Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
Join the Libertarian Christian Institute as each week they explore, debate, and analyze the issues that are directly relevant to the intersection of Christianity and liberty. Always thoughtful, frequently controversial, and never boring (trust us), it is our hope and prayer that The Libertarian Christian Podcast serve as a valuable resource to the Church for years to come.
If you'd like to reach out to us and ask a question or submit some feedback, you can reach us at podcast@libertarianchristians.com, as well as on Facebook, Twitter, and of course, our website, libertarianchristians.com.
Matt Bellis:
[0:03] Welcome to the show that gets Christians thinking about faith and politics. Get ready to challenge the statist quo, expand your imagination, and tackle controversy head on. Let's stand together at the intersection of faith and freedom. It's time for the Libertarian Christian Podcast.
Doug:
[0:22] Welcome to another episode of the Libertarian Christian Podcast, a project of the Libertarian Christian Institute and part of the Christians for Liberty Network. I am your host, Doug Stewart, and I have with us a returning guest. His name is Larry Reed. He is a renowned historian, economist, author, longtime advocate for liberty. He's president emeritus of FEE, the Foundation for Economic Education, and he is the author of a new book out here, if I can hold this up for those watching, Born of Ideas. Subtitle is How Principles, Faith, Encouraged, Forged America. This is a beautiful cover, Larry. Thank you so much for joining me here.
Larry:
[0:55] Hey, my pleasure, Doug. Thanks so much for having me. As you know, I'm a big fan of what you and the Institute does.
Doug:
[1:02] Yeah, that's great. I know you are because you are promoting us out there when you can. And you just told me about something recently. By the time this airs, you will have published something online that references some of our work. And it's just such an honor to have you do that. But I mentioned the beauty of this cover because I like to, you know, I do judge books by their cover. And I'm really glad that the interior of the book actually matches the beauty that I just adorned it with. So I want to talk to you about your book. But my guess is that this somewhat coincided with the fact that this is the 250th birthday of the United States. Is that fair to say?
Larry:
[1:37] Yes, that was an animating influence. I only wish the book had come out a little sooner. But, you know, a lot of people were turned on by the 250th and we'll be celebrating it for some time.
Doug:
[1:49] Well, it did. I mean, it will, it has, well, I should, by the time we're recording, by the time people will hear this, it'll be either out or just about to be out. But I would say that it will be out before the declaration was signed by everybody though.
Larry:
[2:00] That's right.
Doug:
[2:03] I actually didn't know that until, I don't know, a couple of months ago. I was, I forget where I was learning this information that it like was not until January of 1777 that all of the, all of the ink had dried at that point.
Larry:
[2:13] That's right. They didn't all sign it on the same day.
Doug:
[2:15] I had no idea. I had no idea. There was a little bit of retconning, I think, to use some comic book languaging. But so here's what's interesting. When a book's published in a particular year, you probably didn't start writing this on January 1st thinking, ah, this is the 250th year I want to write. I know you've been writing some of these essays for several years, I think, right?
Larry:
[2:34] Yes, it's a collection of essays and some go back.
Doug:
[2:37] So, sorry, go ahead.
Larry:
[2:39] It is a collection or an anthology, and some of them go back, oh, maybe two or three years, but there are some new ones in there, too, written just for the book.
Doug:
[2:48] Okay, excellent. Well, the reason I highlight that is because I know you're a man who thinks a lot about liberty. You're writing about liberty a lot, and you're also thinking about how that coincides with America, America's history. We have, I think, as Americans, a high responsibility to uphold the principles of liberty. And I wanted to kind of start off with just asking you, how do you, when you reflect on America's 250th year, I know a lot of people started thinking about this a few years ago because organizations like yours and mine, we think, you know, a little bit ahead of the game when we're good at it. And so you might have been doing that too, but this year, you know, a lot of people are talking about it. I was just at an amusement park yesterday and one of their rides, it was like an indoor ride, they rethemed it to be Star Spangled. And so like even amusement parks are doing that kind of thing. So how have you reflected on America, you know, in this year? Anything, anything that stands, stands out for you?
Larry:
[3:41] Well, I did a lot of research, not only for the book, but for other things I've written about the American Revolution. And I have to say that one thing that impressed me, it always has, but even more so with this recent study, is how passionate and how principled America's founding generation came to be by the 1770s. This had been percolating in their minds and in their hearts for decades. As John Adams said, the real revolution didn't start in 1776. It was in the hearts and minds of Americans going back several decades. So I came away from this recent research more impressed than ever of the thoughtfulness, that Americans put into these matters that came to a head in 1776.
