Mises Institute President Tom DiLorenzo is best known for his trenchant demolition of “Honest Abe” Lincoln. But his work on Lincoln is just part of a larger framework that helps us understand American history. Throughout our history, statist Hamiltonians and freedom-loving Jeffersonians have clashed.
Tom exposes the Hamiltonian plot against our liberty here:
“In his essay, “Anatomy of the State,” Murray Rothbard wrote of how states preserve their power with a number of tools, most notably an alliance with “intellectuals.” In return for power, positions, and pelf, the “intellectuals” work diligently to persuade “the majority” that “their government is good, wise and, at least, inevitable.” This is the “the vital stock task of the intellectuals.” The “molding of opinion” is what “the State most desperately needs” if it is to maintain is powers, wrote Rothbard. The citizens themselves do not invent theories of the benevolent state; that is the job of the “intellectuals.”
In his outstanding new book, How Alexander Hamilton Screwed Up America (foreword by Ron Paul), historian Brion McClanahan explains with sterling scholarship how one “intellectual” in particular, Alexander Hamilton, invented out of whole cloth a mythical founding of the American state that bears no resemblance at all to the actual, historical founding. His intellectual successors, most notably Supreme Court justices John Marshall, Joseph Story, and Hugo Black, cemented this myth of the benevolent, consolidated, monopolistic state through decades of legal opinions based on a mountain of lies. How Alexander Hamilton... Best Price: $4.09 Buy New $5.99 (as of 06:55 UTC - Details)
This of course is exactly what John C. Calhoun observed during his time when he wrote in his 1850 Disquisition on Government that a written constitution would inevitably be “rewritten” by “the party of government” in a way that would neuter it as a source of limitations on governmental powers.
Hamilton has become “the new hero of the Left,” writes McClanahan, for the Left has finally realized that he was “the architect of modern big government in America,” something that many conservatives have long failed to realize. Hamilton’s voluminous writings formed the bedrock for generations of legalistic arguments that perverted the Constitution and created the “insane modern leftist legal world.” It was Hamilton and his ideological heirs who invented the “loose construction” and “implied powers” theories of the constitution, which has so “screwed up” America.
McClanahan shows what a duplicitous liar Hamilton was, speaking out of both sides of his mouth, saying one thing in his Federalist Papers essays, and then spending the rest of his life doing exactly the opposite. He defended states’ rights and federalism in these essays but when pressed by Jefferson and Madison, he “would often backtrack and advance positions he favored during the Philadelphia Convention, namely for a supreme central authority with virtually unlimited power, particularly for the executive branch.” This was “the real Hamilton,” who “made a habit of lying when the need arose.”
It was Hamilton who first spread the outrageous, ahistorical lie that the states were never sovereign and that the Constitution was somehow ratified by “the whole people” and not by state conventions, as required by Article 7 of the Constitution itself. It was Hamilton who Calhoun must have been thinking about when he warned of “intellectuals” reinterpreting the constitution in a way that would essentially destroy it. Hamilton’s lifelong goal, as McClanahan demonstrates, was to subjugate the citizens of the states to the central government and render the states irrelevant and powerless. The most Hamiltonian of all presidents, Abraham Lincoln, finally achieved this goal.
The Machiavellian Hamilton as Treasury Secretary assumed the state war debts as a means of creating a giant system of political patronage. He put unemployed war veterans on the dole, thereby initiating the American welfare state. He led an invasion of Pennsylvania with 15,000 conscripts to attempt to put down the Whiskey Rebellion. Nothing came of his invasion since all the whiskey tax “rebels” were pardoned by George Washington. Nevertheless, the invasion served Hamilton’s purpose of allowing him to denounce all resisters of state power as somehow being clones of the violent French Jacobins.
