DIGG THIS

In his new book A Nation of Sheep, Fox News Judicial Analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano argues that, in the political arena, there are two types of people: wolves and sheep. Wolves love liberty and understand those who would trade liberty for security deserve — and will receive — neither. Sheep, by contrast, trust government to take care of them and are happily willing to give up liberty when demagogic politicians tell them it is necessary for "national security." Fortunately for America, our Founding Fathers were wolves who seceded from a tyrannical centralized government and created a new one of limited power, governed by a Constitution that sets explicit limits on the sphere of government. The Founders counted on the American people, who were wolves at that time, to vigilantly enforce the Constitution. Unfortunately, almost from its very beginnings, the federal government began trampling the Constitution and, today, the situation has reached a crisis point. However, most Americans are no longer wolves, but sheep, perfectly willing to submit to a centralized government that is even more obnoxious and intolerable than the one they revolted against.

Judge Napolitano dedicates a significant portion of his book to detailing the Bush Administration’s assault on the Fourth Amendment, which protects Americans from unlawful searches and seizures of their homes, person, and property. He perceptively notes that one of the main justifications for the American Revolution was the British policy of allowing soldiers to conduct searches by simply writing their own warrants. The Framers specifically outlawed this practice when they adopted the Fourth Amendment, which bans searches and seizures unless a judge has signed a search warrant.

As Napolitano noted in his speech "Civil Liberties in Wartime" at the Ludwig von Mises Institute’s 25th Anniversary Celebration (which I had the honor of attending), numerous presidents have circumvented and ignored the Fourth Amendment. The Bush Administration, however, has rendered it essentially meaningless.

Napolitano describes numerous instances of the Bush Administration’s disrespect for the Constitution in general and the Fourth Amendment in particular. For example, after 9/11 (the Administration’s favorite excuse for its assaults on liberty) Bush secretly authorized a domestic spying program that allowed NSA agents to intercept the telephone calls and emails of American citizens without an authorized search warrant. Bush’s own Justice Department, including even former Attorney General John Ashcroft, believed this program violated the Constitution. Moreover, the PATRIOT Act allows FBI agents — like British soldiers in the era of George III — to write their own search warrants. In true Orwellian fashion, these self-written warrants are called "National Security Letters."

Sheepish Americans may argue that the domestic spying program and others like it are necessary and, in any event, do not affect them because they are not "terrorists." Napolitano makes several points in response to this. First, the Administration has adopted a loose definition of "terrorist" that could conceivably cover just about anyone. Thus, when (and if) the Government decides the threat of "Islamofascism" has rescinded, a president could use the statutes against virtually anyone with whom he disagrees simply by deeming them a "terrorist," "enemy combatant," or one of the other vague terms used in the statutes. Second, the federal government maintains records concerning the cell phone usage, emails, and other information, on hundreds of thousands, probably millions, of Americans, which obviously includes those who are innocent of any connection to terrorism. Thus, such policies are already being directed against the innocent. For example, every business day, the National Security Agency obtains a database of AT&T customers’ phone and Internet records that "is more than two hundred times the size of the entire Library of Congress." An AT&T employee has testified that it is unlikely all of these records could be connected to terrorism.

Third, millions of innocent Americans are subjected to unconstitutional searches and seizures of their person and property every single day. This happens, of course, at the airports, where TSA thugs force them to take off their shoes, belts, and all metallic objects before walking through a metal detector. As Napolitano points out, these bozos are adept at harassing innocent Americans and spotting harmless objects such as water bottles, deodorant cans, and toothpaste tubes. However, when it comes to spotting things that might actually be dangerous, such as, say, bombs and guns, they have proven remarkably incompetent. Napolitano notes that Department of Homeland Security employees and even a college student were able to smuggle knives, guns, a bomb, and other dangerous objects through TSA checkpoints. Since the publication of Napolitano’s book, the TSA’s own studies have proven it incompetent, finding that TSA screeners missed up to 75% of fake bombs.

While Napolitano argues that crackdowns on liberty such as those discussed above are both unconstitutional and ineffective, he courageously argues that, even if they worked, they would still be unjustified. He correctly notes that the Framers took this position as well; they would not have tolerated the indignities we endure every day for even one minute. "Less freedom," Napolitano says, "equals slavery" and would leave us with a nation not worth defending.

A Nation of Sheep’s attack on the sad state of government in America is not limited to the Bush Administration’s trampling of the Fourth Amendment, however. I focus on that aspect of the book only to emphasize the irony that we now live under a government — ironically also headed by a man named George — that shows the same disrespect for what our Founders deemed a fundamental right as the regime of George III. Napolitano also discusses the Administration’s assault on the Geneva Conventions, the right of habeas corpus, the freedom of the press, and other fundamental liberties. I recommend this book to anyone concerned about the state of constitutional government in America today.

Napolitano offers several suggestions for improving things, such as repealing the 16th Amendment, which gives the federal government the power to tax our incomes. This would leave the government with less money to wage war on other nations and our liberties. Napolitano’s bold overarching suggestion, however, is that Americans emulate the Founding Fathers and begin acting like wolves, not sheep. This can best be accomplished by electing the only wolf running for president, Congressman Ron Paul. Napolitano accurately describes Paul as the one candidate who does not "love power for its own sake, believe that Big Government should redistribute wealth, regard the Constitution as a quaint obstacle, and would enforce or disregard laws as they saw fit . . . without regard to our history, our values, or our natural rights."

Andrew Young [send him mail] is a law student at the University of Louisville. He holds a B.A. in history from Kentucky Wesleyan College.

Cheek persuasively refutes those who dismiss Calhoun’s political theory as either tailored to defend Southern sectarian interests or the last gasp of the Jeffersonians. Though Jefferson and Madison influenced Calhoun, his theory revealed original thought as well. For example, Calhoun introduced the concept of the concurrent majority. Calhoun argued that a simple numerical majority would lead to increasingly bigger and tyrannical government, with the majority utilizing big government to control the minority. Moreover, if only a numerical majority decided who controlled government, citizen participation would decline; people would vote, but then the majority would control government and only those supportive of the majority would help govern. Without citizen participation, government would reach tyrannical proportions.

Thus, Calhoun recommended a concurrent majority rather than a numerical one. A concurrent majority would limit the growth of government by providing an elaborate system of checks and balances. Most importantly, the states would retain ultimate authority regarding constitutional interpretation. Giving states a veto over the central government served many purposes. First, since the states signed and ratified the Constitution, they should have the final say over important constitutional questions; they created the central government. Second, giving states veto authority would help control the central government’s natural tendency to abuse its power, since the states could, if necessary, nullify obnoxious federal laws to protect their citizens. Third, a concurrent majority would encourage a virtuous citizenry by allowing Americans to participate in their own governance. As long as states retained significant powers, the people would participate in state politics and, through their representatives, national politics. However, if a distant federal government usurped state powers, citizens, feeling powerless, would lose confidence in government, which would eventually lead to the destruction of the Union.

