/lit/ - Literature

>>12526454
>I will post excerpts from A Disquisition on Government itt

>These great and dangerous errors have their origin in the prevalent opinion that all men are born free and equal—than which nothing can be more unfounded and false. It rests upon the assumption of a fact, which is contrary to universal observation, in whatever light it may be regarded. It is, indeed, difficult to explain how an opinion so destitute of all sound reason, ever could have been so extensively entertained, unless we regard it as being confounded with another, which has some semblance of truth—but which, when properly understood, is not less false and dangerous. I refer to the assertion, that all men are equal in the state of nature; meaning, by a state of nature, a state of individuality, supposed to have existed prior to the social and political state; and in which men lived apart and independent of each other. If such a state ever did exist, all men would have been, indeed, free and equal in it; that is, free to do as they pleased, and exempt from the authority or control of others—as, by supposition, it existed anterior to society and government. But such a state is purely hypothetical. It never did, nor can exist; as it is inconsistent with the preservation and perpetuation of the race. It is, therefore, a great misnomer to call it the state of nature. Instead of being the natural state of man, it is, of all conceivable states, the most opposed to his nature—most repugnant to his feelings, and most incompatible with his wants. His natural state is, the social and political—the one for which his Creator made him, and the only one in which he can preserve and perfect his race. As, then, there never was such a state as the, so called, state of nature, and never can be, it follows, that men, instead of being born in it, are born in the social and political state; and of course, instead of being born free and equal, are born subject, not only to parental authority, but to the laws and institutions of the country where born, and under whose protection they draw their first breath.

>[S]ome one portion of the community must pay in taxes more than it receives back in disbursements; while another receives in disbursements more than it pays in taxes. It is, then, manifest, taking the whole process together, that taxes must be, in effect, bounties to that portion of the community which receives more in disbursements than it pays in taxes; while, to the other which pays in taxes more than it receives in disbursements, they are taxes in reality—burthens, instead of bounties. This consequence is unavoidable. It results from the nature of the process, be the taxes ever so equally laid, and the disbursements ever so fairly made, in reference to the public service

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jywe0vAFnKQ

>Liberty, indeed, though among the greatest of blessings, is not so great as that of protection; inasmuch, as the end of the former is the progress and improvement of the race—while that of the latter is its preservation and perpetuation. And hence, when the two come into conflict, liberty must, and ever ought, to yield to protection; as the existence of the race is of greater moment than its improvement.

>It follows, from what has been stated, that it is a great and dangerous error to suppose that all people are equally entitled to liberty. It is a reward to be earned, not a blessing to be gratuitously lavished on all alike—a reward reserved for the intelligent, the patriotic, the virtuous and deserving—and not a boon to be bestowed on a people too ignorant, degraded and vicious, to be capable either of appreciating or of enjoying it. Nor is it any disparagement to liberty, that such is, and ought to be the case. On the contrary, its greatest praise—its proudest distinction is, that an all-wise Providence has reserved it, as the noblest and highest reward for the development of our faculties, moral and intellectual. A reward more appropriate than liberty could not be conferred on the deserving—nor a punishment inflicted on the undeserving more just, than to be subject to lawless and despotic rule. This dispensation seems to be the result of some fixed law—and every effort to disturb or defeat it, by attempting to elevate a people in the scale of liberty, above the point to which they are entitled to rise, must ever prove abortive, and end in disappointment. The progress of a people rising from a lower to a higher point in the scale of liberty, is necessarily slow—and by attempting to precipitate, we either retard, or permanently defeat it.

From "I'll Take My Stand"

>For, in conclusion, this much is clear: If a community, or a section, or a race, or an age, is groaning under industrialism, and well aware that it is an evil dispensation, it must find the way to throw it off. To think that this cannot be done is pusillanimous. And if the whole community, section, race, or age thinks it cannot be done, then it has simply lost its political genius and doomed itself to impotence.

>>12526454
based thread TBQH

>>12526581
Ty

From "Ideas Have Consequences"

>This story of man’s passage from religious or philosophical transcendentalism has been told many times, and, since it has usually been told as a story of progress, it is extremely difficult today to get people in any number to see contrary implications. Yet to establish the fact of decadence is the most pressing duty of our time because, until we have demonstrated that cultural decline is a historical fact-which can be established-and that modern man has about squandered his estate, we cannot combat those who have fallen prey to hysterical optimism.

>>12526615
>The history of our social disintegration began with the unfixing of relationships in the fourteenth century, but the effort to do away with society entirely did not become programmatic until the nineteenth, when it appeared as a culmination of the prevailing nature philosophy. Since both knowledge and virtue require the concept of transcendence, they are really obnoxious to those committed to material standards, and we have seen how insistent was the impulse to look to the lower levels for guidance. Into social thinking there now enters a statistical unit, the consumer, which has the power to destroy utterly that metaphysical structure supporting hierarchy. Let us remember that traditional society was organized around king and priest, soldier and poet, peasant and artisan. Now distinctions of vocation fade out, and the new organization, if such it may be termed, is to be around capacities to consume. Under-lying the shift is the theory of romanticism; if we attach more significance to feeling than to thinking, we shall soon, by a simple extension, attach more to wanting than to deserving. Even institutions of learning have yielded to the utilitarian standard, and former President James B. Conant of Harvard University declared in an address that the chief contribution of American universities had been the idea of equality of all useful labor.

>This is the grand solution of socialism, which is itself the materialistic offspring of bourgeois capitalism. It clarifies much to see that socialism is in origin a middle-class and not a proletarian concept. The middle class owes to its social location an especial fondness for security and complacency. Protected on either side by classes which must absorb shocks, it would forget the hazards of existence. The lower class, close to the reality of need, develops a manly fortitude and is sometimes touched with nobility in the face of its precariousness. The upper class bears responsibility and cannot avoid leading a life of drama because much is put into its hands. Lightnings of favor or of discontent flash in its direction, and he at the top of the hierarchy, whether it rests on true values or not, knows that he is playing for his head. In between lies the besotted middle class, grown enormous under the new orientation of Western man. Loving comfort, risking little, terrified by the thought of change, its aim is to establish a materialistic civilization which will banish threats to its complacency. It has conventions, not ideals; it is washed rather than clean. The plight of Europe today is the direct result of the bourgeois ascendancy and its corrupted world view.

>>12526770
>Thus the final degradation of the Baconian philosophy is that knowledge becomes power in the service of appetite. The state, ceasing to express man's inner qualifications, turns into a vast bureaucracy designed to promote economic activity. It is little wonder that traditional values, however much they may be eulogized on commemorative occasions, today must dodge about and find themselves nooks and crannies if they are to survive at all. Burke's remark that the state is not "a partnership in things subservient only to gross animal existence" now seems as antiquated as his tribute to chivalry.

>Upholders of tradition habitually classify the forces menacing our institutions as "subversive activity." The description is just. There is often in the language of ordinary people a logic which, for want of philosophy, they cannot interpret; and so is there here, for it can be shown that "subversive activity" has an exact application. Indeed, it would be difficult to find a more accurate phrase. The expression means plainly an inversion by which matter is placed over spirit or quantity placed over quality.

