Incorrect History: Woods's "Politically Incorrect Guide to American History." (Paleocon bilge!)

The Weekly Standard ^ | February 15, 2005 | Max Boot

[quidnunc]

I first became aware of Thomas E. Woods Jr.'s Politically Incorrect Guide to American History when the New York Times Book Review took note of its rise on the paperback bestseller list and described it as a "neocon retelling of this nation's back story." A neocon retelling? What would that be, exactly? Curious to find out, I cracked open The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History.

It gets off to a slow start with a recitation of civics-text nuggets. Bet you didn't know that the Constitution "established three distinct branches of government — executive, legislative, and judicial — and provided 'checks and balances' by which each branch could resist the encroachments of another"!

Soon enough, however, the guide starts to slip from conventional history into a Bizarro world where every state has the right to disregard any piece of federal legislation it doesn't like or even to secede. "There is, obviously, no provision in the Constitution that explicitly authorizes nullification," the author concedes, but Woods nevertheless is convinced that this right exists. His source? Mainly the writings of the Southern pro-slavery politician John C. Calhoun.

Woods is only getting warmed up. Next he comes to the origins of the "Civil War" which, it seems, was pretty much the fault of Northern abolitionists whose writings "seethed with loathing for the entire South" and "only served to discredit anti-slavery activity in the South." You might be wondering about those quotation marks around Civil War. Woods doesn't think that's a proper description of the conflict. He likes "War Between the States," the preferred term of Southern sympathizers. "Other, more ideologically charged (but nevertheless much more accurate) names for the conflict," he adds, helpfully, "include the War for Southern Independence and even the War of Northern Aggression." According to Woods, the war wasn't really about slavery (no mention of the Emancipation Proclamation). It was really about the desire of Northern plutocrats to protect themselves from the threat of commerce being diverted to "the South's low-tariff or free trade regime." He approvingly quotes H.L. Mencken's comment that Union soldiers "actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves." Well, not quite all their people. But the plight of African-Americans does not concern Woods any more than it did Mencken. Later on, he expresses disgust with federal desegregation policy in the 1950s and 1960s.

-snip-

[Capriole]

Here we go again. Sorry, boys, I'm too tired from the recent battles over Sherman to dance this time; I'm going to sit down here with a tall glass of something cool and fan myself gently while y'all scuffle around out on the dance floor.

[natewill]

According to Woods, the war wasn't really about slavery (no mention of the Emancipation Proclamation). It was really about the desire of Northern plutocrats to protect themselves from the threat of commerce being diverted to "the South's low-tariff or free trade regime."

But the War wasn't about slavery. Read any account of the Civil War. Read Lincoln's personal letters and his speeches. Read John Jakes, who does loads of research while writing his books. This concept is not far-fetched, and is easily accessible to someone who is open-minded enough to consult the depths of American history. As my 11th grade History teacher remarked, "if you want to find out why countries do the things they do, just follow the money". Most wars are fought largely for financial reasons, and the Civil War was no exception.

Flame all you want, but I've had on-going discussions about this very topic with several hard-headed friends that thought the Civil War was about slavery, and unfailingly, they always come to see that the war had nothing to do with slavery. Slavery was just a strawman argument for the North.

[Just A Nobody]

Regarding "nullification" check out New Hampshire laws. They "nullified" the 16th amendment, therefore have no income tax. As of Jan. 1st they were scheduled to "nullify" the Patriot Act as well as a couple other things that I can not remember anymore.

[rdb3]

Echo chamber material. Funny, really.

[Arkinsaw]

into a Bizarro world where every state has the right to disregard any piece of federal legislation it doesn't like or even to secede.

Half right, nullification is completely counter-intuitive and has no basis in reality. Secession on the other hand is an inherent right of any people. Especially since we ourselves did it once from Britain, and once from the "eternal" government of the Articles of Confederation. We have also traditionally supported the right of self-determination and consent of the governed around the world as a matter of principle. One must be consistent.

