Wednesday, March 19, 2014

Is Ron Paul an Apologist for Dictators?

Land of the Free, Home of the Belligerent

To understand U.S. involvement in Ukraine and in the world in general, you must understand the Paradox of Imperialism.

By The Radical Propertarian

Victory or defeat in interstate warfare depend on many factors, of course, but other things such as population size being the same, in the long run the decisive factor is the relative amount of economic resources at a state’s disposal. In taxing and regulating, states do not contribute to the creation of economic wealth. Instead, they parasitically draw on existing wealth. However, state governments can influence the amount of existing wealth negatively. Other things being equal, the lower the tax and regulation burden imposed on the domestic economy, the larger the population will tend to grow and the larger the amount of domestically produced wealth on which the state can draw in its conflicts with neighboring competitors. That is, states which tax and regulate their economies comparatively little — liberal states — tend to defeat and expand their territories or their range of hegemonic control at the expense of less-liberal ones.
This explains, for instance, why Western Europe came to dominate the rest of the world rather than the other way around. More specifically, it explains why it was first the Dutch, then the British and finally, in the 20th century, the United States, that became the dominant imperial power, and why the United States, internally one of the most liberal states, has conducted the most aggressive foreign policy, while the former Soviet Union, for instance, with its entirely illiberal (repressive) domestic policies has engaged in a comparatively peaceful and cautious foreign policy. The United States knew that it could militarily beat any other state; hence, it has been aggressive. In contrast, the Soviet Union knew that it was bound to lose a military confrontation with any state of substantial size unless it could win within a few days or weeks.
The above 292 words constitute one of the most important passages in libertarian scholarship to absorb in order both to become a consistent libertarian and to understand U.S. history. They are from a speech by social theorist Hans-Hermann Hoppe. If the reader has strong disagreements with Hoppe on other topics, those should not be used as an excuse to dismiss his insight on this one.
The insight Hoppe outlines above has been called the “Paradox of Imperialism.” This is the insight that is lost on prominent libertarians like Tom Palmer, on Koch-supported organizations like the Cato Institute and Students for Liberty, and on many non-American libertarians.
Such people are baffled by the positions of prominent libertarians like Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell, and of organizations like and the Ron Paul Institute. The Palmerites paint the Ron Paulians as reflexive anti-Americans and apologists for dictators.
Take, for example, the recent crisis over Ukraine. The Palmerites swooned over the cause of the Euromaidan protesters in Kiev who rose up against the regime of president Viktor Yanukovych after the latter rejected a diplomatic arrangement with the European Union in favor of one with Russia. The Students for Liberty Facebook page made several postsexpressing solidarity with the protesters. Learn Liberty, the educational venture of the Koch-supported Institute for Humane Studies, evenreposted the “grassroots” viral video “We Are All Ukrainians,” whose title has been echoed by Senator John McCain.
In contrast, (especially Justin Raimondo) and the Ron Paul Institute (especially Daniel McAdams) have worked tirelessly to point out the deep involvement by Washington in what has been painted as a “local” and “organic” movement of freedom fighters.
As made plain by and RPI, the key figure in U.S. meddling in Ukraine is the neocon Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland. She hasbragged about the U.S. spending $5 billion on bringing “democracy” to Ukraine.

She was also recorded trying to micromanage who would attain leadership positions in the “new Ukraine.” As Robert Wenzel pointed out, she got just what she wanted. The man she assumed would be prime minister is exactly who was elevated to that position by the new U.S.-allied government, once it took power.
She has even gone so far as to pass out cookies to the protesters in Euromaidan square.

