RSS
Paleo? Please.
Posted by Bill on Feb 13th, 2008
2008
Feb 13
I have been noodling around a bit on various blogs sponsored by the “paleo” persuasion. I know we have a few in-house paleos here. The discussions have been spirited and cordial and the argument heated and well played. Yet there is one re-occurring theme on most sites: the Confederacy.
February 13th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
I’ve bookmarked this and I’ll try to remember to answer it for you tomorrow, Bill. In the meantime, the short answer is, everything you think you know about American History is wrong…
February 13th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Confederate
You’ll find a lot of the names/sites our paleo friends cite accused of being neo-confederates. A lot of Chronicles contributors and Ludwig von Mises fellows. Go figure.
The funny thing is, the only people who read them are – well – themselves. When they refer to Lincoln as a “tyrant” or drone on about Southern apologetics, you can’t help but laugh and make sure you make it to confession before mass on Sunday.
February 13th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Thomas Woods Jr. (for whom I had an inkling of respect before reading this claptrap) seems to correlate the disappearance of “traditional sympathy for the American South” with- you guessed it – the rise of neoconservatism:
“The conservative’s traditional sympathy for the American South and its people and heritage, evident in the works of such great American conservatives as Richard M. Weaver and Russell Kirk, began to disappear…. [T]he neocons are heavily influenced by Woodrow Wilson, with perhaps a hint of Theodore Roosevelt…. They believe in an aggressive U.S. presence practically everywhere, and in the spread of democracy around the world, by force if necessary…. Neoconservatives tend to want more efficient government agencies; paleoconservatives want fewer government agencies. They generally admire President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his heavily interventionist New Deal policies. Neoconservatives have not exactly been known for their budget consciousness, and you won’t hear them talking about making any serious inroads into the federal apparatus.”
So, in the end, if you’re a secessionist you’re anti-neocon, anti-fed gov, and anti-FDR.
I, for one, have never been a fan of FDR, despise big government, and would like to see less tax and spend types getting elected to office. ayet ai could care less about the South and feel geenral contempt for neo-confederists.
Another example of that classic us/them paleo mindset coming to the fore. But hey, at least we have our own “neo-cons” to lambaste.
February 13th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Sorry, that was plagued with typos. We yankees tend to have fat fingers. All that book learnin’ and not enough typin’.
February 13th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Bill writes : “Is there a self-described paleocon out there that is not a . . . state secessionist lover?”
I would prefer secession of a much smaller entity than the State I live in since it is likewise far beyond that size which history shows lends itself to perfection.
Does that qualify as not being a “state secessionist lover?”
February 13th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
Mr. Newland, I simply can not wait to hear your answer! You obviously paint with a broad brush.
February 14th, 2008 at 9:15 am
It’s a trap!
February 14th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
This is the same response I posted at my blog, Conservative Heritage Times.
Bill, it depends on what you mean by Neo-Confederate. Not all paleos are consciously Confederates (I hate the prefix neo.) or self-identify as such. It also depends on what you mean by paleo. If paleo just means conservatives who embrace a certain set of issues (fair trade, restricted immigration, and non-intervention, Buchananism if you will) then not all of those would self identify as Confederates either. Particularly those “paleos” who are more nationalistic.
But at a deeper level, paleoconservatism is more than just a certain set of issues. It is a philosophy or a mindset. It is a restoration of classical or traditionalist conservatism. As such, it consciously opposes all or part of Enlightenment liberalism. (When I say liberalism, I don’t mean Hillary style modern liberalism. I mean the grand Enlightenment [and earlier] idea of liberalism that was in opposition to classical conservatism and the old order.)
I think almost all (all) of the thoughtful leaders of paleoconservatism as an idea and not just a political designation believe that the Southern states had a right to secede. In fact, if they didn’t it would be hard to consider them paleos as paleos oppose the modern state in favor of regionalism and localism and a government that is sustainable and on the human scale.
Not all think the South acted wisely when they seceded, and not all think secession is a wise or plausible path to pursue now, most famously the late Sam Francis. But Sam did concede that the South had a right to secede and that Lincoln acted barbarically in opposing it.
Conservative Bill, you are defending the modern nation state which is a product of the French Revolution and as such is entirely a left-wing conception whether you know you are or not. Hence you are attempting to conserve a left-wing idea. Don’t automatically get defensive. Just think about it.
February 14th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Superfluous, why do you have “contempt” for Confederates instead of just politely disagreeing with them as I am sure you do many other groups with whom you disagree? That is an emotional word. Why, rationally, do you have contempt for them? I mean more than just because they make you feel icky. For point of reference, what other groups do you have “contempt” for?
Bill, your use of the derisive “Southern Cross wearing, rebel-yelling Confederate lover” gives away the at least partially irrational and emotion laden source of your objections as well. Where are you from? I am from Georgia. I have and wear proudly attire with Confederate Flag imagery. Many people do down here, and it makes me proud every time I see it. I think at least not everyone has been reconstructed. What of it?
February 14th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
First, welcome Red. Now, on with the show!
I am surmising from your post that you believe, mind you very boiled down, that all Confederates (I will drop the “neo” if you prefer, it matters not to me) are paleos but not all paleos are necessarily Confederates. You agree?
Second, I will proudly wear the badge of classic liberal if you pin it upon me. Left-wing however, is not a coat I put on. I very much oppose socialism; I do not cheer for a large welfare state. I support each state’s right to self-government and regional control on matters solely of local importance that do not abridge the freedoms and rights of others. I advocate and argue for a textual reading of the Constitution. I do however believe in the central power of the federal government. I like military control centralized in the national government. I like the use of a single currency. I steadfastly believe the natural rights of all citizens should be guaranteed by one federal government. I believe in the free exchange of goods and services across state lines, etc….
I think you and many of the paleos (and obviously the Confederates) desire a return to the days when the several states were held together by the Articles of Confederation. But those days proved hard, both states and the majority of the citizens found this arrangement undesirable and unworkable, hence the drafting and ratifying of the Constitution. It appears paleos (and definitely Confederates) often confuse the two.
Where am I from? I have lived all over this glorious nation, north, south east and now the west. I have spent a fair number of years in each location.
As to the Southern Cross, I find it a symbol of treason and racism. It is no more a symbol of heritage than the swastika. They are both symbols of tragedy, sorrow, oppression and mistakes.
Finally, I rarely become defensive. I love politics and a good sound debate. Fear not offending me by merely stating your opinion on politics and philosophy, you will not. Hand in hand with this, I do not fear offending you or anyone else with my political and/or philosophical beliefs. Debate and engagement is, after all, how Truth is discovered.
February 14th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
“I think you and many of the paleos (and obviously the Confederates) desire a return to the days when the several states were held together by the Articles of Confederation.”
You think wrong. And you think wrong because you’re ignorant of the similarities that existed between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution that replaced it. Put another way, your understanding of the true intent and meaning of the Constitution is faulty. You’ve bought into the cult of the New Constitution–the one that came into existence after the Civil War–and are apparently oblivious to the complete opposition between it and the one that existed before.
You are not, in your heart, an American, Bill. You are a Frenchman; a fan of the Revolution of ‘89 with its radical egalitarianism backed by the threat of authoritarian terror, not of ‘76 and its focus on the principle of self-government.
