Tom Wood's
The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History has caused quite the stir in and around all corners of both academia and the media. I've been following the smear campaign against Mr. Woods for a while without comment because the attacks have
been so incompetent to not be worthy of mention. That is, of course, until Tom Palmer weighed in on the subject. Check out the link above to Palmer's website. He puts up a picture of a Klansman and a Klan banner. It's really sad that Mr. Woods, when younger and less coherent in his thinking, got involved in with an organization of supposedly dubious distinction (
League of the South), and has explained himself quite thoroughly
here in the LRC Blog. As if this, somehow, has any bearing on the quality of the book he wrote and the person he is. Tom is really obsessive about who someone hangs out with, and as he regularly hangs out with heads of state and other 'important' people, it should be noted that associations cut both ways. One must read the comment thread to really get a glimpse into the sickness that permeates Tom Palmer's thinking.
No one has a right to secede from another political unit for the purpose of holding others as slaves. The only way one can say that "the people" of South Carolina or Georgia decided to secede is if one doesn't consider black people to be people.
While Tom's sentiment towards slavery is both understandable and admirable, his analysis, especially for a libertarian, is horrible. Later things he says in that same reply don't even bear on the central premise of his argument. First, a little historical perspective. By Tom's argument the states didn't have the right to ratify the constitution in the first place, no less secede from it, as the 'people' as he is implying in his argument were not fairly represented by the ratification vote. It's presumptuous and dishonest to say that the ratification vote was doing the will of the unrepresented blacks, non-land owners, women, et. al. who did not have suffrage at the time of ratification, and then apply a different standard later on. The truth is the legislatures of the southern states were perfectly within their legal and moral rights to secede. Their stated reasons for doing so may be abhorrent, but that only comes to bear after secession and the eventual relationship (or potential lack thereof) that would exist after the fact. All of this is laying aside the fact that at the time the slaves were, by definition, property and not 'people.'
Worse for Tom's argument, in the North where there was no slavery, the conditions for the blacks were arguably worse. They had no access to the courts systems, could not vote, own property, enter into contracts with whites (including marriage) and so on. This is a truly vile situation. The potential for real, unchecked, abuse is unbelievable, and, by the admittedly few accounts I've read on the subject, this abuse occurred frequently. At least, in the South, if another man abused someone's slave, the slave-owner had some form of recourse (the courts), and an incentive to not let that happen again, as the abuse would be theft of property. Both situations are disgusting, but at least one has some form of cost associated with it. But, you know, for making this point I'm now probably some slimy, Confederate Apologist, who pines for a time when I'll be free to own slaves. I don't even believe I truly own my dogs, for pity's sake, but in terms of human law, I most certainly do, and that distinction makes a world of difference. To willfully ignore such a point to undergird his equating Tom Woods with a Klansman is not only dishonest, it smacks of desperation.
In the end, even Palmer's compatriots damn themselves with their own words. Quoth Tiny Tim:
Here is my position, maybe it is "neocon" but I see it as simple libertarianism: Any State which enforces chattel slavery is criminal in nature and can be destroyed at will (like any other criminal band) for any reason.
Nice to know that he's finally being honest with himself. You see, here is where the rubber meets the road for a great many 'libertarians.' Some things, like chattel slavery, are repugnant, no doubt about that. But, the non-aggression principle is not situationally-dependent. I've made the point here many times, and I'll gladly do it again. The State is immoral. The State that the Confederates were seceding from was immoral and criminal, by it's very existence, and this interpretation is reinforced (even if you are unconvinced by the argument against the state's morality) by it's willingness to tolerate the practice of slavery by some of it's members. By Tim's own argument the Union should have attacked itself, because it should not have suffered it's own existence. In many ways that's was the abolitionists were arguing for over the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Laws. All of this is sheer nonsense, and Mr. Palmer would do himself a great deal of good if he distanced himself from those like Tiny Tim and Cathy Young for the sake of his reputation as a 'great thinker.'
One must be first willing to clean up one's own house before deciding to judge others as unworthy and in need of extermination. It's all well and good to stand up on the Mount of Self-Righteousness and declare that "All who practice such and such are evil." It's quite another to then turn around and destroy (or advocate destroying) said practitioners over it. Ours is not the place to act on such judgment. By acting on such an impulse you invalidate your stated position. You do not value human life any more than the person you are decrying if you are willing to shoot them sans for personal defense.
The parallels here to the War in Iraq are striking, because it is for many of the same reasons we have invaded that country (or at least that was the propaganda). And, it is, as well, interesting that Palmer opposed the invasion of Iraq (even appeals to things like women's rights and the existance of a brutal dictator, who is analogous to a slave-owner, except that here he owns a LOT of slaves, could not sway him), and I wonder, if he were to have been alive during the run up to the War for Southern Independence would he have been similarly disinclined to approve of Lincoln's course of action. Simply put, it is impossible for us to understand the motivations and the thinking during that time because it is a world that is alien to us now. Our analysis is colored [sic] by our environment. The goal of historians and economists is to push through that illusion of self and create analysis that is fair given the circumstances and which are beholden to our principles.
My issues over and over with Mr. Palmer is that he is fundamentally dishonest in both his argumentative approach and his inability to see the illogic of his positions. He is interested in marginalizing and smearing those who disagree with him in the most vile terms imaginable.
Over at the Palmer Periscope, Stephan Kinsella has a simply brilliant, and passionate, attack on Palmer and his amen corner (over the furor regarding Hans Hoppe's problems at UNLV) that is definitely worth reading. Actually, it deserves it's own blog entry here, it's that good.
Ta,
Recent Comments