9/11 in American History

[Fischkoepfin 1]

As a history buff, I was surprised to find this following editorial today:

January 28, 2006

Op-Ed Contributor

Finding a Place for 9/11 in American History

By JOSEPH J. ELLIS

Amherst, Mass.

IN recent weeks, President Bush and his administration have mounted a spirited defense of his Iraq policy, the Patriot Act and, especially, a program to wiretap civilians, often reaching back into American history for precedents to justify these actions. It is clear that the president believes that he is acting to protect the security of the American people. It is equally clear that both his belief and the executive authority he claims to justify its use derive from the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

A myriad of contested questions are obviously at issue here — foreign policy questions about the danger posed by Iraq, constitutional questions about the proper limits on executive authority, even political questions about the president's motives in attacking Iraq. But all of those debates are playing out under the shadow of Sept. 11 and the tremendous changes that it prompted in both foreign and domestic policy.

Whether or not we can regard Sept. 11 as history, I would like to raise two historical questions about the terrorist attacks of that horrific day. My goal is not to offer definitive answers but rather to invite a serious debate about whether Sept. 11 deserves the historical significance it has achieved.

My first question: where does Sept. 11 rank in the grand sweep of American history as a threat to national security? By my calculations it does not make the top tier of the list, which requires the threat to pose a serious challenge to the survival of the American republic.

Here is my version of the top tier: the War for Independence, where defeat meant no United States of America; the War of 1812, when the national capital was burned to the ground; the Civil War, which threatened the survival of the Union; World War II, which represented a totalitarian threat to democracy and capitalism; the cold war, most specifically the Cuban missile crisis of 1962, which made nuclear annihilation a distinct possibility.

Sept. 11 does not rise to that level of threat because, while it places lives and lifestyles at risk, it does not threaten the survival of the American republic, even though the terrorists would like us to believe so.

My second question is this: What does history tell us about our earlier responses to traumatic events?

My list of precedents for the Patriot Act and government wiretapping of American citizens would include the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798, which allowed the federal government to close newspapers and deport foreigners during the "quasi-war" with France; the denial of habeas corpus during the Civil War, which permitted the pre-emptive arrest of suspected Southern sympathizers; the Red Scare of 1919, which emboldened the attorney general to round up leftist critics in the wake of the Russian Revolution; the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, which was justified on the grounds that their ancestry made them potential threats to national security; the McCarthy scare of the early 1950's, which used cold war anxieties to pursue a witch hunt against putative Communists in government, universities and the film industry.

In retrospect, none of these domestic responses to perceived national security threats looks justifiable. Every history textbook I know describes them as lamentable, excessive, even embarrassing. Some very distinguished American presidents, including John Adams, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt, succumbed to quite genuine and widespread popular fears. No historian or biographer has argued that these were their finest hours.

What Patrick Henry once called "the lamp of experience" needs to be brought into the shadowy space in which we have all been living since Sept. 11. My tentative conclusion is that the light it sheds exposes the ghosts and goblins of our traumatized imaginations. It is completely understandable that those who lost loved ones on that date will carry emotional scars for the remainder of their lives. But it defies reason and experience to make Sept. 11 the defining influence on our foreign and domestic policy. History suggests that we have faced greater challenges and triumphed, and that overreaction is a greater danger than complacency.

Joseph J. Ellis is a professor of history at Mount Holyoke College and the author, most recently, of "His Excellency: George Washington."

Copyright 2006The New York Times Company

Source

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

As a history buff, I was surprised to find this following editorial today:

January 28, 2006

Op-Ed Contributor

Finding a Place for 9/11 in American History

By JOSEPH J. ELLIS

Amherst, Mass.

...

In retrospect, none of these domestic responses to perceived national security threats looks justifiable. Every history textbook I know describes them as lamentable, excessive, even embarrassing. Some very distinguished American presidents, including John Adams, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt, succumbed to quite genuine and widespread popular fears. No historian or biographer has argued that these were their finest hours.

...

Source

The domestic response to 9/11 is going to be viewed just the same if not as the most excessive and embarrasing domestic response yet. History does have a way of repeating itself. Other than the 9/11 response, there is nothing this President has to show for his two terms. Sucks to be him...