“As to the Southern Cross, I find it a symbol of treason and racism.”
Treason how? Because the Southern people attempted to exercise their natural right to self-government? Because they reclaimed the sovereignty they had previously lent to the central government, as it was their full right to do, in order to lend it to another instead? Make your case, but I doubt you can make it any better than Lincoln or Joseph Story could, and I’ve been through their arguments with a fine-toothed comb.
Racism? Then I guess the Stars and Stripes is a symbol of racism as well. The North had slaves too, after all. In fact, it was almost exclusively Northerners who were involved in the African slave trade.
Your real reason for linking the Confederate flag to racism, no doubt, is that you think the Civil War was fought over slavery, and that all those Southern boys who fought and died–practically none of whom owned a single slave–did it to keep the black man down (and conversely, that all those Northern boys who died did it to free the black man). What nonsense. The war was fought over the right of secession. The fact couldn’t be plainer.
You think the Southern cause depended in some essential way upon slavery and that the North was as pure as the driven snow. It did not and they were not. Slavery was an evil that existed in America at the time of the founding. If the founders had intended to create the egalitarian society you suppose, it is completely absurd to imagine they would have invited the slaveholding states to join them. Yet that’s what they did. They even wrote protections for the institution into the Constitution itself in order to help ensure that the slaveholding states would join. The reason they did that is because their Constitution was designed to promote and protect the principle of self-government, not equality, and while ideally that principle should not and does not conflict with the principle of political equality among men, it did at that time due to the existence of slavery. The problem created by this situation is that you can’t have two equally fundamental principles. One must always outweigh the other. Thus, if the primary principle of our Constitution was the right and necessity of self-government, and self-government was found to be best safeguarded by sovereignty split between the national and State governments, then absolute equality must take a back seat to that. Conversely, if equality is the prior and more important principle, then self-government must suffer whenever these come into conflict.
As a modern, pro-14th Amendment liberal, you think everything must pass the equality test first, before any other consideration. If for me to be free requires another man to be less free than I am, then in your mind neither of us should be free. (Because it’s just not fair.) I, on the other hand, think that the ability for anyone whatsoever to be free rests upon our ability to govern ourselves and protect ourselves from the authoritarian corruption that attends an unchecked national government. Our Constitution was designed to do that. Whereas other systems had attempted to restrain the theoretically limitless powers of their central government, our system sought to retain the power in the people and the States, and strictly limit the power available to the central government in the first place. This is why States’ rights are so important. While we have an admirable system of checks and balances between the three agencies of the federal government, the States, in the original formulation, were the people’s check on the designs of the federal government itself. Sadly, that check is now gone…and you celebrate it. We, the People, have no protection remaining against the encroachments of the national government. None. You can daydream all you want about the possibility of limited government under the curent, modern regime, but the fact is that you have made such a thing not just theoretically, but actually, impossible! You have betrayed the Constitution and its aims. You have converted us from a singular society of men capable of resisting tyranny, to just another authoritarian state on the European model.
So what of equality, then? Unfortunately, I don’t think there is an answer. I’m a fan of equality. I don’t want to enslave anyone. I don’t want to keep colored people in a cage in my backyard to beat with sticks for my own amusement. But the only alternative to leaving open that possibility within the Sates is to endow some other power with the authority to prevent it–in our case, by endowing the national government with the right to regulate the affairs of the States. Once that is done, the final arbiter of everything becomes the national government, and there is no stopping it from gathering all power whatsoever to itself…as has manifestly happened.
February 14th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
JN: ” I don’t want to keep colored people in a cage in my backyard to beat with sticks for my own amusement.”
Holy Shit! That’s the only other person I know besides my great grandmother to refer to black people as “colored.”
February 14th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Superfluous loves P.C.
February 14th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
VEry nice Mr. Newland
____________________
Superfluous man,
Mr. Newland was referring to Tueregs who are blue tinted in color. Not those who are black in color.
February 14th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
I didn’t say I love PC. Actually, I can do without it. I just think Mr. Newland is dating himself with the use of the term “colored,” regardless of whether or not he wants to keep them in a cage, etc.
February 14th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
I’ll chalk it up to Mr. Newland’s intellectual shorthand.
Good post, by the way, Newland. Despite the nasty mess of the last paragraph. I’m just not sure I buy into the neoconfederates’ (seemingly, your) view of the Civil War being based solely on the right of secession. There were so many factors in play, I don’t think you can gauge the entire Civil War as a states’ rights issue. A little shortsighted, in my opinion.
February 14th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Mr. Newland-
YOU ARE NOT, IN YOUR HEART, AN AMERICAN, BILL
“You are not, in your heart, an American, Bill. You are a Frenchman; a fan of the Revolution of ‘89 with its radical egalitarianism backed by the threat of authoritarian terror, not of ‘76 and its focus on the principle of self-government.”
You need to return to a study of the French Revolution if you really think the American Civil War is so similar to the French Revolution! But never mind that for now….
You yourself support the idea of “authoriatrian terror” as a legitimate tool insofar as you are at least comfortable with the notion of a state condoning slavery because it boils down to a state’s right. What B.S.! you supplant federal power over the states with state power of the “colored[s].” who is guilty of sponsoring authoritarian terror here? It sure seems as if you do, Mr. Newland. I support freedom for all men, not simply those with power or the “correct” color.
TREASON
“sovereignty they had previously lent to the central government…”
Lent?! Try gave. These may help you:
Article IV, Section 3.
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
(Well, looks as if Congress, i.e. the Federal government, has control over a state’s territory.)
Article 1, Section 8.
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections…
(war fought for secession sure sounds like an insurrection to me)
Article 1, Section 10.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay
(again, the consent of Congress)
Furthermore, a comparison of the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution demonstartes the difference in the power balance between the states and the federal government. Finally on this note, the South surely failed to meet levels mentioned in the Declaration of Independence to ” throw off such Government.” The South hardly faced a “…long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism….” In fact, they had all the rights guaranteed to them by the other states. The South’s grievances ought to have been fought out in the legislature and courts, not on the battlefields.
RACISM
Yep, the North was guilty of racism and foul play. I have no illusions to the North as “being pure as the driven snow.” How you surmised this, I don’t know. Another figment of your imagination, I suppose.
The war was fought over slavery. Southern traitors argued that they were fighting for state’s rights. But what was their fundamental argument? That states should decide for themselves whether to allow the cruel and barbaric practice of enslavement! The war was over slavery. Re-phrase it how you will, it does not hide the true issue from anyone with a thinking mind.
14th AMENDMENT
Yes, I am rather found of due process and equal protection. Only tyrants and the insane would not be.
SUMMARY
Slavery is wrong. The South fought for the “state’s right” to enslave and maltreat human beings. The South had no just cause and thus no right to seceed from the Union. Arguing against the continued slander of the neo-confederate does not make on “liberal” or anti-American. It makes one free, just and a defender of human dignity.
February 14th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Superfluous. I do not, indeed, think that slavery had nothing to do with the Civil War. Clearly, it was the backdrop for the whole affair. Specifically, it was the (main) issue that the Southern States seceded over. However, Lincoln did not invade the South to end slavery. He invaded because the South seceded (and attacked Fort Sumter, Lincoln’s resupply of which the South had seen as an invasion itself). That’s all I mean when I say the war was fought over secession.
