Every time I read stuff like this, I can't help but laugh, then stare at the words with bewilderment. "Transcendence of principle?" What the hell is that?
The South did not believe that the end justified the means. Most Southerners believed that right and wrong and truth were God-given, and not man's creation.
The author would do well not to feign some type of holiness here by mentioning the Father.
Therefore, man had to submit to them. It was not man's place to decide that principles could be abandoned when expedient. Robert E. Lee said it best: "There is a true glory and a true honour; the glory of duty done the honour of the integrity of principle."
There's that stupid word again. Man had to "submit to them?" I'll say! There was a whole lot of "submitting" going on.
Transcendence means "above and independent of, and supreme." To recognize the transcendence of principle is to recognize that there are absolutes, and that absolutes must come from a Creator. It is to acknowledge that these absolutes are not social constructs that have evolved over time or situational posits that can be altered when fashionable. This humility leads men to respect authority, honor their heritage, and submit to the wisdom that has preceded them, acknowledging their own dependence, and not imagining that they are autonomous, without accountability.
The correct definition is given, but the author can't claim its use truthfully with a straight face.
It is chiefly social and familial accountability, enabled by the presence of law written in the conscience of humanity, which restrains the evil that is present within man, thereby establishing civilization.
Really?
The reality of evil within humanity is evident in the corrupting effect of power, since power is of itself neither good nor evil. Power, in its simplest form, is the lack of restraint, while restraint is accountability in some form. Enduring and benevolent civilizations have recognized this and embraced restraints to ensure that human power would not be concentrated to their detriment. The Constitution was a codified restraint of this kind.
Do tell! What was "evil?" And, which Constitution is the author speaking about?
Restraints on the central government are as necessary to protect us from tyranny as the balance between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches.
But not the "tyranny" of bondage. That's okay if the chain doesn't fit around your neck.
The victors justified themselves to the world and history by brute force and sly obfuscation. The elimination of slavery was trumpeted as the justifying crown of victory. As to saving the Union, is that not like preserving a marriage by beating the wife into submission?
But had the Confederacy won, "brute force" would have still been the practice of the day. The end of slavery was not the "justifying crown," but don't sound so sorrowful over its loss.
The result is the humanist monster-state, and activist judges who reinvent what the constitution means. They have lost the ability to understand and receive it, since they have abandoned the transcendence of principle.
Sigh. "Principle." I would say that the author never had it or his "principle" is misplaced.
Both sides lost. The U.S. lost its character and began the abandonment of transcendent foundations. Dixie lost its will to live. Yet where principles remain- under cold ashes, deeply buried remains an ember of hope. And where there is a smoldering hope, the fire may yet burn again.
Burn again? Well you better come loaded for bear. You're gonna need it.
No mercy.
Coming soon: Tha SYNDICATE.