally, we simply don't take the time to learn for ourselves, so we allow whatever we hear that best fits our values to take precedent over facts. Keep to your principles, sure, but understand that no principle is as important as truth. Truth is the necessary support upon which justice rests. If we lie to maintain our principles at the expense of truth, then injustice can prevail.

Some of you will continue to hate America. That's fine and I understand. You can think whatever you want, as long as you don't attack it physically. We won't have a problem, or at least I won't. But I do encourage you to educate yourself. Benjamin Franklin and most all the founding fathers agreed that a literate, well-read, educated citizenry was the best path to success for the United States. I have to agree with that. I still think America is in need of reform in many aspects. But, in the least, I can reconcile myself with my country's history - and that's just enough to let me get what little good sleep I can get before I must rise again for work.