Near the end of the book, Cheek persuasively argues that Calhoun’s thought is still relevant today. He offers a convincing rebuttal of those, like Harry Jaffa, who condemn Calhoun as a "Marx of the Master Class" who favored the Articles of Confederation because they did a better job of protecting Southern slaveholders than the Constitution. If that is the case, Cheek writes, why did Calhoun dislike the Articles? As Cheek points out, Calhoun criticized the Articles because they gave too little power to the central government, making Congressional representatives more like diplomats than congressmen.

Interestingly, while this aspect of Calhoun’s thought certainly refutes Jaffa’s preposterous view, it also reveals a flaw in Calhoun’s reasoning. The Constitution, by ambiguously defining the federal government’s powers (particularly with the "necessary and proper" clause) has allowed centralizers like Alexander Hamilton and Abraham Lincoln to trample state’s rights. For the preservation of liberty, the Articles are infinitely superior to the Constitution.

Cheek’s most satisfying rebuttal comes when he addresses contemporary critics who conveniently dismiss Calhoun’s belief in small government as unrealistic given the size of today’s federal government. Cheek answers this criticism by pointing out the fact that most of these critics do not want to limit the size of government. For those of us that do, Calhoun and Popular Rule is a great read.

Andrew Young [send him mail] is a senior history major at Kentucky Wesleyan College in Owensboro, Kentucky.

I began having doubts about the nature of government at an early age. When I was about three or four, I remember discussing the military with my mother. I told her that I would never join. She told me I would probably never have to. When I asked what she meant by "probably," she said America had not had a draft since Vietnam and would probably never have another. I responded by saying I would not join, drafted or not. I could not understand why anyone would kill and risk being killed for a cause in which they did not even believe. Mom, somewhat agitated, told me I would understand when I grew older. Not wanting to make her angry, I ended the conversation, still wondering why people would go to war simply because their government said they should. Leaving the country or even going to jail made more sense.

A few years later, I complained about taxes, telling Mom I believed the government was "too dependent" and needed to earn its own money. She laughed, and when I asked why, she said we pay taxes in order to receive services from the government, such as roads. This struck me as odd for two reasons. First, if we pay private businesses for some services (a haircut, for example) why could we not pay them for others as well? Second, I wondered why, if the government was so good at providing services, people consistently complained about its laziness and incompetence. For example, it was popular at that time (and still today) to chastise people for "sitting around like a bunch of state workers." However, being so young, I assumed I simply did not fully understand things and would when I matured.

When I entered grade school I, like every American who attends public school, was forced to learn the Pledge of Allegiance and recite it on a daily basis. Over the years, I began to consider this requirement rather absurd for several reasons. First, I could not understand why children should be forced to pledge allegiance to any government. To me, promising to follow someone anywhere they decide to take you made no sense; they could, after all, lead you over a cliff. I knew that even the "great" American government our teachers expected us to revere had, at times, started pointless wars that killed thousands of its own citizens (even in public schools, you get the impression that Vietnam was a mistake).

Furthermore, it struck me as the same sort of behavior that leaders of "bad" governments, like Iraq, utilized to manipulate their subjects. When I saw thousands of Iraqis cheering while Saddam Hussein fired a pistol into the air, I thought it made little sense for Americans to behave in a similar manner (though admittedly on a smaller scale). Nonetheless, I concluded that something was wrong with me, and I would understand when I grew older.

During the mid and late 1990s, however, I began to wonder just how old I would have to get before I learned the true, benevolent nature of government. I increasingly saw politicians as liars of little or no moral character who say anything to get elected. I reached this view partly because of the endless scandals that plagued the Clinton years, but also because I spent a great deal of time reading history. Seemingly every presidency before Clinton’s had involved a major lie and/or scandal. With George H.W. Bush, there was the infamous "Read my lips: no new taxes" pledge that was suddenly forgotten after the campaign ended. With Reagan, there was the Iran-Contra scandal. Other recent presidents had been serial adulterers (Johnson and Kennedy), broken campaign promises (all of them), and lied the country into war (Johnson in Vietnam, George H.W. Bush in Panama, etc.). Despite all this, however, I still believed that, someday, I would understand why I should be willing, under any circumstances, to kill and be killed for my government.

After September 11, 2001, though, I found that belief even harder to sustain. After the attacks, most Americans pledged unconditional support for President Bush, and Congress passed a bill giving him the authority to take military action against anyone he deemed responsible for the attacks. This blind allegiance, however, struck me as the same behavior that produced the attacks in the first place. It should have been clear to anyone that we had done something to provoke Al Qaeda; nineteen men would not commit suicide, killing thousands in the process, out of mere jealously of our freedoms. Clearly, they had been motivated by America’s seemingly unconditional support for Israel’s violent suppression of the Palestinians, its propping up of brutal dictators, and, most importantly, its frequent interventions in Arab affairs. If America’s willingness to blindly support politicians while they pursued barbaric foreign policies led to September 11, how could we expect an escalation of that support to prevent another September 11? But, I decided that, since I was only a senior in high school, I would learn why I should give complete allegiance to the government at some later date.

Then, my junior year of college, I was lucky enough to have a professor who assigned Albert Jay Nock’s classic essay "Anarchist’s Progress." As I read Nock’s work, I noticed that, as children, Nock and I had remarkably similar interpretations of government. For example, Nock’s boyhood home bordered a political headquarters called the WigWam, and he quickly formed a low opinion of the people who went there. When he asked his parents why, on Election Day, hundreds of drunken, obnoxious buffoons passed their house, they said, with a "disparaging tone," "politics." Later, he noticed that those who seek political office are usually corrupt, incompetent, or both, yet most people think nothing of it and, despite having a low opinion of politics, pledge blind loyalty to the government.

Nock’s essay, which I highly recommend, led me to a startling conclusion. Children, when allowed to think for themselves, form a much more accurate and honest analysis of the nature of government than most adults (who attended government schools). Government schools, for obvious reasons, teach children that government is a benevolent institution that sometimes (though not very often) makes terrible mistakes, such as wasting billions of dollars and killing thousands of its own citizens in a senseless war. These mistakes, however, do not occur because governments are composed of parasites that steal wealth instead of creating it, but because politicians always have our best interests at heart; they just make honest mistakes. In Iraq, for example, the Bush administration just wants to help the Iraqis build a free society like ours; never mind that the Iraqi people reject our definition of freedom. Government schools do not tell children that, during the 1980s, the same people who rail about Saddam’s tyranny today supported him during his worst atrocities.

The behavior of several students at my college during a presentation I gave last semester supports this conclusion. My presentation criticized the war in Iraq, pointing out the fact that the same people who defended the war for humanitarian reasons went out of their way to support Saddam Hussein a little over a decade before. Most of the students had no clue about this crucial aspect of very recent American history. Many did not believe me; they questioned my sources. When I demonstrated that this fact was not even debatable, they responded with the standard patriotic blather about criticizing the government during wartime. No one even bothered to offer a rational critique of my position, and I believe this is because, throughout their lives, they have been taught to uncritically support their government during war, whether they agree with the cause or not.