Doug:
[4:30] Yeah, I remember reading a few years ago, have you read America's Revolutionary Mind by C. Bradley Thompson? Are you familiar with that work?
Larry:
[4:38] Oh, I know. I know, Brad, but I have not read that.
Doug:
[4:40] Yeah, it really goes into exactly like the real depth. I mean, it's probably like 350 pages of exactly what you described, where we misunderstand a lot of the founders and we don't understand the mindset that not just the founders, but the mindset that the people had and where they were going for. So that's a, it's very, it's very Compatico with your title, Born of Ideas. What's the, so this is a collection of essays, but did this book coalesce into a project on its own, you know, for a particular reason? Or, yeah, how did that come out?
Larry:
[5:15] Well, my alma mater, undergraduate alma mater, Grove City College in Pennsylvania, has a new publishing house, which is publishing this book. And they approached me late last year and said, hey, would you like to be one of the first? Turns out I'm the first author in their publishing history. And, you know, I think they wanted something that would –, tie the college to the 250th anniversary of the country and the college's longstanding, history supporting things like liberty and economic freedom. And so that was the immediate catalyst. But I'd already been turning out some things that I didn't necessarily expect to put into a book, but I wanted to write as articles to help commemorate it.
Doug:
[6:01] Yeah. Yeah. No, that's good. So we're obviously going to talk about a few things that are going to be complicated. And I guess I'll just start with that. As you reflect back on America's 250th, there's obviously America isn't perfect. It never was perfect. It won't ever be perfect. But it was, as we as we well know, over the past probably at least decade or so, there has been a turn at focusing on America's original sin, as some people might call it, and dealing with sort of like, how did America get started out on the wrong foot? And the Like every the narrative just goes from there, right? Like everything in America does is wrong and it all stems back to, you know, how spreadsheets are racist or something. Right. And so that's kind of where that's kind of where that goes. Obviously, you and I are going to sit here and say, well, of course, that was wrong. Of course, the founders, you know, had they were in their own sort of world in their own time. And we can look back on that and say that was wrong. How do you assess things from your perspective when it comes to just calling it the sins of our founders at this point? And I'll let you kind of explore how you want to there.
Larry:
[7:08] I think a lot of those criticisms really are sort of cherry-picking history to fit a predetermined narrative or ideology. That when you consider what the founders did in the context of their time, their day, the customs into which they were born, the world as they inherited it, then you can appreciate that, wow, yeah, they weren't perfect, but they sure moved the needle further than any other previous generation anywhere in the right direction. You know, the slavery issue in particular is one that critics like to focus on. But, you know, the first country in the history of the world to abolish slavery was Haiti, and that didn't happen until 1804. And by that time, American states, about eight of them, had already abolished slavery within their jurisdictions or passed legislation to get rid of it within the next few years. So we were actually ahead of the first country to actually abolish slavery. And we're not exceptional because we had slavery. We're exceptional because of the lengths to which we went to get rid of it.
Doug:
[8:16] Yeah. How do you analyze? A thing that I really am bothered by is when foreigners or anybody who is analyzing the U.S., they take stats and they say, ah, the U.S., look at the U.S. And sometimes it's actually just part of the U.S. Like, we don't have to pick on the death penalty, but just to use that as an example, I remember interviewing somebody years ago, actually made the point that all of the executions that happen in the United States are in like a handful of counties. And yet when people talk about the death penalty, they're actually talking about it as if America is just doing this all over the place. And so, you know, on the one hand, it's like, okay, great. We want to be called a country. We want to have, you know, this shared set of values, shared set of institutions, free trade, all of those things that we all know, that you and I both know are really good. But at the same time, it is kind of unfair to to criticize America for things that are only happening in portions. How do you balance that in your mind?
Larry:
[9:10] I think you have to explain to people what the context is, what the real-world comparisons are between America and many other countries. When it comes to the death penalty, I mean, that still exists in certain places and did until very recently in many other places. And so we're not unique in that respect. One thing, though, we might be unique on with regard to the death penalty is we didn't kill people wholesale for their political opinions. And that still goes on in the world in many places.
Doug:
[9:43] Yeah, that's a very fair point. We'll talk a little bit about the details of the situation of slavery in a little bit. But as somebody who's looked into history, I can imagine that you probably have some things as you look back and reflect upon America and you say, you know, not everybody agrees with me, but this might not have gone as well. This didn't go as well as it could have. Are there anything that's a little bit more like, I guess they call it deep cuts of American history that you look back and say, wow, we could have done better and maybe later we did. But at the time, you can assess it that way.
