Latest news with #ManifestDestiny
Ottawa Citizen
25-04-2025
- Business
- Ottawa Citizen
Braid: The big ballot question — what leader can handle the lying president who wants Canada?
'Wouldn't mind,' said Donald Trump, when asked by Time magazine if he wants to be known for expanding the American empire. Article content Article content The U.S. president then unloaded another pack of lies about Canada. Every single thing he said was wrong, as ex-premier Jason Kenney quickly pointed out in a brilliant fact-check post on X. Article content Like it or not, the biggest issue in this election campaign is Trump's desire to consume Canada. Article content Article content Article content Trump is deadly serious about taking over our vast country. This isn't just some campaign issue that will magically fade away after the votes are counted. Article content Early on, he said he'd achieve dominance through 'economic force.' He's already applying it with tariffs on steel, aluminum and autos, with the threat of more to come. Article content Article content His tariffs have severely weakened Ontario's economy. In Alberta, the pause in the Dow Path2Zero chemical project outside Edmonton — the biggest capital work in provincial history — is an indirect result of tariff uncertainty. Article content Article content And he hasn't even begun. The damage is setting in despite the current exemption from general tariffs. Article content Trump is at economic war with half the world, but he seeks to own Canada. Big difference. Article content Article content To the extent that Trump knows anything about history, he grasps the centuries-old doctrine of Manifest Destiny, the belief that America has the divine right and duty to govern North America.
Epoch Times
24-04-2025
- Politics
- Epoch Times
Marching on Mexico City
Commentary By the spring of 1847, with the Mexican-American War seeming to stagnate after a year of bitter fighting, the U.S. military had invaded and occupied all of northern Mexico while blockading every major enemy port. Unable to take back its northern provinces or overcome internal political turmoil, the Mexican government refused to seek terms even as it suffered defeat after defeat. The Polk Administration, growing impatient in Washington, D.C., consequently made the seminal decision to compel capitulation with a dramatic amphibious invasion of Central Mexico. Driven by a complicated mixture of shifting politics, expansionist policies, and military strategy that cumulatively encouraged aggressive coercion, the presidential directive set conditions for a decisive march on the Mexican capital and the attainment of all American strategic objectives.[1] This confluence of factors, which captured the nationalistic energy of Manifest Destiny, deeply informed how President James K. Polk and his cabinet secretaries conceptualized the most important decision of the war. Echoing the assertion by the noted Prussian war theorist, Carl von Clausewitz, that 'the 'character and scope' of any war effort 'should be determined by is political probabilities,' the White House and its allies balanced a relative balance of tensions across complicated party politics, resolutely held war aims, and nuanced strategy formulation in order to design an achievable, though high risk, solution to the diplomatic impasse.[2] This insight, relating to the importance of applying strategic art in ways that adroitly navigate changing political, social, and military currents, remains just as relevant to strategists today as it was for the Polk administration in the mid-19th century.[3] Strategic Background The idea of Manifest Destiny emerged as a nationalistic propellent for the United States and its settler communities to aggrandize territories west of the Appalachian Mountains following the Louisiana Purchase of 1803. Famously described by journalist John O'Sullivan in 1845 as an imperative for the American people to, 'overspread the continent allotted by Providence for the free development of our yearly multiplying millions,' the mixture of spiritual, racial, economic, and geopolitical motivations centered on expanding U.S. dominance across the Great Plains and to the shores of the Pacific Ocean.[4] While Jacksonian populism and sustained frontier conflict added militancy to the fervor, the acerbic debate over the prospect expanding chattel slavery into western acquisitions and moral objections to provoking wars of aggression would serve as political checks on realizing the full scope of the continental dream.[5] The question of formal and sanctioned western expansion became acute with the U.S. annexation of the Republic of Texas and its contested territorial claims in December of 1845. While Texas itself had aimed to conquer a 'vast extent of territory, stretching from the Sabine to the Pacific,' as announced by its second president, Mirabeau Lamar, at his inauguration in 1838, the United States' willingness to enforce the Lone Star Republic's controversial claims made a war with Mexico a near-certain outcome.