Camden’s Legal Philosophy

In a letter to James Madison, February 17, 1826, Thomas Jefferson wrote:

… In the selection of our Law Professor, we must be rigorously attentive to his political principles. You will recollect that before the Revolution, Coke Littleton was the universal elementary book of law students, and a sounder Whig never wrote, nor of profounder learning in the orthodox doctrines of the British constitution, or in what were called English liberties. You remember also that our lawyers were then all Whigs. But when his black-letter text, and uncouth. but cunning learning got out of fashion, and the honeyed Mansfieldism of Blackstone became the students’ hornbook, from that moment, that profession (the nursery of our Congress) began to slide into toryism, and nearly all the young brood of lawyers now are of that hue. They suppose themselves, indeed, to be Whigs, because they no longer know what Whigism or republicanism means.

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/jdr/mansfield_recon.htm

Law, unlike the hard sciences, is a field that not only tolerates corruption, but embraces it. Members of that profession go out of their way to avoid discussing the problem that many court decisions are not just errors, but crimes. Decisions are accepted even when it is obvious that bribery, intimidation, cronyism, bias, or aversion to political pressure induced a decision the judge knew was wrong, and only tried to dress up in twisted rationalizations to cover what he or she did. Yet such corrupt decisions can be and are treated as binding precedents that carry the corruption forward, injuring or ruining the lives of countless people for generations.

-Jon Roland, “Logic of Judges”

Fully Informed Jury Movement

There is already a movement and an organization devoted to informing jurors of their power and duty to review the law in a trial. However, its present leadership has adopted the mistaken doctrine that the duty of the jury is to render a verdict based on conscience and a natural sense of justice. That is incorrect. Jurors are judicial officers, just as much as the bench is, even if only for the duration of a trial. The Constitution provides that “… all judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;” It is unconstitutional to have jurors take an oath to “follow the law as given by the judge” or words to that effect. Jurors should take the same oath the bench does, to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States [and of this State]”, or words to the same effect. Their duty is to the governing constitution, not to the presiding officer of the court, who is called “judge”, but shares the duties of judge with the jury when there is one. ….

The Present Divide

We find ourselves in an unstable state of tension between a Mansfieldian judicial establishment that attempts to manipulate trial and grand juries for their own purposes, and juries that have the power, and arguably the duty, to overturn that regime and review the law in a case, who fail to do so only because most of the population today from whom juries are drawn are ignorant or easily manipulated. But in the Age of the Internet the establishment cannot depend on that ignorance or passivity to endure much longer. …

-Jon Roland, “Mansfieldism Reconsidered”

Personally, if I were more like Lysander Spooner, Ambrose Bierce, and Thoreau, I might try to change the legal practices of the USA. Instead, I fear I am sliding down the road of Albert Jay Nock – I am fully aware that the government is corrupt, but I fear that reform is impossible.

I am not afire with love for the white race. I love the white race, somewhat. Nor am I afire with a grand, unconditional love for all my fellow creatures. My love for my fellows is sadly conditional. However, I have enough love for the white race to speak honestly about its predicament, and I have enough love for other races to offer them the best ideas of the white race, to do with what they will.

White Ethnic Genetic Interests and Jeffersonian Nomocracy

This is a blog about Cultural Marxism because Jefferson Nomocracy has failed.

However, we would do well to recall what Nomocracy – government by laws, not by the whims of men – meant to the founders of the United States of America.

http://www.constitution.org/

I feel terrible about linking such an august site from such a disreputable site as my own – but needs must when the devil drives.

You might consider buying a bumper sticker:
http://www.libertystickers.com/product/if-the-american-constitution-fails/
http://www.libertystickers.com/product/If-gov-dosent-obey-whats-treason/
http://www.libertystickers.com/product/government_without_constitution/

Jefferson had some explicitly white separatist views: he famous said that whites and blacks must be equal, but that they would not be able to live together in peace.

“Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people [blacks] are to be free. Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them.” –Thomas Jefferson

“Among the Romans emancipation required but one effort. The slave, when made free, might mix with, without staining the blood of his master. But with us a second is necessary, unknown to history. When freed, he is to be removed beyond the reach of mixture.” –Thomas Jefferson

So here I present a fascinating problem in the culture and politics of the United States of America. To be a good USA citizen, one must be implicitly Jeffersonian. In theory, this means that anyone, of any race or color, can subscribe and mentally assent to the principles of the Founding Fathers and join the struggle for nomocracy, minarchy, Enlightenment, etc.

And yet in practice, while Jefferson believed blacks must be free, he believed that they had to be free in a separate community from whites.

Is White Nationalism or multi-racial Jeffersonianism better for the Whites?

One presumes that the typical reader will admire Thomas Jefferson. (If a reader does not admire Thomas Jefferson, I would ask what political power protects them. The governments of North Korea and Burma, perhaps, feel no need to bow before Jefferson, but most other countries do.)

