Following the recent presidential election in the States, some have begun asking if the form of government will remain a republic. On this point, here at the South, Miss Karen Stokes offered the following:
‘In earlier, unpublished letters to another friend, Mann asserted that a republic was the best form of government ever given to mankind, declaring his undying devotion to that principle no matter what the cost. His beloved friend Jefferson Davis was of the same conviction, and in a well-known quote, predicted that this principle would “reassert itself, though it may be at another time and in another form.”
‘Current events may not bode well for Davis’s prediction, but we can still hope that he was right.’
Southerners are very enamored with the idea of a republic, but the time for childish fascination with that form of government must come to an end if better days are to be known in Dixieland and the rest of the Union. As we have mentioned before, the great defender of tradition in Spain in the 19th hundredyear, Count Juan Donoso Cortes, likened a republic to the halfway house between God-ordained monarchy and devil-inspired democracy. The republican phase of a people’s life is, as he put it, akin to the moment in the life of the Jewish people when they hesitated in their choice between Christ and Barabbas. Thus, a republic can only be a temporary form of government as eventually the folk must make a choice between one or the other.
On the surface, a republic appears to offer the safeguards and stability of a settled hierarchy, but by opening the doors, however slightly, to the notion that popular assent is always necessary for a government and its acts to be viewed as legitimate, the path to demonic democracy is embarked upon, and the journey will not end until every authority that impedes the fickle will of the people is removed. Ironically, it is a Massachusetts man (New Englanders are usually associated with political radicalism rather than with tradition), Mr Richard Henry Dana, Sr, who speaks so well to this. Prof Michael Connolly, summarizing some of his political thought, writes,
‘Enlightenment natural rights and the liberty of men to do as they please led to democratic self-government, a system Dana called “tyranny of the many.” If men were fallen creatures who needed the restraint of guiding institutions, democracy with its broadening franchise and frequent elections invited disaster. First, the “popular principle” of government led to worship of the self, a narcissistic democratic voter who believed himself the font of all decisions rather than leaders, institutions, and laws. Democratic government “must destroy reverence in the soul, and generate pride… There is reason to fear that the sensitiveness of a man, upon all that touches the republic, is too often nothing else than self, and that it is he, in feeling, who stands for the body politic.” Self-centered democratic man became as fickle and demanding as a customer at a store, insisting from government that which it cannot reasonably give. “So those who are impatient under settled and old authority are the most capricious masters, and the most unreasonable and overbearing in their demands.” Second, democratic citizens who esteemed themselves in a political system of constant change, rotating leadership, and impermanent laws lacked all respect for government. Incessant elections and political leaders who only served a few years drew little reverence; political disorder earned no obedience. The “hot haste of innovation” eroded all loyalty for anything greater than man himself.’
Mr Dana has exposed the parentage of the modern republics and democracies: the principles of the Enlightenment (although unfortunately he fails to mention what led to the Enlightenment: the theology of Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, together with the catastrophic 30 Years War (1618-48) between those two camps that scorched and scarred the soul of Western Europe, creating an Anfauglith there, a barren, empty wasteland devoid of Christianity) – those principles which are the rejection of Christianity in favor of man-worship. The Gnostic, Neoplatonic plans of government ‘of the people, by the people, and for the people’ are not the true constitution of Christian Western Europe and her descendants here in the States. Sir Edmund Burke, one of England’s traditionalist statemen, put into words some of the parts of the true constitution of Western Europeans in his Letters on a Regicide Peace (Letter I, 1796):
. . .
Holy Ælfred the Great, King of England, South Patron, pray for us sinners at the Souð, unworthy though we are!
Anathema to the Union!