• "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

Announcing the Winner of the Tom Woods Prize

For most inane, misleading, or factually incorrect statements about nullification in a single article. The winner is journalist Dan Carden, of the NWI [northwest Indiana] Times.

In an article about Indiana State Senator Phil Boots, we read:

That argument for nullification has been made several times in U.S. history, most often by southern state lawmakers seeking to protect the institution of slavery prior to the Civil War and trying to prevent racial integration of public schools during the 20th century.

Dan Carden, since nullification was used “most often” to defend slavery, can you name me just one example? I mean, you have a busy schedule and all, but could you pencil in the time for one example?

On the civil rights issue, as on the whole array of points raised by Carden, I once again refer people to my nullification FAQ.

Carden opens what is supposed to be a straightforward news article with this, well, prejudicial framing:

When the U.S. Supreme Court in 1958 explicitly struck down nullification, the theory that states can declare federal laws unconstitutional and ignore them, the court warned state legislators that endorsing nullification violates their oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution.

State Sen. Phil Boots, R-Crawfordsville, doesn’t care.

Is that an accurate summary of the situation? I doubt it. It isn’t that he “doesn’t care,” but that citing the Supreme Court on a matter of ultimate sovereignty merely begs the question. As Madison argued, in the last resort the very logic of our system requires that the states possess a defense mechanism even against the courts.

Check out that FAQ, and congratulations to Dan Carden.

Unlearn the Propaganda!

  • http://twitter.com/usernamenuse sailing

    This came up on google search as: “The Winner of the Tom Woods Prize – Tom Woods”, which seemed appropriate. I was just checking to see what you were awarding yourself the prize for.

    This is good, too….

  • Shawn

    My AP US history students are, apparently, more intelligent and historically informed than this journalist. You would think he would do a little research instead of simply talking out of his rear end, but then again, this is really not all that surprising.

  • Anonymous

    In the age of information every boob with a computer has the perfect argument for everything. The challenge is understanding the real underlying issues and bigger picture.
    -Thorax232
    ——————————————–
    Family Survival Course Book

  • Anonymous

    If we so fear monopolies in the private sector, why is it that most of us argue in favor of a monopoly in the public sector? Wasn’t the whole point of the constitution to protect an individual’s rights by giving states more power than the federal government? If you don’t like one state, go to another! This forces states to compete based on the preferences of individuals.

    As for slavery: I think the federal government did a fine job of protecting an individual’s right to freedom from 1861-1865. That’s the point of the federal government. That being said, the federal government is not to be unquestioned. That would defeat the purpose of the constitution, and is the exact opposite of what the founding fathers intended. What if Lincoln had supported slavery? Would you still want the states (say, for example, the northern states?), to not be able to challenge the federal government?

  • guest

    The Lincoln-Douglas Debates 4th Debate Part I
    http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=1048

    I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]—that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

    Letter to Horace Greeley by Abraham Lincoln
    http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=1057

    My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.

    Plan on seeing the movie “Lincoln”? Keep this in mind…
    http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/11/plan-on-seeing-movie-lincoln-keep-this.html

  • guest
  • Anonymous

    Yes, we’ve all seen these quotes. You need to re-read my post. My question was: what if Lincoln had SUPPORTED slavery?

Find me on Google