From Bradford's essay, "The Heresy of Equality"

>Equality, with the capital “E”—is the antonym of every legitimate conservative principle. Contrary to most Liberals, new and old, it is nothing less than sophistry to distinguish between equality of opportunity (equal starts in the “race of life”) and equality of condition (equal results). For only those who are equal can take equal advantage of a given circumstance. And there is no man equal to any other, except perhaps in the special, and politically untranslatable, understanding of the Deity. Not intellectually or physically or economically or even morally. Not equal! Such is, of course, the genuinely self-evident proposition. Its truth finds a verification in our bones and is demonstrated in the unselfconscious acts of our everyday lives: vital proof, regardless of our private political persuasion.

The entire essay has been posthumously republished here with a new, innocuous title

https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2016/02/how-equality-is-misleading-bradford-replies-to-jaffa.html

>>12526559
>It is an inevitable consequence of industrial progress that production greatly outruns the rate of natural consumption. To overcome the disparity, the producers, disguised as the pure idealists of progress, must coerce and wheedle the public into being loyal and steady consumers, in order to keep the machines running. So the rise of modern advertising-along with its twin, personal salesmanship-is the most significant development of our industrialism. Advertising means to persuade the consumers to want exactly what the applied sciences are able to furnish them. It consults the happiness of the consumer no more than it consulted the happiness of the laborer. It is the great effort of a false economy of life to approve itself. But its task grows more difficult even day.

Randolph of Roanoke

>Sir, my only objection is, that these principles, pushed to their extreme consequences--that all men are born free and equal--I can never assent to, for the best of all reasons, because it is not true; and as I cannot agree to the intrinsic meaning of the word Congress, though sanctioned by the Constitution of the United States, so neither can I agree to a falsehood, and a most pernicious falsehood, even though I find it in the Declaration of Independence, which has been set up, on the Missouri and other questions, as paramount to the Constitution. I say pernicious falsehood it must be, if true, self-evident; for it is incapable of demonstration; and there are thousands and thousands of them that mislead the great vulgar as well as the small.

>>12527278
>As the Turks follow their sacred standard, which is a pair of Mahomet's green breeches, we are governed by the old red breeches of that Prince of Projectors, St. Thomas [Jefferson] of Cantingbury; and surely Becket himself never had more pilgrims at his shrine than the saint of Monticello

>>12527285
>We see about November--about the time the fogs set in--men enough assembled in the various Legislatures, General and State, to make a regiment, then the legislative maggot begins to bite; then exists the rage to make new and repeal old laws. I do not think we would find ourselves at all worse off if no law of a general nature had been passed by either General or State Governments for the ten or twelve years last past. Like Mr. Jefferson, I am averse to too much regulation--averse to making the extreme medicine of the Constitution our daily food.

>>12527293
>For my part, I wish we could have done nothing but talk, unless, indeed, we had gone off to sleep for many years past; and, coinciding in the sentiment which had fallen from the gentleman from New York, give me fifty speeches, I care not how dull or stupid, rather than see one law on the statute book.

>>12527304
>Among the strange notions which have been broached since I have been in the political theatre, there is one which has lately seized the minds of men, that all things must be done for them by the Government, and that they are to do nothing for themselves: the Government is not only to attend to the great concerns which are its province, but it must step in and ease individuals of their natural and moral obligations. A more pernicious notion cannot prevail. Look at that ragged fellow staggering home from the whiskey shop, and see that slattern who has gone there to reclaim him; where are their children? Running about, ragged, idle, ignorant, fit candidates for the penitentiary. Why is all this so? Ask the man and he will tell you, "Oh, the Government has undertaken to educate our children for us."

Here is an article on how he went from lib deist to conservative Christian

https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2016/07/conversion-john-randolph.html

Clyde Wilson:

>No Philosophy has ever offered a more fundamental criticism of the American system of state capitalism than the Southern tradition. I deliberately use the term “state capitalism” to describe the regime in which the government does not operate in the interest of free enterprise, which is the comforting myth, but is the agent for protecting and adding to great private wealth.

https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/review/a-southern-political-economy-vs-american-state-capitalism/

>>12527656
>>12526473

>Jeffersonians were often quite intelligent and sophisticated men, but they did not seem to grasp the arcane mysteries of finance. In fact, to them it looked like a bit of a swindle. A public debt at best could only be an onerous necessity in wartime. Who was going to pay that interest to the privileged minority who owned those government bonds? Where else could it come from but the pockets of good folks who actually produced something? Such debt merely created what Taylor called a “paper aristocracy,” a class endowed by government with special privilege for which it contributed nothing in return.

>After all, most of the people were farmers—they produced something real out of the earth with their capital and labour and supplied the overwhelming bulk of American exports that allowed trade with the world. The worthy merchant saw that the farmer’s produce was sold and transported and that those things the farmer could not produce for himself were acquired in exchange. The professional man and artisan gave necessary services for which a just compensation was due. Even the manufacturer, when he asked no government bounty and provided goods that could not be found more cheaply elsewhere, played a useful role. But what exactly did the bond-holder do for his profits? Nothing except enjoy politically-dictated privilege like the affluent British who put their wealth into the government “funds.”

>Taylor made a clear moral distinction between the producer and the speculator, one whose occupation was to manipulate paper for the acquisition of wealth produced by other men. He made a very basic point getting toward the proper nature of a good regime. Could we learn anything useful for our present troubles by applying the distinction between producer and speculator? The American economy is now highly financialised. Most income goes to pay debt and interest on debt, not into productive investment. A little later, John C. Calhoun usefully restated the same thought: there are two antagonistic classes in society— the taxpayers and the tax consumers.

>>12526559
RIP humanity.

>>12527742
F

>Even the apologists of industrialism have been obliged to admit that some economic evils follow in the wake of the machines. These are such as overproduction, unemployment, and a growing inequality in the distribution of wealth. But the remedies proposed by the apologists are always homeopathic. They expect the evils to disappear when we have bigger and better machines, and more of them. Their remedial programs, therefore, look forward to more industrialism.

Very fine thread OP, will look into some of these and add them to the reading list.
Honestly I'm more pleased than anything that some interloper hasn't come in to try and derail the thread with the R word, but I suppose most of the kids are asleep or playing Xbox right now

>>12527845
I, for one, am disappointed that this thread is not more racist.

There is your R word.

>>12527845
I should be asleep too, I have church in the morning. My brother passed a month back though, God rest his soul, and I find myself smoking his pipe and tobacco and needing a suitable thread. Happy you enjoy

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AM4Lq0vNNhg

>The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down
never understood why Bob Dylan's hippie girlfriend decided to cover a song a confederate lament and why nobody ever took issue with it

she does it great though

>>12527862
Rigor is the word

>>12527874
Human condition

>>12527880
Or maybe Reaction. There are plenty of R words :^)

But please carry on. I am merely an humble Jew watching.

>>12527880
i understand why The Band wrote it, i guess im jsut surprised joan baez understood that and the lefties didnt tear her apart for it. maybe things were different then.

