The Importance of Honor in Warfare

Honor (N.)

The Haitian revolution between 1791 and 1803 was characterized by violence and betrayal on practically all sides of the conflict. From Toussaint L'Overture's betrayal of Spain to fight with the French to Napoleon's campaign to retake Saint-Domingue despite France's previous agreement to free all slaves across the empire. One can almost certainly conclude from these betrayals that little honor existed between the major powers involved in the Haitian Revolution. This suggests that the independent nation of Haiti was founded on dishonor. This suggestion begs the question; Is honor important and/or necessary in waging warfare? The bloody conflict on Saint-Domingue bore witness to a wide array of military strategy, which wouldn't be considered honorable by most standards. In this total war conflict, small groups of Haitian guerilla fighters would quickly traverse the dense foliage of the island to ambush their foes. When fighting broke out in 1791, slaves burned plantations to the ground and murdered practically any white they could capture. On the other hand, one might consider this justifiable after the murder of countless slaves on the plantations that had gone on for centuries in Saint-Domingue. For a young Frenchman, in his late teens or early twenties, bleeding out in a remote Caribbean jungle thousands of miles from home, honor most likely meant little. So let us consider the question again, How Important is Honor in warfare? In Total Warfare, as can be observed from the Haitian Revolution, there is no honor. For centuries prior to the French Revolution, war usually consisted of large standing armies who would meet on open plains to make battle, one army would triumph over the other, force their foes to retreat, and gain land, wealth or both. With the advent of total warfare during the French Revolution, one or both armies would fight to the death for their respective cause(s). In standard warfare, a defeated general would symbolically present his sword to his adversary as Lord Cornwallis did to Rochambeau after the siege of Yorktown. In total warfare on the other hand, a general would rather pry the sword from his adversaries lifeless hands than receive it as a symbol of surrender. Each one of us has a limited amount of time on this Earth, so when fighting for equality, honor is inconsequential really. Personally at least, It wouldn't bother me that I would be seen as a dishonorable leader by future generations long after I was dead, what would concern me is whether or not I achieved a goal which I believed just. But that's just my opinion on the matter concerning honor and warfare and I'd also like to make it clear that I don't believe in violence to achieve equality. But I now leave it to your thoughts.

Anti-Federalism - Tea Party Movement

Dr. Korfhage mentioned in class a similarity that I found quite interesting. The Anti-Federalist movement of the late 18th century held many beliefs similar to those of the Tea Party movement which just appeared in 2009. The most basic comparison to be made between the two movements is a desire to weaken the central government of the United States. I believe this comparison can reveal a lot about the current state of our country as compared to its state in the decades preceding the revolutionary war. We live in a turbulent time in our nation's history,  and the media certainly has no problem with portraying our economies current state. War debts plagued the early United States just as the national deficit does today. After reading the vague philosophies of the Tea Party and Anti-Federalist movements I've concluded that a rise in negative media corresponds with Anti-Federalism in one form or another. Events such as Shays' rebellion, a national deficit, and tensions between larger and smaller along with Northern and Southern states undoubtedly were extremely popular topics for pamphlets and orations throughout the early United States. The stock market meltdown of 2008, the Iraq and Afghanistan war, and corruption among our leaders are the modern day equivalent of those early plights, transmitted through a different medium. Media in both times seem to give off an aura of, "the end is near." Would you agree with me that negative portrayals in the media have correlated with the rise in Anti-Federalism in the United States since the beginning? If so do you think its reasonable that media should have such a profound effect on the politics of our nation? This country was founded on beliefs of Anti-Federalism against the tyranny of Great Britain but how much of that Anti-Federalism stemmed from early propaganda and the fourth estate in general?

Why Support Britain?

Has anybody else noticed that our in-class discussions seem to revolve in support of Great Britains taxes, acts, and political agendas preceding the revolutionary war? I just find it interesting to see that the classroom filled with quote on quote "rebellious" teenagers would take the side of the nation that threatened our democracy with oppression centuries ago. Many of us, including me, have parents, grand-parents, or other relatives who immigrated to the United States seeking, "The American Dream." That elusive dream (in my mind) is the search of opportunity, working hard and being rewarded, and fundamentally, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These ideals seem key to the fight for freedom from the British during the revolutionary era. Its true, taxes were much higher in london than they were in Boston, but does that justify them to the colonists? A common Enlightenment philosophy that we learned about tells us to doubt everything and to me it seems as though this philosophy goes part and parcel with the colonies' rebellions. I'm not trying to play some kind of guilt card at you guys, I must admit that during the readings its pretty hard to deny that the colonists resented everything Britain did, and sometimes, it seems, just for the sake of resenting her. I just wanted to know why people think it is that in this day and age we are so quick to support what our ancestors so eagerly renounced. Were the colonists truly blinded by their own cause? Too overly-zealous to admit that the oppression imposed on them could be justified? Does some greater influence inject a desire for order and peace rather than rebellion in our lives? Or do I completely misunderstand people's takes on this subject during our class discussions? Let me know.