When you have the #2 diplomat of the mightiest world power bragging about spending billions on regime change, hand-picking the next administration, and serving as a den mother to the opposition, it makes it hard to characterize the opposition as “organic” with a straight face.
That hasn’t stopped the Palmerites from trying.
Oh, and that supposedly “grassroots” viral “We Are All Ukrainians” video? It was basically Kony 2012 all over again. The video’s producers are funded by the Moroccan government, and its creators say its “inspiration” wasLarry Diamond, who is a member of the enormously influential Council on Foreign Relations, and who has worked closely with the National Endowment for Democracy, the “mothership” of NGOs which funnels most of the State Department’s “soft power” regime change money throughout the world.
The Ron Paulians also pointed out that the contingent of the Euromaidan forces most willing to use force were antisemitic extreme right-wing nationalists who idolized a Nazi collaborator responsible for bringing the Holocaust to the Ukraine. Washington has reached the peak of hypocricy, as it funds radical Islamist terrorists in Syria in an effort to topple Assad, and fascist thugs in Ukraine in order to topple Yanukovych.
Matters were brought to a head when snipers took out over one hundred people, including both anti- and pro-Yanukovych forces. As it turns out, it was most likely the same snipers who shot at both sides, and they were most likely hired by opposition leaders, who must have figured you can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs, even if those eggs are your own front line of “useful idiots.” Suitably enraged, the protesters then let loose, and violently toppled the government, causing Yanukovych to flee to Russia.
Soon after, Russia sent troops into Crimea, which has been part of Ukraine since the 1950s, even though it is majority Russian, and Russia-oriented. A referendum was held today in Crimea, in which an overwhelming majority of the voters elected to secede from Ukraine and to join the Russian Federation.
With each Russian move, the Obama administration, prodded on by Republican accusations of “weakness,” wailed in protest, recklessly threatening to “isolate” the nuclear power with diplomatic and economic sanctions, and offering billions in support for the new government in Ukraine.
The Palmerites joined the U.S. government, not only in raging against the Russian bear, but in actively supporting and advising the new administration in Kiev. Tom Palmer bragged on Facebook about heading out to Kiev for the Atlas Economic Research Foundation to join the Cato Institute at a summit in a posh hotel to advise the new government on economic policy.
In contrast, the Ron Paulians trained their rhetorical fire on insisting that the U.S. government stay out of it, reminding the public that it was U.S. meddling that triggered this crisis in the first place, and pointing out the relative mildness of Russia’s moves as compared to the recent history of U.S. foreign policy.
For their pains, they have been branded by neocons and Palmerites alike as “apologists for Putin.”
Palmer has long accused Ron Paulians for being apologists for dictators. Why, indeed, in these geopolitical incidents, do Ron Paulians so consistently focus on critiquing the American side, as opposed to the regimes the U.S. government opposes?
For one thing, as Noam Chomsky and Glenn Greenwald have pointed out, American intellectuals have more sway over and more responsibility for their own government’s foreign policy than the policy of foreign regimes.
But there is another important consideration. And that is the Paradox of Imperialism outlined above.
In international conflicts involving the U.S., it really is almost always the Washington who bears most of the blame. Now this is not because the U.S. is populated by Americans who are inherently evil; the Ron Paulian position on foreign policy is not “anti-American.”
And it is not because the Ron Paulians have gotten carried away with their critique of the Federal government to the point of believing that the U.S. is more despotic than foreign kleptocrats like Putin, Yanukovych, and others. To the contrary, as explained by the Paradox of Imperialism, it is because the U.S. is less domestically tyrannical than most other countries, while still being a state, that it has both the wherewithal and the ambition to be more externally aggressive (with both “hard” and “soft” power) and therefore is more often to blame.
Whether the U.S. actually is more to blame in the recent crisis is an empirical matter. The affirmative answer to this question is well established, not only by its documented soft-power intervention in Ukraine (which follows to a tea the methods of U.S.-sponsored overthrows in numerous other countries), but by its decades-long post-Cold-War marchfrom the Balkans and the Baltic to Russia’s borders under the guise of NATO and NATO halfway houses like the “Partnership for Peace” programme.
But it should be no surprise that the U.S. government, in this instance as in virtually all others, is the furthest thing from the selfless, benevolent promoter of freedom and democracy that it claims to be. And the reason that this should be no surprise is not purely empirical, but rather theoretical.
It is the logical analysis of the incentives and growth-pattern of the domestically liberal state — the Paradox of Imperialism — that sheds necessary light on the historical foreign policy of the U.S., from its early efforts to conquer Canada, to its genocidal wars against the American Indians. From its provocation of the Mexican-American War so as to absorb California and the southwest, to its murderous occupation of the Phillipines. From its steering the public toward entry into the World Wars, to its post-War dominance of the First World. From its Cold War interventions and invasions, to its non-stop post-Cold-War efforts to leverage its role as the last remaining superpower into a position of complete global dominance.
The Paradox of Imperialism explains why Imperial America, like Imperial Britain before it, is both land of the free and home of the belligerent. Of course the American people are only relatively free, and it is the state that rules them that is responsible for the belligerence.
The above originally appeared at and is reprinted with permission.


