Posted on 04/16/2003 5:44:44 AM PDT by Lady Eileen
Well, at least you have moved up to "blacks did serve the CSA, but they really didn't want to". That is a step forward. As an aside, when Wlat insists something didn't happen, then that is pretty good evidence it happened.
Shoo Fly, Shoo!
Yeah, cause it's a legal argument. Spooner was an attorney, you know.
Unbiased observers may see that by reading the attack on "the North" at the beginning of the excerpt in De Bow's.
Why dig through DeBow's when you can see the entire essay here? http://www.lysanderspooner.org/notreason.htm
Spooner's support for the "right to secession" was precisely what unregenerate Confederates wanted, as is the reference to United States citizenship as "political slavery" and the United States government as a "tyranny."
That was his argument, x, regardless of whether the south or north liked it. If you would take a moment to read "No Treason" in itself you will find a reasoned argument by Spooner as to why he thought the post-war government was an abusive coercion-based institution. You may not agree with it, but you cannot question the fact that he formulated an intelligent argument and backed his case through the development of that essay.
The anarchist sentiments and doctrines that Spooner passionately expresses in "No Treason" differentiate it from a sober, scholarly study of what treason is.
Legal arguments are made for the courtroom, x. They are, or at least the good ones are, by their very nature passionate in nature, heavily logical in the way they procede, and conclusive in stating their intended result.
Heavy on rhetoric and abstract theory, "No Treason #1" is light on serious constitutional analysis.
That is because No Treason #1 lays out his theory of governmental concepts of treason. The constitutional analysis begins in No Treason #2, subtitled "The Constitution." You would know that if you were familiar with the work, but you have already evidenced that you are not.
I also doubt legal scholars are usually so free with exclamation points.
You must not be too familiar with courtroom speeches, and especially 19th century ones.
"No Treason #2" makes more mention of the Constitution, but it too is heavy on anarchist theories and light on documentation.
If that is your analysis of it, you missed the point of the document entirely. No Treason #2 starts from a basic premise that the Constitution says x, y, and z. Its purpose is then to take those concepts of what the Constitution says, logically develop the implications of them in a certain direction, and offer arguments to support the conclusions that are then arrived at. Spooner had little use for appealing to the authority of other lawyers as his argument was an exercise in logic, not quotations, and as such, it must be read accordingly, which you apparently did not do.
Spooner's ideas were present at the creation of the neo-Confederate apologia.
So now it's "neo-Confederate apologia," whatever that means. What happened to plain ole "confederate apologia," or its first replacement, "neo-confederatism," x? Could it be that you are playing a game of labels and associations rather than offering an honest examination of what Spooner said and did?
If you had read my post carefully, you would see that I readily admitted that Jaffa was a distinguished Lincoln scholar
Yes, but you then commented as if those who have attacked DiLorenzo's book, which includes the Jaffa crowd, were "laymen" rather than these ever-anonymous pros you keep predicting.
but other historians who aren't closely identified with ideological camps haven't yet weighed in on Di Lorenzo's book.
Tell me then - exactly who might those be? To date, you have offered nothing but the two things you apparently do best: equivocate and appeal to anonymous authorities. Neither of those devices is sufficient as proof of much of anything.
ROTFLOL! You got Wlat nailed down.
Brooks knew all about dueling, having been wounded in a duel in 1841 with Sen. Louis T. Wigfall. Brooks, seconded by John L. Manning was shot through the hip, Wigfall, seconded by Pierce M. Butler, was shot through both thighs. Interestingly, both Manning & Butler later served as Governor of South Carolina.
ROTFL!!!
Quite a duel. And the great irony of it all - the shot through the hip caused Brooks to require a cane to walk, which in turn he used to beat Sumner!
When I say that "No Treason" is not a scholarly argument, I mean that it is not an argument that a legal scholar or scholarly lawyer would make to convince either a scholarly or a judicial audience. It is particularly devoid of legal precedents. A judge would laugh it out of court and a scholar would regard it as an impassioned sermon or a satire, rather than a serious treatise. Try reading an opinion of Marshall's or Story's after reading "No Treason" and you'll see the difference.
