History of the Franks, Bk. III

"Clovis, who believed in the Trinity, crushed the heretics with divine help and enlarged his kingdom to include all of Gaul; but Alaric, who refused to accept the Trinity, was therefore deprived of his kingship." (III) St. Gregory certainly was not shy of inserting polemic into his work, and here he attributes all of Clovis's successes to his Triune orthodox belief over that of the Arians he conquered. As we learned in the last chapter, Clovis could not tolerate the presence of the Arians any more and used that to justify his war of liberation against the Arian kings that had taken over Spain and Germany and to unite all of Gaul under his domain. The two things most feared then about Clovis should be his God and his axe. A cult developed in Medieval France for Clovis though the cult has never received Papal approval, it still flourishes amongst French Christian nationalists to this day. Based on St. Gregory's account, it certainly doesn't seem as if there would be a reason to oppose such a cultus for Clovis.

After the death of Clovis, his four sons, Theuderic (from a mistress whom he had prior to meeting Clotilda), Chlodomer, Childebert, and Lothar, split the kingdom amongst themselves (II.1). Saint Quintianus succeeded Licinius to the episcopal throne in Clermont-Ferrand (III.2), and the Danes attempted to seize part of northern Gaul under their King Chlochilaich but were driven out by Theuderic and their king was killed (III.3). In Thuringia, there ruled three brothers, Baderic, Hermanfrid, and Berthar. "Hermanfrid beat his brother Berthar in battle and killed him" (III.4). Hermanfrid's wife Amalaberg "sowed the seeds of civil war" between the brothers. Theuderic aligned with Hermanfrid to defeat Baderic and they killed him but Hermanfrid failed to keep his word in allowing Theuderic to share the kingdom equally with him. This earned enmity between the two.

Sigismund was the son of Gundobad and he ruled Burgundy after his father's death. A Catholic, he contributed to many monasteries and built the monastery of Saint-Maurice d'Agaune. His first wife had died but he had a son to her named Sigeric. This step-mother was cruel to her step-son and once, when wearing the clothes of Sigismund's first wife, the daughter of Theodoric, her step-son saw her and rebuked her for this. This drove her to great ire and led her to the greatest treachery. She tricked Sigismund into believing that Sigeric wanted to overthrow him. Sigismund had word with his son immediately, sent him to sleep, and in while Sigeric lay asleep, Sigismund murdered his own son. It wasn't long after that Sigismund realized what a mistake he had made. He wept bitterly over this. "An old man who was present is said to have remarked: 'Weep for yourself, Sigismund, for, on your wife's evil advice, you have murdered your own son in this barbarous fashion. There is no point weeping for your boy, who has been strangled in his innocence." (III.5) Sigismund would remain in the monastery of Agaune for the remainder of his life.

Queen Clotilda called Chlodomer and her other sons together and said to them, "My dear children...do not give me cause to regret the fact that I have brought you up with such care. You must surely resent the wrong which has been done to me. You must do all in your power to avenge the death of my mother and father." (III.6) This account seems dubious in accordance with what we later hear of Clotilda in praying for an end to fratricide. Also, it must be considered the events of her parent's deaths are in question too. Further, what she meant by avenging her parents is ambiguous. It is more likely she never intended Sigismund to be slaughtered. Nevertheless, Chlodomer and his brothers fought against Sigismund and his brother Godomar and the Burgundian army was beaten. Sigismund tried to escape to the monastery but was captured with his wife and sons. Chlodomer decided to have Sigismund killed but Saint Avitus warned him, "If you change your plans and respect God by refusing to have these men killed, the Lord will be with you and you will go forth to victory. On the other hand, if you do kill them, you will fall into the hands of your enemies and you will suffer a fate similar to theirs. Whatever you do to Sigismund and his wife and children, the same will be done to your children and your wife and yourself." But Chlodomer didn't listen and he had Sigismund and his wife and his children thrown down a well in Saint-Péravy-la-Colombe. Chlodomer rushed into battle with the Burgundes and heard him mimicking the Frankish troops. He "rushed headlong into the middle of his enemies" and they hacked off his head. His brother Lothar married his widow Guntheuc and after her mourning period was over, Clotilda would take his three sons, Theudovald, Gunthar, and Chlodovald, into her own household.

