← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Sertorius
Thread ID: 16817 | Posts: 10 | Started: 2005-02-18
2005-02-18 12:51 | User Profile
The Weekly Standard
Incorrect History Reading Thomas Woods's "Politically Incorrect Guide to American History." by Max Boot 02/15/2005 12:00:00 AM
I FIRST BECAME AWARE of Thomas E. Woods Jr.'s Politically Incorrect Guide to American History when the New York Times Book Review took note of its rise on the paperback bestseller list and described it as a "neocon retelling of this nation's back story." A neocon retelling? What would that be, exactly? Curious to find out, I cracked open The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History.
It gets off to a slow start with a recitation of civics-text nuggets. Bet you didn't know that the Constitution "established three distinct branches of government--executive, legislative, and judicial--and provided 'checks and balances' by which each branch could resist the encroachments of another"!
Soon enough, however, the guide starts to slip from conventional history into a Bizarro world where every state has the right to disregard any piece of federal legislation it doesn't like or even to secede. "There is, obviously, no provision in the Constitution that explicitly authorizes nullification," the author concedes, but Woods nevertheless is convinced that this right exists. His source? Mainly the writings of the Southern pro-slavery politician John C. Calhoun.
Woods is only getting warmed up. Next he comes to the origins of the "Civil War" which, it seems, was pretty much the fault of Northern abolitionists whose writings "seethed with loathing for the entire South" and "only served to discredit anti-slavery activity in the South." You might be wondering about those quotation marks around Civil War. Woods doesn't think that's a proper description of the conflict. He likes "War Between the States," the preferred term of Southern sympathizers. "Other, more ideologically charged (but nevertheless much more accurate) names for the conflict," he adds, helpfully, "include the War for Southern Independence and even the War of Northern Aggression." According to Woods, the war wasn't really about slavery (no mention of the Emancipation Proclamation). It was really about the desire of Northern plutocrats to protect themselves from the threat of commerce being diverted to "the South's low-tariff or free trade regime." He approvingly quotes H.L. Mencken's comment that Union soldiers "actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves." Well, not quite all their people. But the plight of African-Americans does not concern Woods any more than it did Mencken. Later on, he expresses disgust with federal desegregation policy in the 1950s and 1960s.
But first Woods gives a Gone With the Wind version of Reconstruction, with evil Republican carpetbaggers trying to rape the virtuous South. He is particularly upset about the 14th Amendment (he claims it was never lawfully ratified) because it barred former Confederates from holding political office. "Thus," Woods laments, "the natural leadership class of the South would be disqualified from office and disgraced forever by having been dishonored in a constitutional amendment." It never occurs to Woods that "the natural leadership class" may have disgraced itself already by holding fellow human beings in bondage.
Woods's sympathy extends not only to slave-owning rebels but also to German militarists. The Kaiser wasn't really such a bad guy for invading neutral Belgium in 1914. After all, the Germans had "agreed to compensate Belgians for any damage or for any victuals consumed along the way." Tales of German atrocities he writes off as British propaganda (as some were--but not all). The real atrocity, he thinks, was Britain's naval blockade of Germany. In any case, whatever the merits of the European conflict, "No American interest was at stake, and American security was not threatened in the slightest." He seems to think that it was Woodrow Wilson's fault that Germany began sinking American ships without warning, which led the United States into the war. No mention is made of the famous Zimmerman Telegram, another casus belli. This was the document in which Germany's foreign minister offered Mexico the return of the American Southwest if it would declare war on the United States.
Woods apparently thinks that American entry into World War II was as unjustified as its entry into World War I. One section is titled, "How FDR got Americans into war." (Silly me, thinking it was Hitler and Tojo who were to blame.) Another section is devoted to defending the isolationist America First Committee, which he claims was the victim of "FDR's witch hunt." He actually shows great restraint by not repeating the old canard that Roosevelt knew about the Pearl Harbor raid and let it happen anyway. But he does pretty much accept the argument of Japanese militarists that they had no choice but to attack the United States because Roosevelt had imposed an economic embargo.
