• "Well written, well researched, and the thesis put forth is well argued.... Woods has opened up an area of historical analysis that should invite further study."
    -Journal of American History

  • "During these times that challenge our freedoms there is no one more qualified to make U.S. history relevant to the fight against big government than Thomas Woods."
    -Barry Goldwater Jr.
    Former Member of Congress

  • "I strongly recommend Woods's work."
    -The Honorable Ron Paul,
    U.S. House of Representatives

  • "Written with great clarity and fluency, making the complex philosophical and theological concepts approachable."
    -Journal of American Studies

  • "A must-read."
    -Barron's

  • "An excellent reading source for anyone interested in financial markets, and much more so for anyone interested in learning about capitalism without all the misinterpretations being thrown about in the financial media."
    -Asia Times

  • "Provocative, well-written, and deserves to be read."
    -Catholic Historical Review

  • "An engaging and important contribution to scholarship on the history of American Catholicism."
    -Journal of the Historical Society

  • "Woods and [co-author Kevin] Gutzman appeal to both left and right in this constitutionalist jeremiad…. The authors' exegeses of the Constitution and court decisions, heavy on original intent arguments, are lucid and telling."
    -Publishers Weekly

  • "A marvelous read. Every chapter taught me something new and unexpected."
    -Tom Bethell, senior editor,
    The American Spectator

  • "The hottest book today is Meltdown, by my friend Tom Woods."
    -Judge Andrew Napolitano, senior judicial analyst,
    FOX News Channel

  • "Should be required reading."
    -Economic Affairs (London)

  • "Woods, one of the best classical liberal [libertarian] scholars of his generation, has once more placed us in his debt with this lucid and tightly argued book."
    -David Gordon, The Mises Review

  • "Tom Woods is one of my dearest allies in the struggle against wrong-headed and dangerous economic policy."
    -Peter Schiff

A Wikipedia Assignment for You Guys

A reader writes:

Have you seen the Wikipedia article on the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions? There are a lot of comments there from court historians about how awful they were, with no corresponding balance from others. I know you are busy but maybe you can pass this to someone who has the resources to revise it. Unfortunately I am not competent to do the job myself. The article about Alien and Sedition Acts contains the same boilerplate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_and_Virginia_Resolutions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_Act_of_1798

Unlearn the Propaganda!

  • http://twitter.com/KeimgMeg Keimh3reg Peh2u Meg

    Tom. I’m thumbing through my copy of Nullification right now. Great read by the way.

  • Joshua Williams
  • Arash

    On the current Wikipedia page it would seem that George Washington was greatly opposed to nullification. Is that true? I don’t understand why… I thought Washington was opposed to big government and tyranny. Was it because he was so heavily influenced by Hamilton?

    Also, the Wikipedia article made it seem like most of the other state governments were against the doctrine of nullification when the 98 Resolutions passed. Is that really the case?

  • http://twitter.com/KeimgMeg Keimh3reg Peh2u Meg

    I wouldn’t doubt that of George, although when I read it there it was news to me. Compared to today, and compared to King George, he was for small government. But compared to some of the other founding fathers, he was in favor of big government.

    It is worth noting that many of the same people who opposed the Tenth Amendment in the first place (some of them even opposed the entire Bill of Rights) later opposed nullification. To my mind that just shows their bias against the concept of divided sovereignty, rather than their honest interpretation of the Tenth Amendment in extreme situations.

    A number of the states were opposed to the specific case, but not all of them for the reason one might assume. Most of them accepted the compact theory of the Union, but some of them, because they were Federalists rather than Democratic Republicans, opposed the nullification of the law in question, though not necessarily the concept of nullification.

    And several of these same states later used the doctrine. In some of those cases, many of the same people who opposed Jefferson and Madison’s use of it against the Adams administration, used it against Jefferson’s administration when they thought he was being tyrannical.