Stupid and the Dishonest Join the Attacks on Ron Paul
Thomas J. DiLorenzo
by Thomas DiLorenzo: Will
Ron Paul Destroy the 'Party of Lincoln'?
neocon Republican establishment political hack has demonstrated
ignorance, deceit, and bad manners in yet another attack on Ron
Paul. This time it is one Jeffrey Lord, a "contributing editor"
to The American Spectator magazine. Writing in a January
15 article on the Philly.com Web site, Lord feigns outrage over
the fact that five years ago Ron Paul told NBC’s "Meet the
Press" that the Civil War was unnecessary to end slavery. Lord
is being deceitful here by taking what Ron Paul said out of context.
I remember Ron Paul’s appearance on that show, and the point he
was making was that all the rest of the world – the British, Spaniards,
French, Dutch, Danes, Swedes, the Northern states in the U.S. –
ended slavery peacefully in the nineteenth century. His point
was that we should have done what the British did, and used tax
dollars to purchase the freedom of the slaves and then ended it
forever. That, Said Ron Paul, would have been preferable to a war
that ended up killing over 650,000 Americans (850,000 according
the the very latest historical research) while destroying a large
part of the U.S. economy. Lord is obviously ignorant of all of this
my book, The
Real Lincoln, to feign additional outrage over the fact
that I supposedly called Lincoln a "Dictator-President."
He apparently suffered a case of the vapors when he discovered that
Ron Paul listed The Real Lincoln as "recommended reading"
at the end of his own book, Revolution:
A Manifesto. I don’t ever recall ever using those exact
words about Lincoln, but I do know that generations of historians
have routinely referred to "the Lincoln dicatatorhip,"
although usually calling it a benign dictatorship. They have done
this because of Lincoln’s illegal suspension of Habeas Corpus, the
mass imprisonment of tens of thousands of Northern political dissenters,
the shutting down of hundreds of opposition newspapers, the deportation
of opposition member of Congress Clement L. Vallandigham, the rigging
of elections, and worse. (Read Freedom
Under Lincoln by Dean Sprague; and Constitutional
Problems Under Lincoln by James Randall). Lord is obviously
ignorant of these historical facts as well.
is simply lying when he writes that "[Ron] Paul shares with
DiLorenzo the belief that the war was not fought over issues of
Union . . ." That in fact is exactly what I have argued in
my writings. Southerners (and most Northern newspaper editors as
well, by the way) believed that the union was voluntary, that the
states that ratified the Constitution were sovereign, and that they
therefore had a right to join or not join the Union. Lincoln
believed that the union was a compulsory union from which there
could never under any circumstances be any escape, and that he consequently
had a right to wage total war on the civilian population of the
South to "save the union." I have argued that Lincoln
destroyed the American union of the founders, which was in
fact a voluntary union.
I have also
quoted Lincoln himself as saying that his invasion of the Southern
states was not to free the slaves but to "save the union"
by destroying the right of secession. Lord expresses additional
outrage that I have repeated Lincoln’s own views in my writing,
instead of the comic book version of history that he prefers, which
says that Lincoln launched an invasion to supposedly free the slaves.
Of course, the Republican-controlled U.S. Congress also announced
to the world at the beginning of the Civil War that the purpose
of the war was not to interfere with slavery but to "save the
union." Jeffrey Lord is obviously ignorant of this aspect of
American history as well.
worse, says Jeffrey Lord, many contributors to LewRockwell.com,
such as myself, "are no fans" of some of the more notorious
members of the neocon cabal such as "William F. Buckley, Jr.,
Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Mark Levin"!! To this I plead
guilty. Why, even "Rick Santorum also makes the list"
of political figures who have been criticized by people like myself
on LewRockwell.com. Off with our heads!
also lies when he writes that "The Constitution, DiLorenzo
maintains, is a ‘subversion’ orchestrated by Founding Father Alexander
Hamilton to overthrow what DiLorenzo calls America’s first constitution
– the Articles of Confederation." First of all, I am hardly
the first to note that the Constitution overthrew the Articles of
Confederation. Scholars have been saying this for more than 200
years, but Jeffrey Lord is of course ignorant of this fact as well.
have never argued that Hamilton "orchestrated" the Constitution
as some kind of "subversion." Hamilton was essentially
the original neocon, who showed up at the constitutional convention
advocating a permanent president who would appoint all state governors,
who would in turn have veto power over all state legislation. He
did not get his way; the Constitution did not create a king, nor
did it allow for the creation of an interventionist, mercantilist,
corporate welfare empire of the sort Hamilton desired. (It wouldn’t
be until the Lincoln administration that that was achieved). Hamilton
did invent the idea of "implied powers" of the Constitution,
and was the first to make the expansive interpretations of the Welfare
and Commerce Clauses of the Constitution that have been used to
essentially destroy the ability of the Constitution to limit the
growth of government. I explain the Hamiltonian subversion of the
Constitution that took place for decades after Hamilton’s death
in my book, Hamilton’s
most ridiculous part of Jeffrey Lord’s rant is that he invokes the
left-wing hate group known as the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)
as one of his "authorities" in criticizing Ron Paul (and
me). The SPLC espouses a communistic political philosophy and is
so radical that it holds the confessed terrorist and murderer William
Ayers up as a role model for children on its Web site, along with
a woman named "Red Emma" Goldman, a twentieth-century
communist who advocated the violent overthrow of the U.S. government
in order to adopt communism in America. (Ayers admitted setting
off bombs at the Capitol Building in Washington and at police stations
in the 1960s, and recently told the New York Times that he
wishes he had set off even more bombs).
oprandi of the SPLC is to publicly label any and all critics
of its left-wing extremism as "haters" or somehow "linked
to" hate groups. When the American Enterprise Institute in
Washington, D.C. sponsored a public lecture on immigration policy,
for example, the SPLC accused AEI of "mainstreaming hate."
The scholars at AEI are all really KKK guys in nice suits, you see.
When the TEA Party movement was formed as a response to Obama’s
mad rush to socialism the SPLC issued a special report on the movement
that had the subtitle, "The Year in Hate." These are the
kinds of people who Jeffrey Lord of The American Spectator
magazine chooses to associate himself with to assist him in his
ignorant smears of Ron Paul and me.
J. DiLorenzo [send him mail]
is professor of economics at Loyola College in Maryland and the
author of The
Real Lincoln; Lincoln
Unmasked: What You’re Not Supposed To Know about Dishonest Abe
Capitalism Saved America. His latest book is Hamilton’s
Curse: How Jefferson’s Archenemy Betrayed the American Revolution
– And What It Means for America Today.
© 2012 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in
part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
Best of Thomas DiLorenzo at LRC
DiLorenzo Archives at Mises.org