Larry:
[10:15] Oh, you know, you can always find, especially with hindsight, you can always find things that you wished imperfect people had done a little better. And that includes the founders. I just try to look at those things in the context and look at the fullness of their lives and their contributions, not just the occasional flaw that may be a blot on them in some way. So, yeah, if I were at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, I think I might have added a few things, such as probably term limits for members of Congress and, Maybe they didn't do that. They did debate it, but maybe our founders didn't do it because they never foresaw that the politicians in America could become as corrupt as they have. Excuse me. But yeah, you could always suggest improvements. But I mean, if I went back in time and visited the Wright brothers, I think I'd be tempted to come down on them with all kinds of criticisms. So I would say this rickety flying machine you're making doesn't have Wi-Fi, it doesn't have dinner service, it doesn't have a million other things. But I would still recognize them for taking the world in the right direction further than anybody had done before.
Doug:
[11:30] Larry, that's my new favorite analogy for criticizing the past. I will continue to use that. Wow, that's really good, man. If we weren't starting off so early uh and with zingers like that i will i would have just ended it and said there it is that's that's the thing of the past, um so yeah okay great let me see here all right i, i would i'm asking you this in sort of jest i said i was thinking you probably could have called this book the 1620 project if something like the 69 project
Doug:
[12:04] didn't actually didn't actually already exist. And you probably know why I'm asking you that question. One of your very first chapter actually talks about the Mayflower Compact. So why is my humorous segue into this about 1620? Why is that year important?
Larry:
[12:19] 1620, of course, it doesn't mark the first English settlement in North America. That came with Jamestown in 1607.
Larry:
[12:28] But Jamestown didn't produce the kind of document that the Pilgrims did in, 1620 that I think really is more emblematic of the America to be, the America we turned out to be, than anything else. The Mayflower Compact was written on the ship, the Mayflower, just before it landed, hundreds of miles off course. The pilgrims, they were about 52 in number, were on the ship with about the same number of so-called strangers. These were people they didn't really know when the voyage started, but were put on the ship by the investors because they thought that the settlement would need some of the skills they had. But within a day of landing and everybody realizing on the ship that we're way off course, hundreds of miles north of where we're supposed to land, the strangers said, hey, this voids the contract. We might take a walk or the first ship back or, you know, we don't feel obligated to you since we're not landing where we're supposed to. The pilgrims in their wisdom realized, hey, we probably are going to need these people. Let's work together. So they wrote up, which is what Rebecca Fraser, the historian, points out is the first mission. Document in the history of the world about governance that is between two groups of people not involving a monarch.
Larry:
[13:51] This is as close to a social contract as you get because it was voluntary and it was agreed to by all parties. But it basically- Stateless.
Doug:
[13:59] I guess, would be a good way of putting it too, right?
Larry:
[14:02] Well, they imagined that they would set up some sort of state, but the document says when we land and we establish a government, it will be a government of mutual consent. We're not going to discriminate against anybody. Doesn't matter what your faith may be. Everyone can participate, and that's what we are going to do. Well, that's what America turned out to be all about, even with its imperfections.
Doug:
[14:30] Yeah, the strangers, I didn't actually know this. Now, I might have been taught some of these things, and, you know, just forget over the years because it's not something you pay attention to like you do. I have to say, when I talk to somebody like you or Caleb Franz, I'm just like, man, you guys know these details so in and out. I have trouble sometimes thinking, okay, which decade was that? Which century was that? Sometimes? Not always. I mean, I know the really big things, but it's interesting to reread these stories and be like, okay, or read them anew and understand what was happening there. But that was a story. I mean, again, your book, starting off in chapter one,
Doug:
[15:07] teaching me things already. Can we talk a little bit about religious history and Anne Hutchinson? Can you just go over her story?
Larry:
[15:14] Okay. Anne Hutchinson was a 17th century, colonist in starting out in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. And she had some religious beliefs that varied, not radically, not, so different as you might imagine, from what the church establishment in Massachusetts had, but different enough that the intolerance of the colony and its leadership, put them on a collision course with her. She was an advocate of what is known as antinomianism or the free grace concept, which some of the Massachusetts church establishment, thought sort of countered the effect of the Reformation, that it sounded like there was some intermediary she was putting in place between a person and God. Anyway, because of that, she was put on trial twice and expelled from the colony, and she made her way to Rhode Island, which was founded also by someone expelled from Massachusetts.
