|
| |
"If
any State in the Union will declare that it
prefers separation over Union, I have
no hesitation in saying, 'let us separate'."
--Thomas Jefferson
Q: Why was the
League of the South formed?
A: To fight a tyrannous central government that refuses to
be restrained by the Constitution.
Q: What is the aim of the LS?
A: The League of the South seeks to advance the cultural,
social, economic, and political independence and well-being
of the Southern people by all honorable means.
Q: Is The League of the South a Christian
organization?
A: While we do not require any sort of religious
affiliation, we do recognize the legacy of Western
Christianity and the sovereignty of God in the universe.
Q: How is the LS different from previous Southern
populist movements?
A: The LS hopes to avoid the pitfalls of similar movements
by aiming both to have a large popular following as well as
a leadership that includes serious intellectuals in a
variety of disciplines.
Q: How is the LS organized?
A: It began in June 1994 with a single office and is already
large enough to justify the formation of state chapters,
which is being done at present. The state chapters will then
encourage the formation of local chapters.
Q: How will the LS pursue cultural and social
independence and well-being?
A: In several ways:
--by cultural secession or "abjuration of the realm," which
means withholding our support from all institutions and
objects of popular culture that are antithetical to our
beliefs and heritage;
--by encouraging the formation of communities of like-minded
Southerners that work and play together;
--by buying and reading Southern literature, poetry, and
history;
--and by sponsoring competitions among Southern
artists and writers in order to foster the continuance of
our excellent traditions.
Q: How will the LS pursue economic and political
independence?
A: This is a complex aim that cannot begin to be
accomplished without first establishing a mass base;
therefore, recruitment is the primary work of the LS until
such time as our mass base is established.
Q: Will the LS work within the existing political
system?
A: Yes, as far as that will take us. However, the LS does
not suffer under the illusion that the leadership of either
of the present political parties is likely to work toward
our aims; therefore, we
look forward to fielding a LS slate of candidates for local,
state, and national offices and drawing on our mass base to
get them elected.
Q: Hasn't secession already been tried, failed, and
discredited?
A: On the contrary, secession is the ultimate right of a
truly free people and the cornerstone of confederalism. What
has been tried, failed, and discredited is centralism--by a
central government that reneged on its original compact with
the states, usurped their sovereignty, and opted instead to
hold the "Union" together by brute force.
Q: How does the LS spend my dues?
A: Dues cover the administrative costs of the national
office, travel and lodging expenses for meetings held all
across the South, printing and mailing costs of the
bi-monthly newsletter, the
Southern Patriot, the leasing of webserver disk space for
the "DixieNet" WWW Home Page, and other expenses incurred as
a result of recruitment efforts.
Q: Whence the name: "The League of the South"?
(Formerly the "Southern League")
A: Our name comes from two different sources:
the Northern League, a very successful populist movement in
northern Italy, to which the SL has personal ties, and
the League of United Southerners, organized by Edmund Ruffin
and William Lowndes Yancey in 1858 to shape Southern public
opinion. For the first 3 years of our existence our
organization was called the "Southern League" however the
name had to be changed in 1997 to "League of the South"
under threat of lawsuit after it was discovered that the
name "Southern League" had been trademarked and copyrighted
by a baseball sports league based out of Atlanta which had
held the rights to the name for several decades.
Paleo-Federalist/Southern Nationalist FAQ
Q: Just what is
the "Southern conservative tradition," and how does it
differ from the American conservative tradition in general?
A: Southern conservatism is part of a proud tradition with
roots extending all the way back to Runnymede. Some
scholars, most notably the late Russell Kirk, argue that
Southern conservative thought is the very embodiment of
American conservative tradition. Others, such as former
University Professor Eugene Genovese, contend that the
Southern conservative tradition represents a unique and
valuable digression from mainstream American conservative
thought, sharing more in common with continental European
traditions than with the Anglo-Saxon tradition that was so
influential in shaping American conservatism.
Q: What are "Paleo-Federalists" and what do they
want?
A: As the previous statement implies, one who views the
United States as a "republic of sovereign states" and who
sympathizes with the ideas espoused in the both the
Philadelphia and Montgomery Constitutions. By " republic of
sovereign states," Paleo-federalists mean a political system
that views the central government as a common agent
established by the people of the states to carry out several
specifically enumerated functions.
Paleo-federalists advocate a return to the "confederate"
theory of government in which the American political system
functions as a constitutional republic of sovereign states,
rather than as a European-style social democracy comprising
a strong central state and weak provinces.
Paleo-federalists are one of several factions comprising the
Southern conservative tradition. Southern nationalists and
Southern agrarians are also integral parts of the this
tradition. Paleo-conservatives and paleo-libertarians,
though grounded in somewhat different intellectual
traditions, are closely aligned philosophically with Paleo-federalists.