[6] In particular, the Texans' assertion that their southern boundary extended to the Rio Grande, as opposed to the Nueces River farther north, and the Polk administration's sudden military occupation of the contested space in April of 1846, set the stage for a war that would decide the fate of the middle expanse of the North American continent. This disagreement over Texas found both the United States and Mexico ill-prepared to project and sustain substantial military forces across distant fronts. While the U.S. Army started with a pre-war authorization of approximately 7,000 regulars drawn from scattered frontier garrisons, the Mexican Army fielded a larger, though less professional, force of 19,000 men with ability to rapidly double in size through conscription.[7] In terms of economic capacity, the Americans, with a much larger population and industrial base, held advantages in production and naval warfare, while the Mexicans plausibly could maximize the advantages of defensive tactics, an experienced officer corps, and the motivations of nationalistic resistance. The U.S. Navy's dominance along both coastlines, in particular, would prove instrumental in the conquest of California and provide Polk a valuable asymmetric advantage when contemplating options to expand the war.[8] Politics, Policy, and Strategy A complicated constellation of political factors both galvanized and restrained the Polk administration's initial decisions to provoke a war. The election of 1844, which had pivoted on the question of territorial expansion, saw Polk and the Democrat Party win a decisive governing mandate with majorities in both the Senate and the House.[9] With the platform from the Democrat Convention stating that, 'the reoccupation of Oregon and the re-annexation of Texas' were 'great American measures,' the new administration felt empowered to conquer or purchase the two territories through any means possible.[10] However, while disagreements over slavery expansion and the morality of provoking a controversial war threatened Democrat cohesion, the Whigs, as the opposition party, opposed westward expansion and dominated the senior Army officer corps.[11] In this political climate, the new administration set an unambiguous national policy of immediate territorial expansion at the expense of Mexico and the British Empire. In his inaugural address, Polk announced that the United States would 'enlarge its limits' and 'extend the dominions of peace over additional territories' through 'peaceful acquisition.'[12] While the president had attempted to purchase lands from Mexico and kept his public assertions limited to acquiring Texas under the pretext of pre-existing claims, he informed his cabinet that his actual 'purpose' was to attain 'California, New Mexico, and perhaps some other of the Northern Provinces of Mexico.'[13] This unannounced policy extension would inform decisions to divide scarce military resources between the Texas theater and additional objectives in Santa Fe, Monterey, and San Francisco. Related Stories 4/15/2025 4/15/2025 A powerful combination of party consensus and aggressive policy aims drove the adoption of an ambitious continental military strategy with cooperative land and maritime campaigns. Relying on controversial accusations that Mexico had 'shed American blood upon American soil' when it attacked U.S. forces sent to occupy the disputed territory along the north bank of the Rio Grande on April 25, 1846, Polk quickly attained bi-partisan congressional authorization for war and ordered a series of ground invasions to secure Texas, New Mexico, and California.[14] Simultaneously, he ordered a naval blockade along both the Gulf and Pacific coastlines to inflict economic privation and safeguard sea lines of communication. This resulted in a strategy of distributed pressure that established possession of the coveted western territories while attempting to coerce the proud Mexican government to agree to a financial settlement.[15] Despite the U.S. military's success in the northern provinces, Mexico City refused to negotiate as the war stagnated into the spring of 1847. During this period the Polk Administration suffered a major political defeat in the 1846 Congressional Elections where the Whigs won majority control of the House due to localized frustrations with unpopular tariffs, slavery disagreements, and, in some areas, anti-war sentiment. While the public still broadly embraced the spirit of Manifest Destiny and Democrats yet retained control of the senate, Polk felt an increased urgency to conclude the war with a clear victory in order to better position his party for the 1848 presidential election.[16] Complicating the political situation further, the administration would be forced to rely on Whig-affiliated officers such as the U.S. Army's commanding general and presidential aspirant, Winfield Scott, to plan, resource, and implement any significant change in the military strategy.[17] Throughout this period of political transition, the Polk Administration maintained its policy of defending the Texas annexation while indicating intent to permanently occupy New Mexico and California. In his second annual message to the Congress in December of 1846, Polk stated that the war would be, 'prosecuted with vigor as the best means of securing peace' while emphasizing that it would be 'proper to provide for the maintenance of civil order and the rights of the inhabitants' of the 'important conquests.'[18] As the war dragged on longer than expected, the administration funded and mobilized 50,000 volunteer soldiers to replace losses, assist with pacification, and free regular army regiments for offensive operations.