Theuderic wanted to punish Hermanfrid and called upon his brother Lothar for help. They pushed back the Thuringians and Lothar would take Radegund as his wife. Theuderic remained in Thuringia for a while and Hermanfrid would fall to his death. The exact cause of the fall was unknown but Theuderic is said to have soething to do with it (III.7-8). Theuderic was presumed dead while in Thuringia and his brother assumed control of Clermont-Ferrand but Theuderic returned (III.9). Childebert had heard his sister Clotilda was suffering for her Catholic faith from her Arian husband Amalaric and when she sent a towel with her own blood on it from the abuse, he took up arms against the Gothic King. Amalaric attempted to flee but was struck by a spear and killed. Clotilda did not survive the journey and was buried beside her father Clovis (III.10). Theuderic was encouraged by his brothers to fight against the Burgundes but he desired to punish the people of Clermont-Ferrand. His soldiers pillaged and looted the city, destroying the entire region. Some desecrated the church of St. Julian ad were possessed by an evil spirit which caused them to eat themselves. St. Quintianus was bishop and St. Gregory argues the reason that this was done was on account of the crimes of the priest Proculus committed against his bishop (III.11-13). During the rebellion of the people of Clermont-Ferrand, many were taken hostages by Childebert and Theuderic and many were reduced to slave labor. St. Gregory describes the escape of Attalus from slavery during this time as Attalus was a kinsman of his (III.14-15).

Bishop Dinifius died in Tours and was succeeded by Ommatius who held this throne for three years. After he died, Leo was bishop for seven months. After he died, Bishops Theodorus and Proculus succeeded him at the wish of Clotilda. Then Francilio, a senator, replaced them. He is said to have been poisoned, dying after a drink on Christmas Day. He was replaced by St. Injuriosus (III.17). When Clotilda was in Paris, Childebert began to fear that the affection she was lavishing on the children of Chlodomer would cause a threat to his kingdom. He and Lothar plotted their removal by either cutting their hair or through their deaths. Hair was a signification of social class for the Franks. They deceived Clotilda by informing her they would place them on the throne once held by their father. "Once I see you succeed him on the throne, I shall forget that I have lost my son" (III.18). But their plan was revealed and Clotilda, realizing this said, "If they are not to ascend the throne, I would rather see them dead than with their hair cut short." Chlodovald could not be caught but his brothers were slain. He cut his hair and devoted himself to monasticism serving as a priest until his repose. He is venerated as St. Cloud.

Theuderic sent his son Theudebert with Lothar to reclaim the territory the Goths had taken from their father's kingdom. Theudebert marched to Cabrières and had intercourse with a married woman named Deuteria while his father killed his relative Sigivald (III.21-23). He was ordered to do away with Sigivald's son but instead warned him of what Theuderic had commanded instead. When his father died, he was able to buy off an alliance with his uncles and married Deuteria (III.23). "Once he was firmly on the throne, Theudebert proved himself to be a great king, distinguished by every virtue. He ruled his kingdom justly, respected his bishops, was liberal to the churches, relieved the wants of the poor and distributed many benefits with piety and friendly goodwill." (III.25) Childebert and Theudebert formed an alliance against Lothar. Lothat was not strong enough to resist and hid himself in the forest, trusting in the mercy of God. "Queen Clotild learned what had happened. She went to the tomb of St. Martin, where she knelt in supplication the whole night praying that civil war might not break out between her sons." (III.28) A storm broke out and the troops of Childebert and Theudebert were pelted with hailstones. They withdrew and Lothar was unharmed. Childebert and Lothar set off for Spain but upon seeing a procession for St. Vincent, they became fearful and avoided the city of Saragossa though they did seize much of the Gothic lands. (III.29)