Yes, I’m sorry for my poor composition. I often wince myself when I read over what I’ve posted. It can be difficult to keep posts of any length at all coherent given these little boxes Wordpress provides.
Bill, I’ll get back to you when I have more time, as every inaccuracy and error of yours deserves an answer
February 14th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
Incidentally, Superfluous, I used “colored” because I don’t limit the possible targets of color-based racism to Negroes. I also used it because substituting something like “non-white” would be far too P.C. for my bones.
February 14th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Wasn’t this supposed to be a discussion of President Lincoln and the common paleoconservative position that he was a “tyrant.” I appreciate the discussion of the merits of the Southern secession but I am interested in the original question. I for one believe that President Lincoln is in the top three greatest United States Presidents, the others including President Washington and The Great Communicator.
February 14th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Don’t forget TR.
February 14th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
awb, I know this is supposed to be about Lincoln, but it’s hard to make a case against the man without some background being laid first. If we maintain that he committed terrible crimes against the Constitution, we need to explain first what our view of the Constitution is so that it makes some sense. Obviously, on the modern, shall we say liberal, interpretation of the Constitution, he did nothing wrong at all (well, except for that nasty habeus corpus business). In other words, it would be pretty pointless for us to try to prove our case from your premises.
For what it’s worth, let me prepare by saying I’m not a kneejerk Lincoln “hater.” I’m no fan of the man, as I do think he destroyed the country, but I don’t see him as some red-eyed devil, either. He just had an overzealous love of centralized power that went against the grain of the American founding. There were certainly plenty more like him in our history, beginning with Alexander Hamilton. My feelings for Lincoln, then, are something like my feelings for FDR or Hamilton, only more so in proportion to the damage done.
I also happen to think Lincoln was sincere in wanting to end slavery, even if he wasn’t willing to wage war over it. Some paleos see him as a bald-faced liar who would say anything to get elected, but who in fact didn’t care at all for the plight of the slaves. I disagree. Whether he loved the slaves or not, I think he wanted slavery to be gone from this country. If it had happened naturally, fine, but when the opportunity to end it by force arose, he took it. I don’t particularly fault him for that. However, I do fault him for all the injustices done to the Southern people up to that point which made the liberation possible.
February 14th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
Again, I ask is there not a paleoconservative out there that is not also a neoconfederate? So far the only answer is “no.”
So I am left to think that paleoconservatives are a regional bunch at best and a cancer against human dignity at worst. After all, how else could you defend slavery as a necessary “state’s right” in the name of hedging against federal governance?
Please, someone, demonstrate to me that you are anti slavery, anti-confederacy and pro paleo…I am waiting.
February 15th, 2008 at 11:04 am
Bill,
No one is arguing that chattel slavery is a good.
What they are arguing is, is that the Union attacked the Confederacy so as to force it back into the Union.
Why or why not the Southern States seceded is accidental as to why Lincoln under his sole volition without consent of congress chose to invade the Southern seceding States. Both are separate acts of the Will. It is the Will of Lincoln that is under discussion as to why he is viewed as evil, both as tyrant within the Union, and as unjust aggressor abroad.
February 15th, 2008 at 11:37 am
I agree, no one (on this site) has said slavery is good but many (most of the paleos) defend it as the right of the state to decide if slavery should be allowed. I find that abhorent.
As to the questions, I could swear I wrote the post and asked the following TWO questions:
1) Why do Paleos hate Lincoln?
2) Is there a self-described paleocon out there that is not a neoconfederate?
February 15th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Bill writes : “(most of the paleos) defend it as the right of the state to decide if slavery should be allowed. I find that abhorent.”
Where else should the right reside, if not the sovereign? With execution of that right according to that which is knowable to the sovereign from whom we can no more expect indefectibility, than we can within the Pope expect impeccability. And just as within the Church, where papal infallibility does not exist without prior understanding of the subject of the infallible decree, so likewise with the sovereign, just rule does not exist without prior understanding of the moral law.
Thus, just as we allowance for, and do not expect manorial lords to have recognized the immorality of the bondage under serfdom, so likewise we should not expect chattel slave owner to have recognized that which was likewise beyond their capacity to understand. I may likewise find serfdom abhorrent, but I do not abhor those who lived in those societies, and further recognize that sin is in the Will according to knowledge of the sin.
The application of the moral law is within the purview of each sovereign society. That does not mean that each sovereign can choose to ignore the moral law as if not binding, but ‘right’ as rendered according to distributive justice under which the moral law falls is the right of the sovereign to enforce according to his prudential judgment since distributive justice is within the purview of the sovereign.
February 15th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Ok, Bill. Here goes.
“You need to return to a study of the French Revolution if you really think the American Civil War is so similar to the French Revolution! But never mind that for now….”
What in the world are you talking about? I didn’t compare the French Revolution to the Civil War. I never even mentioned the Civil War in connection with the French Revolution. What I said was you champion the principles of the French Revolution, not the principles of the American Revolution. Do you even know what they are, or what the difference between them is?
“You yourself support the idea of ‘authoriatrian terror’ as a legitimate tool insofar as you are at least comfortable with the notion of a state condoning slavery because it boils down to a state’s right.”
I don’t condone any such thing. I recognize as a historical fact, however, that slavery existed legally under the Constitution in the U.S. at that time. The Southern states had a right to the institution. Your whole argument, good Catholic lawyer that you are, seems to be, “Screw the law. ”
Now if you are accusing me of wanting to allow slavery in modern-day America, that is false as well. I think the 13th Amendment is a fine thing and have no objection to it being applied to the States. However, the means employed to bring it about (i.e. to make the conditions for it possible) were immoral and illegal.
“sovereignty they had previously lent to the central government…”
Lent?! Try gave. These may help you:”
You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about here. Before we can proceed, you’ll need to become acquainted with medieval and Enlightenment political philosophy, as well as history. The citations you give from the Constitution have exactly zero bearing on the question at hand, which is whether the nature of the Union is a compact among sovereign states, or a total surrender of sovereignty to a single central government. I maintain, rightly, that it is a compact among sovereign states.
“Furthermore, a comparison of the Articles of Incorporation with the Constitution demonstartes the difference in the power balance between the states and the federal government.”
Not sure what you’re trying to say here, but it sounds like you’re pointing out that the Constitution aimed at setting up a stronger central government than the Articles did. Well, duh. Who’s ever disputed that? I have no problem with having a central, common government and delegating certain necessary powers to it. The Articles had set up a central government with essentially no powers. It operated more as a committee offering suggestions to the States than an actual government. You claim, with no evidence at all to back up your accusations, that I want us to live under the Articles. I state here unequivocally that I do not. Will that stop you from caricaturing me? I doubt it.
“Finally on this note, the South surely failed to meet levels mentioned in the Declaration of Independence to ‘throw off such Government.’ The South hardly faced a ‘…long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism….’ ”
Once again, you’re simply ignorant of the issues involved here. Jefferson was citing the grounds of the colonies’ right to Revolution, not Secession. Contra some paleos who do indeed try to claim that the colonies “seceded” from Britain, they in fact revolted, which is a different act and is based upon different criteria.
