Thomas Woods responds.

Thomas Woods e-mailed me. I offered to post the e-mail and he didn't object. Here it is, unedited. (updated)

I read your blog entry about me; you seem to be relying on, shall we say, a few hostile sources for your information. If you are a fair-minded person, you might consider this: http://blog.lewrockwell.com/lewrw/archives/007450.html

You are talking about a meeting I went to -- which was not billed as a "neo-Confederate" meeting -- in freaking 1994. Surely you can do better than that. I have a book come out in 2007, and your response (without knowing any of the details) is that I did something politically incorrect thirteen years ago? Since that time I have accumulated a substantial volume of scholarly writing as well as a major online archive, absolutely none of which contains any of these terrible things I am purported to believe. (I notice you do not quote me, you quote people I've never met and have no relationship with.)

Does the following sound compatible with what you wrote about me?

I hold a bachelor's degree in history from Harvard and my master's, M.Phil., and Ph.D. from Columbia University. My book The Church and the Market won first place (which carries a $50,000 prize) in the prestigious Templeton Enterprise Awards for 2006. Columbia University Press just released a paperback edition of my book The Church Confronts Modernity, which earned rave reviews in all the major professional journals, including the Journal of American History, the American Historical Review, the Catholic Historical Review, Theological Studies and countless others. My six books, published by top houses, have been translated into many languages. I have written for scores of popular and scholarly periodicals, from the American Historical Review to Investor's Business Daily. I'm also the co-editor of an eleven-volume encyclopedia of American history. (For my full credentials see my website, ThomasEWoods.com.)

My views have changed over the years to some degree, to be sure, but you'd think the smear artists you cite would have done me the courtesy of looking into what I've been writing for the past, oh, ten years. How many "neo-Confederates" have argued on behalf of Lysander Spooner's anti-slavery interpretation of the Constitution, or made constitutional arguments against fugitive-slave laws? (Listen to http://tinyurl.com/yrjf68) How many argue that the slaves had the natural right to kill their masters and confiscate their property?

As for the "Lost Cause revisionism," my book does not deny slavery as the major cause of the war, but why could the war have had no other causes or consequences? Why not read the book first?

I have an extremely distinguished scholarly record, and I deeply resent these attempts to portray me as a hate-filled extremist. What's funnier still is that I'm surely more anti-Bush than even you are, and I'm absolutely confident that I'm more consistently antiwar. I'm probably even more anti-neocon than you are. Why not read this article of mine and tell me what you think? http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods69.html

I know how bitter Internet exchanges can be, but I'm still naive enough to think that if we make an effort, one human being to another, we can respect one another even while disagreeing. I have countless leftist friends who cheer my position on the war (and many other things) -- one, Murray Polner, is writing a book with me on the subject.

Again, I hope you'll reconsider.

Cordially,

Tom Woods

For the record, I wrote Woods back and raised several points:

1) I thought it exceedingly weird that Woods refers to the offensive, disturbing, extremist views on the League of the South's website as "politically incorrect" (see here: http://blog.lewrockwell.com/lewrw/archives/007450.html). I pointed out that his dismissing it as politically incorrect was in fact political correctness -- exactly what his book purports to criticize.

2) I wondered why Woods would remain in an organization like SOL for "years."

3) Both Media Matters and Southern Poverty Law Center have excellent reputations and are not "smear artists."

4) In my view, Woods' views on Bush and the war aren't relevant to his affiliation with the League of the South.

5) I asked Woods about this bio (http://www.southerngrace.biz/bonnieblue/14_thomas_e.htm), which dates from 2003.

6) I pointed out that whether or not Woods endorses the current leadership or mission of the League of the South, he either must repudiate and denounce it, or accept the consequences of being associated with it.

Woods responded and basically said that he doesn't feel the need to repudiate the League of the South because his actual views are well known and that he doesn't think it will do any good if he did in any case.

As for the bio, he doesn't dispute it factually but claims to not be an active member of the League of the South.

UPDATE

Putz has updated his original post:

No, I haven't been a fan of Woods' work in the past. However, after I posted this link he emailed to say that earlier claims that he's a neo-confederate are false. So there's that in his favor.

All better then!