Doug:
[16:20] Roger William. Right, yeah. And it was only founded real recently from then, right?
Larry:
[16:24] Yeah, yeah. It hadn't been around for very long, but she thought she would be more welcome there. And she was, except for a group of nasty Native Americans called the Siwanoi. Without provocation, they assaulted her family and killed her and all but one member of her family.
Doug:
[16:43] That's interesting. you mentioned the Native Americans there. It is part of the American history that I'm least familiar with, and something you bring up in one of your chapters, which is they were sometimes on the British side, sometimes on the American revolutionary side. I had this for later in our conversation, but since you brought it up in brief there, why don't we talk a little bit about that? What was, The picture that I even think I kind of have in my head, and I know this isn't quite right, but it's just the imagery that I was left with either through childhood or just more recent anti-American, sentiment, is that we were invaders and we conquered a land and drove people out. That's kind of the idea that is painted. How wrong is that? And what were the or how right is it? How right or wrong is that picture? Accurate is that picture? But then also, what was the story on the side of the Native Americans at this point? Because they had probably all sorts of incentives, both individually, tribally, and maybe even more, you know, multi-tribe to be on one side or another.
Larry:
[17:47] Yeah. Well, when it came to taking sides, when the war came with Britain, there were plenty of Indians who felt that it was not their fight and they didn't participate. But of those who did, on one side or the other, about two-thirds went with the British. About one-third fought with the Americans. And for a variety of reasons. You know, some of those who sided with the British did so because they had longstanding trading relationships with the Brits, and I'm sure some of that on the American side as well. But a lot of Native Americans thought, well, the mother country over there in Britain has told the colonists they can't settle, anywhere west of the Appalachian Mountains, and that will help preserve our territory, our land. So they had that self-interest in mind. They went with the British. But then, you know, you had a relatively small number of people, when you look at the total Indian population at the time, effectively claiming far more territory than they could ever farm or tend to in any way or fence off. And so inevitably, there was going to be contention over whose land is this really. In the case of the pilgrims, they didn't take land from anybody because when they came to Plymouth, that area had been depopulated completely by Native Americans, largely because of a plague.
Larry:
[19:13] And so they didn't take land from anybody, and for the next 70 years, they had very good relationships with the Indians. So it's a mixed story when it comes to the Indians and what the relationships were. One of my favorite, I have a reference to this in the book, of the Indians who took one side or the other, was one of 50 warriors who joined with George Washington and the Continental Army at Valley Forge, during that very nasty winter of 1777-78. There were 50 Indians camped with, fighting with the Continental Army. And one of them was particularly well-educated. And in the diaries of some members of the Army, who were there, they cited the fact that if you went out of the camp into the woods in the early mornings, you quite likely would run across this one particular warrior who was singing French opera in the woods. I mean, does that break your stereotype of the typical Native American or what? But he had been raised in part by an immigrant family who was on good terms with the nearby tribes, so he came and went. But anyway, he was educated enough that he could sing French opera.
Doug:
[20:29] That's crazy. Well, yeah, no, that does definitely break the stereotype. I think the other thing that's unique about some of the things you're writing here are also just the stories of other individuals, you have black heroes of the cause as I think either the title or just kind of what I wrote down. Yeah. Tell us a little bit about that. I mean, where were, were there African-Americans who were on the side of the American Revolution? If so, I can see, kind of obviously see their motivations to some extent, depending on, you know, which part of the country they were from.
Larry:
[21:00] Yeah. Yeah. And depending on their status, free or slave, they were either active or not. And some did go with the British, but there were some notable examples of black Americans who fought on behalf of the Continental Army. At first, when the war broke out, even Washington was a little reluctant because.
Larry:
[21:20] They'd not had experience with black soldiers before, and it was a little unclear what the response of the population might be. But in time, even Washington said, hey, some of these black men are just as good, even better than some of our fighters. So, let's let him in. He authorized the formation of an all-black regiment in Rhode Island, and they assaulted successfully the Hessian mercenaries hired by the British three times, thrashed them three times. Then you had black women. Notable example, I mean, there weren't very many, but one notable example of a woman who became involved in the cause, not as a warrior, but as a writer, was Phyllis Wheatley. She was born a slave, but liberated as she was a late teenager by the family that had bought her. And she went on to become the first black female author of a book of poetry on either side of the Atlantic. And she became a friend of George Washington's. In fact, as the battle was raging nearby, there was an occasion where he invited her to his tent for a discussion and she went. And so, but she wrote a lot of things that were very supportive of the American cause of liberty and independence from Britain.
