“Caesar’s heir, Octavian, eventually restored order to a country that had known nothing but chaos for well over a century, since the wars of Marius and Sulla (which, for the sake of time, I have skipped over). Octavian was named Augustus, and ushered in a golden age the likes of which the world had never known. As Sir Ronald Syme once wrote, “Pietas prevailed, and out of the blood of Caesar the monarchy was born.” Most of the early Caesars were good, and the one truly bad example (Caligula) was quickly removed. Indeed, for the first two centuries of the restored monarchy, the government was largely good. Then came the third century crisis, almost 100 years of civil war and chaos. But seeing as the Republic had seen this happen a number of times, the chaos cannot be blamed on the system of government, but rather on Roman politics and the way their culture settle political disputes. Once the crisis had ended, a new, even stronger monarchy was established by Diocletian. This new era is called the Dominate. For the early Caesars were called “Princeps” which is roughly synonymous with “Primus inter pares” or “First among equals” but the later Caesars were called “Dominus” or “lord” because of the power they held.”

Again over-simplified but to the point.
When Julius Caesar took over control of Rome he in FACT committed a coup d’etat. He in effect destroyed the Roman Republic and installed a new political system although it was closely based on the old Republic. It was the mere fact that Roman Law had broken by Caesar’s claim of power. This marked a specific turning point in Roman history. The rest of you writings concerning Rome are for the most part correct, except you leave out all the corrupt and immoral Caesars that were to follow, and there just as many of them as there were decent Caesars, if not more.

The above can be correlated with US History circa 1860- with Abraham Lincoln. The country was Republic before Lincoln, yet Lincoln destroyed the Republic, and yet still the country and people went on as if the Republic still existed and even prospered for a while. All the while the destruction of the Republic and the failure of the people to properly address this problem caused the whole system to collapse upon itself, all mainly because of denial and self-indulgence and greed. The US in 1865 and today is no more a Republic than Rome was a Republic after Caesar took control of the government, for the same principles were at work, only in different disguises.

Michael– Deo Vindicabamur

That is an oversimplification and another part of the Yankee and Enlightenment rhetoric that must be excised from Southron minds. As has often been said on this site, Yankee culture is Enlightenment culture whereas Southron culture has always been classical in nature. If we look into classical history, and into the minds of classical philosophers, both Christian and pagan, we see a pattern where most of them acknowledge and praise the superiority of monarchial governments over other forms such as republics and democracies. Rome is a brilliant example of that.

Rome had her monarchy for 244 years. In that time, she prospered. Then, for a single act of a single prince, the Romans overthrew their monarchy and established the republic. Immediately Rome’s power, prestige, wealth, and quality of life shrank. Rome suffered internal struggles for a century while her fledgling republic made sense of itself. Once that was secured, corruption ran rampant. Rome was strongest under Dictators such as Camillus. Indeed, Camillus was so effective he was exiled, despite being Rome’s saviour. The restored republic almost immediately fell to Brennus. Rome needed a saviour again and called upon Dictator Camillus to return. Like a true patriot, the man who had been exiled for treason returned immediately, raised an army, and drove out Brennus, saving Rome. Camillus made Rome strong and expanded her territory, for the first time in centuries she had surpassed the size of her territory under the monarchy.

But there were no more strong dictators after Camillus. The Senate didn’t want another Camillus. They wanted more men like Cincinattus, who would use their power sparingly, for a few days, and then give it up. Effective leaders frightened the bureaucracy that was the Senate. And slowly but surely, the government became more and more corrupt as politicians, and not leaders, became more and more powerful. Then there arose a man named Gaius Julius Caesar, from an obscure family with an illustrious heritage, dating back even to Aeneas himself (the progenitor of the Roman monarchy).