That doesn't necessarily mean Spooner's argument is wrong on its face. He is capable of thinking or sounding like a lawyer, but he's doesn't engage legal precedents and realities. He's building sand castles in the sky and taking them for realities, rather like Tax Nut Irwin Schiff or Professor Irwin Corey. The shifts in tone from abstract reasoner to rabble rouser also vitiate the document's value as a legal brief. You may be able to separate out some highly logical argument from Spooner's wild rhetoric and vilification. Many laymen may not be able to do so, and I suspect some experts may find Spooner's leaps in logic even wilder than his more emotional invective and abuse.
Spooner's discussion of treason narrowly understood is only the tip of the iceberg. The bulk of Spooner's treatise is an attack on the very idea of government authority. It may be fine rhetoric or philosophy or anarchist theory, but it isn't much of a legal treatise. "No Treason #2" is less emotional and more substantive than "No Treason #1" but I doubt it would convince or impress many lawyers or legal scholars. I'd be interested in seeing a distinguished jurist or legal thinker's response to Spooner's writings, but haven't seen any such assessment.
Once again, it's clear that I won't convince you. But those who approach the matter in an unprejudiced manner and pay close attention to the meaning of words may think differently than you do.
I use the word "neo-confederate" to refer to postbellum attempts to argue for the Confederacy in sanitized, more politically correct terms. Such a movement began quite soon after the war. If I haven't used the right phrase, I'll stick with your "Confederate apologist." De Bow's publication of Spooner was a landmark in the movement, whatever one chooses to call it.
Surely you and other readers are aware of the difference between specialized academic journals and popular controversial ones, even if we don't read the former. The last time I checked, reviews of DiLorenzo's book hadn't appeared in such serious academic journals -- and with good reason, since it's not a serious work of history. There has been much popular and polemical writing about his book, but more dispassionate scholars haven't dealt with it to any appreciable extent. Daniel Farber's "Lincoln's Constitution" will appear this year and may refocus academic attention on such questions.
Experts and specialists certainly aren't infallible guides. One has to be sceptical of them. But after encountering DiLorenzo, who is so manifestly ill-informed about the background of what he's writing about, I would like to hear from specialists who have mastered the subject. Anyone can set himself or herself up as an ideologue overnight, but real expertise is rare and should be respected.
Not really. But when someone I disagree with continually espouses falsehoods that can be attributed to only ignorance or dishonesty, I will make note of it. Your case against Spooner is replete with one or both of these attributes.
I know my comments won't make any impression on you. I make them simply for the benefit of anyone else who might be following the argument.
Make them for whoever you desire, but simply note then when you espouse falsehoods, such as dismissing Spooner's prominent role as an abolitionist in the face of all reasonable facts, I will call you on it.
They are free to consult standard works on the period to determine Spooner's standing and reputation among abolitionists and other contemporaries.
I happily encourage them to do the same. Upon doing so, they will find the Liberty Party adopting Spooner's book as their standard philosophical work. They will find Gerrit Smith, one of the only true abolitionists ever elected to Congress, basing his cause on the philosophical notions of Spooner's book. And they will find Spooner's writings being discussed on the floor of congress, and his endorsement being solicited by high level officials of the government.
When I say that "No Treason" is not a scholarly argument, I mean that it is not an argument that a legal scholar or scholarly lawyer would make to convince either a scholarly or a judicial audience. It is particularly devoid of legal precedents.
If that is the basis upon which you judge it, I may only note that once again its purpose has flown completely over your head. Legal philosophy is a different game entirely than case law. It's tools are logic, as opposed to historical citation.
A judge would laugh it out of court and a scholar would regard it as an impassioned sermon or a satire, rather than a serious treatise. Try reading an opinion of Marshall's or Story's after reading "No Treason" and you'll see the difference.
My suspicions are again affirmed, x. You have not a clue as to what you compare or write. Marshall's case law and Spooner's legal philosophy are two different animals entirely, and thus not comparable or analogous. If you do not understand the difference, look up William Blackstone's legal philosophy essays. They don't dwell on case citations either, nor do they even remotely resemble your average supreme court ruling, but as legal scholarship they provide the basis for much of the American legal system.
