You are on page 1of 81

The War Between Process and Justice

The Civil War, Violent Hermeneutics, Opposing Phenomenologies, and the Amendment Paradox
O.G. Rose

June 26th 2015 marks the extending of LGBT marriage nationwide through the landmark
Obergefell v. Hodges Decision. Also in the news has been a major controversy over the
Confederate Flag and the question of whether or not the flag is inherently racist and if it should
be baned a debate trigged by the tragic shooting of nine black Americans in Charleston, SC by
a white supremacist and terrorist. Much of the Confederate Flag debate has centered on the
question of what was the Civil War really about?, and it seems to me that the Supreme Court
decision offers us a lens by which we can answer that question and use it as a spring-board by
which we can analyze our entire structure of governance . The answer is, of course, much more
nuanced and simple than we would like it to be, and that is precisely why the answer is an
answer few of us will want anything to do with. We prefer answers that create enemies, for a
worldview consisting of enemies is easier to live by than one in which the good and the bad
are indivisible.
Im afraid though that in our age the very asking of the question what was the Civil War
about? is assumed to only be asked by Southerners who are trying to defend the Confederacy,
and hence an inherently racist inquiry that should be avoided on principle. Perhaps this is often
the case, but we shouldnt assume this is always the case (to allude to Hume, we shouldnt jump
from a constant conjunction to a Natural Law, if you will), and I fear this assumption has
contributed to us failing to learn how to avoid the mistakes of the Confederacy, in the same way
that societys unwilling to understand the Nazis has made us less able to avoid keeping a
manifestation of Nazism from rising up again. For wanting to understand Nazism, Hannah
Ardent was accused of forgiving them, and as a result, even now, we fail to be equipped to
avoid the power and influence of evil institutions and authorities. Perhaps there were many
careless sentences in Eichmann in Jerusalem, as perhaps there are many in the works of those
who explore the causes of the Civil War, but we mustnt let careless sentences prevent us from
learning timeless truths. We must be equipped to stop evil, but that requires taking the risk of
scratching wounds.
In regard to my own personal thoughts on the flag and Civil War controversy: I believe
that had there been no slavery, there would have been no Civil War, and that all flags except
American and State flags should be removed from public spaces. This is my position: by no
means in this work am I trying to defend certain Confederate-leaning views about the flag and
Civil War. What I am trying to do, however, is understand Confederate thinking, which again, is
not the same as forgiving Confederates, no more than understanding Nazism is forgiving Hitler.
This paper is no justification for the Confederacy, but an act of empathizing with the
Confederacy; this is no work of sympathy, but a work that attempts to step into their shoes so
that we can understand how they thought, felt, and made decisions, so that we can live together
as a diverse people and not repeat their mistakes. My hope in this work is to help people learn
empathy (not sympathy), because without that, we cannot think critically, which in our
Pluralistic Age, we require more than ever.
When it comes to the Civil War, the debate is about whether the Civil War was over
States rights or slavery, and it seems that both sides are right: the Civil War was about
States rights to secede to preserve their choice to have or release slaves. Hence, Conservatives
who want to defend their interpretation of the Civil War will be able to do so, as will Liberals
who want to do the same, and this is why the debate about the origins of the Civil War has raged

on for so long. Conservatives feel justified, as do Liberals (which is also a hint into the nature of
being true and being rational, as expounded on in The True Isnt the Rational by O.G.
Rose). Whos right? Both. Are Liberals justified to claim Conservatives dont know history? Yes
and no. Are Conservatives justified to claim the same about Liberals? Yes and no. Is one group
more so right? Yes and no, and honestly, that depends on by which standard you determine truth.
In this work, that question isnt what primarily interests me: my concern is on the conflict
between process and justice, and our need for dynamic understanding and historical empathy
lest we fall into this conflict yet again a conflict from which there is no victor.
Some argue that Lincoln didnt care about slavery and was more interested in preserving
the Union, and some argue that the Civil War was primarily about economic interests than it was
about slavery. It depends on who you ask, but in this work, what I am interested in is
understanding the Civil War as a conflict of visions, to use a phrase from Thomas Sowell: a
conflict between a moral vision and a self-governance vision. In this work, I am going to assume
that the North fought to end slavery and preserve the Union, while the South fought to perpetuate
slavery and preserve State sovereignty. These are the assumptions I am working with, and even
if a historian disagrees with them and these assumptions prove false, that will not change the
case I am trying to make about conflicting visions, using the Civil War as a case study a point
I fear that our modern society has missed because of dichotomizing views (of history, of one
another, etc.).
As a closing note, the thoughts presented in this paper should be considered in light of
Equality and Its Immoral Limits and Ending Racism, both by O.G. Rose, many of the ideas
of which are reiterated and echoed in this work.
To start, its important to understand that technically, The Civil War wasnt a civil war.
In a civil war, multiple parities combat to determine who will control governing over all the
parties. In America though, the Confederacy wasnt interested in controlling the North; the
Confederacy wanted to seceded and govern themselves, which they believed they had
Constitutional grounds to do. Did they want to do so to preserve slavery? Yes: the prevalence of
(white supremacist) speeches, documents, etc. by Confederate politicians about defending
slavery makes that clear enough (see The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States hosted at
Civil for numerous examples).1 But even if slavery was immoral, did States have this
right to secede? Based on how they interpreted the Constitution and how they viewed the
formation of the Federal Government, they did. Was that view right? Depends on who you ask,
but I do think its fair to say that the Confederate States thought this view was right.
The Union considered America (the Union and/or the Federal Government) the
realist political alliance, with the States being less real. The Union believed the States were to
the Fed what counties are to States, while the Confederacy had the exact opposite view: it was
the Fed that was less real than the States. To the Union, the Fed was the source of sovereignty
that was passed on to the States, while the Confederacy believed sovereignty was passed on to
the Fed from the States. To the Union, as counties cannot omit themselves from State laws or
secede from the State, so States cant secede from America it was against the law,
Unconstitutional, and a violation of American sovereignty. To the Confederacy, America was a
contractual alliance that only existed because the States agreed to participate in it, but if States
decided they wanted to leave that alliance, they had the power and right to do so (for whatever

reason). To the Union, the United States is, while to the Confederacy, the United States are, if
you will.
Because of these different macro-views, Lincoln saw himself as enforcing the Law and
upholding the Constitution, while Southerners saw Lincoln as violating the Constitution and
impeding State sovereignty. Lincoln considered the Confederate States guilty of treason, while
Southerners considered Lincoln guilty of tyranny. Lincoln considered secession impossible
because the Union was indivisible, while Southerners believed the power to secede was
necessary for the States to hold to check and balance the power of the Central Government.2
Lincoln spoke about defining the indivisible Union, while Southerners didnt believe the Union
existed in and of itself: it only existed insomuch as States agreed to participate in it, and had no
more power or sovereignty than States granted to it via participation. Everyone agreed that
ultimately, all sovereignty came from the people, but there was disagreement on who the
people were. While Lincoln believed the people were the total sum of the American
population as embodied in the Union of America, the States believed the people referred to
each individual, and so individuals could break from the Union of the people and retain
Whos right?
Depends on who you ask, and that is a question that Im not interested in: what interests
me is how both sides believed they were right. This is obvious enough, but I think the
implications are very important. To use the language of The True Isnt the Rational by O.G,
Rose, relative to their being true, the South believed it acted rationally and fairly, while relative
to their being true, the Union believed the same of themselves. Both saw themselves as the
good guys; the other side, the bad guy. When the Civil War broke out, the South believed they
were victims of an immoral invasion, while the North believed they had no choice but to stop the
South from leaving to save America and end the atrocities of slavery. Victory eventually went to
the North, along with the moral crown.
The question of what was the Civil War about? isnt only a question about what
motivated the governments of the South and North, but also a question about what motivated the
people. Additionally, there is an inherent problem with the question: it is presented as a historical
question, as one that can be solved via empirical evidence, when it is a more philosophical
question of human motivation, which is always hidden from us. If I were to watch a white person
rob a store owned by a black man, I cannot know if he is doing it because he is a racist, because
he is trying to gather food for his starving family, because hes trying to help the owner
appreciate times when hes not robbed, etc. the motivation is always hidden to me (though that
isnt to say I wont make it appear to me as if the motivation isnt obvious, as warned about in
Self-Delusion, the Toward-ness of Evidence, and the Paradox of Judgment by O.G. Rose).
This isnt to say I cant make a reasonable guess at human motivation, but it is to say that it is
incredible hardly to do in the present with just one person, let alone when it comes to history
over millions.
How did individual Southerners and Unionists think about the Civil War? One of the
problems with the question what was the Civil War about? is that implies there is one answer,
and though this might be true on a governmental level, on a personal level, the answers are
probably very wide and varied. The high majority of Southerners didnt have slaves, so were

they fighting over slavery alone? That seems unlikely to me, though I dont know: it seems more
likely that most Southerners were fighting over the rights of States to have slaves and to secede
over slavery, which is slightly different from saying Southerners were fighting directly over
slavery (though that isnt to say that slavery wasnt the first mover of the Civil War, if you
will). I can think of three possible and general reasons that motivated Southerners:
1. Defend slavery.
2. Defend the rights of States to have slavery (so that they could one day have slaves,
preserve their economies, on principle, etc.).
3. Defend the rights of States.
Here are reasons I think Unionists would be fighting:
1. End slavery.
2. Defend the right of the Federal Government to override States that perpetuate injustices,
even if those injustices fall within the rights of States.
3. To preserve the Union.
I doubt that every Southern was motivated by the same reason, as I doubt every Unionist
was uniformly motivated. The possible reasons are varied, and so a question like what was the
Civil War about? is somewhat too simplistic. That said though, it would be fair for someone to
point out that slavery is the domino that caused Southern concerns about State rights, and that
without slavery, Northerners wouldnt have to have been concerned about preserving the Union.
This is a very fair point, and considering this, it is fair to say the Civil War was about slavery.
This is somewhat more accurate than saying the Civil War was about States rights, for there
would have been no concern about States right had it not been for slavery. At the same time
though, to say the Civil War was just about slavery would be false (as would be saying the
Civil War was just about States rights), for the Civil War was definitely about States rights
even if State rights werent the first mover. It would be more accurate to say the Civil War
was about the rights of States to decide if they each would abolish or keep slavery, and though
saying the Civil War was about slavery can be a short-hand for the more extended expression,
the more extended expression is less prone to misunderstanding.
Granted, there are scholars who argue that the Civil War was about Northern Tariffs,
North Aggression, etc., and there are scholars who dispute these scholars. Some scholars argue
the Civil War was more so about States rights than it was about slavery perhaps pointing out
that so few Southerners owned slaves and that Jefferson Davis was ready to abolish slavery from
the Confederacy for European support, citing the Kenner Mission. Perhaps, and though this may
be true, it is hard to argue that any of these concerns would have arisen if slavery didnt exist in
America, and seeing as the Confederacy wouldnt have come into existence had there been no
slavery, it is fair to say the Confederate flag points to slavery. To minorities, this may make the
flag understandably offensive, but do note that those who claim the flag is about States rights
arent completely wrong. Rarely is it the case that both sides of a dispute arent both right and
wrong in different ways.
But all that said, it is simplistic to say that every Southern solider fought to preserve
slavery, and yet, in a way, if they fought the Union, they did fight to preserve slavery, even if it
was indirectly. If Southerners fought to preserve States rights, they fought for that which would

preserve slavery; if they fought because the North was invading them, they fought against a force
that would end slavery; if Southerners fought to preserve the right of State secession, they fought
to cut slaves off from emancipation; and so on. But do note there is a difference between saying
the Confederacy fought to preserve the rights of States to have slavery and saying the
Confederacy fought to preserve slavery. These phrases are mostly identical in consequence, but
the first means something different. The second means that Southerners wanted slavery, while
the first means Southerners wanted to decide if they wanted or didnt want slavery. The second
paints Southerners as necessarily in support of slavery, while the first means Southerners only
may have supported slavery; the second implies the South would always have slaves, while the
first implies only that the South may always have slaves. Yes, the second phrase can be used a
shorthand for the first, but the shorthand versions of phrases have a tendency to cause confusion
and to paint inaccurate pictures. I think that has happened in regard to the Civil War.
As a closing thought, there is a part of me that wishes we stopped asking the question of
what was the Civil War about? and try instead to empathize with people who lived during that
time. I think we would learn much more from history this way. Learning from causes rarely
teaches as well as learning from experiences of those causes.
Was the Confederacy immoral and even evil for wanting to seceded and preserve
slavery? Probably, but according to their understanding of the Constitution, they had grounds to
do so. For the sake of argument, I am going to assume that their interpretation of the Constitution
was correct, not because it necessarily was, but because Southerners believed it was, and my
interest in this work is focus on how Southerners experienced and rationalized themselves,
slavery, and the Civil War. Though this isnt to say that Southerners were necessarily right or
wrong that is another question. and determining if they were or not would require
understanding the Constitution before the 14th Amendment, seeing as the amendment wasnt
passed until after the Civil War, and reading the Constitution in light of the dictionaries of the
time (which would give us a sense of how Southerners understood words then). Making this
case, either way, is outside the scope of this work, so for now, I will rest on assumption, though I
would direct readers to Donald Livingstons lecture series What They Were Fighting For for
understandings the Confederate case.
Assuming the legitimacy of the Confederate interpretation of the Constitution, was
Lincoln moral to defy the Constitution and invade the Confederacy to end slavery and preserve
the Union? Probably, but with the assumption of this paper in mind (which Southerners believed
in), it was Unconstitutional for Lincoln to do so. The Confederacy did what was immoral and
Constitutional, while the Union did what was moral and Unconstitutional. Of course, one could
argue that it was immoral of the Union to invade the South to force their moral vision upon it,
as it was perhaps immoral for America to invade Iraq to impose upon it democracy, but such
moral questions I fear always eternally regress, as argued in (Im)morality by O.G. Rose. Here,
we shall not touch on that debate.
Personally, I think we must be slow before we judge the Confederacy as evil, not
because they werent, but because we must be careful that we dont think of ourselves as
superior to Southerners. All of us can be evil: Eichmann in Jerusalem by Hannah Ardent and
The Stanford Prison Experiment are evidence of this unfortunately truth. We must keep in
mind that the Confederacy probably didnt experience itself as evil, and that hence when it

broke off from the Union, it didnt do so thinking of itself as preserving evil, as we in our
modern age tend to think of the Confederacy as doing (for we always we read history in light of
our moral scope, as written about in Ending Racism by O.G. Rose).This isnt to say the
Confederacy wasnt guilty of grave atrocities surely the Nazis didnt think of themselves as
evil as they perpetuated the Holocaust but it is to say that how Confederates experienced their
immoral actions is very different than how we experience reading and/or thinking about their
immoral actions. To explain what I mean and to approach my main point of this work, consider a
The Second Civil War.
Imagine that tomorrow abortion was made illegal under the 14th Amendment because it
discriminated against the unborn by considering them not human despite having human DNA.
Imagine that, as a result, Northern States considered seceding in order to preserve the
reproductive rights of women citing the 10th Amendment and the sovereignty of the States as
justification for secession and imagine that Southerners warned that they would invade
seceding, Northern States to end discrimination and to save the Union.3 Now imagine that, to
start, despite the Souths threats, three Northerner States seceded, and that warnings from the
South intensified. Two more States then secede to join the other three, believing the South had
no right to bully other States. Imagine then that the South invaded one of the States to force it
back into the Union, and imagine that this motivated many more Northerners to side with The
New Confederacy. Fighting then broke out, and perhaps many Northerners who were against
abortion would end up fighting on the side of those who favored abortion, for those Northerners
felt pressured by Southern advancement. These pressured Northerners also believed that they
were fighting for the right of people to have a view on abortion, regardless how just or unjust it
might be. Many Northerners who joined the fighting didnt actually get a, or believe in, abortion,
but fought anyone to defend the rights and sovereignty of women.
Imagine that the Southerner states claimed that the only reason Northerners seceded was
because Northerners were bigots and wanted to keep discriminating and murdering children.
Would Southerners be right about Northerners? In their eyes, yes, and if the Southerners won a
Second Civil War to keep Northerners in the Union, history would probably side with the
Southerners. But is that how Northerners would have experienced and conceptualized their
actions? Not at all: they would have seen themselves as protecting women, perhaps as
Confederates saw themselves as defending States. Would these Northerners be as wrong about
abortion as Confederates were about slavery? Perhaps that would depend on if abortion really
is murder but the point is that in the eyes of Southerners, they would be equivalent. But though
Southerners would necessarily have to understand the actions of the North who used States
rights as a justification for their actions as immoral and demonic, Northerners would
necessarily have to understand their actions as noble and just. Who would be right? (When it
comes to the real Civil War, this is the question I think we have focused far too much on: it has
resulted in us failing to consider how the people experienced and conceptualized the Civil War.
My hope is by reconsidering the lynchpin issue of the Civil War as abortion instead of
slavery, we may begin to emphasize in a manner by which we can actually learn from the
horrible war.)
Now imagine that a hundred years from now, students of history debate the cause behind
The Second Civil War, perhaps at a university thats founder once shamefully supported
abortion. Half argue it was because of States rights; the rest, abortion: discrimination and child
slaughter. Those Lost Causers who claimed it was because of States rights argued that those

who favored abortion didnt think of it as a moral injustice (though it was according to the way
history went), and students who claimed The Second Civil War was because of abortion
thought those who claimed otherwise were denying the unjust history against the unborn, and
that this was evil and offensive. Who would be right? Both/neither. Those who claimed
Northerners seceded in order to preserve womens rights would be akin to those who claimed
Southerners seceded in order to preserve property rights and/or States rights. Would this be
a fair comparison? Yes and no. If those who were offended by the North demanded all flags and
statues that the North used during The Second Civil War be banned from public spaces, along
with all memorials honoring those who supported abortion, would they be like those today who
demand the banning of the Confederate flag? Yes/no.
Efforts to understand history rarely understand history.
(Do note that I realize this is a controversial example and that it will upset many, but
realize that I couldnt have made the point I am trying to make without using such an example: it
had to be an issue in which some argued passionately for, others against, and which most felt
unsure about, but that everyone felt something about, and abortion seemed like a perfect match.
Abortion is controversial and the stakes are high, as was the case with slavery. Indeed, I am AntiAbortion, because I unfortunately see no way to counter the argument that abortion is
discrimination, and unfortunately that is probably what most assumed from reading my
hypothetical before I directly said this, seeing as we exist in an age when assumptive
hermeneutics and cynical hermeneutics are common (as will be discussed). But my view on
abortion doesnt change or influence the validity of the hypothetical or point I am making, as it
wouldnt be the case that if I was evil, it would be false when I said 2 + 2 = 4. If my
hypothetical is invalid, it isnt invalid because I am Anti-Abortion, but because my logic is
inaccurate, which would be a fair argument for someone to make. Please also keep in mind that
had I been writing this paper years before the Civil War and made slavery the issue I used for
my hypothetical, the example would also have been controversial and offensive. Lastly, keep in
mind that if 2 + 2 = 4 was offensive and controversial, it would still be true.)
As I hope is clear, the dichotomy of States rights versus abortion would be too
simplistic the two blur together indivisibly and such is the case when it comes to the Civil
War. Likewise, I also hope this hypothetical makes clear that the way people felt about moral
injustices like slavery in the past are different from how we are feel about them today once
history has confirmed those moral injustices are in fact moral injustices. Today, we all live in the
midst of abortion, and go about our daily lives. We may disagree with it, we may even think it is
murder, but do we regularly bomb abortion clinics or even think about it? Probably not we
mostly just live our lives. For what else can we do? According to the Federal Government, it
isnt illegal or an injustice, so on what grounds other than subjectivity could we stop it? And if
we tried, we would be arrested, and our efforts would do little. And so we live, and a hundred
years from now, perhaps we will be thought of as participating in a grave moral injustice, like
Southerners in the time of slavery. And perhaps we are, but that isnt how we experience or think
about the lives we are living. As a small percentage of Southerners had slaves, a small
percentage of people get abortions: though politicians talk about it constantly and though
countless speeches could be found in which politicians praise womens rights and defend
abortion (papers historians could later find to prove that The Second Civil War as about
abortion), most of us just live our lives not thinking about it unless asked. We work; we
socialize; we go about our days. We have to we have lives to live and families to provide for
what else can we do? As long as it is supported by the Supreme Court, we can petition, we can

host marches, we can put together political groups as many did against slavery but can we
stop it? Only insomuch as our actions stimulate government action, but ultimately, the final
decision is out of our control. The case was no different back before and during the Civil War, so
let us be slow before we judge Confederates. Perhaps they acted wrongly, but if there ever was a
Second Civil War, they will have acted no different than we act at this very moment.
Un-monstrous monsters.
Demonic saints.
Do we Americans experience the issue of abortion with the emotional feeling that we
experience when we consider slavery? No because we live with abortion and even those who
are against abortion dont tend to really feel their disdain for it: its more mental than emotional
(though that isnt to say no one feels over abortion). When considering the Civil War and
Confederacy, we must realize this uncomfortable truth about ourselves. If we dont, well learn
from history not how to change it, but to watch helplessly as it repeats in ways we dont expect
or feel.
To empathetically understand the Civil War, in all Civil War documents, speeches,
letters, etc. from and about it, replace the word slavery with abortion, precisely because the
very suggestion of this would infuriate some, not others, and leave most with a feeling of
uncertainty. From The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States, take for example these lines
from Georgias declaration of secession, as can be found on Civil
The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present
to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and
serious causes of complaint against our non-[abortion-performing] confederate States with reference to the subject of [womens
rights]. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to
comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the
Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. This hostile
policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite
the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war.
Our people, still attached to the Union from habit and national traditions, and averse to change, hoped that time, reason, and
argument would bring, if not redress, at least exemption from further insults, injuries, and dangers. Recent events have fully
dissipated all such hopes and demonstrated the necessity of separation.
[] A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-[abortionists] and the political organization into whose hands the
administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia.
The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be
an anti-[abortion] party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of
condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste
and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-[abortion] is its mission and its purpose. By anti-[abortion] it is made a
power in the state. The question of [abortion] was the great difficulty in the way of the formation of the Constitution.

By replacing the word slavery with abortion in the declaration, the way we are
emotionally struck by the document is different, and this emotion is perhaps closer to what those
during the time of the Civil War actually felt. And it is in the mode of this emotion that we need
to understand the Civil War.
To offer another example: consider Jefferson Davis, the President of the Confederacy. If
we replace slavery with abortion as the issue which Davis believed in, we can help remove
the emotional barrier that may keep us from understanding him, and the less we understand
Davis, the less equipped we are to avoid repeating his mistakes. Do note here that comparison
isnt equalization: to compare abortion and slavery isnt to say they are morally equivalent (that

is a different question), nor is it to necessarily say abortion is wrong (again, a different question).
My point is only to help us gain understanding by helping us see past our emotions.
Consider the following:
In his public life Davis defended [abortion] as moral and as American while maintaining that the institution helped [liberate
women]. Although not all Americans joined his embrace of [abortion], few dissented from his belief in [the fuller development of
those who were born], an outlook shared in the nineteenth century by almost all [born] Americans and Western Europeans. 4

Davis believed slavery helped Christianize an inferior race; in his mind, slavery made
blacks better off than they would have been without the institution of slavery.5 Likewise, many
people today believe that women are better off with options for abortion than they would be if
that option was made illegal. Of course, no one is forced to get an abortion while millions were
forced into slavery there are differences my point is that logical justification can be created
for any institution (though that isnt to say all institutions are bad). The creative capacities of
humans to self-justify are infinite, and if we fail to learn this truth, we will inevitably find
ourselves rationalizing what we shouldnt rationalize, all while thinking that were making a
strong case, perhaps in the name of justice and human rights.
Davis wrote [] the odious slave trade, has but saved the African captive from
Sacrifice; or transferred him from subjection to a barbarian master, to the milder servitude to a
[C]hristian, and brought him from the darkness of heathenism to the light of revealed religion.6
Davis believed slavery helped Africans, as people can believe abortion helps women (and
perhaps it does). Davis also believed slavery was good for civilization, since it enabled people to
purchase goods at cheaper prices, arguing that slavery directly or indirectly confer[ed] important
benefits on more than half the civilized people of the globe. [Davis argued slavery] opened new
channels of commerce, and widened old ones; thus bringing different nations into closer
intercourse and greater dependence; which is to strengthen the bonds of national amity, and to
advance our race in knowledge, industry, security and happiness.7 He considered slavery a
means to increase the interdependency between nations, which lowered the probability of war
while simultaneously increasing global socioeconomic wellbeing, rationalizing all these benefits
by claiming blacks were inferior to whites and that whites helped them by enslaving them.
Today, Davis thinking strikes us as obviously immoral and even insane, but are there
none currently alive (and even in positions of great political power) who dont argue that
abortion is economically beneficial, that it helps women with their careers, that it helps control
population size, that it reduces the number of unwanted children, that it helps minimize poverty,
etc., and that all these benefits make abortion not only acceptable, but even moral? And since
unborn children arent (fully) human, what wrong is being done? If abortion is in fact murder, we
arent much better than the President of the Confederacy. Hopefully the Pro-Lifers are wrong.
In Daviss judgment the Constitution absolutely guaranteed protection and equal rights
for [women] and [abortion] see how easily abortion and slavery can switch places,
especially when a person feel morally indifferent or uncertain?8 Many today argue in favor of
womens rights, and when it comes to abortion, the country is split. So was the case with slavery,
but seeing today as slavery is obviously a moral atrocity, the very fact the country was split on
this matter is morally appalling to us and a sin in of itself. But a hundred years from now, if
abortion was ever made illegal, they may think the same about us.
To Davis, as to most [women], their liberty had since the American Revolution always
included their right to [have an abortion] and their right to decide about the institution without
outside interference. [Women liberation] and [abortion] were inextricably intertwined.9 For
Davis the Confederate States provided a way to save the America he had cherished. For him the

Confederacy became the true descendant of the American Revolution and the Constitution.10 If
abortion was to become illegal if [Anti-Abortion positions were] no longer confined to a few
fanatics is it so hard to imagine that some would consider secession the only way to protect
womens rights and to keep the real America alive? 11 Probably not now since the idea of
secession has been established in us as wrong due to the Civil War, but if the Federal
Government ever did make abortion illegal and secession wasnt considered tyranny, perhaps
secession would be the only way some could continue to preserve and defend the rights of
women (at least in their minds) woman who have a right to regulate their domestic institutions
in their own way?12
Davis [] never backed away from his contention that secession was [C]onstitutional,
and he insisted in the 1870s and 1880s that the Civil War was solely about [S]tates rights and
the Constitution, not about [abortion].13 If States were to seceded because abortion was made
illegal and supporters of womens rights claimed the secession was because of States rights,
would they be lying? Yes/no. Indeed, it would be fair (though perhaps not correct) to argue that
the rights of States were treaded upon in the act of the Federal Government making abortion
illegal and yet it would be easy to argue in a history class a hundred years later that they were
in fact lying, especially if those students were thinking in the mode of their emotions emotions
of disgust before the obvious immorality of abortion. If the supporters of secession claimed
they would have seceded had LGBT marriage been outlawed if they claimed the particular
issue that set the chain of events in motion wasnt nearly as important as the process by which a
certain way of living was forced upon the entire country would the supporters be genuine?
Genuineness is difficult to identify in the people around us, let alone in the ghosts of history, but
that rarely stops students of history from judging the hearts of ghosts.
Do not misunderstand me: I am not trying to rewrite history my point is only to help us
feel an emotion that I believe we need to feel while thinking about the Civil War if we are going
to avoiding repeating its mistakes. Seeing how often the word abortion replaced slavery in the
examples above, it is very clear that slavery was the prime mover of the Civil War, and if we are
going to keep ourselves from tearing ourselves apart over a moral injustice, we must learn how
to think like those who nearly did.
By replacing slavery with abortion, we can remove the emotions that we feel when we
think about the Civil War, emotions which those in the Civil War did not feel: they probably felt
emotions more similar to how we, as a general people, feel about abortion. And it was while
feeling these emotions that the people of that time had to decide if they were going to fight or
not, and though perhaps while feeling the emotions we feel now we would have chosen and
acted very differently than they, while feeling the emotions they felt at the time, we shouldnt be
so confident that we would have acted much differently (though perhaps we would have).
Americans decided if they were for or against the Iraq War not while experiencing the emotions
they would experience after the war or ten years later, but while they were feeling the emotions
they felt based on different information and much more moral uncertainty. If we dont consider
the Civil War morally uncertain, we may know the facts of the war, but not how to avoid
repeating them.
Does any of this change the answer to question what caused the Civil War? No, but
please visit and read The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States, hosted at Civil,

and if you do so, you may see why determining what caused the Civil War is no easy matter. In
the declarations, all the issues people argue for today are listed: slavery, States rights, economic
pressures, Northern aggression, etc. Hence, the debate about the Civil War becomes a debate
about which of these issues was more so the cause than the others, and the answer to that
question depends on who you ask.
Considering Showdown in Virginia by William Freehling, some would say that secession
was a gradual breakdown, with the Deep South seceding first over slavery and the Upper South
seceding later because they wouldnt go along with any attempt of the Federal Government to
force states back into the United States. The Upper South disagreed with secession, but also
disagreed with forcing States that seceded back into the Union. Hence, slavery is why the Deep
South seceded, while Northern aggression is why the Upper South seceded. Hence, for the Deep
South, slavery is what caused the Civil War, while to the Upper South, Northern aggression is
responsible. But that said, more technically, some would say that slavery was the cause of
secession, while Lincolns mission to preserve the Union was the cause of the Civil War; hence,
some may say slavery was the cause of secession, while Lincoln was the cause of the Civil
War. Theoretically, had the States seceded and Lincoln never invaded, there would have been
no Civil War; hence, some would say Lincoln is responsible. For the Upper South who joined the
Confederacy, slavery wasnt the main issue, for they believed it was legally protected (as
abortion is legally protected today). They believed secession was Constitutional and that Lincoln
was launching a military operation to stop States from doing that which was within their
Constitutional right to do, and so the Upper South decided they had to fight against Lincoln, for
he was acting illegally (whether they were right or wrong is another matter).
Of course, one could argue that had there been no slavery, the Deep South would have
never seceded, and so the Upper South would have never seceded over North aggression, and so
slavery is the cause of the Civil War. Likewise, if slavery is the cause of secession and
Lincolns desire to preserve the Union the cause of the Civil War, since secession caused Lincoln
to act (Constitutionally or not), then slavery is the cause of the Civil War. And thats a fair
point, and hence legitimizes that phrase slavery was the cause of the Civil War. It stands that
had there been no slavery, there would have been no Civil War; hence, it is fair to say that
slavery was the cause of the Civil War.
At the same though, when we say that, we need to avoid thinking of the word slavery
with the moral disgust that we feel today; rather, we need to try to make ourselves feel more of
the moral ambiguity that we feel when it comes to an issue like abortion. Today, there are no
institutions of the State supporting or incubating (via law, economic infrastructures, etc.) the
practice of slavery, but in the past, unfortunately, there was such support and incubation. This
created moral ambiguity, similar to that recorded by Hannah Ardent and Milgram. And if we are
to understand the Civil War, we must feel morally ambiguity, such as that which we feel when
it comes to abortion. As there were those in the past who vehemently opposed slavery, there are
those today who vehemently oppose abortion; as there were those who support slavery because
they were racists, there are those today who support abortion because they do not believe unborn
children are fully human (in some way); as there are those who considered slavery a necessary
evil, there are those today who consider abortion something they dont personally agree with, but
something that they had no right to tell others that they cannot perform; and so on. Does this
justify slavery? Not at all, but it should change how we think about it. Does this mean blacks in
America should be any less outraged? Not all, as Ardents work shouldnt make Jews any less

outraged over the Holocaust. The point is that we shouldnt be so confident that the world is split
into angels and demons. In this life, demons are angels, and angels are demons.
Considering what has been said, slavery was the cause of the Civil War, but were
weapons of mass destruction the cause of the war in Iraq? Before closing this emphasis and
review section, a comparison and thought experiment may help flesh out the ideas of this work,
and help get across the points of previous and following sections. I think it will help illuminate
how Southerners thought, how morally uncertain the situation was, why determining cause is no
easy matter, etc.
Let us consider the Civil War in light of the Iraq Invasion.
The United States of America invaded Iraq as part of its War on Terrorism. President
Bush said at the time that we needed to stop Saddam Hussein from developing weapons of mass
destruction and to bring his evil regime to an end. Was Saddam evil? Perhaps, but did that justify
invading the country and ending his regime? Depends on who you ask: many Liberals consider it
a barbaric, cruel, and murderous invasion that though it ended the evil of Saddam, also ruined the
lives of countless, innocent people (and America also perpetuated great evils: consider Abu
Ghraib). But this sounds identical to what Southerners claim about the Civil War: the Northern
invasion was barbaric, cruel, and murderous and ruined the lives of countless innocent people
over a secession the States had legal right to carry out (and the Union also perpetuated great
evils: consider Shermans March to the Sea). Did the Northern invasion end slavery? Yes, as
America ended the regime of Saddam Hussein, but is an evil act that stops evil isnt any less
evil? Depends on who you ask. Were Confederates evil? Perhaps perhaps some more so than
others but did they defend something that was evil? Absolutely, as it was believed Saddam was
defending weapons of mass destruction (and whether or not those weapons, in the end, actually
existed doesnt change the fact that they were used as justification at the time for launching the
There are Liberal commentators who argue that Americas invasion of Iraq actually
strengthened the terrorist networks in the region, and resulted in countless people joining
terrorists to fight America who otherwise wouldnt have, believing they had been unjustly
invaded; some commentators go so far as to argue that had America never invaded, ISIS the
Islamic State would have never come into existence. These commentators sound remarkably
similar to the Conservatives who argue that the Unions invasion of the South actually
strengthened the Confederacy, and resulted in countless people joining the Confederate cause to
fight the Union who otherwise wouldnt have, believing they had been unjustly invaded; some
commentators go so far as to argue that had the South never been invaded, the Civil War would
have never happened. Does this mean America shouldnt have invaded Iraq? Perhaps. Should the
North not have invaded the South? Again, perhaps such questions arent what primarily
interest me. My point is that we are quick to judge that which we arent any better than; my point
is that empathy is something we dont tend to ever master.
Liberals have been known to claim the Iraq Invasion was really about America seizing oil
in the region, similar to the Conservatives who claim the Civil War was really about Northerners
seizing the economic assets of the South. Liberals argue that America ruined an entire country of
Iraq because of what the minority of Iraqis did, as Conservatives argue Unionists burned the
South to the ground over what a small minority of people did own slaves. Some Liberals argue