The key to peace and liberty, then, is to encourage children to form their own opinions, independently of what the government schools and the media teach them. Children have great instincts, often better than adults, and those instincts, if left alone, could prevent America from bankrupting itself and pursuing a policy of endless war.

Andrew Young [send him mail] is a senior history major at Kentucky Wesleyan College in Owensboro, Kentucky.

Shore’s trial parallels the Bush administration’s position in Iraq. President Bush invaded Iraq believing the Iraqi people would greet American soldiers with roses. Instead, the Iraqis have greeted Americans with violence. As a result, more and more soldiers are refusing to reenlist. Moreover, recruitment has declined; the Army has failed to satisfy its recruiting goals for three months straight. The Bush administration, instead of taking this lack of enthusiasm as a sign that it should end its aggressive foreign policies, is taking drastic measures to increase the military’s size (offering large enlistment bonuses, for example). Many commentators — both left and right — have called for a permanent increase in the military’s size, utilizing conscription if necessary. These people want Bush to convince (or conscript) young men to continue a fight he started but cannot finish. Nothing could be more craven.

Of all the abuses states heap upon their subjects, war and conscription are the most craven. Besides assuming that the state owns its people’s lives, conscription gives the state ultimate authority over the most important moral issue: when it is morally acceptable to kill another human being. When draftees (or soldiers in general, for that matter) kill for the state, they justify their actions because the state, not their religion or sense of ethics, sanctions them.

Some may ask why we should not trust the state with such an important moral issue. If our leaders think we must draft young men to defend the country, why should we not trust them? The answer to this question should be obvious, but, unfortunately, too many miss it. The warfare state emerged in the twentieth century, which was the bloodiest in human history, with two world wars and the first use of nuclear weapons against civilians. Most, if not all, of the countries involved in the wars of the twentieth century utilized conscription. The twentieth century proves that, when we give the state ultimate moral authority, disaster follows.

As Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI have argued, most of the twentieth century’s atrocities can be attributed to the emergence of the warfare state. When the state claims superiority over the Church and other sources of moral authority, totalitarianism and atrocities will inevitably follow. Pope Benedict XVI, in his essay "Theology and the Church’s Political Stance," makes this point:

"Where the Church itself becomes the state freedom becomes lost. But also when the Church is done away with as a public and publicly relevant authority, then too freedom is extinguished, because there the state once again claims completely for itself the justification of morality; in the profane post-Christian world it does not admittedly do this in the form of a sacral authority but as an ideological authority — that means that the state becomes the party, and since there can no longer be any other authority of the same rank it once again becomes total itself. The ideological state is totalitarian; it must become ideological if it is not balanced by a free but publicly recognized authority of conscience. When this kind of duality does not exist the totalitarian system is unavoidable."

In short, governments can easily become corrupt. Therefore, we cannot trust them as the ultimate sources of moral authority; we must instead rely on the human conscience. John Paul II, in his Centesimus Annus, illustrates this point:

"In the totalitarian and authoritarian regimes, the principle that force predominates over reason was carried to the extreme. Man was compelled to submit to a conception of reality imposed on him by coercion, and not reached by virtue of his own reason and the exercise of his own freedom. This principle must be overturned and total recognition must be given to the rights of the human conscience, which is bound only to the truth, both natural and revealed. The recognition of these rights represents the primary foundation of every authentically free political order."

When people rely on the state’s moral reasoning, they are apt to behave immorally, since the state (unlike the human conscience) is not bound to truth, but to itself.

Some soldiers I know of that have returned from Iraq prove this point. While in combat, they videotaped themselves shooting "insurgents" and proudly play the videos for anyone who will watch. Moreover, many of them took pictures of mutilated corpses. Not only do they feel no remorse for killing, they are proud of it. Why are they proud of actions that, in any other situation, would land them in prison or an asylum? I will suggest two reasons.

First, the state sanctioned their actions. As Albert Jay Nock pointed out in his classic essay "Anarchist’s Progress," the state’s blessing allows men to justify deeds they would never consider under other circumstances. Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, and Leo Tolstoy have all expressed this view. Second, today’s violent video games have desensitized young men to violence. Not surprisingly, many glorify America’s previous wars, particularly World War II. The U.S. Army has even developed its own video game to further desensitize American teenagers to state-sponsored mass murder.

The Bush administration in particular has repeatedly proven itself undeserving of moral authority. The invasion of Iraq, for example, clearly violated international law. Though the Bush administration justified the invasion as a preemptive war, which is acceptable under international law, the attack actually qualifies as an illegal preventive war. A preemptive war "preempts" an imminent attack; a preventive war crushes a threat that could potentially emerge. The Hussein regime had no plans of attacking the United States; Bush invaded on the grounds that Hussein might attack in the future. The doctrine of preventive war opens the door for endless warfare because it allows state leaders to justify war against any country they choose. All they must do is declare that a threat may exist later; no evidence is necessary. International legal scholars and the Roman Catholic Church have long recognized this, which is why international law and the Catechism both forbid preventive wars.

Richard Perle, one of the Iraq war’s architects, even conceded its illegality to a British audience, saying "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing." Perle failed, however, to explain how launching an illegal war under false pretenses and killing tens of thousands of civilians in the process involves "doing the right thing."

The Church has served as a source of moral authority against the warfare state. For example, Pope Benedict XV vehemently opposed World War I. Pope John Paul II stood up against the Bush administration’s push to war in Iraq, as has his successor, Pope Benedict XVI. Let us hope that, as the Bush administration tries, through bribes, force, or both, to gain more soldiers for its endless wars, America’s youth will accept the Vatican’s reasoning and follow their consciences, not the state.

Andrew Young [send him mail] is a senior history major at Kentucky Wesleyan College in Owensboro, Kentucky.

Turtledove's
novel presents a very plausible portrayal of how Lee may have conducted
the war after receiving AK-47s. Lee wins the war by launching a
daring, dangerous nighttime assault on Washington, D.C. He captures
the city and forces Abraham Lincoln to negotiate a settlement. This
series of events is plausible because Lee was widely known for being
a gambler. For example, at the Battle of Chancellorsville, he "ignored
military wisdom by dividing his army in the face of superior numbers,"
by leaving 11,000 troops at Fredericksburg and taking another 42,000
with him to face General Joseph Hooker's army of 75,000.1
Later, he divided his army once again, sending 28,000 men with Stonewall
Jackson to attack Hooker's right flank. These actions, according
to historians Michael Fellman, Lesley Gordon, and Daniel Sutherland,
defied "all rules of conventional military strategy and tactics."2
Therefore, it would have been just like Lee to launch a surprise
assault on Washington.

