The book, A Defense of Virginia and the South, unveils an interesting piece of history regarding the contextualization of war in terms of understanding the social dynamics of liberation. In this case, understanding the context and the perspective of whoever is right in the event of fighting battles is an individualistic opinion and intellectual guess. The initiative of judging the historical figures on the basis of fighting a war is based on the kind of techniques of fighting the war and the expectation of the society with regards to the social understanding of liberation. The book reveals the fact that south was on the right side that outlines a major part of progressivism and a triumphant nature of understanding the war on diverse approaches.
However, winning the war need to be based on series of ideological approaches and the current expectations of the warring parties. For instance, in the book, it is quite categorical that the southerners insist that they were on the right side in fighting the war. In this context, it is affirmative that every citizen has the right of being loyal to his/her mother country and has all the obligations to protect the traditions and the expectations of the mother country. However, understanding of whoever may be right in the context of a war is a highly debatable concern that depends on the perspective of an individual. The book identifies the reality that the south was right on the basis of the fundamental States rights.
In this connection, the philosophical standpoint about slavery is viewed as a negligible reason for the division but the fact that the States were understood as being sovereign forms an integral segment upon which the south intended to secede. The book, A Defense of Virginia and the South, affirms that issues regarding the fundamental human rights are the basis upon which most nations were founded. In this context, any kind of conflict or rather a war heightened between nations and affects the most sensitive social dynamics awards the nation the opportunity and the enthusiasm to engage in a war. Hence, the fact that the southerners were steadfast about seceding was a serious show of bravery of protecting their nation.
Ideally, the fact that a nation strives to engage in a war in a case where the opponent compromises the fundamental rights of people then such a nation is obliged to launch a war irrespective of which nation is perceived is perceived to be on the right or wrong. Another critical point presented in the book, A Defense of Virginia and the South, is that the union that took part in the negotiation of the terms of the war was wrong and their objective was not quite consistent with regards to protecting the fundamental rights and the interest of the southerners. Besides, the book argues that in the event that the south could not engage in the war then understanding Abraham Lincoln ideologies with regards to the nature and the dynamics of war could be considered irrelevant.
As a result, based on the direction given in the book, Thomas DiLorenzo demystifies that to fight a war of liberation calls for a collective support of all the citizens of a nation. In addition, fighting for liberation is not a game of protecting the interest of the government but rather saving an entire country from the hands of dictatorship regime. The fact that all the Confederate States had the full authority to secede based on the fundamental notion of disrespect to human rights, the abolition of the slavery was perceived as an idealistic outcome of the war. In most social platforms, slavery is normally perceived as quite harsh in comparison with the most common discrimination of human rights.
In as much as the book, A Defense of Virginia and the South, outlines the fact that war erupted on the basis of the high level of discrimination of the southerner's fundamental human rights, slavery is perceived as another potential reason for championing for secession in the south. The most ultimate bone of contention with regards to understanding the politics of the south is on the basis of rejecting the republicanism and embracing regime of monarchism. In this context, the book clarifies that the southerners would have the advantage of protecting the rights of its citizen and the interest of a merit-based government if it fights for the incorporation of monarchism system of leadership.
However, when dealing with protecting the merits of a nation of which slavery contributes to economic development then slavery is perceived not to be inherently wrong. The southerners feel to be on the right side in fighting for the right of their nation, and the Congress does not have the authority to legislate on merit-based issues. Dabney outlines that the traditions of a country and the constitution protects the rights of its citizens. Hence, the fact that people of the south felt that it was not right for the Congress to encroach into the affairs of the States was quite consistent with the provisions of the constitutions governing the governorship of Sates.
Dabney enlightens about the culture of abolitionist hypocrisy on the sense that most nations across the globe were developed based on the contributions of slaves, and that south treated its slaves in a more human manner that most States. For instance, Dabney outlines the fact that the king of Dahomey was perceived as a Christian master, and the manner in which slaves were treated in Virginia was quite religious in nature. Hence, according to the southerners, any kind of disrespect to the fundamental rights of the people jeopardizes the economic performance of a nation, and that particular nation has every right to defend its territory from any level of authority. The book, A Defense of Virginia and the South, informs that understanding the nature of the human race is an uphill task that calls for an affirmative understanding of their views regarding politics.
Consequently, Dabney observes that human race could be selfish, unrighteous and oppressive in nature, but understanding the fundamental rights and the dignity of persons needs to be highly respected and accorded the requisite attention. In addition, a state that is directed based on the wise sayings of profound leaders stands a better chance of registering an excellent economic performance within the global economy. As a result, the people of Virginia and the entire southerners had the right intellect and vision to protect their territory and champion for secession. Additionally, Dabney detaches from a philosophical standpoint that the south and entire Virginia were quite racists and they offered the privileges on the basis of ethnicity and race. Dabney clarifies that the south respected the existence of God and its people respected the fundamental rights of the humans.
The nation perceived the concern of slavery as an obligation that any citizen should be respected as a substantial pillar of economic development. On the same note, Dabney sensitizes that the people of the south relied so much on the spiritual arguments as the only modality upon which ethical knowledge could be contextualized. However, Dabney also observes that the belief in the Christian modality could act as a point of weakness in deterring the economic performance, especially in a nation that relies so much on slaves to gain an economic advantage.
In this connection, when it comes to resolving issues regarding the economic development of a nation, then engaging in acts of slavery is considered as quite healthy that gains the protection of the law and the constitution. The content of the book also pinpoints the perspective of the slave trade and the legality of engaging in slavery. In this context, Dabney mentions the fact that the southerners and the entire people of Virginia blame the northern puritans for engaging in the brutal handling of the slaves. Besides, the south is perceived in the public domain as the first Commonwealth nation that had highly condemned the culture of slavery.
In conclusion, a nation has every right to protect its territory from being compromised by any level of authority. Based on the content delivered in the book, A Defense of Virginia and the South, the Congress does not have the legal right to show disrespect to any state, particularly with regards to issues affecting the fundamental rights of the humanity. The south and the entire people of Virginia were right about their opinion of being on the right side of a war. Besides, fighting for the fundamental rights of the citizens of a nation upholds and measure the potentiality of a state in terms of its readiness in fighting the war of liberation. Ultimately, Dabney observes that in as much as a nation would wish to engage slaves into building a sustainable nation, the kind of treatment awarded should be religious, and that which upholds the fundamental principles regarding the protection of human rights.
Cite this page
A Defense of Virginia and the South Book by Robert Lewis Dabney Essay. (2022, May 09). Retrieved from https://proessays.net/essays/a-defense-of-virginia-and-the-south-book-by-robert-lewis-dabney-essay
If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the ProEssays website, please click below to request its removal:
- Report on the Trip to Eastern Europe
- Comparison Essays
- The Compulsion Towards Conformity - Essay Example
- Evaluation of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein
- The Significance of Delusion, Dreams, and Deception in Death of a Salesman
- How Slavery Divided the United States Into Two From 1790 to 1860?
- Essay on Ancient Civilization: Egypt