Bush is guilty of war crimes, as some Conservatives argue the same about Lincoln. Liberals
argue that Iraq has lead to horrible unintended consequences of expanding and empowering
terrorist networks in the region, as Conservatives argue that the Civil War lead to an expansion
and empowering of the central and Federal Government over the States. Liberals point out that
we still havent recovered from the consequences of the invasion ISIS, destabilization of the
Middle East, etc. as Conservatives point out the same in regard to the Civil War: we are still
dealing with racism, black poverty, etc. Liberals may argue that the invasion didnt fix the
situation, as Conservatives may say the same about the Civil War. Liberals argue America
created ISIS; Conservatives can argue that Emancipation Proclamation set blacks up for poverty
and racism that lead to Jim Crow. Liberals argue the invasion shouldnt have happened even
though Saddam was evil, as Conservatives argue the Northern invasion shouldnt have happened
even though slavery was evil.
And so on.
Were weapons of mass destruction the cause of the War in Iraq? Perhaps it depends on
what one means by cause. Did that argument convince most Americans to support the
invasion? Yes, but perhaps the real cause was Bushs desire for oil or to redeem his fathers
botched Gulf War, and the weapons of mass destruction-argument was just a cover that could
deceive the American people into supporting a war Bush wanted to fight. Was Northern
aggression the cause of the Civil War? Perhaps. Did the argument convince most Southerners to
support the Confederacy? Yes, but perhaps the real cause was the desire of powerful Southerners
to defend their plantations and economic assets, and the Northern aggression-argument was just
a cover that could deceive Southerners to defend the wealth of the powerful.
Like those searching for answers to the question what was the cause of the Civil War?,
imagine that a hundred years from now I was looking through documents to figure out what was
the cause of the Iraq Invasion?. I would find speeches saying that it was, in fact, about stopping
Saddam Hussein from developing weapons of mass destruction, and would hence perhaps feel
that I had enough evidence to write an unbiased and objective book about the causes of the
invasion. But would I be right? Perhaps, perhaps not: depends on who you ask. Some say the
weapons never existed, some say it was about oil, some say it was about stopping injustice, etc.
the answers are as varied as are people. Which answer is the right answer? That again would
depend on who you asked, but what I think we can safely say is that people in the future
shouldnt press down upon people a certain understanding of the Iraq War (or moralize one),
for there is room for debate. Additionally, the cause of the Iraq Invasion doesnt necessarily tell
us if the invasion itself was a good idea, and even if it was by some standard, perhaps the
consequences that resulted negate any good that may have been achieved. If stopping the
development of weapons of mass destruction was a good and noble end, perhaps the arising of
ISIS negates that good and nobility? Perhaps, likewise, the ending of slavery was a good and
noble end, but invading the South and ruining the balance of power between the States and the
Federal Government was an immoral result? Perhaps not. Because innocent lives were lost in
Iraq, the most immoral cause, I think, can have an emotional advantage: the explanation that the
war was about oil. Likewise, Southerners feel prone to think the Civil War was about seizing
Southern economic resources, for they feel like victims of Northern Aggression. This may be
true; this may be false, but either way, my point is that what we define as unjust can heavily
influence how we interpret.
Again, in closing, please note that all this isnt to suggest that the Civil War and Iraq
Invasion are the same or that both are equally unjustified that is a debate that doesnt concern

me again, my concern is about empathy. It isnt my intent to suggest the North shouldnt have
invaded the South or that it was unlawful to do so (that is a different question), nor is it my intent
to suggest the same about America in Iraq (again, that is a different question). My hope is only to
highlight how difficult truth is to determine, that to read history is no easy matter, and that we
need to not think of trying to understand something as extending it forgiveness. Perhaps all
forgiveness entails understanding, but not all understanding entails forgiveness.
Empathy isnt forgiveness. To emphasize with the Confederacy isnt to forgive them. If
we dont learn to empathize, we may find ourselves doing that which we cannot forgive. And
sometimes, the hardest person to forgive can be yourself.
So what was the Civil War about? To Southerners, it was a war against a view of process
with a view of justice; to Southerners, it was a moral effort to stop the immoral invasion of the
North, which the North did in the name of justice. Who was right? Both/neither. Indeed, slavery
is an unjust, immoral horror, and so on that ground, the North acted rightly. But what if the same
holds for abortion? What if abortion too is a grave, unforgivable horror? What if the North
seceded to defend womens rights and the South invades the North to preserve the Union.
Would this act be just and moral? Yes/no. In line with (Im)morality by O.G. Rose, a failure to
grasp that we are all (im)moral has hurt our ability to understand our history, our world, and
If you want to understand anything, let alone history, you must empathize, for empathy
makes possible a dynamic versus linear a critical versus simply thoughtful understanding
(one that is also equipped to avoid Emotional Judgment, warned about in Emotional
Judgment by O.G. Rose). If you cannot empathize, you must think of history in terms of what
was the right course? versus what did people think was the right course (for right or for
wrong)?. We never experience life as the right course versus the wrong course, we always
experience (what we think is) the right course versus (what we think is) the wrong course, and
yet we think of history as if the people at the time thought in terms of the former not the latter.
We consider characters of history linearly in light of what we know now versus dynamically
in light of what they thought at the time and the unknowns present then. A reason for this is
because our brains are terribly bad at thinking in terms of potential (a point from Nassim Talebs
Fooled by Randomness), and also because we cannot help but know the direction history went in
and think in terms of that direction. Its hard enough to empathize and put ourselves in another
persons shoes when we dont know what is going to happen and when we dont know whos
right and whos wrong, let alone when we do know these answers.
One of the great mistakes of understanding history using the Civil War as a case study
is failing to think of its events in terms of Hannah Ardents Eichmann in Jerusalem and
psychology experiments like The Stanford Prison Experiment and the Milgram Experiment.
If you dont know what those are, please go and learn about them before continuing, for it is
outside of my scope to explain them deeply here. To summarize, the experiments show that the
human moral compass shatters before authority, and that institutions have incredible influence on
our behavior, making us capable of grave evil that we, at the time, dont even think of as evil.
Does this make people any less responsible for their evil acts? Depends on who you ask, but I
dont think it changes that the acts are in fact evil. Even if Southerners didnt think of slavery as
evil, that doesnt mean it wasnt evil (or that the Confederate flag doesnt point to slavery), but

it does change how we understand the evil actions of the Southerners, and help us grasp how we
could potentially be participating and perpetuating in a grave evil perhaps like abortion that
we dont think of as a grave evil at all: we might even think of it as a moral and human good.
This isnt to say abortion is a grave evil thats a different question but to say that we may be
no different than the Southerners. Existential uncertainty is unavoidable, though must of life is a
process by which we self-deceive ourselves into thinking otherwise.
In Eichmann in Jerusalem, Hannah Ardent emphasized that Adolph Eichmann wasnt
simply evil, though people wanted to think of him as such. Rather, Eichmann thought of himself
as doing what he what he was supposed to as following orders and to Ardents horror, she
realized that the Nazi State took from Eichmann his moral compass. He was caught between the
ethic of the Nazi State and the ethical, and Ardent realized that anyone could have been in
Eichmanns position and turned out the same. Eichmann wasnt someone who was different
and his evil wasnt a result of this difference; rather, he was horrifyingly normal, and was just
like the rest of us. It was the institution that created Eichmann, and if Eichmann wouldnt have
been there to fill the role, someone else would have just as easily.
Evil is beyond good and evil. It occurs beyond the dichotomy this is what we learn
from Hannah Ardent it occurs either where people cease to think in its terms and rather think in
terms of duty, science, human rights, etc., or where people define themselves out of their
evil (as expanded on in Defining Evidence by O.G. Rose). Evil occurs where evil doesnt
happen, if you will, and like evil, totalitarianism occurs beyond good and evil. And yet
totalitarianism occurs where it is ethical, for it occurs where people escape their immorality via
moral construct/principle and/or redefinition and yet do not escape their morality, leaving them
exposed to their good but free from their bad.
Totalitarianism is ethical.
Totalitarianism occurs ethically.
Evil is ethical.
Evil occurs ethically.
To explain what I mean, if a man enslaves blacks but defines black as not human, the
person has (relative to himself), defined himself out of moral consideration. In the Confederacy,
since blacks werent human, enslaving them wasnt a matter of right or wrong, nor more than
was eating a steak. The important point to grasp out of this is that, via redefinition, the
Southerner turns slavery into a matter that isnt even of moral consideration: the evil occurs
beyond good and evil. The Southerner (perhaps like the Nazi) very well may ponder when it is
ethical to kill or steal for morality applies to these situations since they involve human life and
property but when it comes to slavery, there is nothing to ponder: he becomes not stupid, but
thoughtless, as was Adolph Eichmann according to Ardent. Perhaps the Southerner will
consider how cruel to be since blacks feel pain he may consider the same in regard to animals
but he really wont think about slavery in terms of ethics. And seeing as the Southerner considers
questions of ethics like murder and theft, he has reason to believe (and evidence) that he is in fact
a moral being who does moral things, and because of his redefinition, he has no reason to think
that he isnt such (objectively remember, no one experiences their subjectivity as subjective;
we all necessarily experience our subjectivity as objective (especially/even when it isnt)).
Relative to the Southerners scope, he is in fact a moral being, and so when Northerners threaten
to invade the South in the name of preserving the Union and ending an injustice, relative to the
Southerner, he is a moral being who is being accused of injustice and invaded, both of which,
relative to his scope, give himself reason to fight the Union, all while thinking of himself on the

right side of history, justice, and goodness. Is he right? No slavery is an abomination, for it
violates liberty with force and denies humanness to one with human DNA but we must not let
that truth keep us from understanding how the Southerner thought of himself and motivated
himself. Otherwise, we may end up just like him.
Relative to the Southerners scope, he is in fact a moral being, but relative to our scope,
he is in fact a monster. To us today, looking upon the very thing Confederates looked upon, we
cannot fathom how they could have possibly been so inactive and accepting. Considering that
when we see slavery, we feel revulsion, we assume they felt the same thing. Since they did
nothing, we hence assume they either froze their hearts or ignored their moral impulses, both of
which make them evil both of which makes them deserving of the harshest of judgments. But
what we feel, we must not be so quick to assume others felt, and must realize that we ourselves
may be in the midst of that which the future will judge as a moral atrocity, and yet we neither
know it nor feel it. Does that make us any less guilty? Yes/no. My point here is only that the
obviousness of the evil of Southerners is sickening, but we fail to understand the power of scope
and redefinition. The (emotional) experience of an injustice is very different when you dont
define the injustice as unjust. If it turns out that, in the end, abortion actually is racist and murder,
that doesnt change the fact that today, we dont feel such moral certainty toward it. Those in the
future may believe that they would have been different from us, but they will fail to understand
the power of scope. If abortion is in fact racist and murder, the logic outlined for Southerners
also applies to us: to those who consider abortion acceptable today, abortion isnt even a matter
of moral consideration because fetuses arent human. But if they dont learn empathy (as I fear
we have failed to do), that wont stop history students a hundred years from now seeing us as
obviously evil. To them, looking upon the very thing we looked upon, they will be unable to
fathom how we could have possibly been so accepting and accepting. Since we did nothing, they
hence will assume we either froze our hearts or ignored our moral impulses, both of which make
us evil both of which make us deserving of the harshest of judgments. The obviousness of our
evil will be sickening to them, but they will have failed to realize that our evil wasnt obvious to
us at all. After all, life doesnt begin at conception, does it?
We are a society full of good people, charity, and progressive efforts to make the world a
better place, but a society full of such will seem increasingly good, and yet that appearance of
good will perhaps blind it from its erosion of true goodness, which it might be losing because it
has redefined itself out being guilty of moral crimes it is in fact guilty of perpetuating. Perhaps
so; perhaps not. Either way, the point stands that the more moral a society is, the more it will
have evidence that it is in fact objectively good, and yet that very society could be guilty of a
grave evil that it hides from itself via redefinition. Considering this, perhaps the very blindness
of the Confederacy from its great evil is evidence of its great morality. Perhaps not; regardless, I
fear that our failure to have empathy has resulted in us missing this truth about Confederates,
making us more likely to be no better than them, and also resulted in us failing to understand
how they could fight for States rights in order to secure the right of slaves and not think of
themselves as moral monsters, as they so obviously are to us today. Failure to
understand/empathize with those in the Civil War has also contributed to our bias against process
in favor of morality, which is precisely what process exists to check and balance, and yet
precisely the grounds on which we feel justified to skip process (as warned about in The Death
of Process by O.G. Rose). This point will be expanded on later.
The power of institutions cannot be overstressed. Do humans have choice? Yes, but
institutions highly influence and shape the framework in which our choices are exercised. In

many ways, we are like cows within fences; we are free, and yet we are stuck. Institutions
incubated acceptance of slavery in the South they made it legal and failed to enforce laws to
protect slaves as institutions perhaps incubate our acceptance of racist abortion today.
Institution make us think of that which the institution protects not necessarily as right, but
maybe right, and thats enough to motivate us to go along with it. Institutions add a question
mark, and based on what they accept and reject, our feelings, thinking, certainty, willingness to
empathize, etc., are deeply influenced, whether we realize it or not. This isnt just in regard to
something horrible such as the Holocaust, though such atrocities are in regard to what the
influence of institutions is clearest, as we notice a broken doorknob more readily than one that
works (to borrow a point from Heidegger); otherwise, the influence is very difficult to
distinguish from what we are choosing to do and/or what is right to do, like two rivers that are
merged). Institutions also influence such in regard to what we think is moral, practical, personal,
etc. If our society didnt make theft against the law, would we think of it as immoral? Perhaps we
would, but perhaps we wouldnt have the certainty that we do when it is codified into law (when
immoral and illegal merge like two rivers that become one, though that can unfortunately
make us forget there is a difference). We are always influenced by institutions, but that alone
isnt a problem. Ignorance is the issue.
Again, institutions add a question mark, and since we dont feel certain about the moral
nature of what institutions add uncertainty about, we go along with them, for they have the
authority and expertise, and come across to us as more certain than we are (and seeing as we
would have to oppose law and force to go against them, this impression of their certainty is only
intensified). Perhaps there are lots of letters of Southerners writing about how they disliked
slavery evidence that they did have a moral compass as many during the Milligram
Experiment look nervous as the fake doctor tells them to press the electric shock button again,
the voltage being given most certainly fatal. Undoubtedly, Nazis hesitated before murdering and
torturing Jews. Unfortunately, institutions create existential uncertainty they throw a monkey
wrench into the moral compass and because of that, people hesitate to judge immoralities as
immoral, and thats all it takes for grave immorality to occur. But perhaps that hesitation isnt
always a bad thing: perhaps it slows people down who would call abortion discrimination, when
perhaps it really isnt. Perhaps the hesitation the State causes in those who are against abortion
to do something about it is good, for those people would do that which impeded womens rights,
as those who acted in the past may have acted, without State involved, against property rights.
Do you see?
Truth is never as simple as we want it to be, yet to understand history, we often make it
simple. Its no different than what we do to the present.
We are creatures ill-equipped for abstract and probabilistic thinking, but this is the kind
of thinking we require to understand ourselves.
To what degree are Southerners morally responsible for their actions? Even if perhaps
Eichmann was thoughtless and didnt think of massacring Jews as a matter of right and wrong
(for the evil was beyond good and evil), he was still executed. And he should have been: just
because you dont think of your actions as murder doesnt mean your actions arent murder.
Eichmanns thoughtlessness did not make him any less guilty, as the thoughtlessness of
Southerners didnt make them saints. If we choose to remove Confederate flags, portraits, etc.

from our society, that is a decision for which there is justification, as Germany was justified to
make Nazi flags and the name Adolph illegal after WWII. But that said, what we arent
justified to do is fail to understand the Confederacy (or Nazism for that matter) as they
understood themselves, not because we seek to extend them forgiveness, but because we seek to
understand them so that we wont, like them, thoughtlessly commit the unforgivable. And
when it comes to understanding the people of history empathetically, we mustnt learn to just
think like them, but to also feel and decide like them, and to also understand that the thinking of
Southerners under the Confederacy and Germans under Nazism to use some examples was
incubated by the institutions they were situated in, and that frighteningly, had we been in their
situation, we probably wouldnt have fared much better (if we go by the results of the Stanford
and Milgram experiments). I fear though in our age lacking emotional intelligence (lamented by
Daniel Goleman), probabilistic reasoning (lamented by Nassim Taleb), and understanding about
the power of institutions (admonished by Hannah Ardent, Stanley Milgram, and Philip
Zimbardo), we are equipped to only understand history enough to recognize it repeating.
Is it fair to equate the Confederacy to Nazism? In todays debate about whether the
Confederate flag should be removed, that comparison is often made. Indeed, Confederates are
guilty of a moral atrocity, as is every civilization that has had and defended slavery, but is what
the Confederacy did equally as evil as what the Nazis are guilty? As argued in (Im)morality by
O.G. Rose, there is always a problem with these kinds of questions: the answer depends on who
you ask and by what scope. Everyone is (im)moral, but at the same time, we all recognize some
evils are worse than others. Murder is worse than theft, rape worse than molestation. Does this
make theft and molestation not immoral? Not at all, and those who are victims of molestation
most certainly and justly feel violated. In a way, to even ask which is worse? and/or who is the
greater victim? is to ask a question that is offensive and bound to scratch wounds. What good
can come from venturing out into these waters? Very little: theres little to gain and much to lose.
Who is victim of the greater injustice? Victims of slavery or victims of the Holocaust?
This is not a question I care to explore, and even if I did, there is no way to determine which side
of the argument is right: the one who claims slavery is worse than the Holocaust or equal with it
claims that which cannot be falsified (and so the claim cannot be true in any meaningful sense, as
Karl Popper wrote on, though that doesnt mean what is said isnt true a Gdel-esq paradox).
Likewise, if someone said that Nazi Germany and the Confederacy are equally immoral, how
could we dispute this claim? Its a subjective moral judgment, as would be claiming that Nazi
Germany was worse than the Confederacy or that victims of the Holocaust were worse off than
victims of the Confederacy. Such claims cannot be falsified, and so it seems to me that exploring
such claims can only risk upsetting people (which Ive risked doing just by mentioning the
claims), and that end of the day, all moral theories eternally regress (as explored in
(Im)morality by O.G. Rose). Injustice is injustice.
That said, we must realize that when a person compares the Confederacy with Nazi
Germany, the person is suggesting, whether the person means to or not, that slavery and the
Holocaust are equally evil. In the comparison, there is a judgment or at least thats what people
can hear. Is it true? Yes/no a comparison isnt necessarily an equalization, thought it might be
but its important to recognize that many people living in the South feel that this is what is
implied when the comparison is made throughout the media. And modern Southerners can be
very offended and put on guard by this comparison, seeing as they understand the Civil War as
mostly about States rights (though at best it is equally about slavery). But just because
Southerners feel offended doesnt mean they are right or that the country should enact policy to

avoid offending them, nor does it mean the comparison between Nazism and the Confederacy is
wrong (thats a different question). My point here is that Southerners feel a moral judgment is
pushed down upon them, a moral judgment they dont agree with (though that doesnt mean it
isnt accurate); additionally, in a free society, Southerners dont feel they shouldnt have to be
pressed down upon. Do Southerners have any grounds by which to think the comparison
between the Holocaust and slavery is inaccurate? Perhaps, but even if they do, that doesnt mean
the Confederate flag shouldnt be removed from the public square. Even if it is the case that
Southerners have a reasonable case for why they are different from Nazis a moral judgment
which, even if reasonable, at the end of the day, eternally regresses, as would the case of those
who claimed the compassion between Confederates and Nazis was justified it does not
necessarily follow that the legacy of the Confederacy shouldnt be removed from American
society. That is a different question.
No German can deny that Nazi Germany invaded Europe and committed the Holocaust.
Yes, perhaps Germany was pressured to do so because of the economic situation that followed
WWI, but though that was perhaps a cause, that was no justification (though at the time perhaps
Germany thought it was a justification). There is no debate that the Nazis started conflict in
Europe and committed the Holocaust, and so there is no debate that Nazis are guilty of both
aggression and the Holocaust. Confederates though, arent guilty of invading the North; they are
guilty of defending States rights to have and secede over slavery. Also note that the Holocaust
was not a global phenomenon that occurred in human civilizations since the beginning of time,
while slavery was global, ancient, and unfortunately considered acceptable by the majority
and/or governing powers (as abortion exists amongst us today and it is acceptable, even though
one day it might be outlawed as racism under the 14th Amendment though perhaps not).
Considering this, Nazi Germany is guilty of aggression and a more unique and modern evil,
while the Confederacy is guilty of defending itself and its ancient evil which ten-to-twenty
percent of its people used for their own private gains. Based on this, I think it is fair for
Southerners to think it is inaccurate to imply the Confederacy and Nazi Germany equal, though
that still doesnt mean the Confederate flag shouldnt be removed from society.
If the economic condition of Germany after WWI is what pushed to instigate conflict in
Europe under Hitler, then in regard to the Nazis, the cause and justification for their actions are
one and the same, but in regard to the Confederacy, the cause and justification may not be one
and the same. Southerners feel that slavery wasnt actually the cause of the Civil War it was
caused by Northern invasion, and hence Southerners were justified to fight. But if Southerners
are wrong and the cause of the Civil War was slavery, it could still hold that they were justified
to fight because they were invaded (especially if their understanding of the Constitution is the
right one, though perhaps it isnt). Of course, that depends on who you ask, and what exactly is
the case isnt my interest: my point is only that there is room by which to see the cause and
justification for the Confederacy as different (at least in the minds of modern Southerners and
Confederate soldiers), while that line isnt nearly as easy to draw for Nazi Germany. Had
Southerners invaded the North to expand slavery, slavery would obviously be both the cause and
supposed justification of Confederate action, and in this hypothetical circumstance, the
Confederacy would be completely in the wrong, and the debate about the Confederate flag would
probably never have even started: the flag would already be gone. But that isnt what happened,
and in a sense, it would be better if that would have happened, for then there would be no debate:
we wouldnt be left with an existential tension.

There is no Donald Livingston, Abbeville Institute, or Shelby Foote for the Nazi Party I
know of, and if there is, those scholars have no true public sway. But as with the Iraq Invasion,
various views on the Confederacy and its justification do have traction (though that doesnt mean
the views are correct), precisely because there are question marks, unlike with Nazi Germany.
Germans today cant deny the Holocaust was a moral abomination arguably the very symbol of
evil in the modern consciousness and so face their history and remove all flags, portraits, etc.
that they can. There is no question mark, but there is a question mark in the minds of Southerners
(for right or for wrong), and so there is a hesitation to Southerners on what they should do about
their flags (similar to the hesitation institutions add to our lives, as described earlier), and seeing
as removing their flags would be an act which functioned as evidence confirming a certain
reading of history that they may not entirely agree with, removing the flags isnt a simple matter
to them: it puts them at odds with themselves.
Had there been a torturous massacre of six-million blacks in Georgia, there would be no
debate on whether or not the Confederate flag should be removed. Had there been no economic
grounds for slavery had it been done for its own sake and had there been tractors and other
technologies that lessen the need for manual labor, again, there would be no debate about what
should be done with portraits of Robert E. Lee. But there is a debate, because the Holocaust and
slavery arent the same. Are they both immoral? Absolutely, but the very fact there is a debate
about the Confederate flag in of itself is evidence that Nazi Germany and the Confederate South
are not equivalent. Hence, Southerners arent entirely unjustified to be against attacking the
Confederate flag, while Germans would be unjustified to be against those who said the Nazi flag
is a moral abomination. Does that mean the Confederate flag shouldnt be removed? Not at all
that is a different question nor does it mean that Confederate flag isnt a symbol of slavery. To
some degree, it necessarily is, but is it 100% such a symbol or is it only 60% and 40% a symbol
of fighting against Northern Aggression? Perhaps its 90% symbolic of slavery and 10% of
States rights? Who can say? But seeing as slavery is a moral abomination, if the flag symbolizes
it even 1%, that alone would be grounds to remove it, yes? Depends on who you ask, but this
final point seems strong enough to me, though that does potentially open a door about removing
the American flag itself, seeing as it represents, at least to a degree of 1%, the forcing of the
Japanese into internment camps during WWII, a clear and horrid abomination. Perhaps that isnt
the same, but that depends on who you ask, and so there must be a debate. That debate is what
democracy is all about, and any act that threatens democracy threatens not only the debate, but
the ability of people to accept the outcome of the debate without severe cognitive dissonance
and/or existential tension (a point that will be expanded on later on).
To allude to the thought of Hannah Ardent, perhaps had Eichmann thoughtfully
massacred Jews, he would have been more evil than he was for thoughtlessly doing so , but
thats a moral judgment, the answer of which is relative, and regardless, he was deserving of
death. Having the debate risks nothing but infuriating we should run a cost/benefit analysis
before entertaining a question or making a statement, though sometimes taking risk cant be
helped. Likewise, perhaps the Confederacy thoughtlessly fought to defend States right to
secede over slavery, but that doesnt mean Confederate flags shouldnt be removed. Many will
feel the flag should be removed, while others will disagree, but at the very least, we can all agree
that not everyone will share the same view. Today, America has to convince people to get rid of
the Confederate flag, and that alone is a point we should take into consideration. The German
State didnt really have to convince its people to remove Nazism from its ranks: Nazi aggression,
discrimination, and the Holocaust left no room for debate. This truth alone makes the

Confederacy different from Nazi Germany, though again, that doesnt mean the Confederate flag
shouldnt be removed.
If there had been no Holocaust, would Nazi flags, the name Adolph, and portraits of
Hitler be banned across Germany? Perhaps so, but perhaps people would defend the Nazi party
since it had no choice but to invade Europe due to the economic situation Europe forced
Germany into after the WWI. Perhaps had there been no Holocaust, WWII might be thought of
as the War of European Aggression. Perhaps not: history does not offer us a glimpse into all the
tales it could have weaves. Perhaps pictures of Hitler wound hang on display throughout
Germany, like pictures of General Lee are displayed throughout America, and perhaps though
many wouldnt like the pictures, they wouldnt be banned. Perhaps not we cannot speak
definitely of what could be, even though what could be is the light in which we must
understand what is (and so we grope) but grasping the point will be very difficult, and my
mere suggestion of the possibility of a world in which Hitler portraits were not banned will
probably infuriate some readers (especially those who were victims of the Holocaust). But make
no mistake: Im not saying the portraits shouldnt be banned no more than Im saying the
Confederate flag shouldnt be taken down from public spaces. Im only speaking in terms of
possibilities so that we can make a better judgment about how truly similar the Confederacy is
with the Nazi party.
Still, I fear many will be furious at this paper and that my words could easily be taken out
of context in such a way that I would be banned from public discourse. But the risk is necessary,
for we must recognize that our fury and rage is a consequence of our location in history and
relative to the potential course of history that we realize into being, actualization, and/or reality:
had a different, historically course been realized, our emotions would be different. How we feel
our fury and rage is just, for the Holocaust did happen and Hitler was a monster, and so it is
understandable that we would feel so strongly against the mere suggestion of a world in which
Nazism and Hitler were not readily associated with the demonic. But if we are to understand how
Hitler came to power, how to read history, and how to think like those in the past did so we can
think about how to live today, we mustnt let this fury and rage control and blind us. Though we
are morally justified to feel fury and rage toward evil and injustice, we must recognize that moral
feelings can impede our ability to understand history and how to avoid repeating it. We think of
history far too linearly; I fear we have no probability theory of history. Admittedly, such a theory
is paradoxical, for history is exactly that which isnt probable at all: it is what happened. But to
learn from history, we must think of it in terms of probability, which is to think of it in terms of
empathy and in terms of the people in history at the time when they were weighing options and
making the decisions they made. Empathy without probability isnt empathic: perhaps we think
like others, but we dont make decisions like others (and history is a story of decisions).
All this brings me to a point I think we need to understand about todays debate over the
Confederate flag.
A reason Southerners may hesitate to remove the Confederate flag from public spaces
(especially when so demanded on a national stage) is because they feel as if they cant take down
the flag without confirming those who claim the Confederacy is as evil as Nazi Germany (and
other such groups), when Southerners have fair reason to think they arent like the Nazis. If not
that, Southerners feel as if taking down the flag will confirm those who argue that the ancestors
of Southerners were all racists, and though there might be truth to this (in the same way as there
might be truth to the claim that those who support abortion are racists toward the unborn),
Southerners are uncomfortable with legitimizing the kind of moral outrage people feel toward

the South, an outrage that is relative to our situation and position in history (as the outrage of
those toward us a hundred years from now after abortion was outlawed would perhaps be just,
and yet un-empathetic). To take down the flag would perhaps confirm those who think of the
Southerners as fighting to defend an obvious evil, when the Southerners in their own minds
could have been more so fighting during the Civil War for States rights and a Jeffersonian
Republic, all while their moral compasses were negatively influenced by the institutions they
lived within, causing them to not think of slavery as obviously evil (though we tend today to
think of them as thinking of slavery as such) (similar to how we dont think of abortion as
obviously evil). Southerners today feel they have been backed into a corner where they cant
remove the Confederate flag without confirming a certain interpretation of history. They feel like
the government is forcing them to put themselves as odds with their historic consciousnesses, as
the religious today feel as if government is forcing them to put themselves as odds with their
religious consciousnesses over LGBT marriage. If Southerners didnt feel this way (and if the
society was better at empathy), removing the flag would be easier, but I fear it isnt so simple for
them, and the feeling is only intensified by social media.
To Southerners, to act in a way that seemed to confirm an understanding of history that
Southerners feel is incomplete would be an injustice. If the debate was simply about removing
that which bothered others, perhaps this would be a simple matter, but the debate is also about
confirming a certain understanding of what the South did during the Civil War, while also
legitimizing the emotion felt over that understanding. I doubt that many Southerners dont think
that slavery was a grave injustice, nor do I think acknowledging that slavery was the cause of
the Civil War is a problem in of itself. What Southerners disagree with is the equating of
Confederates to Nazis, the forsaking of the Jeffersonian vision of the United States held by the
Confederates in which the States were sovereign over the Central Government, overlooking
Lincolns invasion of the South (similar to the injustice of overlooking Bushs invading of
Iraq), and the failure to realize that slavery was viewed at the time with the moral uncertainty
that we view abortion today. And admittedly, though I think the Confederate flag should be
removed from all public spaces, I feel Southerners are fair in this disagreement.
With all this in mind, we approach the last leg of this paper. The case of the Confederate
flag is simply a symptom of a large, macro-problem formulating in America today: the use of
force and/or Central power to change the hearts and minds of the people supposedly justified
by an appeal of justice versus changing the hearts and minds of the people through time,
argumentation, and Federalism as necessary for avoiding existential tension and its dire
consequences (as expanded on in Equality and Its Immoral Limits by O.G. Rose). Southerners
today feel they are being forced to accept certain ideas and understandings about history versus
be persuaded and/or taught. Liberals may think the history of the Civil War is obvious and
clear and so the failure of Southerners to grasp it is due to their biased unwillingness to accept
that slavery caused the Civil War. But as I hope this paper has made clear, Southerners are not
wrong to think the Civil War leaves room for multiple interpretations, and indeed, it does seem
to me as if those with more Northern and Liberal sentiments take the Civil War much less
empathetically seriously than do Southerners (and those who fail to empathize are also those who
fail to critically think, as argued in On Critical Thinking by O.G. Rose).
Considering all this, it is regrettable that Southerners are made to feel as if they are being
forced to choose between public life and their understanding of the world and history, as it is
similarly regrettable that the religious are feeling increasingly like they are being forced to
choose between their public life and their religious conscious and/or cosmological framework.

