[Rushtalk] Happy Death-by-Government Day!
notmyname at thatswaytoomuch.info
Mon Jun 10 12:45:08 MDT 2013
At 05:52 AM 6/10/2013 -0700, Tom Matiska wrote:
>I missed the part where the Northern States
>seceded from the union and fired on Fort Sumter.
Tom, I'm fairly sure you missed the whole article.
Don't let facts get in the way of your beliefs.
>--- On Mon, 6/10/13, Paf Dvorak <notmyname at thatswaytoomuch.info> wrote:
>From: Paf Dvorak <notmyname at thatswaytoomuch.info>
>Subject: Re: [Rushtalk] Happy Death-by-Government Day!
>To: "Rushtalk Discussion List" <rushtalk at csdco.com>
>Cc: hale_bobb at yahoogroups.com
>Date: Monday, June 10, 2013, 4:00 AM
>At 08:33 PM 6/9/2013 -0700, Tom Matiska wrote:
>>When you say "War of Northern Aggression" I
>>hear a toilet flush. Don't say something that
>>stupid if you want to be taken seriously.
>Thomas DiLorenzo: More on the Myth of Lincoln, Secession and the 'Civil War'
>by Anthony Wile
><http://www.thedailybell.com/>The Daily Bell
>Recently by Anthony Wile:
>Celente on the New Renaissance and Big Non-State Trends Changing the World
>Introduction: Thomas DiLorenzo is an American
>economics professor at Loyola University
>Maryland. He is also a senior faculty member of
>the Ludwig von Mises Institute and an affiliated
>scholar of the League of the South Institute,
>the research arm of the League of the South, and
>the Abbeville Institute. He holds a Ph.D. in
>Economics from Virginia Tech. DiLorenzo has
>authored at least ten books, including
>Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His
>Agenda, and an Unnecessary War (2003),
>Curse: How Jefferson's Arch Enemy Betrayed the
>American Revolution and What It Means for
>Americans Today (2009),
>Capitalism Saved America: The Untold History of
>Our Country, From the Pilgrims to the Present
>Unmasked: What You're Not Supposed To Know about
>Dishonest Abe (2007) and most recently,
>Crime: The Unvarnished Truth About Government
>(2012). Thomas DiLorenzo is a frequent columnist
>for LewRockwell.com, lectures widely and is a
>frequent speaker at Mises Institute events.
>Daily Bell: Remind our readers about one of your
>central intellectual passions, which is
>confronting academic "Lincoln revisionism." Who
>was Lincoln really and why have you spent so
>much of your career trying to return Lincoln's academic profile to reality?
>Thomas DiLorenzo: Lincoln mythology is the
>ideological cornerstone of American statism. He
>was in reality the most hated of all American
>presidents during his lifetime according to an
>excellent book by historian Larry Tagg entitled
>Unpopular Mr. Lincoln: America's Most Reviled
>President. He was so hated in the North that the
>New York Times editorialized a wish that he
>would be assassinated. This is perfectly
>understandable: He illegally suspended Habeas
>Corpus and imprisoned tens of thousands of
>Northern political critics without due process;
>shut down over 300 opposition newspapers;
>committed treason by invading the Southern
>states (Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution
>defines treason as "only levying war upon the
>states" or "giving aid and comfort to their
>enemies," which of course is exactly what
>Lincoln did). He enforced military conscription
>with the murder of hundreds of New York City
>draft protesters in 1863 and with the mass
>execution of deserters from his army. He
>deported a congressional critic (Democratic
>Congressman Clement Vallandigham of Ohio);
>confiscated firearms; and issued an arrest
>warrant for the Chief Justice when the jurist
>issued an opinion that only Congress could
>legally suspend Habeas Corpus. He waged an
>unnecessary war (all other countries ended
>slavery peacefully in that century) that
>resulted in the death of as many as 850,000
>Americans according to new research published in
>the last two years. Standardizing for today's
>population, that would be similar to 8.5 million
>American deaths in a four-year war.