[slim 1,514]

What's most shocking to me about this is that it was in the NY Times. Wow, an American newspaper letting an American actually say 9/11 wasn't that important?

I guess Bush didn't get a courtesy copy of this when it was e-mailed to the editor. If he would've, none of us would've seen it.

I can't wait until next week when Scott McClellan has the Washington Post reply with an editorial about how the Pentagon attack wasn't all that significant either. The new "spin" on all this is going to be that the Bush administration "agrees" with the editorial, but has knowledge (that we can't comment on at this time) that an even greater threat to the American republic exists, and that's why they're combatting terrorism so hard overseas. Stand by for more from President Bush - "We're going to defeat this threat before it even reaches our borders..... there is a threat out there, more threatening than the Cuban Missile Crisis.... more threat-a... thrataang... a, you know what I mean, it's bad.... and we're going to stop 'em."

[Fischkoepfin 1]

As a history buff, I was surprised to find this following editorial today:

January 28, 2006

Op-Ed Contributor

Finding a Place for 9/11 in American History

By JOSEPH J. ELLIS

Amherst, Mass.

...

In retrospect, none of these domestic responses to perceived national security threats looks justifiable. Every history textbook I know describes them as lamentable, excessive, even embarrassing. Some very distinguished American presidents, including John Adams, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt, succumbed to quite genuine and widespread popular fears. No historian or biographer has argued that these were their finest hours.

...

Source

The domestic response to 9/11 is going to be viewed just the same if not as the most excessive and embarrasing domestic response yet. History does have a way of repeating itself. Other than the 9/11 response, there is nothing this President has to show for his two terms. Sucks to be him...

You're so right on target.

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

i ain't no fan of bush. definitely do not like the way he has handled the response.

but to classify 9/11 as not important? either historically or militarily/economically ? wow. dudes! surely you do not mean that nothing be done. right? do you think that America issomehow imune from the types of attacks thar are more common in europe and the mideast?

Daniel

:energetic:

[gimygirl 0]

the major importance that 9/11 served was allowing the President to scare and bully the american people who bent over and took it. that will go down in history.

[Fischkoepfin 1]

What's most shocking to me about this is that it was in the NY Times. Wow, an American newspaper letting an American actually say 9/11 wasn't that important?

The NY Times has a tendency to do so. I have been positively surprised by their increasing willingness to stand up to government propaganda when it comes to national news. Their international section is lamentably missing this political independence, though.

What it surprising about the American author, though, is that Joseph Ellis is not what you would call a liberal academic, but a true conservative. To see him speaking up shows that something is not going quite the right way.

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

the major importance that 9/11 served was allowing the President to scare and bully the american people who bent over and took it. that will go down in history.

that may or may not be true, but what is true is that we now have to deal with folks who want to blow us up to smitherings.

Daniel

:energetic:

[Fischkoepfin 1]

i ain't no fan of bush. definitely do not like the way he has handled the response.

but to classify 9/11 as not important? either historically or militarily/economically ? wow. dudes! surely you do not mean that nothing be done. right? do you think that America issomehow imune from the types of attacks thar are more common in europe and the mideast?

Daniel

:energetic:

I don't think that 9/11 is not important, but it is not the biggest threat to the US in history. What Ellis wants to suggest is that today's government spin portrays the situation as more extraordinary than it was to justify a response that is basically a remake of bad policy of the past.

[ceriserose 1]

Sept. 11 does not rise to that level of threat because, while it places lives and lifestyles at risk, it does not threaten the survival of the American republic, even though the terrorists would like us to believe so.

I think that this statement may not be entirely accurate.

I guess it depends on how one would define American republic...because I believe that a republic is not only the political structure, or its fundamental existence, but also the way of life and what it stands for.

For better or worse, the blinders were ripped off the American public that day to understand that contrary to decades of promises by their leaders, that they were not 'safe'. I think a lot of the public's reaction to 9/11 is in part due to the fact that their perception of safety was altered. Unlike other nations who have a major part on the world stage, the US citizenry truly never contemplated an attack on their own soil (at least it seem like that to me, judging by the reactions).

