<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Neocons Should Read Some Calhoun</title>
	<atom:link href="http://toryanarchist.com/2007/03/30/neocons-should-read-some-calhoun/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://toryanarchist.com/2007/03/30/neocons-should-read-some-calhoun/</link>
	<description>www.ToryAnarchist.com</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2008 20:15:19 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Tomasz</title>
		<link>http://toryanarchist.com/2007/03/30/neocons-should-read-some-calhoun/#comment-1206</link>
		<dc:creator>Tomasz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 31 Mar 2007 06:50:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://toryanarchist.wordpress.com/2007/03/30/neocons-should-read-some-calhoun/#comment-1206</guid>
		<description>&lt;a HREF="http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo90.html" rel="nofollow"&gt;Thomas DiLorenzo&lt;/A&gt; also commented on the Boot vs Woods on Calhoun.

&lt;i&gt;"Neocons like Max Boot typically know absolutely nothing about Calhoun; they merely denounce him as "pro-slavery," implying that we should therefore ignore everything the man ever said. By that standard, we should also ignore everything Abraham Lincoln ever said. In his famous Cooper Union speech he denied that southern slavery should be ended because, he said, it exists. (What moral clarity). In his first inaugural address he pledged his support for a constitutional amendment that had just passed the senate that would have prohibited the federal government from ever interfering in southern slavery. He thus defended slavery much more so than Calhoun ever did, doing so as the president of the United States. Max Boot is not one to let such facts get in his way."&lt;/i&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a HREF="http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo90.html" rel="nofollow">Thomas DiLorenzo</a> also commented on the Boot vs Woods on Calhoun.</p>
<p><i>&#8220;Neocons like Max Boot typically know absolutely nothing about Calhoun; they merely denounce him as &#8220;pro-slavery,&#8221; implying that we should therefore ignore everything the man ever said. By that standard, we should also ignore everything Abraham Lincoln ever said. In his famous Cooper Union speech he denied that southern slavery should be ended because, he said, it exists. (What moral clarity). In his first inaugural address he pledged his support for a constitutional amendment that had just passed the senate that would have prohibited the federal government from ever interfering in southern slavery. He thus defended slavery much more so than Calhoun ever did, doing so as the president of the United States. Max Boot is not one to let such facts get in his way.&#8221;</i></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Gordon</title>
		<link>http://toryanarchist.com/2007/03/30/neocons-should-read-some-calhoun/#comment-1207</link>
		<dc:creator>David Gordon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 31 Mar 2007 01:38:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://toryanarchist.wordpress.com/2007/03/30/neocons-should-read-some-calhoun/#comment-1207</guid>
		<description>The eminent neocon Robert Kagan, in his Dangerous Nation, ascribes Calhoun's opposition to a messianic foreign policy to his fear that this could lead to interference with  Southern slavery. I wonder whether he would consider Viereck soft on slavery for quoting Calhoun with favor.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The eminent neocon Robert Kagan, in his Dangerous Nation, ascribes Calhoun&#8217;s opposition to a messianic foreign policy to his fear that this could lead to interference with  Southern slavery. I wonder whether he would consider Viereck soft on slavery for quoting Calhoun with favor.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tim</title>
		<link>http://toryanarchist.com/2007/03/30/neocons-should-read-some-calhoun/#comment-1209</link>
		<dc:creator>Tim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Mar 2007 12:36:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://toryanarchist.wordpress.com/2007/03/30/neocons-should-read-some-calhoun/#comment-1209</guid>
		<description>p.s. I meant to close of the italics after "...Thomas Jefferson..." The last para is not from the Woods quote.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>p.s. I meant to close of the italics after &#8220;&#8230;Thomas Jefferson&#8230;&#8221; The last para is not from the Woods quote.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tim</title>
		<link>http://toryanarchist.com/2007/03/30/neocons-should-read-some-calhoun/#comment-1208</link>
		<dc:creator>Tim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Mar 2007 12:33:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://toryanarchist.wordpress.com/2007/03/30/neocons-should-read-some-calhoun/#comment-1208</guid>
		<description>Maybe neocons &lt;i&gt;should&lt;/i&gt; read Calhoun, but my guess is they probably won't. Any local or foreign entity that fails to reflect the glory of the US federal government is  on the target list.