  1. The Hoppe theory is also a good description of why the North decided to engage in rampage of slaughter and pillage against the South in the Civil War.

    1. By "rampage of slaughter and pillage" do you mean enforce the Constitution? Because that is what the North was doing during the Civil War. The slave states all ratified a Constitution that did not allow secession.

    2. Doesnt the 10th Amendment apply to secession?

      The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

      There is nothing in the constitution about having the power to prevent secession.

    3. Not explicitly, but the Bill of Rights clarified...

      "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

    4. JW is wrong but at least he's consistent.

      From the conclusion of the essay, "A Brief Examination of the Legality of Secession in the United States" by professor of history Kenneth S. Imbriale (

      "The arguments made by the nationalists - those unequivocally opposed to secession – appear to be based on semantics and impassioned extrapolations of words and phrases that prove little or nothing at all. While a multitude of reasoned opinions (and some more emotional than logical) existed during the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia regarding state sovereignty vis-à-vis the formative governing document, the Constitution was “remarkable for its ambiguity on many substantive matters, none more fateful than its silence on this crucial question [the legality of secession].” [ Kenneth M. Stampp, “The Concept of a Perpetual Union,” The Journal of American History, Vol.65, No.1 (June, 1978): 5.]

      Yet the totality of the founding documents of the United States of America – the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution (in particular, its Tenth Amendment), augmented by the penetrating and convincing arguments supplied by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison (at least in this particular incarnation), provide a formidable case for the legality of secession. As Professor Kenneth M. Stampp notes, the “case for state sovereignty and the constitutional right of secession had flourished for forty years before a comparable case for a perpetual union had been devised…”

      This same could be said for every post by JW on EPJ that I've seen that they "... appear to be based on semantics and impassioned extrapolations of words and phrases that prove little or nothing at all."

    5. Your inability to understand a document as simple as the US Constitution would be funny if it wasn't so sad. And terrifying. The fact that ignorant pseudo intellectual fucktards like you can access the internet scares me.

      JWolf- retarded troll. See You Next Tuesday (I bet it is too stupid to figure out what that means!)

    6. No, he probably means intentionally targeting civilian homes and towns and burning them to the ground when they served no military target, raping women, stealing from the women and children, etc

    7. So, the Constitution gives the president the power to raise an army without Congresional approval and use it to invade states without congressional approval in order to wage total war on the citizens of those states. Interesting.

    8. “They asked me who my master was,” recounted Fanny Carr on her confrontation with the Yankee soldiers. “I said I had no master, that I was a free colored woman.” Fanny Carr, a resident of Alexandria, Louisiana, though born a slave had been free for more than twenty years. The widow stayed in her own home on the outskirts of town with a grown daughter, Catherine. Catherine, also free, worked as a domestic for a neighbor, Mrs. Thomas C. Manning. The Carrs kept farm animals for their own use. Their frame dwelling was proudly maintained and filled with prized household possessions. Fanny cherished the watch left by her husband, and young Catherine took special pride in her bonnets and jewelry. Mother and daughter were respected members of the community. Thomas Manning, associate justice of the state supreme court, characterized them as “truthful and industrious people.”
      The blue-clad invaders arrived in Alexandria in mid-March 1864 and immediately began plundering the town. “On seeing me they asked who I was,” said Fanny. When she tried to make them understand that she was free, they called her a liar. When she said that the house belonged to her and to no one else, “they cursed me and called me a liar again, and said niggers could not own property in this State.”
      “They commenced pillaging the house,” said Fanny. “I begged them to stop.” It was no use. Taken from the home were her silverware, plates, tablecloths, sheets, and mirrors, along with her and Catherine’s clothes. Expensive woolens and linens were stolen, “and my husband’s gold watch,” said Fanny, “which I minded more than the clothes.” All their food supply disappeared, along with the poultry and a hog. A store of lumber she had accumulated was chopped to pieces. The vandals then proceeded to pull down the house itself, even taking bricks from the chimney.
      Fanny was literally left with nothing but the clothes on her back. She later saw her stolen garments being given by the troops “to one of their colored women and a white woman who came off one of the gunboats in the river just in front of the town.”
      Catherine had been at work when the invaders came and did not get home until the next day. Furious over the theft and destruction, she stormed to the headquarters of Brig. Gen. Joseph Mower. “The Yankees said we should not have our things back; that they knew they were not ours, for colored people were not allowed to own so much property down here. I told them they did belong to us,” insisted Catherine. She then asked Col. William T. Shaw for provisions since his soldiers had taken all that she and her mother had to live on. “They wanted me to go away with them.” When she refused, Shaw sarcastically replied “that if I wanted to stay down here I could get the Rebels to feed me.” She told him the rebels would feed her, and she would not go off with Yankees.’