Theodoric, the King of Italy, had married Audofleda, the sister of Clovis. He died leaving her a widow. Her daughter Amalasuntha, also a widow, became regent for her son. Audofleda wanted her to marry a king's son but Amalasuntha preferred one of her slaves, Traguilla and eloped with him. Both of these queens were Arians and the Arians had a practice of distributing communion in different cups preserved for those of royal blood and for those of lesser mortal blood. Amalasuntha placed poison in her mother's cup and upon drinking it, Audofleda died. "What can these miserable Arian heretics say, when the Devil is present even at the altar? We Catholics, on the contrary, believe the Trinity, co-equal and all-powerful, would come to no harm even if we were to drink poison in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, one true Godhead." (III.31) The Italians were furious with Amalasuntha and replaced her with Theudat who murdered her. Then Childebert, Lothar, and Theudebert upbraided him for having killed their cousin. He sent them fifty thousand pieces of gold but Childebert horded it to himself. Next, Theudebert marched into Italy going all the way up to Pavia. He sent Buccelin back there. Buccelin conquered upper Italy and subjected it to Thedebert. Buccelin then campaigned into lower Italy and defeated Belisarius in a series of campaigns. Justinian would demote Belisarius for his losses and had him replaced with Narses. Narses also lost a series of campaigns against Buccelin (III.32). Theudebert made reconciliations with his fiancée Wisigard, marrying her, recompensing the Bishop Desideratus whom he had wronged, and was summoned by God after an illness which he died from in A.D. 548 (III.33-36). His son Theudebald reigned in his place (III.37).

King Olaf II of Norway

Olaf Haraldsen, the son of King Harald Grenske who was one of the petty kings in Norway, played an important role in the conversion of the Norwegians to Christianity and centralizing them through the Christian faith. Olaf was raised by his step-father, Sigurd Syr, as his father was killed in battle by the Swedes. In his coming of age, Olaf led a series of military campaigns against the Swedes, the Finns, and the Danes under the guidance of his foster-father, Hrane who was also called the "foster-father of kings". He was called a king as was Norwegian custom at the time to declare any one who commanded a ship in battle a king. Since the Swedes were responsible for killing his father, he began his military campaigns against the Swedes. He fought off witches in Finland, and then came to the West to assist King Ethelred in battle against the Danes. The Danish King Svein was mysteriously killed during these campaigns, some attributing the death to St. Edmund. This was similar to how St. Mercurius is traditionally held to have felled Julian the Apostate. It is highly possible that Olaf converted to Christianity while assisting the English against the Danes. He had planned to head out to Jerusalem but a figure appeared to him in a dream and told him that his bloodline would reign in Norway forever and that he must return to become king of all Norway.

In the Summer of 1012, King Ethelred died and the Danish King Canute took Queen Emma's hand in marriage and forced the Anglos under the dominion of the Danes. He had Ethelred's son Edmund, who had succeeded his father as king, murdered. This move effectively placed Canute as the de facto King of England and an usurper at that. Olaf was requested to remove the presence of the Danes from England and if he could do so, he would be granted all of Northumberland. Olaf came with force and seized a significant portion of Northumberland from the Danes. Having accomplished that, he returned once again to Norway to drive Earl Hakon, the Dane, out of Norway and did so with the promise that Earl Hakon would leave Olaf alone and never engage in battle with him again. Olaf had now secured the wrath of both the Swedes and the Danes in his young military career.

Olaf was determined to free Norway from the yoke of foreign masters and has become a symbol of fierce nationalism for Norwegians,

"I know the inclination of the people well, -- that all want to be free from the slavery of foreign masters, and will give aid and strength to the attempt. I have not proposed this matter to any before thee, because I know thou art a man of understanding, and can best judge how this my purpose shall be brought forward in the beginning, and whether we shall, in all quietness, talk about it to a few persons, or instantly declare it to the people at large. I have already shown my teeth by taking prisoner the Earl Hakon, who has now left the country, and given me, under oath, the part of the kingdom which he had before; and I think it will be easier to have Earl Svein alone to deal with, than if both were defending the country against us." (The Saga of Olaf Haraldson, 33)

Due to his fierce nationalism and defense of his family, many of whom held positions as kings over the differing parts of the Uplands, for Norway was divided into different lands governed by individual kings at this point, Olaf would gain favor among the electing kings. These kings met in a counsel to elect a supreme king. There had not been a supreme king of all Norway since Olaf Trygvason had died in the year 1000. He had been a convert to Christianity but seized most of the property of the descendants of the Harald Harfager that the kings of the Uplands couldn't determine what god it was he had actually believed in. They placed their trust in Olaf Haraldsen though.