Doug:
[22:45] So let's talk about where this all started. I mean, when I say all started, it's not like there was one thing, but I'm thinking more specifically of Thomas Paine and Common Sense. I don't think I realized until recently, it wasn't quite just from your book, but I think recently is in the last year, how influential Common Sense really was. I also didn't know, am I correct that it was sort of published anonymously, but people just kind of figured it out?
Larry:
[23:07] Yeah, very quickly. They figured out within the month. And so everybody was using his name and attaching it to Common Sense. It came out in January of 1776. So if you think back to the history of the time, Lexington and Concord had already happened the previous April when the shot heard around the world was fired at Lexington. So the war was underway, but we were still six months away from the Declaration of Independence. And if you had taken a poll in the country in January of 76 before Common Sense came out, I think you'd probably find that most Americans yet were not on board, with the idea of full-blown, war against the Brits to secure independence. They were, you know, on the fence, gravitating in that direction. But when his book came out and just spread like wildfire north to south, the sentiment shifted rather dramatically because Paine was so eloquent. He not only made the case for American independence, but he made an eloquent case against absolute monarchy in favor of a constitutional republic. And he wrote it in a way that captured people's imagination. Probably second only to the Bible in terms of what people were reading in the first half of 1776.
Doug:
[24:25] As we look back on his legacy or beliefs, I should say, in common sense, were they libertarian? Because I know that sometimes there's this, like, these seminal ideas that sort of later shape a movement that wouldn't look like something if that person had carried on the movement the entire time. But how libertarian was Thomas Paine versus, you know, other, you know, ideas that he might have had that we wouldn't appreciate at the time.
Larry:
[24:49] Excuse me. In 1776, with Common Sense coming out in January, and then his second influential book in December of 76, The American Crisis, I think it's fair to say that they were quite libertarian.
Doug:
[25:03] Okay.
Larry:
[25:03] But his views were later affected by what was happening in France. He welcomed the French Revolution, as did many Americans, Thomas Jefferson did at first, because it seemed to have some of the same animating ideas behind it. But when it turned ugly in France into a blood bath, the revolutionaries in France even turned on Thomas Paine because they thought he wasn't radical enough. But he took on a little bit of the French Revolution's egalitarianism in later years, which was not as compatible with what the founders were all about here. He was interested increasingly in economic equality. And our founders said, that's not what we're after. We're in favor of people going as far as their talents can take them. So he was an odd bird, but still an enormously influential American patriot.
Doug:
[25:55] As I'm entering my midlife and I'm starting to realize why, when I was younger, my dad would read history or he would like particular figures throughout history and want to read about them and read those kinds of stories. And I wasn't until maybe a couple years ago really that interested in doing that. And as I'm, As I'm starting to explore some of these historical events or people, I'm kind of curious, as somebody who's done this his entire life, Larry, you've read history and I'm sure you've read biographies. I'm sure you've read, you know, accounts of, say, the Battle of Yorktown or the Plymouth Plantation, all those different things. Have you approached this in a particular way as you understand history? Do you just kind of gobble it all up? Do you have a particular affinity for
Doug:
[26:43] biographies or stories about events? How do you recommend for people like our listeners to sort of dive in in a deeper way? I mean, your book is 150-ish pages, and it's obviously just a taste of American history. But if we want to go deeper, what does that look like? Is it biographies? Is it events? What do you think?
Larry:
[27:05] Well, I love good biographies. I have often recommended many of them. In fact, I have an ongoing list I keep for people who say, which biographies would you recommend? Anybody wants one. Just email me at lreed at fee.org and I'll send you that list. I did apply some of my philosophical and economic concepts that I've come to embrace to this book. And as a result, I was able to uncover some things that are left out of typical histories, like you mentioned the Battle of Yorktown. I learned all about that, at least the military side of it, in history class years ago. But what I wasn't told, and I had to find out on my own, was how important sound money became at the Battle of Yorktown. It's a remarkable story. You know, it was in September of 1781 that George Washington was preparing to lay siege to Yorktown, along with the French commander, Rochambeau. And Admiral de Grasse was in charge of the French fleet. It was Washington's plan, working with those two Frenchmen, to bottle the British up in Yorktown, lay siege to it until they surrendered with the French off the coast with their fleet blocking their escape. Well, you know, a lot of people know that much. But what I didn't know was that Washington was faced at the beginning of the siege with a very real possibility that a big portion of his army was going to desert the...