The subject of a national bank run by politicians out of the national capital was discussed at the constitutional convention and decisively rejected. Hamilton rewrote that history, too, to make the case for the constitutionality of central banking. His worshipful disciple, Chief Justice John Marshall, would cement this idea into place in his McCullock v. Maryland decision. Hamilton’s bogus arguments in favor of a central bank were “a turning point in American constitutional history” because that is where he invented the fantasy of “implied powers” of the Constitution. Once this path was taken, the constitution had the potential of becoming nothing more than a rubber stamp of approval of anything the state ever wished to do, limited only by the imaginations of Hamiltonian members of the judiciary
John Marshall was a virtual intellectual clone of Hamilton who spoke favorably of federalism, but codified federal supremacy and “implied powers” in his Supreme Court decisions, described in clear-as-a-bell writing by McClanahan.
Even more destructive of constitutional liberty were the writings of that great Bostonian blowhard, Justice Joseph Story (“Marshall’s right-hand man”), whose Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, written while he was both a Supreme Court justice and a Harvard law professor, have exerted enormous influence on the American legal and political systems. Like Marshall and Hamilton, Story “suffered from historical amnesia” and “manufactured an image of the American founding and American government that did not match the historical record.” He lied through his teeth, in other words, to advance the idea that the founding fathers created a consolidated, monopolistic, centralized state even more powerful and monopolistic than the British empire against which they had fought a war of secession. His lies that the states were never sovereign, that the central government is “sovereign” in all matters, implied powers, and all the rest, were repeated by Abraham Lincoln, beginning with his first inaugural address, as he “justified” committing treason by levying war upon the Southern states (the exact definition of treason in Article 3, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution). Hence, it is the Hamiltonian, nationalist myth, not Jeffersonian states’ rights and federalism, that made the “Civil War” inevitable. All of this, McClanahan points out, was always thought to be necessary by generations of Hamiltonians if they were to ever implement their economic policy program that Hamilton himself labeled “the American System.” This “system” of protectionist tariffs, central banking, corporate welfare, and a large public debt was anything but “American.” It was the rotten, corrupt, British system known as “mercantilism” brought to America.
Then there is the twentieth-century Hamiltonian Justice Hugo Black, FDR’s favorite Ku Kluk Klansmen. Nominated to the Supreme Court in 1937, Black had been a member of the KKK ever since the early 1920s. He used his association with the KKK, and its “nationalist agenda” of ridding America of “immigrants, blacks, and Jews,” and its “anti-Catholic agenda,” to become prominent in Alabama politics. His rabid support for FDR’s presidential bids won him a seat on the Supreme Court.
Hugo Black’s main demolition of constitutional liberty came in the form of his opinions regarding the “incorporation” of the Bill of Rights to include the states. This was never intended by the founders, who said nothing in opposition to the state-sanctioned “official” religions that existed at the time, among other things.
Thanks to Hamiltonian Hugo, virtually every issue facing Americans today is a federal issue. His “incorporation doctrine” was the final nail in the coffin of American federalism, as McClanahan explains. This is why the federal judiciary claims “sovereignty” over almost everything, from same-sex marriage to “transgendger bathrooms,” all aspects of the welfare state – everything and anything. This is Hamilton’s America – a leftist lawyereaucracy hell bent on imposing totalitarian rule on the rest of us.
Don’t waste your money on that stupid New York City play about “Hamilton.” Spend a tiny fraction of that theater ticket money on How Alexander Hamilton Screwed Up America instead, and educate yourself and all of those around you about their real American history.” America’s Hamiltonian Empire of Lies – LewRockwell
In the nineteenth century, Henry Clay and his “American System continued Hamilton’s nefarious ideas:
“Clay was the political descendant of Alexander Hamilton and spent his entire political career agitating for the neo-mercantilist policies of protectionist tariffs, corporate welfare for roads, canals, and railroad-building corporations, and a central bank. He and Hamilton called this British mercantilist scam “the American System.” Naturally, it is Henry Clay, not John Tyler, who is lionized and celebrated by the “mainstream” history profession.
