[fastpat]

Originally posted by oldE
"The US military hasn't defended America since the War of 1812, genius"

I wouldn't be too quick to call that much of a defence. They started out on the offence, then things kind of went sour from there. But hey! The White House probably needed new paint, anyway.

I wuld agree, particularly since Britain had already made statements that she'd sign a treaty agreeing to almost every demand. Alas, New England shipping corporations wanted "something done", and a meeting had already taken place among the New England states to discuss secession.

Also, it's not entirely clear that Great Britain wouldn't have taken a few things back to stop American expansion westward, things such as New Orleans, the west bank of the Mississippi River, and so forth.

Five decades later, the Union army, (which I guess you'd have to call the army of the United States, wouldn't you?), defended the Union from break-up.

No, the Union army invaded a sovereign nation to force it at gun point to an association from which it had lawfully withdrawn. That's not a defense, it is naked agression. In fact, it set a precedent that is used today.

Even if you discount the Aleutian campaign (as I'm sure you have) it is easy to make the mistake of seperating "America" with America's interests".

I don't know why the Japanese attacked and attempted to occupy the Aleutian Islands, but let's not try to say that was a prelude to an invasion of America, with Los Angeles as next. Just guess, mind you, I'd say that Japan didn't understand the scope of the US government's forces, thinking that we'd tie down soldiers and men defending the islands that wouldn't be available to fight them. While we did station men and equipment "way up there" for the duration, it had no effect in the war with Japan.

Should you take up arms against someone who has invaded your home? It would seem you should, (provided it is indeed your home and you have a right to be there). What if that someone has blocked the road to your home so that you cannot go to work or bring home food or goods? Is that not an attack upon your freedom, upon your life, perhaps?

If we trade, or carry out commerce in the world, placing restrictions upon right of passage or trade can be construed as an attack upon the country which is restricted.

No, there's nothing in the Constitution that permits this conclusion. Jefferson made the unfortunate precedent of invading a foreign nation over this issue to avoid an illegal payment of bounty for trade, which the British and French were doing to avoid military action which is more expensive. The payments were recognized as lawful, as the body of water being crossed and entered was recognized as belonging to Tripoli. The US government sent the navy to bully the country, nothing more, and certainly nothing to be proud of. It was using the military in support of corporations that didn't want to spend the money to defend themselves, which should have be the course of action.

Unless your country is entirely self-sufficient and trades with no-one, you are vulnerable to interruption of trade through action outside your borders. After all, most wars are fought for commercial reasons, including the War of Independence and the Civil War.

Les

Ever wonder why the "Letters of Marque and Reprisal" are in the Constitution but seldom used? It's to enable lawful, private defense of shipping (among other uses) by the shippers themselves. It was seldom used because early on the precedent was set to alleviate the need for private defense, instead tax supported defense came into use, and the rest, as they say, is history.

But, none of those was a defense of America against invasion by a foreign enemy intent on occupation.