Larry:
[28:34] Not because their fealty for the cause had waned, but rather they hadn't been paid. Congress hadn't paid them for so long. And they had families back home, some probably near starvation, because they didn't have a breadwinner. And so in order for the siege of Yorktown to work, they had to keep that army together. What I learned was that Admiral DeGrasse, knowing of Washington's situation, arranged for gold and silver from Mexico to be delivered to Havana, Cuba. The plan was he would pick up the gold and silver in Havana, bring it to Washington in Virginia, and make sure that he could pay those troops. Well, what happened was he goes to Havana, and the ships with the gold and silver haven't come yet, and the clock is ticking in Yorktown. So what he does, he and his men effectively go door to door in Havana saying, hey, anybody, please help the Americans. It was a Spanish colony, so the Cubans were eager to help because Spain was on our side in the war. And they collected enough gold and silver from ordinary people in Havana that, de Grasse got it to Washington in time to pay the troops and the rest is history. I never learned that in school.
Doug:
[29:49] No, I didn't either. You know, that's an economic idea that is obviously something you're going to pay attention to. And it's something that is, it kind of undergirds a lot of the problems. The idea of sound money undergirds a lot of the problems that we don't talk about. So it's important to bring those up in that particular story.
Doug:
[30:05] I promised earlier to our listeners we'd talk a little bit more about slavery. And I probably should do that before we have to wrap up. It is something that it's very difficult. You and I are two white guys here on a podcast talking about it. And we're going to say, well, in context, it wasn't, It wasn't like that or it wasn't this or that. Just what thoughts do you have as we as as you analyze what was happening? One thing you said earlier was they they were able to I think it was something like they were able to take action at the time that was instead of ahead of the curve, so to speak. And it ties into your idea born of ideas. But this is also they took action. It wasn't just they had new ideas, but those those ideas did have consequences. And to my knowledge, it was like, you know, the sort of shorthand version, the way I put it, and I'll let you kind of continue from there, is they created the Declaration of Independence and they looked at it and they said, oh, crap, we're going to have to change our ways.
Larry:
[31:03] Yeah, I think we should be very grateful that the founding document, you might say, embodying the ideals of the country, set us up to where we had to sooner or later get rid of it in order to be compatible with those founding ideas. We have to remember that in, say, 1700, there was no organized opposition anywhere and a few people even writing against slavery. It had been around since 3500 BC. It was ubiquitous all over the planet. That includes Africa, by the way. And when we condemn the British or anyone for grabbing slaves in coastal cities and bringing them across the Atlantic, you have to remember that they didn't typically stage raiding parties that invaded the interior of Africa to capture people. They were working in collaboration with black Africans who were first doing the capturing and enslaving, bringing them, to the ports, and then selling them to white slave traders. So there's a lot of blame to go around here. It can never be justified. It can never be, you know, you can't say anything but it's anti-human and anti-libertarian to have slavery. But think of the difference between 1700 and 1800. Nobody opposing it in 1700. It's all over the world. By 1800, you have vigorous movements underway to get rid of it, to be compatible with the ideals of the Declaration of Independence.
Larry:
[32:32] Our founders had to compromise with it for the sake of union, but there were many who were dead set against it right from the start. As I mentioned earlier, eight states by early 1800s had already abolished it, or put it on a tract for extinction. And even before the Constitution was written and we were governed under the Articles of Confederation, there was the Northwest Ordinance, which said no slavery north of the Ohio River. That meant the territories that were being organized of Wisconsin, Michigan, and so forth could not have slavery. Well, George Washington signed that in the law. And so when you consider that the founding generation took us away from slavery further than any other previous generation, took us as far as they thought they could get away with and still keep the union together, that's a pretty remarkable achievement, I think.
Doug:
[33:26] Yeah. No, I agree. I think there's a, sorry, I said that with a tone of voice. It sounded like I was reluctantly agreeing. I don't reluctantly agree. I do agree. The question that I think some people who are more purists might have would be, well, why did they value keeping the union together over a principle that was clearly, as you say, anti-human? What was the, was there a long-term payoff that they expected it to have? And thus they thought they could get both? What do you think about that?