That doesn't necessarily mean Spooner's argument is wrong on its face. He is capable of thinking or sounding like a lawyer, but he's doesn't engage legal precedents and realities.
...and you wonder why I noted your ignorance in this matter, x? Not all law is case citation law, and that includes the legal writings that are the basis for our entire legal system.
You may be able to separate out some highly logical argument from Spooner's wild rhetoric and vilification. Many laymen may not be able to do so
Do you count yourself among those laymen, x? I ask because you have yet to demonstrate any significant grasp whatsoever of Spooner's writings. If you take the time examine them closely, you will find that, far from being wild and random assertions, they are very carefully crafted and meticulous parts of a logical procession. They do posess a quality (or vice depending on how you look upon it) of skilled and powerful rhetoric, but underlying it all is a rigidly logical procession of arguments. Agree or disagree with those arguments if you like, but do note that they are constantly there.
and I suspect some experts may find Spooner's leaps in logic even wilder than his more emotional invective and abuse.
Actually, Spooner's skill as a logician was quite reputable in his day. It confounded Wendell Phillips to no end. I am accordingly curious as to what you consider his "leaps in logic," as I suspect that you simply missed the underlying order to arguments that you mistook for something else.
Spooner's discussion of treason narrowly understood is only the tip of the iceberg. The bulk of Spooner's treatise is an attack on the very idea of government authority. It may be fine rhetoric or philosophy or anarchist theory, but it isn't much of a legal treatise.
It qualifies as what most would call legal philosophy, a vitally important part of legal scholarship. You seem to be operating under the mistaken notion that legal scholarship ammounts to little beyond case law. That is a fallacy that you must consciously seek to avoid. Before there is case law and in fact before there can even be case law, there must be legal philosophy, which is what Spooner's legal argument on treason took the form of.
"No Treason #2" is less emotional and more substantive than "No Treason #1" but I doubt it would convince or impress many lawyers or legal scholars.
I highly suspect that such doubt comes from a mistaken impression that all law is, or somehow resembles, case law. It does not. Go read some of the parts of Blackstone's commentaries if you doubt me. They don't look a thing like most supreme court rulings, yet their importance and stature in our legal system surpasses practically every case ruling put out by the court.
The last time I checked, reviews of DiLorenzo's book hadn't appeared in such serious academic journals
I cannot speak for book reviews, but I do know of at least one recent publication in a peer reviewed scholarly journal that lends its support to DiLorenzo's thesis (BTW, I wouldn't remind Claremont that their little newsletter isn't a scholarly journal. Such things may incite a fatwah from the Abratollah).
Don't be naieve, GOP. However you try to whitewash it, there was a deliberate violation of the constitution. And Jefferson Davis, as head of the regime, bears the responsibility. Even if he was aided and abetted by the confederate congress. I do not understand how you can rail against President Lincoln for what you see as Constitutional violations and then take such a blasé attitude at a conspiracy to delete an entire branch of government. Why didn't he just dump the congress while he was at it and keep just the Senate?
I don't think anyone could ever reasonably call that "conspiring." Do you?
Given the contempt that Jefferson Davis expressed towards the whole idea of somebody other than him determining what was constitutional and what was not, then the idea of him using the congress to prevent the establishment of a Supreme Court, and the congress playing along, is not an unlikely. Who was it who said the ends justifies the means? Wasn't that Karl Marx? Looks like he backed the wrong horse in the Civil War.
Most of the confederate army was there even though they didn't want to. Roughly one third of the total force was conscripted. A large percentage of the remaninder were men who had enlisted in 1861 or early 1862 and then had their enlistments extended by the confederate congress for the duration of the war. That was a states-rights issue that President Lincoln wouldn't have dreamed of trampling on. Didn't stop Jeff Davis, though, did it?
Where?
the list of KNOWN FB&I LIES is nearly as long as the list of damnyankee war crimes.
personally, i favor ABOLISHING all the fed LE agencies, except the USMS & the postal cops. (we'd have to amend the Constitution to get rid of those.)
all other LE functions should be returned to the 50 states, where the police functions should remain.
FRee dixie,sw
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.