¿Quién tiene razón?

I mentioned in a previous post about the Mexican-American War. In Mexico, there are still strong feelings against America's alleged aggression of their weaker country. Americans are still being decried for acting as war-like aggressors in areas such as Iraq. Perhaps the insults come with the territory of being one of the most powerful nations in the world.

Well, in our age of diversity and multiculturalism, many don't have a problem with admitting America was wrong. After all, Americans are always wrong, aren't they? Yet, let us not be like the park ranger I met in Brownsville who maintained “my country right or wrong.” Reasonableness requires that we examine the true nature of any conflict and decide who is right or wrong based upon unequivocal laws of right and wrong---the laws nature is governed by. If our country was wrong, we should own up to it. The only problem is that the unequivocal laws become very blurry in the Mexican-American War.

Mexico did not gain independence from Spain until 1821, and this late birthday must be kept in mind when considering that Mexico's government was still very unstable twenty years later. Additionally, the northern state of Tejas y Coahuila, with its sparsely populated and unproductive land, was very different from the Mexican interior. Its residents were American immigrants (mostly Southerners who brought their States' Rights doctrine) and very independent Mexican natives. In 1835, Santa Ana federalized the Constitution and took away the rights of Mexican states, causing the residents of Texas to separate just as Mexico had done from Spain.

The confusion around the end of the Texas War for Independence is what led to the Mexican-American War. Santa Ana, the Mexican dictator, signed the Treaty of Velasco, ending the war and ceding to the Texans all the land they desired. The problem was this: Santa Ana was deposed from power a few months before. Therefore, the Mexican government saw the treaty as void. This is how the “disputed territory” that would fuel the Mexican-American war came about. After Santa Ana signed the dotted line, hostilities stopped. While the Mexicans did not continue to fight, they maintained a spirit of “we will get you later.” The Texans lauded the end of the war. In 1845, however, Mexico arose to dispute the territory granted to the U.S. in Santa Ana's Treaty.

Do you get it? I admit that it is complicated. In the Mexican-American war, both sides fought for what they believed to be their rightful territory. By viewing the above map, you can see just how much territory was disputed by the Treaty of Velasco. Only then will you realize just how big of a deal the war was. In fact, the disputed territory was more than the whole state of Texas originally was!

So, how do we decide who was right and who was wrong? First off, the Texans had a right to do whatever they wanted to do with their state and territory. Did they want to separate to form their own country? Fine. Did they want to join the U.S.? Who can tell them what they can and cannot do? Mexico, however, refused to accept the democratic aspirations of the Texans, and even threatened to invade Texas should they become part of the United States! Even though the Mexicans had just seceded from Spain in a bloody war for racial equality, they denied the Texans the same rights of self-government and self-decision. Sound familiar? Yep, that's exactly what our government did to the South during the Civil War. It was wrong and belligerent for Mexico to forbid a sovereign nation (Texas) from entering the United States. Indeed, Mexico was trying to coerce a small country (Texas) and then complained about being coerced by the U.S. Funny how we are blind to our own faults.

It was, after all, Mexican troops who fired on a small body of men between the Rio Grande and the Nueces. This was disputed territory, after all---not universally accepted Mexican territory. The U.S. soldiers had just enough right to be there as the Mexicans did. It is also fair to say that the Mexican government was short on integrity when it stopped fighting in 1836 but wanted to push the issue again in 1845 after nine years of R&R. Does silence constitute agreement to Santa Ana's treaty terms?  The Mexican governments were full of corrupt dictators during these times who rose quickly and fell quickly. Was it America's fault that Santa Ana was declared an illegitimate ruler only a few months before the treaty was signed? You may judge.

Mexican proponents claim that America took advantage of a small nation. My reply is that Mexico holds just as much blame as America did for starting the war. IT WAS NOT AMERICA'S FAULT THAT MEXICO HAD WEAK AND CORRUPT GOVERNMENTS any more than it is America's fault that Mexican governments remain weak and corrupt today. If Mexico was weak, she sure matched her weakness with pride when she refused to see an American diplomat to negotiate terms. When reading many Mexican defenses of the war, one cannot help but think the authors are whining about their own calamities. It was not America's fault that their own Mexican governments had let them down or that the Mexican people suffered because of their own rulers.

That said, the American government was not free from the war-guilt. The Texans back in 1836 should have made sure all their t's were crossed and i's were dotted before they claimed victory. Additionally, the 1840's was a time of romanticism and excitement about obtaining new lands for the U.S. and expanding “democracy.” America believed it had a Manifest Destiny to spread liberty to the rest of North America. This doctrine included taking other people's land, which in reality, is not liberty at all. Many people wanted to make Mexico or portions of it part of the U.S. in order to expand American dominance and Southern slavery. There was much opposition to the war, even in the U.S., because war is never something to be taken lightly. In the end, war could have been avoided if people cared enough to try!

Events

  This summer, I traveled to the Searcy and Springdale Homeschool Conferences sponsored by the Education Alliance. This was an excellent opportunity to get to know other homeschoolers in the State, and to talk with them about history and Biblical principles. In both places, I was able to catch up with old friends who opened their homes to me, and the fellowship was sweet. Thank you Melissa Savary for having me come and speak.