Larry:
[33:54] Well, you know, there was an immediate payoff for those who opposed slavery for there to be a union because the Constitution, for instance, included a provision that outlawed the slave trade after 1808. If we had broken up earlier in our history, you probably wouldn't have had the southern states committed to that. The slave trade might have continued. And who knows, you might have had to have made other compromises, but in order to keep the union together under one umbrella and ultimately have the ability to set the law down so that all states would, you know, would be in concert on this issue, you needed a federal union. And now, you know, our founders did not anticipate that it would take so long or result in a war to get rid of it. They had good reason to believe because lots of people looked at slavery in the 1780s and 90s and thought, hey, this is kind of fading out anyway. Then the cotton gin comes along and makes it more profitable to keep having slaves. But many of them thought that this was on the way out. If we can push it a little faster, let's do so. But by all means, let's preserve the union in the process.
Doug:
[35:06] Yeah, I guess if you end up with one new country and whatever the South might have become, whether its own country or not, then... You can't actually have that internal accountability and argument because you're just arguing with a neighbor instead of your own union.
Larry:
[35:20] Yeah, exactly. And I think, too, that slavery in the long run would have died out even in the South on its own. That's no argument for letting it take all the time it needed. But I think that just imagine today, how could slave labor or a plantation based upon it possibly compete with mechanized farms of today?
Doug:
[35:42] Yeah, right.
Larry:
[35:44] It would be gone anyway. But the Declaration put us on a path that said politically,
Larry:
[35:49] we're not going to be consistent with our ideals until we get rid of it.
Doug:
[35:53] Yeah. Well, let me ask you another question about the sort of missteps in American history. How would you – would you have advised Lincoln to do things differently after the Civil War? Like, okay, so slavery is now going to be abolished. How do you proceed there? Because it's a whole mess, right? And were there things that you would look at and say, well, you know, it could have gone better now that we have a little bit of hindsight. I realize that Lincoln wouldn't have necessarily understood that. But what would you say to that period of post-war history, post-Civil War?
Larry:
[36:21] Well, if you start with the Lincoln administration, that's rather late in this whole process. There may not have been much that he could have done, too, because things were pretty wired at that point for separation. But at the very least, if I were Lincoln and understanding the importance of free trade, which he didn't, you know, he was a high tariff protectionist, he could have come out and said, hey, we know that tariffs aren't popular in the South. Well, you're right. We're not going to do that. So we're going to back off the Republican Party platform to impose high tariffs because we know they hurt the South more than the rest of the country. I don't know how much that might have mollified Southern separatists, but he could have done that, but he didn't because he wasn't of the mind to do it. But, you know, again, that's rather late. But by the time he took office in March of 61, several states had already seceded.
Doug:
[37:12] Yeah. What about after the war?
Larry:
[37:14] Oh, after the war?
Doug:
[37:15] Like Reconstruction.
Larry:
[37:17] Yeah, I've often thought that Lincoln might have made the best possible post-war president, simply because he was not, I think, the vindictive type. He really wanted to bind up the nation's wounds. I think he could have held things together and Reconstruction might have looked differently. But of course, we don't know that. He was dead within a month of his term. But I do think he would have made a better Reconstruction president than a war president.
Doug:
[37:49] Okay. One of the things that you talk about in the book is insisting on America being a republic and not a democracy. And I realize that you're somewhat are you're somewhat sort of pushing back against the idea that the word democracy is probably overused in many ways. And just sort of reminding us that in some ways we're a democracy in some like sort of big, broad definition of the term. And I don't want to put words in your mouth, but that's the way I understand it. But, you know, in terms of what exactly do we have, it's actually really important to remember that it's a republic. I'm going to be a little bit of an instigator here and say I have had some political philosophers tell me that they cringe when people use the phrase we're a republic, not a democracy, because the way they use the word democracy is not the specific majoritarian rule word democracy. They are actually talking about something that is ruled by the people in some form. So I'm just kind of curious why push back on the we're not a democracy with we're not a democracy, we're a republic.
Larry:
[38:53] Well, the way I like to put it is that we are a republic with democratic elements. If we were a pure democracy, which I think you have to assume that's what people mean when they say we're a democracy, they don't qualify it. Typically, they just say, we're a democracy. How dare you say anything otherwise? But a pure democracy means everybody votes on everything, even to violate the rights of some group. But a republic, you know, we elect our representatives democratically. Who goes to Congress is dependent upon who gets the most votes back home. But they don't put every issue up for the broad public to vote on. And we can vote them out if we disagree with them, but they represent us. And at the same time, this is probably the most important element of a republic, there are protections for minorities. In a democracy, you'd have to say, well, if somebody puts forth a proposal to reinstitute slavery, we'd have to have a vote on it. And if it wins, then we reinstitute slavery. But in a republic with a constitution like ours, we say, no, there are certain rights that are beyond the majority to vote away. And it's the job of the government to protect them, no matter what the population may think. Even if 99% want to reinstitute Jim Crow or slavery, you couldn't do it under our constitution today.
