THE
RISE AND FALL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
(Litchfield,
CT.: VDARE.com Books, 2018)
by
MICHAEL H. HART
Rev.
by Hugh Murray
This
book is an over-view, a barely filled in outline. Yet, one can learn
from it, especially in areas where one is unfamiliar. Thus, in his
section on America's Golden Age, he lists the many inventions by
Americans, and when some items were not invented here – such as the
automobile, the production process of the assembly line was
streamlined by Henry Ford so that the auto became cheaper and more
accessible to many more people in America than elsewhere. Many of us
are old enough to recall the names of Edison, McCormick, the Wright
Brothers, but text books in modern public schools tend to skip over
such important contributors by Americans to mankind. I wonder if
these inventors are even taught in many public schools today. The
reason their accomplishments are de-emphasized and their names
possibly omitted is because they were mostly white men, and the
educational establishment, infused with multiculturalism and
political correctness, seeks to spotlight the inventions of
minorities and women, even if they be far less consequential.
In
a short summary work, inevitably there will be omissions and
differences of what is important. I will include some of the
statements I found questionable. Hart utterly fails to evaluate the
implications of the Louisiana Purchase.(pp. 57 & 63) To examine
this properly he would have to discuss some ramifications of the
French Revolution, especially the Jacobins, the Rights of Man, and
the push of the French anti-Christian radicals to abolish slavery in
the colony of Haiti, then one of the richest areas of the New World.
With the guillotining of Robespierre, the Jacobin “Reign of Terror”
sliced to a close in France, but in Haiti the Jacobin ideals had
already spread and soon a slave uprising was upon the island.
When
Napoleon rose to become Emperor of France, he dreamt of an empire in
the New World, based in Louisiana (since the conclusion of the 7
Years War, a Spanish colony, but Napoleon had placed one of his
brothers upon the Spanish throne and could easily demand the return
of the large New World territory). However, before such a project
could begin, Napoleon would have to reconquer Haiti from the slaves.
An army of 13,000 French troops was dispatched to the island, but
between warring with the Black slaves, yellow fever and other
tropical diseases, the French Army disintegrated; and it failed to
wrest the island from the slaves.
Thus,
if France could not reconquer an island, how could it establish an
empire in the center of North America? So Napoleon, to prevent
Louisiana from falling to his English rivals in another war, -
Napoleon was willing to sell the whole vast territory to the new
American nation.
The
US bought all of Louisiana; Spain transferred it to the French, who
presented it to the Americans. Hart utterly fails to note another
most salient aspect of this transfer – the US promised not to
mistreat the French colonials. It should be stressed that in 1803,
there was not a single, legal Protestant church in the whole
Louisiana Territory, from New Orleans to Montana, to Minnesota. No
synagogues either. By contrast, the new American states were
overwhelmingly Protestant (even Maryland, originally established for
Catholics, had passed legislation restricting them). At the time of
the purchase, many Americans began moving across the Appalachian
Mountains, and found it necessary to sell their produce down the
rivers, down the Ohio to the Mississippi, and thence to New Orleans.
There, they sold their goods and enjoyed some of the delights of a
different culture. Making matters even more complex, there was a
huge influx of immigrants to New Orleans and Louisiana , but not what
one expected. About a fourth of the New Orleans population was
suddenly composed of refugees, Black and white, from Haiti.
Because
this point is taken for granted, it should be stressed all the more –
at a time when in the Western world there was little to no religious
toleration, America was embarking on a great experiment. Religious
wars had decimated Europe following Luther's nailing his 95 theses to
the church door in 1517. In Europe, nations, provinces, free towns,
cantons, were either Roman Catholic or Protestant. Those who
dissented faced discrimination, or they had to be very discreet, or
in some places, they would be exiled or killed. The Netherlands and
a few other areas were more tolerant, but they were much the
exception; the rule was legal intolerance against religious
minorities. This was true, too, of South and Central America. Even
during the French and Indian War (7 Years War) French colonists from
Acadia (today's Maritime Provinces of Canada) were ethnically
cleansed in the 1750s and distributed among the 13 English colonies.
The French Catholics, treated as a subversive element, disliked this,
and many soon departed for Louisiana (where they became Cajuns). So
even as late as the 1750s, an attempt to have Catholics and
Protestants live together in the soon-to-be American states did not
fare well.
The
Louisiana Purchase nearly doubled the size of the US, and though the
European population of Louisiana was much smaller than that of the
US, it was all Catholic. How would this work out? Once Louisiana
was American territory, Americans came to settle too; Protestants and
even a wealthy Jewish businessman, Judah Touro. So began the
experiment – unusual for that era – of trying to have Protestants
and Catholics (and others) live in relative harmony.