>Lincoln was deified by the Republican Party,
>which monopolized the government for half a
>century after the war. The Pulitzer
>prize-winning novelist Robert Penn Warren wrote
>in his book, The Legacy of the Civil War, that
>all of this mythology created an ideology of
>"false virtue" that was (and is) interpreted by
>the American state to "justify" anything it ever
>did, no matter how heinous and imperialistic.
>The truth about Lincoln and his war "must be
>forgotten," said Warren, if one is to believe in
>this "false virtue," which also goes by the
>slogan of "American exceptionalism."
>Lincoln was a nationalist and an imperialist. He
>was the political son of Alexander Hamilton who,
>as such, advocated a government that would serve
>the moneyed elite at the expense of the masses.
>Hence his lifelong advocacy of protectionist
>tariffs, corporate welfare, and a central bank
>to fund it all. This was called "mercantilism"
>in the previous centuries, and was the very
>system the American colonists fought a revolution over.
>Daily Bell: What did you think of the recent
>Steven Spielberg movie about Lincoln? Are
>defenders of Lincoln getting increasingly desperate?
>Thomas DiLorenzo: Yes, the Lincoln cult is
>getting desperate. Spielberg hired Doris
>Kearns-Goodwin, a confessed plagiarist, as his
>advisor on the movie (See my LewRockwell.com
>Plagiarist's Contribution to Lincoln Idolatry").
>The main theme of the movie is exactly the
>opposite of historical truth. The main theme is
>that Lincoln used his legendary political skills
>to help get the Thirteenth Amendment that ended
>slavery through the Congress. But if one reads
>the most authoritative biography of Lincoln, by
>Harvard's David Donald, one learns that not only
>did Lincoln not lift a finger to help the
>genuine abolitionists; he literally refused to
>help them when they went up to him and asked him
>for his help. Lincoln did use his political
>skills to get an earlier, proposed Thirteenth
>Amendment through the House and Senate. It was
>called the Corwin Amendment, and would have
>prohibited the federal government from ever
>interfering with Southern slavery. Even Doris
>Kearns-Goodwin writes about it in her book, Team
>of Rivals, discussing how the amendment, named
>after an Ohio congressman, was in reality the work of Abraham Lincoln.
>Daily Bell: Why should that be so? Is the myth
>of Lincoln a central one to the larger and
>continued myth of modern US exceptionalism? Who
>propagates these myths and who benefits?
>Thomas DiLorenzo: Yes, the Lincoln myth is the
>ideological cornerstone of "American
>exceptionalism" and has long been invoked by
>both major political parties to "justify"
>anything and everything. President Obama quoted
>and paraphrased Lincoln in a speech before the
>United Nations last September, and in his second
>inaugural address, to support his agenda of
>waging more aggressive wars in Syria, Iran, and
>elsewhere. Specifically, he repeated the "All
>Men are Created Equal" line from the Gettysburg
>Address to make the case that it is somehow the
>duty of Americans to force "freedom" on all men
>and women everywhere, all around the globe, at
>gunpoint if need be. This is the murderous,
>bankrupting, imperialistic game that Lincoln mythology is used to "justify."
>Daily Bell: Put Lincoln in context. Why is
>continued mythology so important to the current
>power structure of the Anglosphere?
>Thomas DiLorenzo: The state cannot tell the
>people that it is bankrupting them and sending
>their sons and daughters to die by the thousands
>in aggressive and unconstitutional wars so that
>crony capitalism can be imposed at gunpoint in
>foreign countries, and so that the
>military-industrial complex can continue to rake
>in billions. That might risk a revolution. So
>instead, they have to use the happy talk of
>American virtue and American exceptionalism, the
>"god" of democracy," etc. And the average
>American, whom the great H.L. Mencken referred
>to as part of the "booboisie," believes it.
