In
the last essay, we noted that Evangelical Protestantism was in the ascendancy
in the South after the War. With this
corresponds the republican form of government (i.e., classical liberalism,
government by the consent of the people, which we also saw in the second stage
of Southern history), about which Donoso Cortes, whom we heard from last time, said
the following:
“The liberal school,”
he said, “...is placed between two seas, whose constantly advancing waves will
finally overwhelm it, between socialism and Catholicism.... It cannot admit the
constituent sovereignty of the people without becoming democratic, socialistic,
and atheistic, nor admit the actual sovereignty of God without becoming
monarchical and Catholic....”xxxix
“This school is only
dominant when society is threatened with dissolution, and the moment of its
authority is that transitory and fugitive one, in which the world stands
doubting between Barabbas and Jesus, and hesitates between a dogmatical
affirmation and a supreme negation. At such a time society willingly allows
itself to be governed by a school which never affirms nor
denies, [italics in original] but is always
making distinctions.... xl“Such periods of agonizing doubt can never last any
great length of time. Man was born to act, and will resolutely declare either
for Barabbas or Jesus and overturn all that the sophists have attempted to
establish....”
Source: Fr
Seraphim Rose, Orthodox Survival Course,
‘Lecture 8: Meaning of Revolution’, p. 129, http://tinyurl.com/h8uqu66,
downloaded 12 Feb. 2017
The
South, Cortes is telling us, instead of delighting in her republicanism, ought
to be searching for an alternative to it, since it can only be a brief,
wavering stage in her history, not something of permanence and stability.
One
of the reasons this is so, as Cortes said elsewhere, is that republicanism is a
denial of God’s rule over this world (e.g., ‘Discourse on the General Situation
of Europe’, speech given to the Spanish Parliament on 30 Jan. 1850, found in Donoso Cortes: Readings in Political Theory,
Herrera, edr., Ave Maria, Flor.: Sapientia Press, 2007, pgs. 74-5). If we believed in His providence, we would
have no trouble believing that He would provide a king to govern each nation
according to His will. But since at some
level we really do not believe in that anymore, we have taken the reins of
government into our own hands, relegating to God the role merely of Creator of
the cosmos, while we ourselves are now the rulers.
The
Orthodox priest-monk Father Seraphim Rose of California (+1982), who spoke well of Cortes’
thoughts in some of his own lectures, had some things of his own to say about
republicanism/liberalism:
The Liberalism we shall describe in the following
pages is not--let us state at the outset--an overt Nihilism; it is rather a
passive Nihilism, or, better yet, the neutral breeding-ground of the more
advanced stages of Nihilism. Those who have followed our earlier discussion
concerning the impossibility of spiritual or intellectual
"neutrality" in this world will understand immediately why we have
classified as Nihilist a point of view which, while not directly responsible
for any striking Nihilist phenomena, has been an indispensable prerequisite for
their appearance. The incompetent defence by Liberalism of a heritage in which
it has never fully believed, has been one of the most potent causes of overt
Nihilism.
The Liberal humanist civilization which, in Western
Europe, was the last form of the Old Order that was effectively destroyed in
that Great War and the Revolutions of the second decade of this century and
which continues to exist--though in an even more attenuated
"democratic" form--in the free world today, may be principally
characterized by its attitude to truth. This is not an attitude of open
hostility nor even of deliberate unconcern, for its sincere apologists
undeniably have a genuine regard for what they consider to be truth; rather, it
is an attitude in which truth, despite certain appearances, no longer occupied
the center of attention. The truth in which it professes to believe (apart of
course, from scientific fact) is, for it, no spiritual or intellectual coin of
current circulation, but idle and unfruitful capital left over from a previous
age. The Liberal still speaks, at least on formal occasions, of "eternal
verities," of "faith," of "human dignity," of man's
"high calling" or his "unquenchable spirit," even of
"Christian civilization"; but it is quite clear that these words no
longer mean what they once meant. No Liberal takes them with entire
seriousness; they are in fact metaphors, ornaments of language that are meant
to evoke an emotional, not an intellectual, response--a response largely
conditioned by long usage, with the attendant memory of a time when such words
actually had a positive and serious meaning.
No one today who prides himself on his
"sophistication"--that is to say, very few in academic institutions,
in government, in science, in humanist intellectual circles, no one who wishes
or professes to be abreast of the "times"--does or can fully believe
in absolute truth, or more particularly in Christian Truth. Yet the name of truth
has been retained, as have been the names of those truths men once regarded as
absolute, and few in any position of authority or influence would hesitate to
use them, even when they are aware that their meanings have changed. Truth, in
a word, has been "reinterpreted"; the old forms have been emptied and
given a new, quasi-Nihilist content. This may easily be seen by a brief
examination of several of the principal areas in which truth has been
"reinterpreted."
