A Review of Murray N. Rothbard’s Conceived in Liberty, Vol. 5

Holy Writ

The posthumous release of Murray Rothbard’s fifth volume of his early American history series, Conceived in Liberty, is a cause of celebration not only for those interested in the country’s constitutional period, but also for the present day as the nation is faced with acute social, economic, and political crises.


Murray Rothbard, the foremost representative of the “American branch” of the Austrian School of Economics was not only an accomplished economic theorist, but also a great historian and political philosopher, who provided us with highly valuable insights and critical rebuttals of what is considered established and “acceptable” opinion these days. [PT]


The fifth volume, The New Republic: 1784-1791, stands with Boston T. Party’s 1997 release, Hologram of Liberty, as a grand rebuttal of the cherished notion held by most contemporary scholars, pundits on the Right, and surprisingly, many libertarians, who believe that the US Constitution is some great bulwark in defense of individual liberty and a promoter of economic success.

Rothbard’s narrative highlights the crucial years after the American Revolution, focusing on the events and personalities that led to the calling for, drafting, and eventual promulgation of the Constitution in 1789.

Not only does he describe the key factors that led to the creation of the American nation-state, but he gives an insightful account of the machinations which took place in Philadelphia and a trenchant analysis of the document itself, which in the eyes of most conservatives is on a par with Holy Writ.


Murray Rothbard, Conceived in Liberty, The New Republic: 1784 – 1791 (download link to PDF version) [PT]


What Might Have Been

While Rothbard writes in a lively and engaging manner, the eventual outcome and triumph of the nationalist forces leaves the reader wistful.  Despite the fears expressed by the anti-federalists that the new government was too powerful and would lead to tyranny, the Constitution came into being through coercion, threats, lies, bribery, and arm twisting by the politically astute Federalists.  Yet, what if it had been the other way around and the forces against it had prevailed?

It is safe to assume that America would have been a far more prosperous and less war-like place.  The common held notion that the Constitution was needed to keep peace among the contending states is countered by Rothbard, who points out a number of instances where states settled their differences, most notably Maryland and Virginia as they came to an agreement on the navigation of the Chesapeake Bay. [129-30]

Without a powerful central state to extract resources and manpower, overseas intervention by the country would have been difficult to undertake. Thus, the disastrous participation of the US in the two world wars would have been avoided.  Furthermore, it would have been extremely unlikely for a Confederation Congress to impose an income tax as the federal government successfully did through a constitutional amendment in 1913.

Nor would the horrific and misnamed “Civil War” with its immense loss of life and the destruction of the once flourishing Southern civilization ever have taken place.  The triumph of the Federal government ended “states rights” in the US forever and no doubt inspired centralizing tendencies throughout the world, most notably in Germany which became unified under Prussian domination.

In a failed attempt in 1786 to enact an impost levy under the Confederation, Abraham Yates, a New York lawyer and prominent anti-federalist, spoke of decentralization as the key to liberty, as Rothbard aptly summarizes:


“Yates also warned that true republicanism can only be preserved in small states, and keenly pointed out that in the successful Republics of Switzerland and the Netherlands the local provinces retained full control over their finances.  A taxing power in Congress would demolish state sovereignty and reduce the states, where the people could keep watch on their representatives, to mere adjuncts of congressional power, and liberty would be gone.”  [64


Anti-federalists such as Yates had a far greater understanding of how liberty and individual rights would be protected than their statist opponents such as Alexander Hamilton and James Madison.  The anti-federalists looked to Europe as a model, which, for most of its history, was made up of decentralized political configurations.


Abraham Yates jr., August 23, 1724 – June 30, 1796: Anti-federalist, lawyer, New York State Senator and Mayor of Albany, NY. [PT]


The Federalists, on the other hand, got much of their inspiration from the Roman Republic and later Empire. There is little question that if the Constitution had never passed, an America with the political attributes of a multi-state Europe would be far less menacing to both its own inhabitants and to the rest of the world than what it has become under the current Federal Leviathan.

Speculation aside, historical reality meant that America would be fundamentally different than it would have been had the Articles of Confederation survived, as Rothbard points out:


“The enactment of the Constitution in 1788 drastically changed the course of American history from its natural decentralized and libertarian direction to an omnipresent leviathan that fulfilled all of the anti-federalists’ fears.”  [312]


The Limited Government Myth

One of the great myths surrounding the American Constitution – which continues to inform conservative circles to this very day – is that the document limits government power.  After reading Rothbard, such a notion can only be considered a fairy tale!

The supposed “defects” of the Articles of Confederation were adroitly used by the wily nationalists as a cover to hide their real motives.  Simply put, the Articles had to be scrapped and a new national government –  far more powerful than what had existed under the Articles – had to be created, as Rothbard asserts:


“The nationalists who went into the convention agreed on certain broad objectives, crucial for a new government, all designed to remodel the United States into a country with the British political structure.  [145]


In passing the Constitution, the nationalist forces gained almost all they had set out to accomplish – a powerful central state and with it a strong chief executive office, and the destruction of the states as sovereign entities.