“The war was fought over slavery. Southern traitors argued that they were fighting for state’s rights.”
Let’s assume, but only for this moment, that your accusation is true. To fight, then, for what is guaranteed you by the Constitution, the thing specifically promised to you by the framers in return for your ratification vote, makes you a traitor? Somehow, Mein Fuhrer, it doesn’t surprise me that you would take this position.
“But what was their fundamental argument? That states should decide for themselves whether to allow the cruel and barbaric practice of enslavement!”
I’m not interested in fighting that old fight all over again. Whoever was correct in the Expansion debates, the uncomfortable fact remains that slavery existed in the U.S. when the Constitution was adopted and the slaveholding states were actively courted and enticed into joining the Union. If the cruel and barbaric practice of slavery had been intended to be excluded from the country, it’s hard to imagine how very stupid our forefathers must have been to incorporate language protecting it!
You seem to want to pretend, or imply at any rate, that the South was doing something illegal in holding slaves. They manifestly were not. Immoral, either absolutely or possibly, depending on your point of view. But illegal? No.
“The war was over slavery. Re-phrase it how you will, it does not hide the true issue from anyone with a thinking mind.”
It’s not about rephrasing. It’s about accuracy. You seem to live in this poorly drawn, cartoon-like world where everything is just sorta this and kinda that and you proceed to draw hard conclusions based upon such vagaries. This is your idea of “a thinking mind.” Well, you’re welcome to your method, but I don’t proceed that way.
“14th AMENDMENT
Yes, I am rather found of due process and equal protection. Only tyrants and the insane would not be.”
I don’t have a problem with the ideas of due process and equal protection per se. I do have a problem with the mischief they have been put to by modern liberals (e.g. the incorporation doctrine, which applies the Bill of Rights to the States, for whom they were never intended). They need to be more precisely worded. Also, the 14th was never legally ratified. It was imposed. Not that you will likely care about such legal niceties…
“Slavery is wrong.”
My God, you’re a brave man and noble. I’m sure teacher will reward you with a gold sticky star for your unbounded moral courage.
Now, I happen to disagree with you. I don’t think slavery is necessarily immoral. Children, for example, are slaves of their parents. Soldiers are, likewise, slaves. I also think there are natural slaves, slaves being those who are unfit to rule themselves. I think there are plenty of such people around, who would be far better off having their lives commanded by others. I do not think, however, that skin color or heritage is any kind of basis for slavery. Obviously, there are black people who are fit to rule themselves, so to enslave such people would be immoral. I also don’t think that slavery should be used as an excuse to have a cheap labor force. If you’re going to command others, it ought to be for their benefit and not your own.
Since you seem too weak-minded to draw the necessary conclusions from what I’ve just said, I’ll spell it out for you: I am not in favor of Southern-style chattel slavery, even if the case could be made that the African was better off here than in Africa.
” The South fought for the ’state’s right’ to enslave and maltreat human beings.”
Do you even think before speaking, Bill? They didn’t have to fight for the right. They already had it under the Constitution.
“The South had no just cause and thus no right to seceed from the Union. ”
They had every right to secede from the Union, as had any State at any time for any reason. You will perhaps be surprised to know that several States had threatened to secede previously over issues having nothing to do with slavery, included several Northern states. You will also no doubt be surprised to know that three states included in their ratification documents language specifically reserving the right to secede and making ratification consequent upon agreement to that right. Needless to say, agreement was granted. No one before the Civil War seriously disputed a state’s right to secede, even if it was looked on as an act of last resort and not, in the main, advisable. States possess the right to secede based upon the fact that sovereignty resides in the people in their States, only a small part of that sovereignty being delegated to a common, central government, which is recallable at will.
In theory, anyway. In practice, Leviathan consumes all…at the end of a gun.
February 15th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
James-
So the answer to my original question stands at “no.”
As to your insults and personal attacks, you may dislike my arguments, heaven knows what I think of your moral flippancy on the issue of slavery, but your insults have no place in a “civil” argument. But when wrong on an issue, just result to personal insults, right? I can recall you recoiling at others here trading personal insults, I guess everything is different when you are involved.
I will hold out hope that a non-confederate paleo is out there, one who can cast aside slavery as immoral and repugnant. You Mr. Newland are no such man, as you have so publicly displayed.
February 15th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
HIGHLIGHTS FROM A RATHER INSULTING “MAN”
“I don’t want to keep colored people in a cage in my backyard to beat with sticks…”
“Somehow, Mein Fuhrer, it doesn’t surprise me that you would take this position.”
“I don’t think slavery is necessarily immoral”
“there are black people who are fit to rule themselves, so to enslave such people would be immoral”
“Since you seem too weak-minded to draw the necessary conclusions… ”
“the case could be made that the African was better off here than in Africa”
February 15th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Wow!
February 15th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Mr. Newland writes : “there are black people who are fit to rule themselves, so to enslave such people would be immoral”
Given the converse to the above:
Since the converse is the same argument used by those of the Claremont school in defense of Northern Aggression, i.e. that the South proved itself morally incapable of self rule by reason of secession over chattel slavery, why is the North in error for enslaving the South?
Mr. Newland writes: “I don’t think slavery is necessarily immoral”
Since the terms are virtually interchangeable, perhaps you should have used bondage instead of slavery. Or perhaps you should have cited the 13th Amendment which likewise make exception.
February 15th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
ltg,
You said: “Why or why not the Southern States seceded is accidental as to why Lincoln under his sole volition without consent of congress chose to invade the Southern seceding States.”
Doesn’t this beg the question? What Lincoln did was to resupply a federal fort. In response, the seccessionists opened a bombardment of the federal position. I think an argument could easily be made that Lincoln, in responding to the open aggression against a federal military installation, was quelling an internal insurrection as opposed to invading a sovereign nation.
And before we go down the “States are sovereign” road, please keep in mind that South Carolina, when it entered the Union, ceded to the federal government the sole authority to wage war under Article I, Section 10. South Carolina, first created the fiction that the United States was a separate country and then waged war upon it.
You seem to justify the Southern States’ secession on the basis of Lincoln’s invasion. But this had logical pitfalls shot throughout. First, prior to seceding, it would have been impossible for Lincoln to “invade” because each of the States were members of the Union. Second, the secession and insurrection preceded the invasion of federal troops into the South. To be sure, some of the fence sitters seceded after Fort Sumter and the federal reaction, but the insurrection was already under way at that point.
Of course, none of this is to say that I entirely disagree that a State should have had the authority to withdraw from the Union. (Although, the upshot of the Civil War is that we now know they do not.)
February 15th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
Karl,
South Carolina seceded in 1860. The bombardment of Ft . Sumpter by South Carolina occurred in 1861.
February 15th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
No, SC gev notice of secession in 12/1860. It never achieved its goal.
Furthermore, SC troops opened fire on civilians in 01/1861 to really start the war.
February 15th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Bill writes : “No, SC gev notice of secession in 12/1860. It never achieved its goal.”