Q: What do Paleo-Federalists oppose?
A: Broadly speaking, the gradual drift toward Leviathan
(what the Confederates and early federalists described as
consolidationism) that began with the Confederate surrender
at Appomattox.
Paleo-federalists also reject the so-called therapeutic
welfare state in all of its myriad forms and call for a
return to an older form of federalism in which states and
localities, rather than the central government, provided
public assistance.
Q: What are Southern nationalists and what do they
want?
A: Southern nationalists, although equally concerned with
the growing hegemony of the federal government, are
primarily concerned with preserving the unique social,
cultural and religious traditions of the Southern people.
They argue that any return to a pre-1861 constitutional
system is impossible in a society in which people are
slothful, rapacious, egocentric and, worst of all, godless.
In other words, true federalism can thrive only in a society
in which people are sober, honorable, jealous of their
liberties and, most importantly, God fearing. Since Southern
culture has traditionally embodied all of these virtues,
Southern nationalists argue that the first and foremost
concern should be preserving this legacy.
Generally speaking, Southern nationalists call for a return
to what the eminent Southern conservative Richard Weaver
once described as "social bond individualism," a
philosophical tradition with deep Western roots that
emphasizes both the rights of the individual and the pivotal
role that social institutions (e.g., the church, family and
Western culture) have played in sustaining these rights.
Q: What do Southern nationalists oppose?
A: Southern nationalists contend that the so-called "Yankee
vision" that prevailed at Appomattox has been detrimental to
both the American culture and polity. They oppose the rising
tide of secularization and crass commercialism that
permeates contemporary Western culture and that works to
undermine all of the institutions that are essential to a
civil society: the family, church, neighborhood and local
traditions.
Southern nationalists also reject much of the intellectual
legacy of the Enlightenment which has tended to emphasize
the immediate gratification of human needs over transcendent
values such as faith, honor and patriotism. They look with
dread to a future (portended in Aldous Huxley's Brave New
World) characterized by great technological feats but one in
which the transcendent values of Western civilization have
been replaced by a form of primitive tribalism and
barbarism.
Q: There's been much talk lately about the rise of
secessionism in America. What are the Paleo-Federalist and
Southern Nationalist positions on secession?
A: Paleo-federalists -- even Southern nationalists -- are
divided on this point. Some Paleo-federalists would be
perfectly content with a "confederate" America in which the
constitutional balance between the states and federal
government is restored. On the other hand, many Paleo-federalists
already advocate secession from the United States, arguing
that the U.S. federal system is beyond repair.
Southern nationalists are similarly divided. A few believe
that the socio-cultural traditions of the South can be
preserved within the present institutional framework,
providing there is a return to traditional cultural and
religious values. Others, however, believe that traditional
Southern culture can be preserved only in a separate
Southern nation state.
Q: Southern secession in the 1990's? Wasn't all of
that decided in the 1860's?
A: As far as most Paleo-federalists and Southern
nationalists are concerned, the War Between the States
decided one issue: whether a large, wealthy and
well-equipped industrial nation of 22 million people was
capable of defeating a small, poorly equipped agrarian
republic of 9 million people.
No state in the United States, either prior to or following
the War Between the States, has voted to relinquish it's
sovereignty. Indeed, many states legislatures throughout the
United States have passed so-called 10th Amendment
resolutions within the past year reaffirming their status as
sovereign states.
Paleo-federalists and Southern nationalists would contend
that secession is as much of a reserved right today as it
was in 1861 when the shore batteries off Charleston harbor
lobbed the first artillery shell on Fort Sumter.
Q: Are Paleo-Federalists and Southern nationalists
racists?
A: No. In fact, one could argue that the most outspoken and
visible Paleo-Federalist in America today is none other than
Dr. Walter Williams, a black classical liberal economist and
op-ed writer who frequently discusses issues like states'
rights and secession in his weekly column.
Q: Are Paleo-Federalists and Southern nationalists
entirely limited to the South?
A: No. In fact, adherents of both factions, especially Paleo-Federalists,
can be found in virtually every state. Indeed, one of the
foremost Paleo-Federalists in America today is Utahan Joseph
Stumph, a devout Mormon and founder of the pro-secessionist
Committee of the Fifty States movement.
Q: Both camps, especially Paleo-Federalists, sound
very similar to libertarians and classical liberals. Are
these traditions incompatible?
A: Generally speaking, yes. Paleo-federalists especially
have much in common with libertarians and classical
liberals. Like libertarians and classical liberals, Paleo-federalists
generally support free trade, limited government and
self-determination.
On the other hand, many Southern nationalists firmly oppose
libertarian/classical liberal support of open borders, free
trade and laissez faire, fearing what effect these practices
would have on
diluting the social bond.
|