>Daily Bell: Let's try to clear up a few more
>myths. Did Lincoln issue greenbacks in defiance
>of British "money power"? In other words, was
>his war waged as an act of rebellion against
>European colonialism? From our point of view,
>Lincoln was likely in thrall to the New York
>banking establishment. How do you see it?
>Thomas DiLorenzo: Lincoln spent his entire life
>in politics, from 1832 until his dying day, as a
>lobbyist for the American banking industry and
>the Northern manufacturing corporations that
>wanted cheaper credit funded by a government-run
>bank. He spent decades making speeches on behalf
>of resurrecting the corrupt and destabilizing
>Bank of the United States, founded originally by
>his political ancestor, Hamilton. No member of
>the Whig Party was more in bed with the American
>banking establishment than Lincoln was,
>according to University of Virginia historian
>Michael Holt in his book on the history of the
>American Whig party. The Whig agenda, which was
>always Lincoln's agenda, was described
>brilliantly by Edgar Lee Masters (Clarence
>Darrow's law partner) in his book, Lincoln the
>Man. The agenda was to champion "that political
>system which doles favors to the strong in order
>to win and keep their adherence to the
>government." It advocated "a people taxed to
>make profits for enterprises that cannot stand
>alone." The Whig Party "had no platform to
>announce," Masters wrote, "because its
>principles were plunder and nothing else."
>Lincoln himself once said that he got ALL of his
>political ideas from Henry Clay, the icon and
>longtime leader of the Whig Party.
>Daily Bell: Let's ask you some tough questions
>that will be of interest to our readers and our
>critics alike. Charges have been leveled from
>some (disreputable) quarters that you are
>somehow conspiring historically with a Jesuit
>faction to promote historical inaccuracies
>regarding Lincoln since you are a professor at
>Loyola. Could you please explain these charges
>more comprehensively and then use this form to rebut them?
>Thomas DiLorenzo: I don't usually answer "when
>did you stop beating your wife"-type questions
>since they always come from people with I.Q.s in
>the single digits. These are people who do not
>have the mental capacity to learn real
>economics, so they blabber on about crazy
>conspiracy theories. The Jesuits at Loyola
>actually hate me with a passion since they are,
>with one or two exceptions, Marxist ideologues
>and I am a libertarian, i.e., the devil. Read my
>LewRockwell.com article entitled
>Tales from an Academic Looney Bin" if you want
>to learn of my contempt for the Jesuits who run Loyola University Maryland.
>Daily Bell: Thanks for the insights. Now, on to
>another more serious matter, which has to do
>with the role of Jefferson Davis as President of
>the Southern Secession. Let's preface this by
>proposing it has been proposed that both the
>Russian Revolution and Germany's rise to power
>were apparently funded at least in part by Wall
>Street and British "City" money â especially
>via Swiss banks. Can you comment on this
>perspective as it may well have a bearing on
>Civil War funding? Is it true, for instance,
>that many wars including the Civil War are not
>exactly what they seem and that what we call
>Money Power benefits by backing both sides and
>profiting from the conflict itself?
>Thomas DiLorenzo: War is always destructive to a
>nation's economy regardless of whether it wins
>or loses the war. War is the opposite of
>capitalism. Capitalism is a system of peaceful,
>mutually-advantageous exchanges at market prices
>based on the international division of labor.
>War destroys the international division of labor
>and diverts resources from peaceful,
>capitalistic exchange to death and destruction.
>However, there are always war profiteers the
>people who proffit from selling and financing
>the military. One doesn't need to invent a
>conspiracy theory about this: War profiteering
>is war profiteering and has always existed as an essential feature of all wars.
>Daily Bell: There are even questions raised
>about Napoleon Bonaparte and whether Money Power
>utilized the French general's bellicosity for
>their own purposes. Can you comment? Is it
>possible the US Civil War was also arranged and
>funded by those in Europe that had an agenda to
>diminish the United States's exceptionalism and vitiate its republicanism?
