Jaffa’s
Hitlerian Defense of Lincoln
by
Thomas J. DiLorenzo
In
his book, A
New Birth of Freedom, Harry Jaffa begins the second chapter
with a quotation of Adolph Hitler taken from a book authored by
Hermann Rauschning in which Hitler supposedly said that after the
Southern states were conquered in America "the beginnings of
a great new social order based on the principle of slavery and inequality
were destroyed . . ." He later (page 503, note 10) makes the
incredibly vulgar and tasteless comment that his old intellectual
nemesis, the late Mel Bradford, agreed with Hitler. How charming
that Jaffa would put such a thing in print for the family and friends
of the quintessential Southern gentleman/scholar, the late Professor
Bradford, to see.
Jaffa
is blissfully unaware that there is much doubt that Hitler ever
said this, and he addressed the same slimy remark to me in a recent
debate I had with him at the Independent Institute in Oakland,
California. At the time, I didn’t think such gutter language was
worth commenting on other than to say, "Well, I guess we now
know where Harry gets all these crazy ideas about political philosophy."
Besides, the comment drew jeers and boos from the audience and was
a blow to his credibility. Why interfere with the man when he is
busy placing his own foot in his mouth?
But
on second thought, I recalled that Hitler himself was rather a fan
of highly centralized government and a fierce opponent of state
sovereignty, just like Jaffa. This of course is not to compare these
men; Hitler was the devil come to earth. I am only suggesting that
Jaffa’s smart aleck remark is historically backwards: Hitler was
a consolidationist, just like Jaffa. Hitler understood all too well
that the surest way to establish dictatorial government was to concentrate
power at the center; Jaffa has never learned this lesson.
Jaffa has spent a lifetime expounding upon Lincoln’s rendition of
constitutional history that was first invented by Joseph Story and
Daniel Webster that the Union preceded the states, as opposed
to the view (the correct one, in my opinion) that the sovereign
states formed the government as their agent by adopting the Constitution.
(St. George Tucker’s A
View of the Constitution is the best exposition of the latter
view; Jaffa’s book is the best of the former view).
On
page 566 of the 1999 Mariner/Houghton Mifflin edition of Mein
Kampf Hitler clearly expresses the Lincoln/Jaffa view: "[T]he
individual states of the American Union . . . could not have possessed
any state sovereignty of their own. For it was not these states
that formed the Union, on the contrary it was the Union which formed
a great part of such so-called states."
This
is consistent with the argument put forth in Lincoln’s First Inaugural
Address (March 4, 1861) where he said: "[T]he Union is much
older than the Constitution. It was formed in fact, by the Articles
of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration
of Independence . . . by the Articles of Confederation in 1778 .
. . and establishing the Constitution. . . . It follows from these
views that no State, upon its own mere motion, can lawfully get
out of the Union . . ." Jaffa has spent a lifetime repeating
this theory.
Hitler
(p. 567) mocked what he called "so-called sovereign states"
in Germany because they stood in the way of a centralized Reich
with their "impotence" and "fragmentation."
Such impotence and fragmentation of government was purposely designed
by some of the American founders precisely because they wanted to
limit the powers of the central government.
Hitler
praises Otto von Bismarck for proving "the greatness of his
statesmanship" by gradually diminishing the sovereignty of
the German states and centralizing governmental power in Germany.
This was a most welcome development, Hitler wrote, since the power
of the central state in Germany was supposedly threatened by "the
struggle between federalism and centralization so shrewdly propagated
by the Jews in 1919-20-21 and afterward . . ." (p. 565). Federalism
is "a league of sovereign states which ban together of their
own free will, on the strength of their sovereignty" to cede
some (but not all) of their sovereignty to form "the common
federation" (p. 566). Hitler was violently opposed to such
a system.
But
Bismarck did not go nearly far enough in destroying states’ rights,
said Hitler. "And so today this state, for the sake of its
own existence, is obliged to curtail the sovereign rights of the
individual provinces more and more, not only out of general material
considerations, but from ideal considerations as well" (p.
572). Thus, a rule "basic for us National Socialists is derived:
A powerful national Reich . . ." (emphasis in original,
p. 572).
Moreover,
Hitler wrote, the centralization of governmental power and the destruction
of states’ rights as a check on that power was inevitable throughout
the world: "Certainly all the states in the world are moving
toward a certain unification in their inner organization. And in
this Germany will be no exception. Today it is an absurdity to speak
of a ‘state sovereignty’ of individual provinces . . ." (p.
572).
Hitler
ridiculed the advocates of states’ rights and federalism in the
Germany of his time by saying, "the cry for the elimination
of centralization is really nothing more than a party machination
without any serious thought behind it" and reveals "the
inner hypocrisy of these so-called federalistic circles. The federative
state idea, like religion in part, is only an instrument for their
often unclean party interests" (p. 573).
The
National Socialists, moreover, would totally eliminate states’
rights altogether: "Since for us the state as such is only a form,
but the essential is its content, the nation, the people, it is
clear that everything else must be subordinated to its sovereign
interests. In particular we cannot grant to any individual state
within the nation and the state representing it state sovereignty
and sovereignty in point of political power" (p. 575).
"The
mischief of individual federated states . . . must cease and will
some day cease," Hitler ominously warned (p. 575). The "lesson
for the future" is that "The importance of the individual
states will in the future no longer lie in the fields of state power
and policy . . ." (p. 575).
And
finally:
"National
Socialism as a matter of principle, must lay claim to the right
to force its principles on the whole German nation without consideration
of previous federated state boundaries, and to educate in its
ideas and conceptions. Just as the churches do not feel bound
and limited by political boundaries, no more does the National
Socialist idea feel limited by the individual state territories
of our fatherland. The National Socialist doctrine is not the
servant of individual federated states, but shall some day become
the master of the German nation. It must determine and reorder
the life of a people, and must, therefore, imperiously claim the
right to pass over [state] boundaries drawn by a development we
have rejected" (p. 578).
Jaffa’s
quotation of Hitler from the Rauschning book is of dubious validity.
If he wanted to learn of Hitler’s actual views of states’ rights
he should have gone to the original source: Mein Kampf.
There he would have found a body of ideas with which he is intimately
familiar and in total agreement with.
May
10, 2002
Thomas
J. DiLorenzo [send him mail]
is
the author of the LRC #1 bestseller, The
Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an
Unnecessary War
(Forum/Random House 2002) and professor of economics at Loyola College
in Maryland.
Copyright
2002 LewRockwell.com
Thomas
DiLorenzo Archives
LewRockwell.com
needs your help. Please donate.
|