It was interesting to read &lt;i&gt;The Weekly Standard&lt;/i&gt;'s review of Thomas Wood's &lt;i&gt;Politically Incorrect Guide to American History&lt;/i&gt; by Max Boot.  (See &lt;a HREF="http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=5246&#38;R=EBF7EA" rel="nofollow"&gt;here&lt;/A&gt;). I always thought Max Boot would have been a more appropriate name foe a WWF wrestler than a political columnist, but let's leave that  to rest.

Talking about nullification, Bootus Maximus said "&lt;i&gt;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."&lt;/i&gt;

So in neocon-land Calhoun is just a pro-slavery politician. I suppose George Washington is next.

In &lt;a HREF="http://www.amconmag.com/2005_03_28/article2.html" rel="nofollow"&gt;Amconmag&lt;/A&gt; Woodsie replied thus:

&lt;i&gt;"...What my book actually says is that important early Americans held the view that the states could refuse to enforce unconstitutional federal legislation and that both North and South had recourse to this mechanism at one time or another during the 19th century. As for relying “mainly” on Calhoun, in an 11-page chapter on the subject my discussion of Calhoun amounts to half a page. My main source, in fact, is Thomas Jefferson..."&lt;/A&gt;

So maybe the neocons' should be reading some Jefferson. Of course, neocon-ism is at heart anti-Jeffersonian to it's core. That's their true compass.

As for myself I'd be as happy as a pig in something if they merely settled for some &lt;a HREF="http://www.cmgww.com/historic/rogers/index.php" rel="nofollow"&gt;Will Rogers&lt;/A&gt;. &lt;i&gt;"“When you get into trouble 5000 miles from home, you’ve got to have been looking for it"&lt;/i&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Maybe neocons <i>should</i> read Calhoun, but my guess is they probably won&#8217;t. Any local or foreign entity that fails to reflect the glory of the US federal government is  on the target list.</p>
<p>It was interesting to read <i>The Weekly Standard</i>&#8217;s review of Thomas Wood&#8217;s <i>Politically Incorrect Guide to American History</i> by Max Boot.  (See <a HREF="http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=5246&amp;R=EBF7EA" rel="nofollow">here</a>). I always thought Max Boot would have been a more appropriate name foe a WWF wrestler than a political columnist, but let&#8217;s leave that  to rest.</p>
<p>Talking about nullification, Bootus Maximus said &#8220;<i>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&#8217;t like or even to secede. &#8220;There is, obviously, no provision in the Constitution that explicitly authorizes nullification,&#8221; 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.&#8221;</i></p>
<p>So in neocon-land Calhoun is just a pro-slavery politician. I suppose George Washington is next.</p>
<p>In <a HREF="http://www.amconmag.com/2005_03_28/article2.html" rel="nofollow">Amconmag</a> Woodsie replied thus:</p>
<p><i>&#8220;&#8230;What my book actually says is that important early Americans held the view that the states could refuse to enforce unconstitutional federal legislation and that both North and South had recourse to this mechanism at one time or another during the 19th century. As for relying “mainly” on Calhoun, in an 11-page chapter on the subject my discussion of Calhoun amounts to half a page. My main source, in fact, is Thomas Jefferson&#8230;&#8221;</p>
<p>So maybe the neocons&#8217; should be reading some Jefferson. Of course, neocon-ism is at heart anti-Jeffersonian to it&#8217;s core. That&#8217;s their true compass.</p>
<p>As for myself I&#8217;d be as happy as a pig in something if they merely settled for some <a HREF="http://www.cmgww.com/historic/rogers/index.php" rel="nofollow">Will Rogers</a>. </i><i>&#8220;“When you get into trouble 5000 miles from home, you’ve got to have been looking for it&#8221;</i></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.270 seconds -->
