Transcribe
Translate
Fanorama, issue 1, Spring 1946
Page 4
More information
digital collection
archival collection guide
transcription tips
TIMEBINDER: It would take much more time and space than I have at my disposal to thoroughly refute all that Russ Whitman has to say, much as I would like to. Nevertheless, I am going to rip into his statement to the effect that the United States has never lost a war and never will. There are a lot of arguments which could demonstrate the fallacy of this reasoning, but two examples, at least, should be pointed out to him. 1) The wars with the Barbary pirates, which were inaugurated to protect American shipping without resorting to paying the tribute that they were getting from other nations. Despite quite a bit of inexperience, inefficiency and inadequate equipment, the navy conducted itself well, and were on the verge of winning when the home folks, tired of the whole thing, yelled for peace. They got it and all that we got out of the war was experience, morale and added prestige for our young navy, plus a slightly reduced 'protection' payment. Did we actually win? 2) The War of 1812, which was instituted again the British at the same time that they were rather busy with the armies of Napoleon by a group of young western and southern statesmen called War Hawks, who wanted to annex Canada and though this was a particularly good time to do it. An excuse was necessary, of course; their's was that they were trying to protect American rights on the high seas. The New England shipping interests, strangely, led the peace movement. In fact, they even continued trading with Britain during the war, and, at a convention in Hartford, came close to suceding from the union. We were able to win a number of battles, especially in the west and on the Great Lakes, but, by the end of the war, the British had virtually cleared the seas of American ships, occupied Maine, repulsed American invasions of Canada and burned Washington. Luckily for the United States, British commercial interests made more money trading with us as an independent nation than as a colony and were willing to listen to peace talks. We were able to restore the status quo: the boundaries weren't changed, the British still occupied Detroit, and nothing, absolutely nothing, was decided about the freedom of the seas. Neither our alleged or actual motive for starting the war was accomplished, and we suffered far more heavily than the British did. Would you say we won the war, just because we were able to maintain our independence? There's something to be said for Russ' goal, but his arguments are stinking. -- Eighteen months or so of compulsory peacetime training would scarcely have the effect of producing any great number of professional soldiers. How many men who have been drafted since 1940 have not been happy to return to civilian status? And do you think a separation form a home environment is always bad? I know several individuals for whom it was of positive benefit; one of them is a fan. And if you would say that immorality (swearing, drinking, smoking, sex, stealing, dishonesty -- how do you define it?) is not common in the colleges you propose to send these men to, and, in fact, is not common before they reach draft age and are still in high school, we will have to take it for granted that you must have led a very sheltered life. And on what basis do you assert that draft laws are unconstitutional? They couldn't be enacted without a constitutional amendment if they were. Un-Ameri-
Saving...
prev
next
TIMEBINDER: It would take much more time and space than I have at my disposal to thoroughly refute all that Russ Whitman has to say, much as I would like to. Nevertheless, I am going to rip into his statement to the effect that the United States has never lost a war and never will. There are a lot of arguments which could demonstrate the fallacy of this reasoning, but two examples, at least, should be pointed out to him. 1) The wars with the Barbary pirates, which were inaugurated to protect American shipping without resorting to paying the tribute that they were getting from other nations. Despite quite a bit of inexperience, inefficiency and inadequate equipment, the navy conducted itself well, and were on the verge of winning when the home folks, tired of the whole thing, yelled for peace. They got it and all that we got out of the war was experience, morale and added prestige for our young navy, plus a slightly reduced 'protection' payment. Did we actually win? 2) The War of 1812, which was instituted again the British at the same time that they were rather busy with the armies of Napoleon by a group of young western and southern statesmen called War Hawks, who wanted to annex Canada and though this was a particularly good time to do it. An excuse was necessary, of course; their's was that they were trying to protect American rights on the high seas. The New England shipping interests, strangely, led the peace movement. In fact, they even continued trading with Britain during the war, and, at a convention in Hartford, came close to suceding from the union. We were able to win a number of battles, especially in the west and on the Great Lakes, but, by the end of the war, the British had virtually cleared the seas of American ships, occupied Maine, repulsed American invasions of Canada and burned Washington. Luckily for the United States, British commercial interests made more money trading with us as an independent nation than as a colony and were willing to listen to peace talks. We were able to restore the status quo: the boundaries weren't changed, the British still occupied Detroit, and nothing, absolutely nothing, was decided about the freedom of the seas. Neither our alleged or actual motive for starting the war was accomplished, and we suffered far more heavily than the British did. Would you say we won the war, just because we were able to maintain our independence? There's something to be said for Russ' goal, but his arguments are stinking. -- Eighteen months or so of compulsory peacetime training would scarcely have the effect of producing any great number of professional soldiers. How many men who have been drafted since 1940 have not been happy to return to civilian status? And do you think a separation form a home environment is always bad? I know several individuals for whom it was of positive benefit; one of them is a fan. And if you would say that immorality (swearing, drinking, smoking, sex, stealing, dishonesty -- how do you define it?) is not common in the colleges you propose to send these men to, and, in fact, is not common before they reach draft age and are still in high school, we will have to take it for granted that you must have led a very sheltered life. And on what basis do you assert that draft laws are unconstitutional? They couldn't be enacted without a constitutional amendment if they were. Un-Ameri-
Hevelin Fanzines
sidebar
