« It could be true, therefore it must be true | Main | Karl Rove in cahoots with bin Laden! »
October 27, 2004
Our Oldest Enemy
Our Oldest Enemy: A History of America's Disastrous Relationship with France
John J. Miller and Mark Molesky
Doubleday, ISBN 0385512198
Quick: against which nation did America fight its first post-Revolutionary military conflict?
If you answered France, either you're well-versed on American history, you've read Our Oldest Enemy, or you're a good guesser. The Quasi-War of 1798 is underplayed in American history textbooks, which is a pity, because it's an amusing story and is oh so quintessentially French.
In the aftermath of the Revolution, both France and Britain preyed on American merchant shipping as part of their ongoing conflict with each other. President Washington sent Chief Justice John Jay to Great Britain to ask them to please stop. The resulting Jay Treaty did little to alleviate the problem, granting few concessions to the United States, and was seen by many in this country as a failure.
The French, however, were so incensed that the United States would even talk to their hated enemy that they threw a full-blown Gaulish snit-fit. When Washington's successor John Adams sent a three-man delegation to Paris to negotiate, French foreign minister Talleyrand refused to even meet with them. After forcing the delegation to wait for several weeks, he secretly sent three representatives of his own to tell them his terms. As a precondition to negotiations, America would have to grant France a loan of twelve million dollars, apologize publically, and pay a substantial bribe. On this, they were intractable.
American public opinion had been heavily pro-French. Americans remembered with gratitude French assistance in the Revolution, and furthermore the French had just fought a Revolution of their own, although the Republic thus established would prove to be far, far shorter lived than the American one. This reservoir of good will evaporated virtually instantly when the news of the French demands broke. An ugly anti-French sentiment quickly took its place, and a declaration of war would certainly have been forthcoming had Adams asked for it. Instead, he chose to fight a low-level, undeclared war on the seas.
In this "quasi-war", the infant United States Navy received its baptism by fire, and passed with flying colors. The brand new navy was augmented by the addition of several excellent formerly French prizes, including the frigate L'Insurgente. The USS Constellation, under the able command of Thomas Truxton, fought the far more heavily armed Vengeance to a draw and would have captured her but for suffering too much damage to accept the larger ship's surrender. American sailors successfully raided and spiked cannon in French forts in the Carribean.
After two years of this, the French called it quits and agreed to leave American merchant ships alone. Their arrogance in refusing to negotiate and demanding bribes cost them dearly... a pattern which would be repeated frequently.
In Our Oldest Enemy, Miller and Molesky tell this tale along with myriad others that show conclusively that France is not our ally, has rarely been our ally, and has often been our enemy. And on those rare occasions that France was with us, it was a thorn in our sides more often than not.
Miller and Molesky start their story of French emnity in the colonial period, with the French and Indian Wars. During these wars, the French used their Indian allies as a kind of premodern weapon of mass destruction against the Americans, allowing them to commit atrocities including prisoner slaughter and cannibalism, then threatening defiant American cities that unless they surrendered, the Indians would be unleashed. As it turns out, even surrender didn't save some Americans from suffering the depredations of the Indians.
Apologists for the French in this country often point to their assistance in the Revolutionary War. Miller and Molesky point out that the most valuable French ally, the Marquis de Lafayette, traveled to America against orders and was considered by France a fugitive criminal for a time. When the French did arrive, their blunders cost American lives. It was not until Yorktown that French assistance proved helpful, let alone decisive. And the ink was scarcely dry on the Treaty of Paris ending the American Revolution before the two nations were trading cannonballs on the high seas.
During the Civil War, France's dictator attempted to conquer Mexico and assist the Confederacy. General Grant was convinced that a war against France in Mexico would immediately follow the defeat of Lee, and it might have had not the French retreated. After World War I, French intransigence led to the disastrous Treaty of Versailles, despite clear warnings that it would lead to a second war, and may have contributed to President Wilson's failing health. In the runup to World War II, France ignored its treaty obligations, allowing Hitler to build up his forces, preferring instead to cower behind their ridiculous Maginot Line. After the fall of France, Vichy forces fought and killed Americans attempting to invade North Africa. During the Cold War, De Gaulle never missed an opportunity to criticize his supposed allies while ignoring atrocities committed by the Soviets, eventually pulling French forces out of NATO and implying that French nuclear missiles could be targeted at American cities. When incontrovertible proof arose that the Libyan government had ordered its agents to commit terrorist atrocities, resulting in a bloody bombing in Berlin, France closed its airspace to American pilots on a retaliatory mission, necessitating the longest fighter mission in history to that point. After Iraq invaded Kuwait, France somehow found a way to blame America, and insisted that Iraq itself should not be attacked, prompting a retired French politician to ask what would have happened in World War II had the allies limited themselves to attacking France rather than pushing on into Germany. And during the War on Terror, France has done all it could to thwart the Coalition.