But Earl Svein, who had served as an Earl alongside Hakon over Norway, was a traitor. He stirred up rebellion against Olaf, among those who had even sworn allegiance to Olaf. Olaf was left alone with his step-father Sigurd Syr, who continued to supply him with the men he needed in Viken in order to fend off the rebels. Olaf came with 100 well-equipped men who drove the Earl out of Norway. After a battle where Svein's men suffered massive losses, the Earl went to seek his brother-in-law, Olaf the King of Sweden, for assistance against Olaf the Thick. The Earl would die in Sweden. Trondhejm and Viken both received Olaf as king and built the Church of St. Clement in Nidaros. At this point, those who were aligned with Olaf the Thick were deeply Christian. Before the battle against Earl Svein, they held Mass, and they went into battle with crosses painted across their shields.

"It was King Olaf's custom to rise betimes in the morning, put on his clothes, wash his hands, and then go to the church and hear the matins and morning mass. Thereafter he went to the Thing- meeting, to bring people to agreement with each other, or to talk of one or the other matter that appeared to him necessary. He invited to him great and small who were known to be men of understanding. He often made them recite to him the laws which Hakon Athelstan's foster-son had made for Throndhjem; and after considering them with those men of understanding, he ordered laws adding to or taking from those established before. But Christian privileges he settled according to the advice of Bishop Grimbel and other learned priests; and bent his whole mind to uprooting heathenism, and old customs which he thought contrary to Christianity." (ibid, 56)

Olaf, having heard how other regions within his domain had allowed practices contrary to Christianity, set out to reform the code of laws in order to orient them to Christianity. The decline of Paganism within Europe is seen through the works of Sts. Olga, Ludmilla, Wenceslaus, Vladimir, Olaf. The turn of the millennium signified the collapse of Paganism and the victory of Christianity, resulting in the beginning of civilization. The Christianization of Norway was more successful at first in the region of Viken as the people there were more acquainted with Christian tradition, but slowly, Scandinavia was fully recognizing Christianity much as Rus' had done shortly before and Bohemia before that. After gravely inflicting punishment on Christians who were adhering to Pagan practices, five of the Upland kings rebelled against him. Olaf subdued those kings, one of whom was Hrorek, a kinsman who would make an attempt on the king's life, and he seized their lands. Olaf would eventually exile Hrorek to Iceland, refusing to put the rebel to death on account of his relation.

Olaf had been pursuing an alliance with Olaf of Sweden. But Olaf of Sweden remembered the early campaigns of King Olaf and the raids he had made against the Swedes. For this, Olaf of Sweden held a permanent and insatiable grudge against the Norwegian king. Yet he had promised his daughter Ingegard to Olaf II. However, due to his grudge, Olaf refused to make good on his word and married Ingegard to the Russian king Jarisleif instead. The Earl Ragnvald, who had been behind the previous marriage arrangement and had desired peace with Norway, was given the Earldom of Lagoda as a marital gift and had Olaf of Norway married to the Swedish king's daughter Astrid instead. This enraged Olaf of Sweden even greater. The Swedish people, troubled by the broken promises of Olaf, held a Thing to coronate Olaf's son, Onund the kingdom. The Swedish land was divided between Olaf and Onund with the Norwegian King Olaf forming an alliance with Onund. This alliance strengthened in 1021 when Olaf of Sweden died and Onund became sole ruler of Sweden.

Olaf continued the spread of Christianity throughout Norway, often through forceful tactics. The Halogaland people were fierce opponents of Christianity. Disgusted by their Pagan practices, Olaf threatened them to embrace Christianity and give up these practices. They did so and churches were built and Norway continued to be a bastion of Christianity in Scandinavia thanks to the tactics of Olaf. Though this may be seen as imprudent on the part of the Norwegian King, it should be noted that Christian law gives legitimate rulers the right and authority to protect the spread of Christianity by the usage of force, censorship, and suppression.