>>12527873
Rest In Peace, his brother, Rest In Peace
A fine way to carry on his memory. That's how I'd want to be remembered--my spirit curling lazily to the ceiling amongst the silvery wisps

>>12527900
The review in the OP is by a Pennsylvania Jew whose parents came to America to flee the Nazis, haha. Speaks a lot of his conservative credentials that he was a guide in preparing essays on Southern heritage. I'm a big fan of his.

>>12527920
They were different. They were different even into the 90's. They used to oppose globalism. I used to be a leftist myself. I still sympathize with the Zapatistas, and Marcos has influenced my thought. He said in his criticism of globalism:

>It is about homogenizing, of making everyone equal, and of hegemonizing a lifestyle. It is global life. Its greatest diversion should be the computer, its work should be the computer, its value as a human being should be the number of credit cards, one's purchasing capacity, one's productive capacity. The case of the teachers is quite clear. The one who has the most knowledge or who is the wisest is no longer valuable. Now the one who produces the most research is valuable, and that is how his salary, his grants, his place in the university, are decided.

My turn to the right more than anything was caused by the left selling itself out. John Milbank is closer to what the left used to be

>>12527935
Amen. God bless you and God bless him.

>>12527936
>tfw jew are better at being conservative than aryans

I feel almost bad for antisemites at this point.

Jokes aside it's a great thread. Keep up the good work.

>>12527979
Well he may be a Jew, but he's our Jew


Thanks, cheers

Bump

Clyde Wilson:

>Then there was the national bank. What is necessary to understand is the central bank throughout American history has never been a government bank. It is a private banking cartel to which the government gives the tremendously powerful and profitable control over the credit and currency of the country. Why should Congress turn over its responsibility to provide a sound currency to private bankers? You tell me. Lincolnians went Hamilton one better. They set up a series of national banks instead of one. This spread the loot around to more Republicans, but did not alter the principle. Nor does the Federal Reserve. The government appoints the head, who may suffer some government influence, but the real power is in the great New York banks. They decide whether interest rates should be raised or lowered and how much or how little credit is allowed in the national economy. They determine much of economic life for you and me. And did you know that Hamilton created the evil practice of legislation by executive order? Without consulting anyone, he ordered that banknotes, the paper issued by private banks, could be accepted in payments to the government. The banks are not businesses, said Calhoun in 1837, they are great and irresponsible political institutions.

>The 14th amendment was supposed to be for giving rights to the newly freed slaves. Shortly after it passed (illegally) the U.S. Supreme Court declared corporations to be legal persons. Like persons, they are said to have rights that may not be interfered with. The Supreme Court thus vetoed numerous efforts of State governments to regulate corporations. Under this cover, corporations proliferated like kudzu and did as they pleased. It can be argued that the unscrupulous Republican sponsors of the 14th amendment intended this all along.

https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2015/09/what-is-a-jeffersonian-political-economy.html

>>12526454
the song is very beautiful

>>12529330
Aye, it is

M.E. Bradford

>If we are careful to read the public life of Lincoln from the beginning, forward, this unfriendly report by an abolitionist should not surprise. In these years, the future Emancipator ran always with Southern Whigs. His presidential preferences were always for slaveholders who helped cut down the Democratic majority in the South—for Clay and White, Taylor and Scott. In 1852, he praised his party for pacifying Southern fears, for refusing to claim a special understanding of the Divine Will, and for avoiding all arguments from definition, direction by abolitionists, or original uses of presidential power.[40] Moreover, he did not scruple at condemning Martin Van Buren for entertaining too advanced a view of the rights of Negroes,[41] or at bringing actions for the recovery of runaway slaves in Illinois. Devotees of the Lincoln myth have a dreadful time with his role in the celebrated Matson Slave Case of 1847. Their trouble is that they identify his politics with freedom of the Southern Negro. And that belief leads them to misconstrue what was his larger purpose, from the first.

>As a promising young centralist, Abraham Lincoln played the role of champion for what Professor Michael Oakeshott has called the “enterprise association” theory of the state.[21] While serving as the elected representative of Sangamon (1834—1842), he first made a name for himself by enacting this part. Joining with other soon-to-be forefathers of the Republican Party, the youthful projector had his first political victory with the ten million dollar Internal Improvements Act of 1837.[22] In effect, this legislation borrowed Illinois into an immediate bankruptcy and left upon the shoulders of each citizen of the state an obligation greater than his average annual income—a debt not finally retired until 1882. It was difficult for Lincoln to give up this dream of terrestrial beatitude brought about through fiat money, as, to be fair, was the case with many of his neighbors.[23] A peculiar feature of the legislation was that it actually discouraged free enterprise and private effort, though, thanks to its operations, many enterprising, private men (mostly Whigs) got rich.

https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2016/07/language-lincoln.html

Jerry Salyer

>Suffering from a nasty bacterial infection, the insomnia induced by a lamp kept lit in his cell at all hours, and the very real possibility of being hanged by a kangaroo court, Jefferson Davis drew strength during his postbellum imprisonment from a certain slender little volume that was once renowned throughout Christendom – the The Imitation of Christ.

https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/kentuckys-confederate-sons/

Donald Livingston

>Upon first arriving in the Senate, Jefferson Davis was shocked to hear Northerners speak of the gradual extermination of blacks as a matter of course. They opposed slavery because, in providing cradle to grave welfare, it raised prices to unnatural levels. They argued that in a truly free market blacks would perish or immigrate to central America. This was a comforting thought to Ralph Waldo Emerson, abolitionist and one of the North’s greatest writers: “The black man declines,” he said, “It will happen by & by that the black man will only be destined for museums like the Dodo.”

>The Republican controlled House Committee on Emancipation Policy said in its 1862 report: “the highest interests of the white race, whether Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, or Scandinavian requires that the whole country should be held and occupied by these races alone.” Historian George Fredrickson observed that Northern national identity “pointed ahead to the elimination of the Negro as an element in the population, through planned colonization, unplanned migration, or extermination from “natural processes.” Recent studies show that Lincoln continued with plans to ship blacks out of the country a year after the Emancipation Proclamation and up to his assassination.

>“Anti-slavery” agitation in the antebellum period, with rare exceptions, was motivated not by an intention to emancipate and improve the conditions of the African population but by a horror of living with blacks. Lincoln laid out the moral alternatives to his Northern voters. “What then? Free them all, and keep them among us as underlings? Is it quite certain that this betters their condition? … What next? Free them, and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this; and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not…. We cannot then, make them equals.”

https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/calhouns-meaning-that-slavery-is-a-positive-good/

>>12526454
Sherman was nowhere near as ambitious as he should've been. What a load of crap. Wish you treasonous bitches would hurry it up with the fentanyl and inbreeding and wipe yourselves out of existence, my regret is the last dicksy cultural remnants will probably die out in my children's lifetime instead of my own.

Sixty miles in latitude, three hundred to the main;
Treason fled before us, for resistance was in vain,
While we were marching through Georgia.

>>12531133
You have to remember that treason is not just in the Federal Constitution, it's also in state constitutions. Hell, Virginia's Constitution predates the U.S. Constitution, and when Virginia when Virginia ratified the Federal one, they expressly said they reserve the right to withdraw at any time. From the South's perspective, calling it treason would be like calling Brexit treason.

