Navigation

Author Archive | Tom DiLorenzo

How Nullification Was Used To Fight Slavery, in the Words of a Marxist Historian

By on December 2, 2010 in Uncategorized 1

From Marxist historian Eric Foner’s latest book, The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery (p. 134):

“[A]s the New York Times pointed out, by nationalizing the right to property in slaves the Dred Scott decision made the doctrine of state rights . . . [slavery's] foe.  A number of northern states had already enacted personal liberty laws that prohibited public officials from cooperating in the rendition of fugitive slaves . . . .  Radicals in some states invoked the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798-99, in which Jefferson and Madison had claimed for the states the power to challenge or even override national legislation . . . .  Some Republicans spoke of nullification.  ‘The fact is, one Radical [Republican] wrote in 1859, that to prevent enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act, we have got to come to Calhoun’s ground.’”

Foner then praises Lincoln for denouncing nullification of the Fugitive Slave Act by northern states because he was supposedly such a stickler for “the rule of law.”  Even a federal “law” that props up slavery.  To Abe, propping up the dictatorial powers of the central state was much more important.

cross-posted from the LewRockwell.com blog

Continue Reading

H.L. Mencken on the “God” of Democracy

By on November 4, 2010 in Uncategorized 1

“There’s really no point to voting. If it made any difference, it would probably be illegal.”

“Every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods.”

“Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.”

“Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule — and both commonly succeed, and are right.” Continue Reading →

Continue Reading

Political Correctness at Monticello

By on October 29, 2010 in Uncategorized 1

I went on a tour of Monticello, Thomas Jefferson’s home, yesterday with some friends.  It had been a long time since I had visited The Great Man’s home, and I fully expected to be exposed to a strong dose of political correctness, which now pervades all of American society.  It didn’t take long before the school-marmish tour guide announced that “historians tell us” that Jefferson fathered six children with slave Sally Hemmings.

She didn’t say which historians say this, nor did she indicate why anyone would expect historians to have knowledge of DNA science, which would be necessary to come to such a conclusion.  Nor did she mention that there are many prominent scholars who have objected to (and ridiculed) this assumption.  For example, as Professor Marco Bassani writes in his great new book, Liberty, State, & Union: The Political Theory of Thomas Jefferson: Continue Reading →

Continue Reading

The Jeffersonian Position

By on August 9, 2010 in State Sovereignty 1

From Thomas Jefferson: Writings (Library of America, 1984), pp. 1056–1057 is a January 26, 1799 letter from Jefferson to Edbridge Gerry (inventor of “gerrymandering”) explaining his political philosophy:

“I do then, with sincere zeal, wish an inviolable preservation of our present federal constitution, according to the true sense in which it was adopted by the States, that in which it was advocated by its friends, & not that which its enemies apprehended, who therefore became its enemies; and I am opposed to the monarchising its features by the forms of its administration, with a view to conciliate a first transition to a President & Senate for life, & from that to a hereditary tenure of these offices, & thus to worm out the elective principle. I am for preserving to the States the powers not yielded by them to the Union, & to the legislature of the Union its constitutional share in the division of powers; and I am not for transferring all the powers of the States to the general government, & all those of that government to the Executive branch. I am for a government rigorously frugal & simple, applying all the possible savings of the public revenue to the discharge of the national debt; and not for a multiplication of officers & salaries merely to make partisans, & for increasing, by every device, the public debt, on the principle of its being a public blessing [as Hamilton called it]. I am for relying, for internal defense, on our militia solely, till actual invasion, and for such a naval force as may protect our coasts and harbors from such depredations as we have experienced; and not for a standing army in time of peace, which may overawe the public sentiment, nor for a navy, which, by its own expenses and the eternal wars in which it will implicate us, will grind us with public burthens, & sink us under them. I am for free commerce with all nations; political connections with none; & little or no diplomatic establishment . . . I am for freedom of religion . . . for freedom of the press, & against all violations of the constitution to silence by force & not by reason the complaints or criticisms, just or unjust, of our citizens against the conduct of their [political] agents . . .

. . . These, my friend, are my principles; they are unquestionably the principles of the great body of our fellow citizens . . .”

They are also almost diametrically opposed to the principles of Hamilton, the intellectual leader of the opposing Federalist Party, which Jefferson defeated in the presidential election in the next year.

cross-posted from the LewRockwell.com blog

Continue Reading

The Politics of Obammunism

By on March 23, 2010 in Health Care, The Opposition 10

The Obammunist’s socialized health care legislation promises to cut Medicare spending by hundreds of billions of dollars while increasing Medicare spending by hundreds of billions. At least half of all Medicare enrollees vote Republican; almost all Medicaid enrollees vote Democrat. This is why the Obammunists are so euphoric today.

Wicked Witch Pelosi (D-Botox) says this law is reminiscent of the Civil Rights legislation of the ’60s. Not really. It’s more like Ted Kennedy’s 1965 immigration law that drastically reduced the number of Europeans who could immigrate to the U.S., more than half of which voted Republican, while vastly expanding Third World immigration quotas, almost all of whom vote Democrat.

Are the health insurance companies really upset over the fact that the Obammunists have mandated that every last adult in America must purchase their products or face fines (or possibly imprisonment)? Does anyone deny that this government-mandated explosion in demand will lead to an equally explosive increase in costs?

Cross-posted from the LewRockwell.com blog

Continue Reading

Dick Armey Praises Hamilton, Inserts Foot in Mouth

By on March 18, 2010 in Founding Fathers, Founding Principles 2

In its ongoing attempt to take over the “tea party” movement the Republican Party recently dragged out Dick Armey, who promptly placed his right foot directly into his mouth by claiming that all those statist liberals out there do not support the ideas in The Federalist Papers. A member of the audience who I suspect has read my book, Hamilton’s Curse, asked Armey how the tea party movement could support The Federalist Papers when their chief proponent, Alexander Hamilton, was such a statist. And he was, of course: He advocated a permanent president who would appoint all the governors, who would in turn have veto power over all state legislation, thereby destroying state sovereignty and centralizing all political power; he was the founding father of constitutional subversion who invented the idea of “implied powers” of the Constitution along with the perversion of the General Welfare and Commerce Clauses; and he was a British-style mercantilist on economic policy, favoring protectionist tariffs, corporate welfare, a large public debt, heavy taxation, central banking, and central planning in general.

This is not surprising. The Jeffersonian, states’ rights view of the Constitution has been all but whitewashed from American history, and continues to be whitewashed by such GOP/neocon propaganda organs as the Claremont Institute, which runs conferences and other programs on Hamilton’s Federalist Papers and the centralizing nationalist view of government that they promote. Claremont is also known for its charming policy of waging campaigns of character assassination against anyone who dares to resurrect the Jeffersonian decentralist, states’ rights philosophy (Their biggest joke is to claim that Lincoln was a “Jeffersonian”!). A couple of decades of conservative political activists have been mis-educated by them, and Armey is apparently one of them. (Thanks to Lew and Bob Murphy for bringing the Armey episode to my attention).

Cross-Posted from the LewRockwell.com Blog

Continue Reading