Neither group is being persuaded; in fact, it seems that some have decided they cant be
persuaded and worked to go around them, which doesnt bode well for democracy. Appeals to
power centers like the government, courts, and/or State are ever on the rise, all while it is
increasingly believed that only those who were against ending injustice would appeal to
democratic process, argumentation, and Federalism (as warned about in The Death of Process
by O.G. Rose). The existential tension that State action causes makes State action extremely
costly. If the point of the State action is to create tolerance and acceptance, it in that very act
creates the existential tension that makes that acceptance impossible and indefinable from
alienation. A society in which alienation and acceptance are two-sides of the same coin is a
society that is also indivisible from the State, and when that happens, we the people is
indefinable from we the State.
The Civil War didnt end; it changed. Its spirit still haunts us. Like back then, modern
America is the battleground of a war between a vision of process and a vision of justice. Todays
Supreme Court decision Obergefell v. Hodges Decision marks the end of another battle.
Whether or not LGBT marriage should be recognized by all fifty states is not a question that I am
interested in here; rather, my interest lies in focusing on the war between process and justice,
how our understanding of the Civil War influences our understanding of the dissents of the
decision and further primes us to oppose any Federalist process or free exchange for that matter
(processes I fear we need to avoid existential tension and its consequences, as argued in
Equality and Its Immoral Limits by O.G. Rose), and to highlight my concern about the
growing number of Americans who increasingly feel like they are being forced by the Central
Government to choose between public life and their understanding of the world.
Additionally, an increasingly number of Americans feel that in order to engage in public
life, they have to act in such a way that seems to legitimize and/or confirm a certain
understanding of history that they believe is incomplete. Christians, for example, feel as if the
Supreme Court decision legitimizes those who frame Christians as bigots and guilty of
discrimination; had the decision been left up the States, though some may still feel many
Christians are so guilty, it wouldnt be the case that the Constitution itself was used to frame
Christians as bigots. In having the decision fall under the 14th Amendment, those in favor of
Traditional marriage are guilty of discrimination they are similar to the Southerners who
supported slavery when Traditionalists feel they arent guilty of discrimination, but rather did
nothing more than defend a definition; at worse (they are guilty of passively offending those who
didnt agree with their definition). Hence, to Traditionalists, to act in a way that implied that they
accepted their judgment would be to frame themselves as bigots when they arent bigots it
would be to act in a way that implied a falsity was a truth. And yet Traditionalists, like
Southerners, increasingly feel as if they are forced by law and power to act in a way that
legitimizes and confirms a certain reading and understanding of their actions and history, while
also legitimizing the emotions against them felt over that understanding of their actions. This
creates an existential tension within the Traditionalist who must decide between the public
sphere and what he or she believes a tension that I fear only increases the likelihood for
conflict between Traditionalists and LGBTs.
As discussed in Rewarding Discrimination by O.G. Rose, right or wrong,
Traditionalists feel as if they have fair arguments for why they oppose LGBT marriage

consider for example the non-religious book What is Marriage? by Sherif Girgis, Ryan T
Anderson, and Robert P George. To Traditionalists, discrimination has nothing to do with the
matter, because to them, LGBTs arent denied marriage equality: all have equal access to
marriage, and there is no heterosexuals only-sign hanging over the door of the institution. For
example, a gay man could marry a lesbian woman, and so enter into marriage, receiving all the
benefits and rights that accompany it. To Traditionalists, LGBTs have always had access to
marriage, just not on their terms of sexuality. Hence, to Traditionalists, the debate has never been
one about discrimination, but about redefinition the replacement of marriage by something
else that is referred to by the same word and as such, the Supreme Court shouldnt force
recognition of LGBT marriage across the country under the protection of the 14th Amendment.
Rather, the decision must be left up to the States, and if in the end, the States all decide to
redefine marriage, the Traditionalists will simply have to accept that reality. But in our age with
a particular, un-empathetic vision of the Civil War and our thinking of States rights in terms of
slavery and our un-empathetic moral outrage, we cannot hear such a Federalist view without
quickly associating it with grave evil (perhaps even Nazism). I think our un-empathetic
understanding of the Civil War helps us justify in our minds the bypassing of the States, priming
us to skip process in the name of justice, even when the consequences of doing so can be the
creation and spreading of an existential tension that makes living together in our Pluralistic Age
increasingly impossible; at best, we can only hope to survive together.
The Supreme Court acting in favor of LGBT marriage through the 14th Amendment
depicts and codifies Traditionalists as bigoted and violators of human rights, an identity I fear
that the law now presses down upon Traditionalists, whose arguments, though perhaps wrong,
are not unreasonable (especially, in my opinion, if they are in favor of expanding all
socioeconomic rights and benefits to LGBTs, sisters, etc.). This causes existential tension and
anxiety for Traditionalists, though perhaps they deserve it after all the pain their views have
caused LGBTs? That is a subjective judgment, but I do think its clear that where such existential
tension exists, it will be hard for people to live together, especially in our Pluralistic Age. And
yes, perhaps all the Traditionalist arguments about marriage and process are wrong, and perhaps
these arguments are only made by bigots trying to hide the fact that they are bigots or who are
trying to hide from themselves that they are bigots. But keep in mind that ones bigotry doesnt
make what one says any more or less true a bigot who says 2 + 2 = 4 says something true.
Had LGBT marriage been expanded through the States in line with the Federalist vision,
Traditionalists wouldnt necessarily have to be framed as bigots; furthermore, similar to the
situation faced by Southerners when it comes to removing the Confederate flag, any
Traditionalist action that accepted LGBT marriage wouldnt necessarily legitimize or imply the
validity of the reading of history that considers them guilty of discrimination. For it is very
different when a State begins LGBT marriage by changing its law, versus saying LGBT marriage
should have always been available, but it wasnt due to unrecognized violations of the 14th
Amendment. The first, Federalist way says Traditionalists werent always in the wrong, though
now the democratic debate is over, while the change through the Supreme Court decision
proclaims Traditionalists were always in the wrong, and now the law will acknowledge that
reality and history of discrimination. The existential consequences of the second are much more
severe than the consequences of the first, Federalist way.
Perhaps Traditionalists deserve to be Constitutionally framed as bigots, but perhaps not. I
dont mean to suggest that the 14th Amendment should never be used, nor do I mean to suggest
that LGBT marriage shouldnt be recognized by all fifty states. Those are different questions.

Personally, I am in favor of rewriting the marital benefits and recognitions so that all calibrations
of living combinations may have access to those benefits and recognitions, for even after todays
Supreme Court decision, sister who live together non-sexually still dont have access to the
socioeconomic benefits and rights available to heterosexuals and LGBTs. But that said, I am
much more in favor of Jeffersons vision the Republican than the Lincolns vision of the Union: I
believe sovereignty should come from the States to the Federal Government, not sovereignty
come from the Federal Government to the States. Otherwise, I fear the Central Government is far
too powerful, and secondly, I think the existential consequences of Central Government action is
far costlier than Federalist action.
Had a Federalist model been followed to expand LGBT marriage across the country the
lack of which all four dissenters of the Obergefell v. Hodges decision lamented (and
consequently were lambasted as bigots for doing so) had Traditionalists been persuaded to
change their views or lost through democratic process, that would be one thing, but they were
rather forced (while simultaneously being framed as bigots for defending a view of marriage that
they have arguments for believing in). If a goal of the LGBT movement was acceptance, I fear
that goal has become more difficult to achieve: use of force has existential consequences (as
admonished in Equality and Its Immoral Limits by O.G. Rose). Personally, I am concerned
that the Supreme Court decision will make it more difficult for my LGBT friends to achieve true
acceptance than had the decision been made through the States, but of course, anyone who reads
that sentence will not believe Im genuine. They will assume I am only saying that to hide my
bigotry, Fundamentalist ideology, and/or Conservative leanings people have been so primed in
our Age of Cynicism (warned about by David Foster Wallace and wept over in Scripted and
Collective Consciousness and Trust, both by O.G. Rose). And in this way, I fear our Age of
Cynicism works against the happiness of LGBTs and in favor of an ever increasing Central
Government. But of course, I will only be thought of as lamenting our Age of Cynicism as a way
to hide my bigotry.
Cynicism is life.
It this development makes me worry about the future more than anything.
Cynicism can be a way to protect ones self from anxiety: by deciding everything is evil,
wrong, stupid, etc., nothing can hurt us anymore. Hence, it is not surprising that what Auden
called the Age of Anxiety has been followed by the Age of Cynicism.
Welcome, though I suppose youve been here for awhile.
In our Age of Cynicism, once we decide someone is a bigot, there is nothing they can do
to stop being a bigot in our eyes (which shouldnt surprise us, seeing as the claim you are a
bigot cannot be verified or falsified, since the standard for determining such is relative). Once
we decide Christians hate LGBTs, that Conservatives are close-minded, that Southerners are
racists that conversation stops. No matter how much the dissenters of the Supreme Court
decision claimed they didnt care about if States passed LGBT marriage or not, that what
concerned them what the process by which such was determined, the society treated them as if
they were bigots only appealing to State power in order to stop LGBT marriage. Appeals to
process have been utterly conflated with appeals to a position, the costs of which are dire
(warned about in The Death of Process by O.G. Rose). Furthermore, we come to think it is
even unjust to consider the arguments of the dissenters, seeing as we in our minds conflate

what they are saying with being against LGBT marriage. Our emotions, lack of empathy, and
way of understanding the Civil War make us not only incapable of grasping arguments in favor
of a Federalist process, but make us even moral to not consider them. We question the motives
of those who appeal to process, call what they say into question, but even if they are all bigots,
does that make anything they say more or less true? What is true spoken by a bigot is true when
spoken by a saint. If it is indeed the case that Federalism is the only way by which we can live
together in our Pluralistic Age if it is indeed the only means by which LGBTs can achieve true
acceptance these tendencies of ours will be what preserves injustice in the name of justice. Our
cynicism toward those who support Federalism, which we feel out of our desire for LGBTs to be
accepted and to root out bigots, will function to preserves feelings of rejection and the feeling
that bigotry still lurks all around in secret. If it is the case that LGBTs will never be happy unless
the States accept LGBT marriage one at a time through Federalist process, then it is the case that
after today, LGBTs will never be happy as a result of our efforts to help LGBTs feel genuinely
But of course, Im only saying all this about the dangers of cynicism because Im a bigot.
Eternal regression.
What hope do we have to live together?
To be cynical is to privilege my point of view. I, in the act of being cynical, make it my
eyes that are able to determine which words are empty, which words are meaningful, which
people are genuine, which people are fake, etc. I make myself the one who is capable of reading
human hearts, of knowing if a certain effort is going to work or not, of seeing the hidden
meaning behind words, etc. In the act of being cynical, I have made my judgment of a situation
the judgment; as a judgment, if someone tells me Im a Conservative with LGBT friends, I
decide he is just saying that to hide from me the fact that he is a bigot over what his words
actually say and mean. Following his words literally, my judgment is clearly wrong, but in being
cynical, I add doubt in mind to his words and privilege my interpretation: I put myself in a
position where he has to prove to me his words are genuine, rather than I have to prove that his
words are inauthentic. As described in On Trust by O.G. Rose that when I believe trust has to
be earned, I decide when trust is earned, so when I am cynical, I decide when something is or
isnt genuine; in being cynical, I set myself up to be judge and executioner, and control the
standard by which words are judged. In being cynical, I treat myself as if I am able to see
objectivity past subjectivity, and so act as if I have an ontological-standing outside ofsubjectivity: I great myself a position of ontological privilege. In a sense, to be cynical is to
declare that I have achieved the goal of the Enlightenment and the Cartesians: I have achieved
objectivity outside of the world. In being cynical, I am, in a sense, enlightened, and so it is
others who have to convince me that they are genuine, but seeing as I control the bar that must
be passed for me to believe someone is genuine, I can keep moving the bar, and so make it
impossible for anyone to prove to me that they are genuine, which may ironically prove to me
that I was justified and wise to be cynical.
If someone says to me that they believe the Civil War was about States rights and I
decide they are only saying that because they are a white supremacist or idiot, am I not
privileging my point of view as able to see what is hidden, per se, and passing judgment based
on that privileged position that I granted to myself in being cynical? A judgment, by the way,
that I have no true evidence to believe in, seeing as the person didnt say Im a white
supremacist: Ive decided that the statement is hiding a real motivation, and that the statement
is evidence hence of that real motivation in being that which hides (from my point of view).

The same could happen if someone said to me that Im not against LGBT marriage, but
marriage should be defined by the States I could easily decide the person actually hates
LGBTs and is only appealing to Federalism to hide his or her bigotry (a judgment my
understanding of the Civil War may help legitimize in my mind). In being a cynic, I appoint
myself the judge of human hearts, and what could anyone do to prove my judgments wrong? My
judgment cannot be falsified (which Karl Popper warned us about), or even verified for that
matter, but in being cynical, I feel that my judgment is verified, as I also feel justified to interpret
all actions of the person to prove me wrong as efforts to hide his or her bigotry (which the
person, I could decide, doesnt even realize he or she is guilty of its subconscious). Not only in
being cynical do I place myself in a place of ontological privilege, I also cast judgments that
cannot be falsified, hence preserving and protesting myself from being dethroned, per se. When
everyone sits upon a throne without possibility of removal, thrones become chairs.
Perhaps it is not surprising that the Enlightenment lead to cynicism, for cynicism gives us
a feeling of enlightenment and standing out from/of the world in a world where no such
standing out from/of is possible. Ontological privilege being unachievable, we settle with
feeling ontologically privileged, especially if susceptible to Emotional Judgment (as written
about by O.G. Rose). Cynicism has had a profound and devastating effect on modern alive, and I
dont believe it is possible for us to survive Pluralism if cynicism is our zeitgeist: where there is
cynicism, the Habermasian project must fail. Rather, we must be empathetic and assume the
best, as argued in Assuming the Best by O.G. Rose. And as we must not be cynic toward one
another lest we be locked within ourselves from one another (like idiots, as understood in
Greek), so we must not be cynical when we look back upon history or read (lest we be idiots).
No cynic should do history. If we do not assume the best when we read history, we
wont learn history, let alone anything about people. Cynical, we flatten the dynamic characters
of history into who they never were, reduce what people experienced as choices into fates, and
sow shut their eyes and see the world for them not in terms of their minds, but in terms of ours.
We make ourselves who the people of history should have thought like, in the same way that
when we are cynical to one another as people, we make ourselves the model all should live to
emulate. And yet often our cynicism emerges toward those who we believe are bigoted,
intolerant, against diversity, etc.: we are often cynical toward those who we believe want
everyone to be like them.
Cynicism is no stranger to irony and hypocrisy.
A cynical hermeneutics is a selfish hermeneutics: it tells us more about the reader than it
does the text. And what can a writer, let alone anyone, do against such cynicism? Though there
are many examples from this work that could be used, take these from the very beginning of the
My own personal thoughts on the flag and Civil War controversy: I believe that had there been no slavery, there would have been
no Civil War, and that all flags except American and State flags should be removed from public spaces. This is my position, so
now you know that by no means in this work am I trying to defend certain Confederate-leaning views about the flag and Civil
War. What I am trying to do, however, is understand Confederate thinking, which again, is not the same as forgiving
Confederates, no more than understanding Nazism is forgiving it. This paper is no justification for the Confederacy, but an act of
empathizing with the Confederacy; this is no work of sympathy, but a work that attempts to step into their shoes so that we can
understand how they thought, felt, and made decisions, so that we can live together as a diverse people and not repeat their
mistakes. My hope in this work is to help us learn empathy (not sympathy), because without that, we cannot think critically,
which in our Pluralistic Age, we require more than ever.

Easily, someone could claim I only wrote by no mean in this work am I trying to defend
certain Confederate-leaving views in order to hide my Confederate sympathies, perhaps

sympathies that I dont even know I have because theyre so deeply rooted in my subconscious.
And surely I must have some sympathies I do live in the South for otherwise I wouldnt feel
any motivation to write this paper; hence, the act of writing on the Confederacy is evidence that I
am biased in favor of the Confederacy (never mind that a biased person who says 2 + 2 = 4 still
says something that is true). And surely I only wrote the line I believeall flags except
American and State flags should be removed from public spaces to make Liberals feel as if they
could listen to me surely Im not genuine. And surely Im implying that someone who doesnt
sympathize with the Confederacy doesnt critically think: the last two sentences of the paragraph
make that clear enough. And to all these objections, what could I possibly say? By all means, if
you think Im wrong, feel to say so and make your case, but if we begin playing the game of
questioning motives, no one will win. Before cynicism, a response of silence is the same as a
response with words.
Ive written very clearly by no means in this work am I trying to defend certain
Confederate-leaning views about the flag and Civil War what else could I say? Words must
be used, and what is under the words can always be questioned. If we dont assume the best,
we will be forever stuck in that endless game from which no one wins. If we dont take words for
meaning what they mean whether they be from the mouth of Hitler, Justice Scalia, Mother
Teresa, or Dan Savage words will become meaningless, and in a world where words are
meaningless, we cannot live together, only fight. Easily, I could be attacked for The Second
Civil War hypothetical used in this paper, and easily someone could accuse me of offensively
comparing abortion and slavery. Nowhere in this paper did I say these two are the same the
point of the example was only to help us think of slavery as a morally uncertain issue, as
abortion is to us today and as slavery was to those in the past (rightly or wrongly). But against a
cynical hermeneutics, I would be helpless, for it is impossible for a person to ever prove his or
her motivations, especially to those who are cynical. David Foster Wallace notes in his essay
Up, Simba about Senator McCain during his 2000 President Campaign that the real McCain
is trapped within a dark and box-sized cell, and that this box that makes McCain real is, by
definition, locked. Impenetrable. Nobody gets in or out.14 I think the same logic goes for the
writer (and everyone for that matter in our modern age, as argued in Collective Consciousness
and Trust by O.G. Rose). Like Wallace noted about McCain, in the end, whether [Im] truly
for real now depends less on what is in [my] heart than on what might be in yours.15 But of
course, Im just using the works of Wallace to hide from you and myself my Confederate-biases.
If we dont assume the best, we will eternally regress.
Try to stay awake.16
To turn to an example from the Civil War, if when I read about Robert E. Lee and learn
that he never owned a slave, I think he still supported history, I cynically read over the facts
that which keeps me from actually trying to think like him so that I can avoid making the same
mistakes he made (and what facts couldnt I read over cynically, justly or unjustly?). In fact,
morally outraged by slavery, I may even consider wrong and immoral to try to empathize
with Robert E. Lee and to be uncritical of anything I read about him that suggests he wasnt the
evil villain I already believe him to be. What gives me a far more interesting view of Robert E.
Lee is to take seriously those who spoke so highly about him to assume the best and yet to
recognize that he still ended up commanding the Confederate army, which did, whether
indirectly or directly, defend slavery. To put it another way, synthesizing the biographical work
of Gary Gallagher and Douglas Freeman on Robert E. Lee is more beneficial than taking one
side or the other: considering the possibilities of both accounts will help teach one to critically

think far more than one side or another (to think as if one is true, then as if the other true, then
as if both are true, and then as if neither are true). Brushing Lee aside as an evil Southerner
doesnt help us learn how to think like Lee, no more than does never studying the life or Hitler or
never taking seriously the adoration Germans once felt toward him. Rather, my brushing aside
Lee says less about him than does speak of my disgust with (my idea of) him, rather justified or
not. Trying to understand Lee is not the same as forgiving him, but it seems to me that it is
difficult for the cynic to not conflate understanding with forgiveness. Ironically, failing to try
to think like Lee and to take seriously how good people can end up defending horrible
institutions will make us less equipped to avoid becoming like, or supporting, a modern Lee.
Do not misunderstand me: my intent is not to defend Lee that is beyond the scope of
this work. Following my logic, as we should assume the best about those who speak positively
about him, so we should also assume the best about those who speak negatively. By assuming
the best of all sides, we force ourselves into creating an internal tension that will force us to dive
deeper and deeper until we resolve the tension (the best we can). My main intent is to create this
tension in both Southerners who brush critical works of Lee aside as Revisionist nonsense and
Northerners who scoff at all Lost Cause propaganda, so that both may learn to think again. We
all require a tension to keep ourselves from settling upon a position that we come to cease
thinking about and accept thoughtlessly (in the Ardent sense), and without some kind of
internal tension, none of us will think as deeply and critically as we should about issues that are
far more complex than we usually let ourselves realize (all of us being primed for ease over
difficulty). By assuming the best about everyone and everything, we force ourselves to be
pushed forward in our thinking, rather than just settling into a routine in which we only listen to
those with who we agree a habit all of us gravitate toward and that teaches us to think of those
we disagree with as lying, perverting the facts, biased, etc.
Yes, for the cynic, there is also a kind of tension formed between what a person says and
the inauthentic motivations the cynic assumes the speaker holds, but rather than drive a person to
be more objective, this tension actually drives a person to be more cynical, because motivations
cannot be verified nor falsified. Hence, if a cynic believes a person is inauthentic, the cynic will
find not definite evidence that such isnt the case, and consequently may come to believe that he
or she is correct in thinking the way the cynic thinks. But we cant verify or falsify that what we
assume the best about someone is true either, can we? No, but by assuming the best, we
create within ourselves a tension that makes us more objective versus more cynical. Furthermore,
we can still come to think critically of someone like Robert E. Lee, but by assuming the best,
we earn that critique from a starting point from which we have to work and question ourselves,
for unlike the cynic, the one who assumes the best doesnt stand over the world, but forces his
or her self through it and all its challenges. To assume the best is to deny oneself ontological
Even in assuming the best, we can still come to think that those who defend Robert E.
Lee are wrong I dont mean to suggest we cant but we must come to that place from a
different starting point than theyre biased, Lost Cause-defenders, in denial, etc. Such a
negative starting points doesnt demand that we check and balance ourselves it doesnt shake
us out from our assumptions, prejudices, or preset notions. However, assuming the best of all
the varying and contradicting positions on a given issue or historic person forces us to unsettle
ourselves, and in a Hegelian sort of fashion, it forces us to think about a situation in which all the
accounts are true and yet somehow fit together. From this vision, we then can work backwards
toward a vision in which none or some of the accounts are true, but we must work to that end

by taking on each account one at a time by its own terms and hermeneutics. Through this
deconstructing and synthesizing process, we come to think critically. Unfortunately, the cynic
avoids creating this intention tension by disqualifying all those whom could create that tension,
and so isnt self-motivated to critically think. Consequently, the cynic learns nothing beyond
what the cynic already thinks.
Cynics shouldnt be historians. For that matter, cynics shouldnt be readers, nor thinkers,
for in thinking and reading, they think and read about only themselves while believing that they
contemplate what lies outside of them solid and timeless. It is easier to think from a
Cartesian-cynicism than it is to think from within the world, and to think empathetically is a
grave challenge, one that none of us perfectly succeeds. Perhaps Lee and Hitler did what they did
because they were nothing more than evil, but we must earn that understanding of them from a
place of assuming the best. In other words, assuming the best must be our launch-pad, as we
are justified to do in accordance with the argument laid out in Assuming the Best by O.G.
Rose. In doing this, we learn, rather than self-confirm.
We cannot have a hermeneutics that allows us to question and/or assume motives,
especially negative ones. We shouldnt assume the people in our present lives that we disagree
with our stupid, uninformed, or evil; likewise, we shouldnt do the same to historical figures.
We can record and see sins, but we cannot record and see hearts.
A cynical hermeneutics a hermeneutics that doesnt assume the best privileges the
reader with the eyes to judge what is genuine from what is inauthentic, what is real evidence
from what is fake evidence, what constitutes a motivation from what the person is lying about,
etc.: to be cynical is to grant oneself a Cartesian standing over-the-world(-of-the-text), versus a
more Heideggerian standing within-the-world(-of-the-text). None of us live standing overthe-world we all live standing within it and so we should read and study history within not
over. Assuming the best is how a person can better avoid self-privileging his or her self and
place in history (and way of thinking, ethics, reasoning, etc.), which is vital for learning history.
Ironically, to self-privilege is to subjectivity-privilege, yet it is done as if one objectively
stands out from and/or back from the world, giving his or her self more objectivity. We often
say that people too close to a situation cant understand it, but I think the opposite might be the
case. Both distance and empathy are needed, and we mustnt be quick to assume those in a
situation lack the objectivity to understand it. No one can escape subjectivity, and those closer
to a situation might be the only eyes we can ultimately rely on, despite all their flaws.
Cynical hermeneutics has hindered us from learning from Hannah Ardent, from learning
how good intention can lead to evil results, from grasping the complexities of history, and so on.
When it comes to the debate about the Confederate flag and the Civil War, Southerners dont
feel as if they can remove the Confederate flag especially now that they are being pressured to
without legitimizing what they feel is a cynical hermeneutics over the Civil War (as well as
the lack of empathy, the confident moral outrage, the sense of certainty about a certain reading of
history, etc. as already discussed). Perhaps Southerners are wrong about the Civil War, but I
think they are fair to feel this way: many people are indeed very cynical about the Confederacy.
But arent Confederates guilty of defending slavery and wasnt slavery the cause of the Civil
War? Very fair objections, but again, I ask you to imagine a world in which abortion was
outlawed on grounds of racism and to imagine that the North seceded to protect the institution
and womens rights. Do we not feel understanding toward the North in that hypothetical
situation? Not forgiveness, but understanding? To be cynical is to not extend understanding, and
so when I say people shouldnt be cynical about the Confederacy, I mean to say that people

should extend them understanding, though not forgiveness. They did fight to defend slavery, and
that shouldnt be forgiven, but just because we dont forgive the Confederacy doesnt mean we
should engage in cynical hermeneutics, which only makes us less equipped to stop history from
As Southerners feel a cynical hermeneutics is being forced down upon them, so
Traditionalists feel the Supreme Court is forcing a cynical hermeneutics down upon them a
reading of Traditionalist thinking as necessarily bigoted and discriminatory, despite fair
objections such as those presented in What Is Marriage? and additionally, both feel forced to
act in such a way that legitimizes cynical hermeneutics. I myself am strongly against all
cynical hermeneutics, because I believe when we come to grow comfortable with this way of
thinking, we cease assuming the best, empathizing, and critically thinking, all of which I
believe are necessary for people to live together in our Pluralist Age (I am Habermasian in my
concerns). Cynical hermeneutics, lack of a historic probability theory, lack of empathy all of
these render us unable to learn from history and ready us only to recognize history when it
repeats. And currently, history is repeating: the Civil War didnt end, only changed.
The substance of todays decree is not of immense personal importance to me. The law can recognize as marriage whatever
sexual attachments and living arrangements it wishes, and can accord them favorable civil consequences, from tax treatment to
rights of inheritance. Those civil consequencesand the public approval that conferring the name of marriage evidencescan
perhaps have adverse social effects, but no more adverse than the effects of many other controversial laws. So it is not of special
importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Todays
decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the
Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in factand the furthest extension one can even imagineof
the Courts claimed power to create liberties that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of
constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty,
robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of
1776: the freedom to govern themselves.