>>12531166
>it's also in state constitutions.

That is, taking up arms against your state was legally treason too

I see your Southern conservatism, and I raise you Moldbug.

“For fans of the Confederacy, we must describe the general mistake that brought it down. The Confederates made many errors, of course, as any government of any longevity must; but perhaps the general pattern of their error was that the Confederate nation was conservative, rather than reactionary. Perhaps, in the 19th century, this was unavoidable; but it was still fatal.”

“A conservative is one who, rather than simply rejecting the revolutionary tradition of democracy, finds some effective way to contaminate it with reality, thus producing a weak but somewhat effective simulation of archism out of basically anarchist materials. Conservatism always appears, because it is easy. And it always fails, because it is weak and fraudulent. It is a case of tiling over the linoleum.”

"The Confederates failed because they failed to realize that they were Cavaliers. Lord only knows what they would have done if they had, but it would have been quite a bit more drastic. This was not quite a realization available to the 19th-century Southern intellectual—not even to the most extreme, such as the fascinating George Fitzhugh, star of what Louis Hartz called the “Reactionary Enlightenment” and author of the amazing and mischievous proslavery tract Cannibals All. Even Fitzhugh was not quite ready to restore the Stuarts, and he was probably more talked about in the North than read in the South. It was just the wrong century for that sort of a thing."

>>12531182
"The Confederacy, in particular, failed first and foremost because it seceded way too late. It should have done the deed in 1850 at the latest, and probably earlier. It was not necessary to wait for Abraham Lincoln, John Brown and the Secret Six for the South to know that the North was after its blood. It should have been clear by the 1830s that the marriage with Puritan revolutionary democracy was not a winner. "

"After that, it failed because it failed to secure British support. Sheldon Vanauken, in his excellent Glittering Illusion, tells the story of this fiasco. The demise of the Confederacy was the demise of the aristocratic tradition in Great Britain, and yet these natural allies could both have survived had Palmerston lifted a finger in the appropriate direction."

"Thus, the fighting should be kept going as long as possible, to bleed the loathsome Jonathan. Many British aristocrats were quite surprised, and quite disappointed, when the surrender of Richmond did not lead to a protracted guerrilla campaign. Of course, this was not to be expected from a movement which was conservative, rather than revolutionary—not to mention one faced with the utterly (and appropriately, in my judgment) ruthless North. Again, the error is one of building reaction on the ideological foundations of revolution."

>>12531182
Calhoun's proposed "concurrent majority" system was literally Medieval corporatost estate system. The South in fact showed it was starting new grounds because their Constitution, unlike the U.S. Constitution, invokes God.

>>12531195
>The Confederacy, in particular, failed first and foremost because it seceded way too late. It should have done the deed in 1850 at the latest, and probably earlier
The South was not a single government, there was no CSA until they fotmed it. There was no point in seccession until a lot of states were going to be on board

>>12531166
>>12531175
You southerners are such fans of the letter of the law that I'm sure you've heard of the supremacy clause. Here it is, just for a reminder as you're probably already familiar with it:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

>>12531227
>The South was not a single government, there was no CSA until they fotmed it.

With the collective fury of the Northern states and the federal government beating at their door, they might have done well to get the lead out of their asses and form it sooner. I take this as a further indication of their conservative timidity.

>>12531230
Hence leaving the Union. The South didn't say we're ignoring the rules for members, the South said we are resigning membership

>>12531254
>With the collective fury of the Northern states and the federal government beating at their door, they might have done well to get the lead out of their asses and form it sooner. I take this as a further indication of their conservative timidity
It's very callous of you to dismiss hesitation to start a catostrophically destructive war as "timidity". I can assure that Francisco Franco was extremely hesitant for the same reasons. Are you prepared to bring death upon your brothers, sons and neighbors at the drop of a hat? To see your ancestral home pilloried by shells and looting? To make families into widows and orphans?

>>12531259
>The contract I signed is currently inconvenient, so it is invalid
Some "honor culture" lmao, no wonder none of you preening bitchboys can stay off the pills.

>>12531289
>Are you prepared to bring death upon your brothers, sons and neighbors at the drop of a hat?

The North sure was. And they effectively brought the Southern civilization to extinction.

The North brought them holy war, and they answered with "b-but what about state's rights?"

>>12531296
They didn't say it was invalid, they saw it as their prerogative to withdraw because they reserved that right when they signed.

>>12531324
MINE EYES HAVE SEEN THE GLORY OF THE COMING OF THE LORD

>>12531324
The South believed just as strongly in the holiness of their cause. Most weren't zealots like John Brown willing to kill civvies, but most Northerners weren't either.

>>12531336
You can't retroactively add stuff like that, it's a weak-bitch dipshit opportunistic argument (like every other cultural position the region has produced) and you know it. Got their asses kicked and culture destroyed too, which makes me happy. I wonder how many southern belles got raped by union soldiers, and then passed to the share croppers, and then to the slaves?
Must have been pretty worn out by the time we were done with them. Lol.

>>12531346
They didn't retroactively add it, Virginia declared it when signing.

>>12531352
Virginia can suck it. Saying you have a right doesn't mean you do. Fuck off.

>>12531362
Well the U.S. Constitution (unlike the Articles of the Confederation) didn't forbid leaving, and in light of the 10th Amendment....

>>12531378
Nah. You're just reiterating the same flimsy shit that got your people spanked last time. You can't just keep getting your points shut down and bringing up another weak bitch argument. Nobody needed to expressly forbid secession, the precedent didn't exist. Federal supremacy is more powerful than the tenth amendment, I could always just point you to Texas v. White, or hell we could go back to the federalist letters (and you would counter with their garbage opposition antifederalist letters), the simple fact is you cannot secede legally, especially not for the morally repugnant purpose of maintaining human chattel and increasing freedom to engage in underhanded economic warfare against your own countrymen.
Honestly I kind of hope you dipshits secede again so we can try out nukes this time. Imagine the skin melting off of all those colonel sanders looking soft flabby faces. Lmao

>>12531166
>when Virginia when Virginia ratified the Federal one, they expressly said they reserve the right to withdraw at any time. From the South's perspective, calling it treason would be like calling Brexit treason.

Sorry all of this is just flat bad history and bad legal theory.

Virginia first off is a bad example anyways. Their original constitution from 1776 had to be removed wholesale and rewritten a couple times in the early 1800's because they didn't provide a legal mechanism for amending it. Therefore, that original VA Constitution was no longer legally binding by the 1860's and was superceded by any/all agreements in the Federal government which would by definition pre-date the new state constitutions.

Brexit is wholly unrelated, because a mechanism for withdrawal is specifcally included in the UK's membership agreement in the EU. Furthermore, the EU is formed by treaties, which can always be exited by one side, albeit there's usually a penalty or cost. The original Articles were much more like the EU, i.e. as basically a set of treaties creating a confederation between independent sovereigns. The Constitution is a total and perpetual agreement and Article 5 requires state sovereignty to be ceded, hence why amendments are not unanimous and a state may be bound to an amendment even if they vote against it and view it as an affront to their interests. There's also the obvious Supremacy Clause in Article 4 that establishes that the Constitution is supreme.