A good example of how the history profession spins history to lionize statists and demonize the champions of peace, prosperity and liberty is a recent biography of Henry Clay entitled Henry Clay: The Essential American, by David and Jeanne Heidler. The book, which is prominently displayed for sale in the shop at Ashland, Clay’s former Kentucky slave plantation that is now a museum, describes Clay on the inside cover as “a shrewd and sincere defender of the ordinary man who would be his eventual political base.” He is “commonly regarded as the greatest U.S. senator in history,” say the Heidlers. (Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Chuck Schumer would undoubtedly disagree). Henry Clay: The Essent... Best Price: $1.76 Buy New $4.62 (as of 02:05 UTC - Details)
So there you have it, right there on the inside cover, before the table of contents, a big, fat falsehood about the real Henry Clay. For also on display in the Ashland slave plantation shop are t-shirts with huge lettering celebrating Clay as “Father of The American System.” That is, the system that would plunder the “ordinary man” with high protectionist tariffs, with tax theft for the purpose of lining the pockets of the politically-connected road- and canal-building corporations, and a national bank that would provide cheap credit for the politically connected but create boom-and-bust cycle misery for the common man. The “American System” was perhaps best described by the famous attorney (Clarence Darrow’s law partner) and playwright, Edgar Lee Masters, in his book, Lincoln the Man (p. 27):
Clay was the champion of that political system which doles out favors to the strong in order to win and to keep adherence to the government. His system offered shelter to devious schemes and corrupt enterprises . . . . He was he beloved son of Alexander Hamilton with his corrupt funding schemes, his superstitions concerning the advantages of a public debt, and a people taxed to make profits for enterprises that cannot stand alone. His example and his doctrines led to the creation of a party that had no platform to announce, because its principles were plunder and nothing else.
Lincoln the Man Best Price: $34.93 Buy New $112.28 (as of 07:25 UTC - Details) Clay’s marriage to Lucretia Hart is described by the Heidlers to have been “a union rumored to be mercenary on his part” because poor Lucretia was, well, “plain.” This is doubtful, however, because the Heidlers actually describe Lucretia as “plain, wealthy Lucretia Hart . . .” (emphasis added). Henry was not nearly the “mercenary” the Heidlers portray him as being.
Clay is also described as somewhat of an out-of-control party animal who “gained a reputation for heavy drinking and reckless gamling . . . . Clay [who had eleven children] had been quite the man about town [when in D.C.] . . . always ready for a drink or a dance . . . his gambling was legendary” (p 44). He was “a great favorite with the ladies” [while his wife was back in Kentucky with the eleven children] and “attended all parties of pleasure – out almost every night” (p. 66). And this is the man who lusted to put himself in charge of the nation’s money supply by resurrecting a national bank.
Henry Clay “owned slaves and continued to buy them” (p. 131). Like other slave owners, he recovered his runaway slaves. This is downplayed by the Heidlers who write that “While not a relentless pursuer of slaves, he occasionally took pains to recover them rather than suffer financial loss.” So he pursued his runaway slaves but was not “relentless” about it. How the Heidlers know just how “relentless” Clay was in pursuing his runaway slaves is not revealed. Moreover, they disprove their own point when they tell the story of a slave named Lottie Dupuy who declared her freedom, arguing that because her mother was a free woman, she must also be free, and refused to return to Kentucky from Washington, D.C. with Clay. Clay fought her in court and won, re-enslaving her back in Kentucky.
Another fact that belies the notion that Henry Clay was not “relentless” in pursuing his runaway slaves is the fact that in 1850, two years before his death, he issued a proclamation to strengthen the Fugitive Slave Act, which placed a federal bounty on the heads of runaway slaves. Despite this, the Heidlers still insist that “he was remarkably indifferent about recovering runaways” (p. 446). What nonsense.
Henry Clay owned slaves and a slave plantation for his entire adult life, but the Heidlers do somersaults to try to excuse this away. “He was always ambivalent about owning people,” they write, but he kept buying more and more of them. “He pondered the moral dilemma of human bondage” and “came to regard it as a repugnant evil,” but kept buying more slaves. He “always hated slavery” (p. 451) but he always owned them. He was “a benevolent master” (p.. 448) but a slave master none the less. He made “an impassioned speech against continuing slave importations” (p. 65), they say, implying that Clay was some kind of early abolitionist. He never advocated abolition, and moreover, he opposed slave importations out of financial self-interest, not humanitarianism. Fewer slave importations mean a smaller supply and higher price of slaves, enhancing the “wealth” of slave owners like Henry Clay.