The supposed “checks and balances,” so much beloved by Constitution enthusiasts, have proven worthless in checking the central state’s growth.  Checks and balances exist within the central government and are not offset by any prevailing power, be it the states or the citizenry.

There was no reform of the system as it stood, but a new state was erected on the decentralized foundation of the Confederation. Why the idea of the founding fathers as limited government proponents arose is a mystery.


Declaration of Independence vs. the Constitution – the latter did not succeed in creating “limited government” – over time it has become nigh limit-less government instead. [PT]


The Chief Executive

As it developed, the Presidency has become the most powerful and thus the most dangerous office in the world.  While its occupants certainly took advantage of situations and created crises themselves over the years, the Presidency, especially in foreign policy, is largely immune from any real oversight either from the legislature or judiciary.

This was not by happenstance.  From the start, the nationalists envisioned a powerful executive branch, and though the most extreme among the group were eventually thwarted in their desire to recreate a British-style monarchy in America, the final draft of the Constitution granted considerable power to the presidential office.

As they did throughout the Constitutional proceedings, the nationalists cleverly altered the concept of what an executive office in a republic should be, by subtle changes in the wording of the document as Rothbard incisively explains:


“[T]he nationalists proceeded to alter… and exult the executive in a highly important textual change.  Whenever the draft had stated that the president ‘may recommend’ measures to the Congress, the convention changed ‘may’ to ‘shall,’ which provided a ready conduit to the president for wielding effective law-making powers, while the legislature was essentially reduced to a ratification agency of laws proposed by the president.”  [190-91]


As if this was not bad enough, the office was given the ability to create departments within its own domain.


“In another fateful change, the president was given the power to create a bureaucracy within the executive by filling all offices not otherwise provided for in the Constitution, in addition to those later created by laws.”  [191]


The totalitarian federal agencies that plague the daily lives of Americans were not some later innovation by the Progressive movement or New Dealers, but had been provided for within the document itself.

The efforts of those opposed to the various social welfare schemes of the past, which have been put into effect through the various Cabinet departments, have been in vain since the power was given to the Presidency and has been taken advantage of by nearly all of its occupants.


The US Presidency: an exceedingly powerful office. [PT]


Rothbard’s analysis of the chief executive office is especially pertinent since the nation is once again in the midst of another seemingly endless presidential election cycle.

The reason that the office has attracted so many of the worst sort (which is being kind), is because of its power.  If elected, the ability to control, regulate, impoverish, and kill not only one’s fellow citizens, but peoples across the globe is an immense attraction for sociopaths!


A Coup d’état and Counter Revolution

Rothbard makes the compelling case that the Constitution was a counter revolution, which was a betrayal of the ideology that brought about the Revolution:


“The Americans were struggling not primarily for independence but for political- economic liberty against the mercantilism of the British Empire.  The struggle was waged against taxes, prohibitions, and regulations – a whole failure of repression that the Americans, upheld by an ideology of liberty, had fought and torn asunder…   [T]he American Revolution was in essence not so much against Britain as against British Big Government – and specially against an all-powerful central government and a supreme executive.”  [307]


He continues:


“[T]he American Revolution was liberal, democratic, and quasi-anarchistic; for decentralization, free markets, and individual liberty; for natural rights of life, liberty, and property; against monarchy, mercantilism, and especially against strong central government.  [307-08]


There was, however, always a “conservative” element within the revolutionary leadership that admired Great Britain and wanted to replicate it in America.  It was only when there was no alternative to British political and economic oppression that they joined with their more liberal-libertarian brethren and decided for independence.

Conservatives did not go away after independence, but would continue to push for an expansion of government under the Articles and finally, after most of their designs were consistently thwarted, did they scheme to impose a powerful central state upon the unsuspecting country. Yet, they would not have triumphed had not a number of key liberal-libertarians of the revolutionary generation moved to the Right during the decade following independence.


Several famous defectors of the anti-federalist cause according to Rothbard: former radical libertarians who decided that arranging themselves with the federalist establishment suited them better in their old age. [PT]


Rothbard shows why he is the master in power-elite historical analysis in his discussion of this tragic shift, which would spell the death knell for any future politically decentralized America:


“[O]ne of the…  reasons for the defeat of the anti-federalists, though they commanded a majority of the public, was the decimation that had taken place in radical and liberal leadership during the 1780s.  A whole galaxy of ex-radicals, ex-decentralists, and ex-libertarians, found in their old age that they could comfortably live in the new Establishment.  The list of such defections is impressive, including John Adams, Sam Adams, John Hancock, Benjamin Rush, Thomas Paine, Alexander McDougall, Isaac Sears, and Christopher Gadsden.”  [308-09]


As the country’s elite became more statist and as political (Shay’s Rebellion) and  economic (a depression) factors played into their hands, conservatives seized the opportunity to erect a powerful national government in America:


“It was a bloodless coup d’état against an unresisting Confederation Congress… The drive was managed by a corps of brilliant members and representatives of the financial and landed oligarchy.  These wealthy merchants and large landowners were joined by the urban artisans of the large cities in their drive to create a strong overriding central government – a supreme government with its own absolute power to tax, regulate commerce, and raise armies.”  [306]



The Mises Institute and the editor of the book, Patrick Neumann, must be given immense credit for bringing this important piece of scholarship into print.  Once read, any notion of the “founding fathers” as disinterested statesmen who sublimated their own interests and that of their constituents to that of their country will be disavowed.

