Nathan Grooms.com

The USSR: A Lesson From History

2009-11-14T09:18:00.001-08:00

From the report of the 10th of November
This week marks an interesting week in history as it commemorates the fall of the Soviet Union with the destruction of the Berlin Wall on the evening of November 9th 1989. The event spelled the end of USSR by broadcasting to the world that it was losing control. Checkpoints were suddenly opened and regulations were relaxed mainly because the massive amount of Germans passing from East to West Berlin could not be controlled by the Soviet authorities. It marked the end of the long history of Cold War strife with the USSR.
It is easy to conclude that it was under the leadership of President Ronald Reagan that the Soviet Union collapsed. His words at the Berlin wall in 1987 have always been memorable and inspiring to many. There is however, an important lesson for us today in the events of the late 80s. That lesson is that no matter how good a communicator President Ronald Reagan was, the fall of the USSR would not have been brought about without the willingness on the part of the Soviet leadership. It was the reform movement lead by Mikhail Gorbachev within the Kremlin that paved the way to the USSR’s demise. Reagan’s words would have been just what they were, words, if it had not been that willingness for change. It’s an important lesson in history that is worth remembering today. Without willingness from within, dictatorships are generally not successfully converted to constitutional republics. That’s what Gorbachev showed in the late 80s. Since the end of the Second World War the Soviets had posed a threat and were “dealt with” by every president since Harry S. Truman. It was however only until the leadership made up its mind to push for change and undo the decades old policies put in place by Lenin that the real change was brought about.
It is most important for us to understand today in dealing with the MiddleEast that the best efforts towards reform come from a nation’s civilian leadership. Foreign nations slapping sanctions on “unruly” dictatorships, or invading them and toppling their governments has never worked and it never will. No matter where they stand on the invasion of Iraq in 2002, generally people acknowledge how much easier would have been in there had been a movement within Iraq to take down Saddam Hussein.
As we look back on the Cold War era, we should not forget some of the lessons that dealing with the Soviets taught us. We can look back and celebrate the demise of a dictatorship that imprisoned its people in gulags, but if we don’t remember some of the era’s important lessons it does our generation no good to remember.

Hamilton’s Central Banking Scheme

2009-09-12T16:59:00.000-07:00

To understand the genesis of central banking in America, Thomas J. DiLorenzo’s latest book Hamilton’s Curse is an essential read. DiLorenzo correctly identifies Alexander Hamilton as the founding father of central banking. As America’s first Secretary of Tresury under President George Washington, Hamilton continuously championed the concept of a national bank. Much with Washington’s support, Hamilton succeeded in creating first National Bank. He believed in order to gain respect from the European nations America first had to establish a monetary policy much similar to their own. From this book one can easily see not only the genesis of central banking in America, but also the committed belief in centralized power. Although Alexander Hamilton never made it to the White House, a young Illinois lawyer who was committed to the Hamiltonian philosophy of government centralized power did make it the presidency in 1861.
DiLorenzo’s latest work is an excellent companion to his previous two works on Abraham Lincoln. In fact it’s in Hamilton’s Curse that one sees source from which Lincoln crafted his own ideals and ambitions.

The First Cakewalk

2009-04-13T15:25:00.000-07:00

Many times history repeats itself, either in a positive or a negative way. Some may remember that when the Bush administration was beating the drum for war in 2002, it was claimed that Iraq would be a “cakewalk” and all we had to do was march in and the Iraqis would welcome us with open arms as their great liberators.
What is most striking, and almost startling, is the “hawks” and the “doves” have made the same arguments over two centuries of our nation’s existence. This comes out in the new book We Who Dared to Say No to War by Murray Polner and Thomas E. Woods Jr. The book contains a speech by Congressman Samuel Taggart of Massachusetts in opposition to James Madison’s intention to go to war with Canada. Protesting a closed-door debate in the House, Taggart refused to give this speech on the House floor and instead published it in the Alexandria Gazette on June 24th, 1812. What Taggart says in this speech makes for an interesting, and I believe, sad historical parallel. He states: “The conquest of Canada has been represented to be so easy as to be little more than a party of pleasure. We have, it has been said, nothing to do but to march an army into the country and display the standard of the United States, and the Canadians will immediately flock to it and place themselves under our protection. They have been represented as ripe for revolt, panting for emancipation from a tyrannical Government, and longing to enjoy the sweets of liberty under the fostering hand of the United States.”[1] Does it sound like you’ve heard this argument before? Well, if you were listening during the build up for the Iraq War you likely have!
What is perhaps more tragic than war itself is the fact that lessons of the past have not often been learned. James Madison’s conquest of Canada ended in a failure, and so has just about every other similar military adventure our nation has been involved in. What do both the Iraqi invasion and the attempted conquest of Canada have in common? Both were represented as “cakewalks.”
One important revelation that comes from reading Taggart’s speech in 1812 is that there are war-hawks in every generation who expect the public to put on their rose-colored glasses and act as if they hadn’t heard the false promise of quick victory before.
[1] Polner, Murray, Woods, Thomas E. We Who Dared To Say No To War, Basic Books 2008; pg. 15

