Every now and then, an establishment historian gets something right without knowing it.

It’s almost shocking.

Take for example a new book by David Thomson, Bonds of War.

Thomson has not sympathy for the South or for “Lost Cause mythology.” He is as establishment as it gets.

Yet, Bonds of War surprisingly shows that the main objective of the War in 1861 was anything but ending the institution of slavery. Even the ardent anti-slavery men in the Republican Party saw the conflict as a way to “nationalize” everything.

That started with the American economy.

You see, as Thomson shows, men like John Sherman (Willy T.’s big brother), considered federalism to be a hindrance to good government. State banks fell into that category.

If we were at war, then why not win the war by making it impossible for any State to oppose central authority again?

The much castigated “Dunning School” had it right all along. “Reconstruction” began as early as 1862, and it was far more comprehensive than race and slavery.

Eric Foner and Kenneth Stampp have done great damage to our understanding of the past. By centering the War and Reconstruction solely on race and slavery, they have created the “Afrocentric” myth of the United States. Everything wasn’t about race. And you should follow the money.

This doesn’t mean that it was a “rich man’s war” in either case. Northerners banked a lot of dough during the war through tariffs–see Thad Stevens–but even the average Northerner was able to buy war bonds. Thus, financing the war effort became the responsibility of even the most common Northern citizen.

I guess dying wasn’t enough.

This model became the blueprint for future American wars.

And because the Republicans “nationalized” everything, they “recreated” America rather than restoring the Union.

Thomson did not plan this, but he has inadvertently upended the “righteous cause myth.”

He just hopes his establishment historian speak allows him to continue in the club.

I discuss Thomson’s book and Reconstruction on episode 610 of The Brion McClanahan Show.

One common narrative from establishment hacks, I mean historians, involves the term “State’s rights.” You see, to these dopes, the South invented State’s rights as a convenient way to enforce “white supremacy.” They insist no one was talking about it before slavery became an issue in American political life.

That would mean that the term was never uttered by anyone except proslavery and segregationist Southerners in the 1850s and 1950s.

In other words, the “compact theory” of the Constitution was just that, a theory, that not even Jefferson really believed.

Except we know this isn’t true. The Constitution would not have been ratified without an express protection of “State’s rights.” See my Originalist Papers course at McClanahan Academy–discount below.

And long before slavery became “the issue” according to the narrow minded fools who run university history departments, men like John Taylor of Caroline were actually using the term–in the 1820s.

Now the establishment would insist that slavery was “the issue” back then as well, as the tariff squabbles were simply a cover for Southern defense of the institution.

That argument has more holes than Swiss cheese, but William Freehling’s book on the subject is often used as the definitive study. It shouldn’t be.

Either way, it’s important review Taylor’s use of the term and why he emphasized “State’s rights” in 1822. It begins with a “t” and ends with an “f”.

If you’ve never heard this before, I discuss Taylor, State’s rights, and the tariff on episode 604 of The Brion McClanahan Show.

The historical profession has a tendency to hide behind a supposed veil of objectivity.

Kind of like Yankees have a treasury of virtue.

Establishment hacks believe that a publication with a university press–“peer reviewed”–gives them a badge of trust. You see, these people believe this validates their work.

Except it just means that they sent it to a few people in the field and asked them to give some suggestions on the merits of the work. Most of them don’t know much about the subject and don’t take the time to read it carefully, and those that do and provide critical commentary, particularly if that commentary destroys the work in question, are ignored.

And trust me, most professional historians aren’t worth the title. I remember several who attended graduate school at USC, many of whom are now tenured professors, being absolutely worthless when it came to primary (and sometimes secondary) research.

History books written by these dopes often include unsubstantiated commentary, meaning we get to read polemics based on their own opinions of the subject.

It can be subtle, for example using the term “enslaved” instead of “slaves,” or a description of the Confederacy as a “government established to maintain white supremacy” as a description of the C.S.A.

I’ll review one of these books in the next week or so, but this problem isn’t new.

In fact, history has always been biased. The problem is that most people don’t know this, and current woke fools think that this is a recent development by “white supremacists” while ignoring their own biases.

I discuss one of the best books on the subject on Episode 603 of The Brion McClanahan Show.

Saying “Conservatives don’t conserve anything” has become a cliche in modern American political discourse.

The evidence is overwhelming.