None of that matters though. Sovereignty is a de facto question, not merely a de jure question. The Southern states could say they had the right, but the US could say they did not with perfectly legal explanation. Therefore the South cannot get de jure sovereignty, so they would have to get de facto sovereignty first by forcing the North to accept them, i.e. by force.

>>12531408
The Federal government is supreme only in regard to what the Constitution says.

The South didn't secede to preserve slavery per se. Slavery could only be banned on a nationwide basis by changing the Constitution, which required 3/4 states to support, and there is no way that would happen. The issue is rather that the slave block of states were completely locked out of the executive (Lincoln didn't win a single electoral in the South), and therefore SCOTUS. That's two branches. It made practical sense to be a different country at that point, especially since the vast majority of Federal taxes (mostly tariffs at that time) was paid for by the south and the vast majority of the funds were spent improving the North.

>>12531434
>Therefore, that original VA Constitution was no longer legally binding by the 1860's and was superceded by any/all agreements in the Federal government which would by definition pre-date the new state constitutions.
Treason against the state of Virginia had been continually legally existing the entire time and did not change in definition. Virginia was a distinct people and, well, it's patently silly to think any of them saw loyalty to the Federal government as anterior to loyalty their people, many very ild families. None of the Virginian Founding Fathers felt that way, and Jefferson even glumly feared this idea would eventually lead to civil war.

>>12531468
It does not matter what they saw because the question of voluntary secession is treated via Constitutional mechanisms. Virginia is and was not an independent sovereign under the Constitution, any state constitution or state statutes, fell under the Supreme Court's jurisdiction via Article 4 and Article 3 of the US Constitution that Virginia signed onto. Virginia could have adopted a state consitution that said whatever it wanted, and if the Supreme Court would no matter way have precedence over it. This isn't fucking byzantine shit, it's straightforward. The South knew it was straight forward, which is why folks tried for decades to resist have sectionalism breach into disunion, because after that comes civil war to protect Article 3 of the Constitution.

>>12531520
>Virginia is and was not an independent sovereign under the Constitution
Yes and on. They weren't sovereign in regard to anything delegated by the Constitution to the U.S., but as per the 10th Amendment they were sovereign in everything that wasn't. The Federal government exists to represent the states, it wasn't ratified by a plebescite of everyone, but rather by individual states.

>>12531435
>The south didn't secede to preserve slavery per se
stopped reading there. Coping Cletus Confirmed.

>>12531545
>They weren't sovereign in regard to anything delegated by the Constitution to the U.S., but as per the 10th Amendment they were sovereign in everything that wasn't.
You keep missing the point. The determination of a violation of the 10th Amendment and how to interpret it is expressly given to the Article 3 Supreme Court. The Supreme Court under Justice John Marshall established the Court's right under Article 4 to determine Constitutionality of all federal and state statutes/constitutional clauses adopted after the Constitution was agreed upon. Finally, Andrew Jackson's Force Bill, passed legally through the legislature established the right of the Federal Government to use force if needed beyond the court system to ensure federal Constitutional laws are followed.

It does not matter one bit what you think the purpose of the government is or what the Virginia Constitution means. You can make a claim all you want, and the Supreme Court is still supreme, and the federal government can enforce it.

>>12531597
I don't have a vendetta against slavery, so not really. We didn't enslave anyone, we bought those who were enslaved by their own people, and they were very likely better off for it. But what I said still stands, slavery couldn't be abolished without 3/4 states voting for it, which there was no danger of. The issue was Lincoln, who most certainly couldn' unilaterally amend the Constitution, and at his inaugeration speech he made it clear he had zero authority to abolish slavery

>>12531607
>You keep missing the point. The determination of a violation of the 10th Amendment and how to interpret it is expressly given to the Article 3 Supreme Court.
Yes, that was the central problem. John Calhoun was the first to say it's a major problem when the document restricting Federal authority is unilaterally interpreted by Federal authority. Hence the South did not seek to defy Federal law, but rather to leave the Federation. There was effort by some representatives announcing and voting for seccession to hang out in the North so they'd get arrested for treason, and then could take up the issue of seccession with SCOTUS. However arrests didn't begin, *precisely* for this reason, until Lincoln suspended habeas corpus.

John Taylor- Construction Construed, An Inquiry into the Principles and Policy of the Government of the United States

John Calhoun- Disquisiton on Government, Discourse on the Constitution

Jefferson-Collected Writings
Madison-Collected Writings

Edgar Allan Poe- Essays

Jefferson Davis- Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government

TS Eliot- Christianity and Culture

HL Mencken- Notes on Democracy

Albert Taylor Bledsoe- Is Davis a Traitor?

>>12531166
Stop replying to fags like that. It shits up the threads. Leave that stuff or /his/.

>>12531648
Good choices, Eliot was correct regarding the nature of revolution in America

>>12531655
>Southern buttfucker calls me a fag
lmao, I have no hope for you fucks.
Bunch of pseuds in this thread. Best option is suicide.

>>12531643
>John Calhoun was the first to say it's a major problem when the document restricting Federal authority is unilaterally interpreted by Federal authority.
It's not a major problem, that's what independent sovereignty. The US is a supreme sovereign, a state is not. Calhoun may have seen it as a problem, but its just the definition of what it means to be sovereign.

>Hence the South did not seek to defy Federal law, but rather to leave the Federation.
Sure, but the US government can use force to continue to enforce its borders and laws. It simply was not legal to secede unless the Federal government voluntarily relinquished their sovereign legal authority over the territory and borders of the state.

>then could take up the issue of seccession with SCOTUS.
Sure, they could have done that, and certainly the Taney court would have been a touch better for the South than the Marshall court. But in the meantime the Federal government had legal authority to enforce its laws by force in seceded states.

>>12531708
Why do you persist in talking about this when you've clearly not read Calhoun's book on the subject?

>>12531708
>It simply was not legal to secede

Lincoln would disagree

>Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right—a right which, we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movemen

>>12531744
It does not matter what Lincoln says, you keep missing the point. Anyone can have an opinion on the right or lack of right to secede. What matters is the legal mechanisms in place, and the mechanisms in place through the supremacy of the Supreme Court and the Insurrection Act and Force Bill to authorize the Federal government to use force to control its borders and legal authority you did not have the right to secede.

Besides Lincoln is talking about the right to rise up in revolution. That is LITERALLY the point I've been making. The South *could not get* de jure sovereignty under the Constitution and thus it would have to rise up in arms to gain de facto sovereignty and then sign a treaty with the Union to be finally granted de jure sovereignty. This is the entire fucking point. There was no legal authority to secede, you had to revolt. It's the same with almost every country. A supremely sovereign Nation State cedes legal authority over part of its territory either voluntarily or from losing in battle.

>>12531806
We don’t know what the legal mechanisms would have granted. They were purposely subverted at the behest of special interests. If you mean “the winners win,” then no shit, everyone knows that cliche. But that only justifies the South’s attempt to be the winner.