  Another exciting aspect of these trips was in Springdale, when I was able to debut as Max Rossvally, a Union surgeon in the Civil War. Rossvally was a devout Jew who hated Jesus with a passion. One day, he met Charley Coulson, a wounded drummer boy who was brought into his field hospital. Charlie's testimony of faith would change Rossvally's life forever. Because of the witness of one young drummer boy, Rossvally became a devoted Christian and a world-wide evangelist!

  I was unable to get many photos at the homeschool conferences (I didn't bring my photographer), but here are some of my trip to the Bartlett Senior Citizen's Center on July 30th, where I met many clever history and genealogy enthusiasts.

  Currently, I am in my second week of school, and am putting my nose back to the grindstone. If all goes well, I will finish this semester. I'm looking forward to dedicating more time presenting the Gospel through living history.

On Historical Fiction

  Historical fiction is a great medium to connect with kids in a fun and exciting way while still teaching about historical events and encouraging Christian values. Someone asked me recently, however, if historical fiction will not only confuse our history more than it already is?

The “Civil War,” or War of Northern Aggression, is definitely a confused time in history. Will taking liberties with history or simply writing from a point of view as all authors do, skew the picture even more? I would like to propose that historical fiction clarifies the picture. For example, historical fiction touches on the spirit of the time. It shows how the people felt about what they were experiencing and allows the reader to lose their 21^st century frame of reference. Just as one must understand the culture when he visits a foreign country, one must also understand the culture of a historical time if he hopes to understand it. At best, textbooks recount facts and dates and who did what. Historical fiction should expound on “who felt what” and explain WHY so-and-so did such-and-such. Why did the South believe they were doing the right thing?

If we look back at history, we will find many important writings that employed fictional people to convey real-life lessons. Take, for example, Baron de Montesquieu. He was the same man who wrote Spirit of the Laws in 1748 and was one of the philosophers from which our founding fathers drew the idea of governmental checks and balances. Montesquieu also wrote another work called Persian Letters. This work included fictional letters from two Persians who wrote home about England's constitutional form of government. His readers could learn about his revolutionary ideas of government while not feeling like Montesquieu was giving a lecture. They were reading someone's personal letters. Many of you will doubtless remember Candide, a novel in which the French philosopher Francois Voltaire encouraged the use of Enlightenment principles through the use of a contrived story. Or how about the Civil War-era author Harriet Beecher Stowe who wrote Uncle Tom's Cabin? President Lincoln said this novel started the war. While we do not agree with many of these authors, they do represent a good example of writers who taught non-traditionally---who taught without teaching. But perhaps our best example is the Lord Jesus Christ, Himself, who frequently utilized fictional parables so that “those that have ears” will hear, and those that don't have ears, will not.

Lastly, we do not write historical fiction with the purpose of taking the place of textbooks or historical documents. We use historical fiction as a persuasive medium, yes. A writer's goal is to persuade. But we also write historical fiction with the hope that it will encourage more people to delve deeper into history---to bring the past to life, to bring an understanding between our culture and theirs. And maybe, if we are successful, our readers will be inspired enough to study further and form their own perspective of the past.

Wow, it has been a while since I have posted here. I have a lot to catch up on, and many events to talk about. Unfortunately, I did not take many pictures! However, since I last posted I have made another trip to Fayetteville, as well as one to Kansas City, Missouri and the Robert E. Lee Camp of the SCV in Germantown, TN (April 23). I also spoke at the MHEA Homeschool conference in the summer (June 12-13).

At the MHEA Conference, I was blessed to be able to share a new topic about my experiences as a self-published author. It is easy to try to do good things for God, but it is a lot harder to let God do good things through you! Yielding is the main objective of the Christian life, but it is often overlooked. This is the topic I discussed with the students of Fayetteville Christian school on my return visit in August, and also to the 4-H Honor Society in Memphis on August 8.

In Kansas City in September, it was wonderful to be able to fellowship with another homeschool family who opened their home to us. Although it was only for one night, we had a good time watching their son perform magic tricks, discussing many topics, and of course, eating cinnamon rolls!

I have also been busy finishing up The Orphan and His Golden Bars. It is the sequel to The Orphan and the Beaten Drum. I hope to get it to the presses sometime in the next couple of months. We are excited to see how God will use this book to minister to hearts and spread His truth. A friend and compatriot of mine, Danny Honnoll, has written a Foreword to the book, drawing from his recent travels to Virginia and the place where Stonewall Jackson died. It is a real honor to have Mr. Honnoll's encouragement in this endeavor. He is the President of Arkansas Civil War Heritage Trails and the former commander of the Arkansas Sons of Confederate Veterans. He is also presently running for the office of commander of the Trans Mississippi Division SCV. You can check out his website at Honnoll.com.

Besides all this, I have been taking online classes from the University of Arkansas, and hope to graduate next year. Also, I have been working at getting some freelance material published. My work was recently published in Nature Friend Magazine, and another article will appear soon in The Storyteller. Hope to see you in Springdale and Searcy, at the Arkansas Homeschool conventions this summer! Drop me a line when you can.