After
losing the Civil War, the Northern states launch a war against the
British over the Canadian provinces. This scenario is highly plausible
because Abraham Lincoln, by becoming a "constitutional dictator,"
concentrated power in the executive branch; governments with powerful
executives are far more likely to pursue aggressive foreign policies
than governments with restraints on executive power. Thomas DiLorenzo
demonstrates this in his book The
Real Lincoln when he writes that one of the consequences
of the North's victory was an increasingly aggressive government.
For example, after defeating the South, the American government
challenged the British government, demanding that it pay reparations
for trading with the South. Moreover, General Grant prepared for
war against Mexico, and the U.S. Army conducted "a campaign
of ethnic genocide" against the Plains Indians.3
In sum, it is highly probable that, after losing the Civil War,
the American government would have pursued a war with England.

Some
may object to this point by arguing that, after losing a long and
bloody war, the U.S. government would have toned down its aggression
and reduced the power of the executive. Under this view, an angry
public would have voted Abraham Lincoln out of office and replaced
him with someone who would lead a return to "normalcy."
This argument, however, is flawed. While Lincoln would almost certainly
have been voted out of office, the executive branch would have maintained
a considerable amount of the extralegal powers that it claimed during
Lincoln's administration. This conclusion can be reached because
of economist Robert Higgs' "ratchet effect." Higgs has
persuasively argued that, after states claim extraordinary powers
during crises (like wars), they rarely give them all up once the
crisis passes. According to Higgs, "each emergency leaves the
scope of government at least a little wider than before."4
Therefore, the executive branch would have retained its newfound
superiority over the legislative branch; and, as history has shown,
powerful executives pursue aggressive foreign policies.

Turtledove's
treatment of the slavery issue is plausible as well. In the novel,
Robert E. Lee is elected president of the Confederacy and implements
a policy of gradual emancipation. Had the South won, it probably
would have followed a policy of gradual emancipation. Several pieces
of evidence support this conclusion.

First,
slavery was slowly losing its political support due to the Enlightenment
philosophy of freedom. According to Thomas DiLorenzo, Americans,
even in the South, were beginning to realize that slavery contradicted
the Enlightenment principles they professed. Second, slavery had
already begun to decline in border states like Kentucky, where slaves
could easily escape to the North; moreover, since these states did
not grow cotton, slavery was less economical. Therefore, if a Confederate
president had abolished slavery, he would have encountered little
resistance in states like Kentucky. Third, the Industrial Revolution
would have hastened slavery's decline. Industrial workers, unlike
slaves, work for wages, and this makes them more productive, since
they have incentive to work hard.5
Southerners, then, would probably have accepted the gradual end
of slavery, a system that contradicted their fundamental principles,
had already become unpopular in border states, and was becoming
less profitable due to the Industrial Revolution.

In
Turtledove's novel, Robert E. Lee succeeds Jefferson Davis as president
of the Confederacy. Had Lee run for president, he almost certainly
would have won. After the war, many Southerners, particularly proponents
of the "Lost Cause" interpretation, saw Lee as "nearly
Christlike, half-man, half-god, humble, honorable, inherently peaceful,
but driven to war by a just and noble cause."6
If Lee received such praise in defeat, he would have been even more
popular if the South had won. Therefore, if he had run for president,
he would have easily won.

However,
Turtledove's account of Lee's election in 1866 contains one potential
implausibility. Nathan Bedford Forrest, with financial support from
the South Africans (who turn on Lee, fearing that he will free the
slaves), campaigns vigorously throughout the South and nearly defeats
Lee; the electoral vote hinges on Tennessee, which Lee narrowly
wins. This is probably the least plausible aspect of Turtledove's
novel because, as has been demonstrated, Lee was extremely popular
in the South; Forrest, even with millions of campaign dollars, would
probably not have come so close to defeating the beloved Lee.

One
could argue, though, that Forrest's financial advantage would have
tightened the race. Also, Forrest ran a negative campaign against
Lee, telling Southerners that Lee, if elected, would abolish slavery.
This strategy, however, may well have backfired. Many Southerners
would undoubtedly have been deeply offended by a negative campaign
against Robert E. Lee.

However,
one could still argue that Southerners, having just fought a war
to preserve slavery, would have been loathe to abolish it; in this
view, Forrest's success is more plausible. This argument's weakness,
though, lies in the assumption that Southerners fought strictly
to preserve slavery, which is not the case. Most Southerners, in
fact, did not even own slaves. Moreover, four states – Virginia,
Tennessee, North Carolina, and Arkansas – only seceded when
the North utilized military force against the South; fears of Lincoln
abolishing slavery did not prompt their secession. Historian James
McPherson, who studied thousands of diaries in an effort to understand
why soldiers fought, has shown that most Southerners fought for
patriotic reasons, not to preserve slavery. The right of self-government,
not the right to own slaves, motivated men to fight.7

If
one accepts the implausibility of time travel, Harry Turtledove
offers a plausible account of the path history may have taken if
the South had acquired an incredible military advantage like the
AK-47. Lee, who had a reputation for taking risks, probably would
have gambled by attacking Washington, D.C. After all, he had previously
taken enormous risks when the odds were against him; he would certainly
have taken risks if he had AK-47s. The North, with power concentrated
in the executive branch, would have pursued aggressive foreign policies,
especially since Northern politicians would have wanted to "make
up" for losing the Southern states. Lee, who, even in defeat,
is widely loved in the South even to this day, would easily have
won election had he decided to seek office. Turtledove's novel only
becomes implausible when he underestimates Robert E. Lee's popularity.

Notes

1. Michael
   Fellman, Lesley J. Gordon, and Daniel E. Sutherland, This
   Terrible War: The Civil War and its Aftermath (New York:
   Longman, 2003), 228.
2. Ibid.,
   228.
3. Thomas
   J. DiLorenzo, The
   Real Lincoln (New York: Three Rivers Press, 2003), 269.
4. Daniel
   McCarthy, "Enemy
   of the State," American Conservative (May 9, 2005):
   28.
5. DiLorenzo,
   op. cit., 276–77.
6. Fellman,
   op. cit., 376.
7. Thomas
   Woods, The
   Politically Incorrect Guide to American History (Washington,
   D.C.: Regnery, 2004), 69–71.

May
16, 2005

Andrew
Young [send him mail] is a
senior history major at Kentucky Wesleyan College in Owensboro,
Kentucky.