Ten years into Olaf's reign as Supreme King of Norway, Canute the Great of Denmark and England forged a territorial claim on the Norwegian lands held by Olaf. This included all of the Uplands, the Orkney Islands, the Faroe Islands, and Iceland. Canute the Great was hellbent to claim them back for himself stating that because of the Danish Earldoms of his father, he was entitled to those lands. Canute was able to fuel rebellion in the midst of the Norsemen by planting spies among their ranks. Much of the Swedish men deserted from Onund and only the strongest remained with the brothers-in-law as they fought against Canute and the rebels. The Saga explains why the people eventually rebelled against St. Olaf.

"He punished great and small with equal severity, which appeared to the chief people of the country too severe; and animosity rose to the highest when they lost relatives by the king's just sentence, although they were in reality guilty. This was the origin of the hostility of the great men of the country to King Olaf, that they could not bear his just judgments. He again would rather renounce his dignity than omit righteous judgment. The accusation against him, of being stingy with his money, was not just, for he was a most generous man towards his friends; but that alone was the cause of the discontent raised against him, that he appeared hard and severe in his retributions. Besides, King Canute offered great sums of money, and the great chiefs were corrupted by this, and by his offering them greater dignities than they had possessed before. The inclinations of the people, also, were all in favour of Earl Hakon, who was much beloved by the country folks when he ruled the country before." (ibid, 192)

Olaf fled to Russia where his sister-in-law, Ingegard was with King Jarisleif. There, the Queen offered him dominion over any Russian lands he desired, including Bulgaria, and Olaf even considered joining a monastery. He realized that his deposal had ended his reign. There was nothing he could do to win his throne back. But in a dream, he heard Olaf Trygvason call him to remember his right over the land of Norway and with few men and the aid of Onund, he would head back to Norway one last time.

Olaf was questioned as to whether he should mutilate the traitors and plunder them as he had done though with the Pagan sympathizers, to which he responded,

"The bondes have well deserved that it should be done to them as ye desire. They also know that I have formerly done so, burning their habitations, and punishing them severely in many ways; but then I proceeded against them with fire and sword because they rejected the true faith, betook themselves to sacrifices, and would not obey my commands. We had then God's honour to defend. But this treason against their sovereign is a much less grievous crime, although it does not become men who have any manhood in them to break the faith and vows they have sworn to me. Now, however, it is more in my power to spare those who have dealt ill with me, than those whom God hated." (ibid, 217)

Not intent on punishing them more than necessary, Olaf even distributed pieces of silver on behalf of the souls who had betrayed him.

King Canute had placed a bishop on the episcopal throne in Norway who encouraged and egged on insurrection against King Olaf. This bishop rallied up the bondes who would soon fight against Olaf. Olaf II would eventually fall in the Battle of Stiklestad. Thorer Hund and Kalf Arnason confronted the King and killed him. It is uncertain if Kalf dealt the wound in the neck or if it was Thorer Hund. Thorer found the King's body lying on the ground and saw the King lying as if asleep, not dead. The blood still flowing, it went up to where Thorer had been wounded and healed him as if he was never wounded. Thus, Thorer would be the first of the King's opponents to testify of his sanctity. King Olaf had also healed the son of a widow when he was in Russia of a boil that grew and festered upon his neck. Olaf's body was hidden from the rebels during the skirmish but a blind boy who had not seen anything in much while found himself in a cabin where the body of the king had been hidden and was found to be healed of his blindness upon the unbeknownst to him encounter.

King Canute broke many of his promises and placed his son Svein on the throne of Norway rather than Kalf Arnason, the leader of the rebel army. Svein ruled as a tyrant, which greatly led to the people's penance over their slaying of the saintly king.