And to me, that change of perception and the knee jerk reaction to it threatens the survival of the American republic, at least in its present form. If the republic is the sum of it's parts, which include the factors/mores that it was built upon (which also require defending and upholding), then it has indeed had a threat made to its survival. What happens to the average American's perception of who they are and/or who their country is, if the basic tenets their country was founded on begin to split at the seams? What then?

the major importance that 9/11 served was allowing the President to scare and bully the american people who bent over and took it. that will go down in history.

that may or may not be true, but what is true is that we now have to deal with folks who want to blow us up to smitherings.

Daniel

:energetic:

Which kind of follows my post above.

You always had to deal with folks who wanted to blow you to smithereens. That's not new. I think now that it's been brought home as it were, it's become more of a reality to the average person.

Altered perception.

(Of course, then there's those of us who just want your manic flower gone. IEEEEE! )

[j&js 0]

And whats so disturbing is that a lot of the propaganda is really working on a lot of Americans. I am always amazed at the ####### from the current govt that people completely buy into...

I am a high school teacher and am always having current events conversations with my students. I do my best not to sway them politically in any way, just present them with facts and play devil's advocate in the discussion. This is the scary comment I got from a kid the other day: "We had to go to war to show those Iraqis its not cool to fly planes into our buildings."

Now granted this was a comment from a young kid, still being educated, but he is one that is always interested in the world around him and generally keeps up on political issues. Despite this he totally bought into the connection Bush had originally tried to make between Iraq and 9/11 and even thought that there were some Iraqis on the plane!

I live in one of the bluest blue states and am pretty liberal so I don't often hear opinions like that, but it scares me that they are common somewhere in the states.

Edited January 28, 2006 by j&js

[ceriserose 1]

Wow, a total aside here, I thought I'd made 2 posts there and it was all in one. New board features are wild pre-coffee. !

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

i ain't no fan of bush. definitely do not like the way he has handled the response.

but to classify 9/11 as not important? either historically or militarily/economically ? wow. dudes! surely you do not mean that nothing be done. right? do you think that America issomehow imune from the types of attacks thar are more common in europe and the mideast?

Daniel

:energetic:

Not immune. But I predict we will not have another attack like 9/11. ie plane into building. The enemy is very patient and will attack again in a different way. I think biological or chemical. The nuclear option is out (dirty bomb or otherwise). We have the ability to detect the radiation given off by these devices and we can prevent these kinds of attacks. IMHO.

[Fischkoepfin 1]

Sept. 11 does not rise to that level of threat because, while it places lives and lifestyles at risk, it does not threaten the survival of the American republic, even though the terrorists would like us to believe so.

I think that this statement may not be entirely accurate.

I guess it depends on how one would define American republic...because I believe that a republic is not only the political structure, or its fundamental existence, but also the way of life and what it stands for.

...

And to me, that change of perception and the knee jerk reaction to it threatens the survival of the American republic, at least in its present form. If the republic is the sum of it's parts, which include the factors/mores that it was built upon (which also require defending and upholding), then it has indeed had a threat made to its survival.

I agree that 9/11 does threaten the survival of the American republic because large portions of the American public were and are willing to dismantle civil liberties to continue going on with their "lives and lifestyles" (whatever that is supposed to mean). The threat to the republic is portrayed by the spin masters as external, aka "the terrorists," but is in reality internal.

What happens to the average American's perception of who they are and/or who their country is, if the basic tenets their country was founded on begin to split at the seams? What then?

This is an interesting question that history can probably answer as well. 9/11 has modified Americans' self-perceptions and it is in the process of modifying the national self. But it is by no means the first time this happens and most likely it is also not the most extreme transformation of American identity, especially if compared to the impact of the industrial revolution (ran contrary to the idea of the citizen as independent farmer/artisan), the Civil War (Southerners had the hardest time to reidentify with the Union) or the American entry in WW1 and WW2 (both of which officially marked the end of American isolationism).

[gimygirl 0]

The threat to the republic is portrayed by the spin masters as external, aka "the terrorists," but is in reality internal.

i haven't seen that put any better than you just have!! *wipes tear from eye*