Much of this is the result of American conservatives believing the Republican Party has a spine or that as an organization is has any interest in fundamental American conservative principles.

Judging by their actions, they might as well claim to be the 19th century progressives they champion.

In other words, American “conservatism” generally died at Appomattox.

It could still be found among some Americans well into the 20th century, and indeed among a few politicos in the 21st, but most have been so brainwashed into believing that Lincoln or Douglass or some other reformer from the 1850s was a conservative that Republican dopes often parrot stupid talking points like “Democrats insisted on slavery while Republicans were the real conservatives who opposed slavery.”

You can thank Harry Jaffa for this insanity.

That is why I called these fools out last year in Chronicles and why I liked this piece in the same magazine from November 2021.

You need to read it, but if you want my position on its merits and arguments, I made it the basis of episode 602 of The Brion McClanahan Show.

Most American wars have been started based on a lie.

James K. Polk lied that “American blood had been shed on American soil,” and the United States Congress declared war on Mexico.

Abraham Lincoln lied that secession was illegal and that the Southern States were in “rebellion.” He called up 75,000 volunteers to “save the Union” and launched the bloodiest war in American history.

Republicans in 1896 lied that the Spanish blew up the U.S.S. Maine, and Congress declared war on Spain, bringing the United States an overseas empire.

Woodrow Wilson lied about making the world “safe for democracy” and got over 100,000 Americans killed on the Western Front.

Franklin Roosevelt lied that the attack at Pearl Harbor was a “surprise,” and the United States entered World War II.

Harry Truman lied about a communist North Korean threat in 1950, and tens of thousands of Americans died in one of the bloodiest forgotten wars in American history.

Lyndon Johnson lied about a North Vietnamese attack in the Gulf of Tonkin and led the United States into one of its longest wars.

George W. Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction and American soldiers were forced to “liberate” Iraq.

As Elle Reynolds points out at a piece at the Federalist, what makes anyone think the press and the government wouldn’t lie about another war?

They would, which is why everyone should be cautious about the current mess in Europe.

I discuss lies that led to war on episode 601 of The Brion McClanahan Show.

World War I is the gift that keeps on giving. Or is it World War II? Or perhaps the Cold War?

Several “lawmakers” have urged President Biden to invoke “Cold War powers” to nationalize the economy and stop soaring energy prices.

I’ve read the Constitution hundreds of times, and I have yet to find the “Cold War powers” clause in the document.

Of course, these “powers” aren’t really from the Cold War. Woodrow Wilson started that engine during World War I by asking Congress to give him the power to do things like nationalize the railway industry.

Congress found it, just as Hamilton found the power to incorporate a bank in 1791.

John C. Calhoun thought anything was constitutional as long as Congress said it was. He didn’t agree with this position, but if it had the power to create an oppressive protective tariff, it had the power to do anything it wanted.

In other words, he knew the Constitution was nothing more than a scrap of paper without any power unless “lawmakers” adhered to the document.

Nancy Pelosi’s incredulous response several years ago when asked if Obamacare was constitutional is what Calhoun predicted in 1837.

Of course Obamacare is constitutional. Congress said it was.

Kind of like “Cold War powers.” We’ve been living in a wartime economy since 1933. No one notices because we’ve become so accustomed to the nonsense.

Or maybe Americans just really like big government. It seems so when “your guy” is in power.

Joe Biden is a symptom of the disease, not the disease itself. The faster Americans wake up to this reality, the faster we can get on to “thinking locally and acting locally.”

This doesn’t mean the “lawmakers” in Washington won’t affect your wallet or our lives. They will, but local action can blunt the blade of centralization.

And the dirty little secret is that States have tremendous powers at their disposal.

I discuss this latest attempt to “nationalize” the economy on episode 598 of The Brion McClanahan Show.

If Hollywood is a problem for an accurate portrayal of the South, don’t count on “conservative” academics to save the day.

Take Allen Guelzo for example.

He was hired a Princeton a few years ago to “balance” the history department. In other words, Guelzo is the token “conservative” on staff.

Except he agrees with his leftist colleagues on one fundamental point: the United States is a “proposition nation” where all men are created equal.

And Abraham Lincoln should be worshiped.

He recently appeared on the History Channel Lincoln extravaganza produced by the plagiarist Dorris Kearns Goodwin featuring every leftist you can name, including Barack Obama.

They are his people.

