Right to Yacht Goes Wild

Inspired by the recent expansion of the Right to Work movement, Right to Yacht groups have been springing up across the nation, especially in the Right to Work states where yacht clubs are common.

Florida has seen the most Right to Yacht actions so far, but there have been also been Right to Yacht actions in Texas and Virginia, and preliminary Internet organizing and discussion in several other states, including Michigan. [See Limits on Unions Pass in Michigan].

In one Florida incident a yacht owned by a Miami area hedge fund owner was illicitly used for a party. Right to Yachters simply snuck by yacht club guards and had a party in the boat, emptying its liquor cabinet and "generally making a mess of it." The party goers snuck out before police or security guards became aware of the situation.

An Anonymous Right to Yacht person explained. "If you don't have to pay union dues to work in a unionized work place, why should you have to pay dues to get any privilege? Why should I have to pay yacht club fees to enjoy a yacht? Next time I'm taking a crew out into the bay."

According to postings on Internet bulletin boards, there are already two trends in the Right To Yacht movement. Some believe that only politicians who vote Right to Work laws, and their financial backers, should have their yachts targeted. These yachting excursions would take on the air of political protests against a specific law.

But the Eat the Rich trend seems to be more popular, at least in rhetoric. This trend seems to have a total disregard for the private property rights of the rich in general. They believe the rich deserve nothing they have grabbed. They talk of not just having floating parties, but of the right to take whatever they need from any rich person any time, from mansions to limousines to wallets. One online diatribe called for crowds to swoop into fancy restaurants and eat the food off the plates of the diners, calling it the Right to Eat.

Others talk of refusing to pay all forms of dues, rather than just union dues. Dues are a form of payment for a service. They want services without payment, just like workers who take advantage of the Right to Work laws to live like parasites. They even talk of creating homes for people without paying for permits or following building codes.

But the real purpose of the Right to Work laws is to keep wages and benefits unfairly low. In turn, this keeps profits high, and enables the business class to keep their yachts, mansions, and club memberships. What the people of America really need a way to Share the Wealth, and not just with the welfare class. It is the ordinary workers who get up in the morning and staff the stores, build the yachts, mansions, and malls, and do all the sundry things that allow us all to live who deserve better. They need more than the right to unionize. They need to get their share from what is owed to them for past labor, one way or another.

Check out the Internet for a Right to Yacht party near you, or Occupy a Michigan politician's home and see how they like it.

Mexican-American War Timeline

Note: throughout the period covered, Native American Indian tribes did not accept the right of Spain, Mexico, the Republic of Texas, or the United States to occupy their lands.