The Bastille

2009-03-22T11:26:00.000-07:00

Did you ever think that a respected citizen of Philadelphia back in the 1860s could be arrested just for being outspoken in his objection to war? Did you ever think that the same citizen could languish in prison for several months without really knowing what his crime was or why he was being accused? The average American patriot would say indignantly “Not in the good old freedom-loving USA!” This sounds more like a scene from the Charles Dickens’s A Tale of Two Cities.
W. H. Winder reveals an America completely different than what the majority of American’s hear about every July Fourth. Winder published his account titled Secrets of the American Bastille in 1863. W. H. Winder’s story would be almost unbelievable to many American’s who have grown up convinced that Abraham Lincoln was the tender-hearted emancipator of the slaves and the one who wanted “malice towards none and charity for all.”
On September 10th, 1861, Winder wrote a letter in good faith to a top official in Lincoln’s administration—Secretary of State William H. Seward. In this letter Winder eloquently laid out his objection to Lincoln’s war policies. He pleaded with Seward to use the influence of his high office to save the nation from the horrors of war. In this letter Winder also states the following:
“I feel that I have been bold in speech, but not half as much so as I am in heart and purpose, to do all I can for the restoration of the fraternal Union, which I deem vital to the interests of both sections (North and South). I do not mean to assert the South has been exempted from blame; but being the weaker, all her errors can and will be remedied by the restoration of the Union.” [1]
Winder goes on to condemn the Abolitionists for forcing the South to a point where they had no other choice but to secede from the Union. He explains that instead of making it clear that the North had nothing against the Southern states the Abolitionists caused enmity and resentment to multiply. He points out the secession of the Southern states could have been prevented before it happened if the Federal government had been willing to lower or abolish its high tariffs which the South objected to. Winder stated to an extent that the deionization of the Southern states as the scourge of freedom in America only infuriated the South to a point where they could not take it anymore. Winder also published his opinion of the war in Philadelphia newspapers.
For expressing his views so freely regarding the war, Winder was arrested by a federal marshal by the order of the State Department. Winder was held in Fort Lafayette located New York Harbor for the month of September. In October he was sent to Fort Warren located in Boston Harbor. Mr. Winder was held at Fort Warren from October of 1861 until his release in November of 1862.
Winder was charged with writing in newspapers and in personal correspondence against the government. He noted that this charge only came after he had been arrested, his office had been searched, and his personal and public papers had been confiscated by a federal marshal.
All of this shows the extent that the Lincoln administration was willing to go to silence opposition to their policy. Lincoln believed that the end justified the means. If some liberty was lost while wining the war than it could not be helped.
In conclusion I will say that Winder offers an invaluable resource for our generation. With the knowledge of the past, we can see looming danger that is yet to come. With this knowledge we can better defend our freedom of speech and be aware that it can be in peril—even in the United States of America.
Notes
[1] W. H. Winder, Secrets of the American Bastille, pg. 10