According to
historians David Donald and James Randall, Lincoln relied on arbitrary
arrests for political expediency. If Lincoln had exclusively utilized
the courts to judge cases of suspected treason, he would have convicted
few, since the Constitution sets strict requirements for a treason
conviction. Moreover, those who were convicted might become
martyrs and incite more resistance. Therefore, Lincoln suspended
habeas corpus and allowed the military to conduct arbitrary arrests. [i]

Lincoln gave
several more diplomatic justifications for suspending habeas corpus.
First, he formulated a u201Cdoctrine of necessity.u201D Since the president
takes an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution,
he must violate it during emergencies to preserve the government.
Sometimes we amputate limbs to preserve life; similarly, presidents
must occasionally violate the Constitution to save it. Second,
Lincoln offered two constitutional justifications for his actions.
He cited the president's duty to make sure that the nation's laws
are faithfully executed; since disloyal Northerners could prevent
Lincoln from u201Cfaithfully executingu201D law, he could suspend their
right to habeas corpus. [ii] He then cited the commander-in-chief
clause of the Constitution, claiming that, as commander-in-chief
in wartime, he had u201Ca right to take any measure which may best subdue
the enemy.u201D [iii]

Before considering
Ex parte Merryman, we should discuss the events that led
Taney to write the opinion. In May 1861, Union General George Cadwalader
ordered John Merryman's arrest for being u201Can active secessionist
sympathizer.u201D Under Cadwalader's order, Merryman was held in a
military prison at Fort McHenry. When Taney, who was on circuit
duty, demanded that Cadwalader allow him to judge the legality of
Merryman's detainment, Cadwalader refused, citing Lincoln's orders.
Taney then attempted to hold Cadwalader in contempt, but Union soldiers
refused to admit the marshal who tried to serve him Taney's writ.
Thereafter, a frustrated Taney wrote his Merryman opinion.
[iv]

In his Ex
parte Merryman opinion, Chief Justice Roger Taney addresses
Lincoln's claims of sweeping executive power. He directly challenges
Lincoln's claim that his duty to faithfully execute the nation's
laws justifies the suspension of habeas corpus. The clause that
requires the president to u201Cfaithfully executeu201D the laws, Taney says,
does not permit him to u201Cexecute them himself, or through agents
or officers, civil or military.u201D
[v] Instead, the president's duty is to assure that no outside
force interferes with the government's execution of the laws. Therefore,
he must help the judicial branch if some outside force threatens
the judiciary's power; he does not have the right to utilize the
military to usurp judicial authority.

Taney also
challenges Lincoln's assertion that emergencies require the executive
to usurp congressional and judicial authority. Near the end of
the opinion, he says that, if the executive branch can, in any
situation, overstep other branches, then u201Cthe people of the United
States are no longer living under a government of laws.u201D In Taney's
view, the Constitution is not a mere suggestion of how government
should operate under ideal circumstances. Instead, it is a concrete
document to which the executive must adhere at all times, including
times of emergency. If presidents can abandon the Constitution
u201Cupon any pretext or under any circumstances,u201D the Constitution
means nothing. [vi]

Perhaps most
importantly, Taney says the framers never intended for the executive
to suspend habeas corpus. He offers mounds of evidence to support
this contention. First, he cites a major crisis during Thomas Jefferson's
presidency. Aaron Burr, Jefferson's vice president, led a conspiracy
to seize territory around New Orleans to form a new country. During
this time, Jefferson actually wanted to suspend the writ,
but wrote that he lacked the authority. Instead, he suggested that
Congress exercise its power to suspend habeas corpus.
[vii]

Second, he
writes that the framers, fearing a liberal interpretation of the
u201Cnecessary and properu201D clause, which gives Congress the right to
pass any law deemed u201Cnecessary and properu201D for carrying out its
duties, listed several fundamental rights that cannot be violated.
It is not a coincidence, Taney says, that the first right listed
is the writ of habeas corpus, which may only be suspended in times
of invasion or rebellion.
[viii]

Third, Taney
argues that it defies common sense to believe the framers would
have trusted the executive with the right to suspend habeas corpus.
They had just broken away from a powerful, despotic English monarch.
Therefore, they distrusted a powerful executive, especially one
who could arrest citizens and hold them indefinitely without trial.
As evidence, Taney cites the strict limits Article 2 places on the
executive, such as the requirement for congressional approval of
treaties with foreign nations and his short term of office. [ix]

Taney persuasively
argues that the Constitution expressly denies the executive the
right to suspend habeas corpus, even going so far as to say u201CI had
supposed it to be one of those points of constitutional law upon
which there was do difference of opinion, and that it was admitted
on all hands, that the privilege of the writ could not be suspended,
except by act of Congress.u201D
[x] To support this contention, Taney cites Article 1, Section
9 of the Constitution, which gives Congress alone the power to suspend
Habeas Corpus. He also cites the fact that Article 1 u201Cis devoted
to the legislative department of the United States, and has not
the slightest reference to the executive department.u201D
[xi] To further support his case, Taney discusses Article
2 of the Constitution, which deals with the executive branch. Taney
writes that u201Cif the high power over the liberty of the citizen now
claimed, was intended to be conferred on the president, it would
undoubtedly be found in plain words in this article.u201D [xii] However, Article 2 never gives the president this power.

Taney quotes
his predecessors on the Supreme Court to bolster his arguments.
Justice Joseph Story, for example, once wrote that u201CIt would seem,
as the power is given to Congress to suspend the writ of habeas
corpus…that the right to judge whether the exigency had arisen must
exclusively belong to that body.u201D [xiii] Moreover, he refers to
an opinion written by Chief Justice John Marshall. Marshall's opinion
says that, if suspending the writ is necessary for public safety,
only Congress may do so. Until Congress suspends the writ, the
courts must maintain habeas corpus. To capitalize on the high esteem
most Americans give Marshall, Taney says u201CI can add nothing to these
clear and emphatic words of my great predecessor.u201D
[xiv]

The influence
of English common law on America's legal system, Taney argues, supports
his position. For centuries, the English dealt with monarchs who
arbitrarily imprisoned their own citizens. Therefore, they, like
the framers, denied executives the authority to suspend habeas corpus.
Taney quotes English judge William Blackstone at length, who once
wrote that u201CBut the happiness of our constitution is, that it is
not left to the executive power to determine when the danger of
the state is so great as to render this measure expedient.u201D [xv] Though Taney concedes that the English and
American systems differ greatly, he reminds readers that u201Cupon this
subject they (English judges) are entitled to the highest respect,
and are justly regarded and received as authoritative by our courts
of justice.u201D [xvi]

Even if Congress
had suspended habeas corpus, Taney argues, Merryman should
still be released. Cadwalader did not have probable cause to detain
Merryman. Taney correctly points out that Cadwalader never produced
any witnesses to support his accusations, nor did he bother to specify
u201Cthe acts which, in the judgment of the military officer, constituted
these crimes.u201D [xvii] Furthermore, even if
the suspension of habeas corpus were legal, the military could not
refuse to cooperate with the judicial branch. Though the military
can arrest private citizens, it must immediately transfer them to
civil authorities.

