Great columns!

Thanks for sharing!  (I will be!)

On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 4:20 PM, MJ <> wrote:

> August 11, 2017
> *Straussians, Like the Marxist Left, are Threats to American Civilization
> With All Their . . . *Thomas DiLorenzo
> ... lies and disortions
> <> 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
> <>”,
> and blasts California secession
> <>
> 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
> <>
> 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
> <>. 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*
> <>
> piece
> <>
> 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.
> --
> --
> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> For options & help see
> * Visit our other community at
> * 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
> For more options, visit

Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see

* Visit our other community at  
* 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 
For more options, visit

Reply via email to