League of the South

Status
Not open for further replies.
Some Lousy Wikki Site said:
Newspaper columnist Thomas B. Edsall has characterized the League of the South as an “extreme right” organization and a “white nationalist” group.

I have heard of them, but never in a positive light. Maybe someone else has been scoop.
 
I've only heard good things about them - I would expect that the left and neocons would demonize them, though. They stand for post-reconstruction self government - the hated nemesis of statists everywhere.
 
I know little about them except from a reference in "Principles of Confederacy" & "Constitutional History of Succession" - the first out of print, the second published by Pelican Books. The author is John Remington Graham; he makes, for me at least, a compelling case for the legality of the succession of the South. He, as I, abhor slavery; explains the problems very well; but it was simply not the issue.

I am quite sympathetic to the South even though I am, as he reveals himself to be, a son of the North - Iowa for me, Minnesota for him.

"Constitutional History of Succession" is well worth the read so long as neither of us get sidetracked from the real battle; I say sidetracked from my own experience of being wrapped up in issues of governance for awhile.

Bob
 
I know little about them except from a reference in "Principles of Confederacy" & "Constitutional History of Succession" - the first out of print, the second published by Pelican Books. The author is John Remington Graham; he makes, for me at least, a compelling case for the legality of the succession of the South. He, as I, abhor slavery; explains the problems very well; but it was simply not the issue.

I am quite sympathetic to the South even though I am, as he reveals himself to be, a son of the North - Iowa for me, Minnesota for him.

"Constitutional History of Succession" is well worth the read so long as neither of us get sidetracked from the real battle; I say sidetracked from my own experience of being wrapped up in issues of governance for awhile.

Bob
Wouldn't that be "Secession"?
 
I would be very interested to hear what you guys think about this. Especially you social covenanters. DixieNet.Org :: Official Website of the League of the South!

The LOS has not been without controversy in the past. Anytime you have a conservative heritage group with affection for the south you will attract some nutjobs with some weird theology. I know for I have been involved off and on in Virginia for at least 10 years. In the past we had some who had some unbiblical and downright racist views that got into our membership, Our state president did a good job at purging these people from the ranks and making it clear that these views would not be tolerated. The group is open to any ethnic group to join. One must only believe in the principles of limited, constitutional government and economic freedom and have a desire to propagate traditional southern values. A great deal of the members are christian, including the president Michael Hill (Presbyterian).
Of course, all left wing groups like the SPLC and the ACLU would brand the LOS as a "hate group" because of its sympathy to the southern cause and its religious underpinnings. That , with the fact that the group would never allow those of dubious moral character to join (homosexuals) or remain in the group if found out is enough for them.
 
I did an MA thesis on the LoS in 2004.

Did you publish it, or would you post it?
I might dig it up if you send me a PM. I got through two stages with Pelican publishing in Louisiana until they backed out suddenly and their new-books editor resigned. I almost did not graduate because it was "too objective." Coming from out West, I never knew that pro-South topics are streng verboten in the South; my advisor had assigned me the topic, but backed out and refused to read it and I was lucky to get a new committee on the fly. Most people don't realize how universal censorship is in the US.
 
This was the group Steve Wilkens was involved in right? (he of Federal Vision fame; former PCA pastor). I read somewhere he is no longer on the board (not sure that meant chapter or national).
 
Guilt by association should not factor into this discussion. FV may be heresy but it is not a communicable disease that one can pass on by being around someone else.
 
Another topic for another scholar's thesis might be the sociology of dissenting movements. If a society has problems that are not addressed in the mainstream, then they can only be addressed in dissent. But dissenters come in all sizes and shapes, so that there may be strange bed-fellows. For example, the American Revolution, many say, was run primarily by Reformed Christians with Presbyterians unusually prominent. However, the American Independence movement also included men like Tom Pain who were atheists. Brilliant he was, but atheism was beyond the bounds of conventional society, meaning he was something of a crackpot. So although American Independence was strongly Christian, we still must deal today with non-believers who use the idea of separation of state as a ruse to attack Christianity.

What this means is that the LoS, as a dissenting group, may have attracted dissenters or advocates of new ideas of different stripes, such as a Federal Visionist. (I really know almost nothing about the Federal Vision.)
 
I know little about them except from a reference in "Principles of Confederacy" & "Constitutional History of Seccession" - the first out of print, the second published by Pelican Books. The author is John Remington Graham; he makes, for me at least, a compelling case for the legality of the succession of the South. He, as I, abhor slavery; explains the problems very well; but it was simply not the issue.

I have met him; he is a nice man and a successful attorney.

Basically, he answers the question of under what circumstances a people can ethically and constitutionally replace their governments. He also makes an important distinction between secession and revolution. The distinction here has to do between overthrowing social order ordained of God, and a people lawfully separating from wicked government.

To do that he reviews the history of the Glorious Revolution, when a king was replaced respectfully and peacefully, and the American Revolution, when the constituted powers were likewise overthrown. The first was the work of Calvinists who brought in the Calvinist William and Mary. The second was the work predominantly of Presbyterians. Technically speaking, neither of these was a "revolution."

The LoS invited Remington to speak at a number of conferences, seminars, and summer schools. The LoS does not believe that secession is a viable option now, but it had hoped that using the possibility of secession in the way Quebec in Canada and the way the Lega Nord in Italy did, it could gain some regional respect for the distinctive history, customs, culture, dialects, and Christian religion of the South.
 
The LoS does not believe that secession is a viable option now, but it had hoped that using the possibility of secession in the way Quebec in Canada and the way the Lega Nord in Italy did, it could gain some regional respect for the distinctive history, customs, culture, dialects, and Christian religion of the South.

So they are no longer fighting for secession?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top