On the question
of the framers' original intent, Taney's view is clearly the correct
one. The framers would never have wanted the executive to have
the power to suspend habeas corpus under any circumstances; they
repeatedly criticized their previous ruler, the English king, for
similar behavior. For example, in the u201CDeclaration of Independence,u201D
Thomas Jefferson attacks King George because he u201Chas affected to
render the military independent of and superior to civil power.u201D [xviii] Lincoln, by allowing the military to
arbitrarily arrest private citizens and sidestep judicial authority,
differed little from George III. Moreover, as Taney points out,
during Thomas Jefferson's presidency, when most of the framers were
still in government, no one, even during a time of crisis (the Burr
conspiracy), believed the president could suspend habeas corpus.
Nor did President James Madison, the u201Cfather of the Constitution,u201D
claim sweeping executive powers during the War of 1812, as Tom
DiLorenzo has written. [xix]

Even if we
do not consider the framers' original intent, Taney's interpretation
is clearly superior; as Taney writes, this should be u201Cone of those
points of constitutional law upon which there was no difference
of opinion.u201D Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution gives Congress,
not the president, the power to suspend habeas corpus. If the president
had the power to suspend habeas corpus, it would be found in Article
2, which deals with the executive branch; it is not.

Many of Lincoln's
defenders concede the unconstitutionality of his suspension of habeas
corpus, but argue that, although the suspension was dictatorial,
Lincoln was a u201Cgood dictator.u201D James G. Randall even called Lincoln
a u201Cbenevolent dictator,u201D a phrase many would consider an oxymoron.
However, it is easy for those who never suffered the effects of
Lincoln's u201Cbenevolentu201D dictatorship to defend him. John Merryman,
who was arrested in his home without probable cause, would disagree
with Randall's analysis. So would Francis Key Howard, who spent
two years in military prison at Fort McHenry and wrote a book about
his experience there called The American Bastille.
[xx] Moreover, what is the Constitution worth if one man (the
president), under a pretext of his choosing, can decide to ignore
it?

After Taney
issued his Merryman opinion, which President Lincoln ignored,
the Lincoln administration increased its usurpation of judicial
and congressional powers. Lincoln, incensed by Taney's defense
of civil liberties, issued a warrant for his arrest.
Several sources corroborate this controversial warrant. First,
the private papers of Lincoln's former law partner, Ward Hill Laman
(who was a Federal Marshal at the time) contain a reference to the
warrant, saying u201CAfter due consideration the administration decided
upon the arrest of the chief justice.u201D Second, Taney warned friends
that he may be arrested, including George Brown, the future mayor
of Baltimore. Fortunately, no one could find a marshal who was
willing to arrest an 84-year-old judge. [xxi]

Lincoln's attempt
to arrest Taney helps prove Taney's accusation that Lincoln was
willing to usurp judicial authority and endanger American liberty.
Lincoln not only ignored an order from the Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court; he even tried to have the judge arrested. If Lincoln
had succeeded in arresting Taney, he would have virtually destroyed
the separation of powers upon which this nation was founded. How
can the judiciary maintain its independence if the president can
have the Chief Justice arrested for merely issuing an opinion with
which he disagrees?

Donald and
Randall's analysis also supports Taney's opinion. If Lincoln decided
to suspend habeas corpus simply because he feared that he could
gain few treason convictions, he viewed the Constitution as an obstacle
to be sidestepped, not a foundation for preserving liberty. Furthermore,
his belief that he would attain few convictions supports Taney's
claims. After declaring that the military lacked probable cause
in the Merryman case, Taney concluded that the government
probably lacked evidence for many of its other arrests and encouraged
other judges to demand writs of habeas corpus.
[xxii] Lincoln's cynicism helps show that Taney was correct.

President Lincoln's
suspension of habeas corpus lacked both moral and constitutional
justification. It confined thousands in military prisons for opposing
war and voided years of jurisprudence. The Constitution never gives
the president the right to suspend habeas corpus, nor can that right
be inferred from the commander-in-chief clause or the president's
duty to faithfully execute the laws. Lincoln's suspension was not
only illegal; it was also dangerous, threatening the separation
of powers that prevents any one branch of government from becoming
too powerful. Moreover, his actions inspired future presidents
to ignore the Constitution during times of crisis. Especially today,
with the post-9/11 crackdown on civil liberties, Americans would
be wise to reread Ex parte Merryman.

Notes

[i] James G. Randall and David Donald, The
Civil War and Reconstruction, 2nd Ed. (Boston:
D.C. Heath and Company, 1961), 300.

[ii] Michael Genovese, The
Power of the American Presidency (New York: Oxford University
Press, 2001), 81.

[iii] Genovese, 84.

[iv] Randall, 301–302.

[v] Roger Taney, u201CEx
Parte Merryman,u201D n.d. (28 Mar. 2005).

[vi] Ibid.

[vii] Ibid.

[viii] Ibid.

[ix] Ibid.

[x] Ibid.

[xi] Ibid.

[xii] Ibid.

[xiii] Ibid.

[xiv] Ibid.

[xv] Ibid.

[xvi] Ibid.

[xvii] Ibid.

[xviii] Thomas Jefferson, u201CDeclaration
of Independence, n.d. (28 Mar. 2005).

[xix] Thomas J. DiLorenzo, The
Real Lincoln (New York: Three Rivers Press, 2002), 134.

[xx] Ibid., 134.

[xxi] Charles Adams, u201CLincoln's
Presidential Warrant to Arrest Chief Justice Roger B. Taney,u201D
5 Jan. 2004 (28 Mar. 2005).

[xxii] Ibid.

April
5, 2005

Andrew
Young [send him mail] is a
senior history major at Kentucky Wesleyan College in Owensboro,
Kentucky.

I
was always a poor tackler. In hindsight, I think the coaches only
played me on defense because I was fast and could intercept passes.
When I did tackle someone, I usually did it by dragging them down.
Never, in my entire football career, did a coach praise me for a
"good hit."

I
hated tackling because I hated to hurt people, and I avoided injuring
anyone until my junior year. Then, one practice during a tackling
drill, one of my friends ran the ball straight at me. I made contact
and wrapped him up, but he would not go down easy, so I drove my
feet to knock him backward. Suddenly, he said, "My ankle, my
ankle!" I knew something was wrong. The coaches helped him
off the field and then restarted the drill. When my turn came up
again, I was so worried about my friend that I made only a halfhearted
attempt to tackle my new partner, and he got past me.

The
coach forced me to go again, and, once again, he whizzed by me.
"Come on, Andrew," my coach yelled, adding an expletive.
This angered me, and my blood boils even today when I think about
it. I had just injured someone, possibly seriously, and he was yelling
at me for not expending enough effort to hurt someone else.

The
next day, I learned that my friend had two bones broken in his ankle,
and I watched him walk on crutches for the next six months.” Sorry
I hadn’t noticed that before. Other than that, it’s just fine. Thanks
for publishing them.

That
was the beginning of the end of my football career. I finished that
season because I did not want to be a "quitter," but my
heart was no longer in the game, and I did not play my senior year.
I had seriously hurt someone, and I could not think of a way to
justify it. I tried to justify it by telling myself that I only
did what the coaches told me to, but that did not absolve me. Even
though I hurt my friend on the coach's orders, I was still
responsible for the injury.