However, once the intellectually honest reader has admitted that (A) Thomas Jefferson was admirable and (B) Thomas Jefferson was indeed a white separatist, there might be several possible reactions, including:

1) DISAGREEMENT – “Very well, Jefferson thought that, but that’s because he wasn’t perfect. Admirability and white separatism detract from each other; Jefferson would have been MORE admirable if he had not been a white separatist.”

2) INDIFFERENCE – “Jefferson’s racial separatism was irrelevant to his admirable qualities; it neither impeded them nor enhanced them; racial separatism is not particularly interesting.”

3) AGREEMENT – “Jefferson’s racial separatism illustrates his wisdom and insight into human character.”

Now of course, the White Nationalists would probably be most eager to see admirers of Jefferson agree with white separatism, since such a doctrine would set them far, far outside the bounds of acceptable discourse. Once one has admitted that white separatism might be ethical, one has gored the sacred cow of egalitarianism. (No, the “sacred cow of egalitarianism” is NOT Oprah Winfrey. Stop insulting cows with such comparisons. What would Gandhi say?)

Many white Jeffersonians, however, will probably sit on the fence and affect a disinterested pose. This would be edgy enough to establish them as shocking radicals, but not extreme enough to make the $PLC send jack-booted thugs.

However, many Jeffersonians on Planet Earth are not white, and thus do not fear being labeled as racists! The Jeffersonians of Malaysia, and of Madagascar might insist on constructing a Jeffersonianism that does not permit blacks and whites to mix, but encourages mixing of (e.g.) Han and Austronesian races. The Jeffersonians of Japan (if there are any) would probably insist on a racially pure Japan!

For myself, I do not want to limit my audience to whites. Thoughts are free. If a non-white reader happens across these pages, I will encourage that reader to take up the banner of Jeffersonian politics, regardless of race.

However, the majority of Jeffersonian readers will be white Westerners – and they must ask themselves: do they want racially separate Jeffersonianism, or do they want racially mixed Jeffersonianism?

Does Jefferson’s conviction that the white and black races could not be governed together also imply that the mixed offspring of black and white parents could not be incorporated into either society? Future posts will explore this.

Why non-White-Nationalist Jeffersonians must be aware of Ethnic Genetic Interests

In a comment to the Occidental Dissent website, Sam Davidson wrote: ‘How are you going to emotionally connect with these people? Their emotions are dictated by the mass media. If you start talking about race their emotional response will be to denounce you as a racist. They’ve been conditioned to do that.’

There are three related political positions of interest.

1) White Nationalism. The white genes are the priority. Is it good for the whites?

2) Jeffersonianism. Would TJ have done it that way? Did TJ want blacks and whites to be separate? The Articles of Confederation were closer to TJ’s thinking than the Constitution.

3) Constitutionalism. Is it in the Constitution? Did the Framers intend it?

Theoretically, all USA military officers take an oath to uphold the Constitution. They ought to be staunch Constitutionalists, come hell or high water, if they understand their oath.

But Constitutionalism is very close to Jeffersonianism. If a USA military officer starts out at the Constitution and then leans toward TJ, he must admit that TJ was a white separatist.

If all USA warfighters saw themselves on a continuum between strict-constructionist Constitutional Federalism and Jeffersonian Anti-Federalism, it would be considerably easier to connect the issue of white separatism to the issues of the Founding Fathers’ Enlightenment ideals.

I don’t read WN websites because I am full of love for whites above all other races. I am a Jeffersonian, not a White Nationalist. But, as it happens, telling the truth about TJ’s white separatism is taboo almost everywhere, except on WN sites. Thus I tend to comment on a lot of WN sites.

I have culled the following Thomas Jefferson quotes from that taboo website, Stormfront. I offer my thanks to the historians of that site. Anyone doing a web search will probably note that I have copy-and-pasted the quotations directly from that site, so any factual errors in that site will appear here until corrected.

“Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free. Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them.”

(The historians of Stormfront note that the irregular spellings in these passages are due to Jefferson himself.)

(P.264)

“To emancipate all slaves born after passing the act. The bill reported by the revisors does not itself contain this proposition; but an amendment containing it was prepared, to be offered to the legislature whenever the bill should be taken up, and further directing, that they should continue with their parents to a certain age, then be brought up, at the public expence, to tillage, arts or sciences, according to their geniusses, till the females should be eighteen, and the males twenty-one years of age, when they should be colonized to such place as the circumstances of the time should render most proper, sending them out with arms, implements of houshold and of the handicraft arts, feeds, pairs of the useful domestic animals, &c. to declare them a free and independant people, and extend to them our alliance and protection, till they shall have acquired strength; and to send vessels at the same time to other parts of the world for an equal number of white inhabitants; to induce whom to migrate hither, proper encouragements were to be proposed. It will probably be asked, Why not retain and incorporate the blacks into the state, and thus save the expence of supplying, by importation of white settlers, the vacancies they will leave? Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites; ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries they have sustained; new provocations; the real distinctions which nature has made; and many other circumstances, will divide us into parties, and produce convulsions which will probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the other race. — To these objections, which are political, may be added others, which are physical and moral.”