[19] However, with the Mexicans still refusing to negotiate due to nationalistic pride and inability to reach internal consensus, the policy would require an altered strategy to accommodate the new political paradigm. This intersection of political urgency and policy commitment led to a fateful decision in the final weeks of 1846 to expand the current military strategy with a new offensive into the heart of Mexico. With the Army consolidating gains in the north and the Navy blockading both coasts, a small field army under Winfield Scott would conduct an amphibious assault against the Atlantic fortress of Veracruz, advance into the interior, and, if need be, seize Mexico City.[20] The decision, which found unanimous support with Polk's cabinet secretaries only after several heated debates, represented a willingness to accept elevated political risk to achieve greater coercive influence against the Mexican leadership.[21] While Polk only reluctantly appointed the Whig general to command due political tensions, he recognized that the complicated operation required a veteran commander who could plan the joint endeavor and manage service rivalries.[22] The decision to march on the Mexican capital proved both successful and frustrating for the American leadership. Though Scott and his 11,000 soldiers overcame fierce resistance to capture Veracruz, win at Cerro Gordo, and eventually take Mexico City by storm in September 1847—a feat that the Duke of Wellington in England called 'unsurpassed in military annals'—the Mexican government still refused to concede and appeared ready to endure indefinite occupation. The resulting financial burden and mobilization of more volunteers to combat a determined guerilla resistance by elusive Mexican mounted forces further strained the administration's war policy as a faction of outraged Democrats began to call for an 'All of Mexico' annexation.[23] However, the Mexican leadership, worried about their eroding legitimacy and Mayan revolts in the Yucatan, finally capitulated in the spring of 1848 and sold New Mexico and California under the terms of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hildago for $15 million.[24] Insights for Strategy The American decision to invade Central Mexico remains an instructive example for future strategists to, as required by modern U.S. joint doctrine, 'constantly evaluate effects and objectives, align them with strategic objectives, and verify that they are still relevant and feasible.'[25] While the Polk administration could have simply defended its northern gains in the hopes of an eventual settlement, rising tension between political urgencies and resolute war aims demanded a dramatic alteration in their strategic approach. These decisions stemmed from a complicated mix of party politics, overt and covert policy formulation, and strategic optionality that resulted in successful coercive tactics. This suggests that strategists in the 21st century, even as they negotiate unpredictable challenges, must be similarly responsive to changing political calculus or risk policy atrophy and inability to achieve strategic objectives. Critics, however, may argue that the Polk Administration's decision-making was actually less central to the outcome of the war than more positive studies may suggest. Instead, a minority of scholars, such as historian Irving Levinson, have placed the emphasis on Mexican disunity and native revolts, rather than American strength and strategy, to explain U.S. battle success, the staying-power of the occupations, or the totality of the final surrender.[26] This explanation, though supported by evidence of wide-spread indigenous uprisings across Mexico throughout the war, actually compliments the orientation and timing of Polk's decision to risk an amphibious assault on Veracruz and assault on the Mexican capital. It suggests that the American president's decision, even as he balanced fluctuations in domestic affairs, created additional dilemmas that eventually compelled the Mexican leadership to acquiesce and surrender. These outcomes hold insights for modern strategists as they apply strategic art amidst a global environment that is once again being defined by great power rivalry. Recognizing Clausewitz's dictum that, 'the degree of force that must be used against the enemy depends on the scale of the political demands on either side,' it means that, similar to Polk's multi-faceted challenges in 1847, strategic thinkers must carefully consider how dynamic politics, expanding policies, tailored strategies, and the vagaries of battlefield chance will drive executive decision-making within acceptable risk parameters.[27] If American leaders during the Mexican War demonstrated the value of understanding how to make impactful decisions within evolving political-military settings, future strategists, in their own time and place, will likewise be required to devise creative ways to attain strategic success and avoid campaign stagnation. References: [1] K. Jack Bauer, The Mexican War, 1846–1848 (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1992), 392-394. [2] Carl von Clausewitz, On War , edited and translated by Michael Howard and Peter Paret (Princeton University Press, 1984), 584. [3] Benjamin Swenson, 'Annexation as War': The 1844 Presidential Election and US-Mexican Conflict,' War History Network , January 15, 2025. [4] John O'Sullivan, 'Annexation,' United States Magazine and Democratic Review , vol xvii (1845): 5-6. [5] Amy Greenberg, A Wicked War: Polk, Clay, Lincoln, and