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).