Adams-Onis Treaty of 1819 sets the boundary between the United States and Spain at the Sabine River, the Red River, the Arkansas River, then the 42nd parallel west to the Pacific Ocean. Spain ceded Florida to the United States, and "The United States hereby cede to His Catholic Majesty, and renounce forever, all their rights, claims, and pretensions to the Territories lying West and South of the above described Line." [See text of Adams-Onis Treaty]
Mexico becomes independent of Spain, 1821. The new government encourages immigration to the Texas region, including by U.S. citizens.
1828. A Mexican government fact finding mission finds U.S. citizens are seizing land in Texas by fraud and by force and are suspected of plotting to annex Texas to the United States.
1836. Texas War of Independence. A Mexican army led by Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna enters Texas to restore order. U.S. citizens form militias, and after suffering a string of military defeats, defeat the Mexican Army at the Battle of San Jacinto on April 21, 1836. Captured and as a prisoner of war under duress, Santa Anna signed papers (Treaties of Velasco) promising to cease hostilities. Mexican troops were to relocate south of the Rio Grande, but this was not stated as an actual boundary of the Republic of Texas. The boundaries were to be established in a later treaty. Texas reneged on some of the provisions, and the government of Mexico refused to ratify the agreement, as it was beyond Santa Anna's authority and extracted under duress.
1837. The United States of America recognizes Texas as an independent nation. President Martin Van Buren turns down a formal request from Texas for annexation.
1842. Faced with bankruptcy, Texas again pursues annexation by the U.S., with the alternative of stronger ties with Great Britain. Mexican troops capture San Antonio, but later withdraw. The U.S. and Great Britain continue to haggle about where to draw the West Coast line between the U.S. and Canada.
October 18, 1842. U.S. Commodore Thomas Gatesby Jones seizes Monterey, California in Mexico. He had orders to "protect American interests" on the Pacific coast and thought that war between the U.S. and Mexico was imminent. Thirty hours later, receiving news that in fact the U.S. and Mexico were still at peace, Jones apologized and withdrew.
1844. Possible annexation of Texas is a major issue in the presidential election campaigns. An annexation treaty was signed on April 12, 1844, but because of the slavery issue (Texas practiced slavery), Congress does not pass its own bill for annexation until February 28, 1945. John Charles Fremont first enters California on a military exploration expedition.
November 1844. James K. Polk elected President. He and fellow expansionists plan to find a pretext to admit Texas to the union and buy or take New Mexico and California from Mexico.
October 1845. Thomas Larkin, U.S. consul in California, writes Polk that France and Britain have opened consulates there and were urging Mexico to send troops to counter the large influx of American adventurers in the region. Secretary of State Buchanan encourages Californians to revolt against Mexico, as Texas had. The commander of the U.S. Pacific Squadron is given orders to seize San Francisco if he were to "ascertain with certainty" that war had broken out.
July 1845. Brigadier General Zachary Taylor moves U.S. troops into Texas, and Polk insists the Rio Grande is to be the boundary with Mexico once Texas is annexed.
August 29, 1845. Polk orders General Taylor to regard any crossing of the Rio Grande by Mexican troops as an act of war. Taylor given permission to attack first, at his discretion, and take Matamoros on the south bank of the Rio Grande, but not to penetrate further into Mexico. But Taylor, cautious, advances only to Corpus Christi.
December 29, 1845. President Polk signs resolution of Congress admitting Texas to the United States.
1845-1846. The Mexican government repeatedly rejects offers to sell California and the land north of the Rio Grande to the United States.
January 13, 1846. Polk orders Taylor to advance to the Rio Grande and construct Fort Texas opposite Matamoros.
January 27, 1846. Fremont arrives in Monterey, telling Mexican authorities he just wants to resupply before marching north to the Oregon territory. Instead he fortifies Gavilian Peak (now Hawks Peak) and raises the American flag. When confronted with 200 Mexican troops, Fremont and his smaller force abandon their fort on March 9th.
March 1846. Taylor begins construction of Fort Texas on the Rio Grande.
April 12, 1846. Mexican General Pedro de Ampudia sends General Taylor a demand to withdraw his troops to the Nueces River.
Mid April, 1846. General Mariano Arista takes command of Mexican troops and informed Taylor that in his opinion, the war had begun. This was not authorized by the Mexican government, which enduring a civil war.
April 25, 1846. U.S. forces under Captain Seth Thornton clash with Mexican forces north of the Rio Grande; Mexicans win the battle.
April 28, 1846. Polk discusses with his Cabinet asking Congress to declare war.
May 8, 1846. Battle of Palo Alto.
May 8, 1846. John Slidell reports the failure of U.S. attempts to buy the desired lands. Polk says he is preparing to ask Congress to declare war.
May 9, 1846. Battle of Resaca de la Palma.
May 9, 1846. Morning. U.S. Cabinet votes to declare war with 1 dissent.
May 9, 1846. Bearing secret orders from Polk, Lieutenant Archibald H. Gillespie meets Fremont at Upper Klamath Lake. [The orders had been given in on October 30, 1845]
May 9, 1846. Evening. Dispatch from General Taylor handed to President Polk, reporting the Thornton disaster and declaring that hostilities had commenced.
May 11, 1846. Polk asks Congress to declare war on Mexico, stating "Mexico has passed the boundary of the United States, has invaded our territory and shed American blood upon American soil." Later that day House of Representatives passes declaration of war 174 to 14.
May 12, 1846. Senate, after a lengthier debate, approves war 40 to 2.
May 13, 1846. President Polk signs the Declaration of War with Mexico, making it official.
June 14, 1846. A few people in the small town of Sonoma declare California an independent republic (Bear Flag Republic). This is before news of the war arrived.
December 22, 1847. Abraham Lincoln, Whig Party congressman from Illinois, introduces his Spot Resolutions, challenging the idea that the war began when American blood was spilled on American soil.
February 2, 1848. Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, Mexico cedes Texas and what later became the states of California, Nevada, Utah, most of Arizona and parts of New Mexico, Colorado and Wyoming to the United States.

Sources:

Walter R. Borneman, Polk, The Man Who Transformed the Presidency and America, trade paperback edition, 2008, Random House, New York.
Wikipedia, used to double check and fill in some dates.