Lincoln the Great Centralizer

2009-03-22T11:24:00.000-07:00

Much of what was said regarding Abraham Lincoln in Dr. Thomas Wood’s The Politically Incorrect Guide To American History is repeated on a much larger scale in Thomas DiLorenzo’s book The Real Lincoln.In chapter six entitled "Was Lincoln A Dictator" DiLorenzo points out that Abraham Lincoln violated a few of the "train of abuses" mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson stated in the Declaration that "He(the king) has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected." According to Dr. DiLorenzo, President Lincoln was guilty of this very abuse because he imposed military rule on those parts of the South that became conquered territory during the war, and for twelve years after the war the Southern states were run by military dictatorships appointed by the Republican Party. I understand this to be a true statement because Tennessee was conquered territory early in the war; it was governed by a military governor.In chapter three entitled "Why Not Peaceful Emancipation", DiLorenzo illustrates that between the years 1813 and 1854 eleven countries or regions had peacefully freed slaves. Some would argue that the South would not have tolerated a peaceful emancipation; however, Lincoln’s lack of interest in freeing the slaves gives credit the argument that he hardly even tried to resolve the matter peacefully. In DiLorenzo’s own words "Lincoln could have put into motion a process to end slavery much more expeditiously-and peacefully-as more than twenty other slave-owning societies had done in the previous sixty years. But he chose instead to wage a long and devastating war in which the victims were not just slave owners but every southern citizen."According to DiLorenzo, the idea that there was no real opposition in the North to Lincoln’s invasion of the Southern states is a myth. DiLorenzo offers evidence to back this theory. He lists several editorials in Northern newspapers that showed their support of a peaceful secession of the Southern states. This is what the Albany Atlas and Argus stated on November 1st 1860: "We sympathize with and justify the South because their rights have been invaded to the extreme. If they secede, we would wish them God-Speed." Lincoln had to silence the outcry of the North by suspending the writ of habeas corpus. Many of the Northern editors who dared voice concern or disapproval of Lincoln’s war policy could find himself in jail.Lincoln effectively crushed the idea of state’s rights, which was the only check on federal government. The Declaration of Independence states that if any form of government becomes abusive of its power it is the duty of the people to abolish it. The founding fathers understood this; therefore, they believed that the right to secede was imperative. William Rawle, a constitutional scholar of the 1820s, advocated the right of secession in his book A View of the Constitution of the United States of America. Published in 1825, this book was used in many military academies up until the War Between the States.Because Lincoln was a martyr, many political leaders have excused their own outrageous breaches of the Constitution because "Lincoln did it. Who would object?" In other words, Lincoln’s true legacy has lived on. From FDR to George W. Bush, politicians have carried on Lincoln’s philosophy of governmental expansion.According to DiLorenzo, Lincoln’s poetic words "charity for all" mean very little under such breaches of civil liberties. Certainly there was no "charity" to those whose liberties were trampled on, and this applies to both the North and the South.

Lincoln Crosses The Rubicon

2009-03-22T11:16:00.000-07:00

When In The Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession by Charles Adams is a clever and well written work that argues the case for secession of the Southern states.
In much the same way as Thomas DiLorenzo in his book The Real Lincoln, Mr. Adams illustrates the tyrannical tactics of the Lincoln White House. Shortly following the bombardment of Fort Sumpter, Lincoln and his cabinet started suspending habeas corpus. With habeas corpus suspended, the administration could now put its opponents behind bars.
Adams tells the story of Justice Roger B. Taney. By the orders of General George Cadwallder, a man by the name of John Merryman was imprisoned at Fort McHenry after being arrested one night in his home. Merryman petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus from Chief Justice Roger B. Taney. Taney granted the writ and set a date for the hearing, but neither General Cadwallder nor Merryman showed up. Instead, the general sent a letter to the Chief Justice explaining his actions and citing the decree by President Lincoln suspending the writ. This meant Merryman could languish in prison if the general so decided with no right to trial or an inquiry into whatever charges the general decided to make. After a couple of unsuccessful attempts to get justice for Merryman, Taney wrote a blistering opinion and sent it to Lincoln himself. In this opinion he stated: "the people of the United States are no longer living under a Government of laws, but every citizen holds life, liberty, and property at the will and pleasure of the army officer in whose military district he may happen to be found." [1] President Lincoln ignored this rebuke. Not only did Lincoln ignore Taney's opinion, he also wrote a standing order for the arrest of Taney who was in his eighties! Fortunately for the Chief Justice, his arrest never took place for one reason or another. However, there were plenty of men like him who stood up and spoke the truth about what Lincoln was doing who were arrested.
Mr. Adams also relates the story of Clement Vallandigham. Democratic Congressman Clement Vallandigham had been a thorn in the Presidents’ side for almost two years. He attacked Lincoln=s war policies while a member of the House of Representatives. Vallandigham even introduced a bill to imprison the President if he continued to make illegal arrests through military tribunals. Vallandigham later stated: "I have the most supreme contempt for King Lincoln." [2] He should not have been surprised when soldiers battered down the door of his home in Dayton, Ohio, and took him to Cincinnati for trial where a military tribunal could quickly convict him and put an end to his critical speeches. Vallandigham was forced to go into exile for his bold speeches against the Lincoln government. Neither Vallandigham nor Justice Taney were ever arrested for what they said; however, John Merryman was arrested—more accounts of Lincoln’s arbitrary arrests have become available to me since writing this book review.
I enjoyed Mr. Adams's book. I would not agree with everything he says, but I believe he offers a comprehensive view of what took place during the war. Charles Adams gives his support to the Southern cause; however, he is honest about its short comings. Overall I would highly recommend this book to those who are concerned about the defining years of 1861-1864.

