Monday, December 26, 2011
GW, Not Whig Enough For Murray Rothbard
I agree more with the tenor of Brian's post than Murray's. However, it does help to have both sides to put things into critical perspective. By the way, during the Founding era, the criticism against Washington was primarily directed by the Tories. For Murray Rothbard, on the other hand, Washington seemed to be not Whig enough.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
What one's bias is, will determine who one supports or sees as a hero.
Thanks for linking to Rothbard's article, Jon. Though I find Rothbard's scathing attacks on Washington to be way over the top and completely unfair.
First, Angie is right to point out the factor of bias. I have mine. Rothbard has his. In Rothbard's case, he was a libertarian economist who would've been very comfortable in the extreme side of today's Tea Party. Any authoritarianism was anathema to him. Thus, he clearly had it out for the Federalists.
I have no problem with someone debating the merits of the Federalists versus the Jeffersonians, but Rothbard is over the top. No one, of course, can or should defend every single action Washington took. I'm a huge Washington admirer, but not even I would go that far. The man, after all, was a slave owner. And he could be at times snobbish and overly judgmental of others. And I would've preferred his faith be more evangelical and expressive, of course, as has been debated numerous times on this blog. And...as Rothbard points out, Washington sometimes went too far in punishments. But, despite all his faults, George Washington deserves a whole lot better treatment than what Rothbard gives him.
I dig Brother Rothbard, and all his criticisms are accurate.
And if I'm the brilliant Gen. Washington, I pack Murray's ass up and dump him over the British lines, so he can go help them instead of us.
Murray wouldn't have helped the British. He would have thrown his hat in with the Quakers. Murray never met a military man he didn't hate.
It always frustrates me how certain people criticize the very institutions (in this case, the military - and the NEED for the military to be organized, trained, and hierarchical) that enable them to have the freedom to, in fact, BE critical. Were it not for the American military, Murray Rothbard would not have had the freedom he loved to critique. Were it not for George Washington, Murray Rothbard never would've had a platform with which to criticize George Washington.
Jon, I meant "help."
Brian's GW is more recognizable than Rothbard's. Rothbard is a superb economist. His history, however, is another matter. If find it enjoyable because it is so damn opinionated. I just don't share his opinion of GW.
I tried twice and just can't maintain an interest in reading the Murray article. (At first, I couldn't shake the feeling that it was written for The Onion - if only GW had maintained the purity of untrained farmers running to battle with their rusted muskrat guns to Battle a real Army - see Cromwell/Irish.)
I'm in full agreement that we'd be hard pressed to find anyone, then or since, that could have better fit the role of leading the new nation.
If anyone is interested, I posted on my blog about the divisions that plague our country today, as they did at any other time in history. Liberty grants the right of dissent and differences of opinion, that is what makes for a culture of learning and grappling with the perplexities of "THIS world", as THIS is the one we ALL have to live in.
The title is; WAR Between the Classes Is More Than Economic which is found on; angiespoint@blogspot.com
Post a Comment