>Thomas DiLorenzo: I prefer not to answer
>anonymous questions like this. Who says this,
>and what is his or her credibility? Any
>credentials? Have they written anything I can
>read to judge their thinking ability? Any crank
>can say any crazy thing and suggest any weird
>conspiracy theory on the Internet. Besides,
>"American exceptionalism" did not become a tool
>of American imperialism until AFTER the Civil War.
>Daily Bell: Money Power is a banking phenomenon
>and much of the banking power was located in
>Britain during Lincoln's time, as today. New
>York banks had extensive relationships with
>British banking power. And from what we can
>tell, Lincoln derived an extensive funding and
>power base from these same banks. So here is
>another question that goes to the heart of this
>funding issue: Why did Britain supposedly back
>the South? Is it possible that this is a
>historical ruse? Was the British banking
>establishment pro-North even though the
>aristocracy was pro-South? Did it suit British
>banking interests to perpetuate this confusion?
>Thomas DiLorenzo: There is no such thing as
>"Britain" that backed or did not back the South.
>There were prominent British individuals like
>Charles Dickens who sided with the South in
>their writings, but there were also those with
>similar stature who backed the North. I
>recommend the book by Charles Adams entitled
>Secession, and Civil War: Views from the United
>Kingdom and Europe, 1856-1865. Since the South
>continued to trade with England during the war,
>there were British banks that financed a lot of
>this trade and would therefore have supported
>the South for that reason. At the end of the war
>the British government was scared to death that
>Sherman would take his army across the Atlantic
>as an act of revenge for this collaboration.
>Daily Bell: Is it possible that the British
>banking establishment didn't care which side won
>the war, as the US would be irreparably weakened
>no matter who triumphed? Were British bankers
>expecting this weakening would encompass a loss
>of freedom and a rise of governmental
>authoritarianism? It certainly did, didn't it?
>Thomas DiLorenzo: Since bankers are bankers and
>not journalists and writers, there is no way of
>knowing their views on this question without a
>written record. Anyone who claims to know this
>without any such record is simply blowing smoke
>and wasting your time. British intellectuals
>like Lord Acton understood and wrote about how
>the result of the war would be a US government
>that would become more tyrannical and
>imperialistic. To the extent that some British
>bankers read such literature and tended to agree
>with Lord Acton, then that would have been their
>opinion. Nineteenth-century British bankers were
>not omniscient, Wizard-of-Oz orchestrators of
>world events any more than you and I are.
>Daily Bell: Here is an even tougher question to
>answer and a thoroughly speculative one. Is it
>possible that Jefferson Davis also had a
>relationship to British Money Power? One salient
>fact stands out: Davis served as President
>Franklin Pierce's war secretary and while Pierce
>was an ardent states' rights advocate, it was
>also widely reported that he had relations with
>a powerful US secret society the Kniights of
>the Golden Circle. Can you comment on the
>Knights of the Golden Circle and what their
>agenda might have been? We've written about this
>Thomas James DiLorenzo on Abraham Lincoln, U.S.
>Authoritarianism and Manipulated History."
>Here's a brief description from a book on the
>Mysterious and Secret Order of the Knights of
>... "Few people know of the Knights of the
>Golden Circle and even fewer know about the
>purpose for which it existed. It is probably the
>greatest untold story today in the history of
>the United States. ... It has been said of them
>that they were one of the deadliest, wealthiest,
>most secretive and subversive spy and
>underground organizations in the history of the
>world ... The group was heavy on ritual, most of
>which was borrowed from the Masonic Lodge and
>later from the Knights of Pythias. Some were
>also members of the Rosicrucians." To what end
>was Jefferson Davis involved with the Knights?
>Was he in a sense set up to fail? Did he willingly participate? Was he a patsy?
