Alonzo Fyfe

If it had the capacity, would England have been morally justified, in 1830, to attack the United States for the purpose of bringing about a regime change?

In answering this, it is relevant to note that in 1830, Americans held a large part of its population in a possition of chattel slavery. The Iraqi citizen under Saddam Hussein enjoyed significantly greater freedom than most of the blacks in pre-civil-war America.

In addition, the American government was involved in a continuing military campaign against a native population. This campaign included evidence for the use of biological weapons -- namely, the act of selling small-pox infected blankets to native americans with the knowledge that the disease will kill around 90% of the inhabitants -- and possibly spread to other villages.

Some of the claims being made today, if applied consistently, seem to suggest that England would have been morally justified in attacking the United States in 1830, hunted down its leaders, and imposed a new form of government on the American people.

Yes or no?

Rusting Car Bumper

No. The reason that the British did not have slavery was mostly because they didn't want Blacks in England. The fore front position was agaisnt slavery in England was NOT some moral problem with it.

DC

Furby

It would be pretty hypocritical for England to invade America on moral grounds since they did not totally abolish slavery until 1834.

In any case, the Americans were perfectly capable of effecting their own regime change, since, unlike Iraq where elections are a sham, they had the power to choose their own government. And they did vote Lincoln into office.

I think its always best if the people could stand up and fight for their own rights, since liberation by a foreign power will likely lead to a lot of lingering resentment among the locals.

Pyrrho

In view of Furby's remarks, you may wish to change it to a question about 1840 instead of 1830. In that case, the same arguments, in my opinion, would definitely lead to a justification of an invasion of the U.S. by England. Except that the U.S. really was using biological warfare, as you mention, and there is no evidence that Iraq was doing so at the time when the U.S. invaded (this year). In other words, the U.S. invaded Iraq guided by the imagination of Bush rather than actual facts, but England invading the U.S. in 1840 for the humanitarian reasons you mention would have been real.

(When Iraq was doing most of its really bad things, it was receiving the full support of the U.S., under Reagan and [the elder] Bush. It was only after they more or less stopped doing such things that the U.S. has pretended that it was a justification for invasion. But the reality is, the U.S. does not invade countries for humanitarian reasons; people being tortured does not cause the U.S. to invade; if it did, we would invade Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Israel. True enough, Saudi Arabia has enough oil to tempt us, but they readily sell it to us as it is, so an invasion isn't necessary, no matter how repressive the government is. But the situation in Iraq was different, and an invasion to control the oil fields will enable us to drive huge SUVs to the mall for many more years, so we can pretend we are on safari rather than to purchase an appropriate vehicle for the actual use we make of it.)

Also, we have not set up an effective regime in Iraq (nor has one been set up in Afghanistan, either), so general lawlessness and anarchy prevails, making the lives of the people there dreadful.


But, surely, hypocrisy in the political activities of American politicians is no surprise to anyone who pays any attention at all to what they say and do.

Jamie_L

Well, regardless of what England actually felt about blacks and native Americans, the question still stands:

If England did have the same moral values we have today, would they have been justified in invading the U.S. at that time?

It seems to me that the foreign policy of the day didn't concern itself much with the internal goings-on of other countries. That's probably because the world was "larger" then - travel and communications took longer, the population in one country had little to no interaction (or even knowledge) of what went on it other countries - certainly not in a timely fashion. So it's not surprising that England didn't care much about what America did within it's own boarders.

But, given the morals of our day, should other countries have attempted to invade America and put an end to such attrocities?

It's a very good question. (Which I realize I haven't answered.)

Jamie

Rusting Car Bumper

I suppose but its silly.

What if English moral values today were that of Europe in 500 AD?

Or what if 4 was a prime number? Then could England invade?

The hypothetical case is so far from any real state of affairs its not meaningful.

DC