Showing posts with label R.L. Dabney. Show all posts
Showing posts with label R.L. Dabney. Show all posts

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

Getting ready to return to Virginia that "Mother of States"

R.L. Dabney writes in The Life and Campaigns of Lt. Gen. T. J. (Stonewall) Jackson, about the series of events that led to secession in Virginia, one of the last straws being Lincoln's resupplying Ft. Sumter, which is an act of war, and then declaring war without the proper Constitutional authority. Virginia could no longer stay in a union that would tear the binding compact in two, and then try to coerce a sovereign state back into a voluntary union. I thought Dabney's words on these events were very moving and inspiring, I wish we had MEN enough to stand up today for what is just and right! R. L. Dabney writes:

"But they did not stop here: on April 14th, Lincoln made a proclamation, without the authority of a shadow of law from Congress, declaring war against South Carolina and the Confederate Government, and calling upon the States for seventy-five thousand soldiers to invade them. The Governors of all the Southern States, except Maryland, refused compliance. In Virginia all remains of hesitation were instantly extinguished; the Convention, which was in session, on the 17th of April, passed an ordinance resuming the seperate independence of the State; and the Governor immediately began to prepare for war."

..."They said, the old "Mother of States and statesmen" was decrepit, that her genius was turned to dotage, that her breasts were dry of that milk which suckled her Henrys and Washingtons. They thought her little more than a cowering beldame, whom a timely threat would reduce to utter submissiveness. And thus they dared to stretch over her head the minatory rod. But when the tyrant tried the perilous experiment, he was startled by a result as unexpected as that which followed the touch of Ithuriel's spear. She, whom he thought a patient, hesitating, helpless paralytic, flamed up at the insolent touch, like a pyramid of fire, and Virginia stood forth again in her immortal youth, the unterrified Commonwealth of 1776, a Minerva radiant with the terrible glories of policy and war, wielding that sword which ever flashed before the eyes of her aggressors, the "Sic semper Tyrannis."

Wednesday, June 16, 2010

The Creature of the Sovereign States


I am continually amazed while reading books written by those people who were actually there during the events in our nations history, how they describe the beauty of the way our government is suppose to function. How completely misled and mis-taught we have been in our own country about our own history is heart-breaking. This quote is a little lengthy, but I believe very important and relevant today, seeing that the Founders were trying to avoid the type of authoritarian government we now have and how our own government breaks its own rule of law everyday. I also believe more and more that it is our duty, especially if we are believers in Christ, to understand how our governments are supposed to function. I would try to sum up this quote, but it is so simple and straight to the point that I thought it speaks for itself. R.L. Dabney, while writing about Gen. Stonewall Jackson and his political views as a 'States Rights Democrat' says this:

"This name did not denote the attachment of those who bore it to the dogmas of universal suffrage and radical democracy, as concerned the State Governments; but their advocacy of republican rights for these Governments, and a limited construction of the powers conferred by them on the Federal Government. Their view of those powers was founded on the following historical facts, which no well-informed American hazards his credit of disputing: - That the former colonies of Great Britain emerged from the Revolutionary War distinct and sovereign political communities or commonwealths, in a word, separate nations, though allied together, and as such were recognized by all the European powers: That, after some years' existence as such, they voluntarily formed a covenant, called the Constitution of the United States, which created a species of government resting upon this compact for its existence and rights; a government which was the creature of the sovereign States, acting as independent nations in forming it: That this compact conferred certain defined powers and duties upon the Central Government, for purposes common to all the States alike, and expressly reserved and prohibited the exercise of all other powers, leaving to the States the management of their own affairs. They, therefore, did not sacrifice their nature as sovereignties, by acceding to the Federal Union; but, by compact, they conceded some of the functions of an independent nation, particularly defined, to the Central Government, retaining all the rest as before. These facts and this inference were uniformly held by the Commonwealth of Virginia at all times, being solemnly asserted when she joined the copartnership, and frequently reaffirmed by her Government down to the present day. They were, in substance, embodied in the Constitution of the United States itself, by a formal amendment, immediately after it went into effect. Since the era of the elder Adams, when the centralizing doctrine was utterly overwhelmed by the election of Mr. Jefferson, they have been professed in theory, though often violated in act, by every Administration of whatever party it might be, and by nearly every State."

"The party of the States'-Rights usually taught, from these principles, that the Federal Government ought to continue what it was in the purer days of Washington and Jefferson, unambitious in its claims of jurisdiction, simple and modest in its bearing, restricted in its wealth and patronage, and economical of expenditures, save in the common defense against external enemies. They held that all acts of legislation which interfered with those functions appropriate to the States as Commonwealths, and all those acts which turned aside from the general interests common to the States alike, to promote particular or local interests, were partial, usurping, and in virtual violation of the spirit of the Constitution. Among these, they classed all bounty laws designed to favor the inhabitants of a section, all protective tariffs, the chartering of a vast Banking Corporation in one of the States, and all meddling with the institution of domestic slavery in the States. They also held that the very Government, being the creation of commonwealths which acted as independent nations in forming it, and originating in a covenant which they voluntarily formed as such, derived its whole authority from its conformity to the terms of that covenant: that, if the covenant were destroyed, the Government was destroyed, and its rightful title of allegiance from any person was annihilated- that being gone which was the sole basis of it; and that, in the dernier ressort upon any vital instance of usurpation, the States themselves must be the judges whether the covenant was destroyed, and judges too of the necessity and nature of their redress. This right, to be exercised, indeed, under those moral obligations which should govern all international intercourse, they held to be inherent in the States as originally sovereign; while to suppose their federal compact divested them of it was preposterous, and what was, in the nature of the case, impossible. It would represent their voluntary act in acceding to the covenant as a political suicide. And it would have been equally preposterous for the Federal Constitution formally to confer it; it would have been the absurdity of the offspring's attempting to confer on its own parent the rights of paternity. Hence the absolute silence of the Federal Constitution concerning this inalienable right of the States was logically consistent, and is as incapable of implying anything against, as for, its just exercise." -R.L. Dabney

Quote is from Life and Campaigns of Lt. Gen. Thomas (Stonewall) Jackson by R. L. Dabney

Friday, October 23, 2009

The most rudimental facts of all

"Political and ethical philosophers have been perpetually victims to the notion, that because theirs are natural sciences, as distinguished from revealed or theological, therefore they must banish from them all reference to God, his nature, his acts, and his will, and our relations to it. The true inference should be, only, that they must abstain from the introduction of those peculiar revealed facts, which belong to man as an object of redemption and subject of the Church of Christ. If we are not atheists, the facts that God is, that our being proceeds from his act, that we are his property, are as truly natural as man and his attributes are. They should therefore be embraced as a part of the facts of the case, to be treated just as all other natural facts, save that these are the most rudimental of all. For, how can that treatment be truly scientific, which proceeds upon a partial induction of the facts of the case, leaving out the most primary? It is this illusion which has led so many moralists to attempt the discussion of the nature and origin of moral distinctions, without introducing a Creator, or a divine will. Whereas, a true science accepts God as the first fact in ethics; his attributes as the primary standard of the moral distinction; his will as the fountain of moral obligation. What wretched impotency and confusion has not this omission caused in ethical discussions!" -R.L. Dabney

This quote was written by Dabney in 1867 in A Defense of Virginia and the South.

What confidence in these FACTS, and how truly they are needed so very much today in this country.