It was a formal dissolution:
“We, the people of the State of South Carolina, in convention assembled, do declare and ordain, and it is hereby declared and ordained, That the ordinance adopted by us in convention on the twenty-third day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, whereby the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified, and also all acts and parts of acts of the General Assembly of this State ratifying amendments of the said Constitution, are hereby repealed; and that the union now subsisting between South Carolina and other States, under the name of the “United States of America,” is hereby dissolved. Done at Charleston the 20th day of December, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty. D.F. Jamison: Delegate from Barnwell and President of the Convention, and others.”
http://sciway3.net/proctor/marion/military/wbts/secession.html
Secession of South Carolina
February 15th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
Right, and if you claim to be the King of England, does that make it so?
February 16th, 2008 at 12:32 am
Bill,
I no more have a capacity to be King of England than I do to jump over the moon. But the people of South Carolina did and do have the capacity to change government because the authority of that capacity rests in them from God.
If the people of the State of South Carolina had sufficient sovereignty to join the Union, then it follows that they likewise had sufficient sovereignty to separate from that same Union because those same people did not substantially change. As St Robert Bellarmine writes in his treatise on civil government chpt IV authority finally rests in the multitude.
February 16th, 2008 at 12:33 am
correction chpt VI
http://www.catholicism.org/de-laicis6.html
Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary : Chapter VI
February 16th, 2008 at 9:19 am
Yes. The secession preceded Lincoln’s invasion. That’s why your statement begs the question. And that is was my point. South Carolina (and for that matter, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas) cannot use Lincoln’s invasion as justification for secession as you have implied in the quotation I reproduced above.
Now, an argument could be made that some of the other states may have joined the rebellion becasue of the Northern invasion, but it cannot be said about the first seven states. Or about the initiation of war between North and South.
February 16th, 2008 at 9:44 am
Karl,
Just to be clear I never intended to justify secession as a reaction to Lincoln’s invasion.
In fact, I wasn’t in any regard speaking as to why the South seceded, but was attempting to separate the act of secession and the act of invasion as distinct act because the reason for secession is often used as the justification of Northern aggression, for instance the Claremont school of thought.
Thus unfortunately my comment appears the opposite from the intent. Although when I reread it, it still reads to me according to my intent. curious. It makes me wonder how often that happens.
February 16th, 2008 at 11:02 am
Let’s use a better example then. You claim to not be an American, does that make it so?
February 16th, 2008 at 11:21 am
Bill writes : “You claim to not be an American”
I’ve never said that. Nor have I ever implied it. Nor would I ever make such a comment on a public forum even if I did think it, and especially if I did think it.
You and Karl have made assumptions along this line without any basis from me.
February 16th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Interesting you would drag me into this argument. I’ve never said that you have claimed not to be American. I have noted on occasion that you write about Americans as though you live in Belize (by referring to those Americans in the third person). I have made no assumptions, only observations.
February 16th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Further, the example is not relevant because sovereignty does not exist in the individual but in the multitude.
February 16th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Karl,
Your observation is nothing more than my preference to not insert myself personally into the discussion. Thus it is once again the opposite. It is not my inserting myself , but lack of inserting myself which causes you to make the assumption you do.
February 16th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
adding on. you may not have intended an assumption. But your observation implied it by the mere fact of your making your observation known. For why else would you have done it.
But enough of anything personal to me. I consider the subject off limits.
February 17th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
I beg to differ, you certainly have brought it up in the past.
However, per your wish, the line of questioning is withdrawn.
February 18th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Bill, sorry but I have been busy and unable to respond for a while. Your use of the word treason is very illustrative of the problem. Treason means selling out your country to an enemy. Giving secrets to the Russians during the Cold War for example. It is a perfect illustration of your built-in default statism that you equate wanting to peacefully break a political bond with treason. So Lee, who was offered command of the Union forces but turned it down because he could not “lift a sword” against his native Virginia, in your mind would have been honorable had he accepted the command and made war against family, friends and fellow Virginians, but was guilty of “treason” for siding with his native land against a far off abstract political entity? On the contrary, had Lee accepted command of the Union forces he would have been a disloyal scoundrel worthy of contempt. Please think about the implicit statism and state worship of your position.
February 18th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Red-
Glad to have you back in the fray!
I can appreciate the conundrum Lee found himself in. The better part of valor would have had him resign and sit out the war. But alas, he did not; he joined the rebel forces and, at times, nearly won the war for the South. This would have preserved a perverse and immoral institution along with independent Confederate States.
The end result of the war had soldiers on both sides fighting along side one another during the great westward expansion. While bloody and brutal, the war was, in the end, a family affair. The United States was held together, mended fences and has largely moved on. What is left are the disagreements people like you and I have over the nature of the war and the legitimacy of either side. What is truly remarkable is that we do so (most of us) with out a desire to fight it again! We truly are one nation. Most countries could never have fought a war like ours and remained united in its outcome. What’s left is a political argument of where to place blame, and not a call to arms!
I find many of your arguments untenable. You view mine as mal-aligned with conservative thought on federalism. How lucky we both are that the war is in the past!
February 18th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
Bill, that’s pretty rich coming from someone whose rhetorical tack is to assert that all paleos (including those on this thread) are “neoconfederates,” pro-slavery, and “a cancer on human dignity.” Wait, “a cancer on human dignity, at worst.” Thanks for giving us the benefit of the doubt! Maybe you did not mean to slur the people here with those insults, but it sorta looked like it.
Anyway, I read a lot of self-described paleos, and none of them is a “neo-confederate” whatever that means. Is James Pinkerton a neo-confederate? John Zmirak? Taki Theodoracopulos? (had to do a copy and paste on that one.) Buchanan? Scott McConnell? And I’m sure Srdja Trifkovic lets out a good rebel yell every now and then.
Me? (answer: no. I was brought up in midwestern suburbs, for goodness’ sake. I don’t even know what a mint julep tastes like!)
Personally, I don’t have a many well-formed opinions on the antebellum south or secessionism. (Of course I find the institution of chattel slavery abhorrent– it’s stupid that I even have to make that disclaimer.) It’s a complicated subject. Are the supposed agrarian virtues of the antebellum south separable from the institution of slavery? Would slavery have been peacefully abolished were it not for the civil war, and when? Did the civil war result in a fundamental change the nature American regime; if so, how is it different, and is it a good or bad transformation? All interesting questions, the discussion of which is not furthered by tarring anybody as an advocate of treason or supporter of slavery. (unless they do support slavery!)
February 19th, 2008 at 10:50 am
CONGRATULATIONS! Wilmoore, you are the very first Paleo out there to submit via this thread (or any of the others out there on the various other paleo sites regarding the South, Lincoln and/or slavery) that you are not a neoconfederate!
As to slavery, many paleo/neoconfederates I have exchanged with refuse to condem slavery. I have not “tarred” them as pro-slavery, they have done that themselves.
Treason? You bet. I can not think of another more flagrant act of treason than making war upon the United States by a U.S. citizen! If you don’t like the word, blame the King’s English, not me Willmoore.
As to paleos, I believe I gave them a wide range of possibilities (regional to cancerous). I have gone as far as to beg an anti-slavery, anti-confederate paleo to come forward. YOU, sir, seem to have done so. Again, congratulations!
February 19th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
“Is James Pinkerton a neo-confederate? John Zmirak? Taki Theodoracopulos?”
