|
March
26, 2007
Monsters,
Ltd.
by Gary North, Ph.D.
I
need your help.
I am writing a high school textbook in American
history. As I research the nation's history, I keep
coming across bad guys. The trouble is, most of
them are widely regarded as good guys.
It is very difficult to tell the story of
America to teenagers when you have to point out
that most of the men on white horses actually rode
brown horses with whitewash.
I am thinking of writing a supplemental book on
the worst of the bad guys. Murray Rothbard always
called these people monsters. He had a long list of
them.
I want to focus on the worst ones. Do you have
any favorites?
Here is my methodology. I ask: "How would
America be better off today if these people had
sold insurance instead?" This is known as as
if historiography. It is hypothetical.
Sadly, the legacies that these people left
behind are anything but hypothetical.
PUBLIC ENEMY NUMBER ONE
I decided long ago who the worst person was. You
have no possibility of persuading me otherwise. My
mind is made up. Here are the criteria. The person
must have been the following:
- Self-conscious
- Dedicated
- Conspiratorial
- Agenda-driven
- Successful in achieving this agenda
- Destructive on an unprecedented scale
- Economical: more bang for the buck
- Other people's money
- Still revered by liberal intellectuals
Think about this. Who would your choice be?
Don't be too hasty. Give this some thought. See if
you can find someone worse.
He was a known murderer who got away with it. He
was lauded by the media despite these murders,
mainly because he went on another bloody rampage.
He was presented by the media as a hero.
He was funded by an intellectual elite: other
people's money.
His agenda was to start a revolution that would
bathe the nation in blood, which he saw as
redemptive.
He pulled it off, almost (but not quite)
singlehandedly.
Liberal intellectuals still regard this
destruction as redemptive, and acknowledge that he
was the prime mover.
Give up?
John Brown, the hero of Pottawatomie Creek.
I rest my case.
WELL DONE, MR. PRESIDENT
When it comes to inflicting devastation, a
wartime President is always a tough act to follow.
I can think of only one man ever to achieve this
feat: Harry Truman. Not only did he follow a
wartime President, he started another war of his
very own. Even more impressive, he didn't call it a
war, so Congress never voted for it, and now no
President asks Congress to declare war. Also, he
never gets much credit for the fact that the Korean
War has not ended. There was no peace treaty, only
a cease-fire, so tens of thousands of American
troops are still stationed there, ready for the
next battle. Finally, he gave us the national
security state domestically as a kind of bonus
package. ("Order now, and we'll send you an extra.
. . .") Yes, Harry Truman was a tough act to
follow.
Abraham Lincoln was John Brown's dream come
true. They were a team. Without Brown's 1859 raid,
Lincoln might not have been elected, for he seemed
to be a moderate in the North in 1860 and a Jacobin
in the South -- the perfect candidate for old
Brown.
Then there are the usual suspects: Woodrow
Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson. All
of them ran on peace platforms and then took the
country into a war. All of them ran up the national
debt, although FDR put the other two to shame in
this regard. All of them centralized the economy.
Johnson, while not heralded as a redeemer by the
media, is still presented as a man who got good
things accomplished, all things considered.
Basically, he is praised with faint damns.
THE SUNSHINE BOYS
Of course, none of this would have been possible
had it not been for the stand-up team of Madison
and Hamilton.
Madison ran the most successful conspiratorial
coup in history, for the heirs of the victims still
do not perceive that it was a coup. I have written
a book on this, Conspiracy
in Philadelphia. In this regard, he is
unrivaled. Had it not been for him, America would
still be a confederation of states. Washington D.C.
might still belong to the Gore family. All of
Virginia might still be dominated by the Byrd
family, rather than just the western section.
This is not to say Madison was all bark and no
bite. He got us into the War in 1812. Yet he gets
little credit for this from historians, who regard
the War of 1812 as an unnecessary war. It was more
of a national embarrassment than a national
catastrophe. So, Madison fails the media's "Go and
do thou likewise" test. To say that it was an
unnecessary war is not doing it justice. It was
quite necessary, given the fact that Madison had
failed in 1811 to get Congress to renew the charter
for the Hamilton-created, privately owned, Federal
monopoly known as the Bank of the United
States.
Stephen Girard of Philadelphia, the richest man
in the country, saw what had to be done. He bought
the Bank's assets and changed its name to the Bank
of Stephen Girard. Then he waited for his next
opportunity. He soon got it: the War of 1812.
The national debt rose so high so fast that
Girard personally funded 95% of the 1814 war loan.
The payoff for this was that Madison made Girard's
lawyer, Alexander Dallas, the Secretary of the
Treasury, who then wrote the charter for the Second
Bank of the United States. Madison sold this
project to Congress, along with a big hike in
tariffs, so as to pay off the debt owed to Girard.
Both laws passed in the same month (April, 1816).
This made sure that Girard would be repaid on time
and at face value. He then bought controlling
interest in the Bank. In October, Dallas resigned
and went back to Philadelphia. Mission
accomplished. But historians are unaware of all
this, so Madison is not praised for any of it. Nice
try, Jimmy, but no cigar.
Hamilton is a very hot commodity these days in
the market for books on the Founding Fathers.
Biographies of him abound. Most important, Ron
Chernow wrote one, which makes Hamilton
media-worthy. He has also written books on John D.
Rockefeller, Sr., the Warburgs, and the House of
Morgan.
Hamilton lied repeatedly about the Constitution
in The Federalist, downplaying its centralization
potential. He always knew what the new government
could do, and as Secretary of the Treasury, he
helped to do it.
He turned the national government into a
banker's dream come true. First, he consolidated
state debts in order to get political support for a
larger central government. Then he gave us our
first central bank. Had it not been for foul-up
Jimmy, who failed to persuade Congress in 1811 to
re-charter it, it would have survived until
Jackson's era, and maybe beyond.
Hamilton had big plans. He needed a big
government to achieve them. This is why he is so
beloved (Rothbard's beloved word) today.
OTHER FRONT-RUNNERS
What would America be today without John D.
Rockefeller, Jr. and the various Rockefeller
foundations? Better off.
Teddy Roosevelt never got us into a war,
although he did his best to humiliate Woodrow
Wilson into taking us into World War I. He surely
incarnated the Progressive movement. He was a
poster boy for big government as no other President
had been before him.
Then there was Horace Mann, who ran the newly
created public school system in Massachusetts in
the 1840's. He set the pattern for all of his
successors: a defender of the redemptive power of
tax-funded education.
CONCLUSION
So many scoundrels. So little time.
Send me your suggestions. There's always room
for one more.
Gary
North Archive
Dr.
Gary North earned a Ph.D. in history and is one of
America's keenest economic analysts and
commentators. He supports the Austrian school of
economics and is a previous assistant to
libertarian congressman Dr. Ron Paul. Visit his
website at http://garynorth.com.
To
subscribe to Gary North's Reality Check go to
http://www.dailyreckoning.com/sub/GetReality.cfm
If
you enjoyed this essay and would like to read more
of Gary's writing please visit his website at
http://www.garynorth.com
or http://www.freebooks.com
Articles
& Essays Index
Because
The Radical Academy publishes essays and articles
on its website does not imply acceptance or
approval of the comments or opinions expressed by
the author of the material. Nor is the Academy
responsible for any misrepresentation of the facts
included. It is your job to be a critical
reader.
|