In the theological order the first truth is, of
course, God. Omnipotent and omnipresent Creator of all, revealed to faith and
in the experience of the faithful (and not contradicted by the reason of those
who do not deny faith), God is the supreme end of all creation and Himself,
unlike His creation, finds His end in Himself, everything created stands in
relation to and dependence upon Him, Who alone depends upon nothing outside
Himself, He has created the world that it might live in enjoyment of Him, and
everything in the world is oriented toward this end, which however men may miss
by a misuse of their freedom.
The modern mentality cannot tolerate such a God. He
is both too intimate--too "personal," even too "human"--and
too absolute, too uncompromising in His demands of us; and He makes Himself
known only to humble faith--a fact bound to alienate the proud modern
intelligence. A "new god" is clearly required by modern man, a god
more closely fashioned after the pattern of such central modern concerns as
science and business; it has, in fact, been an important intention of modern
thought to provide such a god. This intention is clear already in Descartes, it
is brought to fruition in the Deism of the Enlightenment, developed to its end
in German idealism: the new god is not a Being but an idea, not revealed to
faith and humility but constructed by the proud mind that still feels the need
for "explanation" when it has lost its desire for salvation. This is
the dead god of philosophers who require only a "first cause" to
complete their systems, as well as of "positive thinkers" and other
religious sophists who invent a god because they "need" him, and then
think to "use" him at will. Whether "deist,"
"idealist," pantheist," or "immanentist," all the
modern gods are the same mental construct, fabricated by souls dead from the
loss of faith in the true God.
. . .
In the Christian order politics too was founded
upon absolute truth. We have already seen, in the preceding chapter, that the
principal providential form government took in union with Christian Truth was
the Orthodox Christian Empire, wherein sovereignty was vested in a Monarch, and
authority proceeded from him downwards through a hierarchical social structure.
We shall see in the next chapter, on the other hand, how a politics that
rejects Christian Truth must acknowledge "the people" as sovereign
and understand authority as proceeding from below upwards, in a formally
"egalitarian" society. It is clear that one is the perfect inversion
of the other; for they are opposed in their conceptions both of the source and
of the end of government. Orthodox Christian Monarchy is government divinely
established, and directed, ultimately, to the other world, government with the
teaching of Christian Truth and the salvation of souls as its profoundest purpose;
Nihilist rule--whose most fitting name, as we shall see, is Anarchy---is
government established by men, and directed solely to this world, government
which has no higher aim than earthly happiness.
The Liberal view of government, as one might suspect,
is an attempt at compromise between these two irreconcilable ideas. In the 19th
century this compromise took the form of "constitutional monarchies,"
an attempt--again--to wed an old form to a new content; today the chief
representatives of the Liberal idea are the "republics" and
"democracies" of Western Europe and America, most of which preserve a
rather precarious balance between the forces of authority and Revolution, while
professing to believe in both.
It is of course impossible to
believe in both with equal sincerity and fervor, and in fact no one has ever
done so. Constitutional monarchs like Louis Philippe thought to do so by
professing to rule "by the Grace of God and the will of the
people"--a formula whose two terms annul each other, a fact as equally
evident to the Anarchist [5] as to the Monarchist.
Now a government is secure insofar as it has God
for its foundation and His Will for its guide; but this, surely, is not a
description of Liberal government. It is, in the Liberal view, the people who
rule, and not God; God Himself is a "constitutional monarch" Whose
authority has been totally delegated to the people, and Whose function is
entirely ceremonial. The Liberal believes in God with the same rhetorical
fervor with which he believes in Heaven. The government erected upon such a
faith is very little different, in principle, from a government erected upon
total disbelief, and whatever its present residue of stability, it is clearly
pointed in the direction of Anarchy.
A government must rule by the Grace of
God or by the will of the people, it must believe in
authority or in the Revolution; on these issues compromise is
possible only in semblance, and only for a time. The Revolution, like the
disbelief which has always accompanied it, cannot be stopped halfway; it is a
force that, once awakened, will not rest until it ends in a totalitarian
Kingdom of this world. The history of the last two centuries has proved nothing
if not this. To appease the Revolution and offer it concessions, as Liberals
have always done, thereby showing that they have no truth with which to oppose
it, is perhaps to postpone, but not to prevent, the attainment of its end. And
to oppose the radical Revolution with a Revolution of one's own, whether it be
"conservative," " non-violent," or "spiritual,"
is not merely to reveal ignorance of the full scope and nature of the
Revolution of our time, but to concede as well the first principle of that
Revolution: that the old truth is no longer true, and a new truth must take its
place. Our next chapter will develop this point by defining more closely the
goal of the Revolution.