the 1846 U.S. Invasion of Mexico (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2012), 14-15 [6] Mirabeau B. Lamar's Inaugural Address, Houston, Dec. 10, 1838, in The Papers of Mirabeau Buonaparte Lamar,1798-1859 , ed. Charles Adams Gulick, Jr. (Austin: A. C. Baldwin, 1922), 2: 320-321. [7] Stephen A. Carney, Guns Along the Rio Grande: Palo Alto and Resaca de la Palma , CMH Pub. 73-2 (Washington, DC: U.S. Army Center of Military History, 2005), 6. [8] Allan Milett and Peter Maslowski, For the Common Defense: A Military History of the United States (The Free Press, 1984, reis., 1994), 151, 155. [9] Charles Sellers, James K. Polk: Continentalist (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1966), 310-311. [10] 1844 Democratic Party Platform, May 27, 1844, The American Presidency Project, University of California at Santa Barbara. Accessed on January 26, 2025. [11] Robert Merry, A Country of Vast Designs: James K. Polk, The Mexican War, and the Conquest of the American Continent (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2009), 288-289. [12] James K Polk Inaugural Address, March 4, 1845, The American Presidency Project, University of California at Santa Barbara. Accessed on January 26, 2025. [13] James K. Polk, Polk: The Diary of a President, 1845-1846 , edited by Allan Nevins (New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1929), 106. [14] James K Polk Special Message to Congress on Mexican Relations, March 4, 1845, The American Presidency Project, University of California at Santa Barbara. Accessed on January 28, 2025. [15] Bauer, The Mexican War, 1846–1848 , 67-68, 394-395. [16] Merry, A Country of Vast Designs , 315-316; Brian Walton, 'The Elections for the Thirtieth Congress and the Presidential Candidacy of Zachary Taylor,' The Journal of Southern History 35, no 2 (1969): 187-188. [17] Sellers, James K. Polk: Continentalist , 438-439. [18] James K. Polk's Second Annual Message, December 8, 1846, The American Presidency Project, University of California at Santa Barbara. Accessed on January 26, 2025. [19] Bauer, The Mexican War , 69-70. [20] Timothy D. Johnson, A Gallant Little Army: The Mexico City Campaign (Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 2007), 10-11. [21] Merry, A Country of Vast Designs , 319. [22] Johnson, Gallant Little Army , 15-16. [23] Benjamin Swenson, The Dawn of Guerrilla Warfare: Why the Tactics of Insurgents against Napoleon failed in the US Mexican War (Yorkshire and Philadelphia: Pen and Sword Books, 2023), 168-170. [24] Wellington quoted in Milett and Maslowski, For the Common Defense , 156-157. [25] Joint Chiefs of Staff, JP 5-0 Joint Planning (Washington, D.C.: Joint Chiefs of Staff, 2020), I-2. [26] Irving W. Levinson, Wars Within War: Mexican Guerrillas, Domestic Elites, and the United States of America, 1846–1848 (Fort Worth: Texas Christian University Press, 2005), 113-114. [27] Clausewitz, On War , 585. From Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
Yahoo
14-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Reagan would be aghast at Trump's foreign policy decisions
We agree with President Donald Trump and others who believe that China's trade abuses are a real threat to U.S. economic interests and jobs, but his decision to launch a trade war with China, and, indeed, the whole world, is not a fitting response. Various measures, including tariffs and countervailing duties, can be used to deal with proven unfair trade practices, but blanket tariffs are irresponsible and destined to do real damage. The president mistakenly believes America is a victim, that she has been cheated by devious trading partners and ripped off by ungrateful, freeloading allies over the past 80 years. We categorically reject this dark view and believe that the president should heed the wise words of President Ronald Reagan, who said, 'We should beware of the demagogs who are ready to declare a trade war against our friends—weakening our economy, our national security, and the entire free world—all while cynically waving the American flag.' But Trump has shown little interest in acting as a friend toward our friends. He has wrongly accused Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of instigating Russia's unprovoked war against Ukraine. He and Vice President JD Vance have expressed hostility toward Europe, the European Union and NATO and have undermined the transatlantic partnership so severely that few people believe the United States would honor an Article V commitment if Russia were to attack a NATO ally. Further, Trump's insulting comments about making Canada the 51st state and his obsession with taking Greenland from Denmark have forced longtime friends and allies to re-examine their relationships with the United States. Trump also wants to retake the Panama Canal, which was returned to Panama under a treaty many decades ago. Tragically, for far too many countries around the world, America is now viewed as a threat to the cause of freedom and democracy and not a protector of it. Imperialism, spheres of influence and Manifest Destiny have returned with a vengeance. It all feels so 19th century, which may explain why President William McKinley's name is regularly invoked to validate Trump's determined effort to impose tariffs. Trump's rollout of his so-called reciprocal tariff schedule this month used a formula that did not factor in tariff rates imposed by