Notes
[1] Adams, Charles. When In The Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. 2000 pg. 46-48
[2] ibid: 173

Dr. Charles L. C. Minor's The Real Lincoln

2009-03-22T10:52:00.000-07:00

In 1904 Dr. Charles L.C. Minor’s The Real Lincoln was published. The Real Lincoln is a scholarly critique on the sixteenth president of the United States. Minor’s book addressed the constitutional issues during Abraham Lincoln’s administration. Minor spends six chapters on the Northern states who were opposed to Lincoln’s war to force the Southern states back into the Union. Dr. Minor sheds light on the fact that Lincoln needed to silence the opposition to the war in the North. Minor illustrates that with the suspension of habeas corpus the Lincoln administration imprisoned hundreds of people throughout the North for writing and speaking against Lincoln’s coercion of the South.
The people of Maryland were sympathetic towards the secessionists in the South. According to Minor, Lincoln’s administration threatened to arrest members of the Maryland legislature if necessary to prevent the secession of Maryland. Minor actually quotes Lincoln’s Secretary of War Simon Cameron saying the following: “The passage of any act of secession by the Legislator of Maryland must be prevented. If necessary, all or any part of the members must be arrested.”[1]Not only state government officials but also outspoken editors in Maryland were arrested. One of these editors was Francis Key Howard. Howard was the grandson of Francis Scott Key who wrote the song Star-Spangled Banner. Francis Howard was a successful editor of the Exchange Newspaper of Baltimore. On the morning of September 13th, 1861, Howard was arrested by the order of General N. P. Banks. By shocking coincidence, Howard was imprisoned at Fort McHenry where his grandfather had written the verses to the famous song. Minor quotes Howard’s own reflections as follows:“The flag which he (his grandfather) had so proudly hailed, I saw waving at the same place over the victims of as vulgar and brutal despotism as modern times has witnessed." [2]
The Lincoln administration dealt with the state of Kentucky in much the same manner for their “disloyalty”. Minor quotes Governor John Brough of Ohio’s letter to Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton in which he states that the same measures taken in Maryland must be taken in Kentucky.
A person Minor only calls Bancroft describes the heart wrenching trials that these prisoners suffered: “Month after month many of them were crowded together in gloomy and damp casemates, where even the dangerous ‘pirates’ captured on privateers and soldiers in battle ought not to have remained long. Many had committed no overt act. [3]
A few of the earliest publications documenting these prisons refer to them as “the American Bastille.” Whether or not this is an exaggerated description of these prisons is up for the reader to decide.
There are, of course, two sides of this issue. Lincoln and Secretary of War Stanton felt that preserving the Union was worth any measure taken. They believed that the perilous times for the nation justified what was done in Maryland, Kentucky, and Ohio. Judging the situation in much the same way that William T. Sherman did during his campaign through Georgia in 1864, they concluded that this was war and unwanted by both sides; however, they were determined to win the war any way they could. They held the philosophy that if arrests of outspoken citizens had to be made in order to keep more states from seceding then it must be done.
In conclusion, I will offer my own opinion of Lincoln and Stanton’s philosophy. I firmly believe that Lincoln set a very dangerous precedent. If infringement of civil liberties can be justified and excused as “necessary war measures”, then the very reason for having a Bill of Rights is defeated. While many good Americans may heap lavish praise upon the head of the 16th President of the United States, we must step back and look at the issues that faced the nation then and how those same issues effect us today. That is why I appreciate the work of Charles L. C. Minor.
Notes:
[1] Minor, Charles L. C. The Real Lincoln Sprinkle Publications, 1992. Virginia: pg.154
[2] ibid pg. 149
[3] ibid pg. 129-130