>Thomas DiLorenzo: I have no idea. How would
>anyone know anything about this if it was a
>"secret" society, as you say? Jefferson Davis
>was a brilliant and highly educated man who
>spent a long career in national politics and
>wrote a great book,
>Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government. It
>is unimaginable that any American politician
>since could have performed such an amazingly
>insightful piece of genuine scholarship. This is
>not the type of man who would have been easily
>duped by the local Masonic Lodge.
>Daily Bell: Are these fair questions? Jefferson
>was President of the Southern Secession but he
>proved an ineffective leader and his policies in
>many ways sabotaged the South and its quest to
>secede. Was his incompetence entirely genuine, in your view?
>Thomas DiLorenzo: Davis was not a dictator. He
>had a lot of help losing the war, especially
>from his generals who insisted on the Napoleonic
>battlefield tactics they were taught at West
>Point and which had become defunct because of
>the advent of more deadly military technology by
>the middle of the nineteenth century. One of his
>biggest failures was waiting until the last year
>of the war to finally do what General Robert E.
>Lee had been arguing from the beginning
>offering the slaves freeedom in return for
>fighting with the Confederate Army in defense of their country.
>Daily Bell: A final question. It was Davis who
>set the war in motion, inexplicably, by
>declaring formal hostilities, so why didn't he
>and his generals fight a guerrilla war that they
>would have been almost certain to win? General
>Lee insisted on formal engagements with the
>North but had neither the resources nor the men
>to win a war of attrition of this sort. Why
>didn't he pursue well-known guerilla tactics
>that would have produced a victory or at least a stalemate?
>Thomas DiLorenzo: No, it was Lincoln who
>launched an invasion of the Southern states.
>Davis's declarations were just words. Giving
>guerilla fighters like John Singleton Mosby and
>Nathan Bedford Forrest more resources may well
>have won the war for the South, but Mosby was
>kicked out of VMI and Forrest was almost totally
>uneducated formally. The Confederate military
>establishment was controlled by West Point
>graduates who knew little or nothing about
>guerilla warfare. When asked after the war who
>his most effective subordinate was, Lee said it was a man named Forrest.
>Daily Bell: Certainly the arc of Davis's career
>after the war does little to contradict the
>hypothesis that there was more to Davis's role
>than history records. He never served a long
>jail sentence, visited England later in life and
>was supported by a wealthy widow, Sarah Anne
>Ellis Dorsey, who was a primary member and
>literary representative of Southern aristocracy
>with its many European connections. This would
>also seem to show that Davis had deep
>connections to the British power structure. Is
>all this merely frivolous supposition?
>Thomas DiLorenzo: Yes.
>Daily Bell: Okay, let's turn to your recent
>book, False Virtue: The Myths that Transformed
>America From A Republic to an Empire. Can you
>explain what this is about to our readers and why you wrote it?
>Thomas DiLorenzo: That's something that I'm
>still working on. I plan on putting into book
>form the story of how the Lincoln myth has been
>used for the past 150 years or so to prop up
>American foreign policy imperialism.
>Daily Bell: What are you working on now, if anything?
>Thomas DiLorenzo: Besides this, I'm working on a
>book on the politics and economics of war.
>Daily Bell: Do you still believe that secession
>is in the offing for several or more of "these
>united States"? Will it come without bloodshed?
>Thomas DiLorenzo: Thank God for the former serfs
>of the Soviet empire that they only had a
>totalitarian communist like Gorbachev to deal
>with and not a Lincoln. Peaceful secession is
>the only way out of the new slavery for the
>average American, and it will only happen if we
>have a president who is more like Gorbachev than
>Lincoln. That is one more reason why the Lincoln myth needs to be destroyed.
>Daily Bell: Are hostilities deepening between Fedgov and US states?