other countries. Nor did his administration factor in nontariff barriers and currency manipulation. Whoever created the formula appears to have entered the witness protection program, because they've not stepped forward to explain it. Trump's tariffs plan has done more than roil the markets. It has further isolated America and most disturbingly created a crisis of competence and confidence in the United States government. The markets are chaotic, businesses are demanding predictability and stability, farmers are worried about access to export markets, and consumers are bracing for higher prices on essential goods. Fears of a self-inflicted recession are real. Never before in the history of this great republic have we borne witness to such a poorly planned and executed act of economic malpractice. Combined with the dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development, the planned silencing of the Voice of America and other critical elements of American soft power, this unprovoked trade war signals to the world that America is mindlessly disengaging and isolating itself. Trump's rejection of a more open trading system has caused many to fear that America is closed for business. Conversely, China is opportunistically filling the void and reaching out to America's despondent friends, allies and strategic partners. America's disengagement is a cause for deep concern, because it makes the world a much more dangerous place. After all, trade wars often precede hot wars. America cannot recede from the global stage and expect security. Similarly, we cannot isolate ourselves from the global market. Although the United States is the richest nation on Earth with the world's strongest and most dynamic economy, we cannot go it alone on trade. Self-sufficiency does not work, and balanced trade with each individual trading partner, as Trump seems to seek, is an impossibility. Indeed, seeking balanced overall trade through artificial trade barriers doesn't make any sense except for those who preach junk economics. There are many factors that determine trade balances, and traffic in goods, alone, is just one measure of them. For example, services trade, which should be included in an overall trade balance, were excluded in the administration's absurd tariff formula. Their inclusion would significantly narrow the trade deficit. We published an article in The Hill before November's election, in which we warned of the dire consequences of Trump's tariff threats. We anticipated the stock market to sink, inflation to rise, manufacturers to suffer and farmers to be harmed, as well as the possibility of a resulting recession. We stand by that story today, although we did not anticipate the administration would be this reckless in imposing tariffs. There are no winners in trade wars. Ongoing turbulence in the markets proves the point, which forced Trump to blink and announce a 90-day pause on many of his extreme, misguided and so-called reciprocal tariff increases. While this development is a welcome reprieve, uncertainty and risk remain. The president's senseless tariff actions have signaled to the world America has abandoned the post-World War II global order it has led for the past 80 years. In the quote from Reagan above, he goes on to say: 'The expansion of the international economy is not a foreign invasion; it is an American triumph, one we worked hard to achieve, and something central to our vision of a peaceful world of freedoms.' We much prefer the bright light of Reagan's shining city on the hill than the darkness of Trump's American carnage. Clearly, the president and some of his economic team recognized their recent decisions needed to be modified and corrected. The question is will they accept reason in their future decision-making or continue to fall prey to the chaos of the past few days? This article was originally published on
Yahoo
29-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
How Trump's embrace of race science makes his Smithsonian EO so much worse
'Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History,' a frightening executive order from President Donald Trump's White House Thursday takes aim at the Smithsonian and threatens to pull federal funding for content that promotes 'divisive, race-centered ideology.' The threat to museums such as The National Museum of African-American History and Culture is real. But even more sinister is the administration's rejection of race as a 'social construct,' which is nothing short of an expression of a belief in racial purity and white supremacy. One of the things that has Trump angry is 'The Shape of Power: Stories of Race and American Sculpture,' an exhibit at the American Art Museum that innovatively positions nearly 100 sculptures alongside statements about scientific racism. That's the discredited belief that there are biologically distinct races of people, with some more superior than others. The exhibition examines how artists and art objects have assisted, reflected or challenged such racist thinking since the 18th century, but Trump, in his executive order expresses disappointment that the show 'promotes the view that race is not a biological reality but a social construct.' Holding that race is not a biological reality is not a mere view. It's a fact, and the rejection of that fact is a key component of white supremacist thinking. Trump's executive order claims race-centered ideologies