Doug:
[40:18] Well, it's, you know, I can push back a little bit on when you push back a little bit on the pure democracy argument, you end up realizing that people actually appreciate institutions more than they are saying with their platitudes of, oh, we're a democracy because, you know, a new way of doing this might be something like, well, right now we're recording this and President Trump is in a second term. He can't get a third term. But what, Larry, what if what if all the polls show that 85 percent, which is well over a supermajority of people, really, really want him to have a, well, we just got to go with democracy, right? No leftist in their right mind would say, oh, yeah, I guess you're right. That's what the people want. We better give it to them. No, they're going to really, really resort to the republic side of this argument.
Larry:
[40:57] You know, I say you don't go with what the mob at any given moment may support. You go with the rule book. I mean, the whole purpose of having a constitution is to say there are going to be some guardrails and some rules by which we will govern ourselves. We're not going to just put everything up for a vote, no matter what it is, at any given moment in time.
Doug:
[41:16] Yeah, no, I agree. Is there anything in this book that I haven't asked you about that you would like to convey and, you know, share that and then also share, you have a, I think you have a personal website and you also write on fee and anything else that our listeners can do to reach out to you.
Larry:
[41:31] I would say that among the things we didn't talk about, some profiles of some rather notable people, Nathan Hale, you know, most Americans, I hope, still remember who he was.
Larry:
[41:43] Who stepped forward when Washington needed a spy to go into Manhattan for the purpose of determining where British troop and gun emplacements were. He was caught and hanged, but famously said as he went to the gallows, I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country. And then I have some chapters about some foreigners who came to America to help us. The Marquis de Lafayette at age 19 shows up in Philadelphia, knocks on the door of the Continental Congress and says, I want to fight for America. And at first he's turned away. I mean, you could imagine the bigwigs at the convention probably thought, who's this? You know, this kid's got such a strong French accent. I can hardly understand him. He wants to join our military. Get out of here. Well, then he becomes, you know, George Washington's most trusted aide and advisor and a great warrior on the battlefield. Others from Poland, I have profiles of three in there. Yeah. Kazimir Pulaski, father of the American cavalry, and Tadius Kosciuszko, a great engineer who helped us at the Battle of Saratoga, And Haim Solomon, who gave everything he had, he was a very wealthy man, but gave it all to support the American cause. He was from Poland as well. So there are remarkable people from around the world that I talked about in the book that came to our assistance. Don't forget the French as well.
Doug:
[43:07] Yeah. Where can people find you online, Larry?
Larry:
[43:10] I have a website, which is Lawrence, spelled L-A-W-R-E-N-C-E, middle initial W, last name Reed, R-E-E-D, LawrenceWReed.com.
Doug:
[43:23] Excellent. Well, Larry, thank you so much for your book. I'm going to hold it up for those watching. Born of Ideas, my autofocus is not doing well here. So, oh, I know what it is. It's because my, it's because the software is doing it. There it is. I think I have, you've got it. It's working for you. Born of Ideas, How Principles, Faith, and Courage Forged America. This is a great little book, an introduction to a lot of important topics. And Larry, thank you so much for joining me on the show.
Larry:
[43:49] My pleasure, Doug. And thank you for all that you do and that the Libertarian Christian Institute does for all the right causes.
Doug:
[43:56] Thank you.
Norman Horn:
[43:58] Thank you for listening to another episode of the Libertarian Christian Podcast. If you liked today's episode, we encourage you to rate us on Apple Podcasts to help expand our audience. If you want to reach out to us, email us at podcast@libertarianchristians.com. You can also reach us @Lciofficial on Twitter. And of course we are on Facebook and have an active group you are welcome to join. Thanks for listening, and we'll see you next time.
Katherine Williams:
[44:21] The Libertarian Christian Podcast is a project of the Libertarian Christian Institute, a registered 501(c)3 non-profit. If you'd like to find out more about LCI, visit us on the web, at LibertarianChristians.com. The voiceovers are by Matt Bellis and Katherine Williams. As of Episode 115, our audio production is provided by Podsworth Media. Check them out at Podsworth.com.