>>12531806
>What matters is the legal mechanisms in place, and the mechanisms in place through the supremacy of the Supreme Court and the Insurrection Act and Force Bill to authorize the Federal government to use force to control its borders

The South tried to handle it through the courts. Lincoln chose not to handle that battle. The South didn't defy any court order, they made every effort to solict a court resolution. Since the south initially sought a courtroom confrintation, whereas Lincoln used habeas corpus to prevent that, it is a bit dishonest of you to say the South was going up against SCOTUS

>>12531849
used *suspension of

>>12527174
based

>>12531829
>We don’t know what the legal mechanisms would have granted. They were purposely subverted at the behest of special interests.
We do. The Supreme Court repeatedly from Marbury v Madison onward enshrined the supremacy of its decisions over the states, i.e. that constitutional laws passed federally apply to states. Since the Federal government by law and the Constitution had control over borders and foreign commerce, a seceded state would be depriving the Federal government of its authority, which would be unconstitutional. The Taney court would not have ruled otherwise, it is completely impossible, even if some folks thought different. The Taney court alone ruled in the lead up to the Civil War in Ableman v. Booth that states were not allowed to contradict federal authority.

The perverse attempt by Southern sympathetic folks later on to pretend there was an actual Constitutional case in 1861 for a legal right to secede is patently absurd. There was not. This is why shots were fired and the solumn right to gain sovereignty by force was begun. But instead of just owning up to the fact that the South stated the war (which they did), Southern sympathizers try to find some way to avoid that. If you won (like the Colonies did in the Revolutionary War) then you would have correctly understood that revolution was the mechanism by which you gained your sovereignty. But because you lost, the leaders/soldiers in the South were traitors under Article 3 of the Constitution that they were still under, and you want to resist accepting this because it wounds your identity.

>>12526454
what's the point in wasting time on pre-industrial political thougth (besides intellectual masturbation), I mean it's literally the wrong side of history you romantic rural retard

>>12531849
>it is a bit dishonest of you to say the South was going up against SCOTUS
I didn't say that. I was explaining the supremacy law. It was actually Wisonsin who had most recently gone up against the sovereignty of SCOTUS in Ableman v Booth in 1859.

It's not about South going up against SCOTUS, its that Federal government has the right to use arms to enforce its sovereignty and borders, and SCOTUS has enshrined the constitutionality of that.

>>12531900
>and SCOTUS has enshrined the constitutionality of that.
Whether it would apply to a state opting out (since the Federal government was nothing but the states acting jointly) was questionable, which Lincoln knew. According to William Blackstone, law should be interpreted according to its purpose. Whether or not the purpose of giving the Federal government power to defend the Union was meant to mean states are permanently bound to the Union was certainly for contention, it is very unlikely that was the purpose of giving the Federal government authority to defend the Union.

>>12531892
>constitutional
There’s the keyword

>>12531940
>since the Federal government was nothing but the states acting jointly
No this is incorrect.

>According to William Blackstone, law should be interpreted according to its purpose.
William Blackstone was dead. He was not on the Supreme Court. You're arguing legal theory, not legal reality. The Supreme Court already ruled that the states could not contradict federal law deemed constitutional. Supremacy is permanent. If it is not permanent it is not surpreme. Plenty of folks tried to get cute and pretend they could undo this (and ironically it was the North in the leadup to the Civil War, so the South is technically the main violator) and each time they were blocked.

>which Lincoln knew.
Lincoln did not want disunion. And Lincoln is not the Supreme Court and not the laws and statutes of the Federal government. Jefferson was not the Supreme Court. Calhoun was not the Supreme Court. It does not matter what these men's personal jurisprudential philosophy was. Plenty of men had all sorts of opinions on the matter, and yet the Supreme Court consistently ruled toward supremacy of their Constitutional rulings.

In any case Texas v White explicitly ruled after the Civil War that unilateral secession was unconstitutional using constitutional arguments already present before the War. We already know the answer to all of this. Stop inventing history and just accept that gaining independence from a supreme sovereign means starting a war or signing a treaty.

>>12532018
>in any case the court dominated by unionists upheld unionism
Brilliant

>>12532018
>No this is incorrect
It is entirely correct, that Trump won with fewer votes demonstrates it

>William Blackstone was dead. He was not on the Supreme Court. You're arguing legal theory, not legal reality

The theory the compact of the union was made in. Would this theory been upheld by SCOTUS? Both Lincoln and the South thought so

>Lincoln did not want disunion. And Lincoln is not the Supreme Court and not the laws and statutes of the Federal government. Jefferson was not the Supreme Court. Calhoun was not the Supreme Court. It does not matter what these men's personal jurisprudential philosophy was. Plenty of men had all sorts of opinions on the matter, and yet the Supreme Court consistently ruled toward supremacy of their Constitutional rulings

Essentially you are arguing "decisionist" jurisprudence, yes?

>In any case Texas v White explicitly ruled after the Civil War

Utterly irrelevant, what matters is current. Future is irrelevant and past rulings are too when they are deemed no longer current by SCOTUS. The composition of the court had changed

>>12532048
And this is why men took up arms to gain independence. To get out from under the supreme judgments under the Constitution.

Unilateral secession was still not legal. It almost never is in any nation. Hence revolutions. Hence America's revolution. Here is a very lucid excerpt from the SCOTUS ruling in Texas v White:

>The union between Texas [the relevant state in the case] and the other States [i.e. the United States] was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States [thus the original States were also in an indissoluble union]. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution.

>>12532075
>Would this theory been upheld by SCOTUS?
No, Gibbens v Ogden already laid out the arguments why it would be upheld.

>Future is irrelevant and past rulings are too when they are deemed no longer current by SCOTUS.
This is absolutely true. Taney Court was *not* going to be more lenient on this. This is why the North was suddenly into States rights after Dred Scott.

It is a fantasy that the question would have been answered any other way by the Supreme Court. There is absolutely no reason to hold this fantasy either, it taints history and it is completely unnecessary as to justifying the South's decision to attempt to gain independence.

>>12532085
>was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States
The question as to whether it should be was explicitly discussed as the convention, and left out. This judge can cite no article to support his statement. He is not interpreting, he is *decreeing*

>>12532116
>The question as to whether it should be was explicitly discussed as the convention, and left out. This judge can cite no article to support his statement. He is not interpreting, he is *decreeing*
Yes he is. And he is given that right by Article 4.

Listen, I get it you want justification that the South was right to secede. This is perfectly sound reason: that the Constitution the states' joined had been flawed (as the Articles were) in a way that ceded too much authority to the supreme interpretations of an unelected court, and that the Confederacy wanted to reclaim their sovereignty to better match their principles of liberty, and the way to do so was to secede and take up arms if the Union did not voluntarily allow them to.

That's it. That's the sympathetic justification. You don't need all this fantastical bullshit about how SCOTUS might have said states could have withdrawn and therefore secession was legal. That would not have happened. That's why there was a war.

>>12531166
if southerners loved states's rights so much why did they insist on the fugitive slave act

>>12532144
>if southerners loved states's rights so much why did they insist on the fugitive slave act
and why did they roundly support the federal ruling on Dred Scott that disfavored states' rights... because people are hypocrites and most arguments and justifications are made in bad faith to advance to their desired ends.