WHILE SYMPATHETIC TO FASCISTS, Woods has no love lost for communists. He is a big fan of Joe McCarthy; he never acknowledges any of the harm the bombastic senator did to the anti-communist movement. But not even his loathing of communism can make Woods overcome his opposition to any U.S. interventions abroad. He agrees with isolationist critics that the Truman Doctrine to assist nations battling communism was "utopian, unrealistic, partial toward big government, and thoughtless of cost." He also accuses Truman of violating the Constitution by resisting the communist invasion of South Korea without getting a declaration of war from Congress. He does not seem to realize that previous presidents had sent U.S. troops into battle hundreds of times without any declaration of war. But then his book doesn't mention the Barbary Wars or the Indian Wars.
By the time you get to the final chapter, it is no surprise to find the author's venom toward Bill Clinton. He's not upset about Clinton's moral peccadilloes but about his forays abroad. "Commander-in-chief Clinton dispatched the military overseas an amazing forty-four times during his eight years," Woods writes indignantly. "The American military had been deployed outside of our borders only eight times in the previous forty-five years." Really? The U.S. military was only deployed abroad eight times between 1948 and 1993? Woods offers no source for this claim. According to the Congressional Research Service, the actual figure is 57 times--and two of those instances were the Korean and Vietnam Wars.
Woods is particularly indignant about the dispatch of U.S. troops to the Balkans, "an area of no strategic interest to the United States." "What did Clinton's intervention achieve?" he demands. Uhhh, it stopped genocide and ethnic cleansing? Not according to Woods, who writes that the "Balkans remain seething with violence and hatred." (So do some major American cities.)
HAVING FINISHED this absurd manifesto, I was curious to learn more about its author. All the book tells you is that he has a bachelor's degree in history from Harvard and a Ph.D. from Columbia. A quick Internet search reveals that he is an assistant professor of history at Suffolk County Community College on Long Island, and a founding member of the League of the South. According to its website, the League "advocates the secession and subsequent independence of the Southern States from this forced union and the formation of a Southern republic." As an interim step before this glorious goal is achieved, the League urges its members to "fly Confederate flags at your residence or business every day" and to "become as self-sufficient as possible"--"if possible, raise chickens and keep a cow to provide eggs and dairy products for your family and friends." The League also counsels "white Southerners" that they should not "give control over their civilization and its institutions to another race, whether it be native blacks or Hispanic immigrants."
It tells you something about how debased political terminology has become when a leading light of the nutty League of the South is identified in the Paper of Record as a "neocon." The original neocons, like Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz, were former Democrats who accepted the welfare state, racial equality, and other liberal accomplishments while insisting on a more assertive foreign policy than the McGovernites wanted. In other words, pretty much the opposite of what Woods believes. Woods is a paleocon, not a neocon. His online writings (helpfully collected by the blog isthatlegal.org) seethe with hatred for everything that neoconservatism (and modern America) stands for. Just after September 11, he wrote that the "barbarism of recent American foreign policy was bound to lead to a terrorist catastrophe on American soil." Just before the Iraq War, he wrote that the Bush administration had undertaken an "open-ended commitment" to wage "war after war against the enemies of Israel, at America's expense." He blames this "imperial bluster" on "the neoconservative stable of armchair generals."
There are a number of respectable books by real scholars that tell U.S. history from a conservative (if not a "neoconservative") perspective, such as Paul Johnson's A History of the American People or Walter McDougall's A New American History (only the first volume has been published so far). Conservatives looking to inoculate themselves or their children from liberal indoctrination would be well advised to steer clear of Woods's corrosive cornucopia of canards. Shame on Regnery, a once-respectable publishing house, for lending its imprimatur to such tripe. Woods' book is politically incorrect, all right. It's also morally incorrect. And factually incorrect.
Max Boot is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, a contributing editor to the Weekly Standard, and a foreign-affairs columnist for the Los Angeles Times.
é Copyright 2005, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.
[QUOTE]It tells you something about how debased political terminology has become when a leading light of the nutty League of the South is identified in the Paper of Record as a "neocon."[/QUOTE]
This is the only truthful thing in this whole farrago of lies Boot has penned. Necons have contributed mightily to the debasement of true meaning in the English language with their corruption alone of the word "conservative".