All of this and more is laid out in remarkable detail in Our Oldest Enemy, and convincingly makes the case that French amity is a myth. It has an unfortunate tendency to take cheap shots at the physical appearance of certain French adversaries, which marginally detracts from its main thrust, but the book is otherwise a compelling indictment.
Our Oldest Enemy paints a picture of a country suffering from a national inferiority complex, a once-mighty empire reduced to a third-rate power desperate to preserve the illusion of relevance. To this end, they elevate to demigodhood their temporarily-successful non-French dictator and insist on intruding themselves where they don't belong. Today, many Americans point to French opposition as evidence that our cause is not just. They couldn't be more wrong. French opposition to American goals isn't a novelty, it's the norm, seldom deviated from.
October 27, 2004 in Current Affairs | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834559cb569e200d83433303253ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Our Oldest Enemy:
Comments
Most Frenchmen either refused to resolutely fight the Germans or passively collaborated. The idea of a broad resistance was mostly a postwar Gallic nationalist myth. Those who spearheaded a few attacks on German occupiers were more likely led by Communists than by allied sympathizers, and thus fought in hope more of an eventual Soviet victory over the Nazis than an American one. -- by Victor Davis Hanson. This article appeared in the National Review Online as "Let Europe Be Europe", June 18, 2004
Posted by: Sharpshooter | Oct 29, 2004 5:16:27 PM
Fanning the flames of prejudice.
Our Oldest Enemy : A History of America's Disastrous Relationship with France
John J. Miller[1], has decided to embark upon a new endeavour: to publish a book to further Bash France and the French.
Miller is well known for his talent as a polemicist, but he probably wasn’t sufficiently versed in abstruse history to write this book alone. He therefore teamed up with a Harvard lecturer, Mark Molesky[2], thus gaining, in the eyes of some, a certain intellectual respectability.
Thus the Miller Molesky team has delved into the deep recesses of North American History, extracting isolated events from the general schema, such as the Deerfield Massacre of 1704, when a group of Canadiens and Indians massacred settlers in northern Massachusetts to prove a point: the French cannot be trusted. Needless to say, the North America of 1704 was brutal; this was a time of raids and expeditions between British and French establishments from Newfoundland, New France to Hudson’s Bay.
Not only content to trivialize the French role in the war of independence, Miller and Molesky argue the French involvement was motivated by the pursuit of its own agenda. A revelation that will come as no surprise to the serious scholars of history, no more shocking that the ulterior motives that can be found behind the current Iraq war and every other strategic and diplomatic choice made by any power in the last thousand years.
The Miller Molesky duo then moves on to the Civil War in an attempt at portraying the French as only being pro-south. The fact is French nationals were on both sides of that terrible war. Over 26 000 French citizens enrolled in the Confederate (60%) and Union (40%) armies. Several French officers were amongst the ranks of the two armies: princes of Orléans, the count of Paris, the duke of Chartres aided general MacClellan. General Trobriand was also with the Union army. On the Confederate side, General Camille de Polignac, son of a minister of Charles the Xth of France was nicknamed the Southern Lafayette. What Miller and Molesky do not address is the fact that although sympathetic to the South at first, the French under Napoleon the IIIrd, refused to intervene. In 1861, Napoleon the IIIrd declared French neutrality.
Moving on to World War I, the Miller Molesky blame game uses the much-touted theory that the Versailles Peace Conference paved the way for the rise of fascism in Germany. Had Miller and Molesky bothered to read the widely acclaimed book « 1919 » by Margaret MacMillan, they would have realized this theory is closer to wishful thinking and « conventional wisdom » than actual history.
De Gaulle’s legacy is also put under the polemiscope, and Miller and Molesky churn out the usual Anti-American facets of the first president of the Fifth Republic. The book further blames the French for educating genocidal dictators such as Pol Pot and having links with Iraq and Syria, thus proving in their eyes that France is America’s enemy. Miller and Molesky claim that they «provide an authoritative explanation for the explosive anger toward France that has swept across America and continues to shape debates about our foreign policy and role in the world».
Unfortunately the book seems to be nothing more than a one-sided patchwork of historical events taken out of context for one purpose only: fanning the flames of Anti-French prejudice in Conservative circles.
Marc Saint Aubin du Cormier
Posted by: Miquelon | Oct 31, 2004 2:19:36 AM
Fanning the flames of prejudice.