Of
course, there was natural friction among many different groups, and
elsewhere the religious differences had caused injury, death, and
wars. Even in 1950s New Orleans, I recall being teased by other
neighborhood kids because I attended public rather than Catholic
school. In that same era, in most of the South, the Bible Belt,
Catholics endured a suspicious, minority status. But the thrust of
American history was to overcome religious prejudice. Staunch
Protestant Andrew Jackson asked for the help of all New Orleanians in
winter 1814-15, as the British prepared to capture the city, and
Jackson received the help, even from the Ursuline nuns. A few
decades later, as President of the US, Jackson appointed the first
Roman Catholic to his Cabinet, and later appointed Catholic Roger
Taney to be Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court. A short time
after, the State of Louisiana elected Judah Benjamin, the first
practicing Jew, to the US Senate. In the early 1860s Benjamin would
serve several positions in the Cabinet of Pres. Jefferson Davis of
the CSA. The Irish fleeing the famine of the 1840s came to the US,
but they tended to be poorer, remained in cities rather than
purchasing lands to farm, and quickly became known for drinking. In
the North, they tended to support the Democrats, and some Irish
perceived the possibility of abolition of slavery as a threat to
their status and jobs. Some partook in the NYC anti-draft (and
anti-Black) riots during the Civil War. In time, the Irish generally
assimilated; to be followed by other immigrants – many of whom were
Catholic. The Italian immigrants were often poor too, from Sicily
and southern Italy. There were accusations about a “Black Hand”
secret society (probably Mafia) that roused such hostility that in
New Orleans 7 Italians were lynched in the 1890s. However, by the
mid-20th century, entertainers Bing Crosby (Irish) might
sing White Christmas compoased by Irving Berlin (Jewish), while Frank
Sinatra (Italian) and Louis Armstrong (Black) waited to appear next
on stage. All were popular. Surely, in having 2 very powerful
religious groups live in relative peace for so long over a continent
is a great accomplishment of the United States.
Hart
raises a point not usually considered – in most of the Spanish
colonies, gradual emancipation of the slaves allowed them to achieve
full freedom with less bloodshed and before Lincoln's Emancipation
Proclamation.(64) But what Hart asserts about the Spanish, was also
achieved in America's North. Originally, all the English colonies
permitted slavery. With the American Revolution, and passage of the
Northwest Ordinance, and then some states enacted immediate or
gradual abolition, and by 1860, slavery, without bloodshed, had been
abolished in the North. However, 80% of the Blacks resided in the
South, and most were slaves; abolition was not debatable in the
South. Indeed, many Southerners sought to expand slavery, not only
to the North, but to Cuba and possibly parts of Central America.
Lincoln completely rejected those Southern demands, and bloodshed on
a massive scale did ensue. So did Northern victory and Emancipation.
Portuguese Brazil did not free its slaves until some 2 decades after
Lincoln.
In
a short paragraph Hart presents a good defense of Pres. Buchanan who
was a lame-duck Commander-in-Chief when some southern states began to
secede.(50-51) His assessment of Lincoln is also concise and
accurate.(77-78)
Hart
summarizes the achievement of the US during its Golden Age: “During
that interval the United States stood out for its wealth, for its
military might, and for its unprecedented set of practical inventions
and scientific discoveries. We became a beacon of freedom ... In
addition, we defeated or outlasted two of the most powerful menacing
tyrannies in history...
“Our
skyscrapers and superhighways impressed even our adversaries, and
they were widely copied. Our music and our motion pictures were
wildly popular: not just locally, but in many foreign countries as
well. Sports that had originated in the United States – such as
basketball, volleyball, and baseball - spread to many other
countries. Never in history has a single country so dominated the
world on so many different levels.”(82) Incredibly, when Hart
discusses culture in American, he neglects to mention jazz!
Why
was the US so inventive? Hart posits: patent laws favored inventors,
free market economy, low taxes, few regulations, and a large
territory and large population in a single custom union.(94)
Hart
contends that FDR won his 4th term in office in 1944
because his doctor “deliberately lied to the press and public
concerning Roosevelt's poor health.”(129) But is this not what
personal physicians of politicians are expected to do? Did JFK's
doctor tell the public about the young senator's many infirmaries and
the “pain killers” he was taking? Or did Bill Clinton's private
physician reveal any previous STDs of the young candidate for the
presidency? We know what happened when Democratic Party nominee for
president in 1972, George McGovern's running mate, Missouri Sen.
Thomas Eagleton, revealed he had undergone electric shock treatment
for depression. McGovern initially backed Eagleton 1,000% when the
Missourian's medical history came to light, but the media and
opponents joked about a nut occupying the White House, and McGovern
quickly replaced his vice-presidential running mate. Dropping
Eagleton from the ticket did not help McGovern, for he lost 49 of the
50 states to Republican Richard Nixon.