Camilo
Mejia, a Florida National Guard soldier, refused to return to Iraq
from a two-week leave, claiming conscientious objector status. As
for his sincerity, Lew
Rockwell said it best when he wrote that "not a living
soul doubts his sincerity." Yet a military court sentenced
him to one year in prison for desertion.

Camilo's
experience resembles mine. He took part in war, where blowhard politicians
like George W. Bush force others to hurt each other, and decided
that he could no longer participate. Like him, I found myself unable
to participate in a system in which blowhards (coaches in my case)
order younger people to hurt each other.

I
doubt that anyone would blame me for refusing to participate after
an obnoxious blowhard forced me to try to hurt others. Camilo refused
to participate in war because he realized that war forces young
men to hurt each other simply because others tell them they should.
I cannot blame him. Can you?

November
3, 2004

Andrew
Young [send him mail] is a
junior history major at Kentucky Wesleyan College in Owensboro,
Kentucky.

Believing
that America must dominate the rest of the world smacks of arrogance.
Though some say that 9/11 gave America the right to declare itself
world hegemon, nothing has given us that right. In fact, America's
hegemonic policies, such as supporting dictators like Saddam
Hussein, contributed to the hatred that produced 9/11. Rather
than arrogantly pursuing hegemony, America should work to roll back
its global presence that incites hatred; it would be prudent to
start by pulling troops out of the 120
countries where America maintains a military presence. However,
it should come as no surprise that George W. Bush believes America
must respond to 9/11 by "benevolently" controlling others;
he thinks of his own countrymen as 10-year-old
children that must be guided.

Some
refuse to accept American dominance and resist it violently. The
Bush administration learned this lesson the hard way in Iraq. They
expected the Iraqis to greet them with flowers, not guns. Now thousands
of young men have been forced to kill Iraqis who resist American
domination, and thousands of civilians have been killed as well.
How "benevolent" is American hegemony for those who have
been killed and the soldiers who are forced to kill or be killed
to enforce it?

The
phrase "benevolent hegemony" is an oxymoron. Military
hegemony can never be benevolent. Merriam Webster's Collegiate
Dictionary defines hegemony as "preponderant influence
or authority over others." Iraqis
speak four languages, and many different ethnic groups reside there;
they differ drastically from each other, even more so from Americans.
Therefore, America will never peacefully exercise "preponderant
influence or authority" over such a complex country, especially
after the uproar caused by prison abuse at Abu Ghraib, and authority
maintained through violence is not positive. Even if the Iraqis
could be peacefully coerced into accepting American hegemony, it
would still not be benevolent. Imposing a foreign system on another
nation is hubristic, not benevolent.

Some
argue that this war is about spreading freedom, not American hegemony.
If that is the case, why does the administration plan to maintain
military bases in Iraq for decades to come? Jay Garner, who helped
lead Iraq's reconstruction in 2003, said in an interview
that Iraq is "our coaling station that gives us great presence
in the Middle East."

Most
of those who defend America's pursuit of hegemony, like George W.
Bush, Paul Wolfowitz, and Dick Cheney, have never fought in war.
They have never killed anyone to enforce the doctrines they espouse.
Nor have they sent their children to do it. Would they? If not,
they are hypocrites. If they would, they could only be megalomaniacs
to sacrifice so much to accumulate power.

November
3, 2004

Andrew
Young [send him mail] is a
junior history major at Kentucky Wesleyan College in Owensboro,
Kentucky.

Huntington
offers many persuasive arguments to defend his thesis. Differences
between civilizations, he says, are basic and fundamental. For example,
differences in political ideology can be resolved; this is not often
the case regarding differences in religion and culture, two important
characteristics that differentiate civilizations. This argument
helps explain America's problems installing democracy in Iraq. Western
civilization emphasizes secularism and political democracy. Many
Muslims, however, do not believe in separation of church and state
and want to live under Islamic law. We can view this conflict, therefore,
as one between civilizations.

Globalization
intensifies this problem because it has decreased the world's size.
In a small world, differences are more visible. As the world modernizes,
many communities begin to lose their local identities, and religious
fundamentalism steps in to fill the void. Religious fundamentalism
unites people across national boundaries, and this is particularly
evident with Arabs in the Islamic world, who often see American
interventions in the Middle East as attacks on Islam itself instead
of attacks on a single state.

As
further proof that civilizations are clashing, Huntington cites
economic regionalism. He argues that "economic regionalism
may succeed only when it is rooted in a common civilization."
The Economic Cooperation Organization, which includes non-Arab Muslim
countries like Turkey, Iran, and Pakistan, provides an example.
These nations joined together largely because the believed that
the European Community would not accept them. Other regional economic
organizations such as the North American Free Trade Agreement and
the Central American Common Market prove that countries with similar
cultures are more likely to succeed in economic cooperation.

Huntington
argues persuasively that conflict on the "fault line"
of Western and Islamic civilizations has occurred for 1,300 years.
He defends this assertion by citing Muslim intrusions into Europe
in the seventh and eighth centuries, the Crusades, and a host of
other historical conflicts between the West and Islam. This conflict,
he says, will worsen. As proof, he cites the fact that many Arabs
were proud of Saddam Hussein for fighting the West in the Gulf War
and were angered and humiliated by the American military presence
in the Middle East after the war.

"Kin-country
syndrome," Huntington's term for civilizations uniting across
national boundaries, helps prove his thesis. During the Gulf War,
as mentioned above, many Arabs cheered Saddam Hussein. Despite a
strong rivalry between Iraq and Iran, Iran's religious leader encouraged
Muslims to pursue a Holy War against the West. By 1993, domestic
pressure had forced all of the coalition's Islamic nations, with
the exception of Kuwait, to bow out.

Huntington
supports his thesis by citing Muslim accusations of a Western "double
standard." Muslims throughout the Islamic world criticize the
West for not intervening to protect Bosnian Muslims from Serbs and
for failing to punish Israel for violating U.N. resolutions. He
argues that this proves his thesis because, when civilizations are
in conflict, double standards should be expected. It should come
as no surprise that the West utilized force against Iraq but fails
to force its kin countries to behave.

This
article helps explain America's lack of success in Iraq. America's
occupation has failed because American leaders have failed to understand
the fact that fundamental differences between civilizations exist.
Islamic civilization and Western civilization differ drastically
in their views on the relationship between church and state, men
and women, freedom, and authority. In his conclusion, Huntington
calls for Western leaders to "develop a more profound understanding
of the basic religious and philosophical assumptions underlying
other civilizations…" American Iraqi policy has largely ignored
this advice, and continuing the occupation and/or invading Iran
could provoke a catastrophic clash of civilizations that would kill
thousands. To avert this, America must withdraw from the Middle
East and allow Arab governments to run their own affairs.

Work
Cited

Huntington,
Samuel. "The
Clash of Civilizations" Foreign Affairs 72.3 (Summer
1993): 22–49.

October
14, 2004

Andrew
Young [send him mail] is a
junior history major at Kentucky Wesleyan College in Owensboro,
Kentucky.