Caesar frightened the Senate, because he was the ultimate leader. A man whose ambitions were great, yet tempered with compassion even to his enemies and a love for the people of Rome. The Senate failed to protect Rome’s citizens abroad. Caesar believed ever citizen was sacred, and if any foreigner so much as plucked a single hair from a single Roman’s head, it ought to bring down the entire wrath of Rome. The Senate was fine to led 80,000 Romans go without jobs or homes. Caesar paid for these people to settle Gaul out of his own pocket. The Senate used slave labour to such extremes that Roman citizens could not find work. Caesar wanted to regulate slavery, so that it would supplement, not replace, the Roman labour pool. And for this he was deemed a traitor. Naturally, he fought back. But Caesar never declared war on Rome or her people. His enemies were explicitly those who sought to deprive him of his natural rights as a Roman citizen. Any from the Senatorial faction who repented were spared. He tempered justice with mercy, even sparing Brutus, his best friend who had betrayed him, and whom all of Caesar’s supporters agreed should die. Caesar became a dictator after the manner of Camillus: effective, strong, and decisive. Many social, economic, and government reforms took place under him; all of which made Rome strong.

But the Senators (the elites, as we call their ideological descendants today), were unhappy with this situation. Their power was gone, and the people would never give it back because Caesar was too just, too kind. Caesar had even shown that his ambitions could be tempered because he refused to be crowned king when he saw it would upset the people, even though as a victorious son of Aeneas he had every right to claim the title. So the Senate, with the help of Caesar’s ungrateful friend Brutus, killed the dictator in cold blood and treachery. But not one of them would find rest in a natural, peaceful death. Every last one of the killers was either slain by Caesar’s avengers or fell upon their own swords so as to deny Caesar’s avengers the satisfaction.

Caesar’s heir, Octavian, eventually restored order to a country that had known nothing but chaos for well over a century, since the wars of Marius and Sulla (which, for the sake of time, I have skipped over). Octavian was named Augustus, and ushered in a golden age the likes of which the world had never known. As Sir Ronald Syme once wrote, “Pietas prevailed, and out of the blood of Caesar the monarchy was born.” Most of the early Caesars were good, and the one truly bad example (Caligula) was quickly removed. Indeed, for the first two centuries of the restored monarchy, the government was largely good. Then came the third century crisis, almost 100 years of civil war and chaos. But seeing as the Republic had seen this happen a number of times, the chaos cannot be blamed on the system of government, but rather on Roman politics and the way their culture settle political disputes. Once the crisis had ended, a new, even stronger monarchy was established by Diocletian. This new era is called the Dominate. For the early Caesars were called “Princeps” which is roughly synonymous with “Primus inter pares” or “First among equals” but the later Caesars were called “Dominus” or “lord” because of the power they held.

Under the Dominate Rome was strong again, and indomitable. But her empire was too large to handle anymore. Strong rulers could not lead so large an empire, and the idea of restoring the bureaucracy was out of the question. So the empire was divided into more manageable spheres. In the west, the power of the Caesars dwindled, and the Senate relished in its restored influence. While Caesars like Valentinian III tried to restore the power and prestige of the monarchy, the Senate fought back, usually with the aid of foreigners. Valentinian was assassinated, and replaced by a long succession of puppet-Caesars appointed by the Senate’s barbarian ally Ricimer and later by his successor Gundobad. Then came Julius Nepos, the last true Western Emperor. He fought a losing battle to restore Rome to her former glory. But some poor planning led to the usurpation of Orestes and the enthronement of the traitor’s preteen son, Romulus. Orestes and Romulus were removed by Odoacer, who was welcomed by the Senate. Nepos continued in exile in Illyria until, like Valentinian III, he was assassinated in 480. Thus died the western monarchy and began the Dark Ages, which did not end until the time of Charlemagne and the rebirth of classical monarchy and classical education.

The Eastern Empire gave us such greats as Justinian and Alexios Komnenos, who reformed the government, strengthened the military, and protected their people. It also produced the most noble of emperors, Constantine XI, who spent his entire life fighting to protect what was left of a dying country and a dying people, and in the end gave his life to protect it, to give it a precious few more minutes of life.