Justice Anthony Scalia wrote the above excerpt in a dissent from Obergefell v. Hodges
Decision, and almost immediately in response, former Senator Barney Frank wrote:
After a series of opinions, speeches and public comments expressing his strong disapproval of us, vigorously defending societys
right to express this attitude in discriminatory public policies, Scalia begins his characteristically vitriolic dissent by protesting
that the substance of todays decree is not of immense personal importance to me.
Yeah, right. This strikes me as the least sincere disavowal of homophobia I have encountered since former Majority Leader Dick
Armey tried to argue that his reference to me as Barney Fag was just a mispronunciation of my last name. What we have here
instead marks a tactical shift.17

Barney Frank claims Scalia is guilty of homophobia, but how can we know if Scalia is so
guilty? Because of the Supreme Court decision, history may look at Scalia this way, but what if
hes genuine? And even if hes not, does that make his argument any more or less valid? If an
evil man says 2 + 2 = 4, does he not speak truth?
Barney Frank is clearly guilty of cynical hermeneutics, even if he is right about Scalia,
and he is not alone: the internet has been full of attacks not just against Scalia, but against all the
Supreme Justices that dissented (perhaps unaware of motivated by the phenomenology of
argument, as expanded on in The Phenomenology of Argument by O.G. Rose). I do not know
if Justice Scalia hates LGBTs, and the claim that he does can neither be verified or falsified
(even if he was to say directly I hate LGBTs, for perhaps he is being forced to say it to keep his
family safe?). Indeed, perhaps Justice Scalia is a homophobe, but whether or not he is, that will

not make his dissent any more or less true. Perhaps he is wrong in his dissent, but that will be a
result of logical fallacies, not homophobia. We must assume the best about the Supreme Court
Justices who dissented; otherwise, our emotions will perhaps keep us from coming to understand
that which we must understand if LGBTs are to ever feel truly accepted.
Supreme Court Justice Robert writes the following:
Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for
requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition
of marriage. And a States decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human
history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State
are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition.
Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be
changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the
people acting through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to
resolve legal disputes according to law. The Constitution leaves no doubt about the answer.

We must take Roberts as genuine and not assume that he is simply trying to hide and
conceal his homophobe again, if we play that game, no one will profit but even taking
Roberts on his own terms, does his point not sound remarkably similar to what the Confederates
argued during the Civil War? Even if it is, that doesnt mean Roberts argument is false, nor
should we assume the Confederates were completely in the wrong to argue for States rights
even if in regard to owning slaves (again, imagine it was over performing abortions and womens
rights). But still, noting the similarity is important.
All of the dissents of the opinion echoed the same cry: the decision to redefine marriage
should be left up to the States. Consider what was written by Justice Thomas, who notes the
consequences of infringing upon free exchange (as written on in Equality and Its Immoral
Limits by O.G. Rose):
Although our Constitution provides some protection against such governmental restrictions on religious practices, the People
have long elected to afford broader protections than this Courts constitutional precedents mandate. Had the majority allowed the
definition of marriage to be left to the political processas the Constitution requiresthe People could have considered the
religious liberty implications of deviating from the traditional definition as part of their deliberative process. Instead, the
majoritys decision short-circuits that process, with potentially ruinous consequences for religious liberty.

Justice Alito makes similar remarks:

The system of federalism established by our Constitution provides a way for people with different beliefs to live together in a
single nation. If the issue of same-sex marriage had been left to the people of the States, it is likely that some States would
recognize same-sex marriage and others would not. It is also possible that some States would tie recognition to protection for
conscience rights. The majority today makes that impossible. By imposing its own views on the entire country, the majority
facilitates the marginalization of the many Americans who have traditional ideas. Recalling the harsh treatment of gays and
lesbians in the past, some may think that turn- about is fair play. But if that sentiment prevails, the Nation will experience bitter
and lasting wounds.
Todays decision will also have a fundamental effect on this Court and its ability to uphold the rule of law. If a bare majority of
Justices can invent a new right and impose that right on the rest of the country, the only real limit on what future majorities will
be able to do is their own sense of what those with political power and cultural influence are willing to tolerate. Even enthusiastic
supporters of same-sex marriage should worry about the scope of the power that todays majority claims.
Todays decision shows that decades of attempts to restrain this Courts abuse of its authority have failed. A lesson that some
will take from todays decision is that preaching about the proper method of interpreting the Constitution or the virtues of judicial
self-restraint and humility cannot compete with the temptation to achieve what is viewed as a noble end by any practicable

How convenient and heatless of Alito to be in support of a system which wouldnt

require him to move between States. the cynicism in us may cry And who cares about
religious and individual rights when people are facing discrimination? And indeed, perhaps
these objections are fair and valid. But we must resist cynical hermeneutics lets we miss
something: in my opinion, the dissents describe a phenomenon that I think we should take very
seriously, regardless of if the judges actually are homophobes. If in the end one decides this
phenomenon isnt a problem, so be it, but I dont think its fair to claim those who are concerned
about the problem are homophobes or irrational. The society I fear seems to be increasingly
good at failing to recognize people can be rational even when theyre wrong.
Again, dont these judges sound like the Confederates? Did not those who pushed the
Kansas-Nebraska Act, as designed by Stephen Douglas, argued that those who settled new lands
in America should get to decide through popular sovereignty for themselves if slavery would be
allowed? Many during the LGBT debate that States rights were once used to perpetuate
slavery, and there is certainly truth to this claim. Is this morally unacceptable? Indeed, as it
would be immoral to appeal to States rights to defend and preserve abortion if it was in fact
racism and murder. But does that mean States rights dont exist, or that Federalism should be
abandoned even when perhaps it is used to defend and preserve immorality? Certainly, appeals
to Federalism can be a method someone could use to delay the end of an injustice that the person
wants to preserve, but that doesnt mean an appeal to process is the same as an appeal to a
position (as admonished in The Death of Process by O.G. Rose). Furthermore, even though
Federalism isnt a perfect process, there is no such thing as a perfect process: all processes and
systems are trade-offs, and there are costs and risks with overstepping the States even if in the
name of justice.
How we understand the Civil War has had a large impact on what we think of Federalism
and States rights, and failure to be empathetic contributes to our thinking of Roberts, Scalia,
Alito, and Thomas as bigots who are as immoral as those who appealed to States rights during
the Civil War. It seems to me that the very mention of States rights today is automatically
associated with the Confederacy clearly, how we understand history influences how we
understand the process. But even if it Federalism was used to preserve slavery, it would not
follow from this that Federalism was evil (though it might be), inefficient, or that the
Constitution didnt establish a Federalist system and hence that the four dissenters were wrong to
defend Federalism, even if Federalism has been used for evil ends. Charity can be used to
support an evil dictator, but it does not follow from this that charity is immoral.
A hope of Federalism is to keep institutions from becoming so big and powerful that they
can turn people into monsters and slaves, such as witnessed in the Stanford Prison Experiment,
the Milgram Experiment, Nazi Germany, and in the Confederacy. Yes, Federalism can be used
for corrupt ends, but at least power cannot be so concentrated in a Federalist system that if
government were to be corrupted, the damage and horror wouldnt be total (but that is assuming
that the Federal Government keeps up its end of the deal, in line with its rightful responsibilities).
And indeed, I am of the view that Federalism was used during the Civil War to preserve and
perpetuate slavery, and that is a deep injustice. I do not blame people for being resistant to
Federalism or any talk of States rights; I can understand where they are coming for, as we all
should. However, if the government would have enforced laws against kidnapping, murder, and
in favor of private poverty in regard to blacks (and all peoples), slavery couldnt have happened.
If the Federal Government would have done their duty rather than define themselves out of it
rather than define blacks as not human, as discussed in Defining Evidence by O.G. Rose

the Confederacy would have never been in the position to appeal to States rights and
Federalism to defend and preserve slavery, because slavery wouldnt exist. Ironically, in the
Federal Government failing to do what it should have done, it allowed the spreading and
institutionalization of a practice that later, by outlawing, it was rewarded for: because the Federal
Government allowed slavery, Lincoln was able to establish and pass into prominence a (perhaps
true) theory about sovereignty that made the Central Government the source of all sovereignty,
versus the States (as according to the Jeffersonian view). For its sins, the Central Government
was rewarded a terrible tendency warned about in Rewarding Discrimination by O.G. Rose
hence weakening Federalism, hence increasingly the potential for more institutional horrors such
as those warned about in the Stanford Prison Experiment and witnessed in the Confederacy.
Our understanding of the Civil War greatly impacts our understanding of Federalism and
the role of the Supreme Court. We now see the Supreme Court as a means to end oppression, and
so appeal to it whenever we feel faced with an injustice. Weve been trained by Supreme Court
cases that ended slavery, segregation, and other injustices to turn to it when injustice abounds.
We have been trained against Federalism, if it is indeed the case that violating Federalism will
have grave consequences for the religious and LGBTs, then our un-empathetic understanding of
the Civil War and view of the Supreme Court as the default way to end injustice will be costly.
Please recall that I dont deny that States rights over slavery caused the Civil War my point of
objection is against those who fail to empathetically understand Confederates. This paper went to
such lengths to describe and explain the Civil War to help break down our emotional bias against
Federalism, which I fear that without, Pluralism will destroy us, generating unbearable
existential tension. The existential consequences of Federalism are very different from the
existential consequences of an oligarchy or Central Planner, consequences warned about in
Equality and Its Immoral Limits by O.G. Rose and Justice Roberts in his dissent. He writes:
Today, however, the Court takes the extraordinary step of ordering every State to license and recognize same-sex marriage.
Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of
laws, not of men, the majoritys approach is deeply disheartening. Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable
success persuading their fellow citizensthrough the democratic processto adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers
have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the
people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept.

It cannot be emphasized enough that Roberts or any of the dissenters for that matter
isnt say LGBT marriage should happen in America, though that is what he has constantly been
accused of doing in our society that conflates appeals to process with appeals to a position.
Perhaps his concerns about existential tension are unwarranted, as our mine, though I would
point out that racial relations in America today provide evidence that these concerns are not
irrational. Personally, I think we have greatly underestimated the impact of failing to enact
change through a process that reduces existential tension, such as the process of free exchange
and Federalism, even though perhaps these processes have been used in the past to try to expand
and preserve injustices like slavery. As the use of a gun to murder doesnt make guns evil, so the
use of Federalism for evil doesnt make Federalism unjust. And the risk of existential,
consequences is real.
Perhaps the most discouraging aspect of todays decision the extent to which the
majority feels compelled to sully those on the other side of the debate, Roberts writes, and goes
into detail about how Traditionalists, who did nothing more than follow the understanding of
marriage that has existed for our entire history, have been depicted as discriminatory bigots and
that the Supreme Court has virtually read that interpretation of Traditionalists into the

Constitution and forced that history down upon them. It is one thing for the majority to
conclude that the Constitution protects a right to same-sex marriage, Roberts notes, it is
something else to portray everyone who does not share the majoritys better informed
understanding as bigoted.
But couldnt similar things have been said about ending slavery? That ending slavery
would portray everyone who does not share the majoritys better informed understanding as
bigoted? That slavery was an ancient institution that existed for thousands of years, and that
those who supported it did nothing more than follow the understanding of [socioeconomics] that
has existed for our entire history? Indeed slavery could have been similarly defended but
that doesnt mean the arguments are the same and equally unjust (though perhaps they are). But
even if so, again, note that Roberts isnt arguing that LGBT marriage is immoral or unacceptable
he is arguing that the decision isnt up to the Supreme Courts and in favor of Federalism.
Similarly, those who argued that the States should decide on slavery arent necessarily those who
supported slavery, though perhaps such is likely. Likewise, perhaps its likely that Roberts is
against LGBT marriage, but we cannot assume that without being guilty of a cynical
hermeneutics, which we must avoid for reasons already traced out. And considering the racial
tension in America today, theres good reason to believe that the lack of Federalism in regard to
black and white relations (as well as the lack of free exchange) has caused us great trouble.
Perhaps ultimately the Supreme Court should decide on these matters, despite what I or Roberts
thinks, but we as a country shouldnt act as if the mere suggestion of Federalism is wrong in of
itself, a tendency I think our view of the Civil War has motivated.
It should be noted that I think the argument for slavery and the argument for LGBT
marriage are not the same, that while slavery violated a humans right to life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness (by being defined out of humanness), LGBTs were to still able to get
married even before the recent Supreme Court decision: they were just not able to get married in
a way that they wanted to be able to get married (in line with their sexuality), which is a fair
objection and grounds for democratic, Federalist change. Hence, in regard to slavery, it seems
more appropriate to me to appeal to the Supreme Court than in regard to LGBT marriage, while
LGBT marriage seems to me that it should be left up to the States, seeing as it is an issue of
definition more so than it is an issue of equality though all that isnt to say that the Supreme
Court couldnt have expanded socioeconomic benefits to include everyone, not just those who fit
a particular family structure.
Definition is everything. Blacks could be enslaved and whites not think of themselves as
violators of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness because blacks were defined as not
human. Likewise, Traditionalists believed they were not violating the rights of LBGTs by
denying them marriage, because marriage is between a man and woman the Traditionalist
view isnt discrimination to the Traditionalist, but definition. And the definition is a reasonable
one, as perhaps reasonable people with reasonable definitions reasonably defined human beings
as not black, as reasonable people define fetuses as not human. (The limits of reason should
horrify us, as should the realization that youre reasonable can be a curse. See The True Isnt
the Rational by O.G. Rose.) Are Traditionalists, Pro-Slavers, and Pro-Choicers all the same?
Perhaps, perhaps not wed have to go through each case to find out but at least we can say
that the line between definition and discrimination is a thin one.
The moment a definition is established, there is exclusion, but if there are no definitions,
there is no meaning. What exclusion is acceptable and necessary and what exclusion slips into
discrimination? Thats a hard question, and keep in mind everyone that is acceptably and

necessarily excluded from (insert) will probably think the responsible distinction is
discrimination (especially if they think of themselves as excluded), while those within the
acceptable and necessary definition of (insert) will think of it as merely definition. Who would
be right (keep in mind that just because a person is located within a definition, it doesnt follow
then that the definition is necessarily discrimination, or vice-versa)? That would depend on
the issue perhaps all definition is discrimination, though perhaps not? At least we can say
that the inherent tension between definition and discrimination require debate, reasoning, and
democratic process, and that the answer isnt always easy to determine (especially when feelings
are hurt, questions of justice are incorporated, and everyone is operating according to different
rules, as similarly discussed in Death is the Event Horizon of Reason by O.G. Rose). But at
least we can learn not to call those with a definition those who discriminate, and also learn
not to called those who discrimination those with a definition. But how do we tell the
difference? Again, it depends on the topic, but we must at least be weary of that which shortcircuits the process and threatens to read into the Constitution one side as guilty of
discrimination when perhaps they are only guilty of holding onto a definition. This isnt to say
we should never do this, but that we should be careful: the costs can be high.19
Even when the Supreme Court acts when it should, there can still be existential
consequences, let alone when it acts and perhaps shouldnt. There is always going to be some
level of existential tension to be human is to be existential but the hope is to keep it at a
minimum lest the society pull itself apart. Every time the Supreme Court acts, even when it
should, it takes a major risk of hurling onto society more existential tension than it can handle.
Not all risks are bad, and without risk, there can be no gain, but it is at least safe to say that
always taking risk isnt a good, default course of action. But I think our default has become
appealing to the courts, and with this being the case, its likely the society will eventually be
overwhelmed and pulled apart. We require Federalism to stay together, but the suggestion of
Federalism now disgusts us. Progressive, were stuck.
Roberts writes that Federal courts are blunt instruments when it comes to creating
rights, and pens what I find to be one of the most tragic pieces of writing Ive ever read:
The Courts accumulation of power does not occur in a vacuum. It comes at the expense of the people. And they know it. Here
and abroad, people are in the midst of a serious and thoughtful public debate on the issue of same-sex marriage. They see voters
carefully considering same-sex marriage, casting ballots in favor or opposed, and sometimes changing their minds. They see
political leaders similarly reexamining their positions, and either reversing course or explaining adherence to old convictions
confirmed anew. They see governments and businesses modifying policies and practices with respect to same-sex couples, and
participating actively in the civic discourse. They see countries overseas democratically accepting profound social change, or
declining to do so. This deliberative process is making people take seriously questions that they may not have even regarded as
questions before.
When decisions are reached through democratic means, some people will inevitably be disappointed with the results. But those
whose views do not prevail at least know that they have had their say, and accordingly arein the tradition of our political
culturereconciled to the result of a fair and honest debate. In addition, they can gear up to raise the issue later, hoping to
persuade enough on the winning side to think again. That is exactly how our system of government is supposed to work.
But today the Court puts a stop to all that. By deciding this question under the Constitution, the Court removes it from the realm
of democratic decision. There will be consequences to shutting down the political process on an issue of such profound public
significance. Closing debate tends to close minds. People denied a voice are less likely to accept the ruling of a court on an issue
that does not seem to be the sort of thing courts usually decide. As a thoughtful commentator observed about another issue, The
political process was moving . . . , not swiftly enough for advocates of quick, complete change, but majoritarian institutions were
listening and acting. Heavy-handed judicial intervention was difficult to justify and appears to have provoked, not resolved,

Indeed, however heartened the proponents of same-sex marriage might be on this day, it is worth acknowledging what they have
lost, and lost forever: the opportunity to win the true acceptance that comes from persuading their fellow citizens of the justice of
their cause. And they lose this just when the winds of change were freshening at their backs.

One can hear in Roberts voice a lament, a cry for the LGBTs who have lost forever their
just for true acceptance just when they were on the verge of achieving it. But the cynic in us
cannot listen for long: we quickly hear within us the voice that says the Confederates probably
argued that Emancipation Proclamation took from the blacks the chance to receive true
acceptance . Surely Roberts hates LGBTs and is just saying all this to hide his prejudice?
Perhaps, but even if the cynic is correct, that doesnt mean Roberts argument is wrong. You
would think it was written by Sophocles: the achieving of victory is the horror of defeat. In fact,
its worse than defeat, for it looks like victory. What was done to save the oppressed might be the
end of the hope to end oppression.
To allude to the thought of Jean Baudrillard and in line with Roberts lament, I am
concerned that the Supreme Court, by infringing upon Federalism, killed the real the
possibility of defining real acceptors from fake acceptors of LGBTs and so made the fake
and the real one and the same. Churches that really and truly want to host LGBTs marriages are
now indefinable from the churches that are forced to do so; those who say and genuinely accept
LGBTs are indefinable from those who merely say they accept LGBTs; actors are now
indefinable from people. Because of the Supreme Court, I fear LGBTs suffered the loss of the
real standard which they require to feel genuinely accepted, as the religious are having to
increasingly choose between their religious conscious and participating in public life. And now,
Traditionalists have been cast as bigots and perpetuators of discrimination, and they will
undoubtedly resent being characterized as such, and this may make them less willing to accept
LGBTs. And this may lead to LGBTs suffering more, seeming to verify that they were right to
go to the Supreme Court in the first place, for they are indeed victims of injustice. The ruling
may incubate evidence that the ruling was correct, hence justifying those who claimed concerns
were unfounded about the inability of LGBTs to be genuinely accepted because of the ruling. For
they never were accepted; people have always been bigots.
Is this paranoia? Is what Roberts and I are concerned about legitimate? Perhaps not
perhaps we are wrong but I dont believe we are irrational to be so concerned. Racism is alive
and well in America, and the way the society tried to end racism was through the Supreme
Courts, not Federalism. Yes, I believe slavery should have been ended by the Supreme Court
not through the States, despite the existential risks but slavery and racism are not the same
thing, even though slavery in America was established upon racial lines. The government and
courts tried to deal with racism from Reconstruction through the 60s by creating the Jim Crow
South (after the Black Codes) which ironically public power centers were later rewarded for
ending through various Civil Rights acts (consider Rewarding Discrimination by O.G. Rose).
Jim Crow made the South separate but equal, a mantra that incubated thinking all across the
country, such as in Woodrow Wilson and even where there wasnt direct law such as in the
North (when there is de facto, there will be de jure). As the Stanford Prison Experiment shows
us, the power of institutions cannot be overstressed, though I think we may sometimes resist
accepting how powerful and influential institutions are because we want to believe bigot are
evil we want to feel that they are fully responsible for their actions and we want to believe
that we can never become like them (if we accept the power of institutions, we are more at risk
and not so morally superior).20 Unfortunately, I think this denial of institutional influence can
lead us to habitually and directly appealing to Public Power (an institution, ironically), because if

we believe people are choosing to be bigoted, evil, etc., then we will believe the only way to stop
them is through force, and that reasonable, democratic and/or Federalist process will necessarily
be in vain. On the other hand though, if we believe people have absolutely no control over what
they think, then we too will appeal habitually and directly to Public Power. The extremes
empower Public institutions, while synthetic perspectives empower the public.
After the end of separate but equal, the public power centers have again tried to deal
with racism through the Civil Rights bills, Affirmative Action, diversity requirements for
businesses, etc., and though perhaps these measures are well-intended and made some positive
impact, they have not brought about an end to racism, which seems like it is intensifying every
day. Even if these new measures are in fact just and good, they cannot help but incubate thinking
that may work against the just and good. Perhaps they dont perhaps I am mistaken but dont
I dont think it would be right to think of my concerns as irrational. If you think they are racist,
there is nothing I can do to stop you from that cynical hermeneutics. Im not a racist without
Black America, I believe America will fail in the Global, Idea Economy, as argued in Cypher
Mentality by O.G. Rose but of course thats what a racist would say, and people who are
racist of course dont think of themselves that way. Racism entails self-invisibility.
Life is existential.
Before moving on, a few more thoughts on the risks of bypassing Federalism, even if
Federalism has been used for evil and unjust ends:
1. The more powerful the Federal Government and/or Supreme Court becomes, the more
incentive there will be for organizations likes businesses, lobbyists, etc. to corrupt it.
Arguably, as power increases, so increases the inevitably that it will be corrupted, an
inevitably that Federalism helps avoid by keeping power from ever being overlyconcentrated.21
2. Justice Alito writes: If a bare majority of Justices can invent a new right and impose that
right on the rest of the country, the only real limit on what future majorities will be able
to do is their own sense of what those with political power and cultural influence are
willing to tolerate. The more people just know a Supreme Court and/or Federal
Government has this kind of power to dramatically impact the lives of millions of people
at any moment versus over a Federalist process can impact how those millions live
together, interact with one another, and how they view, either antagonistically or
favorably, the government.
3. If the Supreme Court and Federal Government wasnt so powerful, the people couldnt
appeal to them to quickly solve their problems and disagreements, nor to quickly create
institutions like the Jim Crow South or acts like the War on Drugs, which has negatively
affected black males. Yes, these sorts of initiatives could still happen, but at least in a
Federalist system, there be a better chance of keeping them from engulfing the whole
4. When the Supreme Court and the Federal Government are so powerful, a single judge,
for example, has to live with the knowledge of knowing that he or she is responsible for a
certain direction the society goes in, the existential weight of which can be too much to
bear for anyone. In regard to the recent Supreme Court case on LGBT marriage, I cannot

imagine being in the position of Justice Kennedy, in which had LGBT marriage not
passed, he would be seen as the man responsible, seeing as he was the real swing vote
(more so than Roberts), and even though he wouldnt be alone in voting against LGBT
marriage. To put a person in a position where they have to vote knowing they are going
to be remembered this way, is one of the major disadvantages of a Non-Federalism
system: as it concentrates, it also concentrates existential weight, making it unbearable,
which can influence judgment. This is especially problematic when tough trade-offs must
be made, say in regard to balancing a Federal budget or making cuts to the Welfare
system to keep it from going bankrupt.
A hundred years from now, when history students ask what was the Obergefell v.
Hodges decision about?, what would the answer be? A hundred years from now, the answer to
what caused todays ruling? might be as obvious to some today as is what caused the Civil
War?. To many, todays decision was caused by the discrimination faced by LGBTs, as the
Civil War was caused by slavery. Technically, it was about whether or not States had the right
to decide on whether marriage should be expanded to LGBTs, but is that what people would say
a hundred years from now? Maybe they would just it was about gay rights or ending LGBT
discrimination, and if they did, would this be true? Yes/no. In the eyes of LGBTs and those who
agreed with them, indeed, today was a matter of ending an injustice, and a hundred years from
now, that would probably be the correct reading of history. But to many others such as
Justice Scalia the question before the Supreme Court was about if it was up to States to
determine if marriage should be redefined. These same individuals perhaps ultimately wanted
LGBT marriage to be recognized nationwide, but wanted it done so through Federalism,
concerned about the existential and unintended consequences of a quicker route. But in the eyes
of history, they will probably be assumed to hold ill-intent, and probably be viewed as bigots,
even if in the future LGBTs still fail to be truly accepted because of what those supposed bigots
Objectively and indisputably, lets say the Constitution actually was written in such a
way that the States are supposed to be left to decide on slavery. Is it still morally unacceptable
for the Fed not to override the States and stop them from allowing slavery? Which is higher?
Morality or the Constitution?
That is the question.
Lets say bypassing the Constitution was the right thing to do. But what if it was the case,
objectively and indisputably, that failing to go through the States would result in unbearable
existential tension. Would it still be morally unacceptable? Is the morality of an act contingent on
its outcome?
And so, after a long journey, we come to the topic after which this paper is named.
The war between process and justice.
It is hard to live as if you dont live in a perfect world. You certainly feel as if you ought
to live in a perfect world, and if its not perfect, it feels like it can be made perfect. It just takes
work and determination. Or so thats how we feel, setting us up to work with perseverance for
that which we can never achieve: perfection. Failing to realize this is how we tend to act, we fail
to be discerning about the relation between the States and the Central Power, and the
consequences of which add up over time.

In a perfect world, the Federal Government would force all true injustices to stop
immediately, and the States would be left to decide only about that which is debatable such is
the ideal world we all wish we lived in. Relative to us, the injustices we are concerned about are
objectively and obviously immoral, and so these injustices we feel are the ones that the Federal
Government should intervene the Federalist process to correct. Not necessarily because we are
against Federalism, but because it would be more efficient and just, in our minds, to end the true
injustice immediately, rather than let the States slowly and inefficiently decide on the topic. In
our minds, we may very much support Federalism and States rights: the injustice we are
concerned about is just one of those rare exceptions that should be decided on above the States,
per se.
If there were States in which murder was allowed, it would be absurd to us to let the State
decide on the matter; in fact, it would be immoral. When it comes to the injustices we are
passionate about, letting the States decide on them would be just as equally absurd and immoral,
for to us the injustices are obviously as immoral as murder by definition of the fact that we are
passionate about ending them. Unfortunately, what we think is an injustice is experientially
indistinguishable from what is an injustice, and so we need a process to tell if the injustice we
are concerned about is in fact a true justice. But do note that we must, by definition, experience
the injustice we are passionate about as if it is a true one, and so there must, by definition, be a
part of us that believes appealing to a test and/or court to determine if it is actually an
injustice is fundamentally absurd, as it would be fundamentally absurd to appeal to courts to
determine if murder should be allowed or not. And so we have put our finger on the problem:
concerns about justice and processes to determine justice are at odds with one another.
It is those who are concerned about justice who are driven to appeal to the courts, and yet
they are driven to appeal to that which they must experientially take in to some extent as
absurd. To the LGBT advocate, the idea of having to ask the Supreme Court if LGBTs should
be martially recognizable by America is, in a way, a joke. Justice itself is above the courts
(right?), and so appealing to the courts is to treat justice as if its supposed to be subservient to
humans rather than the other way around. When we are passionate about justice, at least a part of
us must experience processes to determine justice as in the way of justice as impediments. We
must believe it is, in a way, more just to go around them. Unavoidably, there is a tension between
processes of determining justice and justice itself.
Furthermore, despite all the possible consequences of avoiding Federalism (as
mentioned in the last section), they must strike the LGBT advocate as less weighty as less
real, pivotal, and consequential than allowing the perpetuation of the current and present
injustice they know and feel is real and unjust. If it was argued that making murder illegal
through the Supreme Court would cause existential tension, because people wouldnt know if
when theyre not murdered, people dont actually want to murder them, this argument would
strike as absurd. Who cares about existential tension when it comes to murder?22 And so it goes
with everything: who cares about existential tension when it comes to LGBT discrimination?
Racism? Human rights? Yes, perhaps there will be unintended consequences going through the
Supreme Court, but whatever existential tension might be caused is far less a problem than any
violation of human rights not appealing to the Supreme Court would allow to perpetuate.
Was the Obergefell v. Hodges Decision about ending discrimination or the States rights?
As with the Civil War, in different ways, both sides are right: the decision was about States
rights to preserve marriage as we know it or redefine it. To some, that means todays decision

was about States rights to end discrimination or not, which strikes many as absurd: the States
have no right to discriminate, and so hence the Supreme Court must override the States. After all,
States shouldnt get to decide if murder is wrong, should they?
In his dissent, Justice Alito wrote:
Todays decision shows that decades of attempts to restrain this Courts abuse of its authority have failed. A lesson that some
will take from todays decision is that preaching about the proper method of interpreting the Constitution or the virtues of judicial
self-restraint and humility cannot compete with the temptation to achieve what is viewed as a noble end by any practicable