>Thomas DiLorenzo: The booboisie in America for
>the time being seems happy to endure whatever
>additional enslavements the federal government
>proposes for them. That may change, however,
>when there is hyperinflation and their
>healthcare system is destroyed by Obama's
>socialized medicine, or if one of the tiny and
>relatively defenseless countries that the US
>government is perpetually picking on figures out
>a way to retaliate in a big way. That just might
>cause the booboisie to finally ask such
>questions as: "Do my children really have to be
>sacrificed and sent to their deaths so that
>people in Syria can be ruled by a different dictator chosen by the CIA?"
>Daily Bell: Isn't secession a lawful, constitutional right?
>Thomas DiLorenzo: Article 7 of the Constitution
>explains that the document was to be ratified by
>the "free and independent states," as they are
>called in the Declaration of Independence. The
>union of the founders was voluntary, and several
>states reserved the right to withdraw from the
>union in the future if it became destructive of
>their rights. Since each state has equal rights
>in the union, this became true for all states.
>That is why, at the outset of the Civil War, the
>overwhelming majority of Northern newspapers
>editorialized in favor of peaceful secession.
>Most of them quoted Jefferson from the
>Declaration saying that governments derive their
>just powers from the consent of the governed,
>and when that consent is withdrawn it is the
>peoples' duty to abolish that government and form a new one.
>Lincoln thus destroyed the voluntary union of
>the founding fathers and replaced it with a
>Soviet-style coerced union held together with
>the threat of total war waged on the civilian
>population of any state in the future that
>attempted to make Jefferson's argument and act
>on it. It is telling that on the eve of the
>Civil War several federal laws were proposed to
>outlaw secession. This occurred because everyone
>at the time understood that secession was perfectly legal and constitutional.
>Might does NOT make right, so yes, secession is
>a right that the people of any free society should have.
>Daily Bell: Is the Internet helping to create an
>upsurge of freedom-consciousness among the US electorate?
>Thomas DiLorenzo: Yes, without a doubt. That's
>why some of the most obnoxious and tyrannical of
>our politicians, like Obama, Lieberman, McCain
>and Schumer, seem to be constantly conniving to
>somehow censor or shut down the internet "for national security reasons."
>Daily Bell: How many real "nations" does the US encompass?
>Thomas DiLorenzo: Time will tell. Jefferson
>believed there were at least seven or eight
>regions that could be created as independent
>American nations during his time, and he wrote
>that he would wish them all well as they would
>all be, as Americans, "our children."
>Daily Bell: What about Europe? Will it also see
>a fracturing of the euro and perhaps of the EU itself?
>Thomas DiLorenzo: I think we are seeing the
>collapse of the EU and the Euro along with the
>European welfare state. We should all pray that
>it happens a thousand times faster.
>Daily Bell: How about China?
>Thomas DiLorenzo: China is now more capitalist
>than the US and its government is less
>tyrannical than the government in Washington, DC.
>Daily Bell: Is the Internet helping to cause these "devolutions"?
>Thomas DiLorenzo: When the AFL-CIO conspired
>with the Catholic Church in Poland to subvert
>communism they smuggled fax machines into the
>country so that the anti-communists could plot
>and communicate. The internet makes all of this
>infinitely easier to accomplish.
>Daily Bell: Is the 21st century more hopeful
>than the 20th and 19th when it comes to
>large-scale wars and manipulation of various
>electorates in the West and elsewhere?
>Thomas DiLorenzo: One virtue of the 19th century
>was that the public school brainwashing
>bureaucracy was not yet very well developed. It
>certainly is today, which is why America has
>become such a nation of statist sheep.
>Daily Bell: Is the current system of Fiat Money
>Power on the way out? If so, what will take its place?
>Thomas DiLorenzo: Yes. That's what all the
>economic turmoil in Europe is about. I'd like to
>see a return to a gold standard. This will have
>to happen if we are to avoid worldwide economic
>collapse similar to the Great Depression.
>Daily Bell: How does the Lincoln mythology play
>out today in light of all these circumstances?