Texas and the Marco Polo Bridge Incident

What does the State of Texas have to do with an incident at a Chinese bridge in the 1930's?

Once there was no Texas. The area was inhabited, probably sparsely, by groups of Native American Indians. Then the area became part of the Spanish colonial possession Mexico. The Spanish settlement was also relatively sparse, but included notably included the town of San Antonio. The Spanish traded the Louisiana Territory, excluding Texas, to France, who immediately sold it to the United States. Disputes about boundaries between this territory and Spanish Texas were supposed to be settled in 1819. The United States wanted all of Florida as a slave state. Unable to defend Florida against the slaver-predator Andrew Jackson (later founder of the Democratic Party and President of the United States), Spain gave Florida to the U.S. and received, in part, undisputed title to Texas in return. In 1821 Mexico became independent of Spain, and included Texas. Few Mexicans wanted to move to Texas, but many Americans did. In 1835 and 1836 the Americans in Texas revolted against Mexico and became an independent nation, the Republic of Texas. With the consent of the government of Texas, the United States annexed them in 1845, and Texas on January 1, 1846 became a state of the United States. A state where slavery was legal.

A problem was that the border between Mexico and Texas was disputed. Another problem was that greedy men in the United States coveted Mexican lands, in particular California. The United States needed a pretext for war with Mexico so it could grab the disputed lands of south Texas, plus New Mexico, Arizona, California, etc. Mexican troops, a few of them anyway, were stationed between the Nueces and Rio Grande Rivers. President of the United States James Polk, claiming Texas extended to the Rio Grande, in 1846 purposefully sent a patrol of U.S. troops into the disputed territory, where they clashed with the Mexican army and lost the initial skirmish. The United States and Mexico then declared war on each other. (See the Thornton Affair at Wikipedia)

Polk claimed Mexicans "shed American blood upon American soil." Thus, in the American version, it was not a war of aggression, even if the U.S. "won" about 1/3 of Mexico through the war.

Now consider the Marco Polo Bridge incident, which occurred in China, near Peking (or Beijing), in 1936. Here began the war between Japan and the head of a coalition of Chinese war lords, Chiang Kai-shek, that eventually merged into the war between U.S. and Japan that ran in parallel to World War II. The American interpretation of the incident and war is that the Japanese were aggressors, that Chiang Kai-shek's government was the legitimate representative of the Chinese people (although no one was ever allowed to vote on that idea), and that the U.S. acts of war that proceeded the battle of Pearl Harbor were justified by Japanese aggression in China.

To put the incident in context, you need to understand a little about the history of Manchuria, an area in the extreme northeast of modern China that had become part of China when the Manchus conquered China back in the 1600's. Attacked throughout the 19th century by imperialist powers including the both the U.S. and Japan, by 1910 China was in a state of anarchy, with only nominal national governments, the reality being rule by local war lords. Russia, China, and Japan all wanted to control Manchuria, and of course at least some of the Manchurians would have preferred independence from all three powers. So Texas can be seen as a sort of American Manchuria, an area that was fought over by the U.S. and Mexico, but that also had a independent streak.

Two Japanese colonels, Kanji Ishihara and Seishiro Itagaki, with leftist and democratic views tried to turn Manchuria into a utopia starting in the 1920's. They used the Japanese army there, known as the Kwantung Army, to gain control of Manchuria without the permission of army headquarters or the Japanese government. The reality already was that under Japanese guidance the area was prospering economically and attracting many immigrants from China, Japan, and Korea. In 1931, with a name change to Manchukuo, the area became independent.

Unfortunately Ishihara and Itagaki lost control of the Kwantung Army, and were replaced by Kenji Doihara, who wanted to rule China, and who was backed by the expansionist, right-wing Control Clique of the Japanese army. He was able to create another autonomous, self-governing area south of Manchukuo. Chiang Kai-shek was mad that the war lords of this area were cooperating with the Japanese instead of with his southern-China based gang of war lords.

Which brings us to the Marco Polo (Lugou) Bridge, located 8 miles southwest of Beijing, and within the northern autonomous area. Japanese troops were in the area under the usual excuse of protecting the lives of Japanese citizens in the area. Accusations vary, but apparently Chiang thought he was strong enough to kick out the Japanese, so he had his local war lord Sung Chi-yuen, or perhaps some select group under Sung, attack the Japanese without provocation. It took a while for things to escalate. At first the Japanese government thought it was merely sending a punitive expedition of the type the U.S. sent to China during the Boxer rebellion. But the situation turned into an all out war between Japan and the two main government groups in China, the communists and nationalists.