But surely Alito thinks the Supreme Court should step in to stop what is obviously an
injustice, such as murder? Surely restraining the Courts abuse of its authority would be
immoral and an injustice if it restrained itself and let the States decide if murder was wrong or
And theres the rub.
Alitos point doesnt apply in regard to what to us is a clear and obvious injustice (even
if we cant explain why we feel this way). Likewise, Alitos point doesnt apply to the question
of marriage in the eyes of those who believe LGBTs are victims of discrimination, while it does
apply to those who dont think LGBTs have a fundamental human right to be married. By
definition, those who favor LGBT marriage must think the Supreme Court should decide on the
topic over the States (and in a sense, they must think that not even the Supreme Court should
decide on the matter justice should just be not done theres something fundamentally
absurd about anyone questioning and deciding on what is justice? rather than justice just
being). Likewise, as those against slavery in the time of the Civil War must have thought the
issue of slavery shouldnt be decided on by the States (it would be irrational not to so think), as
those against abortion because it is murder mustnt truly think it is a matter of opinion or
debate. To debate if murder is wrong is in a way grotesque and absurd: the act of debating
what is justice? seems unjust. But unfortunately, anyone motivated to stop an injustice must
feel, by definition, that this injustice is clear and obvious, even if what they think is an injustice
isnt actually an injustice.
Perhaps all this hints why there doesnt seem to such thing as a Pro-LGBT Marriage
Federalist (or at least Ive never met one), as it doesnt seem to me as if there were many AntiSlavery Federalists during the Civil War? This is probably one of the reasons the society
conflates States rights with Anti-LGBT, Pro-Slavery, etc., and yet, if Roberts and I are
correct about existential tension, those in favor of LGBT marriage should be in favor of
Federalism. But if you believe the lack of such marriage is an injustice, shouldnt you shoot for
the quickest, surest route? Wouldnt it be immoral not to, and wouldnt it be immoral to let
bigots have a say? Yet even if it was the case that every single Pro-Federalist person was AntiLGBT marriage, it wouldnt change the fact that concerns about existential tension would be
addressed by Federalism. Even if I am Anti-LGBT marriage, for example as all guilty of
cynical hermeneutics will assume from this paper rightly or wrongly it doesnt follow that
Federalism is innately bigoted and that existential tension doesnt exist. These are separate
To focus back on the main topic: to use a phrase from Justice Roberts, a more modest
and restrained Supreme Court is an unjust Supreme Court when you believe that the Supreme
Court abstains from voting on an issue of justice and rather leaves it to the States to decide. You
must, one way or not, for that which slows down the end of the injustice is that which contributes

to the perpetuation of the injustice. If it is objectively the right thing to do in legalizing LGBT
marriage, then it will become morally superior to do it quickly then to do it slowly (to do it
through the Supreme Court and/or Federal Government than to do it through the States and/or
free exchange), and so morality will push the people in the direction of quick action and the
Federal Government. Hence, if Roberts and I are right to be concerned about existential tension,
morality will motivate the people to act in such a way that preserves existential tension,
potentially worsening the injustice that morality was necessarily compelled to act in favor of the
quick(est) way to correct. I fear morality necessarily conflicts with (slow(er)) process, perhaps
ironically undermining those moral efforts. But again, who cares about existential tension when a
real injustice is being perpetuated? Should we make murder legal so there was less existential
uncertainty caused over it?
And so in circles we go.
And for that matter, its somewhat offensive to not see LGBT marriage in the
Constitution to start with: the fact Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Robert dont believe LGBT
marriage is Constitutional is offensive. Their blindness is unjust, as is the very suggestion that
LBGT marriage is a Federalist issue, rather than an issue to be decided on by the most supreme
house of justice in the land. And for LGBTs advocates to appeal to States and not the Supreme
Court, the highest court in the land, would be, in a way, denying dignity to LGBTs, for it would
to imply that LGBT marriage isnt an issue worthy of that kind of power and consideration. But
whether or not this is true is relative to your idea of where power comes from. If you think
power comes from the government, then the idea holds, but if you think sovereignty and power
ultimately come from the people, then going around the people and not letting them decide on
the issue is to deny the issue of LGBT marriage the most serious and grave of considerations.
But how can you let bigoted citizens have sovereignty? Its immoral and unjust. And you know,
its unjust and immoral to appeal at all to any checks and balance system when it comes to
LGBT marriage: whether or not discrimination ends shouldnt be decided on by any system it
should just end. Justice is greater than democracy: its immoral to even let people debate about
discrimination the debate preserves the horror. As does a paper like this, which asks people to
think about questions, during which discrimination perpetuates. As people read this paper,
suffering goes unchallenged. This paper is immoral.
in circles we go.
As the Civil War, in line with this paper, was a conflict of visions, so those who are
motivated by an injustice to end it are stuck in a conflict between their imperative for justice
(to just be) and the process by which justice is realized. For people to appeal to justice is for
them to appeal to a way that they the world should just be justice is just-ness, per se. If I
believe murder is wrong, I believe it goes against how reality is supposed to be for murder to
occur: I believe it is an ontological trespass against the way the world is supposed to be (how I
come to this conclusion and if I am justified to think this way are different questions). And
considering that just-ness is that which isnt realized but that which is, when I assent to a
vision of justice, I dont think it should be realized I dont think there should be a process I
think it should just be. By definition, the just-ness of justice conflicts with the process of
justice, and all a process does is delay the realization of a just state that should already just
be. The process impedes the justice it perpetuates the injustice what just should be is
impeded by what just shouldnt be. Considering this, to those who believe they are trying to
stop an injustice, to appeal to the Supreme Court is a kind of necessary compromise; in their
eyes, they shouldnt even have to do that, but must. While having to appeal to the Supreme Court

is unjust enough, having to appeal to the States is completely unacceptable: it is an unnecessary

and even immoral compromise (a view only reinforced by certain understandings of the Civil
To be concerned with justice is to be, virtually by definition, against Federalism.
And theres the rub.
Perhaps what would help ease the tension between justice and the processes by which
justice is determined is a decoupling in our minds of law and justice. We refer to court
officials as judges, refer to what they do as making judgments, and refer to the system of
courts as the system of justice and/or the judicial branch, words all of which connote justice.
And though there is true to the fact that the system has something to do with justice, ultimately,
judges and the judicial branch are in the business of law more so than justice. This may seem
like an unnecessary distinction, but it is important to note that although justice entails laws, not
all laws are (necessarily) just. In my opinion, we think too much of courts and judges as
discerning of justice, when really they are in the business of reading and interpreting law (the
words we use to refer to the judicial branch have lead to much confusion about its role and
responsibilities). It is actually the legislative branch, in writing and voting on the laws, who
should be more concerned with questions of justice, seeing as judges, once a law is written, are
not supposed to change the law in anyway whatsoever (even if the law is what a judge may call
an unjust law). A judge may very well nullify a law he or she doesnt like because the law
violates the Constitution, etc., but a judge cannot strike down a law just because he or she thinks
that it isnt just the judge requires legal ground.
Legal and just are words that have very similar meanings, but dont mean precisely
the same thing. What is just isnt always legal, and what is legal isnt always just: the two often
cross and merge like two rivers, becoming indistinguishable at the time, but they are still
ultimately distinct. Our hope and ideal is that we make everything that is just legal and
everything that is unjust illegal, but this isnt a given, and we should assume that what is legal is
just and what is illegal isnt just. This takes work to determine, and seeing as there can be
mistakes, we require a process of justice by which we can best determine, however imperfectly,
what is best. And yet, again, a process of justice necessarily conflicts with an idea of justice,
for the sake of realizing of which a person would appeal to a given process. However, if we
decouple in our minds law from justice, we will begin to stop thinking of appealing to the
courts as appealing to have justice realized, and rather thinking of so appealing as appealing
to have the law changed. This, I believe, will help with the philosophical paradox weve already
traced out.
LGBT advocates, to appeal to courts, is to appeal to changing the law more so than to
appeal to recognize justice. Do they so act because they believe the laws are unjust?
Absolutely, but though they are motivated by justice, technically, they act to change law more so
than to establish justice. For at the end of the day, for us to know what justice truly is, we would
have to be God all of us are simply in favor of establish the justice that we think is most in line
with Justice, though we can never know for sure what constitutes Justice from out finitude. Yes,
without law, a society couldnt implement any kind of justice at all, and please understand that I
dont mean to imply that justice and law have no connection whatsoever. Law is to justice what
feet are to a runner: without feet, the runner couldnt move, but that doesnt mean the runner is
nothing more than feet.
The problem with failing to recognize that law and justice are distinct is that, as weve
traced out, there is something paradoxical about debating justice, while law is debatable. When

you understand that to debate marriage laws isnt to debate what is justice? but to more so
debate what should be the law?. Again, yes, justice the belief of what should just be is the
fuel that runs the debate, but it isnt actually the subject of the debate. Law is the subject, and the
more we realize this, the less we will be tempted to skip over processes of justice in the name
of justice, which can ironically contribute to the world being existentially unstable and what it
shouldnt just be.
The war between process and justice is a defining feature of being human, and it has been
readily exhibited in the United States of America, perhaps more so than in other nations thanks
to Americas Constitution, values, and governmental structure of three branches. When it
comes to the Civil War, the Confederacy fought on grounds of process; the Union, justice. And
America has been locked in this war ever since, as Obergefell v. Hodges makes clear.
Ultimately, the Civil War continues today, without bloodshed, in the war between the 10th and
14th Amendments, as motivated by the inherent paradox and tension between justice and
processes of justice. It is in this war between amendments that the war between process and
justice embodied in the Civil War and countless Supreme Court decisions is vividly
Before diving fully into this subject though, some groundwork should be laid.
What constitutes life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? The terms seem to refer
to categories, under which fall certain things, like the freedom of speech, the freedom of
assembly, etc. What falls under these categories transcend the three branches of government:
according to the Constitution, to what these categories refer cannot be taken from, or given to,
people: people, in being people, rightly have them. For example: the freedom of speech cannot
be taken from people, for people, in being people, have the right to speak freely. What the
Constitution does isnt give people the right to speak; rather, the Constitution makes people
realize they have the right to speak while simultaneously promising to protect that right. If
anything, the Constitution gives people realization, but nothing more. It is not thanks to the
Constitution that people have human rights; rather, it is thanks to the Constitution that people
realize these have these human rights because they are people. And according to the Constitution
most notably apparent in the 14th Amendment no one can take from another human being
what that person has a right to freely do because he or she is a human being. Humanness, if you
will, transcends the State, and it is thanks to the Constitution which is to be defended by the
State at all costs that citizens realize that their humanness so transcends.23
Human rights are not created by the Constitution, for that then would make the writers of
the Constitution God, in essence, and hence create a problem with Central Power. The Founding
Fathers realized that if the State gave people human rights, then the State had all the power,
which would set the stage for another monarch like King George. Hence, they wrote the
Constitution in such a way that made people the source of their own rights and freedoms, and yet
at the same time didnt give people total power, if you will, lest there be mob rule. The
Founding Fathers made the State what people required in order to realize they had certain
human rights that people were the source of and that State had a duty to defend and protect. In
this sense, citizens are co-sovereign with the State, but at the same time, Im hesitant to use that
phrase, for it implies some degree of sovereignty comes from the State, when any sovereignty
the State has to be co-sovereign with the people is given to it by the people. Ultimately, hence,

the people are the source of all sovereignty, and the Constitution is only the source of the
peoples realization that they are the source of all sovereignty.
If I tell you your wallet is in your back-pocket and make you realize it is there, that
doesnt make me responsible for putting it there or for the money inside of that wallet which you
earned. Perhaps had I not said anything, you would have never found your wallet, but that still
doesnt mean I own your wallet, that you owe me your wallet, or that you owe me anything at
all. If you choose to give me $5 for helping you, thats your choice, but in no way do I have a
right to your $5 or do I have any right to force you to give me $5. Perhaps seeing as I have
nothing to gain by telling you where your wallet is, I should keep my mouth shut? Thats up to
me, but the Founding Fathers, through the Constitution, decided to say something, and for this,
we owe the Constitution nothing at all, not even our gratitude, which I think though we should
happily give. If we dont, that says something tragic about our hearts.
But how do we determine what human rights people have that the Constitution should
make people realize they have while simultaneously promising to defend them? What we
think is a human right isnt necessarily a human right, so by what process can we determine
which is which? To start, the very suggestion that we need a process to determine human rights
flies in the face of what human rights are: that which transcends process and which all humans
have and that no institution can give or take away. There is inherent tension between process to
determine rights and rights themselves, as there is between process and justice. But recall that
this process isnt to give people rights; rather, it is to make people realize they have rights
while simultaneously promising to protect them. If human rights transcend the State, they
transcend any process we may carry out to determine what should transcend our processes, but
that doesnt mean we can avoid having some process by which we determine what ideas of
human rights actually are human rights that transcend process. Clearly, this is a strange notion,
and there is an inescapable tension at its heart.
The State doesnt have a right to take away or give life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness, but the State is necessary to keep people from making everything a human right
(such as plastic surgery, owning a car, etc.), and hence imposing endless duties upon fellow
citizens. Perhaps owning a car is a human right, but you cant live in a nation where people can
create rights on the spot as they see fit there would be madness. Rather, there has to be a
process of determination and judgment: human rights cannot be a free-for-all (yet do note that
everyone is going to think the human right they defend is one that everyone should embrace).
As the State is present to help us realize and defend humans rights, they are also there to keep
every idea of a human right from being a human right, for then there would be chaos. Rights
always entail duties, and if the State decides food is a human right, the taxpayer is then obligated
to provide food for all citizens. If rights could be created when a person felt like it, duties would
be constantly imposed upon the citizenship, essentially creating a kind of slavery. Hence, there
has to be a process, but again, those in favor of an idea of a human right being a human right
will be against the idea of carrying out a process at all (necessarily).
You need a process to determine which ideas of justice transcend process. What feels
like justice necessarily strikes the consciousness as that which should just be without a process,
and yet process is unavoidable, for we need a way to tell what we think should just be from
what actually should just be. In other words, you need a process to determine which of that
which claims I shouldnt be susceptible to a process is right to claim I shouldnt be susceptible
to a process (but do note, again, that this creates an inherent tension, one that is not easy for any
system or citizenship to take). Though life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness fall outside of

law to limit, you require a process to determine what falls under these categories, as you have
to debate what constitutes murder, for what you think is such necessarily appears as obviously
such to you.
So what is this process for justice that we need in face of the emotion justice creates
within us that makes us feel as if shouldnt need any process at all? Well, according to the
Constitution, if we believe a human right needs to be added to the Constitution, we are supposed
to try to convince the legislator to pass a law that puts that human right into effect. If we believe
everyone should have a right to a car, rather than convince judges to interpret that right from out
of the law, we are supposed to convince the legislator to write a new law that judges will then
rightly uphold. Again, I stress the point: we have come to think of the judicial branch as
primarily concerned with justice (due to the words we use to refer to it), when all three branches
of government are in the business of justice of making the world as it should just be. To
appeal to the legislator is to fight for justice just as much as it is to appeal to the courts, but
unfortunately our minds have made associations that make it difficult for us to think this way
anymore. Failure to realize that all three branches of government are in the business of justice, I
believe, has hurt our willingness to accept the structure and process of our sociopolitical system.
(Do forgive if I come off as unfair: Supreme Court Justices do not believe they interpret
human rights from out of the law they are sincere in their convictions: Textualists too ready
scoff at Consequentialists as reading their own subjectivity into the law. But Consequentialists
dont believe that is what they do: they believe the hermeneutics they use to interpret law
appealing to its purpose and consequences is just as valid as appealing to history, as a
Textualist tends to do. Consequentialists believe history is ambiguous and doesnt always help
clear up the ambiguity of a law, so sometimes you have to turn to purpose and consequences
to help clear up ambiguity. Is this a right approach? Perhaps another paper, What is a Judge to
Do? by O.G. Rose, will take up that question but for now, please dont misunderstand me as
thinking of Consequentialists as insincere. I dont question at all that relative to their
hermeneutics, they are objective, as are the Textualists.24)
It is through amendments and the legislator that new human rights are to be established,
but since we dont think of the legislator as primarily interested in justice, we can be lead to
appeal to the courts to establish justice, when really the judicial branch is in the business of
upholding the justice established by the legislator. I dont think this is a controversial point:
every Consequentialists and Textualist Ive listened to agrees that its not their business to decide
what the law should say or what they think should be the just-ness established by law their
differences line on what they believe are valid hermeneutics to use to decide what the
(ambiguous) law says, not what they think it should say, and this naturally leads to different
interpretations that all the judges genuinely believe are more objective than subjective.25 But this
bring us to a problem, one that I believe incentives Consequentialist hermeneutics (Living
Constitution) over Textualist hermeneutics (for right or for wrong), and that every-intensifies
the war between process and justice the 10th Amendment and the 14th Amendment.
It is far too hard to add an amendment to the Constitution, but the only way to change
that is through a Constitutional amendment. Were stuck. Without a realistic amendment
process, the relationship between the three branches of government breaks down, as does the
balance of power. In this environment, so increases a desire to find a way to change the law

quickly to match with the changes of history, and in the amendment process not proving
adequate, people are incentivized to find other ways, the most successful of which has been the
creation and acceptance of hermeneutic models. Anyone concerned about an injustice, by
definition, must want the injustice ended now for justice to just be and the amendment
process overly restricts those concerned about an injustice, so much to the point where if
choosing between appealing to the legislator or appealing to the judiciary, they will most likely
appeal to the judiciary (especially when it is forgotten that all three branches of government are
engaged in the business of justice).
A reason the amendment process was created was so that if a society decided something
new needs to fall under the categories of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, the society
would be able to so add to the categories. For example, if a society decided that a persons life
was violated by not having access to a car, the society could pass an amendment that said, in
essence, transportation is necessary for life, and hence a human right. And from that moment,
the people would realize that it always had a human right to transportation not because it was
given this right by the State, but because people already had this right in being people and the
State simply made people realize this while promising to protect the right and so the society
would setup appropriate duties (via taxes, etc.) to assure all people were able to exercise this
right. And from that moment, the society would realize that the right to transportation
transcended any process of justice, and unless the amendment was revoked or overridden by
another amendment that made people realize they were wrong about the right to
transportation, this would always be the case. Do note that the difference between a process
that realizes versus a process that gives/takes is very hard to pin down, and experientially, the
processes seem identical. But again, keep in mind that the distinction is very important to make,
for who is the source of rights is also the source of power. If its not the society we the people
its the State.
Amendments are how human rights that transcend the Constitution were to be realized
by the Constitution (lest subjectivity rule the day) as falling under the categories of life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness. The same can be said about deciding what falls under the category
of due process, as brought up in the 14th Amendment (and as will be expounded on).
Amendments were meant to decide what falls under categories of human rights (and in this way,
help determine to what words refer such as make clear liberty entails a right to marriage), but
in the amendment process being so incredibly difficult and unrealistic, amendments have been
skipped for this purpose. And for good reason: there are real issues and real problems that
society today is facing at an ever increasing rate (especially in the midst of globalization), and if
we fail to adapt, our country very well may suffer for it. The Constitution is supposed to be
living via amendments not via interpretations, but it is understandable that people right or
wrong would turn to searching for life in hermeneutics when faced with an amendment
process that is virtually impossible to work with. Faced with (real/believed) injustices and
problems, the Living Constitution doctrine is a rational direction for a judge and society to
accept when faced with an amendment process that is far too draconian (though that isnt to say
the hermeneutics is right that is a different question).26 Faced with a poor amendment
process, the society has rationally turned to hermeneutical methods that make up for the short
comings of the amendment process. But these methods risk skipping over the States and
Federalism (over process for justice), a move which can be readily accepted due to certain
understandings about the Civil War, but a move which can have steep consequences, as warned
about by Justice Roberts and in Equality and Its Immoral Limits by O.G. Rose.

A human right of marriage, for example, can we added to the society either by adding an
amendment, adopting an interpretation that justifies its presence in the Constitution, or by
changing State laws. We have noted the draconian nature of the amendment process and the
existential consequences of Living Constitution-hermeneutics, so why not just change State
laws? This is an appeal to Federalism again, the validity of which has been argued for throughout
this paper, but at the same time, this paper has brought to the forefront how appealing to
Federalism for justice is inherently in a tension with justice itself, which leads to a natural
aversion toward Federalism of anyone who is concerned about injustice. The one who believes it
is an injustice for LGBTs to not be married isnt going to want to establish marriage as a State
law; naturally, the person is going to want to establish it as a human right, for that is how the
person necessarily feels in feeling as if there is an injustice (for example, no one who thinks sex
slavery is wrong thinks States should decide on if sex slavery should be legal or not a
suggestion of Federalism would be absurd and offensive even). To be motivated by justice is to
ironically be motivated against (necessary) process. The only way to establish marriage as a
human right that people need to realize is via the Constitution, but since adding an amendment
to the Constitution is virtually impossible, the only option is to find an interpretation of the
Constitution that legitimizes the human right as Constitutional. The Living Constitution is the
only, realistic hope of those compelled by an (idea of) injustice, until the amendment process is
fixed, which it cannot be without an amendment.
In my option, the design of the amendment process is the great flaw of the Constitution, a
tragedy we are locked into by the amendment process itself, which I fear may set us on a course
to overly concentrate power in the Federal Government, which to keep from happening is the
reason the Constitution came into existence. Take how not even the Equal Rights Amendment
has been able to pass through: surely only a very, very small minority of people dont think that
men and women shouldnt be equally acknowledged by the Constitution (though that isnt to say
some people may be against extras that come along with the amendment), but not even that
amendment can pass through. In our imperfect world, there will always be some who are against
(insert), and an amendment process shouldnt be so draconian that the just the way the world is
(probabilistically speaking) is going to keep amendments from passing. And when amendments
arent an option, people dont feel any less compelled to stop what they believe is an injustice (as
they shouldnt), and so they will find (and/or create) an alternative. This has contributed to focus
on appealing to the Supreme Court and hermeneutic avenues, both of which has contributed to
the stepping over processes in the name of justice, as the subjective experience of an injustice
itself so makes a person want to do.
Where process is (successfully) infringed upon in the name of justice, the
phenomenology of (in)justice is the prime drive of human action the experience that justice
should just be (and the injustice should just not be). Despite risks of existential tension, this
phenomenology legitimizes skipping process (which tarries what should just be (now)) as much
as possible by appealing to the Supreme Court and not Federalism (as legitimized by certain
understandings of the Civil War), especially in light of the draconian requirements of the
amendment process, which in the eyes of those passionate about ending injustice, preserves
injustice. And this all leads us to a final consideration before moving on to the end of this long
work: the phenomenology of freedom and how it inherently exists in America in a tension with
the phenomenology of (in)justice, even though freedom and justice require one another.

A country can be free because its laws (relative to other countries) makes its citizens free,
but is that country truly free if the people in the country dont feel free? Perhaps America today
is a free country, but do its people feel free, and if not, in what sense is it free? Of course, a
nation can legally and government be free, and just because people dont feel free doesnt change
this reality at all: if Ive never seen China, though perhaps China isnt real to me, it still exists.
But at the same time, if the legal and/or socioeconomic system of a country in the act of making
its people free, makes its people feel un-free, then there is a sense in which the frameworks
failed to accomplish their goal, even though perhaps relative to law and economics, these
frameworks succeeded.
Reality isnt subservient to feelings: just because you feel as if something is wrong
doesnt mean it is wrong, as it isnt the case that what you feel is is in fact what is (as argued
in Emotional Judgment by O.G. Rose). That said, it is ideal to try to make a free society one in
which people readily feel free, and to not infringe upon this feeling anymore than necessarily
(which isnt easy to determine). For if America doesnt feel free to its people if the
phenomenological lives of its citizens feel bound in what way is America different from a
nation like China (though this isnt to say China is a bad nation)? Cannot people in China
(mostly) move from place to place at will? Speak when they want? Eat when they want? Perhaps
people in China cant say or do absolutely everything without the government stopping them, but
can an American trespass onto a military base if he wants? Can an America shout fire! in a
crowded theater? There are restrictions on freedom in all nations, so what makes America
unique? Well, much of it has to do with how its citizenship feels Americans feel free, more so
than those in China. And yes, there are real ways in which Americans are freer than people in
China, but I think what makes America truly unique is that in its history, America has been a
nation that has done everything in its power to make its citizens truly believe that they are free
and that their only limits are the limits they placed on themselves, not those placed on them by
the State. This effort of the State to make itself invisible, per se, without though not existing or
failing to do its necessary duties, is what makes America unique, and nations today that try to do
the same were so inspired by the American Experiment.
But dont Americans have to pay taxes? Arent there laws? Youre not free to drive at
150mph, are you? Of course Americans arent anarchists. There are rules, but America is
unique because it attempts to design restriction in such a way that the citizenship believes these
restrictions dont take away from freedom and are reasonable duties, and indeed, the State hopes
that the rules and restrictions truly are such. In fact, the hope of the American State is to only
enact restrictions and duties that Americans believe enhance freedom Americans
understanding that if there was no rule of law, there would be chaos, and though perhaps the
people would be free, this freedom could hardly be called good. The hope of the American
design was that citizens would understand that being free isnt simply a matter of doing what
you want, but a matter of doing what is right freely (and so meaningfully) (though what
constitutes this is a matter of debate). If I murder and get away with it, I am burdened by guilt, so
Im not truly free; if I lie, I am threatened by those who know the truth, and so in lying I give
those who know the truth power over me; and so on. When a person acts freely but separate from
the good, the persons free act will freely lead to bondage, while the person who freely acts
toward the good, the persons free act will freely lead to liberty.
America has imperfectly striven to create a rule of law and social duties that people
(more so than not) understand are necessary, and so a system that doesnt make people feel

less free. When Americans believe that the State is committed to only enacting laws and duties
that enhance freedom, then Americans dont experience new laws and duties as restrictions on
liberty, even if they in fact do perfect limits on absolute freedom (as speeding limits restrict the
absolute freedom to drive at any speed, though they dont take away the restriction to drive).
And of course, America has often failed in its efforts, slavery being a clear example of such, but
the goal of America has been constant, as evident by the fact that slavery and the Jim Crow
South were abolished by the American State and people (though that isnt to say their ghosts
dont haunt us to this very day). Unfortunately, America, by defining blacks as not human, was
able to believe it was a free nation while simultaneously enslaving others this makes
frighteningly clear that what constitutes creating freedom and/or bondage is relative to
axioms and premises (which hints at the necessity of critical thinking if a nation is to be free).
A nation that wasnt committed to freedom wouldnt be a nation that corrected its
trespasses against freedom, though of course those trespasses shouldnt have existed in the first
place, and tragically people didnt give them up easily (deceived by their axioms about what
constituted a human). A free nation isnt a nation that is free so much as it is a nation
committed to remaining in a state of becoming free. In fact, a nation that decides it is free
versus becoming free is a nation thats (feeling of) freedom will quickly die, the nation
becoming static, fragile, and virtually destined to be broken by historic changes. Hence, a free
nation is a nation that requires processes of becoming (free). This hints at the danger of
infringing upon process, even if done out of the best and most just of reasons (and keep in mind
that those who fought to preserve slavery thought it was an injustice to annul property rights
what is done in the name of justice can be immoral).
But of course, not everyone agrees on which laws and duties enhance freedom, and that
is why we have a democratic-republic process. Naturally, when a law or duty is passed into law
that a person disagrees with, that person feels as if his or her freedom as been diminished. This
cannot be helped, but what can help the person still believe that restrictions and duties are (at
least mostly) in his or her best interest and ultimately come to believe that liberty isnt
diminished is the process by which those laws and duties were passed into law. The process
has a large impact on if a peoples phenomenology of freedom is maintained for the best, even
if they dont always agree with the outcomes of those processes.
In America, when there is social change that people dont agree on, since there is a
process of democratic and Federalist change, even though people may not agree with it, since the
change was fair, the majority of those dissenters gradually come to accept it, and existential
tension fades away (though that isnt to say there arent always pockets of radicals, which I fear
in a nation with an ever-growing population size, is increasingly likely). But if people feel as if
the change wasnt right that the process was infringed upon for whatever reason (such as in
the name of justice) there is a higher likelihood that dissenters will not change their position
(begetting existential tension), believing that to do so would be to accept an unjust violation of
liberty, which would be to disrespect the whole reason America was created and founded thanks
to the courage, sweat, and blood of those who worked, fought, and died for it. And yet the very
reason the process may have been infringed upon is the name of the liberty and justice that
America was created and founded for the sake of preserving, thanks to the courage, sweat, and
blood of those who worked, fought, and died for it.
In America, law, the balance of powers, Federalism, etc. all of these exist to balance
necessary rules to enhance freedom with the feeling of a people that they are free. Again, just
because people feel that they arent free doesnt mean they arent free, but it is still the case that

laws and duties are supposed to incubate more so a feeling of being free than being bound. If
it fails to do this, civil and social unrest can follow, as I fear we are seeing today (as will be
expounded upon). One of the prime ways this feeling/experience of freedom (or
phenomenology of freedom) is supposed to be maintained is by the State being invisible, if
you will by the rule of law, taxation, etc. being such that the State fades into the background.
The State is supposed to be like a doorknob its supposed to only be noticed when its broken
(to borrow from the thought of Heidegger). Few of us think about a doorknob when we use it: we
open a door and continue about our business as if the doorknob isnt there. This doesnt mean the
doorknob isnt important in fact, its irreplaceable: the door cant open without it but it does
mean that the essential role of the doorknob is to go unnoticed, precisely because it works so
well. It might strike us that something that works well is something that is noticed, but thats not
always the case: it depends on the thing in question. Some things are supposed to be invisible
when they work, and the American vision of the State was that it was to be more invisible than
it was visible. The more the American State becomes visible, the more it ceases to work as it
was envisioned to work, and yet people might ironically take the increasingly visibility of the
State as evidence that the State is working better than ever before.27
A free society must work to not just be a society that is only free according to its law, but
that people also experience as free. Even if by some standard America is still a free society, I fear
America is losing its phenomenology of freedom as process in America is continually infringed
upon (for just reasons) Im concerned that how people experience freedom here is changing,
and that this change is occurring as the State becomes increasingly visible (as is apparent by
how constantly politics fills our media).The more people feel like their views are seriously taken
into consideration and fairly beaten by the democratic process, the more the overall
phenomenology of freedom will be maintained, even when people feel as if their side should
have won, per se. For the majority will experience the limits of freedom as expressions of free
process, and though perhaps keeping a people from being absolutely free, these limits defend
the society from chaos, even if not everyone likes the limits. The majority understands that a
State must make decisions, and if these decisions are made through a fair process, then the
debate was fairly waged, and the debate fairly ended. The phenomenology of freedom is
negatively affected when people start feeling as if debates were improperly ended and that, by
extension, the results of those debates are improperly established. The more people feel like
they had their fair say, the more they can accepted the results, however they may turn out, but
when people dont feel like they have had a fair chance, they may feel otherwise, as warned
about by Justice Roberts and Equality and Its Immoral Limits by O.G. Rose.
There is a tension between laws and freedom, but laws are necessary for freedom to
not devolve into chaos. Laws and duties that make people free can exist in tension with the
feelings of a people that they are free, and this is a strange and difficult paradox, one that
processes of justice can help resolve. An aim of the three branches should be to work to help
people feel free as much as they can, and lawyers should also be committed to maintaining a
free experience in America. For if a country doesnt feel free, in what sense can we say it is
free? Now we must be careful, because we tread close to committing the fallacy warned about
in Emotional Judgment by O.G. Rose, but the question is still valid. If a country doesnt feel
free, who cares if it is free? Lawyers and the three branches should take this into consideration,
though not change a good and just ruling because it might make people feel bound. No one
should put actual freedom at risk in fear of infringing upon the experience/feeling of freedom,
but this takes a process to balance. Lawyers must try to maintain a feeling of freedom without