In the Liberal world-view, therefore--in its
theology, its ethics, its politics, and in other areas we have not examined as
well--truth has been weakened, softened, compromised; in all realms truth that
was once absolute has become less certain, if not entirely
"relative." Now it is possible-and this in fact amounts to a
definition of the Liberal enterprise-to preserve for a time the fruits of a
system and a truth of which one is uncertain or skeptical; but one can build
nothing positive upon such uncertainty, nor upon the attempt to make it
intellectually respectable in the various relativistic doctrines we have
already examined. There is and can be no philosophical apology for Liberalism;
its apologies, when not simply rhetorical, are emotional and pragmatic. But the
most striking fact about the Liberal, to any relatively unbiased observer, is
not so much the inadequacy of his doctrine as his own seeming oblivion to this
inadequacy.
This fact, which is understandably irritating to
well-meaning critics of Liberalism, has only one plausible explanation. The
Liberal is undisturbed even by fundamental deficiencies and contradictions in
his own philosophy because his primary interest is elsewhere. If he is not
concerned to found the political and social order upon Divine Truth, if he is
indifferent to the reality of Heaven and Hell, if he conceives of God as a mere
idea of a vague impersonal power, it is because he is more immediately
interested in worldly ends, and because everything else is vague or abstract to
him. The Liberal may be interested in culture, in learning, in business, or
merely in comfort; but in every one of his pursuits the dimension of the absolute
is simply absent. He is unable, or unwilling, to think in terms of ends, of
ultimate things. The thirst for absolute truth has vanished; it has been
swallowed up in worldliness.
Comparing
Rev Dabney’s words from last time with this passage, clearly the South was
heading in the right direction in the years prior to the War. There were even calls in some quarters for
the restoration of a monarchy in the South as secession loomed. It is unfortunate, to say the least, that
these developments were interrupted by the War, Reconstruction, and their
aftermath.
Howsobeit,
liberalism is what Dixie has ended up with, but,
as much as possible, republics and their kin ought not to be befriended, per
the above. To use the imagery of the
family, the republican system is like the children gathering together ‘in
convention’ and deciding that they would expel their God-given father and rule
themselves according to a ‘constitution’ of their own making. Such a thing is demonically inspired and of
course would end in the worst chaos, but it is what the South and most European
countries have done politically with their kings: The disorder and brutality of the modern
world are testimony to it.
Let
us hear once more from Cortes:
‘Gentlemen, the true cause of the deep and profound evil which afflicts Europe is that the ideas of divine and human authority
have disappeared. . . . Because of this, peoples are
ungovernable. . . . In the nations which are ungovernable, the
government necessarily takes republican forms’ (‘Discourse on the General
Situation of Europe’, p. 73).
However,
buried beneath the republicanism overlying the South of today lies the
foundation of patriarchy (M. E. Bradford, ‘The Colonial Origins of the Southern
Tradition’, A Better Guide Than Reason,
New Brunswick, Nj.: Transaction, 1994, p. 179).
It is mostly forgotten or mostly despised now by the worshippers of
modern freedom, but it is there nevertheless.
And with proper care and nurture, it could be restored.
To
bring back the landed aristocracy of the Old South would be a great improvement
over the atomistic conditions of today, but to have them without a king is to
have an arch without a capstone. Every
family has a God-given head - a father; every nation, which is an extended
family, will also have a God-given head - a king. The fulfillment of patriarchy is a king. ‘To the cultural anthropologist monarchy is a
patriarchal institution. Its underlying ideology is thus
“familistic.” The ideal monarch is a father—a concept expressed in the
symbolic pictorial representation of kings and emperors’ (Erik von
Kuehnelt-Leddihn, Liberty or Equality,
Front Royal, Va.: Christendom Press, 1993, p. 138, italics in original).
There
is an example from Southern history that would serve us well to mull over. It involves the actions of Virginia during the English Civil War. Robert Beverley related it in his The History and Present State of Virginia:
§.
65. At last the King was traiterously beheaded in England, and Oliver install'd Protector.
However, his Authority was not acknowledged in Virginia for
several Years after, till they were forced to it by the last Necessity. For in
the Year 1651, by Cromwell's Command, Capt. Dennis, with a Squadron of Men of War, arriv'd there from
the Carribbee Islands, where they had been subduing Bardoes. The Country at first held out vigorously against
him; and Sir William Berkeley, by the Assistance of
such Dutch Vessels as were then there, made a brave
Resistance. But at last Dennis contriv'd a Stratagem,
which betray'd the Country. He had got a considerable Parcel of Goods aboard,
which belong'd to Two of the Council; and found a Method of informing them of
it. By this means they were reduced to the Dilemma
either of submitting, or losing their Goods. This occasion'd Factions among
them; so that at last, after the Surrender of all the other English
Plantations, Sir William was forced to submit to the
Usurper on the Terms of a general Pardon. However, it ought to be remember'd,
to his Praise, and to the immortal Honour of that Colony, that it was the last
of all the King's Dominions that submitted to the Usurpation, and afterwards
the first that cast it off.