  2. Great post.


    Ignore it, or ban it. It is too stupid to see how stupid it is.

  3. When Lincoln took the presidential oath in 1861, letting the lower South secede in peace was a viable antislavery option. At the moment of Lincoln’s inauguration the Union still retained more slave states than had left. Radical abolitionists, such as William Lloyd Garrison, had traditionally advocated northern secession from the South. They felt that this best hastened the destruction of slavery by allowing the Free states to get out from under the Constitution’s fugitive slave provision. Passionately opposing slavery and simultaneously favoring secession are therefore quite consistent. Yet hardly any modern account of the Union’s fiery conflagration even acknowledges this untried alternative.

    Revisionist Civil War historians at one time argued that slavery was economically doomed. Economists have subjected that claim to searching scrutiny, discovering in fact that American slavery was profitable and expanding. But as Eric Foner [on Jon Stewart's panel] has perceptively noted, “plantation slavery had always been both a political and economic institution. It could not have existed without a host of legal and coercive measures designed to define the status of the black laborer and prevent the emergence of competing modes of social organization.” In the United States these measures included restrictions on manumission, disabilities against free blacks, compulsory slave patrols, and above all fugitive slave laws.
    Slavery was doomed politically even if Lincoln had permitted the small Gulf Coast Confederacy to depart in peace. The Republican-controlled Congress would have been able to work toward emancipation within the border states, where slavery was already declining. In due course the Radicals could have repealed the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850. With chattels fleeing across the border and raising slavery’s enforcement costs, the peculiar institution’s final destruction within an independent cotton South was inevitable.

    Even future Confederate Vice-President Alexander Stephens had judged “slavery much more secure in the Union than out of it. Secession was a gamble of pure desperation for slaveholders, only attempted because the institution clearly had no political future within the Union. The individual runaway both helped provoke secession—northern resistance to fugitive recapture being a major- southern grievance—and ensured that secession would be unable to shield slavery in the end. Back in 1842, Joseph Rogers Underwood, representing Kentucky in the House of Representatives, warned his fellow Southerners that “the dissolution of the Union was the dissolution of slavery.” Why? “Just as soon as Mason and Dixon’s line and the Ohio River become the boundary between independent nations, slavery ceases in all the border states. How- could we retain our slaves, when they, in one hour, one day, or a week at furthest, could pass the boundary?” Once across, the slave could “then turn round and curse his master from the other shore.” Nor would the peculiar institution’s collapse stop at the border states. “Do you not see that sooner or later, this process would extend itself farther and farther south, rendering slave labor so precarious and uncertain that it could not be depended upon; and consequently a slave would become almost worthless; and thus the institution itself would gradually, but certainly, perish?”

    Just such a process later accelerated the demise of slavery in Brazil.

    Jeffrey Rogers Hummel

  4. I cannot recall the precise book we used in my college civil war class in 1971 or 1972, but theme was that the war was not about slavery and was between the financial elites of the north and south. The class was taught by old an middle of road professor, not a right winger or flaming commie (there were several of the latter).