[QUOTE]The original neocons, like Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz, were former Democrats who accepted the welfare state, racial equality, and other liberal accomplishments while insisting on a more assertive foreign policy than the McGovernites wanted. In other words, pretty much the opposite of what Woods believes.[/QUOTE]
And just what in the hell is "conservative" about them and precisely what are they conserving?? Yes, Boot is right. This is debasement of the language.
[QUOTE]Woods is a paleocon, not a neocon.[/QUOTE]
I stand corrected. Boot is actually truthful with two statements here. Woods should sue the New York Times Book Review for liable. I would, if I were compared to Max Boot.
2005-02-19 04:47 | User Profile
Sertorius
Yes you are most Right! [QUOTE]Just one of many reasons to further despise Max Boot.[/QUOTE]
Well he is marxist, and they cannnot chage their spots.
Might be an OK book if hates it that much. [QUOTE]"Woods' book is politically incorrect, all right. It's also morally incorrect. And factually incorrect."-Max Boot [/QUOTE]
2005-02-19 07:03 | User Profile
I actually shared a class with Max Boot at the University of California, Berkeley, back in the day, where we were both students.
We were united in our opposition to the leftists, but even then I could sense there was something a bit "off" about his conservatism.
BTW, even then he wore bow ties, dress shirts, fedoras, etc. - his ensemble practically screamed "young fogey" and "stuffed shirt".
I guess I can't blame anyone who bothers to dress nicely, but it was a bit odd for a student.
I guess I should not have been surprised; I didn't know at the time that he was from Russia (Russian Jew, I assume) but his "magical elevator ride to the top" (to recall the old phrase from Instauration magazine) should be the clue as to his connections and identity.
Yeah, he's an idiot. Opposing FDR's pushing us into WWII makes one "sympathetic to fascists", but somehow we aren't supposed to comment on "ex"-Trotskyists passing themselves off as "conservatives".
2005-02-19 12:14 | User Profile
Greg,
He certainly strikes me as an idiot, based on his tv appearances. I will say this for him. Unlike some of the other neocon like Brooks he admits he is an out and out imperialist. If you have any other recollections of him I'd love to read them.
2005-02-19 14:43 | User Profile
[url]http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo90.html[/url]
Standard Weekly Lies by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
As I quickly learned upon the publication of The Real Lincoln, the first reaction of virtually all neoconservatives to a publication with which they disagree, from the Claremontistas to National Review, The Weekly Standard, and AEI, is; 1) to lie about the actual contents of the publication, and then attack their own straw-man arguments; 2) to wage a personal smear campaign against the author; and 3) to quote each othersââ¬â¢ lies from #1. This textbook neocon procedure was on display again recently in a February 15 Weekly Standard online "review" of (or more accurately, a hatchet job on) Tom Woods' book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, by Max Boot of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Bootââ¬â¢s first big lie is in the third paragraph, where he claims that The Politically Incorrect Guide "starts to slip from conventional history into a Bizarro world where every state has the right to disregard any piece of federal legislation it doesnââ¬â¢t like or even to secede." Professor Woodsââ¬â¢ source of this notion, says Boot, is "Mainly the writings of the Southern pro-slavery politician John C. Calhoun."
Where to begin dissecting Bootââ¬â¢s lies and half-truths? First of all, Woods does not say that every state "has the right" to disregard federal legislation in the chapter in question, which is entitled, "American Government and the Principles of ââ¬â¢98." The chapter is about American history, specifically, Thomas Jeffersonââ¬â¢s response to the Alien and Sedition Acts with his (and James Madisonââ¬â¢s) doctrine of nullification. Jefferson and Madison believed that states had the right to "nullify" federal laws that the citizens of the states believed were unconstitutional. Max Boot may not like the fact that Americaââ¬â¢s founding fathers wanted to place such limits on federal hegemony, but it is a fact of American history that Professor Woods clearly explains. Boot is being deceitful and dishonest by not even mentioning Jefferson or Madison here. Their ideas are the focal point of the whole chapter, and the reason why "The Principles of ââ¬Ë98" is in the title of the chapter. "Nullification" was the "Principle of ââ¬â¢98."