"King Svein introduced new laws in many respects into the country, partly after those which were in Denmark, and in part much more severe. No man must leave the country without the king's permission; or if he did, his property fell to the king. Whoever killed a man outright, should forfeit all his land and movables. If any one was banished the country, and all heritage fell to him, the king took his inheritance. At Yule every man should pay the king a meal of malt from every harvest steading, and a leg of a three-year old ox, which was called a friendly gift, together with a spand of butter; and every house-wife a rock full of unspun lint, as thick as one could span with the longest fingers of the hand. The bondes were bound to build all the houses the king required upon his farms. Of every seven males one should be taken for the service of war, and reckoning from the fifth year of age; and the outfit of ships should be reckoned in the same proportion. Every man who rowed upon the sea to fish should pay the king five fish as a tax, for the land defence, wherever he might come from. Every ship that went out of the country should have stowage reserved open for the king in the middle of the ship. Every man, foreigner or native, who went to Iceland, should pay a tax to the king. And to all this was added, that Danes should enjoy so much consideration in Norway, that one witness of them should invalidate ten of Northmen." (ibid, 253)

The attitudes of the people began to change and they chased out Bishop Sigurd who had inspired the insurrection against King Olaf and Olaf's body would be disinterred by Bishop Grimkel who had discovered the body almost as if it had been asleep for a year, rather than dead. Many more healings were attributed to Olaf II. Olaf fell on July 29, 1030 A.D. and was disinterred on August 3, 1031 A.D., only a little over a year after his martyrdom. His body was moved to Clement's Church which was replaced by Christ Church. It is possibly now hidden under another Church today called Saint-King's Church in Norway, but archeologists have been trying to determine whether this is so. In the year of 1034, Kalf Arnason made a venture all the way to Novgorod where he inquired of King Jarisleif to make King Magnus, the son of Olaf II, King of Norway. Those who had been Olaf II's opponents in battle were reconciled together with Olaf's son.

Olaf II is a symbol of nationalism for his fight against foreigners sapping off the fields of a country they belong not to. Olaf II is greatly venerated in Norway to this day. With the emphasis on solidarity, we tend to forget the Church also holds to subsidiarian values as well. If these values are neglected, we fall under the tyranny of the collective brain. Olaf II embraced both as he united his country through Christianity and ended Paganism and crushed heresy and he liberated his country from foreign oppression at the same time. Today, the liberal media talks unendingly about the dangers of "Christian nationalism" and yet we see it as a virtue in Olaf II. What the media hates is Christianity in general because if people believe in God, there is no means to oppress any one into collectivism. St. Olaf II of Norway, pray for us!

St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, Monarchy is the Best Form of Government

Much time is typically spent by monarchists refuting and countering the arguments of democracy. With good reason. Democracy is a sham system of government that has proven to divide people. But perhaps it is also best to provide a strong argument for the case of monarchy. St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, in his massive work, On the Roman Pontiff, covers the topic of monarchy first. He spends a devoted amount of time addressing John Calvin's arguments against monarchy because the Catholic Church holds to the doctrine of papal primacy. The Pope reigns and governs supreme over the entire Catholic Church as God's visible head. He argues that this must be so because God wanted His Church to be modeled after the best form of civil government: monarchy.

"Among the Greek [Fathers], blessed Justin teaches that the rule of many is harmful, and on the contrary, the rule of one is more useful and beneficial: 'The rule of one is freed from wars and dissensions and is usually free.' Also St. Athanasius, 'Truly we have said that a multitude of gods is a nullity of gods: so also, necessarily a multitude of princes makes it that there should appear to be no prince: however where there is no prince, there confusion is born.

"Among the Latin [Fathers], St. Cyprian teaches the same thing, and he proves it best and most eminently from the very fact that monarchy should be the best and most natural government, because God is one. 'For the divine authority, let us borrow from an earthly example: In what way has an alliance of power ever begun with trust, or ended without blood?' St. Jerome says: 'One emperor, one judge of the province. When Rome was built, she could not have two brothers as kings at the same time.' Lastly, one can consult St. Thomas." (Bk. I, ch. II)

He continues his argument citing the classics. According to Plato, "One dominion has been arranged for good laws, the law of these is best; that governance in which not many command, we ought to esteem as the middle: the administration of many others is weak, and also frail." Aristotle, who was Plato's student, repeats, "[a] kingdom is the best of these, a republic the worst." Seneca, commenting on the assassination of Caesar, "[T]he best state of citizenry is to be under just one king." Bellarmine is able to recruit the moral philosopher Plutarch, "[i]f the choice of electing were conceded, one should not choose anything else than the power of one." Finally, Homer's statement that "[i]t is not good that there be many; in war there must be one chief and one king." These philosophers build the rational argument to the case for monarchy that Bellarmine makes but Bellarmine is a theologian first and foremost. He doesn't stop with the human but ascends to the divine.