sacrificing actual freedom, and also side on the actual versus emotions if a choice between
them becomes necessary. Additionally, if there is a process by which actual freedom may be
realized that doesnt lessen (as much) the feeling of freedom, that process should always be the
default. And that process is Federalism, which is precisely that which the phenomenology of
(in)justice compels us to step over and impede for all the right reasons.
The phenomenology of (in)justice and the phenomenology of freedom threaten one
another, and yet freedom and justice require one another. Who cares if people feel free when
LGBTs are facing injustice? Is it not morally reprehensible to preserve feelings of freedom at
the expense of others? Those passionate about ending an injustice must necessarily be pushed to
appeal to the Supreme Court (as has already been discussed), especially in light of a draconian
amendment process, and if that threatens the phenomenology of freedom, that is a necessary
risk, for those facing the injustice most certainly dont feel free, and if we have to take a risk to
address that problem, so be it. Those suffering an injustice dont feel free, and so there is a
sense in which the phenomenology of (in)justice pushes a people to expand the
phenomenology of freedom to those suffering injustice the two can go hand in hand. For as it
is hard to say in what meaningful sense a nation is free that doesnt feel free, so it is hard to say
in what meaningful sense a nation is free within which occurs injustice. Hence, there is a real
sense in which to expand justice is to expand freedom, and vice-versa, but at the same time,
justice and freedom can exist in a natural tension. How is this tension resolved so that the
phenomenology of (in)justice doesnt threaten the phenomenology of freedom, and yet at the
same time, injustices not be left unresolved (which is to fail to expand freedom)?
The amendment process.
But as weve already said, those passionate about ending an injustice must necessarily be
against a Federalist process to end that injustice (unless forced otherwise by the Supreme Court),
and where the amendment process is too unrealistic (and that cant be fixed without an
unrealistic amendment), this forces those compelled by the phenomenology of (in)justice to
appeal to the Supreme Court over the States (a move legitimized by certain understandings of the
Civil War), which means those passionate about justice must necessarily threaten the
phenomenology of freedom. And the more those motivated by injustice succeed at infringing
upon process, the more they are motivated and legitimized to keep doing so, all while threatening
the phenomenology of freedom.
But who cares? Even if such action does risk incubating existential tension and making
people not feel free, these are small prices to pay to end (what people think is an) injustice and
create what should just be (now). Should the Union not have invaded the South to end slavery
because their actions made Southerners feel like they werent free? Is (virtually) forcing people
to remove Confederate flags and accept LGBT marriage likewise justified, even though such
actions may make people not feel free (when they very well are actually free)? Perhaps its
hard to say but I think needs to be made is that a citizenship can only take so much feeling as if
their freedom is violated before they break and social unrest follows. Even if the change that
violated process was just and does actually enhance freedom, if people dont feel as if it does,
pressure can build, and there can be problems.
Even if for just and good reason, the more State acts, the more visible the State
becomes, and the more people may feel like they arent free like their lives are constantly be
effected by forces beyond them. But if there is a process that State action occurs by, then even if
the State is visible, the visibility of the State wont naturally be interpreted as a threat, but as

visible reminder of how the State is contained by checks and balances, but not in such a way
that leaves the people exposed to the chaos of anarchy. But every time State visibility
increases, the feeling of freedom is threatened, and though the risk is sometimes worth taking,
this must be remembered, lest public and private agents force upon the citizenship more pressure
than the citizenship can take.
When people dont feel free, even when perhaps they are actually free according to
the law or compared to other nations, people can begin acting as if they arent free like caged
animals trying to get out. Social and civil unrest can follow between those who feel as if their
freedom is being violated toward those who they believe are responsible for contributing to this
violation, and between those fighting against an injustice toward those who they believe
contribute to the perpetuation of this injustice. This tension can manifest through increasingly
partisan politics, increasing antagonism between those of different viewpoints, growing racism,
growing discrimination, and other dangerous tensions. If you live in the freest nation on earth,
but that freedom is used for partisanship, discrimination, and bigotry, what does it matter? If not
through direct, observable civil and social tension, when people feel like caged animals,
productivity can drop, as psychological issues like depression can rise. Not necessarily, but
possibly, and whether or not ending an injustice quickly versus through (Federalist) process is
worth the risk depends no universal answer can be given. How social and civil unrest manifests
depends, but the point stands that it is something the State and people should take into
consideration whenever they consider passing a new law or ending an injustice through the
Supreme Court. Perhaps the risk is sometimes worth it, the injustice being so grave, but perhaps
taking the risk every time (as the phenomenology of (in)justice would logically and rationally
motivated the concerned to do) isnt such a good idea. People can take only but so much
pressure, even if for the right reasons.
Every time the phenomenology of freedom lessens, even if for good and just reasons,
pressure can build, and this is why it is important that an optimal process is used by which justice
is expanded and actual freedom defined from the chaos of absolute freedom. Otherwise, pressure
will build and pop, even if people are actually free. The draconian difficulty of the amendment
process greatly contributes to the death of the phenomenology of freedom, because it makes it
that the only realistic way injustices can be corrected Constitutionally is through violating
process and appealing to the Supreme Court, as the phenomenology of (in)justice naturally
motivates people to do anyway the difficulty of the amendment process legitimizing this
natural and just feeling. Furthermore, our prevalent understanding of the Civil War turns us
against States rights and Federalism an understanding legitimized by cynical hermeneutics,
a failure to understand the Civil War in light of the Stanford Prison Experiment, and our failure
to be historically empathetic by understanding the Civil War, unlike WWII, as over a morally
ambiguous issue (as abortion is to us today, which one day might not be morally ambiguous at
all, making us seem to those in the future like moral monsters). Hence, we are orientated to
violate the process which is necessary for the phenomenology of (in)justice and the
phenomenology of freedom to exist in concert with one another, informing and expanding one
another, versus threatening and deconstructing.28
Process dying in the name of justice, we exist in an age in which the phenomenology of
freedom is at war with the phenomenology of (in)justice, for our age is one defined by a war
between process and justice a war between the 10th and 14th Amendments. And so we arrive at
the final consideration of this long work.

The amendment process is too difficult, and since it can only be fixed by an amendment,
were stuck, and in this stuck circumstance, it is rational and the only option to turn to
hermeneutical methods to make up for the short-comings of our amendment process, as is
arguably necessary in our ever-changing, globalized world. Yes, changes can be made through
Federalism, but again, the very motivation of justice pushes us against Federalism toward the
Supreme Court, considering risks to the phenomenology of freedom fair and necessary. And all
this is understandable: if something is a true injustice and true violation of human rights, it isnt
wrong to believe that it shouldnt be decided on by the States: to think LGBT marriage should be
Constitutional, for example, is a reasonable position, one that should be heard and debated.
Unfortunately, in having no realistic process by which to add LGBT marriage to the Constitution
due to problems with the amendment process, the only way it can be added as some would
argue justice requires is through interpreting the Constitution in such a way that it is already
present (and so present all along, unrealized). But even if these hermeneutics are justified (which
is a different question), this method threatens process, and so the phenomenology of freedom,
but what choice do we have if denial of LGBT marriage is an injustice? And so a war has been
created between the 10th and 14th Amendments.
Our age of Constitutional deliberation is an endless recapitulation of the war between the
14 Amendment and the 10th Amendment: it seems as if the two cant exist in the same
document, and yet must. Because the amendment process is so draconian, the war between the
10th and 14th Amendments is destined to become increasingly and endlessly headed: it is from
out of which the pent-up-ness, per se the pressure caused by amendment process vents
out. The 10th Amendment helps preserve the phenomenology of freedom, but the 14th
Amendment has come to clash with it, as motivated by the phenomenology of (in)justice and so
forced by the amendment process.
The 10th Amendment reads:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people.

The 10th Amendment gives the States the right to decide, via Federalism, on all issues
that dont fall under the power of the Federal Government, as granted to it by the Constitution.
Those opposed to the recent LGBT marriage ruling would argue that since the Constitution
doesnt specially give the Federal Government the power to define, incentivize, etc. marriage,
that power and so the issue of marriage as a human right should fall to the States.
Textualists argue that certain interpretational methods are used to find powers and
rights in the Constitution that arent actually there, and in doing so, take powers away from the
States that, according to the 10th Amendment, rightly belong to them. According to Textualists,
the way certain judges often achieve this is through a certain interpretation of the due process
section Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, which is what brings the 14th often into conflict
with the 10th. The section reads:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and
of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of
citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor
deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

To say nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law can be interpreted to mean that life, liberty, and property are above the law
they transcend it. Hence, no State can rule on that which falls within the categories of life,
liberty, and property, and also the pursuit of happiness, as included via The Declaration of
Independence. Likewise, to say [n]o State can make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, means that what constitutes a
privilege and/or immunity is that which the States have no power over, even if this power
isnt delegated to the Federal Government by the Constitution. The same can be said about that
which falls under the category of the equal protection of the laws.
But who gets to decide what falls under the category of privilege, immunity, the
equal protection of the laws, life, liberty, and property? Whoever gets to decide this, gets
to decide to that which the 10th Amendment doesnt apply, and so that which the States dont
have power over. Traditionally, that power has fallen under the Supreme Court, who in deciding
that marriage, for example, is a human right guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, decide that
humans, in being human, have that human right which the Supreme Court and Federal
Government have made people realize they have.
Even if this Non-Textualist hermeneutical method is legitimate, it should be noted that
there can be problems and paradoxes with the Supreme Court realizing there are certain human
rights in the Constitution that are interpreted in more so than amended in. Take how this
method can be used to perpetuate (what some believe is an) injustices just as much as it can be
used to end (what some believe is an) injustice. For example, the Dred Scott decision claimed
that a slave was property, and so couldnt be taken from a person without due process of law.
Hence, the decision claimed that violating the right to own slaves was to violate the right to
property, and so an injustice. Ironically, Dred Scott defended slavery on grounds of justice and
human rights it claimed that the right to own slaves transcended the State and Supreme
Court. And yet later on, the Supreme Court realized the exact opposite: that slavery violated
the human right to life and ones self property that neither Local, State, nor Federal law
could grant anyone slaves, because slavery innately violated human rights that transcended law.
Hence, Non-Textualist hermeneutics can be used to perpetuate injustices just as much as they
can be used to end them, but considering the draconian requirements of the amendment process
and logic of the phenomenology of (in)justice, isnt that a necessary risk for the sake of justice?
Those in favor of abortion believe it is a human right that transcends the law, while
those against it believe it violates the right to life of the fetus, which transcends the law and
the human right to get an abortion the transcendence of the right to life is greater than the
transcendence of the human right to the property of ones body, if you will. Complex issues
like abortion involve conflicting visions of human rights, both of which transcend the law.
Slavery was a debate between the right to property which transcended the law and the right
to life which also transcended the law. Who decides which human right is most
transcendent, and by what standard?
This bring us to a problem with substantive due process, as it is called. Which human
rights are most transcendent, per se, and by what standard? Perhaps the right to life and the
right to property are humans rights that transcend due process (and so fall under the 14th
Amendment), but who decides which of those rights trumps the other? Ultimately, this must be
left up to someones subjectivity or a collection of subjectivities. At the end of the day, we
cannot totally escape subjectivity, so the question becomes by what process can a society best
live with the ultimately subjective decision? In a democratic-republic, the belief is that the more

the decision is left up to the people though not to an extent that mob rule is the law of the land
the better. As should be clear, not only do we need a process to determine which rights
transcend law, but also to determine which rights most transcend law (keep in mind that
everyone will naturally think the human right and matter of justice they are passionate about is
the most transcendent right, even that right is used to perpetuate injustice). Yes, at the end of
the day, the justice a society decides is most like Justice, if you will, will still consist of levels
of subjectivity and wont be perfect, but a proper process will maintain the phenomenology of
freedom, keep power from concentrating, and keep existential uncertainty from overwhelming.
A Textualist and/or Originalist tends to believe that a human right cannot be present in
the Constitution unless specifically stated or reasonably inferred such as inferring from a
freedom of speech a freedom of expression but someone of a different interpretational
leaning may think that implies human rights are subservient to the Constitution, and that because
of the draconian requirements of the amendment process, this view makes the Constitution too
stagnant and unable to change as changing times makes necessary. But if a Constitution adapts
via interpretation versus amendments, in what sense is it a Constitution or solid framework?
The Textualists have a point: a Constitution, by definition, is that which doesnt change unless
the Constitution itself is amended. To find or infer rights that are unenumerated or unstated in a
Constitution flatly contradicts the very idea of what a Constitution is all about, which is to state
the humans rights, procedures, balances of power, etc. of a given people. The idea of
unenumerated rights that are interpreted in versus amended in also stands in complete and
irresolvable conflict with the 10th Amendment, which says that what is unenumerated is to be
left to the States (unless amended into the Constitution). But those opposed to Textualism also
have a point: the amendment process is too draconian, and to let States decide on humans right
leaves open the possibility of States perpetuating injustices (though of course the Supreme Court
could do the same).
There is no perfect system, only trade-offs.
According to the Originalist, if a human right isnt specially listed, or reasonably inferred
from, the Constitution, that human right cant be said to be constitutional unless amended in.
This isnt because human rights come from the Constitution, but because it is through the
Constitution that we realize, as a society, that we have certain human rights (all along, because
we are human), while simultaneously affirming that it is our duty as a society to protect and
enact them. By no means is this process perfect and by no means are the humans rights in the
Constitution that only ones (that can ever be in the Constitution), but it is only through the
Constitution that we can establish a difference between ideas of human rights from actual
human rights, also keep appeals to human rights from becoming an uncontrollable power and
manner by which citizens who want X can impose duties on other citizens to provide X. All
rights entail duties, and without a Constitution, there would no limit on the duties that could be
imposed on citizens, turning them into slaves for all the right reasons.
That said, not only do we need a Constitution to keep human rights from being power
grabs, we need a proper process of Constitutional interpretation, one that as has already been
said will maintain the phenomenology of freedom, keep power from concentrating, and keep
existential uncertainty from overwhelming. But who cares about the phenomenology freedom,
concentrating power, and existential tension if concerns about them will allow injustices to be
perpetuated and spread? Alas, what we need is Federalism and the Amendment process, the later
being overly draconian, the former being unacceptable due to our understanding of the Civil War

and the way our longing for justice naturally pushes us to appeal to the Supreme Court, a natural
push that has been legitimized by previous and continual Supreme Court action.
The 10th Amendment and the 14th Amendment can only be reconciled with an
amendment process that realistically works, but since ours doesnt, when it comes to changing
the Constitutional, were left with hermeneutical methods that threaten our society and overly
concentrate power. Were stuck. Personally, I wouldnt be opposed to an Executive Order to
change the Amendment process of the Constitution to something less draconian, though I
acknowledge granting the Executive Branch the ability to change the Constitution is an
incredible power, and hypothetical considering my concerns about power concentration. In my
mind, it would be a onetime event, but I have no defense to those who would warn why should
it be?. This is an idea I need to ponder more thoroughly, which leaves open the question:
What are we going to do?
Perhaps we could have a Constitutional Convention that exists only to fix the amendment
process? But again, I have no defense to who would warn why should the Convention only be
about one issue?, which again leaves open the question:
What are we going to do?
I fear I have only thoughts.
The 14th Amendment demands that the Federal Government override the States in all
situations in which due process is violated or in regard to the (potential) violation of human
rights that transcend due process. It is the later understanding of the 14th Amendment which
can set it up to be in conflict with the 10th Amendment. Certainly there are rights which are
above due process, but if theyre not listed in the Constitution or added to by amendments, the
10th and 14th Amendments must conflict. But since amendments cant realistically be added to
the Constitution, it is unrealistic for the 10th and 14th Amendments not to clash. Is there any hope
for a day of peaceful coexistence? If not, I fear peaceful coexistence is also impossible for
those in our society who are passionate about injustice and those passionate about process
the partisanship between Liberals and Conservatives will only intensifying, making us
increasingly unable to coexist in our Pluralistic Age.
In the Dred Scott decision, the Supreme Court decided that a slave fell under the category
of property, but where in the Constitution is the Supreme Court or Federal Government for
that matter granted the power to decide what phenomena fall under this category? The same
can be asked about what falls under the categories of life and liberty where in the
Constitution is this power granted to the Supreme Court? Likewise, who gets to decide what
actions fall under the category of discrimination? The Supreme Court or the States?
The power to define what falls within the meaning of words has proven to be the greatest
Nowhere in the Constitution is this power granted to the Court or the Federal
Government, so according to the 10th Amendment, the power should fall to the States the same
goes with deciding what falls under the categories of life, liberty, and property. But if a
certain action actually is discrimination, isnt it a violation of life and liberty, and hence that
which the Federal Government and Supreme Court must stop over the States, as expressed in the
14th Amendment? Considering the 10th and 14th Amendments together, shouldnt the States have
the power to decide that which the 14th Amendment applies to, and hence that which the States

should be over-powered to stop? Shouldnt the States unleash the power of the Fed over
A paradox? It seems that way that the 10th and 14th Amendments can only be reconciled
if the States decide what constitutes the violations which the Federal Government must override
the States to stop. If the Federal Government or Supreme Court decides (as they now do), the
10th Amendment can be rendered irrelevant by the institutions the 10th was designed to contain
and the 14th transformed into a pass for unlimited government growth. But doesnt this mean the
States get to decide when they are overridden, and hence have all the power? A Federalist desires
the States to have more power than the Federal Government, for States are closer to we the
people than is the Federal Government. But what if the States dont define slavery as a
violation of life? Is the Federal Government to do nothing? It could pass an amendment, as it
could pass an amendment that claims x constitutes an Unconstitutional violation of y. But the
amendment process is completely unrealistic. True, which means the States would be more
powerful than the Fed given that the amendment process isnt fixed. Do you want a world where
the Federal Government cant stop States that allow injustices? Well, currently, if the Federal
Government enforces an injustice, theres nothing the States can do: the pendulum has to swing
one way or the other.
Personally, I rather have States have all the power than the Fed, because the power is
much more mitigated. If one State commits an injustice, not all the States are so guilty, and the
one State can more easily be corrected than the Federal Government. If the Central Power makes
a mistake, the only way to correct is to appeal to the Fed to change itself (which is no easy task,
especially if the Supreme Court committed the error, considering stare decisis), to revolt, or to
move to a different country. If a State falls into error, one can move to a different State, convince
it to change without nearly as much bureaucracy or red tape to deal with, and convince other
States to be an example of what a State ought to do, which will create social pressure for the
State to change. The power of those who commit the injustice not being so great, the injustice
can more easily be stopped but everything within us that cares about justice cannot allow us to
even accept the possibility of an injustice occurring, especially one the Fed cannot easily stop.
To leave States open to the possibility of committing and injustice, especially in light of the Civil
War, is simply unacceptable to us, but in being so sure of ourselves, we leave the Federal
Government open to committing injustice on much larger and costlier scale. Perhaps that risk is
worth it? Perhaps, but if we are going to be discerning about that, we need to not have such a
hard prejudice against Federalism: prejudice blinds.
So be it thats all well and good but to go with what is being suggested, wouldnt you
need an amendment to say States will decide what violations fall under the categories of
violations of life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness ? But amendments are too
difficult to pass, so we must settle with a method of interpretation to restore State power, lest
what constitutes violations that the Federal Government must stop be left up to nine unelected
judges. But isnt that ironic and hypocritical, considering that much of this work has criticized
reading into the Constitution versus amending into?
True enough.
To review, the draconian difficultly of the amendment process is the fundamental flaw of
the Constitution which places the 10th and 14th Amendments at odds with one another,
threatening the phenomenology of freedom with existential uncertainty, and leaving those
driven by the phenomenology of (in)justice to necessarily contribute to power concentration
over the States and social unrest, justified by the prevalent understanding of the Civil War and

the fundamental flaw of the Constitution. To break this tension between process and justice
which puts freedom and America at risk, we need either dramatic Executive Action (which
betrays my fear about power concentration, though I will be guilty of hypocrisy if it will avoid
catastrophe) or to leave States up to decide what falls under the category of a violation of life,
liberty and/or property, which unfortunately leaves the States open to allow injustice. But at
least in the power of those who commit the injustice not being so great, the injustice can more
easily be stopped but everything within us that cares about justice cannot allow us to even
accept the possibility of an injustice occurs, for what about those to whom the injustice occurs?
The world is far from perfect.
Weve reached what could be called a conclusion, and if not a conclusion, an end, and if
not an end, a lament.
Let us lament just once more.
Taking down the Confederate flag and the Supreme Court decision on LGBT marriage
have existential consequences, not only for individuals, but for the country as a whole. Such acts
existentially prime us to oppose Federalism, State sovereignty, and/or the Jeffersonian vision of
America, all of which is to the advantage of the Central Government and fuels its growth. The
stronger and bigger the Central Government and/or State becomes, the more we are potentially
faced with dire consequences (explored throughout many works by O.G. Rose, as well as this
one). Though I think the Confederate flag should be removed from public spaces, the act of
taking down the flag risks confirming one particular reading of history. That in of itself isnt so
much the problem as it is legitimizing the emotional reaction to that history and legitimizing an
empathy-less reading of history legitimizing a failure of empathy, though keep in mind that
empathy isnt the same as acceptance which trains us to keep reading history in that light and
to fail to learn from it. If the flag can be taken down without people feeling justified in lacking
empathy, by all means, remove it, but if taking it down perpetuates a history of reading history
without empathy, keep it up until people learn better, and then take it down as a sign of the
introduction of a new and wiser people. Yes, we must acknowledge the moral atrocities of the
Confederacy, but we mustnt at the same legitimize thinking without empathy. And it is a great
challenge to be both just and empathetic.
Pressing down upon America a certain understanding of history as aided by inadequate
comparisons of the Confederacy with Nazi Germany, a failure to consider our moral ambiguity
toward abortion, and a failure to consider the Stanford Prison Experiment not only works
against the phenomenology of freedom, but also works against our ability, emotionally and
empathetically, to understand Federalism, of which as Justice Roberts and I believe we need
to achieve true acceptance with LGBTs and all minorities. And yet ironically our distrust of
Federalism precisely stems from a desire to end discrimination: our longing to end injustice
preserves injustice.
Unfortunately, when it comes to ending what we believe is an injustice, the
phenomenology of (in)justice (and cynical hermeneutics) naturally pushes us against
Federalism and toward appealing to the Supreme Court and ending the (supposed) injustice
through the Constitution. But tragically, since the amendment process is draconian (and not
easily fixed), this leads us to relying on interpretational methods that read into the Constitution

the human rights needed to end the injustice theres no other, realistic way which threatens
the phenomenology of freedom and further legitimizes appealing to the Supreme Court over
the Federalism necessarily for true acceptance and avoiding existential tension, all for just
And theres the rub.
I suppose the great tragedy of not understanding the Civil War completely is the failure to
grasp how much America is defined by the war between process and justice (and all people, for
that matter). By making the Civil War such a clear right and wrong matter, we fail to see that
the war between process and justice is at the heart of ourselves, pitting us against ourselves in
the name of what makes us who we are. We fight justice in the name of justice; freedom, in the
name of freedom. By forcing down the Confederate Flag, I fear we only further increase the
likelihood of us missing this reality by confirming a simple good/evil narrative of the Civil
War, which not only justifies us in our incomplete vision, but also justifies our cynical
hermeneutics, our lack of empathy, and failure to understand the influence of institutions on
human behavior. Additionally, the recent Supreme Court Decision on LGBT Marriage only
further justifies the understanding of the Supreme Court as the legitimate source to end disputes
about justice, which furthers justifies the antagonism against Federalism, which not only
contributes to our failure to see the profundity of the tension between justice and process, but
also contributes to our failure to realize that our efforts to make the world a better place can be
precisely what makes the world need justice.
Intent is not discernment.
All this leaves me with one final question:
Despite all the suggestions of this work, what if, in the end, the amendment process
cannot be fixed, and the 14th Amendment and the 10th Amendment are irreconcilable?
Then the war between process and justice will never end.
There w[ill] be battle but no victor []29
We will always be who we are.


See What This Cruel War Was Over by Ta-Nehisi Coates for more, as can be found here:

In line with this thought, Jefferson Davis argued:

What is our Union? A bond of fraternity, by the mutual agreement of sovereign States; it is to be preserved by good faith by
strictly adhering to the obligations which exist between its friendly and confederate States. Otherwise we should transmit to our
children the very evil under which our fathered groaned []A
It should also be noted that Davis neither advocated nor desired secession, though he believed it [C]onstitutional.B Hence, in his
mind, the North was in the wrong for invading them, similar to how some may think America was wrong to invade Iraq, despite
the evil of Saddam Hussein. Davis wrote:
I was among those who, from the beginning, predicted war as the consequence of secession, although I must admit that the
contest has assumed proportions more gigantic than I had anticipated. I predicted war not because our right to secede and to form
a government of our own was not indisputable and clearly defined in the spirit of that declaration which rests the right to govern
on the consent of the governed, but because I foresaw that the wickedness of the North would precipitate a war upon us.C

Jefferson Davis: The Essential Writings. Edited by William J. Cooper, Jr. Modern Library Paperback Edition, 2004: 178.

Jefferson Davis: The Essential Writings. Edited by William J. Cooper, Jr. Modern Library Paperback Edition, 2004: xxiv.

Jefferson Davis: The Essential Writings. Edited by William J. Cooper, Jr. Modern Library Paperback Edition, 2004: 277.

Recognize that the hypothetical situation of the North seceding over abortion wont strike as believable or a fair parallel, for
relative to our scope, slavery and abortion arent moral atrocities: to compares them is a disservice to woman. But recognize that
this feeling, though not necessarily wrong, is a consequence of our location in history: imagine instead that it was slavery that
was legal (say a world in which Confederates won the war), and that the hypothetical was about a world in which Northerners
were seceding over slavery. In that hypothetical world, the point I am trying to make would still stand.

But one may point out that a person wouldnt make that kind of example with abortion unless the person had at least leanings
in favor of the Anti-Abortion Movement, and perhaps that would be a fair objective (and admittedly, I am concerned that
abortion is racism, as expanded on elsewhere). But even if thats true, it doesnt change the point that is being made about how
what we think and feel is often relative to what the institutions of our day and age accept, regardless if what they accept is moral
or immoral. If a person says 2 + 2 = 4 and is a math major or funded by a math corporation, what the person says is still true.

Jefferson Davis: The Essential Writings. Edited by William J. Cooper, Jr. Modern Library Paperback Edition, 2004: xix.

Jefferson Davis: The Essential Writings. Edited by William J. Cooper, Jr. Modern Library Paperback Edition, 2004: xix.

Jefferson Davis: The Essential Writings. Edited by William J. Cooper, Jr. Modern Library Paperback Edition, 2004: 63.

Jefferson Davis: The Essential Writings. Edited by William J. Cooper, Jr. Modern Library Paperback Edition, 2004: 63.

Jefferson Davis: The Essential Writings. Edited by William J. Cooper, Jr. Modern Library Paperback Edition, 2004: xix.

Jefferson Davis: The Essential Writings. Edited by William J. Cooper, Jr. Modern Library Paperback Edition, 2004: xxi.


Jefferson Davis: The Essential Writings. Edited by William J. Cooper, Jr. Modern Library Paperback Edition, 2004: xx.


Jefferson Davis: The Essential Writings. Edited by William J. Cooper, Jr. Modern Library Paperback Edition, 2004: 65.


Jefferson Davis: The Essential Writings. Edited by William J. Cooper, Jr. Modern Library Paperback Edition, 2004: 144.


Jefferson Davis: The Essential Writings. Edited by William J. Cooper, Jr. Modern Library Paperback Edition, 2004: xxi.


Wallace, David Foster. Consider the Lobster. Up, Simba. New York, NY. Little, Brown and Company, 2006: 233-234.


Wallace, David Foster. Consider the Lobster. Up, Simba. New York, NY. Little, Brown and Company, 2006: 234.


Wallace, David Foster. Consider the Lobster. Up, Simba. New York, NY. Little, Brown and Company, 2006: 234.


See Justice Scalia is a Homophobe by Barney Frank, as can be found here:

This is a reason why I think being human must be defined as having human DNA otherwise, exceptions can abound, and
discrimination will occur.

Marriage, to exist meaningfully distinct from relationship, requires definition, but if marriage is defined, there will those in
a relationship who are outside of that definition. So in a sense, marriage cannot exist meaningfully without being experienced
as discrimination (to some). Perhaps then we should do away with marriage? Or get the State out of the business of marriage?
But perhaps that is impossible? Perhaps meaningless marriage is better than none? These are all questions to be taken up in other
works, but we should at least recognize that there is no easy answer, and that accusing of discrimination everyone who holds a
definition of marriage isnt helpful. Perhaps they are, perhaps they arent, as perhaps those LGBTs against polygamy are guilty of
discrimination, though perhaps theyre not. We need free exchange to find out, but even if Traditionalists are bigots, if they hold
an argument for why marriage should be kept between one man and one woman, that doesnt make their argument less wrong.
For such perhaps wrong arguments, consider What is Marriage? by Sherif Girgis, Ryan T Anderson, and Robert P George.

Perhaps slavery is different from the question of marriage because marriage is necessary while slavery isnt; rather, only
employment is necessarily? Well perhaps marriage doesnt need to exist, only relationships? After all, why is marriage different
from slavery? Because slavery is a matter of defining a human down from humanity which effects everyone without choice
while marriage only effects those who choose to enter into it ones choice of how marriage is defined only effects LGBTs if
they choose not to accept or enter into it in the terms of how it has been defined (which is very different from saying they cant
enter all). Who cares? Relative to me, the definition of marriage presented is unacceptable. Why should your definition be the
one that is accepted? Because youre guilty of discrimination. Well youre guilty of discrimination against the Traditionalist
view. And so on.
Argumentation is limitless.
At the end of the day, it always comes down to definition:
What is (a) human?
What is (a) marriage?
What is (a) sport?
What is (a) murder?
And so on.
Thousands of years later, Aristotle is still far ahead.

Please note that Im of the opinion that even if you were influenced by institutions, youre still responsible for your actions
nor am I someone who doesnt believe in free will. I believe humans are a mixture of freedom and influence, determinism and

A point inspired by Milton Friedman.


And this is why there is an unavoidable level of existential tension and uncertainty in a society (as argued in Equality and Its
Immoral Limits by O.G. Rose). Furthermore, there is a difference between causing existential tension on grounds of preserving
life and for the hope of ending racial un-acceptance. Tension caused in hopes of ending the later are contradictory, for
overcoming racism entails overcoming the tension felt between different kinds of people. Hence, any act that preserves and/or
incubates that tension (in one way or another) impedes the end hoped to be achieved by the means. By how do you determine
which means are paradoxical? A test a test to which some may find fundamentally paradoxical to appeal.

The fact that this paradoxical and ironic system works so well is perhaps to be expected in a reality thats fabric is irony, as
argued via tracing out the shape of an absence throughout Ironically by O.G. Rose.

This opens important questions up about the nature of being true and being rational, as explored throughout The True Isnt
the Rational by O.G. Rose.

Naturally, no one thinks they read into the law; everyone thinks they read out from the law no one thinks their subjectivity
isnt (to some degree) objective, for otherwise, they wouldnt believe what they believe. But even Textualists can read into the
law via a misunderstanding of history everyone is at risk.


But of course, this leaves open the question of how the amendment process should be reformed, and that is a question for which
I believe there is room for debate. But certainly it should have to be the case that over 90% of the country has to be on board for
an amendment to be ratified: in an imperfect world, this requirement goes against the nature of reality.