I have spent sometime looking, and so far I can not say. None seem to have much out there on the subject.
Though I have to say, John Zmirak seems to have a certain Southern nostalgia in his bones!
February 19th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
As far as I know, Zmirak was born in Manhattan, moved down South, and never looked back. Check out his “Bad Catholics Guide[s].” They’re pretty cool.
Again, I think it’s clear that while not all paleos are (neo)confederates, most (neo)confederates (even the uneducated, Yosemite Sam firing-into-the-air types) are paleos. It seems to be an attractive lebensphilosophie for those who prefer to hang out on the fringe.
February 20th, 2008 at 12:06 am
“CONGRATULATIONS! Wilmoore, you are the very first Paleo out there to submit via this thread …. that you are not a neoconfederate!”
Well, thanks, I guess. But I certainly don’t blame anyone for not dutifully coming forward and affirming their non-”neoconfederate” status, and the best way to deal with this kind of challenge is probably not to play the game. I’m a little uncomfortable with the idea that people whose opinions are outside the mainstreammedia-newyorktimes-nationalreview sewing circle should have to come out and ritually abase themselves by solemnly declaring that they think slavery is bad, etc. When the discussion starts with, “you’re a paleo? Prove to me you’re not a racist or traitor!” then it’s a good indication that the discussion is not going to go anywhere.
Mainstream conservatives certainly don’t like this sort of thing. They are rightly infuriated when accusations of racism fly at suggestions that we should have school choice, or end affirmative action, or reform welfare, or curb inner-city crime. Remember, perhaps not all opponents of affirmative action are racists, but all racists oppose affirmative action. AA opponents, prove to me you’re not racist!
February 20th, 2008 at 12:15 am
SM, I have not read the Bad Catholic’s guides. Besides Zmirak’s affection for the south, is there anything that would indicate he is a “neo-confederate”? Or is mere affection or attachment to a certain disreputable region of the United States enough to cast suspicion on someone?
February 25th, 2008 at 6:48 am
It was argued that original intent (read actual meaning) doesn’t matter – what matters is some sort of official meaning (read new interpretation.) Well, since secession was never banned from the Constitution, wouldn’t any sort of new fangled “actual interpretation” have to accept that secession was allowed, again since it was not banned?
The rock solid argument presented at CHT was that the Constitution forbade secession. However… no where is such forbidden.
—
I chose now to reply because I’m suffering an extremely badly timed case of insomnia (currently 6:45AM – alarm clock supposed to go off at 6:50…) and, having nothing else to do, figured I’d look over here.
February 25th, 2008 at 8:22 am
That’s assuming that secession is a power that was originally held by the States or the people. However, until the States join into a union, there is no such right of secession. It would have no meaning to say that an independent individual state has the right to secede. From what?
So the right to secede is not a power that can have been delegated or reserved because it was never possessed.
I think a more illuminating way to look at it would be as an analog to contract right. When two parties enter into contract, one party (unless bargained for) cannot simply walk away and rescind. The parties must perform under the contract. The Constitution does not provide for a terminating event and therefore, it is consistent to say that once entered, the contract is binding in perpetuity.
I would say that the nature of constitution forbade secession (absent any terminating clause).
February 25th, 2008 at 9:27 am
Karl: “until the States join into a union, there is no such right of secession.”
And when a man is alone on an island there is no such thing as a right to life. Because a right exists as reciprocal relation, and thus exists only as potency in a man alone on an island.
And just as the right to life is finally a duty to recognize that which is intrinsic in each and all men, so likewise does right to secession exist as duty to recognize that which is intrinsic to each and all sovereign entities when sovereigns are in compact.
____________
Karl writes: “I think a more illuminating way to look at it would be as an analog to contract right.”
To look at it as contract right is to look at it as the modernists look at society as contract. And not to look at it according to man’s nature as political animal.
Each society which is a sovereign entity exists as a substantial whole. It can delegate its authority, but it cannot relinquish that authority to another sovereign.
February 25th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Thanks for the reply. You’re assuming the signers of the Constitution saw it as “binding in perpetuity,” so this is where the debate lies then: how the founders viewed it, no?
And if its assumed properties are not to be found in the signers, then where are we to look? The “binding in perpetuity” assumption must originate somewhere, and I can’t know how to attack it, nor to even value it, without knowing the location of its foundation.
February 25th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
I am assuming that. And, toward that end I have two reasons.
First, I cannot imagine the circumstance which would lead a group of people to form a temporary nation. If there are examples, I would love to know of them. There have certainly been examples of leagues of nations banding together for a common purpose, but that purpose has always been rather well-known – to defeat Nazism, to defend the Holy Land. But forming a more perfect Union does not seem to be in this same mold.
The second reason goes to the nature of contract. LTG (inadvertantly I am sure) stumbles on this reason. When sovereigns enter into compact, (I would use the term contract) there is an exchange of promises. These promises are enforceable so long as the contract is still in existence. Many times to contractors will provide for a terminating event. Sometimes the nature of the promises is such that the terminating event is implicit in the nature of the promises exchanged. (I promise to pay you $3, and promise to deliver a hamburger into my possession). But, where the parties neither provide for a terminating event, nor exchange promises which, by their nature provide for a termination, then the contract is perpetual.
February 25th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Karl writes : “But, where the parties neither provide for a terminating event, nor exchange promises which, by their nature provide for a termination, then the contract is perpetual.”
A sovereign does not exist for the good of another sovereign except according to the duty all men hold to one another. Thus unlike men in a society who are imperfect and dependent upon each other, each sovereign is a perfect entity unto itself independent of another.
Thus, a compact between sovereigns is a commutative species of justice where goods of perceived equal worth are exchanged. So that when those same exchanged goods cease to be perceived as of equal worth the compact in turn ceases to exist because there is no long an equal exchange which is by nature proper to distributive justice.
February 26th, 2008 at 7:29 am
Well, the US is within NAFTA, CAFTA, and the WTO, which all excercise power over the US, that is to say the US is not entirely sovereign within.
However, we all know the US is free to secede from any of the three.
Similarly in the EU, member states are assumed to have the right to secede whenever they like.
February 26th, 2008 at 7:33 am
If you promise to pay me $3 and then declare bankruptcy, I might never get it even if I’ve already given you the burger.
February 26th, 2008 at 7:58 am
I think you would admit, Weaver, that a Constitution is a more binding document than a treaty. NAFTA, GATT, CAFTA, et al. are ill-conceived treaties that the U.S. is not only free to withdraw from, but should do so with alacrity. But, in the end, they are treaties, not constitutions.
“a compact . . . is a commutative species of justice where goods of perceived equal worth are exchanged.” I would call that a contract. And then apply the rules of contract to it regardless of how you dress up the parties. It sounds to me, LTG, that you are arguing that it is impossible for a sovereign to enter into contract.
February 26th, 2008 at 9:49 am
Karl writes : “It sounds to me, LTG, that you are arguing that it is impossible for a sovereign to enter into contract.”
No. That it is impossible to enter into a distributive species of contract because there is not such animal.
February 26th, 2008 at 10:19 am
In case there is any misunderstanding.