Henry Clay took a position that was diametrically opposed to the position on slavery and the Constitution that was held by his contemporary, Lysander Spooner. In The Unconstitutionality of Slavery Spooner argued that slavery was, in fact, unconstitutional, and provided a legal and political roadmap for peaceful emancipation. By contrast, Clay argued that slavery was constitutional, and if anyone liberated their slaves it would be a dangerous demonstration of how any part of the Constitution could then be ignored, leading to a “universal nullification of the sacred document” (p. 299).
The Unconstitutionalit... Best Price: $7.38 Buy New $6.99 (as of 05:15 UTC - Details) Henry Clay is probably best known among historians and history buffs as “the great compromiser,” mainly because of his roles in the War of 1812 and the tariff nullification crisis of 1828-1833. This particular label is affixed to him to portray him as some kind of political genius or great statesman but exactly the opposite is true. Clay sponsored the disastrous 1828 “tariff of abominations” that nearly led to secession and war and the destruction of the union, as President Andrew Jackson threatened to send warships to South Carolina, whose legislature had voted to nullify and not collect the new 48% average tariff on imports. He did this out of pure financial greed since he was known as “The Prince of Hemp,” among other things, for growing so much hemp on his slave plantation. He wanted high tariffs on hemp imports to eliminate foreign competition so that he could better fleece his customers. He was also the political errand boy of Northern manufacturers who wanted astronomically high tariffs on their clothing, shoes, farm tools, and other goods.
Instead of condemning him for nearly destroying the union out of pure financial greed, the Heidlers, like almost all other historians, praise Clay for his role in the Tariff of Abominations controversy because he was on the committee that eventually agreed to a lower compromise tariff rate over the next ten years. As such, “he was hailed as the nation’s savior,” they ludicrously proclaim (p. 265). The “great compromiser” was born.
Clay was also one of the chief instigators of the disastrous War of 1812. He ominously warned that without a war with England the British would “control trade between New York and New Orleans” (p. 91). He was “the prime mover” for the war, boast the Heidlers. He advocated a trade embargo as a precursor to war; absurdly boasted that the Kentucky militia alone could defeat the British; and told British Foreign Minister Augustus John Foster that in the end, after his “glorious” war, it would all be like “a harmless duel” that would leave both countries “better friends than they had ever been before” (p. 95). He said this while threatening war with France as well.
“Every patriot bosom must throb with anxious solicitude for the result. Every patriot arm will assist in making that result conducive to the glory of our beloved country,” Clay declared during an orgy of bloviation about the “glories” of war. He was also “full of advice about the best way to fight the Indians,” write the Heidlers, although the only real “fighting” experience he had was fighting hangovers. He remained a warmonger to the end despite the fact that his brother-in-law, Captain Nathaniel Hart, was captured by the British who handed him over to Indians who shot and scalped him (p 105).
Once again, rather than accurately portraying Clay as a walking disaster of a warmonger – an early-day Dick Cheney – he is praised to the treetops by the Heidlers and most other historians because he participated in the committee that worked out the peace treaty that ended the disastrous (for America) war that he, more than anyone else, was responsible for.
In addition to heaping mountains of phony praise on Henry Clay’s statist, plunder-seeking, and imperialistic behavior, the Heidlers viciously smear Clay’s foremost opponent in the debate over the war, John Randolph. They describe Randolph as “fearlessly nasty” in the way in which he opposed “the war hawks”; “uncontrollable under the best circumstances”; “a tireless Cassandra”; “a peculiar character”; “irritable”; “vicious”; “quick to anger” with “a hair-trigger temper”; and the most shocking of all (to the Heidlers), “he took an instant dislike to Henry Clay” (p. 87). Randolph was obviously an astute judge of character.
For his part Randolph, who fought a duel with Clay (both missed), said of him: “He is a man of splendid abilities but utterly corrupt. He shines and stinks, like a rotten mackerel by moonlight.” Spinning History in Service to the State – LewRockwell
And of course the Hamiltonian tradition culminated in Lincoln:
“Perhaps the biggest falsehood ever pedaled about Abraham Lincoln is that he was devoted to the principles of the Declaration of Independence. Exactly the opposite is true; he repudiated every one of the main principles of the Declaration with his words and, more importantly, his actions. In our time the odd and ahistorical writings of Harry Jaffa and his “Straussian” cult followers have been the primary means of spreading this enormous falsehood. (Jaffa was neither a historian nor a philosopher but a supposed expert in “rhetoric” who spent his career writing books instructing Americans about the allegedly “real meaning” of historical documents in writings that were often either void of historical facts or flatly contradicted by them).