When the State is very large, the probability of it being broken somewhere is high, and so the probability of the State being
noticed is also high. Yet if people interpret the increasing visibility of the State as evidence that it is working, then the growth
of State will be interpreted as a success of State, as will be interpreted the brokenness of State.
And yet at the same time, when a government becomes too large, it can also become invisible, in the same way that what we are
used to tends to be that which we stop noticing. Hence, it isnt a given that an invisible State is a State that is the right size
perhaps it is, but then again, perhaps it isnt.

Just because people dont feel free doesnt means they arent actually free, but how people feel relative to what they
believe is true is what motivates social unrest, and so must be taken into consideration. To (rightly and justly) risk the
phenomenology of freedom because of the phenomenology of (in)justice is to risk feeding civil tension in an age when civil
and social harmony is hard enough to maintain because of the grave challenge of maintaining trust in a social media world in
which trust is frequently violated (as lamented in Collective Consciousness and Trust by O.G. Rose).

Wallace, David. The Pale King. New York, NY. First Back Bay Edition, 2012: 43.


History majors should be psychology majors.


Progressivism lacking historic empathy concerns me, while progressivism equipped with historic empathy is inspiring.


It might be more difficult for LGBTs to feel accepted due to the Obergefell v. Hodges decision, as government force
being used against Southerners and the Confederate Flag may make it increasingly difficult for Southerners to feel
accepted. If this is the case, existential tension will be more widespread in our society, which will make it difficult to
live together, and increase the likelihood of discrimination and oppression. You could of course claim that the only
reason Im so concerned about existential uncertainty and tension is because I hate LGBTs, because Im privilege,
because Im Conservative, etc., and to these accusations, there would be nothing I could say. But realizing the pitfalls
of cynical hermeneutics, please refrain from such accusations try to stay awake and keep in mind that if I were a
monster and said 2 + 2 = 4, it would still be true.


If the Supreme Court made LGBT marriage illegal, should States have the right to nullify the decision and/or secede
because of it? If States did so secede, would the other States be legitimate to force it back into the Union? Yes/no as a
rule of thumb, its always both.
On the other hand, imagine hat States were to secede because of the enforcement of LGBT marriage across the country.
The very act of seceding would be evidence that the succession was because of LGBT marriage, and why would they
secede unless they wanted to keep a Traditionalist view? If the States claimed it was because they didnt feel as if the
Federal Government had a right to tell them what they had to do, even if this was true, would they not only be claiming
this because of LGBT marriage? And if the Union decided to invade and force those States back in, would the Union be
in the wrong?
Judging cause and morality are no easy matter.


What has been said in this paper should be considered in light of The Phenomenology of Argument by O.G. Rose.


Perhaps years from now a movie will be made about the Supreme Court decision and the struggle of LGBTs to achieve
marital equality, and perhaps the movie will win an Oscar. But how Kafkaesque that will be if Roberts was right, and
LGBTs have lost, and lost forever: the opportunity to win the true acceptance that comes from persuading their fellow
citizens of the justice of their cause [] just when the winds of change were freshening at their backs.


Please see The Act of Killing and The Look of Silence, documentaries by Joshua Oppenheimer.


The question what is right? and the question how is what is right is to be decided? are not the same question, but
where justice is concerned, the questions are often conflated.


Is it morally superior to invade the Confederacy then to let them come around to the truth that slavery is wrong?
Should we let people murder as they come to realize murder is wrong? Answers are rarely easy.

10. To use the language of Experiencing Thinking by O.G. Rose, when we ask what was the Civil War about?, I fear
we ask for a low order complexity answer to which there is only a high order complex answer. So it goes with most
11. In light of Equality and Its Immoral Limits by O.G. Rose, I fear that today, the Supreme Court assured that LGBTs
will always be victims of discrimination. Federalism benefits the victims who resist it.
12. Had we allowed process to run its course, perhaps slavery would have ended without the loss of countless lives and
billions during the Civil War. But what if people didnt come around? That is always the question. Who knows? And
morality compels us to act now.
13. Morality seems to be, by definition, at odds with processes by which morality is determined, contributing to the death
of process, as warned about in The Death of Process by O.G. Rose.
14. If an incorrect process is appealed to, a party may necessarily be (defined as) bigoted.
15. You can make the most undemocratic, intolerant, oppressive, and unjust of claims in the name of democracy, tolerance,
freedom, and justice.

16. If you believe that human nature is perfectible, it may be very difficult for you to accept the fundament absurdity of
appealing to process for justice (just-ness), and this difficulty may further push you to skip process.
17. When it comes to something you believe is an injustice, relative to your scope, it can perhaps seem immoral to even
suggest the possibility of the injustice not truly being a problem (rather it be through hypothetical thinking, empathy,
appeals to process, etc.)
18. What a person defines as justice, by definition, never happens quickly enough.
19. To those concerned about an injustice: a judge is a celebrity if he or she votes for justice, while a judge that votes in
favor of process even if according to the law is a defender of injustice. Do note though that the judge who appeals
to a process doesnt say x should be illegal, but that the legality of x should be decided by y. However, to those who
think an injustice is alive, to abstain is to approve.
(This way of thinking may only be intensified by biases toward problem solving, as warned about in Incentives to
Problem Solve by O.G. Rose.)
20. Process exists precisely to check and balance subjectivity, which is always experienced as objective by the person
undergoing the subjectivity, which contributes to the person believing he or she is objective to think that having to
appeal to the process of checks and balances is unjust.
21. Emotions that arise from ethics threaten discernment, but the one who discerns without considering emotions poorly
22. Failure to understand the role of the judicial branch primarily in terms of law versus justice may contribute to
cynicism in a culture, for the confusion may contribute to people concerned about an injustice thinking that those who
disagree with them are against justice (perhaps just because), rather than just against changing the law.
23. For todays majority, it does not matter that the right to same-sex marriage lacks deep roots or even that it is contrary
to long-established tradition. The Justices in the majority claim the authority to confer constitutional protection upon
that right simply because they believe that it is fundamental.
-Justice Alito
If simply deciding that a certain right was fundamental would end sex slavery even if the law did objectively make
it so that judge wasnt allowed to do so should the judge intentionally misread the law and end sex slavery?
How closely you conflate legal with just might contribute to your answer.
24. If there are Fundamental Human Rights, someone has to decide what fundamental human rights align with those
Transcendent values. Who makes this decision?
25. Separating just from legal (though not entirely) may contribute to easing the tension between the 14th and 10th
26. The very fact the way the Constitution is interpreted can have a major impact on the lives of average citizens seems to
be good evidence that the State is too large.
27. Establishing losers pay in America may help appeals to process be more effective, seeing as people would sue or
appeal to the courts unless they strong confidence in their position.
28. What hurts, offends, upsets, etc. you isnt always whats bad for you.
29. Those who study Constitutional hermeneutics should study Biblical hermeneutics and vice-versa the similarities are
30. The Rawlsian conflation of fairness with justice may contribute to the conflation of justice with legal.
31. Since we exist in a history in which Emancipation Proclamation was enacted, it is hard for us to imagine slavery
vanishing without it, either through the States or thanks to technology (and perhaps it wouldnt have, for tragically,
slavery still exists today, as IJM makes clear). Likewise, now that the Supreme Court has decided on LGBT marriage,
it seems like a joke to think of the States deciding on the matter. What happens in history has a large impact on what
we think is realistic, but at the time before a potential was realized, all potentials were equally realistic.

32. One of Americas great sins is slavery, but its effort to defeat slavery is also one of its greatest moral accomplishments.
Consider all the men who fought and died to end slavery in America, but also dont forget all the men who fought and
died to preserve it. Sin and redemption must be remembered together.
Slavery had existed for thousands of years before America: America was the first nation to truly question it, and that is
thanks to its belief that all men are created equal. By creating this philosophical premise, America made itself guilty
of a great crime: slavery. Had it not created this premise, it would have been innocent: America created the standard
against which it was guilty of evil. Many of the Founding Fathers realized this as soon as the words all men are created
equal were written, but it took time for America to cease the sin it made itself guilty of for the sake of a greater calling.
Did this realization take too long? Absolutely, but had America not established all men are created equal within its
Constitution, America would have committed no (relative) sin, nor would have America helped spread the idea around
the world.
All this isnt to say that America isnt guilty of evil, but to say that if say America is evil, we do so by the standard
America created against itself. And for providing us with this standard, we should be thankful of America.
33. If Nazi Germany would have won WWII and written the history books to depict the Holocaust as necessary, would the
Holocaust be any less just? What is just isnt relative to who wins, though it is hard to identity what is justice from
what the winner says is justice.
34. It seems that the war between process and justice is often the war between Conservatives and Liberals.
35. To use language from Experiencing Thinking and The True Isnt the Rational, both by O.G. Rose, determining
what constitutes a problem is relative to what we believe should just be. How do we determine what should just be?
Im not sure anyone can say: it seems to be a high order complexity matter, and what we decide is justice seems to
be relative to our you.
36. Are the words freedom(s) and right(s) similes? They seem to both signify something incredibly similar, but is it
exactly the same? Well, it seems you have a right to do that which you are free to do, and hence, anyone who acts
against your freedom, act against you rights. But are the only rights you have those which you are free to do yourself
(such as speak), without any outside interference, versus that which others have to provide for you (such as health
care)? Rights that are truly freedoms, seem as if they must those which a person can do without any outside help, all
on his or her own, such as speak, while rights that require others, like health, dont seem to fit with the word
freedom, seeing as others are required for those rights to be exercised. This isnt to say such rights shouldnt be
granted; rather, its to say the use of the word freedom for health care seem incorrect. Right, perhaps, but
freedom? Im not so sure.
37. The Supreme Court should try to protect its people from unnecessary time in or thinking about court.
38. When you decide when you use power, you have all the power. This is why it is important to note that human rights
dont come from the State; rather, people have human rights and the State just makes them realize they have them.
39. It isnt discrimination to prevent people from defining (insert) on their own terms its definition (that some may want
to change).
40. Please note there were two ways to end slavery: argue that the right to not be a slave (a self-property right) transcends
any due process to decide on, or argue that blacks are human, and hence due life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness. One could end slavery just as much by expanding the definition of human as one could by establishing a
new human right in the Constitution.
41. Those who appeal to a process are easier to depict as bad guys than those who appeal to justice, even if those who
appeal to justice are wrong. This puts probability in favor of justice over process, especially in a democracy.
42. Consequentialists dont so much decide if the Constitution gives people the right to get married, per se, as they decide
if the Constitution takes from itself the right to decide about marriage, because marriage is a human right. This is an
important distinction: Consequentialists dont read the human right into the Constitution, as they are often accused;
rather, they read the Constitution out of the human right, if you will.
43. I rather see a Constitution with countless amendments than countless interpretations, but this is unrealistic in a
Constitution thats amendment process is unrealistic.

44. The feeling that something is unjust is the reason a person feel justified to go around a process, and yet that feeling is
the very reason that process is there.
45. You will naturally experience what you think is an injustice as objectively an injustice, and so naturally think of it as
that which transcends process. In other words, your experience of what you think is an injustice will naturally make
you believe the 14th Amendment applies to it. And the more the Supreme Court rewards bypassing of Federalism and
realizes human rights through the 14th Amendment, the more people will believe they are legitimate to believe in the
objectivity of their subjectivity.
46. Federalism is associated with Conservatives, but its actually incredibly Liberal and Progressive. If the Founders didnt
believe in progress at all, they wouldnt have created Federalism: the Constitution wouldnt be completely and utterly
fixed. Federalism is Conservatively Progressive, if you will, and in striking this balance, I believe it works very well,
given that the amendment process isnt draconian (which it is, unfortunately).
47. [] nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law [] can be
interpreted to mean there are rights that exist without due process laws that a judge can decide transcend law and
legislation or it could mean life, liberty, and property can only be infringed upon through legal process. How you
believe due process should be interpreted will have a dramatic impact on how you think of the role of the judiciary.
48. Concerns about photographers and cake makers being forced to provide services for what they dont believe in
whether rightly or wrongly may contribute to people feeling as if freedom is waning, and so State action that can
change policy without causing these kinds of situations is preferable to State action that creates them.
49. If people do not believe in the State, it will be hard for people to believe in the freedom and justice that State grants
50. It is probable that this paper will be discredited by some because I am a white, straight, Southern male, but I would
warn that this reality doesnt make what I say any more or less true. If I am wrong, I am wrong because I am wrong,
not because I am white, straight, Southern, and male. The same holds if I am right, or somewhat right and somewhat
wrong. The messenger doesnt change the message unless he changes the words of the message itself.
50.1 I would encourage you to read Basic Math by O.G. Rose.
51. It may be the case that the Civil War is a good example of what happens when the amendment process is too draconian,
but that is an argument that would take some development.
52. Whether you define liberty primarily as a free to or a free from will dramatically impact your understanding of what
constitutes justice.
53. If people have a right to what makes them happy, everything is a human right, for everything makes someone happy.
Pain pleases the sadist, no?
54. There seems to be a war between freedom and justice, one that can only be held at bay by character and morality (as
discussed in On Kafka, Character, and Law by O.G. Rose), both of which are problematically relative.
55. There is need for understanding history, moral issues like abortion, and the Civil War in light of Hans-Georg Gadamer
and his games. Considering his work, a reason we dont learn from history is that we dont learn to feel from
history, precisely because we fail to access historical horizons. This inability to access is only worsened by the
tendency of moderns to be offended many will probably be upset by what they consider a comparison of abortion and
slavery made in this paper, but that kind of comparison is necessary if we are going to even come close to accessing the
horizon, anxiety, moral disagreement, and feeling of early America. Perhaps early America would have been
offended by comparing the slave trade with the enslavement of Jews in Egypt, but this offense would have made what
they did no less atrocious. I fear that our offense contributes to our inability to stop ourselves from repeating the
mistakes and atrocities of history, all we look around and consider ourselves more advanced. Though that doesnt
necessarily mean abortion is wrong, though perhaps it is we must live with anxiety.
56. History interpretation is policy discussion.
57. We naturally read history relative to our emotional reaction to it, which is necessarily justified.

58. Without changing the theory of State sovereignty or violating Federalism, slavery could have ended by proving that
African Americans fell under the category of human. But how do you do that before DNA is discovered? Justice and
technology dance.
59. For Textualists to be happy, should an amendment be passed that claims the meanings of words are those established
by the dictionaries at the timing of the writing of the amendment. But who consults dictionaries when they write?
60. Is the power to decide what is up to the people up to the people?
61. Who decides what falls under the category of popular sovereignty?
62. All branches of government exist for the sake of establishing justice what should just be not just the judiciary.
63. To say the purpose of the Constitution is to preserve individual liberty, and therefore the Constitution must cover the
right of individuals to marry, is to assume that the right to get married falls under the category of individual liberty.
Perhaps it does, but who decides that it does and how? To say the ban again cruel and unusual punishment bans the
death penalty is to say the death penalty falls under the category of cruel and unusual punishment, but who decides
this? By what process? By what standard? And if the answer is varied and up to interpretation, who decides the answer
is varied and up to interpretation? By what process? By what standard?
64. It would seem to be a fair rule of Constitutional interpretation to go with the interpretational method that doesnt put
amendments at odds with one another, but should that rule be followed where putting amendments at odds with one
another is the only way to change a Constitution faced with an overly-draconian amendment process?
65. Keep in mind that the amendment process is inherently Federalist, since amendments require States to be added to the
66. How you interpret the Great Depression influences how you think about stimulus, as how you interpret the Civil War
influences how you think about the Civil War.
67. Under the Jeffersonian view, the States come together under a contract to give the Federal Government their
sovereignty over them the States give their sovereignty to the Fed to have sovereignty over the States. It is not, rather,
that the Fed transfers its sovereignty to the States to have sovereignty over the Fed.
67.1 So much of ones view of sovereignty will stem from who they believe the phrase we the people applies: does it
reply to individuals or to the sum of individuals as one?
68. Federalism is now associated with preserving obvious moral injustice, when the moral injustices defended through
Federalism were ambiguous moral injustices at the time (though that doesnt mean they werent real injustices).
69. When the reason freedom is violated is one that is backed by a strong rationality, people can, in the end, take that
violation. But it is when irrational violations stack upon irrational violations that eventually the pressure causes people
to break.
70. A country thats public has to wrestle with complex legal question is a country thats government has probably already
grown too large.
71. What does it mean to say x is in the Constitution? What is in a book? The interpretation or the words?
72. The Constitution grants interpretative authority to the Judiciary so much as it interprets what the Legislative and
Executive Branch codified into law.
73. Where there is no Losers Pay, there is no reason for the loser of a case to not appeal.
74. Opinions dont make what is a fact not a fact, but when those who know the facts step over those with opinions,
those with opinions revolt. Keep in mind that everyones opinion is always a fact relative to them: no one thinks of
their opinion as an opinion, per se.
75. If one day abortion was made illegal on grounds of racism and discrimination, should we remove all the portraits,
statutes, etc. of those who fought today for womens rights? To those in the future, the answer would be obvious.

76. I would suggest that if the Confederate flag is removed, it is removed not because it is a symbol of slavery, but
because it is a symbol slavery to some degree. This later wording leaves room for varying takes on the Civil War and
doesnt necessitate a feeling that some must accept a certain reading of history that equates the Confederacy to Nazi
76.1 If we do decide that the Confederate flag should be removed from public life, I would warn that we should try to do so
in such a way that doesnt imply a moral judgment about the Confederacy, but only a judgment about what should or
shouldnt be included in a public space (for example: a law can be passed that says all flags except the national and
state shall be removed from all public spaces) (the same if we decide to keep the flag). Why? Because otherwise I fear
we will make ourselves open to a historic witch-hunt and erasing many icons from history a witch-hunt our ethics
will force us to carry out. Had the Confederacy carried out a Holocaust, this wouldnt be the case, but unfortunately,
there is more uncertainty than we would like there to be.
Woodrow Wilson was in favor of eugenics and a racist himself: should we remove all portraits of him from public
spaces? If we decide no, what is our basis for determining slavery is more of a moral atrocity than eugenics? Perhaps
slavery is worse, but even if it is, that doesnt mean we shouldnt remove Wilson from public life. The same can be
said about most of our presidents. But again, perhaps not if we decide slavery isnt as bad as eugenics, but if we decide
that, we have to make an argument for why (one I fear will eternally regress, as moral arguments I fear necessarily do,
in line with the argument presented in (Im)morality by O.G. Rose). So it will go with every figure of history, setting
us up for years and years of debate which may alienate citizens from one another all the while. Then again, perhaps
not perhaps the witch-hunt wouldnt happen but if we remove the Confederate flag on moral grounds, we must
take that risk.
77. If you believe it is an injustice to be against LGBT marriage, to oppose those against LGBT marriage is to oppose the
intolerant and unjust, so acting intolerantly and unjustly toward them is to act on behalf of tolerance and justice it is
to be intolerant of the intolerant, and so the intolerance self-hides, per se (like racism, as described in Ending
Racism by O.G. Rose). But those opposing those in favor of LGBT marriage dont view themselves as opposing the
intolerant and unjust, just those with a different view. Hence, imperative and justification more readily fall on the side
of those who are Pro-LGBT. The same can be said about those in favor of abortion and other similarly controversial
matters, regardless who is right.
Being for a right is more self-justifying than being against a right, regardless which position is correct. Those
against cannot, from their position, readily see those for as intolerant, while those for can readily see those
against as intolerant (which self-hides any consequential intolerant action). This creates an emotional leaning in
favor of those for a right, though that isnt to say those for are wrong that is a different question.
77.1 To put it another way, Progressive intolerance is invisible to Progressives, while Conservative intolerance isnt
invisible, making Conservatives the only ones visibly intolerant (though that doesnt mean Conservatives are right).
77.2 While Conservatives are more readily warned to be sensitive, Progressives are not so much, and that is because of
which intolerance is visible. Both sides should learn to be empathetic and civil, but the phenomenology of
(in)justice to readily pushes us to make enemies.
78. Slavery is wrong, so Confederates are monsters. Yes/no: if abortion is wrong, are we monsters? Yes/no. But there will
be plenty of speeches for the future historians to use to make a case that we are monsters without question. But abortion
is not wrong, so we shouldnt be concerned, no?
78.1 Could born supremacy one day be a kind of white supremacy? But that of course sounds silly to use considering
our position in history.
79. As the act of deferring to a process to determine if racism exists is conflated with thinking racism doesnt exist, so the
act of empathizing with the Confederacy is conflated with supporting the Confederacy and ignoring slavery. This
conflation is the death of historic inquiry, which is occurring in our age in which process is dying (as warned about in
The Death of Process by O.G. Rose.
79.1 The legitimacy of stepping over democracy and Federalism with appealing to courts has been legitimized with
Supreme Court action, which shows the Supreme Court is open to being appealed to over others. Hence, they have
made it rational for everyone to try to appeal to them and so rational people will. As the market works by rationality
(though that doesnt mean the market is always right, as warned about in The True isnt the Rational by O.G.
Rose), so does the phenomenology of (in)justice.

80. Removing all the legacy of the Confederacy from American could lead to the racial tension which white supremacists
hope to accomplish.
81. It is easy for people who dont have to move to a different State to be married to talk about the virtues of Federalism,
but just because something is easily said doesnt mean it is false. Nor does it mean that it is true.
82. An important role of Federalism is to keep cognitive dissonance from keeping greater than what a people can handle.
Every time the phenomenology of freedom is impeded, cognitive dissonance is risked. How much can the society
handle? Thats hard to say, but every impediment entails risk.
83. I fear the slavery of the Civil War horrifies more (not equally) than does sex slavery today. It seems easier to be
horrified by history than it does to be horrified by the present, within which our hearts and minds are situated and
84. All violations of freedom are usually matters of the greater good, which is a matter of subjectivity that strikes a given
person as objective. Subjectivity necessarily strikes the subject as objective. Likewise, what we believe is evidence
toward x necessarily strikes us as objectivity evidence toward x.
85. Understanding history requires understanding ethics, but ethics often seem impossible to understand. Ethics readily
creates question marks, rarely periods.
86. Our empathy-less reading of the Civil War primes us preserve hellish injustice in the name of justice and freedom, as
did the Confederacy. This is my main concern.
87. To say I know Confederates thought slavery wasnt wrong isnt the same as empathetically knowing such, which the
abortion-centered Second Civil War hypothetical hopefully helps accomplish, despite how some will inevitably be
offended by it.
88. Im not entirely sure if it is possible for historians to determine causes, since causes arent merely matters of facts, but
also psychologies. Historians seem bound to determine facts, and there are as many causes as there are people. Cause
isnt easy to determine (especially when we conflate cause with motivation), though we speak about it as if it is an
easy matter (of fact). To jump from fact to cause might be as impossible a jump to make as is the jump from is to
ought, as Hume wrote on.
89. To secede for States rights, there will also be Stats rights that you secede against. For example: if you seceded
for the right of States to decide over abortion, you seceded against the right of States to protect the lives of fetuses.
90. It is possible that the act of the North invading the South is what make Southerners feel more sure that they were in fact
the ethical ones and on the right side of history, as those in Iraq who oppose America perhaps feel justified in that
opposition in light of the invasion.
91. As Deirdre McCloskey warns that people may put slavery at the heart of why Capitalism works in order to make
Capitalism evil, so those who put slavery at the heart of the Civil War may want to make Federalism evil.
92. To Unionists, had the South actually seceded, invading them would have been a crime, but they didnt secede, because
they couldnt secede, for the Union was indivisible.
93. Jefferson Davis did not want Civil War: he wanted the North to leave the South alone after it seceded to handle its own
affairs peacefully (however immoral they might have been). Civil war has only horror for me [], he wrote.A Should
the North had held back? If the North seceded to preserve the right of women to get an abortion after abortion was
made illegal as racism and murder, should the South leave the North alone? Easy answers are answers unavailable to
the most important of questions.

Jefferson Davis: The Essential Writings. Edited by William J. Cooper, Jr. Modern Library Paperback Edition, 2004:
94. If all portraits, flags, etc. of the Confederacy should be removed because of slavery, all similar tokens of civilizations
that had slaves should likewise be removed. But not all countries that had slaves fought a war specifically for the
purpose of defending slavery: the Confederacy came into existence for that purpose alone. Hence, the existence of the
Confederacy cannot be separated from the existence of slavery. This is a fair objection, but let us still empathize, and
decide what we shall do from there.

95. Most Germanys who fought for the Nazi party did not fight to defend the Holocaust. Most Germans had no idea it was
going on, though many did know that Jews were victims of discrimination, and for that, they should be held
responsible. Many thought the Jews were just being sent away to work camps and didnt know they were being
executed. Likewise, most Southerners didnt have slaves and didnt fight to defend slavery: they fought to defend the
rights of States to secede over slavery and to defend themselves from Northern Aggression. Most Southerners had no
idea how barbarically and hellishly many slave-owners treated their slaves, but they did know discrimination was
happening, and for that, they are guilty.
95.1 Institutional forces influenced Germans to be accepting of how the Jews were treated, as institutional forces influenced
Americans to do the same toward blacks. However, had average Germans known about the Holocaust, the influence of
institutions perhaps would have had less sway, as had average Southerners known about the horrors of slavery,
perhaps they would have ceased rationalizing it as strongly. Perhaps not.
95.2 As one of the great existential horrors for the German people was the realization that they fought to preserve the
Holocaust, so one of the great existential horrors for Southerners has been the realization that they fought to preserve a
racist and discriminatory institution under which many people suffered, were raped, and were murdered. This has been
hard to swallow, and perhaps is one of the reasons why many Southerners search for ways to rationalize the meaning
of the Confederate flag (whether right or wrong). Perhaps if one day abortion was made illegal and the North seceded
over it and lost The Second Civil War, Northerners would too suffer a similar existential awakening.
96. Confusion about the cause of the Civil War is a consequence of the word cause, the meaning and function of which
is unclear.
97. Where this paper emphasis a need for empathy, one could say we need to assume the best (argued for in Assuming
the Best by O.G. Rose).
98. To ask for empathy isnt to ask to support racism and slavery, but in our age, it seems that to not make this conflation is
to risk being accused of supporting racism and slavery, even if empathy is how we will avoid future racism and slavery
of an unpredictable kind.
99. If you believe in good and evil, good/evil, good, or evil, that will influence how you read history. Historians
should learn philosophy.
100. Would it be so insane if people began to consider leaving America over the LGBT marriage decision? To those for gay
marriage, absolutely, but for those who felt like their lives were being determined by forces outside their control,
perhaps not. Now consider Confederates considering the same question and who believe they have a legal and
Constitutional right to secede. And now consider that Confederates and those against LGBT marriage are moral
101. The farm, individual, store, etc. isnt in the nation state so much as it is the nation state. We make the nation; the nation
isnt around us.
102. There is no right side of history; there are guesses.
103. To win is to receive the power to decide what constitutes evidence.
104. Propaganda is a worthless word, for no one thinks of their view they are presenting as propaganda. A view is either
right or wrong calling it propaganda only confuses the topic.
105. I think what also helps understand Lee is imagining that he fought to defend abortion than slavery helps check and
balance our moral bias.
106. It is possible that humans have a natural tendency to become cynical, and if so, we also have a tendency to become
cynical readers and thinkers, not only in regard to history, but in regard to everything. If this trajectory is true, perhaps
a reason we become cynical is because the more technology we invent and the more we believe we have advanced
and the more we find that the world still isnt perfect, and in fact is full of violence, oppression, and disappointment
the more we can lose hope that anything can get better. If cynicism naturally develops, it is only by assuming the best
that we can check and balance cynicism, and it would seem hence (and for other reasons) that assuming the best is a
necessary, historical practice (as it is for all thought).
107. The ethical justifies the unethical.

108. Saying The Civil War was about stopping a Northern Invasion isnt the same as saying slavery didnt happen.
Perhaps it sounds this way, and perhaps a person can use the former to hide the later, but we mustnt be quick to
assume everyone who says such a thing is denying the truth. After all, few of us dont deny the truth at one time or
109. Slavery cannot strip its victims of their inherent dignity, and yet it is evil because it indignantly denies the inherent
human dignity that each of its victims possesses. If human didnt have inherent dignity that couldnt be taken away, it
would be possible for one to avoid being guilty of evil in committing evil.
110. Had the Jim Crow South and other government institutions been in regard to Asians, Asians would probably be in the
boat blacks are in today. Its not the skin color, but the institution. Institutional racism incubates racism more so than
racism incubates institutional racism.
111. Is there no such thing as a Pro-LGBT Marriage Federalist? Ideology is a box.
112. It is possible that certain Psychology Ethics that prevent experiments like the Stanford Prison Experiment from being
done (again) may prevent us from learning from history, which could contribute to moral atrocities. Isnt this unethical?
Ethics is (un)ethics.
113. Keep in mind that whatever decision is eventually reached by a society about anything, if expanding justice (by some
standard), it will always seem to the future that this decision should have been reached much quicker than it was.
Perhaps this too influences us against Federalism, for we fear being as slow to change as were those bigots in the past.
114. As pointed out by Karen Swallow Prior, author of Fierce Convictions: The Extraordinary Life of Hannah More, for
abolitionists in Britain, the battle to end the slave trade was simply but by no means easily getting the public to
recognize the slave trade for the moral evil it was, an evil so close it could not be clearly seen. More and her fellow
abolitionists advanced a host of moral reforms in their day (including animal welfare legislation), first helping their
contemporaries to see through drawings, poetry, art, sermons and pamphlets what was right in front of them.A
Unfortunately, when we read about the Civil War, we see injustice, and so cannot help but think that those at the time
saw the injustice as well. We see what was in front of them, so surely they saw what was before them too? It is
impossible for our brains to naturally think otherwise, but we must learn to think what is unnatural to us so that we
learn to be aware of how and in what mindset the mistakes committed in the past were committed so that we do not
commit them again. Otherwise, injustice may be around us today, but we will not see it, and those who try to convince
us to see differently will be those who we think cant see at all.
We will hopefully never again by guilty, as a people, of ignoring a Hannah More in our mist.

Allusion to Is Cecil the Lion More Devastating than the Planned Parenthood Videos? by Karen Swallow Prior, as
can be found here:
115. To quote Thomas Sowell extensively:
Today the moral horror of slavery is so widely condemned that it is hard to realize that there were thousands of years
when slavery was practiced around the world by people of virtually every race. Even the leading moral and religious
thinkers in different societies accepted slavery as just a fact of life [...] It was just not an issue until the 18th century,
and then it became an issue only in Western civilization.
Neither Africans, Asians, Polynesians nor the indigenous peoples of the Western Hemisphere saw anything wrong
with slavery, even after small segments of British and American societies began to condemn slavery as morally wrong
in the 18th century.
What was special about America was not that it had slavery, which existed all over the world, but that Americans were
among the very few peoples who began to question the morality of holding human beings in bondage. That was not yet
a majority view among Americans in the 18th century, but it was not even a serious minority view in non-Western
societies at that time.
Then how did slavery end? We know how it ended in the United States at a cost of one life lost in the Civil War for
every six slaves freed. But that is not how it ended elsewhere.