What I am saying is : by nature a sovereign cannot enter into a distributive contract. Which in turn makes Weaver’s argument of original intent appear to be a rather gruesome spectacle of cutting one’s own Lockean throat.
February 26th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Man is a social animal, hence he’s part of a larger organism. The individual does not exist, at least not to the extent you seem to be taking it.
Karl, the EU has a Constitution.
February 26th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Weaver writes :”Man is a social animal, hence he’s part of a larger organism. The individual does not exist, at least not to the extent you seem to be taking it.”
Is this directed to me? Or to Karl?
If to me, then why are you arguing original intent since the original intent favors Karl in principle, and leaves you in a position of having to read the tea leaves to prove your position.
February 27th, 2008 at 12:33 am
The tea leaves all point to me… No one seems to have even questioned secession until 1830 and not seriously until 1860.
There wasn’t even such a thing as an American citizens until Lincoln freed the slaves; previously we’d all been citizens of the individual states only.
February 27th, 2008 at 12:35 am
The first part of #68 was directed at “love the girls.”
The second part (“Karl, the EU has a Constitution.”) was obviously not
I tend to write too quickly…
February 27th, 2008 at 1:21 am
Weaver writes :”There wasn’t even such a thing as an American citizens until Lincoln freed the slaves; previously we’d all been citizens of the individual states only.”
That is a statement which once again is a matter of reading the tea leaves.
Article 1. Section 2 “No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States”
February 27th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
The EU’s constitution reads: “A member state which decides to withdraw shall notify the Council of its intention… The Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that state, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal.” Article I, Sec. 60(2).
I fail to find analogous language in ours.
Also, the full name of the so-called EU constitution is “Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe.” Furthermore, that treaty has never been ratified by the member states.
February 28th, 2008 at 8:39 am
Karl writes : “I fail to find analogous language in ours.”
But as Weaver previously pointed out, you will find analogous language in the ratification documents of some States which proves that those States did intend withdrawal to be an option.
February 28th, 2008 at 10:41 am
Dicta!
February 28th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
What does a state constitution have to do with anything?
Let us suppose that I purchase your house and during the closing my wife and I execute a contract between ourselves (because she’s not so sure this is quite the right house) that we can withdraw from any mortgage that we sign, and then we subsequently sign the mortgage documents. You are not a party to the contract I drew up with my wife. When I default on the mortgage, how long do you wait to sue my ass off, ltg?
If the people of a State agree in advance that they can break their contracts with third parties, well then, that’s good enough for ol’ LTG.
February 28th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
A constitution doesn’t involve a business transaction. It’s not a contract.
February 28th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Karl,
The States obviously thought that their ratification documents had power, or they would not have included the provisos for secession. And did not enter into the union except with a clear understanding that their provisos did have bearing on their relation to the union.
Further, since sovereign authority first rests in the multitude of those respective States, that authority which is delegated and that authority which is held by those same multitude holds sway.
February 28th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
LTG-
I believe you are incorrect. During ratification, theat which was ratified was the Constitution, not the ratification vote, or even the language used to ratify the Constitution.
Your argument is like me going to court for owing child support and signing a document stating “I agree to child support under the decree placed before me by the judge.” and then writing on another piece of paper ” But, if I decided I don’t want to pay in a few days, week, months, years,etc… I can stop paying at my discretion.” The judge and court would laugh! It may be written down, but the revocation language is not part of that which was ratified.
February 28th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Bill,
Since the sovereign authority rests in the multitude of each State then it does matter what they think they are signing onto. Especially because, unlike your example of the judge in a court, the authority continues to rest in the multitude since the seat of sovereignty is in the multitude and cannot be other than in the multitude.
February 28th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Are you saying, LTG, that sovereignity can not be assigned or given?
February 28th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Bill, writes : “Are you saying, LTG, that sovereignity can not be assigned or given?”
Sovereignty exists as a proper attribute of the multitude, just as pursuit of happiness is a proper attribute of each individual man. It can be delegated, such as to a king, or forfeited because of sin, such as by waging an aggressive war, but as with all things which are proper to man, it has its seat in man and cannot be other than in its proper seat.
Its forfeiture is similar to blindness, sightedness remains proper to man albeit in potency while being hindered by an impediment, and just as a blind man would see if the impediment was removed, so likewise would the sinful multitude possess their sovereignty fully if the effect of that impediment was removed.
But similarly as a father cannot in justice sell his daughter into bondage because the authority to do so is not within him, neither can a sovereign multitude sell it self into bondage because that authority likewise does not exist in the sovereign multitude. And just as a father’s authority over his daughter is limited to and directed toward his daughters good, so likewise is the sovereign multitudes authority is limited to and directed toward the common good of that same sovereign authority. Thus while the multitude can form a compact with other sovereigns for its own common good it cannot dispossess itself of that which is proper to it.
February 28th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
Of course, as usual, LTG, you have taken this thread far afield. But, I would argue that the multitude can consign itself to bondage. Because of the sins of the multitude, Israel was sent, by God, into bondage at the hands of the Assyrians. Scripture attests to the fact that the multitude can, in fact, cede its sovereignty to a foreign power. In fact, in the case mentioned only God could restore the sovereignty to the multitude.
The multitude manifestly can cede their sovereignty through sin. And the multitude can likewise cede their sovereignty through consent (i.e. consitution).
February 28th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
Karl,
As I wrote in my last post, because of sin sovereignty can be forfeited, but to forfeit is not to cede since it is the sin which is Willed, not the forfeiture.
February 28th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
A contract is consensual by nature.
February 28th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
Karl writes :”A contract is consensual by nature.”
True, but why do you mention it?
February 28th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
In exactly the same way as sin is “Willed,” so is the ceding of sovereignty by the people in the ratification of constitution (contract).
Gotta sleep. Argue more tomorrow. You should really think about getting your own blog to advance your crazy ideas.
February 28th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
Karl writes :”In exactly the same way as sin is “Willed,” so is the ceding of sovereignty by the people in the ratification of constitution (contract).”
If so, then that same constitution is null because it’s not ordered to the common good of the sovereign multitude but is instead ordered to a false good.
|__________|
Karl writes :”You should really think about getting your own blog to advance your crazy ideas.”
No thanks, then I’d have to post materials regularly.
February 28th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
besides, this way I can better choose who to bounce my musings off of in hope of getting some thoughtful replies.
February 29th, 2008 at 7:58 am
LTG writes, “besides, this way I can better choose who to bounce my musings off of in hope of getting some thoughtful replies.”
No kidding. It’s potluck when you have to rely on the commenters you attract to your website.
February 29th, 2008 at 8:16 am
“If so, then that same constitution is null because it’s not ordered to the common good of the sovereign multitude but is instead ordered to a false good.”
By your use of the small “c” constitution, I assume you are now attacking the validity of the state constitutions and not the United States Constitution.
You seem to deliberately misconstrue my meaning, which was only to say that consent to enter into a contract is a willful act of the multitude and is therefore binding upon them.