(P. 270)
“To our reproach it must be said, that though for a century and a half we have had under our eyes the races of black and of red men, they have never yet been viewed by us as subjects of natural history. advance it therefore as a suspicion only, that the blacks, whether originally a distinct race, or made distinct by time and circumstances, are inferior to the whites in the endowments both of body and mind. It is not against experience to suppose, that different species of the same genus, or varieties of the same species, may possess different qualifications. Will not a lover of natural history then, one who views the gradations in all the races of animals with the eye of philosophy, excuse an effort to keep those in the department of man as distinct as nature has formed them? This unfortunate difference of colour, and perhaps of faculty, is a powerful obstacle to the emancipation of these people. Many of their advocates, while they wish to vindicate the liberty of human nature, are anxious also to preserve its dignity and beauty. Some of these, embarrassed by the question `What further is to be done with them?’ join themselves in opposition with those who are actuated by sordid avarice only. Among the Romans emancipation required but one effort. The slave, when made free, might mix with, without staining the blood of his master. But with us a second is necessary, unknown to history. When freed, he is to be removed beyond the reach of mixture.”

* “Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people [blacks] are to be free. Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them.” –Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821. ME 1:72

* “The cession of that kind of property, for so it is misnamed, is a bagatelle which would not cost me a second thought, if in that way a general emancipation and expatriation could be effected; and gradually, and with due sacrifices, I think it might be.” –Thomas Jefferson to John Holmes, 1820. ME 15:249

Note: “bagatelle” means very easy task.

* “My opinion on the proposition… to take measures for procuring on the coast of Africa, an establishment to which the people of color of these States might, from time to time, be colonized, under the auspices of different governments [is]: Having long ago made up my mind on this subject, I have no hesitation in saying that I have ever thought it the most desirable measure which could be adopted for gradually drawing off this part of our population, most advantageous for themselves as well as for us. Going from a country possessing all the useful arts, they might be the means of transplanting them among the inhabitants of Africa, and would thus carry back to the country of their origin the seeds of civilization which might render their sojournment and sufferings here a blessing in the end to that country.” –Thomas Jefferson to John Lynch, 1811. ME 13:10

* “In the disposition of these unfortunate people, there are two rational objects to be distinctly kept in view. First. The establishment of a colony on the coast of Africa, which may introduce among the aborigines the arts of cultivated life, and the blessings of civilization and science. By doing this, we may make to them some retribution for the long course of injuries we have been committing on their population. And considering that these blessings will descend to the “nati natorum, et qui nascentur ab illis,” we shall in the long run have rendered them perhaps more good than evil… The second object, and the most interesting to us, as coming home to our physical and moral characters, to our happiness and safety, is to provide an asylum to which we can, by degrees, send the whole of that population from among us, and establish them under our patronage and protection, as a separate, free and independent people, in some country and climate friendly to human life and happiness. That any place on the coast of Africa should answer the latter purpose, I have ever deemed entirely impossible.” –Thomas Jefferson to Jared Sparks, 1824. ME 16:8

* “I concur entirely in [the] leading principles of gradual emancipation, of establishment on the coast of Africa, and the patronage of our nation until the emigrants shall be able to protect themselves… Personally, I am ready and desirous to make any sacrifice which shall ensure their gradual but complete retirement from the State, and effectually, at the same time, establish them elsewhere in freedom and safety.” –Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Humphreys, 1817. ME 15:102

* “Indeed, nothing is more to be wished than that the United States would themselves undertake to make such an establishment on the coast of Africa. Exclusive of motives of humanity, the commercial advantages to be derived from it might repay all its expenses.” –Thomas Jefferson to John Lynch, 1811. ME 13:12

* “It will probably be asked, Why not retain and incorporate the blacks into the State [instead of colonizing them]? Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites, ten thousand recollections by the blacks of the injuries they have sustained, new provocations, the real distinctions which nature has made, and many other circumstances will divide us into parties and produce convulsions which will probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the other race.” –Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XIV, 1782. ME 2:192

Each of these quotations deserves separate consideration; that has been added at:
https://uncontroversial.wordpress.com/thomas-jefferson-was-a-white-separatist/

One presumes that the typical reader will admire Thomas Jefferson. (If a reader does not admire Thomas Jefferson, I would ask what political power protects them. The governments of North Korea and Burma, perhaps, feel no need to bow before Jefferson, but most other countries do.)

However, once the intellectually honest reader has admitted that (A) Thomas Jefferson was admirable and (B) Thomas Jefferson was indeed a white separatist, there might be several possible reactions, including:

1) DISAGREEMENT – “Very well, Jefferson thought that, but that’s because he wasn’t perfect. Admirability and white separatism detract from each other; Jefferson would have been MORE admirable if he had not been a white separatist.”

2) INDIFFERENCE – “Jefferson’s racial separatism was irrelevant to his admirable qualities; it neither impeded them nor enhanced them; racial separatism is not particularly interesting.”

3) AGREEMENT – “Jefferson’s racial separatism illustrates his wisdom and insight into human character.”

More on these three consequences will follow in a later post.