Garet Garrett and the Good War

2009-01-19T12:52:00.000-08:00

One book that many consider ground-breaking in uncovering the myths of World War II is Patrick J. Buchanan’s Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War. Not to belittle Mr. Buchanan’s scholarly work, but I believe the very best volumes dispelling the myth of World War II were written years ago by people who lived at the time. Many of these people argued up until the very last that meddling in the affairs of Europe did not reflect the interest of the American people. Such an action, they argued, would in fact degrade our moral standing as peacemakers in the world. They were skeptic of Roosevelt’s lend lease project where America lent tanks, guns, and ships to Great Britain in order to help fight Hitler. These men and women were derided then, and still are if you spend any time listening to a PBS special, as isolationists or even the American arm of Hitler’s National Socialist Party.
One such “isolationist” who wrote extensively on the subject and argued for genuine neutrality in World War II was Saturday Evening Post’s editor Garet Garrett. Garrett was a tireless advocate for complete neutrality in the Europe’s war. Defend America First is a collection of Saturday Evening Post editorials written by Garrett on the subject of World War II. On July 13th, 1940, Garrett wrote that America’s meddling in the affairs of Europe would have a predictable outcome. “We do not believe the people had ever thought of going again to the battlefields of Europe. They had been misled to think this country somehow could put forth its economic strength and not itself become involved. That is what they were thinking when they were polled on whether we should be giving more aid to the Allies. The idea that we could help to destroy an aggressor in Europe and not get hurt was a propagated fantasy and produced on many minds the hypnotic effect that may or may not have been intended.”[1] What Garrett is saying is that many people were duped into believing they could take sides in Europe’s conflict and not end up getting into the conflict. As Garrett had predicted, favoring one side over the other would backfire and end up embroiling the country in a war that was not in America’s interest.
As I have commented before, sometimes the predictions of these war opponents are astonishingly accurate. On September 7th, 1940, Garrett wrote the following: “If it should come awake one morning to read in the newspaper headlines, or hear by the radio, that it had walked backward into war, it would take it no doubt as having somehow inevitable from the first, and yet nobody would be able to say quite how or why it happened.”[2] In other words, Garrett is saying that people were at first duped into believing the propaganda, and then duped into believing that America’s involvement was inevitable. They seemed to forget the fact that America could have separated itself from all belligerent nations in Europe and stayed true to its neutrality.
Garet Garrett was one of many who refused to put on rose-colored glasses and go along with the notion of defending America by aiding the Allies. It’s one thing for historians like Patrick J. Buchanan to question conflicts of the past. It’s quite another to question conflicts as they happen, when it’s considered unpatriotic. Garet Garrett was much like the Ron Pauls of today’s current War on Terror in that he dared to speak his mind. He offers a perspective on the Second World War that is in many ways lost today.
Notes
[1] Garrett, Garet, Ramsey, Bruce, Defend America First, Caxton Press 2003, pg. 56
[2] Ibid: 61