What happened in the rest of the world was that all of Western civilization eventually turned against slavery in the
19th century. This meant the end of slavery in European empires around the world, usually over the bitter opposition of
non-Western peoples. But the West happened to be militarily dominant at the time.A
Slavery is often called Americas original sin, but it should be remembered that America was the first great nation to
take on slavery as an injustice. America was divided on the issue, but it was the first great nation to even be divided by
it most nations didnt even think about it. Slavery was a fact of life, but that fact in America had to be questioned
due to the Declaration of Independence, which declared:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal [italics added], that they are endowed by their
Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
With these words, slavery ceased to be invisible (like a doorknob, if you will, to allude to Heidegger), and suddenly
become visible vividly so (to allude to the ideas presented in Incentives to Problem Solve by O.G. Rose). Before
these words before the problem was made a vivid problem slavery was unquestioned. And so ironically America
is who created the standard against which it is judged today as being guilty of an original sin. And yes, it is guilty, but
let us not forget that America also built the court in which it is tried. And let us also remember that countless Unionists
fought to end the very sin that America made itself guilty of committing. Slavery is the issue over which America both
sinned and triumphed greatly.
Only saints sin.

Allusion to A Legacy of Cliches by Thomas Sowell, as can be found here:
116. Whether a person is a race hustler or not, a white supremacist or not, a racist or not, etc. what a person says is
either true or false, because what a person says is either true or false, not because of who a person is, believes, or does.
117. It doesnt follow that a person spreads the truth who, rightly or wrongly, claims another spreads a lie.
118. Unconscious bias is incubated, spread, and legitimized by institutions, even institutions which exist to stop unconscious
119. For some reason, its almost painful to read and/or listen to someone with whom you disagree. Why is that, and to what
degree does this keep us from being discerning? Being a critical thinker takes a high pain tolerance, it seems.
120. Even if one day abortion was made illegal, it would be erroneous to accuse those who are Pro-Choice of hating
fetuses, as it would be erroneous to assume that those who were Pro-Slavery were necessarily guilty of hating
blacks. Perhaps they all did, perhaps some did, and perhaps none did the answer to that question exceeds what might
be determinable by historians. Rather, those who are Pro-Choice today dont accept the premise that those who
arent born are human, as those who were Pro-Slavery or Pro-White didnt accept the premise those who are black
are human and/or slavery is wrong. Hence, the issue wasnt so much hatred as it was premises, legitimized by the
State institutions which accepted and legitimized those premises. These axioms (and institutions) most certainly
incubated and legitimized hatred against blacks, but it is important to note that the premises came before the hatred
more so than the hatred came before the premises.
Of course, this leads us to the question of which premises are true, a question with no easy answer.
121. Defunding Planned Parenthood and deny women services over abortion is unthinking unless abortion actually is
discrimination, as it is unthinkable to penalize States and deny States rights unless slavery actually is monstrous.
Planned Parenthood does much more than abortion, but what does that matter if they murder babies? Likewise, States
rights are used for much more than slavery, but who cares if States use their rights to enslave and abuse?
Ethical premises orientate all premises.
122. It is possible that many people in the age of slavery avoided the topic not because they hated blacks or necessarily
supported it, but because they didnt want to offend or upset people they cared about over a topic that the average
citizen had no real power to stop on an institutional level. In this way, concerns about offending work to preserve
injustice-incubating institutions.
123. What does it mean to say according to history, x, seeing as no one was alive at the time of the historic event under

124. From personal experience, I find that Liberals are quick to downplay the impact of discrimination against the Irish, in
the same way Conservatives can be quick to downplay the impact of discrimination against blacks. I find this strange:
perhaps the Irish werent discriminated against, but it seems to me that Liberals should be the last ones to acknowledge
this truth if it is in fact true. It seems to me that those who are so passionate about righting the wrongs of all
discrimination should be the last ones to abandon the claim that the Irish suffered until definitely proven otherwise. In
my opinion, Liberals act as if they have a vested interest in focusing on discrimination against blacks, but if so, this
would be picking and choosing which discrimination to focus on, rather than fighting discrimination regardless.
Fighting one manifestation of discrimination doesnt take away from the horror of another discrimination, unless that is
people havent the emotional capacity to not let their disdain of injustice be diluted by the amount of injustice they
disdain, which would to me seem to be the problem that needs to be addressed first.
Denying the Irish ever faced persecution would be expected from someone who was Anti-Irish, as denial that the Civil
War was about slavery would be expected from a racist. But people can have other reasons than the reasons we expect
from people who act a certain way.
125. Can one overcome oppression with oppression; slavery, with slavery; injustice, with injustice?
126. If whatever will save the world ever becomes offensive, then the world will end. If whatever will open our minds to
new ideas becomes taboo, then our minds will be closed. This isnt to say that nothing should offend or that nothing
should be censored, but that we must be very careful before being offended or censoring. And we must be especially
careful when acting in the name of justice, for justice is a powerful concept that can make us more emotional than
usual. What we do in the name of justice we tend to do hastily, and though that doesnt mean we inherently act
wrongly, it does mean we have a high likelihood of making mistakes. And this is why the concept of Academic
Justice as opposed to Academic Freedom is so troubling. Perhaps every use of Academic Justice to silence an
intellectual has, so far, been just, but lacking Academic Freedom, we cannot know, for we lack a dynamic and organic
process by which we can test to determine what is the case. It is when racists are allowed to speak freely and we free to
debate them and force them to admit their absurdity that a society overcomes racism and, more importantly, knows it
overcomes racism. Otherwise, it is stuck in existential uncertainty.
Academic Justice, as I understand it, is a newer concept that exists to stop scholarship that certain individuals believe
perpetuates injustice in some form or another. For example: if you believe Climate Change is going to destroy the
world, you believe it is unjust to let professors publish papers disputing Climate Change, and hence, in the name of
Academic Justice, have those papers denied publication (the same could be said about papers that perpetuated lies
about the Civil War, discrimination, etc.). The good intent of Academic Justice is to stop the perpetuation of ideas that
contribute to injustice, and the intent is genuine.
But who gets to decide which ideas perpetuate and incubate injustice? Who gets to decide what ideas contribute to
injustice and which ideas help end it? And by what standard, right, and/or truth? Academic Justice, I fear, can lead to
problems. For example: if you believe it is racism to not support welfare, than under Academic Justice, wouldnt it be
appropriate to shut down a thinker like Thomas Sowell, who believes welfare contributes to the impoverishment of
black Americans? But what if Sowell is correct about welfare? Then, in the name of Academic Justice, the situation of
black America will be made more difficult to overcome, and yet Academic Justice is used precisely to help black
America. This is an example of how Academic Justice could be problematic and used to perpetuate injustice in the
name of ending injustice.
During the reign of King George, Academic Justice would have had all intellectual work that questioned the King and
supported The Colonies silence. In a society where mistreating women was acceptable, Academic Justice would have
everything that questioned the treatment of women that which violated that justice of the society. Certainly, justice is a
noble aim, but Academic Justice could impede achieving it.
Justice must be achieved through freedom, for it is through freedom that ideas of justice are dynamically and
organically tested. If a person can decide what is justice and then declare it a violation of Academic Justice to write
against that view, a person, in the name of justice, acts totalitarian, even if the person is in fact right about his or her
view of justice. Even if the right justice, if forced upon a people, rather than freely adopted, the justice will alienate.
Justice must be achieved freely; otherwise, it negates the glory of its end by its means.
That all said, unless character is cultivated within people, justice will not be easily chosen (to allude to the thought of
On Kafka, Character, and Law by O.G. Rose). But what is character?
126.1 I think it was Conservatives who first started the practice of shutting down ideas and views that they believed were a
threat to the right social order take McCarthyism and the campaign against Communism, and also take note of

those who questioned the invasion of Iraq and how they were immediately labeled as unpatriotic. This Conservative
act now manifests in Liberals today against anyone who is a racist, sexist, etc. the spectator is still with us.
126.2 Who decides what constitutes a micro-aggression, for example? The person being micro-aggressin-ed against or a
judge? By what evidence can a person be tried, other than by subjective experience? At the end of the day, whose
justice is right? How, without freedom, can you find out?
126.3 Please note that Academic Justice can be a threat to the dynamic and organic system of Academic Freedom.
126.4 Is it not possible that someone who wants LGBTs to suffer and who believes State action to help them will actually
curse them could silence those who opposed State action to legalize LGBT marriage through Academic Justice for the
end of creating injustice against LGBTs?
126.5 Intellectuals love justice, and for many of them, Academic Justice is a dream come true. For justice, to recognize,
requires someone with the capacity to recognize it, and that just happens to be the smartest people around.
127. A valuable inquiry would be to ask why Johann August Heinrich Heros von Borcke did what he did.
128. The Legacy of the Civil War by Robert Penn Warren is essential reading.
129. Justice can unintentionally create classism, for it can create a class of those who know justice and a class of people
who dont know justice. The same can be said about morality, truth, etc.
130. When there is institutional racism, even if many of the people under the institution thought the racism was stupid,
history tends to paint a picture that depicts everyone has a racist.
131. A reason the America structure of democratic-republic government is so difficult to maintain because it goes against
the phenomenology of (in)justice.
132. The Bill of Rights doesnt so much tell people the rights they have as it tells the State what rights humans have because
they are human, while at the same time telling the State to defend them and leave them along.
133. Freedom is where ideas of just-ness compete.
134. One mans justice is another mans slavery (and anothers mans freedom).
135. Justice can be censorship.
136. Structure is destiny.A

Allusion to Justice Scalia, as can be found here:
137. I would suggest for Consequentialists to consider taking on something I like to call the infinity test. At infinity, all
possibilities are realized, and so if a Supreme Court Justice considers his or her decision in light of the infinite, he or
she will consider all possible consequences of the decision as happening. For example: if a Consequentialist considers
passing LGBT marriage through the 14th Amendment on grounds that it will end discrimination against LGBTs, the
Consequentialist should though also consider the possibilities of LGBTs going from church to church and asking to be
married, not so much to actually get married, but to sue churches that wont marry and garner a profit. This is a
possible scenario that at infinity, would be realized, and so a consequence the Consequentialist should taken into
consideration. Whether or not it is strong enough of a consequence to keep a Justice from ruling for LGBT marriage is
a decision that would be left up to the discernment of the Consequentialist.
137.1 I would caution against any ruling that has the possibility of forcing citizens to have to choose between their moral
conscience and their public life, especially if it isnt passed with the utmost fear and trembling. I would also note that
Federalism can help avoid this tension, but Federalism is a process our phenomenology of (in)justice wont allow us
to consider.
138. The language of cause tends to make us think linearly, as if there is one cause, when something like the Civil War can
be a collection of millions of causes. When it comes to human affairs, there can be one macro-cause and forty microcauses, no macro-cause and thousands of micro-causes, and so on, all of which come together as a collective whole in
one event as if the causes are all one and as if there is no distinction between macro-cause(s) and micro-cause(s).

This natural confusion is partially due to the fact that humans are orientated to think in terms of low order complexity
over high order complexity, as discussed in Experiencing Thinking by O.G. Rose.
139. Though it is not possible, it would be beneficial if it was possible to separate the issue of States rights from slavery
in the Civil War.
140. Revisionist is a phrase that applies to a historical interpretation the user doesnt like. But by what standard is x
considered revisionist?
141. Daniel Goldhagen argued in Hitlers Willing Executioners that the majority of Germans were willing to take part in
the Holocaust because of Anti-Semitism, and though this seems to stand in opposition to the claims of Hannah Ardent
in Eichmann in Jerusalem, I dont think the positions are irreconcilable (positions I am going to assume are legitimate,
though they may not be). It is expected that there be an air of Anti-Semitism in Germany for Ardents
thoughtlessness to happen there; otherwise, the idea of being thoughtless against Jews would be too unheard of it
would stand out too much as an idea, if you will. However, I dont believe Anti-Semitism is enough of an explanation
for the Holocaust on its own (seeing as Anti-Semitism has been widespread for centuries): it has to be combined with
something that allows a given individual to rationalization to his or her self that acting on Anti-Semitic ideas isnt a
reflection on his or her character. This brings us to the importance of what Ardent describes: top down orders, a
Stanford Prison Experiment-like environment, and so on.
Without Ardents side of things, Hitlers executioners couldnt rationalize to themselves that they were good people
acting on Anti-Semitism. I am of the opinion that being Anti-Semitic alone wont convince a given person that he or
she isnt a good person; I think people who are Anti-Semitic think their ideas are grounded in truth, that they think they
just acknowledge whats true. But acting Anti-Semitic, that is much more difficult for a person to do and still think of
his or her self as a good person, as we all must do for psychological peace, even if its through self-deceit (which it
usually is). Unless that is, a person can act upon Anti-Semitism because the government tells the person to do so,
because everyone else is doing it, because the situation calls for it, etc. in this case, a person can act like a monster
and still convince his or her self that he or she isnt a monster, for the person has an externality upon which to
rationalize through (in a manner that keeps the person from having to acknowledge that he or she is rationalizing,
which is key).
In my opinion, for one to be truly evil, their evil has to be invincible to themselves. In regard to the persecution of Jews
in Germany, if there was no Anti-Semitism in the air, then how Germanys acted toward the Jews would be much
more difficult for Germanys to make invisible to themselves, precisely because the actions would have stood in such
stark-contrast with how Germanys felt and acted. If actions toward Jews stood out too much as wrong, they couldnt
have been rationalized into invisibility; in other words, there had to have been some Anti-Semitism in Germany, or
otherwise the thoughtlessness (in the Ardent sense) would have been too visible. But in my opinion, Anti-Semitism
alone isnt enough: there has to be a Central Power that legitimizes acting on it in various ways.
141.1 Similar remarks can be made about the American South, racism, slavery, and the slave trade.
142. As the South fought to preserve the rights of States to decide if they will have slaves or not, so the North fought the
South to keep them from seceding to preserve the right of States to decide about slavery. As it is technically incorrect to
say simply the South fought to preserve slavery, so it is technically incorrect to say the North fought to end slavery.
It is more accurate to say the North fought to end the right of States to seceded over, and to decide about, slavery, as it
is more accurate to say the South fought over States rights to decide about slavery.
143. How many nations have gone to war with themselves over the right of its people to decide over a moral question? How
many Civil Wars have resulted not from an injustice of a government, but over an evolution in morality? Surely there is
nobility in the American, who realized it was right to try his and her self a sinner.
144. No one alive today thinks they would have supported slavery, as no one today thinks they would have joined the Nazi
Party. But people did. People like us. Good people. Bad people.
145. If you are offended by the comparison of abortion with slavery, your offense doesnt make the comparison wrong, and
furthermore your offense will impede your ability to discern with the comparison is in fact inadequate. Please note that
I by no means want to suggest that slavery equals abortion, but to those who are offended, comparison and
equation are easily conflated. This is a problem with offense.
146. Confederates were Pro-Choice: they fought to defend the right of States to choose.

147. Had there been television and internet back in the time of the Civil War, perhaps wed have more empathy toward
Confederates. Perhaps less.
148. It seems that technology works against Federalism, for it enables the President to know about and respond to
everything that occurs in the world, and makes it a problem if he or she doesnt respond to events that outrage the
public. But if the President responds, this takes focus away from individual and State reactions and furthermore, when
the President responds, he or she responds with an air of Federal power. Technology seems to favor centralization, and
may make us toward Central Power (to use the language of Representing Beauty by O.G. Rose).
149. History repeats because we cannot learn from history to feel what those in the past felt, as relative to their ethics. Those
who dont learn from history are doomed to repeat it, and nobody learns from it.
150. It is common to say issue x is too important for the States to decide on, but there was a time when it was said issue x
is too important for the Federal Government to decide on.
151. We pick and choose which laws we appeal to as if there is nothing to pick and choose about laws, but we are all
motivated to enforce laws that we think support our notion of justice over laws that we believe support injustice.
Liberals are not quick to support laws against illegal immigrant as Conservatives are not eager to enforce new laws
supporting LGBT marriage. Discussed in Equality and Its Immoral Limits by O.G. Rose, the kind of equality we
want is relative to our moral scope, and so it is the case with which laws we want to apply. Which cases we say follow
the law is relative to what we believe is right: the Conservative will say to the immigration official do your job, but
stay silent about the clerk who wont give LGBTs marriage licenses.
152. Perhaps when people claim the Civil War wasnt about slavery, what they mean to say is that the issue of slavery was
theoretically interchangeable with another issue, and the same series of events would have still occurred. What I mean
by this is that if the Civil War was over States rights to decide about slavery, then the Civil War could have
theoretically been about States rights to decide about food protection, and the Civil War would have still happened.
In the minds of many Southerners perhaps, what caused the debate about States rights is interchangeable; to use
Aristotelian terms, its accidental, not essential. To those who claim the Civil War wasnt about slavery, perhaps they
think the Civil War as about States rights to decide about x, and that what constitutes x could be anything not
specifically listed in the Constitution as falling under Federal power. Hence, to many Southerners, the Civil War wasnt
about States rights to decide about slavery so much as it was about States rights to decide about x (as according to
the Constitution), per se.
153. It is possible that a failure to think of the Confederacy and General Lee without moral outrage has contributed to a
failure of modern military thinking and strategy. There is no reason that the Civil War should have ended with Lees
surrender at Appomattox: Jefferson Davis, the President of the Confederacy, was still alive, and Confederates were still
more than ready to keep fighting. Furthermore, theres no reason that there shouldnt have been countless years of
guerrilla war afterwards the only reason there wasnt and that the war ended when it did is because General Lee told
the Confederates to stop fighting and that it was time to start rebuilding the country. And Lee was so respected that
everyone listened.
Without General Lee, Lincoln would have arguably never succeeded at saving the Union, because even if the Union
won, Southerners would have never stopped fighting or agreed to participate again in the United States. It was thanks to
Lee that the Confederates agreed to end the war and rebuild America, despite all of the incredible suffering
Confederates faced at the hands of the Union. Arguably, without Lee, the Union would have never won the Civil War,
because the Civil War would have never truly ended, in the same way that the war in Iraq continues long after the death
of Saddam and collapse of the Republican Guard. Without Lee, perhaps America today would be like Israel and
Palestine, locked in endless, seemingly-unresolvable conflict.
In Iraq, where there isnt a General Lee, after the Saddam Hussein was tried and executed, guerilla warfare continues to
this day. Rather than be blinded by moral outrage, perhaps if it had learned from the Civil War that General Lee was an
answered prayer for the North and its aspirations to preserve the Union, perhaps America would have realized the
necessity of there being a Lee figure in the Iraq government, and worked to establish that individual, or recognizing the
lack of such a person, engaged in a different military strategy.
Without General Lee, it is doubtful America would be the nation that it is today, but morally outraged by him, we fail
to learn from or appreciate his legacy. Without Lee, Lincolns victory wouldnt have preserved the Union, only tried.
Failing to ponder Lee because of his defense of slavery, we may have failed to learn from history a vital truth when it
comes to how to reunify a broken nation.

153.1 Many who support Lee pretend to know more about him then they do, as those against Lee do the same, and the truth
is we dont know how little we know.
154. It seems to me that when Southerners deny that the Civil War was about slavery, they are more so reacting against the
moral lens the modern views the actions of the South. They are denying the lens more so than the subject, but in the act
of denying the lens, also deny the subject, which isnt proper. The Southerner is right to deny the lens though slavery
isnt morally ambiguous to us, it was (wrongly) morally ambiguous to them, as abortion is (perhaps wrongly) morally
ambiguous to us, though it may not be ambiguous to people in the future though the Southerner is wrong to deny the
subject. To many Southerners, the Civil War was primarily about States rights, and slavery was secondary (though
linked), as to many who defend abortion, they primarily defend the womens right to choose to have an abortion, and
defend abortion secondarily (though its linked). Of course, you can argue that those who are Pro-Choice defend the
womens right to have an abortion, and hence the Pro-Choice position is about abortion, but it is not simply that to the
Pro-Choicer, as the Civil War wasnt simply about slavery to the Southerner. Yes, the Civil War was about a choice to
participate in an injustice, but defending a womans right for an abortion may also be a defense of a right to participate
in an injustice. But perhaps it isnt.
Right and wrong is a black and white issue, but humans only see in gray.
155. The phrase the Civil War was about slavery is similar but not the same as the sentence the Civil War was caused by
slavery. The first implies that slavery was the motivation behind the actions of every Southerner, while the second
implies that slavery set in motion the events that would lead Confederates to support the Confederacy, rather to defend
slavery or to stop Northern invasion. The second seems closer to the truth, though that isnt to say the first sentence can
be used meaning the second.
156. What is said when I say you dont know history? To start, Im saying I know history, and also claiming that the
position I hold is backed by a kind of objective evidence it is authoritative. But what exactly do I know from history?
If I know the facts of history, do I also know the moral and philosophical framework in which those facts were situated
and defined? Do I know the feelings those facts summoned up within people at the time those facts were being lived
out and amongst? Perhaps I do know the facts of history, but this can deceive me into thinking that I know history,
when in fact if I dont know how the people of history felt about those facts: I only know a single dimension of history,
not the whole. And yet, I fear school has taught us that to know the facts of history is to know history itself, when
there is much more to the lives of people than unanimated, un-tragic, un-emotive, and un-dynamic facts.
157. Two hundred years from now, in a world where abortion was legally considered murder, if historians were writing
about America in 2016 and wrote that Americans aborted millions of persons, would this be true? If by persons
historians meant biological entities with human genes, this sentence would be true, but why not just say that
(verbatim)? By using the word persons, perhaps unintentionally, historians would imply that those being aborted
today are due humans right, dignity, and so on, and more importantly, they would imply that Americans today consider
and even know abortion is an abortion of persons instead of biological entities (that some think are persons, others
dont, and most are in the middle). The sentence Americans aborted millions of persons would imply that (all)
Americans today have a certain philosophical view of fetuses, that they know the immoral truth of what they are doing
(and if they dont know they should: theyre stupid, ignorant, or evil), and that Americans should have never allowed
abortions in the first place (the sentence would also imply that all Americans have had abortions, when the truth is only
a small percentage have had the procedure). By just using the word persons, historians completely change how people
in the future would think of our day in age, and also gives a false impression. Much less certain, some Americans are
passionately against abortion, others for it, and most in the middle: the country is much more existentially anxious and
unsure about abortion than the sentence American aborted millions of persons implies. Regardless if fetuses actually
are persons, the use of the word to describe 2016 America creates a very false impression about our current state,
existentially and morally, an impression of which may contribute to the future failing to learn from history as they
But what harm can the mere wording of a sentence do?
157.1 In the hypothetical world described, if people read about abortion in 2016 American, there could be an assumption that
those oppressed the fetuses would have been against the system that oppressed them (abortion) had they just had a
chance to stand against it. But since abortion was the law of the land (and so indirectly taught to be right), those who
were aborted very well may have had abortions themselves had they not been aborted. The point is that we can assume
from history that an oppressed group wouldnt have bought into the system that oppressed them if in a different lot and
that they knew the system was wrong, but that doesnt necessarily follow. A football team that loses a game may be
against that particular game, but the team isnt necessarily against all football, and in fact would probably support it
if they won.

The influence of systems, laws, and the State over people and their morals is much greater than we often grasp, even
over those who are most mistreated.
157.2 If abortion was made illegal, the North succeeded to defend womens rights, and soldiers in the North said they were
fighting to defend abortion, what would be meant by this sentence? That they fought to murder babies? Maybe that is
indeed what they did, but it clearly wouldnt be what they meant, and wouldnt the Northern soldiers probably be
using the word abortion and womens rights interchangeably? Two hundred years after the war though, if historians
were reading emails from Northerners in which they wrote they had to defend abortion, wouldnt it be hard not to
read this phrase as meaning defend baby murdering? To the historians credit and to frame the tragedy of their
situation, if a historian were to simply present verbatim these emails to the public, wouldnt most of the public
inevitably read phrases like defend abortion as confirmation that the North wanted to defend murdering babies?
Even if reading history is possible, learning from it might not be, for we cannot feel it.
157.3 Americans once failed to see the humanity of minorities around them, but we may fail to see the humanity of the
unborn. Perhaps we dont uncertainty is life. Failure to think existentially of the dead has helped history repeat.
157.4 Morality is relative means morality is conditional, meaning that it is always situated within a particular time and
place, socioeconomic order, system of laws, and so on. To say morality is conditional doesnt mean there isnt an
absolute right and wrong, but to say that it isnt always so simple as determining what is objectively good and acting
upon that discernment. If someone today determined abortion is objectively murder, it wouldnt necessarily follow
that Planned Parenthood should be defunded (seeing as it provides many other services) or that abortion clinics should
be bombed (seeing as abortion is still the law of the land and that such action would be punished, perhaps causing the
bombers family to suffer gravely). Perhaps in the eyes of future generations, this is obviously what should have
happened, but those future generations will live in a different condition, and with this comes a tendency to not
understand conditions of old. The tragedy of humanitys situation is that we can identify we are guilty of an objective
evil, but locked in a condition, be helpless to change it, personifications of Klees Angelus Novus, as described by
Walter Benjamin.
157.5 If slavery was never found immoral, the reputation of the Confederacy wouldnt be negatively impacted by its efforts
to defend slavery; likewise, if abortion is never found immoral, the reputation of the modern Democratic Party wont
be negatively impacted by its defense of womens rights. Abortion wont even be a variable to consider, and since
abortion currently is an ambiguous topic, if abortion is one day illegal, Democrats today must be judged in light of
how abortion is seen today (ambiguously), not how it might be seen tomorrow (with moral certitude). This isnt to say
abortion is wrong or that slavery isnt, but to say that legacies are built within Kafkaesque conditions.
157.6 In the hypothetical world two hundred years after abortion was made illegal, it would be impossible to draw the line
between those who fought for abortion and those who fought for the right of people to decide for themselves if they
should have an abortion. All that could be said is that the war was fought for womens rights to have abortions,
nothing more.
158. There is little more dangerous than State power controlled by those who never question if justice is on their side,
regardless whether justice is or isnt.
159. There was a day when it was considered honorable to avoid premarital sex, but not so much anymore. Honorable acts
are relative, as are acts that take away from honor.
160. In infinity, every case that can be true is true.
161. The legacy and meaning of an individual is dependent on which ethical lenses his or her life will be viewed through,
lenses which will probably not be the same lenses through which the individual viewed his or her own life.
Regardless if its fair, it is inevitable.
162. Powerful, laws orientate the 'toward-ness' of rationalization: if slavery is lawful, then people will rationalize it; if
murder is lawful, people will rationalize it. To create a law is to direct thought.
163. You cannot learn from facts the method through which to understand the facts, nor which narrative the facts should be
situated within.
164. It is probable that those who read this document will think I am in favor of the Confederacy, which is to be expected in
our cynical age, despite the fact that I have claimed countless times that I think they act immorally, for people think
such claims are only part of the script in our age in which trust is so difficult to establish (see Scripted and
Collective Consciousness and Trust, both by O.G. Rose). And this cynicism contributes to our failure to be

empathetic, which contributes to our failure to avoid being primed to repeat the mistakes of history. Perhaps this is why
we only learn from history how to recognize it repeating. Welcome to the Age of Cynicism.
165. Where there is evil, there are only good guys, which is evidence to us that we are not dealing with evil, but a matter of
166. The voiceless and invisible will always be with you.
167. One racist in government can put up a racist statue that, once up, seems to suggest that everyone wants it there, along
with the historic narrative it symbolizes.
168. Because events and phenomenon dont wear their meanings upon their faces or the cases they are evidence toward
(and hence we can always interpret them into and in line with our ideology), we dont necessarily learn from
experience, as it isnt the case that history necessarily judges rightly. Both of these clichd notions are myths we tell
ourselves to help us cope with the uncertainty of life: it is comforting to believe someone knows or will know the right
answer (as discussed in Trivia(l) by O.G. Rose).
169. I am of the opinion that Progressives underestimate how much of Conservative ire is a result of the way recent social
changes have come about, more so than the social changes themselves. The 10 th Amendment gives these Conservatives
justification for their ire, but if amendments were easier to pass, this ire would be easier to undercut. Unfortunately,
there is no easy way to fix the amendment process.
170. If x is included in history and not y, it is not necessarily because y was intentionally left out, but because exclusion is
inevitable for finite beings like ourselves (and a history book that was like Borges Library of Babel would be
useless). Furthermore, deciding x is to be included in history instead of y is an incredible power, and all naming of a
thing as history is necessarily from a privileged position, for not everyone has that power (especially not the
marginalized, nor people of a present that will one day be sorted through and categorized by historians). It is not the
case that some history is privileged while some isnt; rather, its all privileged, even history focused on giving agency
to those denied it. If I give agency to x people, I dont give it to y people, z people, etc. My neighbors down the street
will probably not be included in history books: they are denied agency. Is this immoral? More so, it is inevitable. And
from this privileged exclusion, identity of the present generation will be impacted, for identity is always shaped by
origin: we cannot entirely know who we are without knowing from where we came.
171. Imagine that it is against the law in the South to believe 2 + 2 = 4, and imagine that you know it is indeed the case
that 2 + 2 = 4. What would you do? Protest? Perhaps you have a family to take care of when would you find the
time to protest? And who would believe you? Like human rights, numbers in of themselves cant be empirically
observed: if the law says 2 + 2 = 5, whos to say the law is wrong? Around you, you see your friends being taught
by the law that 2 + 2 = 5; to stand for what (you think) is true, you would have to risk losing your friends. , job, and
who knows what else. Law orientates rationalization in its favor. But whats the big deal anyway? The country
functions just fine maybe you should forget about the whole 2 + 2 = 4 thing and just live your life. Besides, to
change society, youd have to change the laws, and how will you go about doing that without risking yourself being
thrown in jail? Many Southerners would probably fight against you, having been taught how to think by the law and
authority, even though there were numerous people in the North who also believed 2 + 2 = 4 (though not as many as
you liked to believe). You were familiar with the Stanford Prison Experiment and aware how people would probably
react to your resistance. And so, having a family to provide for, you do nothing, and truth be told, had you protested, it
probably wouldnt have made a difference. Not for a hundred years, at least.A

Please watch 2+2=5 | Two & Two, as can be found here:
172. Justice blinds; freedom burdens.
173. As we wonder today how a man could pen all men are created equal and own slaves, we may one day wonder how a
man could support helping the poor, downtrodden, and helpless and support murdering babies.
174. This paper doesnt claim that abortion and slavery are morally equivalent, only that they might be, and furthermore
is more concerned with arguing that they are similar in terms of existential anxiety.
175. Because people dont all feel the same way, people dont learn from history the same, and consequently, everyone
comes to feel that no one knows history.

176. As with much of history, the problem with our understanding of the Confederacy is that we dont see ourselves, but our
177. Justice can be Kafkaesque. Ethics
178. It might be too late for the country to restore its trust in Federalism, and with the amendment process being too
draconian, the end of the American Experiment might be nigh.
179. I defend my understanding of the Civil War like a man protecting a mirror from being shattered.

O.G. Rose