A second lie is that Woods relies "mainly" on the writings of John C. Calhoun. Neocons like Max Boot typically know absolutely nothing about Calhoun; they merely denounce him as "pro-slavery," implying that we should therefore ignore everything the man ever said. By that standard, we should also ignore everything Abraham Lincoln ever said. In his famous Cooper Union speech he denied that southern slavery should be ended because, he said, it exists. (What moral clarity). In his first inaugural address he pledged his support for a constitutional amendment that had just passed the senate that would have prohibited the federal government from ever interfering in southern slavery. He thus defended slavery much more so than Calhoun ever did, doing so as the president of the United States. Max Boot is not one to let such facts get in his way.
Read Calhounââ¬â¢s Disquisition on Government for yourself and see what a brilliant political philosopher he was, and what an ignoramus Max Boot is by comparison. (See Ross Lence, editor, Union and Liberty: The Political Philosophy of John C. Calhoun).
Like all advocates of centralized governmental power ââ¬â the main source of tyranny in the world for the past century or longer ââ¬â Max Boot denigrates any and all proponents of statesââ¬â¢ rights, federalism, and what the founders called "divided sovereignty" as necessarily pro-slavery. But as Woods points out on page 33, "As historian Eugene Genovese reminds us, of the five Virginians who made the greatest intellectual contributions to the strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution ââ¬â George Mason, Thomas Jefferson, John Randolph of Roanoke, St. George Tucker, and John Taylor of Caroline, only Taylor could be described as pro slavery, and even he regarded it as an inherited misfortune . . ." Tucker even proposed a plan for the elimination of slavery in Virginia in the 1790s. That Max Boot completely ignores such statements that are even highlighted and boxed in the book is further evidence of his dishonesty.
On the doctrine of nullification, which Boot hysterically denounces, Woods provides a clearly-written, scholarly account of it that relies on the writings and statements of Jefferson, Daniel Webster, Joseph Story, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton, among others. Woods quotes Hamilton, who is usually deified by neocons like Boot, as saying in Federalist #28 that "the State governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority." Surely Max Boot who, like other neocons, is worshipful of Hamilton, noticed the highlighted, boxed-in statement by Hamilton in support of nullification in The Politically Incorrect Guide.
This statement by Hamilton is an expression of what would become Jeffersonââ¬â¢s doctrine of nullification. Woods also quotes Jeffersonââ¬â¢s famous doctrine itself, from the Kentucky Resolve of 1798:
Resolved . . . That if those who administer the General Government be permitted to transgress the limits fixed by that compact, by a total disregard to the special delegations of power therein contained . . . . That the several States who formed that instrument being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of he infraction; and that a Nullification by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under color of that instrument is the rightful remedy . . .
Madison said virtually the same thing in his Virginia Resolve of 1798, as Woods points out and which Boot completely ignores as well.
Another important historical fact that Woods documents, and which Boot ignores, is that northern states as well as southern ones made use of Jeffersonââ¬â¢s nullification principle all throughout the first half of the nineteenth century. Woods quotes an 1859 statement by the Wisconsin legislature that said: "Resolved, That the government formed by the Constitution of the United States was not the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; but that, as in all other cases of compact among parties having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress." This is a virtual verbatim repetition of the first section of Jeffersonââ¬â¢s Kentucky Resolve of 1798. Woods quotes the rest of the Wisconsin legislatureââ¬â¢s announcement, declaring that the individual states, "being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its [the Constitutionââ¬â¢s] infractions; and that a positive defiance of those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done or attempted to be done under color of that instrument, is the rightful remedy." Again, this is almost identical to the words of Jefferson and Madison some sixty years earlier.