>>12532106

I must again ask if you are a decisionist


>It is a fantasy that the question would have been answered any other way by the Supreme Court.
Then why did Lincoln avoid a court confrontation while the South sought it? A ruling that secession was treason would have been a great boon to Lincoln.

>>12532144
The Constitution at that time expressly stipulated that free states had to return fugitive slaves, that was a condition for the South joining the Union....

>>12526461
bloviation and run-on sentences.
sounds about right for conservatism.

>>12532165
>I must again ask if you are a decisionist
No I support people's right to revolt and to resist government intrusion as they see fit. I'm the one giving you a perfectly sound jsutification for the South's desire and choice to secede.

>Then why did Lincoln avoid a court confrontation while the South sought it?
Why do you keep appealing to Lincoln? The man was hardly some legal genius. Douglas made far more legally sound and coherent arguments against him in debates, he was wildly making proposals to stem the possibility of disunion that were dubious, and some of his actions in the leadup to full blown war were also dubious. If you want an actual, more interesting discussion on disloyalty court cases as a way to validate or invalidate unilateral secession, we can have it, but I don't give a shit what went on in Lincoln's little head.

>>12532185
Calhoun wrote as if speaking, he didn't like sophistication in rhetotic, a sentiment he ultimately picked up from his former adversary, Randolph of Roanoke, who thought flowery language was too often used to gloss nonsense

>>12532206
so bloviation and run-on sentences are ok as long as the language is not "flowery".
ok.

>>12526454
Ideas Have Consequences > Revolt Against the Modern World

>>12532194
>No I support people's right to revolt and to resist government intrusion as they see fit. I'm the one giving you a perfectly sound jsutification for the South's desire and choice to secede.
Decisionism is a jurisprudence of what makes something legal or illegal, not about when or if breaking the law is justified, which is a seperate issue.

So please think carefully before you answer: do you think legality is decisionist?

>The man was hardly some legal genius.

He was a lawyer with his own practice. I am supposing you are too, since you are asserting you have a better understanding of the law and courts of his time than he did

>>12531435
>The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution
that's from the official south carolina declaration. so it would in face seem that the south seceded specifically to preserve slavery per se

>>12532214
Is what he says true?

>>12532225
>He was a lawyer with his own practice.
He was a politician in his public actions though.

> I am supposing you are too, since you are asserting you have a better understanding of the law and courts of his time than he did
I am and yes I do but that's because I have the infinite advantage of existing in the future.

>So please think carefully before you answer: do you think legality is decisionist?
I'm a bit amused you are fixated on a Nazi strain of jurisprudence.

>>12532253
The issue regarding hostility was ratio of free states to slave states when it came to admitting more to the Union. Although it is true Lincoln was deliberately being provocative in his House Divided speech, this was mainly to galvanize votes, the serious policy on the table at the time was conditions for admission into the Union. The South was firm about upholding the Missouri Compromise, whereas Lincolnites thought it shouldn't apply any more

>>12532280
Er, decisionism predates the Nazis by hundreds of years, Hobbes is a prominent example.

>>12532301
>Er, decisionism predates the Nazis by hundreds of years, Hobbes is a prominent example.
I mean, I have no doubt you've gotten this from somewhere, and if you have a citation I'll have a look, but in contemporary jurisprudence "decisionism" comes from the Nazi era. It's fairly post-modern and its not very applicable to common law nations like the US.

>>12532301
>>12532322
Ok, I see the area you probably found this. Carl Schmitt, who basically coined and created the concept of legal decisionism, borrows from Hobbes, so you've probably had a book or source where the author traces the term back in time to something more general. In any case it's not a standard term, certainly not the way you think.

>>12532322
The term comes from Carl Schmitt, but he uses it to describe a particular historical school of jurisprudence, and considers Hobbes its most lucid example. The work he relates this in Political Theology, which written before there even was a Nazi Party (which Schmitt was only briefly a member of before being kicked out on suspicion that he faked his antisemetism due to his relationship with Leo Strauss. Carl Schmitt remained under heavy Gestspo surveillance for the entirety of WWII

>>12532330
>who basically coined and created the concept of legal decisionism
He coined the term. The concept comes ultimately from Stuart jurisprudence

>>12532341
Can you explain why this is of such importance to you? It's quite strange to have a fixation on a very niche school of jurisprudential thought from a civil law nation. No one in American law school or American jurisprudence spends much time on this, so it's curious you think its of utmost relevance.

>>12527046
Is all of this stuff just gonna be about how some people are "better" than others?

>>12532367
I can't distinguish your position from it. Since we're debating legality, which jurisprudence you subscribe to is relevant

>>12532377
No of course not hahaha that's crazy

>>12532377
It's telling that you immediately jump to the conclusion that he's advocating something malicious by poking holes in your airy theories. Fragile, much?

>>12532412
How fragile? A lot of the excerpts were talking about equality, or the lack for equality, among men. I'm just not that interested in people who make that their primary concern. Chill out my guy

>>12532426
It's the primary concern of a brief essay on the subject, not Bradford's corpus. I might add that the essay was specifically written as a rebuttal to someone who said equality is a conservative vakue

>>12532426
Although rejecting equality as an end or truth, is certainly very important to Southern conservatism. This isn't just about some people are dirt and others gold, but rather that some are gold, some are copper, some are steel, some are brick, etc

>>12532440
Cool yeah I've gotten further in the thread and there's some interesting stuff. Will look at some of his stuff.
>>12532462
Sure of course, and I'm not really even opposed to the statement. That not everyone is created equal, it's just not that important a revelation to me.

>>12532493
The implications are more important, e.g. should everyone be entitled to equal liberty and suffrage when it is harmful?

>>12527174
This is from Here I Stand btw

>>12532440
Name of essay please?

>>12532738
"The Heresy of Equality", it's linked in the post

>>12531655
So you're the ass that keeps sending southerners to /his/.

>>12531892
>If you won (like the Colonies did in the Revolutionary War) then you would have correctly understood that revolution was the mechanism by which you gained your sovereignty
You do you realize that several important revolutionaries, such as John Adams and John Jay (both lawyers) only supported the American Revolution when they considered it legally valid based on William Blackstone's understanding of English law?

>>12533648
>You do you realize that several important revolutionaries, such as John Adams and John Jay (both lawyers) only supported the American Revolution when they considered it legally valid based on William Blackstone's understanding of English law?
Sure. And several important revolutionaries kept disagreeing on the nature of the Union long after it was technically adopted in 1787. There is and was no monolith interpretation either then or now as to what kind of Union the Constitution created.

>>12532384
Mate, I'm just telling you stare decisis common law that underpins the constitutional Supreme Court. I'm saying that a ruling in favor of unilateral secession would have lost at the Supreme Court because of the precedent the Court had created. If laws, amendments, judicial interpretations post-1787 had taken a different path then perhaps the situation would have been different. I'm not putting forward my own actual view of the legality, i.e. I was not making a case from my own personal view of the jurisprudence on what ought to be (although I do think unilateral secession would be absurd to interpret from the Constitution), simply a statement of its situation at the time. Plenty intelligent people in the South *and* the North by 1860 had seen the power of Federal law under the Court to have gone far beyond what they argued ought to have been or was in actuality agreed to in 1787.