    That was pretty much the standard ubiquitous New Left viewpoint back then. It has only been since the leftists were Clintonized in the 90s that they have conveniently “forgotten” the prior New Left scholarship and attitudes on crony capitalism. Kolko was a New Left scholar.

    Perhaps the transformation had nothing to do with Clinton and everything to do with libertarians making points using good New Left scholarship.

  5. They conveniently forget that overwhelming majority russian Crimea was part of the USSR until Khrushchev gave it over to Ukraine. That when right wing, neo-nazi Ukrainians who are intent on kicking all Russians out of the country come to power (thanks to Nuland), and those Russians in Crimea decide to declare independence, it's called being INTELLIGENT! Even if it might have been prodded by the Kremlin. That everyone in the US hasn't grasped that the Russians had an agreement for the base in Sevastopol that allows them to field up to 25,000 troops is well, typically American. Conveniently forgetting what doesn't fit into its narrative (that it's a Russian invasion rather than local ethnic Russians along with possibly troops stationed in Sevastopol).

    1. Exactly. Putin is a thug, but Crimea has every right to secede from Ukraine and rejoin Russia. Kiev is the birthplace of Russia!

      The refrain for libertarians should be "IT IS NONE OF OUR DAMN BUSINESS!"

  6. "This is the insight that is lost on prominent libertarians like Tom Palmer..."

    Eh? Who's Tom Palmer? Is he a "prominent libertarian" like Neal Boortz?

    "The Palmerites paint the Ron Paulians as reflexive anti-Americans and apologists for dictators."

    The only good American libertarian is one that is anti-American, especially since the label is used on those who know damn well, and express it, how wretchedly evil American foreign policy is.
    When a libertarian is not anti-American, he is most likely pro-empire.

    1. Well, I'd say it would be more accurate to say I'm anti-Washington DC and anti-government period. Governments are evil no matter which one is your master. But I get your point.

  7. After Confederate forces evacuated, about 9 A.M., Mayor Thomas Jefferson Goodwyn met the advancing Federals and surrendered his city, asking for—and receiving—promise of protection for persons and property.7 Upon entering Columbia some Union officers permitted their men to be given liquor, and soldiers started looting stores and igniting the cotton. Flames were soon extinguished by municipal firefighters. One Iowa soldier said that when he arrived, "The cotton had been drenched and the street flooded with water and, to all appear- ances, the fire entirely subdued." That was fortunate, for about 2 P.M. troops began to pass the time by slashing and bayoneting hoses."

    Throughout the day, reported a witness, "robbery was going on at every corner—in nearly every house." Purses, watches, hats, boots, overcoats—any item of value—were taken from victims, white or black. "Nor were these acts [entirely] those of common soldiers," he noted. "Commissioned officers, of a rank so high as that of a colonel, were frequently among the most active."9 At one home soldiers in their search for hidden valuables stabbed knives into a mattress between terrified children, "thinking that the children were put there as a blind."'" Countless women had earrings ripped from bleeding ears. "I have myself seen a lady with the lobes of both ears torn asunder," wrote a foreign diplomat." A bedridden, dying woman had rings removed from her fingers. "In several cases, newly made graves were opened," remembered a witness, "the coffins taken out, broken open, in search of buried treasure, and the corpses left exposed." Yankee troops relieved themselves in the rooms of Columbia homes, defiling crockery, even urinating on beds.12

    On one street a Union soldier, "seeing some children playing with a beautiful little greyhound, amused himself by beating its brains out.""


  8. One black woman, a servant of Columbia minister Peter Shand, was raped by seven soldiers of the United States Army. She then had her face forced down into a shallow ditch and was held there until she drowned. William Gilmore Simms reported how "regiments, in successive relays," committed gang rape in Columbia on scores of slave women.10


    By "rampage of slaughter and pillage" do you mean enforce the Constitution? Because that is what the North was doing during the Civil War.

  9. Lincoln's call for troops stated "the laws of the United States have been for some time past and now are opposed, and the execution thereof obstructed by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by law."

    What judicial proceedings?