Woods' chapter on "The Principles of ââ¬â¢98" is only eleven pages long, and the brief discussion of Calhounââ¬â¢s role in South Carolinaââ¬â¢s nullification of the 1828 "Tariff of Abominations" takes up less than one page. And the tariff nullification issue of 1828 had to do with the export-dependent Southââ¬â¢s being politically plundered by protectionist tariffs, not the issue of slavery. To Boot, this constitutes Woodsââ¬â¢ "main" source of information on the topic of nullification, which is simply untrue. Obviously, Boot tells this particular lie, among many others in his "review," so that he can assassinate Professor Woodsââ¬â¢ character by falsely associating him with slavery and ignoring any real discussion of the actual content of the book.
The rest of the Boot hatchet job is as bad or worse, filled with lies, half-truths, and personal smears, absurdly claiming that the libertarian Tom Woods is "sympathetic to fascists" and, even worse, that Woods is supposedly "indignant" that Bill Clinton got America involved in the war in the Balkans.
Tom Woodsââ¬â¢ biggest "sin," however, is that his writings seem to "seethe with hatred" for "everything that neoconservativism (and modern America) stands for." Read The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, and compare it to Max Bootââ¬â¢s rantings, such as this one, and you will learn who is really "seething with hatred."
And letââ¬â¢s not ignore that fact that Boot is simply delusional when he equates "modern America" with "neoconservativism." To Boot and his neo-Comrades, so many of whom take great pride in being (supposedly) ex-Trotskyites, the world of "New York intellectuals," as they call themselves, is America. By definition, anyone who disagrees with them is therefore a traitor. In short, these people are crazy.
February 18, 2005
Thomas J. DiLorenzo [send him mail] is the author of The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War, (Three Rivers Press/Random House). His latest book is How Capitalism Saved America: The Untold Story of Our Countryââ¬â¢s History, from the Pilgrims to the Present (Crown Forum/Random House, August 2004).
2005-02-19 14:51 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]Unlike some of the other neocon like Brooks he (Boot) admits he is an out and out imperialist. If you have any other recollections of him I'd love to read them.[/QUOTE]
Indeed.
The [u]Politically Incorrect Guide to American History[/u] was clearly written in order to assist in the domestic defense of the American people and their Constitution, from the malicious lies & treasonous agendas of Max Boot and his horrid ilk. One is unlikely to read an "Ode to Garlic" penned by Cout Dracula, after all...
2005-02-19 20:31 | User Profile
grep14w,
Well I don't wear ties much but I do tend to go for oxford shirts and have a bit of a "young fogey" look. I often wear Khaki trousers, an oxford shirt, and dress shoes. Well, I am a hopeless dork. :lol:
[QUOTE]BTW, even then he wore bow ties, dress shirts, fedoras, etc. - his ensemble practically screamed "young fogey" and "stuffed shirt". I guess I can't blame anyone who bothers to dress nicely, but it was a bit odd for a student.[/QUOTE]
My God, you went to the University of California, Berkeley? :shocking:
And met Neocons in person?
2005-02-19 22:03 | User Profile
LOL and all I wear here in the woods is cammo.
Got me 10 shirts and 10 pants for .99 cents each at Chepaer Than Dirt about two years ago.......they sure last a long time and cheap, and my 9mm at my side.
2005-02-19 22:59 | User Profile
His online writings (helpfully collected by the blog isthatlegal.org) seethe with hatred for everything that neoconservatism (and modern America) stands for.
What better endorsement can you receive?
2005-02-28 04:36 | User Profile
Tom Woods Worries the New York Times
by Marcus Epstein
It is rare that the NY Times reviews a book on its editorial page, but that is where Adam Cohen pans Thomas Woodsââ¬â¢s new book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History [PIGAH]. Mr. Cohen seems to be worried not only about what the book says, but also the effect it could have on current policy.
While he claims that the book is really just "incorrect history," he doesnââ¬â¢t tell the reader a single incorrect fact that Thomas Woods writes. Instead he dismissively disagrees with Prof. Woodsââ¬â¢s interpretation of the affects of the New Deal, the Civil Rights Act, and the Marshall Plan without actually explaining why he is wrong. While I understand that space is limited on the Timesââ¬â¢ editorial page (perhaps thatââ¬â¢s why they decided to put the review there), it would be nice if Mr. Cohen made the slightest attempt to refute Prof Woodsââ¬â¢s interpretation of those issues.
