What If...

[Ethereal]

May regret wading into this...

I do think the Indian wars (small w) were in fact imperial wars.

Perhaps they were, but Ransom's characterization of Jefferson as a "neocon" directing this process is dubious at best. As he readily admits, the process of westward expansion by Europeans was inexorable. Jefferson wasn't some neocon concocting pretexts for insinuating the US into the western territories, he was a pragmatic realist riding the waves of history. And viewed within the context of his times, Jefferson's views towards the Indian nations was fairly enlightened and humane. Jefferson is one of the forefathers of the noninterventionist and realist schools of foreign policy. He was the exact opposite of a neocon.

[Ethereal]

Neocons spend trillions of tax dollars on a disastrous war in Iraq that gets Americans nothing except death, chaos, and mountains of debt.

Jefferson spends the 2016 equivalent of $300 million dollars and gets France to cede a territory worth tens of trillions.

Neocons are dangerous buffoons.

[Mister D]

Perhaps they were, but Ransom's characterization of Jefferson as a "neocon" directing this process is dubious at best. As he readily admits, the process of westward expansion by Europeans was inexorable. Jefferson wasn't some neocon concocting pretexts for insinuating the US into the western territories, he was a pragmatic realist riding the waves of history. And viewed within the context of his times, Jefferson's views towards the Indian nations was fairly enlightened and humane. Jefferson is one of the forefathers of the noninterventionist and realist schools of foreign policy. He is the exact opposite of a neocon.

I have no comment on Jefferson. I don't know enough about the man's life to speak confidently. I'm just saying that Americans have a history of being unable to conceive of their wars as wars of aggrandizement. Anti-imperial rhetoric clashes with overtly imperial behavior. That of course changed to some extent in the 1960s but it still colors American thought.

[Ethereal]

I have no comment on Jefferson. I don't know enough about the man's life to speak confidently. I'm just saying that Americans have a history of being unable to conceive of their wars as wars of aggrandizement. Anti-imperial rhetoric clashes with overtly imperial behavior. That of course changed to some extent in the 1960s but it still colors American thought.

I have always viewed "imperialism" as systematic and consolidated. The Roman empire was a system, directed and planned under the rubric of a consolidated political entity. Westward expansion was, for the most part, spontaneous and decentralized. I don't think it takes on the characteristics of a genuine system of imperialism until after the US civil war. That is when you see the US armed forces start to systematically conquer the remaining Indian nations.

[Mister D]

I have always viewed "imperialism" as systematic and consolidated. The Roman empire was a system, directed and planned under the rubric of a consolidated political entity. Westward expansion was, for the most part, spontaneous and decentralized. I don't think it takes on the characteristics of a genuine system of imperialism until after the US civil war. That is when you see the US armed forces start to systematically conquer the remaining Indian nations.

Was there anything more systematic in our history than the conquest of North America? I think the decentralized nature of American expansion was simply a peculiarity of the American experience. It was decentralized because it could be but armed force could be counted by the colonists when it was needed. This was to some extent in contrast to British Indian policy. Mind you, this is no cause for shame. I think it's one of the greatest stories about the US and our ancestors thought so too.

[Ransom]

I also have not advocated for sanctions or the occupation of Iraq. That is what the Neocon did.

Sanctions and blockade, the policies of containment both you and Ethereal advocate. And have been proven disastrous and wrong.

[Captdon]

How did Jefferson's purchase of that territory violate neutrality? If the British had made the same offer, do you think Jefferson would have refused?

And ALL the founders expressly promoted the idea of armed neutrality. Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, etc.

The Brtits were at war or near war with France. The French wouldn't have made that offer to the British. This isn't a "what if" scenario.

Monroe said no nation could colonize in North or South America. What definition of neutrality are you using?

[Ransom]

You contradict yourself.

You say European settlers would have conquered the west regardless of American presence, yet you try to paint westward expansion as a form of US imperialism spearheaded by Jefferson.

Paint westward expansion anyway you'd like, it began with our Founding Fathers whether you're aware of that or not.

Your first statement is true: Westward expansion by European settlers was inexorable. Their diffusion across America long PREDATES the formation of the "United States". Is it starting to sink in, Mr. Expert?

The only reason I'm an expert here is because yourself, Peter, and donttread are the opposing arguments.

If not, allow me to make it simple for you. Westward expansion under Jefferson was merely the continuation of an organic process that began in the 1400's. Jefferson did not have any "imperialist" ambitions towards the west or any other lands. He was merely riding a massive wave to its unstoppable conclusion. Your own premise implies as much. Thanks for hoisting yourself with your own petard. It makes my punishment of you so much easier.

Jefferson studied Indian languages, had ample knowledge of Indian nations, instructed Lewis on those he'd confront, gave him written instructions on exactly what to say. And whether riding a massive wave or not, the ideals of sea to shining sea didn't exist at the time of a fragmented Europe where no nation stakes claim to an entire continent....and yet that's exactly what Jefferson does. Hardcore Neocon to the bone.

[Ransom]

Try "learning" me. Osama Bin Laden hated us for putting our troops on Saudi territory to fight Hussein. It was the troops on Saudi territory that set him off. If that hadn't happened 9/11 would likely not have happened. Bin Laden had no love for Iraq. Our invasion was based on false or shoddy intel from our CIA. Clinton decided not to act on it and Bush decided to act on it.

That's not exactly what he states, Captdon. He does specify Saudi Arabia but the nation he is over the edge over....is Iraq. His words and that of al-Qaeda quite clear.

I think Bush may have been more than a little willing to invade Iraq for trying to kill his father. While I always support my country's soldiers I don't see what result would have been in our favor. The Iraqi military wasn't very good but it was good enough to keep the Iranians home.

He invaded as Iraq was in material breach of every single UN sanction and cease fire agreement with the United States.

Our ME policy , except for Israel, has been very uneven. We did get Egypt out of Russian hands and "peace" for Israel and them. Otherwise I don't see what good we've done or are doing. ISIS was a result of Obama's policies and I think the Russians would have stepped in to fight them for their own policies.. Now, not needing their oil, I see nothing to be gained.

I'm not trying to paint with that broad a brush, Captdon, but I can show you an answer for you 'why Iraq' when Saudis based in Afghanistan attacked us.

[Ransom]

I have no comment on Jefferson. I don't know enough about the man's life to speak confidently. I'm just saying that Americans have a history of being unable to conceive of their wars as wars of aggrandizement. Anti-imperial rhetoric clashes with overtly imperial behavior. That of course changed to some extent in the 1960s but it still colors American thought.

A short and powerful read, giving great insight on Jefferson, giving a great snapshot of America in 1804...it's truly amazing. Transport hasn't changed in 2000 years. Mankind still walks, floats at the speed of the river, or uses a horse and wagon. The Indians......sitting on top of resources such as Last Chance Gulch. What happens to the Indians when gold is discovered on their lands given the English or Spanish or French settle the territory?

I think history gives us great examples.

Jefferson's thoughts he wrote down. He understands the British who we will be at war with in less than a decade. He has purchased the Louisiana Territory from the French and must gain permission from the Spanish to even cross the Mississippi. Imperialism the rule of the day and Jefferson no different.

Mister D, the book is easily ordered and I promise you'll enjoy it more than you think...it's chock full of historical perspective...and non-fiction. It actually happened.

Jefferson....is a sea to shining sea empire building President. Fibs to Congress so he can fund his military expedition. And explains to the Indians that this is all ours, don't fck with any white men coming from the East. We'll send you to Washington to meet your 'new father.'