Great columns! Thanks for sharing! (I will be!)
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 4:20 PM, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote: > > August 11, 2017 > > *Straussians, Like the Marxist Left, are Threats to American Civilization > With All Their . . . *Thomas DiLorenzo > > ... lies and disortions > <https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/calhoun-the-marxist/> about > American history. Especially their repetition of Harry Jaffa’s ignorant > and deceitful “reinterpretation” of the writings of John C. Calhoun. Like > the Marxist Left, the Straussian neocons want a huge, centralized state, > especially a huge, centralized, military/industrial/spying complex. That > is why they, along with the Marxist Left, incessantly spew hatred of > southerners, southern history, southern culture, southern monuments, and > everything else associated with the American South. The South was the > birthplace of the Jeffersonian idea of limited, decentralized government. > Only the South ever seriously opposed the New England/Abraham Lincoln dogma > of the centralized, “unitary” state. These ideas that America was founded > upon are deadly poison to Straussian centralizers at Hillsdale College, the > neocon media, and all other institutions that they have infected. > > (And by the way, these neocons will also never mention that Massachusetts > was the first colony to legalize slavery; that slavery existed in New York > City until 1853; that the transatlantic slave trade was run out of New > York, Boston, Newport, and Providence, Rhode Island; that this slave trade > operated illegally for years after the “Civil War,” bringing slaves to > Brazil and elsewhere where slavery still existed; that New England > insurance companies and textile mill operators were complicit in slavery; > that slaves were used to build the slave ships that sailed from these New > England and New York harbors; that their hero, Alexander Hamilton, owned > slaves and once purchased six of them at a slave auction; that New Yorkers > lynched dozens, maybe hundreds, of free blacks when in July of 1863 the > Lincoln regime introduced slavery as a new issue of the war and began > enforcing the new conscription law; that Ulysses S. Grant was the overseer > of his father-in-law’s slave plantation and that he owned slaves himself > until he was forced to free them in 1866; that Robert E. Lee freed the > slaves his wife, a descendant of Martha Washington, had inherited; that New > Englanders attempted to secede in the first decade of the nineteenth > century; that Jefferson Davis and his wife Varina had adopted a black > orphan and raised him with their own children, something Abraham Lincoln > would never have dreamed of doing; that New Englanders were such racists > that they dug up black graves whenever they found them in their whites-only > cemeteries; that that Northerners wanted to preserve the new territories as > an all-white society; that”black codes” that deprived free blacks of > citizenship originated in the Northern states; that Illinois amended its > constitution in 1848 to prohibit the migration of black people into the > state; that Lincoln advocated the deportation of all black people until his > dying day (see the book *Colonization After Emancipation*); and that in > his first inaugural address Lincoln pledged his support of an amendment to > the Constitution the Corwin Amendment that would have prohibited the > federal government from *ever* interfering with the institution of > slavery. Among other things). > > > > Aug 10, 2017 > > *Calhoun the Marxist? *By Brion McClanahan > > Neo-conservatives can’t seem to make up their mind about the Confederacy. > They all agree that the Confederacy represented everything evil about early > America (which places them squarely in league with their intellectual > brothers on the Left) but why they hate it presents the real conundrum. > > It borders on schizophrenia. > > Neo-conservative historian Victor Davis Hanson, for example, often rails > against the Confederacy when issues involving “state’s rights” and > secession come up. He opposes “sanctuary cities” as a vestige of the “New > Confederates > <http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425564/are-sanctuary-cities-new-confederates-victor-davis-hanson>”, > and blasts California secession > <http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444744/california-secession-movement-hearkens-back-southern-elites-confederacy> > as a rekindling of the Old South on the West Coast. > > On the other hand, neo-conservative journalist John Daniel Davidson thinks > that the Old South, the Confederacy, and John C. Calhoun wrote the > blueprints > <https://thefederalist.com/2017/08/03/confederacy-still-lingers-within-progressivism-birthed/> > for the modern bureaucratic, centralized state. > > So which one is it? Is the Confederacy behind unwanted decentralization or > unwanted centralization? > > To these “intellectuals” it is just unwanted. > > But more than that, the South represents a convenient straw man to push > over whenever their Lincolnian dream of a centralized proposition nation is > threatened. To the Straussian, Jaffaite, neo-conservatives, everything bad > originated in the Southexcept one line from the Declaration of > Independence, “that all men are created equal.” > > Hanson doesn’t like the South and doesn’t like secession > <https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/let-the-bear-flag-go/>. The > Confederacy exemplifies the most visible threat to the New England and > Lincolnian myth of American history, and thus it must be denounced whenever > possible. Topple monuments and symbols, deride “neo-confederate” ideas, and > champion the unitary state so long as “your guy” is in power. This grab-bag > of tools to erase the Confederate “stain” on American history would find > handymen at *Mother Jones* or the *Daily Kos*. > > Davidson’s argument masquerades as a serious challenge to the “Lost Cause > myth” but is nothing more than a regurgitation of several easily > discredited neo-conservative fallacies and one characterization of Calhoun > as the “Marx of the Master Class.” > > Davidson insists that the “now so familiar” narrative of the South as a > decentralized “rural backwater” is woefully wrong. To prove it, he cites a > *USA > Today* > <https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/07/31/confederate-civil-war-fantasy-4-scenarios-allen-guelzo-columns/516485001/?utm_content=bufferd7652&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer> > piece > <https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/07/31/confederate-civil-war-fantasy-4-scenarios-allen-guelzo-columns/516485001/?utm_content=bufferd7652&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer> > by Lincolnite scholar Allen Guelzo claiming that the Confederacy > “centralized political authority in ways that made a hash of states’ > rights, nationalized industries in ways historians have compared to ‘state > socialism,’ and imposed the first compulsory national draft in American > history.” > > Part of this is true, but Guelzo leaves out important element of the > story. Several Southern states openly resisted attempts by the Confederate > government to trample civil liberties and centralize power, so much so that > “states’ rights” were often *blamed* for the defeat of the Confederacy. > The Confederate federal court system was never implemented, leaving the > state courts in complete control of the legal mechanisms in the South. > State courts routinely defied Confederate law, even going so far as to > issue writs of *habeas corpus* after it was suspended by the central > government. The Confederacy had at most three or four “major” industrial > centers and thus had to maximize output to have any shot at keeping pace > with the Northern industrial machine. This did involve government control > of vital industriesin clear violation of the Confederate Constitutionbut > classifying this as “state socialism” is stretching the truth. > > It’s also clear that Davidson has never read Calhoun and relies upon the > Jaffaite interpretation of the man to buttress his arguments. Calhoun was > called the “Marx of the Master Class” by Richard Hofstadter in 1948. This > was not meant as a critique. Hofstadter thought Calhoun was a thoughtful > person, indeed the last American statesman philosopher, who had a sharp > mind and penetrating intellect. Harry Jaffa distorted this label by > insisted that, like Marx, Calhoun favored “scientific” political thought. > Davidson calls it “the junk pseudoscience of racial inequality and > Darwinism.” Calhoun did not believe that all men were equalhe never > mentioned race in the *Disquisition on Government*but neither did any > other conservative from time immemorial to the 1970s. Is that “junk > pseudoscience” and “Darwinism?” If so, then Russell Kirk and other giants > of American post World War II conservative thought should be held in > contempt. They, too, reflected positively on Calhoun’s contributions to > American constitutionalism and political philosophy. > > Davidson claims that Calhoun’s concurrent majority was intended to > “circumvent the forms and restrictions of the Constitution so the > government can do things they think need to be done.” More insidiously to > Davidson and Jaffa, Calhoun distorted “the Founders’ and Abraham Lincoln’s > understanding of the Constitution.” This statement would be laughable if it > wasn’t so sadly stupid. > > Calhoun wrote in the *Disquisition* that written Constitutions, while > laudable and better than any other restraint on government, could not keep > numerical majorities from crushing minorities because they often lacked an > enforcement mechanism to keep government power at bay. Whereas Jaffa and > Davidson think Calhoun’s “negative” would lead to anarchy, Calhoun > expressly rejected this in several passages by arguing that “anarchy” would > be the result from unlimited government power. In other words, Calhoun > thought the negative would *prevent* anarchy. Simply put, the Tenth > Amendment to the Constitution needed teeth. The “concurrent majority” > provided those teeth and would allow “liberty” to flourish, even if that > meant secession. > > He also insisted that the concurrent majority would lead to greater > political suffrage, not less, as homogenous communities would be more > peaceful and open to larger numbers of people with ballot access. Calhoun > was not anti-democratic. He was anti-irresponsible universal suffrage, as > were all conservatives of his age, and he opposed alien peoples having > control over foreign political communities. Massachusetts certainly did not > want South Carolina dictating terms about suffrage or representation. Why > should South Carolina accept the opposite? > > To reach the conclusion that Calhoun would somehow recognize his views on > government in the modern bureaucratic state is lunacy. Calhoun was > concerned with political minorities and the dangers of mob rule, but again, > until the 1970s so was every other conservative. As he pointed out in the > *Disquisition*, the end result of a majoritarian system would be the > constant scrambling for the spoils of power by two factions and the > destruction of the written constitution. Each side would retreat to the > shield of the constitution when it was out of power but would ignore it > while wielding the reins. Has he not been proved correct? > > Calhoun was a “progressive” in that he held a positive view of human > society, but he was not a progressive in the modern political usage of the > term. Davidson is so far out in left field with that argument he might as > well join the CPUSA. They would at least be receptive to his interpretation > of Calhoun and the South. > > The neo-conservatives like Hanson and Davidson are as much a threat to > traditional America as the Left. By continually disparaging the South and > its traditions they are unknowingly destroying the very fabric of > conservative American society they supposedly wish to defend. More > important, they are undermining the bedrock of Western Civilization, and as > several American intellectuals noted well into the twentieth century, the > South produced the only truly unique and highly cultivated civilization in > American history. > > That said, decentralization and Calhoun’s argument for some type of > negative on the general government are fast becoming popular positions in > American society. They are *the* ideas of the twenty-first century. The > Founding generation insisted on a limited federal republic to protect the > separate interests of a heterogeneous people. That is the key to > understanding American government. Calhoun knew it better than most. > > https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/calhoun-the-marxist/ > > -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to politicalforum+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.