As
many others
have pointed out, Lincoln deserves no such recognition. He waged
an unnecessary war, supposedly in an effort to defend the very Constitution
he was destroying. Trying to
arrest the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for questioning
his violations of the Constitution, ordering troops to shoot draft
resisters, and arresting Northern newspaper editors who courageously
opposed his war are not actions that warrant deification. So why
is Uncle Sam willing to waste thousands of taxpayer dollars to deify
him?

Historical
sites presented in this manner contradict the principles upon which
this nation was founded, and it is imperative that Americans understand
why the State promotes them.

The
founding fathers would never approve such sites. George Washington
rejected any titles that sounded regal; he insisted on being called
only "President." Thomas Jefferson thought that even Washington
had infused the presidency with too much pomp. During his administration,
he replaced the custom of bowing to the president with a simple
handshake. If the founders rejected anything resembling kingship
and the despotism associated with it, efforts to deify a tyrannical
president would certainly horrify them.

The
State insists on deifying Lincoln because his War to Prevent Southern
Independence destroyed the concept of limited government in America.
Many of Lincoln's successors have utilized his actions as precedents
for their own warmongering and unconstitutional seizures of power,
George W. Bush being a prime example, with his crackdown on civil
liberties and wars of "liberation." Franklin Roosevelt
followed Lincoln's example by placing thousands of Japanese-Americans
in concentration camps during World War II. In short, Lincoln's
actions provide power-hungry presidents with a "noble"
precedent for starting wars and aggrandizing State power. Therefore,
the State must uphold Lincoln's reputation as a liberator and great
leader, lest Americans realize that the current Imperial Presidency
lacks a constitutional basis.

Our
group intended to eat lunch at the picnic tables in the park nearby,
but our plans quickly changed when a park worker asked us to leave.
Apparently we were the only ones who thought it funny that my professor
wrote "Sic semper tyrannis" in the "Comments"
section of the guestbook. In hindsight, however, this should not
have surprised us; to Uncle Sam, such a remark is, literally, heresy.

September
20, 2004

Andrew
Young [send him mail] is a
junior history major at Kentucky Wesleyan College in Owensboro,
Kentucky.

Junod's
article glorifies Abraham Lincoln, defending his tyrannical, unconstitutional
actions because they saved the Union. He even reprints one of Lincoln's
incredibly stupid bits of constitutional interpretation. When the
Supreme Court challenged one of his thousands of unconstitutional
arrests, Lincoln admitted the illegality of his action but defended
it, saying that, since the South had violated the entire Constitution
by seceding, he could violate one clause. This reasoning, accepted
by most Americans, is patently false. Lincoln lied when he said
the South had violated the Constitution by seceding; no part of
it forbids secession. Moreover, since the Southern states entered
the Union freely and independently, they had every right to leave
it as well. These Lincolnian myths allow statists to justify our
oversized, unconstitutional federal government. If the majority
of Americans knew that our current warfare-welfare state, which
originated with Lincoln, is unconstitutional, they might call for
a rollback: an absolute no-no.

The
article argues that there must be a war on terrorism. "The
issue is not whether the United States should be involved in a war
on terrorism but rather whether the war on terrorism is best served
by war in Iraq," Junod writes. However, a war on terrorism
accomplishes nothing, aside from guaranteeing more terrorism. Arabs
join terrorist organizations because of America's Middle Eastern
policies, such as support for brutal dictatorships and imperialist
military actions. If terrorists hate us because of our constant
meddling in the Middle East, how can invading and occupying Middle
Eastern countries stop terrorism? Following a more extreme version
of policies that caused hatred in the first place will never stop
terrorism.

Junod
repeats another War Party myth when he writes "The world is
a better place without Saddam Hussein, and we got rid of
him." But the world is not a safer place. The
war has increased the threat of terrorism. If the world is not
safer, how can it be better?

These
three myths, prevalent in the media, serve the War Party agenda.
The deification of Lincoln prevents Americans from looking favorably
upon the days of state's rights and constitutional government. The
myth that we have no choice but to fight a war on terrorism helps
keep us from wondering if we really need to send our young people
off to fight and die, and the belief that the world is a better
place without Saddam gives desperate warmongers, now lacking any
other rationales, one last defense for their useless war. The warfare-welfare
state thrives on these myths and others like it; only with truth
will we ever achieve peace and liberty.

August
16, 2004

Andrew
Young [send him mail] is a
junior history major at Kentucky Wesleyan College in Owensboro,
Kentucky.

The
warmongers used patriotism and flag-waving to convince Americans
that we were attacked on 9-11 because terrorists hate our freedom
and prosperity. Americans fell for this lie hook, line, and sinker.
Those who dared suggest that something besides jealousy, such
as, perhaps, US support for Israeli atrocities in Palestine and
murderous dictators like Saddam Hussein, were dismissed as "unpatriotic"
and "un-American." This was a true success for the statists,
since, without their massive propaganda campaign, some Americans
might have wondered just why thousands of young Muslim
men are willing to kill themselves and thousands of American civilians.
If people knew the real reasons, they might ask the government
to stop meddling in the internal affairs of other nations: an
unacceptable proposition for statists.

In
the lead-up to the Iraq war, warmongers followed the same pattern.
Critics of the war, like the Dixie Chicks, faced boycotts and
smear campaigns. Congress patriotically poked fun at the French
by changing "French fries" to "Freedom fries"
on its menu and encouraging the American people to blast the French.
They never bothered to tell us that France opposed the war largely
because a great majority of its population did. Therefore, while
claiming to be bringing democracy to the Iraqis, the warmongers
were criticizing another democracy for actually following the
wishes of its people. As Noam
Chomsky has said, such hypocrisy and irrationality takes true
talent.

Now,
the warmongers use patriotism to justify staying in Iraq. We would
lose national credibility, they say. We must finish the work of
the fallen, they say. These lines of reasoning, based on patriotism,
strike a chord with the American people. However, whenever we
step away from patriotism and rationally analyze these arguments,
they make no sense. Saying that we must stay in Iraq to preserve
national credibility is saying that we should continue to waste
the lives of our young people in
a war that, even according to military experts, is already lost.
To say that we must not allow those who have already died to have
lost their lives in vain is to say that, to prevent them from
having lost their lives in vain, more people should die in vain.
How rational is that?

As
has been demonstrated, patriotism promotes irrational behavior,
encourages people to avoid speaking the truth, and motivates people
to kill and be killed in wars for which there is no justification.
Today, even as we fight a "war on terror," military
recruiters admit that they rarely invoke patriotism to entice
recruits, focusing instead on financial incentives. Hopefully,
since my generation is more responsive to economic incentives
than patriotic ones, this is a sign that Lew
Rockwell is correct in his prediction that we are moving toward
libertarianism, which promotes individual freedom, and away from
statism and patriotism, which promote despotism and war.

July
7, 2004

Andrew
Young [send him mail] is a
junior history major at Kentucky Wesleyan College in Owensboro,
Kentucky.