are detrimental to our shared culture but is silent on the fact that white supremacy, which his executive order promotes, has proved to be the greatest, most deadly identity politics of them all. See slavery. See the westward expansion of the United States and Manifest Destiny. This isn't the first time Trump has tried to overhaul the way we understand American history. On the heels of the Black Lives Matters protests following George Floyd's murder, Trump issued an executive order to create the 1776 Commission, a team of conservative politicians, activists, and pundits (none of them professional historians) to develop a 'patriotic education' that rescued American history from identity-driven revision that emphasizes critical thinking over patriotism. The '1776 Report' was meant as a repudiation of the influential New York Times' '1619 Project' that reoriented America's founding myths through the lens of the Transatlantic slave trade. One of Trump's final acts in office was the official release of that '1776 Report,' and one of President Joe Biden's first acts in office was to rescind it through his own executive order. Like the '1776 Report,' the current executive order targeting the Smithsonian is preoccupied with the nation's founding. It charges Vice President JD Vance with undoing 'false revisions' that have brought 'negative light' to our founding principles and insists — falsely — that the U.S. has always been a vehicle for universal freedoms. The administration demands that the Smithsonian – a sprawling network of 21 museums, research centers, an arboretum and a zoo — reflect its version of national identity by the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence in July 2026. The Smithsonian is not entirely funded by the federal government, but enough of its budget relies on congressional appropriations that it's always been vulnerable to political whims. It's hardly surprising that a backward-looking political movement that seeks to 'make America great again' wants its version, and only its version, of the past on display at our country's highly visible cultural institutions. While people have always disagreed over what happened in the past and how it impacts where we find ourselves today, the Smithsonian is an institution that has helped steer people away from mythologies. The National Museum of the American Indian opened in 2004, breaking new ground with its focus on the representation of national racial and ethnic minority experience. The NMAAHC finally opened in 2016 during the last months of President Barack Obama's presidency, 13 years after president George W. Bush signed the legislation creating it. Though the late Rep. John Lewis introduced the bill to create the NMAAHC and Bush signed it into law, its existence should be credited to everyday people who pushed to see a truthful portrayal of themselves and their history in the nation's highest institutions. But this is not all that Trump has in mind when he mentions 'restoring truth and sanity.' It's about rolling back social progress. The administration singling out the NMAAHC — incorrectly suggesting that it frames nuclear families, hard work, and individualism as 'aspects of White culture' — is itself bizarre, but its underlying biologically essentialist take on society is even more troubling. It mentions the Smithsonian's upcoming American Women's History Museum, criticizing it for including nonbinary and trans women in its displays, saying that the museum should not 'recognize men as women in any respect,' such as 'male athletes participating in women's sports.' Not satisfied with preventing trans women from playing women's sports, the Trump administration appears to want to erase these communities from sight or even memory. The demand for more diverse and inclusive stories on the National Mall goes back generations and the fight won't stop with this executive action. As long as there are monuments, memorials, and exhibitions claiming to represent the public, the public will push back against those it finds to be misleading and offensive. In response to Trump's administration scrubbing government websites of what it terms DEI content, the American Historical Association has condemned that 'federal censorship of American history.' The question of 'who owns history' has always been a political one mired in power struggles, and Thursday's executive order reveals that the stakes of this struggle are greater than ever. This is not just about representations. It's about knowledge itself and the use of the knowledge to justify inequality. There's a reason people in Trump's administration seem more bothered by the idea of equity than diversity or inclusion: They don't seem to think we're equal and they're going after all content that suggests we are. They believe there is a natural order of human beings — a biologically rigid sytem of race — that puts them at the top. And they want to force our most celebrated historical institutions to back them up. This article was originally published on
CBC
11-03-2025
- Politics
- CBC
The Aeneid, a 2,000-year-old poem that reads like a playbook for U.S. politics today