There are only two ideas raised in PIGAH that he actually tries to justify dismissing. One is Prof. Woodsââ¬â¢s assertion that Jim Crow laws were modeled after Northern black codes. All Mr. Cohen does is state that Eric Foner disagrees with Prof. Woods and leave it at that. Prof. Foner is certainly a highly respected historian, but he is also a man of the Left, and his views on Reconstruction were considered revisionist at the time he first promulgated them and arenââ¬â¢t universally accepted even among liberal historians today. The whole purpose of Prof. Woodsââ¬â¢s book is to overthrow misconceptions propagated by the likes of Eric Foner, so simply saying "Eric Foner disagrees with Thomas Woods" doesnââ¬â¢t seem to be much of an argument. If we must appeal to authority, however, it should be noted that Prof. Woodsââ¬â¢s interpretation of Jim Crow laws and Northern black codes is no different than that of the late C. Vann Woodward, probably one of the most respected historians of the American South.
The only other place where Mr. Cohen tries to show why Thomas Woods is wrong is in regards to his views on the 14th Amendment being unconstitutional by saying that by Prof. Woodsââ¬â¢s argument the 13th Amendment (that abolished slavery) would be unconstitutional as well. In fact, Prof. Woods argues the exact opposite. The Southern States passed the 13th Amendment in 1865 when they were supposedly back in the Union that they never legally left. But when they opposed the 14th Amendment, the state governments were somehow illegitimate, and the Radical Republicans argued that the Amendment could be passed without their consent.
It should be noted that, while I recommend this book to everyone interested in American history, it can be read by high school students. Either Mr. Cohen canââ¬â¢t comprehend a simple argument in a book that can be read by smart teenagers, or he is intentionally misrepresenting Prof. Woodsââ¬â¢s position.
It is also disingenuous to compare this book to Michelle Malkinââ¬â¢s In Defense of Internment or the group Progress for Americaââ¬â¢s attempt to appropriate Roosevelt as someone who would support their views on "privatizing" Social Security. Both of them view Franklin Roosevelt as a hero who American politicians should emulate, while Prof. Woods argues that he shouldnââ¬â¢t be seen as a great president. Thomas Woodsââ¬â¢s book aims not only to discredit leftists, but also to make conservatives who admire Lincoln, Wilson, and Franklin Roosevelt rethink their positions.
The only other criticism Mr. Cohen is left with is that this book is flawed because it is a corrective rather than a narrative. This leads him to argue that it allows Prof. Woods to ignore some injustices like the Trail of Tears where the Cherokees were forced to relocate and many of them died on the way. It is true that Prof. Woods does not harp on the injustices of the slave trade, the killing of American Indians, and the rest of the guilt fest that we commonly read in most modern textbooks. This does not mean that Prof. Woods thinks the forced removal of Indians or slavery was a good thing. The whole point of the book is to give people new views that they arenââ¬â¢t exposed to in their regular US history textbooks. When I took American history in elementary school, high school, and in college, I heard about the Trail of Tears on many, many occasions. However I was never told, even in a college level class on the Civil War, that the Cherokee as well as four other Indian tribes fought for the Confederacy, which is just one of the many other facts and ideas that Iââ¬â¢m sure many of the readers of the book were never told about in public schools.
PIGAH does not purport to be the first and last word in US history (unlike the NY Times, which purports to give us "all the news thatââ¬â¢s fit to print"), but rather to expose students and other people interested in US history to new, and yes politically incorrect, facts and ideas. Perhaps thatââ¬â¢s the reason why the NY Times is worried that so many people are reading it.
January 29, 2005
Marcus Epstein [send him mail] is an undergraduate majoring in history at the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, VA, where he is an editor of the conservative newspaper, The Remnant. A selection of his articles can be seen here.
Copyright é 2005 LewRockwell.com
[url]http://www.lewrockwell.com/epstein/epstein16.html[/url]