In conclusion, I agree that the states would have been better off under the Articles of Confederation. My point is simply that the Caesars were not so bad as Enlightenment scholars would have us believe, and if we Southrons are to throw off the yoke of Enlightenment lies, it must be all lies, including those about Caesars and monarchy. It is my personal opinion that some sort of monarchy would be better for the South, to give power to those who are above and beyond politics, rather than to the politicians. But if we are to have a republic, then let us learn from the mistakes of every previous and flawed republic (including our own short-lived republic) and forge one that will not succumb to the corruption and partisan politics which so easily defile every republic that has come into being thus far.

Actually Rome and the Roman Empire can be divided into two time and political entities. Originally we had the Roman Republic at around 500BC, and later, about 50BC Julius Caesar actually changed the Republic into a “Priciptate”, although the term is officially given to Augustus. I think with the introduction of the Caesars as Principates or head princips is where the worst problems actually began. It only takes ONE bad ruler to destroy everything else regardless of their faults. While the Roman Senate was definitely bad, the Caesars made them pale by comparison. I personally think the uS would hve been better off staying with the Articles of Confederation and never having the US Constitution of today. I think Patrick Henry was of the same opinion…

Michael– Deo Vindicabamur

I never thought of it the exact way you mention, but I did write a post on Tim Manning’s Facebook page a couple days ago along those general lines. People change their values and understanding of life during each succeeding generation. This can be quickly or slowly, and the end result is always the same. It brings about a gradual loss of one’s culture, heritage and even faith and purpose in life. One generation places more emphasis on certain things than another, untill all is changed. Somewhere in the future, even God doesn’t intervene, not only will we lose what little Southern understandings and faith we have have, people will also come to eventually lose God Himself. This is why we are experiencing the decline of LoS, SVC and UDC in their prior commitments to the Southern cause. (This was in relation to Tim Manning’s original post about the corruption and change in conduct from those groups listed above.)

It is only natural that society changes, although I disagree with the changes taking place. Morals, faith, understanding and knowledge all changes yet the judgement, commonsense and wisdom to discern these changes remains stuck much as it always has been. This unfortunate situation means people can never fully comprehend and address those changes properly, therefore history has that habit of always repackaging and replaying itself, i.e. The Roman Empire.

Sadly I see no way out of this and the numbers of people like you and me here verify my thoughts, for look at the measly numbers of people who share our common thoughts of what we do, even in just being here. I mean really, look at how few people care so little, that so few even bother to read websites such as this or any Pro Southern website. No, I’m afraid the numbers are drastically stacked against us, as is time and everything else, unless God sees fit to intervene.

Michael– Deo Vindicabamur

There should be more information and ideas for how to teaching them to negotiate such an odd situation. How does one work (even potentially give one’s life for!) a system that, in so many ways, constantly tells the southerner that he/she is not even a part of it?

The increased will to put women in military— seems even more difficult! For yankee men, this doesn’t matter; they do feminism and so on.

But Southern men have a long history of gallantry and protection of women. So such a thing hits them doubly hard, to be sure, where yankee men do not mind girls in that situation (obviously)

The kids brought up post-vietnam will not —and do not– care about the empire’s wars.

This is a very significant thing for the South. In other words, they will not have the baggage of the previous two generations, who very much saw themselves ‘as part of the empire.’

The only real connection one finds— is just that people are less affluent, and so sons and daughters have felt compelled to join the u.s. fighting forces.

Still, there will NOT be an “iraq generation.” To say it, even sounds funny. Where the WWII gen or vietnam gen does NOT sound funny.

The young Southerns —having come through the propaganda and guilting, etc.— will not have (do not have) the same ties to the empire.

That’s the usable and important thing, probably.

Personally, I have no faith in a republican system of government. But if an independent South will seek to have a republic (as it almost undoubtedly will), then I would like to see more of the redeeming aspects of ancient republicanism restored, and more of the bureaucratic, senatorial, and corrupted political aspects of it reduced or removed entirely. Because any system that gives power, honour, and dignity to politicians is doomed to fail.

Michael– Deo Vindicabamur

“Bread And Circus”. Sadly, that’s all the vast majority care about.