The new regime in Washington now has a taste for something that's very old: a global empire, the way ancient Rome aspired to have. U.S. President Donald Trump has talked of expanding America's reach, to Panama, to Gaza, to Greenland, and to Canada, to fulfil what he referred to in his second inaugural address as "Manifest Destiny." "The United States will once again consider itself a growing nation — one that increases our wealth, expands our territory, builds our cities, raises our expectations, and carries our flag into new and beautiful horizons," President Trump said in his speech, Jan 21, 2025. We might have thought this kind of political thinking was dead and gone: the whole business of taking over someone else's land without their permission, the way Europeans conquered Indigenous lands centuries ago. But in the United States — and Russia, too — the idea of empire is making a late-stage comeback. "When President Trump chose me for this position, the primary charge he gave me was to bring the warrior culture back to the Department of Defence," Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth said during his Jan. 14 confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee. "He, like me, wants a Pentagon laser-focused on lethality, meritocracy, warfighting, accountability and readiness." The Aeneid as a guide to imperialism One of the blueprints for imperialism has always been The Aeneid, by the Roman poet Virgil, working between 29 and 19 BCE. It tells the story of Aeneas, a Trojan leader on the run with his son, carrying his aging father on his back, escaping with other refugees the burning city of Troy which had been laid siege by the Greeks, whose soldiers had hidden in a giant wooden horse. It picks up the story where Homer's Odyssey and Iliad leave off: Aeneas and his people sail west to found a new home in a land where they may or may not be welcome. At first, they're blown off course to North Africa, to Carthage, where Aeneas tells Queen Dido his war stories, and where Dido, against her best instincts, falls in love with him. But there's a problem: "pius" Aeneas, as he's called in the poem (meaning dutiful and, for lack of a better term, job-oriented) has his eyes on his mission to found a new city for his people, and doesn't have time for love. Heartbroken Dido kills herself. Eventually, Aeneas and crew land in Hesperia, what's now Italy, and do battle with the locals. The way Virgil saw it, long before Romlus and Remus were on the scene, this landing was the founding of Rome. In many ways, The Aeneid is a story of conquest meant to please his patron, Emperor Augustus, who was busy transforming Rome from a republic to an empire, and needed the good-news propaganda. Aeneas was the son of Venus, a goddess: therefore Rome, and her empire, are sanctioned by the heavens. That divine sanctioning of empire is what many leaders in the decades and centuries that followed took from the poem, too. "This text by Virgil — elite men were reading," Susanna Braund told IDEAS, a retired professor of classics at the University of British Columbia. "This formed their worldview. And when you look at the imperial projects of the British, and the Spanish and the Portuguese, these were guys who were totally raised on the idea that you go west and you bring your 'culture,' in scare quotes, to the 'uncultured natives' in scare quotes." But there is another way to read the poem. Look at the character of Dido, whose sad tale prompted an opera by Henry Purcell in the 17th century, which see her as more sympathetic, more worthy of attention than dutiful, dull and narrow-minded Aeneas. "There are people who see in the treatment of characters, particularly Dido, the tragic Carthaginian queen," said Daniel Mendlesohn, author of Ecstasy and Terror: From The Greeks to Game of Thrones. According to Mendlesohn, there's "a subversive view of the imperial project." A celebration of empire or critique? So was Virgil secretly building a critique of the Roman Empire into The Aeneid, right under Augustus' nose? It remains an open question. "When you read between the lines there are at the very least ambivalent attitudes present in the poem about empire," said classics professor Paul Hay. But Sarah Ruden, who has translated The Aeneid into English, adds the epic poem shows another side that focuses on humanity. "Virgil appears to be the first author who gives a sympathetic depiction of cannon fodder, of nobodies, of unheroic characters who don't want to be in war. "But they are humanized — they are real people to him. They have a past. They have a tragedy." And yet there have been many, including Benito Mussolini, who used The Aeneid to justify his own fascist goals (he famously subsidized the publication of the poem during his reign), who see the poem as a model for empire building. The lesson, however, for those who interpret it that way is simple: read it again. Daniel Mendelsohn is a writer and classicist in New York State. Susanna Braund is a retired professor of classics, University of British Columbia. Shadi Bartsch is a Helen A. Wegenstein distinguished professor of classics at the University of Chicago. Paul Krause is an instructor of humanities at Chesterton Academy of Albuquerque in New Mexico. Tedd Wimperis is an assistant professor of classical languages at Elon University in Elon, North Carolina. Paul Hay is a professor of classics at Hampton Sydney College in Hampton Sydney North Carolina. Sarah Ruden is a translator of Virgil's Aeneid in Connecticut. Ellen Harris is the author of Henry Purcell's Dido and Aeneas, and a retired faculty member in music and theatre arts at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
