Posted on 01/31/2005 7:26:15 AM PST by LS
Edited on 01/31/2005 1:20:24 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
FP: What do you think motivates many Americans to loathe their own country?
Schweikart: I think this has its origins in several underlying factors. One is, liberals hate capitalism because it's been my experience that they just don't understand it. Most haven't read Adam Smith and certainly don't get that "self interest" is not selfishness. So right off the bat, any country that is primarily capitalist is "evil."
Second, they rightly recognize (but usually won't admit) the fact that Americans are blessed by God, and that as a nation we have honored Him, and therefore can be blessed by Him. They hate that about us---that we are, for all of our sin and rebellion, still pretty much a Christian nation. Liberals hate God-talk, whether it comes from an Orthodox Jew or a "fundamentalist" Christian (by which they mean any Christian who practices what he or she preaches!) They want to rely solely on themselves, which is the ultimate rebellion against God. Yet deep inside, they know this is wrong, and it eats at them. Jesus encountered the "rich young ruler" who "went away sad" because he would not do what Jesus told him to do, with the implication being that his sadness came because he knew what was the right thing to do, but his ego got in the way. Liberals hate that little voice that keeps telling them, "There is a God, and you're not him." It makes them angry people.
Third, they loathe the notion that America has a special role in the world---a GOOD role---and to them the notion that any one country is "better" than another is anathema. So they get themselves in this remarkable pickle: they rail against "oppression" and "violations" of "human rights," yet hate the only country in the world capable of doing anything about it. More important, since most of the time, the only way to deal with tyrannies is to defeat them militarily, liberals are even more exorcised because they can't stand the use of military force.
PHUSA reached #339 on Amazon today. Thanks to all the Freepers who have supported this book!!
I keed, I keed - congratulations, it sounds like a winner.
"owm"? Monday morning, no coffee. Sheesh.
Saw the book yesterday in Borders. On display in the History section. I was buying Hasting's Armageddon at the time, so I didn't pick it up. Next week I'll go back and get a copy. He makes a note in the intro that he's responding to Howard Zinn's A People's History of the US. It's amazing how many high schools and colleges use Zinn's piece of fishwrap. I did buy a copy so I could rebut my colleagues, but it's going to be good to have a source on the greatness on America all in one place, footnoted and highlighted.
When you get it, if you want to send me a copy with a postage-paid return envelope, I'll be happy to autograph it and put the sticker on it that we got from Laissez Faire Books that named it the February "Lysander Spooner" award winner for "Literature that advances the cause of liberty."
Very nice. The left, or liberal, I would fuse to the radical Progressive - a loose confederation of fiercely judgmental zealots that can be traced back to the New England Abolitionists, Universal Suffragists, Nativists, Prohibitionists, Feminists, Abortionists, Radical Socialist, Communists, and Anarchists. At one time the nestled in the Republican and by the 1930's morphed into left-wing Democrats.
Their advocacies include the antiwar movement, radical environmentalism, gay rights, and atheism. I like to call them the children of Garrison after the wildley fanactic William Lloyd Garrison. Most of the PC pantheon - Sanger, Cady-Stanton, Reed, Goldman, etc. can be linked to this thread.
Amazon.com FINALLY managed to mail my copy of "A Patriot's History" . . . I plan to start reading it this weekend!
BTW: Last week in DC, I met a former student of yours from UD . . . this student is currently interning with Rob Portman . . . (oh yea, he greatly enjoyed your course!)
Bump!
Wow! How cool. I know Portman. I'll have to find out who it is.
Thank you so much! I've said that this book is ok for home-schooled 11th and 12th graders. If your son goes to UW Tacoma, I'll alert Mike Allen.
I saw a copy of it today at Barnes and Noble and flipped through it very quickly (I only had about 5 minutes time) but I was somewhat dissappointed in what I saw. Two things stuck out immediately. First, the book seemed overly Whiggish in its disposition and characterization of the period between the Monroe administration and the Civil War. It was very critical of the Jacksonian view (and there is plenty about Jackson to criticize), but seems to approach this by supplanting him with undue favor shown to the Whigs in return.
Second, I glanced over the first page or two on the civil war chapter. While this will ultimately require a closer view, what I read appeared to claim that southern secession in 1861 was conducted by a small group of power elites without significant popular following or support - I believe it claimed that only 600 or so men decided the issue of secession. It also claimed that no southern state seceded with a popular vote, which is either a serious historical error in the book or a falsehood that has apparently been repeated from other sources.
The truth, of course, is the southern states of Texas, Tennessee, and Virginia all seceded by referendums that carried by a landslide in all three states. Several of the other southern states seceded by secession conventions that were composed of directly elected delegates who represented their county's position on secession and thus exhibited the popular will through a representative system. What is NOT the case, however, is the claim that no state seceded as an act of the popular will, which seemed to be the implication being made. While this will ultimately require further examination of the chapter (and perhaps one of you with access to the book itself can confirm its contents), that seems to be a very substantial error on a major point that was used to open the chapter.
You're exactly right on both counts, and we stand behind both views. You might look at our notes and the research behind those positions.
Texas
February 23, 1861 - 46,153 for to 14,747 against
Virginia
May 23, 1861 - 132,201 for to 37,451 against
Tennessee
June 8, 1861 - 104,471 for to 47,183 against
Popular opinion in all three of those states, as clearly expressed in their referendums, was in favor of secession. In all three states voter turnout was strong - nearly identical to the 1860 presidential election. The votes were not even close!
I think this represented the will of the voters, but not the (white) population.
That's a theory that you are free to advocate and defend if you like, but three issues still remain:
1. The voter turnout for the secession referendums in all three of those states is on par with their typical voter turnout statewide in a presidential election year, suggesting that the secession electorate was representative of those states' normal electorate.
2. Your book either claims or implies (I don't remember the exact wording) that no southern state held a referendum and that they all seceded through convention, does it not? If so this is in the very least a factual error.
3. Even if we were to assume your theory about the will of the population were true, do not the secession referendums also violate the quote you gave in your book purporting that the south collectively seceded on the approval of only about 600 or so power elites? Those referendums indicate that in addition to the 600 or so convention delegates the decision included roughly 385,000 members of the voting public?
I'll re-read these sections. If there is an error, we'll fix it. I don't think we argue that "power elites" made the decision so much as they rushed through secession without a thorough debate. As to turnout, it certainly depends on the year. In 1819, for ex., turnout in Alabama was something like 89%, and was consistently very high in many of the southern states.
Now, according to the 1860 census Texas had 228,585 white males total living there. Of this figure 109,625 were older than age 19. The categories were not recorded statistically between 19-21, but a reasonable guesstimate puts the adult white male population in 1861 is about 100,000. We also know that exactly 60,900 voters participated in the Texas secession referendum, putting statewide voter turnout at 61% of the maximum possible electorate. I think you would be hard pressed to argue that 61% turnout is unrepresentative under any circumstance. Care to reevaluate your position?
Tennessee's referendum had 151,654 participants total. That puts their turnout among the maximum potential electorate given the time (all adult white males) at 86.6%. Do you care to tell me that 86.6% is not representative either?
On to Virginia now. In the 1860 census they had 528,842 white males. Of those 246,016 were in the 20+ age range. Using another reasonable guesstimate, let's suppose about 225,000 of those were 21 or older, making our maximum potential number of voters (assuming all adult white males participated) the same. 169,652 people voted in Virginia's secession referendum. That puts turnout at 75.4%. Now tell me. Is that unrepresentative of Virginia's popular will as well?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.