>>12533759
>I'm not putting forward my own actual view of the legality
Actually I did reference a part of my own actual view before, so I'll note that just so I don't seem retarded for suggesting otherwise: in my view, a seceding territory from an independent sovereign state will not have de jure sovereignty unless there is provision for such in a treaty, the sovereign state voluntarily acquiesces to or ignores it, or the seceding territory enters war and eventually wins/signs a treaty acknowledging its new sovereignty, which is basically the dominant view in practice governing international relations today.

>>12533759
>Sure
What I am saying is that revolution can have legal basis

>Mate, I'm just telling you stare decisis

It's irrelevant to SCOTUS unless they agree with it.

>a seceding territory from an independent sovereign state will not have de jure sovereignty

Many people at that time, especially in the South, believed the Union government was sovereign in some matters, the states sovereign in the rest. Even Orestes Brownson expresses this belief in The American Republic, a work which denied that seccession was legal. That the United States government as sovereign in all matters, and that the 10th Amendment is null and void, is a post civil war consensus. So is the decisionist abssolute sovereignty of SCOTUS (that you advocate as the intent of the Constitution, though this certainly does not concur with the Federalist Papers)--Andrew Jackson for example believed that the executuve, not SCOTUS, is the branch which decides the "state of exception".

Just to be clear here, you don't believe the Constitution itself has a single iota of relevance, only the will of SCOTUS. If SCOTUS declared that we had to put amyone who criticized them to death, your jurisprudence would say that is legal. I am not saying you are inconsistemt here, but I am saying you are using the same legal theory Henry VIII used, only applying it to SCOTUS rather than monarchs. My contention is that authentic Constitutional jurisprudence doesn't support this; your rebuttal is that theory doesn't matter, only reality. I would say this shows an inability on your part to distinguish between de jure and de facto

Thomas Fleming

>A healthy society is one that exercises an economy of political force; it solves family problems at the family level, local problems at the local level, and state problems at the state level. It will reserve the Federal Marshals, Supreme Court decisions, and lettres de chachet for problems that directly affect the nation as a whole. States Rights is only a particular affirmation of this general principle, one that is strongly rooted in the love of liberty. We do not need our states to tell us how to rear our children, and we do not need the Congress or the Supreme Court to tell how to run things in Alabama or South Carolina, even when we are wrong. It was part of the Southern wisdom that the government which governs least governs best.

>For the South, liberty was not a libertarian repudiation of standards. Every community has the right—no, the obligation—to set up and enforce a code of principles and behavior. Toleration of dissent does not require a neutral attitude toward vice, as Michael Novak has argued recently. If a pluralistic approach to questions of right and wrong is the hallmark of “democratic capitalism,” then the South has managed to stand outside the orbit of capitalism and democracy.

https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/on-liberty/

From "Old Rights and the New Right"

>It is obvious to anyone that many capitalist ‘conservatives’ are nothing better than nineteenth century liberals with a hangover. Thier libertarian ideas of freedom, expressed almost always in economic terms, are tempered only by the recognition that it takes force to keep the discontented masses in their place.

Can we talk about anti-conservatism too?
Can I criticize conservatism or is it still banned?

Legit question, you don't need to BAN ME AGAIN mods, 4chan is not a place of CENSORSHIP AGAINST THE LEFT, right?

>>12533841
>What I am saying is that revolution can have legal basis
This is literally affirmed in Texas v White. Revolution =/= unilateral secession. And I keep fucking saying that revolution is the absolute right of people to establish conditions of their choosing. You have no legal background. You're bizarrely interpreting things incorrectly from some book or paper you've read that's rooted in some niche political theory and you're larping like you know something.

>That the United States government as sovereign in all matters, and that the 10th Amendment is null and void, is a post civil war consensus.
You are such a dumb fuck it's incredible. I never said that and it makes more sense to say that the federal government is sovereign in all matters. You keep calling "decisionism" when you mean "stare decisis" and the reason you do that is because you're a fucking retard who read some heterodox southern nationalist treatises and obsessed over some niche modernist arguments that the heterdox authors you read used.

And for fucks sake I agree with southern secession.

>>12526454
>Protestant paradigm
Pass. Ideology is for Jews and their cousins.

>>12535458
Plenty of Catholic Southern conservatives, like the just quoted Thomas Fleming

>>12535440
>This is literally affirmed in Texas v White. Revolution =/= unilateral secession.
But the American Revolution WAS unilateral secession

>You keep calling "decisionism" when you mean "stare decisis"

No those are totally different concepts. Stare decisis means past rulings estsblish precedent for future rulings. Decisionism means legality is synomous with the will of the sovereign or sovereign body, whatever it may be at the time

Bump

>>12535437
If you want make a thread discussing books in detail

>>12531408
>constantly swearing and name calling
>y-y-your a weak bitch

You aren't doing yourself any favors

>>12536901
it seems most of them were sephardic

Deep love of fatherland is almost extinct in America apart from the south. The South is perhaps the last fatherland that still exists in the New World

>>12537056
Sephardic confirmed for based. Definately not communists

Bump

>>12535503
>But the American Revolution WAS unilateral secession
Yes. And it wasn't legally decided in some British court. You picked up a musket and shot a Brit. You either secede by force, or by the parent state voluntarily ceding their sovereignty over you (like Britain did with Canada).

>Decisionism means legality is synomous with the will of the sovereign or sovereign body
No wonder you were linking it with Hobbes. No that is a patently ridiculous concept that doesn't make sense in a deeply divided three-branched government like the US. When I said "supremacy" I mean in court, as in the Supreme Court determines the ultimate Constitutionality in a legal sense. If the people or the States or the legislative branch don't like it, they can introduce an amendment to the Constitution to get rid of it, or resubmit the same question later for reconsideration. None of this shit about "will of a sovereign". Supremacy of the Supreme Court to decide what is Constitutionally legal is my interpretation of legality, this is literally outlined in Article 4 & 3:

>>This Constitution [...] shall be the supreme Law of the Land
>The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court [...] for all Cases [...] arising under this Constitution

>>12539280
>is my interpretation
Was supposed to be "is NOT my interpretation"

>>12539280
>And it wasn't legally decided in some British court.
Again you are completely missing the point. Revolution itself was considered legal under some contexts in contemporary jurisprudence, a precedent set by the Glorious Revolution. William Blackstone actually furnishes a theory of when revolution is legal. That was all very important to the Founding Fathers who were lawyers.

>When I said "supremacy" I mean in court, as in the Supreme Court determines the ultimate Constitutionality in a legal sense.

Constitutionality, as has already been established, doesn't just mean what is in the Constitution; it includes decrees by SCOTUS

>If the people or the States or the legislative branch don't like it, they can introduce an amendment to the Constitution

Which comes down to a petition, as SCOTUS can nullify amendments (as with the 10th)