The Spirit of Revenge

2009-01-19T12:50:00.000-08:00

Patrick J. Buchanan has done a masterful job dispelling the myths regarding the World Wars in his latest book Churchill, Hitler, And The Unnecessary War. As one how has heard plenty of times the textbook version of World War I and World War II from documentaries and also from college courses, I appreciate Mr. Buchanan’s attempt to set the record straight on Winston Churchill and Adolf Hitler. Buchanan applies an even hand to both Britain and Germany.
Regarding World War I, Buchanan spends time on the disastrous peace treaty of 1919. Buchanan certainly shares the position that the 1919 Versailles Treaty paved the way for Adolf Hitler’s later rise to power in Germany.
In a chapter aptly titled “A Poisonous Spirit of Revenge” Buchanan goes into a good bit of detail on the starvation blockade Britain imposed on Germany. According to Buchanan, in 1915 88,235 people in Germany died as a result of the British blockade, in 1916 121,114 people died. Also in 1916 food riots broke out across Germany. In 1917 the death toll as a result of the starvation blockade was 259,627. By 1918 the number had risen to 293,760 civilians.[1]
Buchanan forces his readers to consider how they would react to something seen as so unjust as the starvation of women and children. The answer is that instead of peace and goodwill this kind of action logically nourishes hatred and revenge, revenge that would later play into the hands of Adolf Hitler.
Pat Buchanan’s book is an excellent study of the alternative view of the World Wars. With his masterful skill at writing Buchanan gives his readers some food for thought and helps them to understand the complex issues that were at stake during both World War I and World War II.
Notes
[1] Buchanan, Patrick J. Churchill, Hitler, And The Unnecessary War, Crown 2008; pg. 78

A Foreign Policy of Freedom

2009-01-15T14:36:00.000-08:00

A Foreign Policy of Freedom by Congressman Ron Paul is a marvelous collection of speeches given by one of the few men who has consistently and boldly stood for a humble foreign policy and a change from the course our nation has taken since the 1950s in North Korea. Paul’s political and historical astuteness has stuck a cord with many people who are concerned today about the so called “War on Terror”. One can easily see in reading Paul’s book a man who has spent years battling every war hawk in that has set foot in the halls of Congress. From 1974 until present Dr. Paul has remained true to his principles of a humble foreign policy.
One remarkable thing about Congressman Paul is how during the ensuing weeks after the 9/11 attacks he was one of the few who did not let the tense emotions at the time deter him or sway him from his principles. On the fourteenth of September 2001 Dr. Paul addressed the House regarding the dramatic events. “It, so far, has been inappropriate to ask why the U.S. was a target and not some other Western country. But for us to pursue a war against our enemies, it’s crucial to understand why we were attacked, which then will tell us by whom we were attacked.”[1] Needless to say, his advice was not taken and the bumper sticker slogan “They attacked us because we’re free” was born. One can truly see the depth of Dr. Paul’s knowledge of foreign policy when he states in a speech given on April 12th, 1999 during the Kosovo crisis; “As ugly as the Yugoslavian civil war may be in Kosovo, and as heart wrenching as the pictures of mass refugees fleeing their homeland is, one evil can never justify another. If one is disinclined to be persuaded by law and morality and responds only to emotions, propaganda, and half-truths, then one must consider the practical failure of compulsive intervention in the affairs of other nations.”[2]
These are the questions that one can try to answer as they read through Dr. Paul’s many speeches over the years. A Foreign Policy of Freedom is a great book for those who desire to learn more about the route our foreign policy has taken over the years.
Notes
[1] Paul, Ron, A Foreign Policy Of Freedom, Free 2007; pg. 145
[2] Ibid 113

A Christian's Response To The Warfare State

2009-01-15T14:32:00.000-08:00

In Laurence M. Vance’s book Christianity And War he spends some time on Charles H. Spurgeon, the famous minister in Victorian England. Spurgeon, according to Vance, had the true Christian response to war. Vance quotes from Spurgeon’s sermons extensively to prove his point. Spurgeon writes in his Sword and Trowel magazine in April of 1878 that “it (war) is the sum of all villainies, and ought to be stripped of its flaunting colors and have its bloody horrors revealed; its music should be hushed that men may hear the moans and groans, the cries and shrieks of dying men and ravished women. War brings out the devil in man, wakes up the hellish legion within his fallen nature, and binds his better faculties hand and foot. Its natural tendency is to hurl nations back into barbarism, and retard the growth of everything good and holy.”[1] These are strong words indeed. In Vance’s view Spurgeon’s response to the building of the British Empire should be a model for how modern day Christians should respond to war and conquest. Vance concludes that modern day evangelical Christians have much to learn from a man whom they might claim to be one of their own. Not only was Spurgeon an uncompromising Christian minister, it appears that he also was consistently opposed to Christian war fever.
Notes
[1] Vance, Laurence M., Christianity And War, Vance publications 2007; pg. 25