. . .
§.
68. The strange Arbitrary Curbs he put upon the Plantations, exceedingly
afflicted the People. He had the Inhumanity to forbid them all manner of Trade and
Correspondence with other Nations, at a Time when England
it self was in Distraction; and could neither take off their Commodities, nor
supply them sufficiently with its own. Neither had they ever been used to
supply them with half the Commodities they expended, or to take off above half
the Tobacco they made. Such violent Proceedings made the People desperate, and
inspired them with a Desire to use the last Remedy, to relieve themselves from
his Lawless Usurpation. In a short time afterwards a fair Opportunity
happen'd: For Governor Mathews died, and no Person
was substituted to succeed him in the Government. Whereupon the People apply'd
themselves to Sir William Berkeley, (who had
continued all this time upon his own Plantation
in a private Capacity) and unanimously chose him their Governour again.
§.
69. Sir William Berkeley had all along retain'd an
unshaken Loyalty for the Royal Family; and therefore generously told the
People, That he could not approve of the Protector's Oppression; and was resolved
never to serve any Body, but the lawful Heir to the Crown; and that if he
accepted the Government, it should be upon their solemn Promise, after his
Example to venture their Lives and Fortunes for the King, who was then in France.
This
was their dearest Wish, and therefore with an unanimous Voice they told him,
That they were ready to hazard all for the King. Now, this was actually before
the King's Return for England, and proceeded from a brave Principle of Loyalty, for
which they had no Example. Sir William Berkeley
embraced their Choice, and forthwith proclaim'd Charles
the Second King of England, Scotland,
France, Ireland and Virginia, and caused all Process to be issued in his Name. Thus his
Majesty was actually King in Virginia, before he was so in England. But it pleased God to restore him soon after to the
Throne of his Ancestors; and so that Country escaped being chastised for
throwing off the Usurpation.
Joining
this with a statement from Rev Benjamin Morgan Palmer will help us understand
what seems to us a big part of the South’s place in history:
In
determining our duty in this emergency it is necessary that we should first
ascertain the nature of the trust providentially committed to us. A nation
often has a character as well defined and intense as that of an individual. This
depends, of course upon a variety of causes operating through a long period of
time. It is due largely to the original traits which distinguish the stock from
which it springs, and to the providential training which has formed its
education. But, however derived, this individuality of character alone makes
any people truly historic, competent to work out its specific mission, and to
become a factor in the world's progress. The particular trust assigned to such
a people becomes the pledge of the divine protection; and their fidelity to it
determines the fate by which it is finally overtaken. What that trust is must
be ascertained from the necessities of their position, the institutions which
are the outgrowth of their principles and the conflicts through which they
preserve their identity and independence. If then the South is such a people,
what, at this juncture, is their providential trust? I answer, that it is to
conserve and to perpetuate the institution of domestic slavery as now existing. . .
.
Rather
than the perfection of the Christian republic (a contradiction in terms, as we
have seen) that Rev J. H. Thornwell and others thought so important, the role
of the South in the world, particularly in the West where liberalism has caused
so much havoc, is to help call it back to Christian hierarchy/monarchy. This is what we need to understand about the
South’s defense of slavery: Only
superficially was it a defense of the subjugation of black Africans to white
Europeans. At the core of the slavery
argument was the idea of upholding sacred order (i.e., hierarchy) against
modern nominalism, wherein the divinely ordained ghostly and matterly union of
everyone and everything is broken apart and replaced with the beastly ‘cash
nexus’ spoken of by Richard Weaver.
It
should be kept in mind that we are not advocating for the stripping away of
anything good in Southern political tradition, only the adding back of
something essential that was taken away more than 200 years ago. Other institutions would of course exist
alongside the king, cooperating with him in governing the people, among them
venerable old bodies like the Senate, county courthouses, and so on. The Southern king we could reckon to be
fairly mild in his rule as well, as most gentlemen-planters before the War were
of the easy-going kind.
We
do not fault anyone for their ardent defense of republican forms of
government. It is simply what has been
preached as correct doctrine for hundreds of years now, which makes it easy for
folks to get caught up in the strong currents of the times and swept away by
them (we ourselves were also quite enamored with them at one time). But with a little deeper look into history
and theology, we hope most Southerners will come back home to Christian
hierarchy and kingship - as our forefathers Sir William Berkeley, Rev Palmer,
and others are asking us to do, as well as more recent Southern leaders like
Richard Weaver and Wendell Berry - for the sake of the South and, by way of
example, for the sake of others who have imbibed the deceptive ideologies of
Modernity.
--
Holy
Ælfred the Great, King of England, South Patron, pray for us sinners at the
Souð!
Anathema
to the Union!