>Thomas DiLorenzo: It is still the ideological
>cornerstone of American statism, but we are making progress.
>Daily Bell: Will the US revert to a freer, more self-sufficient model?
>Thomas DiLorenzo: Only if peaceful secession is allowed to occur.
>Daily Bell: Is the pre-Civil War US model a
>template for a more viable society in the future?
>Thomas DiLorenzo: Minus slavery, of course. The
>Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union
>were far superior to the Constitution that
>replaced them (and which omitted the world "perpetual").
>Daily Bell: Can we ever go back? Is history linear or cyclical?
>Thomas DiLorenzo: I don't believe in such
>determinism. We can correct mistakes. We DID
>deregulate oil and transportation in the 1980s;
>socialism DID collapse worldwide in the late
>'80s/early '90s and was replaced by more market-oriented regimes.
>Daily Bell: Any other comments or predictions?
>Thomas DiLorenzo: The Republican Party will
>continue to become more and more irrelevant and
>powerless; the Democratic Party establishment
>will finally strip off their masks and reveal
>themselves as the totalitarian socialists that
>they have always been; and the political future
>will belong to the young Ron Paulians.
>Daily Bell: Thanks for your time once again.
>Daily Bell After Thoughts
>Thomas DiLorenzo got a little irritated with us
>because we harped on the Jesuit issue (see
>interview). But we did so because a malicious
>minority of what we can only call Neo-Nazi
>"social" and "mutual creditors" have attacked
>him for being influenced by the Jesuit
>educational establishment for which he works.
>Money is power and those who challenge the
>status quo are dangerous to the internationalist
>impulse. Thus, globalists claim DiLorenzo has
>attacked Lincoln because he wanted to undermine
>Lincoln's use of government Greenbacks as effective money.
>Money is a complex system. It is not
>mathematically reducible. Only the free-market
>itself, the Invisible Hand, can organize money
>within the context of the complex relationships
>that exist in a modern society (though
>admittedly such relationships could and should be simplified).
>But according to some, only the state, properly
>guided by responsible politicians, can provide
>the money society needs. DiLorenzo has also been
>attacked by this socialist faction because he
>named Lincoln for what he was: the father of US Empire.
>Before Lincoln, it was common belief that any
>state could secede from the Union. After
>Lincoln, it was clear no state could secede
>without facing military action. That situation continues today.
>DiLorenzo is a consequential writer. He has
>advanced our understanding of who Lincoln really
>was and where American exceptionalism took a
>wrong turn. The attacks of his critics
>notwithstanding, he is an original and
>courageous historian, and we look forward to reading more of his work.
>Reprinted with permission from
><http://www.thedailybell.com/>The Daily Bell<http://www.howtovanish.com/>.
>June 3, 2013
>Anthony Wile is an author, columnist, media
>commentator and entrepreneur focused on
>developing projects that promote the general
>advancement of free-market thinking concepts. He
>is the chief editor of the popular free-market
>oriented news site,
>Wile is the Executive Director of The Foundation
>for the Advancement of Free-Market Thinking a
>non-profit Liechtenstein-based founddation. His
>most popular book,
>Alert, is now in its third edition and available
>in several languages. Other notable books
>written by Mr. Wile include The Liberation of
>Flockhead (2002) and The Value of Gold (2002).
>Copyright Â© 2013 <http://www.thedailybell.com/>The Daily Bell
><http://www.lewrockwell.com/wile/wile-archive.html>The Best of Anthony Wile
><http://www.lewrockwell.com/>Back to LewRockwell.com Home Page
><http://thatswaytoomuch.info/>notmyname at thatswaytoomuch.info
>-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>Rushtalk mailing list
><http://us.mc1805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Rushtalk@csdco.com>Rushtalk at csdco.com
>Rushtalk mailing list
>Rushtalk at csdco.com
<http://thatswaytoomuch.info/>notmyname at thatswaytoomuch.info
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Rushtalk