Moreover, The New Republic:1784-1791 is the most important in the series since the grave crises that the nation now faces can be traced to those fateful days in Philadelphia when a powerful central state was created.

Volume Five shows that the problems of America’s past and the ones it now faces are due to the Constitution.  The remedy to the present societal ills is not electing the “right” congressman, or president, but to “devolve” politically into a multitude of states and jurisdictions.

For the future of liberty and economic well-being, this is where efforts should be placed and the final volume of Murray Rothbard’s Conceived in Liberty is essential reading if that long, arduous, but much necessary task is to be undertaken.


Editing and image captions by PT


Antonius Aquinas is an author, lecturer, a contributor to Acting Man, SGT Report, The Burning Platform, Dollar Collapse, The Daily Coin and Zero Hedge. Contact him at antoniusaquinas[at]gmail[dot]com https://antoniusaquinas.com/.




Emigrate While You Can... Learn More




Dear Readers!

You may have noticed that our so-called “semiannual” funding drive, which started sometime in the summer if memory serves, has seamlessly segued into the winter. In fact, the year is almost over! We assure you this is not merely evidence of our chutzpa; rather, it is indicative of the fact that ad income still needs to be supplemented in order to support upkeep of the site. Naturally, the traditional benefits that can be spontaneously triggered by donations to this site remain operative regardless of the season - ranging from a boost to general well-being/happiness (inter alia featuring improved sleep & appetite), children including you in their songs, up to the likely allotment of privileges in the afterlife, etc., etc., but the Christmas season is probably an especially propitious time to cross our palms with silver. A special thank you to all readers who have already chipped in, your generosity is greatly appreciated. Regardless of that, we are honored by everybody's readership and hope we have managed to add a little value to your life.


Bitcoin address: 12vB2LeWQNjWh59tyfWw23ySqJ9kTfJifA


3 Responses to “The Constitution IS the Crisis”

  • All-Your-Gold-Are-Mine:

    Your article is a complete an utter misinterpretation of the history of our constitution. I would explain it to you, but reading a few articles you’ve posted in the past here, I realize educating you would be a colossal waste of my time. You’d be better off like most left-wing socialists to just leave this great nation we call America, where some of us have made huge sacrifices for its advancement. I don’t know, how about moving to Venezuela where your ilk have already destroyed the society with your specious arguments that lead to electing authoritarians like Hugo Chavez… what a shame to have such faulty logic.

    • Patrick:

      While the US Constitution certainly laid out our individual freedoms (making it far better than many other nations’ founding documents), it also formed the basis of the Federal government. Good intentions aside, aren’t all centralized governments the inevitable catalyst for producing socialism? I’m not talking specifically about Democracies vs Republics vs Communism but all ‘centralized’ governments. What has the outcome always lead to? Centralized Capitalism or Centralized Socialism? “Centralized Capitalism” what an oxymoron!

      Doesn’t “Decentralized Capitalism” ring truer? Wouldn’t a confederation of states; each having to compete for resources like labor and capital via its residents form the basis for capitalism? And if any state delivered less, taxed more and couldn’t adhere to its budget then people could vote with their feet by moving. Moving being the best vote one could cast, because it’s truly putting your money where your mouth is. The system we have now is a free form we check boxes on, with the expectation of getting something for nothing. Gee, who woulda thought that getting hundreds of millions of people together and asking them what they ‘wish for’ would lead to a system where politicians pander to those desires?

      So, while it had the best of intentions when created, the result of the US Constitution was socialism that grows in size and power with every election. Democrat or Republican, it’s STILL socialism because they either print money for the rich or print money for the poor.

  • Patrick:

    So in effect the US Constitution was a trojan horse!

    While I’ve always felt it to be a noble document, at the same time I’ve always had a sneaking suspicion that it laid out our freedoms not ‘solely’ for the purpose of protecting them but to also provide a centralized means of attacking them. By not outlining any means to protect & upload those rights under penalty or in failing to attach the charge of treason for any domestic government body that purposefully treads on them; the Constitution serves as little more than a DARE to those in power to take them away.

    Brilliant read!

Your comment:

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Most read in the last 20 days:

  • No results available

Support Acting Man

Austrian Theory and Investment


The Review Insider


Most Read Articles

Dog Blow

THE GOLD CARTEL: Government Intervention on Gold, the Mega Bubble in Paper and What This Means for Your Future

Realtime Charts


Gold in USD:

[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]



Gold in EUR:

[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]



Silver in USD:

[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]



Platinum in USD:

[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]



USD - Index:

[Most Recent USD from www.kitco.com]


Mish Talk

    Buy Silver Now!
    Buy Gold Now!