Our Oldest Enemy : A History of America's Disastrous Relationship with France
John J. Miller[1], has decided to embark upon a new endeavour: to publish a book to further Bash France and the French.
Miller is well known for his talent as a polemicist, but he probably wasn’t sufficiently versed in abstruse history to write this book alone. He therefore teamed up with a Harvard lecturer, Mark Molesky[2], thus gaining, in the eyes of some, a certain intellectual respectability.
Thus the Miller Molesky team has delved into the deep recesses of North American History, extracting isolated events from the general schema, such as the Deerfield Massacre of 1704, when a group of Canadiens and Indians massacred settlers in northern Massachusetts to prove a point: the French cannot be trusted. Needless to say, the North America of 1704 was brutal; this was a time of raids and expeditions between British and French establishments from Newfoundland, New France to Hudson’s Bay.
Not only content to trivialize the French role in the war of independence, Miller and Molesky argue the French involvement was motivated by the pursuit of its own agenda. A revelation that will come as no surprise to the serious scholars of history, no more shocking that the ulterior motives that can be found behind the current Iraq war and every other strategic and diplomatic choice made by any power in the last thousand years.
The Miller Molesky duo then moves on to the Civil War in an attempt at portraying the French as only being pro-south. The fact is French nationals were on both sides of that terrible war. Over 26 000 French citizens enrolled in the Confederate (60%) and Union (40%) armies. Several French officers were amongst the ranks of the two armies: princes of Orléans, the count of Paris, the duke of Chartres aided general MacClellan. General Trobriand was also with the Union army. On the Confederate side, General Camille de Polignac, son of a minister of Charles the Xth of France was nicknamed the Southern Lafayette. What Miller and Molesky do not address is the fact that although sympathetic to the South at first, the French under Napoleon the IIIrd, refused to intervene. In 1861, Napoleon the IIIrd declared French neutrality.
Moving on to World War I, the Miller Molesky blame game uses the much-touted theory that the Versailles Peace Conference paved the way for the rise of fascism in Germany. Had Miller and Molesky bothered to read the widely acclaimed book « 1919 %C
Posted by: Miquelon | Oct 31, 2004 2:24:34 AM
Another stupid and groundless book on what should be considered as America oldest friend. There is no historic value in reading this neocons pamphlet and the bias is really pathetic. Stanley Hoffman's book review herebelow extracted from Foreign Affairs is self explanatory:
That a book as shoddy and biased as this one should be published by a reputable press is eminently regrettable. Penned jointly by a National Review writer and a Harvard lecturer, this romp through the history of Franco-American relations purports to show that the French have been eager to annoy, oppose, or cheat the United States at every turn. It is clear that the French have often opposed U.S. policy (sometimes foolishly, sometimes wisely), but instead of providing an honest account of the facts and attempting to discern reasons behind them, the authors offer only vituperation and contempt. They make no effort, for instance, to understand why the French (along with the British) wanted to impose heavy reparations on Germany after World War I, or to explain how a country so wracked by moral decadence after the Franco-Prussian War fought so bravely in 1914. They dismiss the French resistance as a joke and Charles de Gaulle as a disaster. They distort the last three years of French policy in order better to denounce it. They substitute the silly idea of a French nation obsessed with fears of decline and "fantasies of greatness" for any awareness of complexity. Ultimately, this book is a contribution to our understanding only of U.S. neoconservatism, not of Franco-American relations.
Posted by: lous | Nov 4, 2004 9:28:56 AM
I'm actually in France right now and agree with both sides of the argument. While the French are not enemies in the sense that the Soviets or the Nazis were and, at times have even done some pretty nice things for us, they are not tried and true friends like the Brits (and I'd add the Canadians except for their recent refusal to join their kin in the US and Britain in the war against Iraq). The French are a strange breed to be sure. People often point to the US as the most arrogant country on Earth. Compared to the French we are as humble as humble can be. And this is where I think the French love-hate relationship with the US comes from. I haven' read the book mentioned but while I expect that every word of it is at least marginally true there is probably some exaggoration and pulling of things out of context. I think it would be wise for everyone in the US to know their Franco-American history and read this book if they don't but at the same time take it with a grain of salt. The Franco-American relationship, I suppose, could be summed up like the GOP-Dem relationship in the US. At the end of the day we're all pretty much friends and wouldn't wish true harm on each other because we are all Americans but that doesn't mean we won't take the opportunity to make each other's lives difficult at times and attempt to benefit from our "oppositions" downfall.
Posted by: Mark Griswold | Dec 2, 2004 5:50:51 AM