I tend to side with the Mexicans and Chinese on this one. The Japanese had their points, including that Japan and Japanese occupied areas were better governed and more economically successful than the areas of China ruled by Chiang Kai-shek and other war lords. But they were acting as aggressors in a foreign nation. Invitations from local Manchu and other Chinese leaders existed, but that has been a fig leaf for aggression all to often in history. The situation was similar when an American puppet in South Vietnam invited the U.S. to attack North Vietnam decades later.

I see no mitigating circumstances at all regarding the start of the Mexican American War. The disputed area of Texas was, in fact, disputed, and grabbing it would have been one thing. But it was not really the area the U.S. government wanted to grab. It was a pretext for grabbing a vast area that had nothing to do with the disputed area.

Go West Young Man: Japan and Manchuria

I just began reading The Rising Sun, The Decline and Fall of the Japanese Empire 1936-1945 by John Toland, and it looks to be a fascinating book. In its first few pages he has fleshed-out some of the events I only learned about after beginning research on my U.S. War Against Asia. I was particularly struck by his evocation of Japanese sentiments towards Manchuria, on pages 7 and 8:

"The two officers felt that Manchuria was the only answer to poverty in Japan. It could be transformed from a wilderness into a civilized, prosperous area, alleviating unemployment at home and providing an outlet for the overpopulated homeland, where more than two-thirds of the farms were smaller than two and a quarter acres."

Was that not exactly the attitude of European settlers towards America, and of the citizens of the United States towards the Indian nation lands of the West?

Were not the problems, including ethical problems, the same? After all, people already lived in Manchuria and felt they owned it. The dominant tribe was the Manchu (or Qing Dynasty), who had conquered China in 1644 and ruled it until 1912. In addition to non-Manchu indigenous groups, many ethnic Chinese, Koreans, an others had migrated to Manchuria over the centuries.

For Americans, the American west (and here I mean that ever-shifting West that originally was just few miles west of the shores of the Atlantic ocean) was considered to be essentially empty. American Indian tribe oral land titles were voided by murder. The attitude of the Japanese was that Manchuria was essentially empty. Land that was not mined, tilled, or urbanized was land wasted. Had the Japanese colonized Manchuria before 1850, no one would think much about a Manchurian state dominated by ethnic Japanese today. But the Japanese were coming late to the land-grab game. The United States had already grabbed Hawaii, Alaska and the Philippines by the time the Japanese got serious about Manchuria. Russia and China both wanted Manchuria. England, France, Germany, and the United States wanted Manchuria to be kept open to their own commercial exploitation. So Japan had to fight two major wars to get a grip on Manchuria, first with China and then with Russia.

It is still an interesting question, the relative rights of natives in thinly populated areas against the rights of intruders to settle. Religion aside, it is the fundamental question in Palestine right now. It is also a fundamental question in Tibet. I've heard it is a fundamental question in the states of Washington and Oregon, who look with horror upon the masses of northward trekking Californians who (except in the current recession) keep pushing up real estate prices.

One might also ask about Hawaii. As I recently found out, when the United States seized Hawaii, the biggest ethnic group there was not native polynesians, nor American colonists, it was Japanese. They were not consulted in the deal. Neither were the natives consulted when the U.S. grabbed the Philippines. Lucky for the Filipinos, not many Americans wanted to emigrate there, although about two million Filipinos were murdered to clear the way just in case.

There does not seem to me to be anything fundamentally wrong with Han Chinese emigration to Tibet, as long as the native Tibetans have equal rights and land transfers are fair and transparent. The fear is always that the new majority (or more powerful group even if it is in a numerical minority) will discriminate against the old majority. In American history, brief though it is, we see this happened in Texas. The Mexican government made the mistake of allowing American (northern European-descended) settlers. As soon as they could they rebelled and established a nation, Texas, that discriminated against Mexicans (and the remaining native American Indian tribes), often simply murdering them without a trial or any pretext.

The peaceful process of immigration into the United States, though sometimes politically contentious, actually serves as a good model for the world. I would like to see more mobility, not less. Every person should have the full human rights recognized by mankind. That should include the right to relocated provided you follow reasonable rules. You should be able to buy land, a residence, or a business from someone who is a willing seller. But doing what the Israeli state does: bulldozing communities off their land, then sending in settlers, is wrong. No matter who does it: Chinese, Americans, Japanese, or any nation or group of people.