Guelzo attempted to refute the much maligned 1619 Project a couple of years ago by writing a rejoinder littered with his own misconceptions and fabrications of American history.

You can’t refute lies with lies.

In fact, I would argue that Nikole Hannah-Jones has a better grasp of the proposition nation myth than Guelzo, for if Guelzo is correct that the United States was founded on an idea–equality–then Hannah-Jones and every other progressive nincompoop are perfectly justified by arguing that we’ve never lived up to that lofty standard and every founder should be condemned for being a “racist.”

Guelzo attempts to wiggle around the issue by arguing that they did the best they could for the time and eventually abolished slavery by subjugating evil proto-fascist Southererns.

The left doesn’t care. That’s the problem. Guelzo is just adding fuel to the fire.

You can’t extinguish this five alarm blaze by saying, “Well, you’re right, these people were racist, but these people were less racist, and these people, while racist, were interested in ending slavery and saving the day.”

The left’s response will always be: “Ok, so you admit they’re racist. Cancel them.”

As I’ve said countless times, we’re playing two different games on two different fields by two different rules.

The proper response should be, “So what?”

Regardless, there’s much more to his essay that made me laugh out loud, so I made it the focus of Episode 595 of The Brion McClanahan Show.

Hollywood never gets the South right.

This is mostly because they have a conception of the South built by sensationalized television coverage and an establishment education system that has been openly hostile to the region for half a century, particularly in the universities.

Or maybe it was just because of George Wallace.

Take Forrest Gump, for example. If you watched that movie, you would think that Southerners are the most idiotic people in America.

The movie has its funny moments, and it is a nice love story with a tragic character in Jenny (who is more of an indictment of the 1960s than anything else), but regardless, most people outside of Dixie view Southerners as Forrest Gump clones.

And then there’s Driving Miss Daisy, a movie packaged as a charming story of friendship in a difficult time in American history.

Paul Gottfried blasts holes in the entire narrative.

This piggybacks nicely with what I said yesterday about the Confederacy and Nazis. According to Hollywood, every Southerner in the 1950s hated Jews and wanted to lynch blacks.

That isn’t remotely true. Martin Luther King wrote his letter from a Birmingham jail because most Southerners were moderates, meaning they did not think much about segregation or integration or the Civil Rights movement.

Remember, an all white jury in Alabama failed to convict King on tax fraud. According the Hollywood narrative, that would never happen.

Except white and black Southerners had more contact on a daily basis than most people realize. In fact, most Northerners had very little contact on a regular basis with anyone who wasn’t a white Christian. That wasn’t true in the South.

But you would think so if you watched most mainstream films.

I discuss Gottfried’s article and Driving Miss Daisy on Episode 584 of The Brion McClanahan Show.

You’ve probably seen this stupid argument before: The Confederacy was a proto-fascist society

Moreover, John C. Calhoun was the precursor to Hitler.

It’s not just leftist dopes who come up with this nonsense. Neoconservatives like to spout this stupidity and even some non-Straussian conservatives have been fooled into becoming American Nazis because they believe it, too.

This is the problem with American education. It produces a host of fools.

You know who wouldn’t have been a Nazi? John C. Calhoun.

You know who else? Just about anyone who fought for the Confederacy.

You know what is the opposite of fascism? The Southern tradition.

As Richard Weaver pointed out, the South was the first to reject fascism because it was the enemy of tradition. Why? Because fascism needs a centralized State to work, and Southerners correctly realized that centralization does not allow traditions–real, tangible community driven traditions–to exist.

It is a bulldozer and the end result is the messianic mob worship of a single individual and the State, i.e. Hitler.

Nothing like this happened in the South between 1861-1865, and no Southern leader who fought for independence sought this kind of attention when the war was over. Southerners–nay, all Americans by the 1880s–admired Lee because of his character and devotion to a cause, not because he wanted power.

The tradition would not allow it.

The Nazi’s professed to admire “traditions” but real aristocratic Germans often opposed Hitler. They knew he was the enemy to traditional Germany. See Claus von Stauffenberg for example.

And don’t forget that European soil is littered with Southerners who fought against Nazis, many while carrying Confederate flags.

As Clyde Wilson points out in this great piece, Lincoln’s North is more accurately proto-Nazi that Davis’s South.

This had to be said, and I discuss the issue on Episode 593 of The Brion McClanahan Show.