[x]

Unfortunately, Boot is right. Woods's book reads like a classic comics' version of history, at least as far as the Civil War is concerned. Basically Woods piles together quotes that support his point of view without establishing their validity as evidence or examining or presenting data that conflicts his views. He tells people what they want to hear, and they buy the book. There's very little scholarship or education involved.

[GeronL]

There is a whole lot of inaccurate stuff in the textbooks

[Sonny M]

This concept is not far-fetched, and is easily accessible to someone who is open-minded enough to consult the depths of American history.

I'm open minded, and I have this book.

This is not a very good book and the chapters on the civil war, are not the best work.

If you were to recommend a book that could explain the civil war, and lots of other parts of american history, this would not be it.

I feel like I got ripped off.

And I do know the civil war wasn't started over slavery.

[rdb3]

He tells people what they want to hear, and they buy the book.

---

As I said, echo-chamber material.

[dsc]

"Slavery was just a strawman argument for the North."

Actually, that strawman argument only gained popularity and force long after the war, among those who sought to revise history in such a way as to paint the north as completely in the right and the South as completely in the wrong.

It is a fallacious argument that serves only to support a kindergarten "angels vs. devils" view of the conflict.

Sure, there were abolitionists in the north, but there was a lot of racism, too. If the war had been to free the slaves, Lincoln couldn't have gotten an army together. People would have told him to pack sand.

[Oztrich Boy]

Secession on the other hand is an inherent right of any people.

As the North seemingly conceded during the War by admitting the breakaway state of West Virginia into the Union.

[barkeep]

Not defending the totality of Woods' book, but he pegged this. Lincoln was about preservation of the Union. He stated openly, that if necessary, he would tolerate a continuation of slavery IF that were the option that would have maintained the Union without war. Emancipation Proclamation was a tactical move to create problems for the South once he finally had a General willing to use the North's economic and manpower advantage. Still celebrated in Texas as Juneteenth, June 19th was whwn the low speed of land mail got the document here.

[Malesherbes]

We seem to be divided into two kinds of conservatives these days: paleo and neo. I don't regard either as bilge.The bilge is on the left.

[familyop]

Some of the Civil War documents are fascinating.

The Civil War involved quite a few issues. One that many people haven't learned about is that some of the southern landowners wanted to do what the British tried to do before the Monroe Doctrine: colonize and claim parts of Central and South America for plantations.

Another is that agitators with Susan B. Anthony in the North actually incited riots with their speeches promoting the secession of the South.

[Destro]

So why are Southerners so loyal to the Union then? So would say Southerners are uber patriots - yet they are patriotic to a Federal govt that used force to keep them in the Union and they are loyal to a Federal Union their ancestors would not have recognized.

This is a general question, I as an outsider ponders. In Europe for example the defeated Scots or Irish were never loyal to their conquerers.

[Destro]

PS: I have my own pet theory but would like anyone's input. Any scholarship exists to read about the South's transformation? For example - the fourth of July was not celebrated in some parts of the south (Vicksburg for example) for generations. So I bet if I go to Vicksburg on the 4th I would see a big celebration and American flags everywhere.

Is this an admission that modern Southeneres view Lincoln's position as the correct one and their ancestors were wrong?

[Jimmyclyde]

War of Northern aggression ping

[jjmcgo]

Wst Virginia didn't "break away." It was split off by a Union Army invasion. Lincoln left the defense of Washington undermanned while dispatching 35,000 Union troops from PA and OH to western Virginia under McClellan. Philippi, Camp Garnett, Rich Mountain, Corrick's Ford, and Beverly were some of the battles that put Western Virginia in Union hands until statehood was granted in 1863. Adding a Free State in Congress was key to Lincoln's plan.

[HHFi]

I had a history professor in college, way back when they attempted to be accurate rather than to proselytize, who explained that "Civil War" was inaccurate if for no other reason than a "civil war" meant that a segment of the population was trying to overthrow and replace the government, and in this case, the rebels were attempting to leave and establish a separate nation while Lincoln remained president of the old one. Hence, it was not a "civil war" but a "war of secession." Try to tell that to anyone today, and they accuse you of secretly wanting to re-institute slavery when all you want to do is keep the English language clear.