History belongs to the victors and Progressives have definitely conquered academia. I don’t know how many times I’ve questioned the veracity of some of these professors’ assertions; after all, they’re scholars whose life’s work is devoted to a particular discipline. Most would say these men/women of letters deserve our respect. I would agree if they reported actual history instead of propaganda.
Some of these historical propagations don't pass the smell test. For instance, we’re told Theodore Roosevelt ran against his successor and former friend, Howard Taft, in the 1912 presidential election because Taft wasn’t “progressive enough.” Does that sound plausible to you? How about Roosevelt’s motivation for busting up Standard Oil? Was the old Trust Buster’s motivations pure?
I’m currently reading Murray Rothbard’s, The Progressive Era and some of these revelations are completely mind blowing. Here is a footnote that took me aback:
Knox left the attorney general position to become a senator in mid-1904, so he couldn’t have been that crucial in the government’s antitrust suit against Standard Oil. Regardless, Rothbard’s international motivation for explaining Roosevelt’s harsh attack on Rockefeller, which he at another time described as one which “there are no hard facts to prove it,” provides an intriguing global dimension to the clash between the Morgan and Rockefeller financial groups during the Progressive Era and beyond. In a later unwritten chapter, Rothbard planned to describe how Roosevelt’s successor in 1908, William Howard Taft, although put in by the Morgan ambit, was actually closer to the Rockefeller forces. As a result, in the middle of his presidency the Taft administration started to initiate antitrust suits against Morgan companies, in particular U.S. Steel and International Harvester, as retaliation for the Roosevelt assault on Rockefeller interests. Therefore, in order to deny Taft reelection in 1912 the Morgan interests formed the Progressive Party and put Roosevelt on the ticket. This heavily pietist, intellectual and Morgan-laden party was able to deny Taft reelection and allow for the Democratic candidate, Woodrow Wilson, to win the White House.
Historians agree that Roosevelt, Taft and Wilson were progressives. What they won’t tell us is the financial interest that were backing them and advocating for legislation that propel their interest. Trust busters indeed, it all depends on whose “trust” is getting busted.
Knox left the attorney general position to become a senator in mid-1904, so he couldn’t have been that crucial in the government’s antitrust suit against Standard Oil. Regardless, Rothbard’s international motivation for explaining Roosevelt’s harsh attack on Rockefeller, which he at another time described as one which “there are no hard facts to prove it,” provides an intriguing global dimension to the clash between the Morgan and Rockefeller financial groups during the Progressive Era and beyond. In a later unwritten chapter, Rothbard planned to describe how Roosevelt’s successor in 1908, William Howard Taft, although put in by the Morgan ambit, was actually closer to the Rockefeller forces. As a result, in the middle of his presidency the Taft administration started to initiate antitrust suits against Morgan companies, in particular U.S. Steel and International Harvester, as retaliation for the Roosevelt assault on Rockefeller interests. Therefore, in order to deny Taft reelection in 1912 the Morgan interests formed the Progressive Party and put Roosevelt on the ticket. This heavily pietist, intellectual and Morgan-laden party was able to deny Taft reelection and allow for the Democratic candidate, Woodrow Wilson, to win the White House.
Historians agree that Roosevelt, Taft and Wilson were progressives. What they won’t tell us is the financial interest that were backing them and advocating for legislation that propel their interest. Trust busters indeed, it all depends on whose “trust” is getting busted.
No comments:
Post a Comment