Look, you keep wanting to go around with this state constitution issue, and I’m telling you it is a red herring. No state constitution can inform or limit in any way the U.S. Constitution. The reason is simple. The parties to the formation of a state constitution are the people of a state exchanging promises amongst themselves. The parties to the Constitution are the people of one state exchanging promises with the people of each of the other states which have joined into a Union. The people of every other state are not in privity with the people of the single state with respect to their mutually exchanged intrastate promises. However, they are in privity with regard to the promise of forming a more perfect Union. As such, they have enforcement rights against breaching parties with whom they are in privity. And the single state has enforcement rights against the other states with respect to the Constitution. But, in neither case do the states have enforcement rights against one another because of any provision of their constitutions. Idaho cannot sue me for a breach of some term of their constitution because I am in no way in privity to the state (the people) of Idaho. By the same token, I cannot enforce any promise made by Idaho as I am not party to any contract with them (except generally, as a citizen of Indiana, I can insist on their continued promise to form a more perfect Union).
February 29th, 2008 at 10:00 am
Karl,
It’s a simple matter of authority. There is not a higher authority than each State. The federal government is a creature of the States and exists for the good of each State, and it is each particular State which determines whether or not the creature it created is serving that good, and there was a time when the respective States recognized that fact and as a result practiced State Nullification. A nullification with they would not have practiced had they not seen the final authority of determining each State’s good existing in each respective State
February 29th, 2008 at 10:00 am
state nullification
February 29th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Moral of the story if LTG is right. NEVER enter into a contract with a State. They do not have to honor them.
February 29th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
LTG,
You’re absoluetly right, this is a matter of authority. The individual states ceded authority to the Federal government when the Constitution was created. Therefore, it follows that the Federal Constitution is the highest authority. Now I understand your argument regarding state nullification. My question is who determines whether the Federal government is adhering to the original agreement? I would argue that the Federal government has strayed greatly from the original contract. Is that grounds for Illinois or any other state to secede from the Union? Or rather should states operate within the political framework and try to clear up the misinterpretations of the original contract by say appointing originalist judges?
March 1st, 2008 at 1:04 am
Awb writes : “The individual states ceded authority to the Federal government when the Constitution was created.”
Not ceded, but delegated:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
March 1st, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Further, please note that it ‘power’ which are delegated. And not authority. The authority remains in its seat.
March 4th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Karl writes: “No state constitution can inform or limit in any way the U.S. Constitution. The reason is simple. The parties to the formation of a state constitution are the people of a state exchanging promises amongst themselves. The parties to the Constitution are the people of one state exchanging promises with the people of each of the other states which have joined into a Union.”
Since the screaming and stomping of feet seems to have stopped for the time being, I’ll take another stab at this. There was no contract between the States, except in a limited sense. The “contract” was unilateral. It was simply a wish by each State to delegate X amount of authority to a super-government and to live under the rules of the Constitution.
Think of a Will. If I will to leave my possessions to my son, I have not thereby made a contract, or agreement, between me and my son, nor between me and anyone else who might wish to will something to my son..let’s say, my wife. It is a unilateral act which can be withdrawn from at my pleasure. Even if I and my wife agree that only if and when we both will something to our son will our individual Wills go into effect, there is still no contract beyond that between me and my wife.
Thus, even though nine states were required to ratify before the Constitution went into effect over the ratifying states, the “contract” was still a unilateral action on the part of the individual states. It was an exercise of the will of the people of each state with respect to that document. Without specific language in the Constitution surrendering each State’s future right of withdrawal, the right must be presumed to remain with the States (as the Tenth Amendment says).
March 4th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Mr. Newland writes : “Without specific language in the Constitution surrendering each State’s future right of withdrawal, the right must be presumed to remain with the States (as the Tenth Amendment says).”
Wow. So obvious. But it never occurred to me.
March 4th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
“Think of a Will…”
Let’s. A will is a valid contract and enforceable upon a stated event, i.e. death of the testator. Before death, the will is nothing more than a draft copy of the future testator’s wishes.
“It is a unilateral act which can be withdrawn from at…pleasure.”
Only during life, which is before the contract has gone in to effect. Before death, the will is nothing more than a draft, an idea, a written wish list.
“Even if I and my wife agree that only if and when we both will something to our son will our individual Wills go into effect, there is still no contract beyond that between me and my wife.”
Sorry, no. Upon the death of the second to die the will(s), containing this language, is effective and binding on the State, the son, the whole world.
The Constitution clearly was in effect at the occurrence of a stated event (ratification) and is binding on the players (the federal government, the states and the citizens). Much like a will, it contains no language of withdrawal and yet is still binding and enforceable.
March 4th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
LTG-
Does every citizen of every city, county and state then have the right to secede from all forms of government authority under which they exist so as to render themselves a nation unto their own?
March 4th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Bill writes : “Does every citizen of every city, county and state then have the right to secede from all forms of government authority under which they exist so as to render themselves a nation unto their own?”
Your question assumes that a State can be properly under a higher secular authority. But to all natural things there is a limit.
As I wrote previously, sovereignty exists in the multitude because man is by nature a political animal. Thus while the a social contract does not of itself recognize the nature of man as that which properly scales society and thus likewise scales the sovereign, because to all natural things there is a limit. And thus sovereignty exists in the multitude according to the nature and scale of man.
A sovereign multitude which in the case of the US delegated powers as the 10th Amendment explains. Which is substantially different from ceding authority.
March 4th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
So your answer is no?
..because only a government has the right to withdrawal from another government? based on “philosophy?”
March 4th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Bill writes : “..because only a government has the right to withdrawal from another government? based on “philosophy?””
What is a “right” in this context? Does a community of a higher order which is by nature sovereign have a duty to recognize the potential sovereignty of those community within it, so that if those communities within it desire to be actually sovereign, the higher community has a duty to recognize that sovereignty?
___________
A single man or family can emigrate to another society. But it’s unnatural for him to be an island.
March 4th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Its also unnatural for a man to have green hair, it is still his right to color it so.
You argue that secession is a right when it suits your case, but not when it falls short of your ideals. Not a very strong leg to stand on, LTG.
March 4th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Bill writes : “Its also unnatural for a man to have green hair, it is still his right to color it so.”
Not unnatural as accident, but according to man’s essence.
________________
Bill writes : “You argue that secession is a right when it suits your case, but not when it falls short of your ideals.”
There’s a difference between a sovereign entity withdrawing from a pact to which it has delegated powers, and a the withdrawal of a body whose sovereignty is in potency. The former is not unlike a parent who delegates to a school to teach his children. The authority to teach is inviolably in the parent who can remove his child from the school at will.
March 4th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
James, I see that Bill has responded to you with more or less the same response I would have made. The example of a Will is deficient in that a Will only becomes operable upon the death of the testator. At that point, not only does the Will become operable, but it is binding on the rest of the world irrevocably. In that sense, I would agree that a contract which does not provide for revocation either implicitly or explicitly is very much like a Will – irrevocable upon ratification.
Gentlemen, do not get me wrong. You can ALWAYS break a contract through breach. However, you have to understand that a breach of the contract comes with costs. At times, it may be that the costs of breach are lesser than continued performance under the contract. That is a decision that may be rationally made.
March 4th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Jame’s example of a Will is of one prior to death where the Will can be change unilaterally.
March 4th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
I get it.
December 4th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
[...] Civil War and some of the issues surrounding that conflict have arisen on this website on a couple different occasions, but I don’t believe we’ve ever hashed out whether the states possess the [...]