    Lincoln made no attempt to determine the legality or illegality of secession (or his authority to resist it). There was no suit challenging its legality. Lincoln didn't even ask his own attorney-general for an opinion on the matter. Nor did he offer any legislation to the Congress. And why did he not?

    He had good reason not to ask, because in doing so, it is entirely possible that the Supreme Court would have opposed Lincoln and agreed with the rights of states. Any actual court case would have likely involved questions as to whether the federal government has the right to invade a state or states for any reason. Quite to the contrary, the federal government has an express constitutional duty to protect each state from invasion (Article IV, Section 4). The federal government has no authority to depose lawfully elected state governments and rule by military government or martial law. Lincoln also would have had to answer whether there is constitutional authority for a president—on his sole initiative—to declare war without the consent of Congress. Of course, he has none, as the Constitution thankfully reserves this power to Congress (Article I, Section 8). Lincoln knew better. He was a successful attorney and knew better than most when he had no case. If Lincoln thought he had had a case against secession, he would have had his attorney general file a suit in the Supreme Court to disband the sovereignty conventions meeting in Richmond (right under the federal government's nose) and Little Rock. If Lincoln thought these conventions were illegal, lie would have had a duty to oppose them. Lincoln's silence on these two conventions speaks volumes.


  10. Lincoln's Proclamation for Troops, States of the Upper South

    On April 15, 1861, six weeks to the day after Lincoln uttered the "no invasion, no using of force" pledge, he issued a call for seventy- five thousand troops for a ninety-day duration to invade the South and put down what he considered insurrection. There was no corresponding announcement by Davis to invade the North, depose Lincoln, or interfere with the operation of the federal government among the states that chose to participate in it. The call for troops stunned the "holdout" states of Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina, Arkansas, and the "border" states of Kentucky, Missouri, and Maryland. There is no parallel in American history that is even close to an official request by the president of the United States to the duly elected governors of the states requesting they furnish troops to invade and conquer a group of states.

    The governors of six of seven holdout and border states immediately refused to provide Lincoln with troops. Only in Maryland where the ability to resist the Lincoln government was the most impaired by geography and the presence of the U.S. Navy Academy, was there any semblance of support and even then the Maryland support was equivocal at best.

    During the debate of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution seventy years earlier, James Madison in "Federalist No. 46," addressed precisely the scenario of the use of force by the federal government against a state or a group of states. This issue was raised during the ratification debate in New York state, but Madison dismissed it as a "madness" that could never come to pass.


    BTW, up until this point, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas had elected to stay in the Union as only the seven gulf states had seceded. This outrageous call for troops by Lincoln is what induced these additional four states to secede. Kentucky, Missouri and Maryland would have probably seceded too if they hadn't been captured right away.

  11. I finally understand Jerry Wolfgang. Slavery in the North was legal. Secession was not.

    Up to one thousand slaves were used in 1862 to rush completion of Fort Pickering. an earthwork used to guard land approaches to the key commerce center of Memphis. Tennessee. It wasn't Confederate forces that compelled the slaves to labor, it was General Sherman. Within days of taking command in Memphis in the summer of 1862, Sherman had 750 slaves working on the fort. And what was Sherman's contribution in Memphis to the war contemporary Lincoln scholars proclaim a war of racial justice? It was to "establish rules for slave labor" in order to hurry completion of Fort Pickering which had been started by Grant. In fact, Sherman "required accurate book-keeping on the use of slaves for later payment to loyal slaveholders." Sherman "placed the slaves under his jurisdiction at work on Fort Pickering, and soon had a thousand working there, another two hundred working for the quartermaster on the levee and three hundred to four hundred as teamsters and cooks in the regiments."


  12. Expulsion of Jews from Paducah and Other Anti-Semitic Actions,
    December 1862

    The store of the expulsion of the Paducah Jews from their homes is a dark, bizarre moment in American history, one that is almost completely unknown n outside the Jewish community. The fact that the U.S. Army conducted its own form of pogrom right here on American soil, speaks volumes on the extent of ignorance about the atrocities that took place during the Civil War.