Contrary to what every American is taught beginning with elementary school (or sooner), Lincoln did not believe that all men are created equal. He repeatedly denied this for his entire adult life, even announcing during one of the Lincoln/Douglas debates that “I as much as any man want the superior position” to belong to the white race. He was proud to be a white supremacist’s white supremacist. “Before, after, and during the Lincoln-Douglas debates, in public and in private, Lincoln used the N-word,” wrote Lerone Bennett, Jr. in Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln’s White Dream, p. 97.
While in the Illinois legislature Lincoln supported the Illinois black codes which deprived free blacks of citizenship. He supported the 1848 amendment to the Illinois constitution that forbade blacks from emigrating into the state. He was the “manager” of the Illinois Colonization Society that used tax dollars to deport the small number of free blacks that lived in the state. Until his dying day he plotted to deport all the black people out of America (See Colonization after Emancipation by Philip Magness and Sebastian Page).
Lincoln invented a bizarre new theory of the American founding to “justify” his destruction of the voluntary union of the founding fathers that was initiated by the Declaration of Independence – their declaration of secession from the British empire. As summarized by legal/constitutional scholar James Ostrowski, Lincoln’s absurd theory was that:
- No state may ever secede from the union for any reason.
- If any state secedes, the federal government shall invade such state with sufficient military force to suppress the secession.
- The federal government may require all states to raise militias to suppress the secession of their sister states.
- After suppressing secession the federal government may rule by martial law until such time as the state(s) accepts federal supremacy.
- The federal government may force the states to adopt new state constitutions imposed on them at gunpoint by military authorities.
- The president may, on his own authority and without consulting any other branch of government, suspend the Bill of Rights and the writ of habeas corpus.
No state would ever have ratified the Constitution if this – Lincoln’s ridiculous and tyrannical new theory – is what the citizens of the states thought the Constitution said.
After seceding from the British empire the early Americans then seceded from the “perpetual” union of the Articles of Confederation and dropped the word “perpetual” from their new constitution. Everyone understood that the citizens of the free and independent states, as they are called in the Declaration, were sovereign, not the government in the national capital. As James Madison, the “father of the Constitution,” wrote in Federalist #39, the constitution was ratified by the American people “not as individuals comprising one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong.” And as Jefferson wrote in the Declaration, American government was to derive its “just powers” from “the consent of the governed,” organized as state and local political communities, not from the barrels of guns in the hands of federal soldiers. That would be more like the Soviet Union or the Roman empire than the American Union.
Each state was considered by the founders to be a separate country in the same sense that Great Britain and France were separate countries. As stated in the latter part of the Declaration, after defining the “United Colonies” as “FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES” that are “absolved from all allegiance to the British crown,” the document says that “as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other things which independent states may of right do.” Free and independent states, not something called “the United States government in Washington, D.C.” The phrase “United States” is always in the plural in all the founding documents, signifying that the free and independent states are united in participating in a voluntary compact of states. It unequivocally does not refer to the United States government in Washington, D.C. or anywhere else.
In the Declaration of Independence Jefferson composed a “train of abuses” by the British crown that he said justified the colonists’ secession from the British empire. Lincoln was as guilty as King George III of every single one of these abuses. King George III had:
- “Dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly . . .” Lincoln imposed military rule on the occupied South during the war.
- “Made Judges dependent on his Will alone . . . . He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.” Lincoln illegally suspended habeas corpus and ordered the mass arrest of tens of thousands of suspected Northern political dissenters. Under King Lincoln soldiers threatened and even kidnapped judges to prevent them from issuing the writ.
- “He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass out people, and eat out their substance.” Myriad new bureaucracies were created by the Lincoln regime to “occupy” the South and federal soldiers pillaged, plundered, and raped their way through the South from the very beginning of the war.