Hart
writes that JFK strongly supported civil rights legislation “at
that time.”(147) The phrase is ambiguous – Kennedy did little
for such legislation during his first 2 years in office, and even
during the March on Washington in 1963, he would not have pressed for
legislation as far-reaching as that eventually passed after his
assassination. Indeed, some contend it was Kennedy's assassination
that finally assured passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Hart
follows the official line in identifying Lee Harvey Oswald as
Kennedy's assassin,(174) though, even with the US intelligence
agencies' continued determination to prevent release of files on the
murder after all these years, I think enough has been revealed so
that we can conclude that a plot resulted in the assassination of JFK
in Dallas.
Hart's
most controversial statement, and one which infuses his work is “By
1972 all legal restriction on blacks had been eliminated. But
average black income and wealth was still low, and has remained much
lower than whites. Liberals usually assert that this is entirely due
to white racism; but it seems far more probable that it is due in
significant part to the many lower average natural intelligence of
blacks.”(149) Scientifically, this may, or may not be the case.
However, since the mid-1960s the media have encouraged Blacks to act
and be “angry.” Who would want to interview a Black nerd – or
a white one, for that matter? Erkel was good for laughs, but not to
be imitated. Black Panthers with their weapons, Leroy Jones, Angela
Davis, H. Rap Brown, et al,…, showed the model for the New Blacks,
angry, violent if necessary, and defenders always found it necessary.
For the leaders, it may have been posturing, theater, but for many,
violence was not merely verbal. Even before he was assassinated,
Martin Luther King was mocked by the militant Blacks, with the
support of white radicals and the media. Malcolm X, who had been
assassinated by Black Muslims in 1965, was hoisted as the new model.
The pictures of Martin Luther King, with his advocacy of
non-violence, had almost faded to white when his murder resurrected
his reputation as martyr. The riots throughout American cities in
the wake of King's killing shattered the American image round the
world. LBJ chose not to run for re-election; the Democrats lost
nearly 10 million votes to segregationist candidate Alabama's George
Wallace. Nixon's law and order campaign squeaked through over Hubert
Humphrey's waffling over Vietnam, race, and most issues. Four years
later Nixon carried 49 of 50 states.
Hart
provides evidence of America's decline: we don't win wars any more
(207), the end of free speech (208), rejection of the presumption of
innocent until proven guilty (210), quotas, diversity, and
presidential over-reach (212). And the most important causes of the
decline – racial antagonism (221) and our loss of price and
confidence (236).
In
his last chapters Hart outlines possible (often improbable) ways in
which America can fall – military defeat, division on racial lines,
ethnic lines, political lines, absorption into larger units – North
America, an Anglo-sphere, world government, etc. Few people
predicted the collapse of the USSR and its east European satellite
states. Of course, Communist Parties continue to rule in China,
North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, and there are wannabe “socialist”
states like Venezuela and some African nations. Yet, the most
Stalinist of all these, North Korea is now engaged Ina strange dance
with Donald Trump's America.
And
the latter is a major factor not considered by Hart. The people of
Rome, slowly, changed their empire, denying their gods, spurning
their sports, rejecting their traditions to adopt an alien religion
from the Middle East that elevated a convicted criminal to godhood.
In the decisive military battle of that Roman civil war between
tradition and the new, the defender of the new religion defeated the
old, and rather quickly, the Roman Empire emerged as a Christian
Empire. Constantine's empire resembled the old Roman one less and
less. Part of the “Roman” Empire in the West would disintegrate
in a century, but the eastern part would endure as a Christian empire
for a millennium until 1453 AD.
The
people of America still have a say in whether our nation lives or
dies or morphs into something detached from our history. There are
forces today that seek to destroy our traditional past, like the Red
Guard of China's Cultural Revolution, statues of Robert E. Lee and P.
T. G. Beauregard are removed, but founders of this nation Thomas
Jefferson and George Washington are also under attack, and the man
who most made this enterprise possible, Christopher Columbus, is
often denounced. Many do want to rip America from its wonderful
history. This is why the election of Donald Trump was so crucial,
especially with his slogans – America First (a phrase repellent to
liberals), Make America Great Again, build a wall (to prevent further
invasion). The “deplorables” still have a voice and may be able
to restore faith and pride in America, and end racial, ethnic, and
sexual quotas, destroy diversity (anti-white discrimination), and
treat all citizens equally, hiring and promoting the best qualified
candidates to make America more inventive, more productive, more
powerful; in sum, to make America great again. America can climb up
from our fall, 1965-2016, ready to rise and soar again.