    The United States government needed cotton during the war for uniforms, blankets, canvas, and other items. THE LINCOLN ADMINISTRATION DECIDED TO PERMIT TRADE WITH THE SOUTH THROUGH TRADING LICENSES THAT WERE ISSUED AND REGULATED BY THE TREASURY AND WAR DEPARTMENTS. Much of this regulated trade occurred in and around Memphis and fell under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army in June 1862. Naturally, some of the trade was conducted illegally, without license or official government sanction.

    There are many references to cotton traders making a fortune during the war, some of whom were Jewish. One such cotton trader was Jesse Grant, father of the general. Jesse Grant signed a contract in December 1, 1862 with three prominent Jewish brothers from Cincinnati, Harmon, Henry, and Simon Mack. The elder Grant promised to use his influence with his son to obtain a permit that would allow the Macks to trade with the Southern states.'" Even Lincoln knew something of the extent of the black market. He wrote to a friend, "The army itself is diverted from fighting the rebels to speculating in cotton."^ Indeed, Gen. Stephen A. Hurlbut "participated in the smuggling himself once he was appointed post commander in Memphis. He "then blamed Jewish merchants for the entire problem."******

    What we know is that Grant issued his infamous General Orders No. 11, December 17, 1862, from the field in Holly Springs back to his headquarters in Paducah. By the terms of this order, all Jews in his military district (northern Mississippi, West Tennessee, and western Kentucky) were to be expelled on twenty-four-hour notice.

    The order read:

    "The Jews, as a class violating every regulation of trade established by the Treasury Department and also department orders, are hereby expelled from the department within twenty-four hours from the receipt of this order. Post commanders will see that all of this class of people be furnished passes and required to leave, and any one returning after such notification will be arrested and held in confinement until an opportunity occurs of sending them out as prisoners, unless furnished with permit from headquarters. No passes will be given these people to visit headquarters for the purpose of making personal application for trade permits."

  13. The order was issued under Grant's authority by his adjutant, John A. Rawlings, who was a lieutenant colonel at the time. It was preceded by two other orders on subsequent days in November 1(S62 aimed at the Jews. From LaGrange, Tennessee, on November 9, Grant sent this order to General Hurlbut in Jackson, Tennessee, "Refuse all permits to come south of Jackson for the present. The Israelites especially should be kept out." The next day, Grant sent this order to General Webster also in Jackson, "Give orders to all the conductors on the road that no Jews are to be permitted to travel on the railroad southward from any point. They may go north and be encouraged in it; but they are such an intolerable nuisance that the department must be purged of them."

    Once issued, Order No. 11 was immediately executed in Paducah, Holly Springs, and Oxford, Mississippi, where Jewish soldiers under Grant's command were stationed. The order prompted the resignation in the field of a Jewish officer, Capt. Phillip Trounstine of Ohio. Trounstine's letter of resignation cited as cause of his resignation, among other things, "the taunts and malice, of those to whom my religious opinions are known, brought on by the effect that [General Order No. 11] has instilled into their minds."

    In Paducah, thirty Jewish men and their families were rounded up and hurriedly sent upriver to Cincinnati. Rabbi Bertram W. Korn says in his American Jewry and the Civil War that only two Jews were left behind. "Two dying women [were] permitted to remain behind in neighbors' care." Two of the Jewish men expelled with this group had already served enlistments in the U.S. Army."

    Historian John E. L. Robertson says the oral history of the contemporary Paducah Jewish community holds that the U.S. Army searched every house looking for Jews. Some were hidden by citizens during the searches.


  14. To rephrase this post's title: Is Jerry Wolfgang an Apologist for Dictators?

  15. Now that we've learned some of the fun the Union soldiers had in the South, does anyone want to join me in seeking a ban on the Columbus Blue Jackets hockey team?

    Like the ban on South Carolina and Mississippi for flying the rebel flag:

  16. Dont know about Ron Paul, but I'm an apologist to all those around the world killed by US government bombs, oppressed by US government puppets and otherwise injured by US government operations. The statists in Washington and its corporate media shills want to make the debate about defending the enemies of "America"- if you dont support the wishes of the CFR, then you love the Putin, the Mullahs, etc.. While none of us would likely want to live in Putin's Russia, I am always pleased to see someone stand up to US govt, Inc.. These people get away with murder, all while staking out the moral high ground!