- “He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our legislatures.” This occurred in parts of the South during the war and of course all during “Reconstruction.”
- “He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws, giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended legislation.” Lincoln essentially abolished civil liberties in the North and the occupied South, blockaded Southern ports, started a war without consent of Congress, and myriad other things that historian Clinton Rossiter said “were considered by nobody as legal.”
- “For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world.” Lincoln imposed a naval blockade on the South, and plundered the North as well with extortionate tariffs on imports.
- “For imposing Taxes on us without our consent.” Southerners did not consent to the 1861 Morrill Tariff, a main cause of the war in the first place.
- “For depriving us in many cases, of the right of Trial by jury.” Tens of thousands of Northern citizens were imprisoned without due process during the war.
- “For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.” A perfect description of what occurred in Southern and border territories “governed” by Republican party hacks during the war and Reconstruction.
- “He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us. He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coast, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny.” A perfect description of the Lincoln regime, including the importation of thousands of European mercenaries lured by promises of free land under the Homestead Act to mass murder Southerners and plunder and burn their towns to the ground.
The author of the Declaration of Independence said in his first inaugural address as president that “If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it,” at once a defense of the idea of the voluntary union, peaceful secession, and free speech. In an August 12, 1803 letter to John C. Breckinridge, who had inquired about the burgeoning New England Federalist secession movement, Jefferson wrote that if there is to be a secession of the New England states “God bless them both [the different confederacies, that is], & keep them in the union if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better.” In a January 29, 1804 letter to Dr. Joseph Priestly who had asked about talk of secession leading to eastern (“Atlantic”) and western (“Mississippi”) confederacies, Jefferson said that “I should feel the duty & the desire to promote the western interests as zealously as the eastern, doing all the good for both portions of our future family which should fall within my power.”
In sharp contrast to Jefferson, Lincoln’s words on the subject are heavy handed, violent, threatening, and tyrannical. “[N]o state . . . can lawfully get out of the union,” he warned in his first inaugural address,” and “acts against the authority of the United States [meaning the government in Washington, D.C., aka, himself] are insurrectionary or revolutionary . . .” He then used the words “invasion” and “bloodshed” to describe what would occur in any state whose citizens agreed with Jefferson and the other founding fathers that the union was voluntary; that the constitution had been ratified by the citizens of the free and independent states; and that any state therefore had every right to remain or not remain in the union on its own and without permission from anyone.
Lincoln’s words were nonsense on steroids backed up by violence and threats of violence. Is that any different from the socialist nonsense spewed by generations of communists in the Soviet Union and elsewhere? As Murray Rothbard wrote in his essay on “Just War,” “[T]he central government was not supposed to be perpetual . . . . [D]oes anyone seriously believe for one minute that any of the 13 states would have ratified the Constitution had they believed that it was a perpetual one – a one-way Venus fly trap – a one-way ticket to sovereign suicide?”
The Fourth of July is supposed to be a celebration of the principles of the Declaration of Independence and of the American secession from the British empire. Those principles were completely repudiated by Lincoln and his party. After 1865 the American government’s “just” powers were no longer derived from the consent of the governed, as Jefferson so eloquently stated in the Declaration of Independence, but by the whims of politicians and bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. and enforced by their “supreme” court and their military and police state apparatus.
The Jeffersonians had long warned that if the day ever came that everyone’s constitutional liberty depended on the pronouncements of a few government lawyers with lifetime tenure, Americans would then live under a tyranny. That tyranny arrived in 1865 and was celebrated by future tyrants such as “progressive” icon Woodrow Wilson who, in his early twentieth-century book on congress, wrote approvingly about how, with the effective abolition of federalism, states’ rights, the Tenth Amendment, and especially the rights of secession and nullification, the limits of liberty were indeed in the hands of those five politically-appointed government lawyers with lifetime tenure. The wolf was finally in charge of “guarding” the sheep and has been ever since.” Lincoln’s Repudiation of the Declaration of Independence – LewRockwell
Let’s do everything we can to bring Tom DiLorenzo’s brilliant analysis of American history to as many people as possible.