In accordance with the Divine law "God made from one every kind of man, as the Apostle says." He draws from this the same conclusion made by St. John Chrysostom "that this is so that there should not be democracy among men, but a kingdom." Not only that but in nature, we see that monarchy is the most natural form of government. For St. Cyprian tells us that "[t]here is one king for bees, one leader among flocks, and one rule among rams" and St. Jerome adds that "cranes follow one by the order of the litter."

We observe in Scripture how easily a monarchy formed.

"He did not (as Calvin says but cannot prove), make the government of the Hebrews an aristocracy, or a government of many, but was plainly a monarchy. The princes among the Hebrews were first of all patriarchs, as Abraham, Jacob, Jude and the rest; thereupon generals, as Moses and Joshua; then judges, as Samuel, Sampson, and others; afterwards kings, as Saul, David, and Solomon; thereafter again generals, as Zerubbabel and the Maccabees."

And Bellarmine is not without evidence or examples of this. The confusion is of course is a titular confusion. People think monarchy means having a king but a monarch need not be a king but any sort of ruler. Bellarmine points to the examples set by Abraham, Judah, Moses, and the Judges of Israel. Abraham waged war against four kings with no consultation from any senate, Judah judged his daughter-in-law accused of adultery, with fire, and consulted no senate. Moses commanded thousands of the Jews to be killed for idolatry with no consultation from any senate. The judges only answered to God.

Monarchies have provided untold stability in leadership in countries throughout history. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine states, "[t]here cannot be any doubt, whether that form of ruling the multitude would be better that more fittingly and easily acquires its proposed end. The end of government, however, is the unity of the citizens among themselves, and peace, which that union appears principally to be centered on that all might think the same, wish the same and follow the same." Of the four greatest Empires of the Assyrians, the Persians, the Greeks, and the Romans, only the Romans did not emerge to power under a monarchy. But there was much civil war going on inside the Roman Empire until the Triumvirate of Julius Caesar, Marcus Brutus, and Mark Antony. After Caesar’s assassination, the Empire was left entirely to his son Augustus. Under Augustus began the Pax Romana (peace of Rome) as the civil wars and strife were ended. The monarchy of the Assyrians lasted 1240 years, the Scythians were the oldest monarchy in Bellarmine’s day, and the Roman monarchy lasted for 1495 years until the Turks toppled Constantinople. We might also add the longevity that was experienced by the Persians and the Ethiopians. Republics evaporate and if they survive, are typically held hostage to civil wars and strife as we observed in the Roman Empire.

There cannot be a doubt, Bellarmine, in one fell swoop, provides the most extensive and comprehensive argument in favor of a simple monarchy.

In defense of Confederate statues

I'm actually talking about all monuments here. Statues, cemeteries, war memorials, etc. Confederate monuments need to be defended, not because of what they stand for people who are revulsed by them but because of what they stand for the people who put them up. As I have written before, a compelling case can be made in support of the Confederate secessionist movement from the Union. Before casting judgments, that article should be read in full because I provided a very well sustained argument for the Confederacy.

People these days talk of "charity" and "love for your neighbor" as if that is the equivalent of "do not offend your neighbor". It is nothing of the sort. It is to be understandable that things we come across will offend us and cause revulsion. Some things will cause revulsion to us throughout our lives. This is part of becoming an adult. It is how we respond. The problem with Confederate monuments is not their existence but the response to their existence.

In the history following the defeat of the Confederacy there was a long and bitter reunification process called "Reconstruction". Reconstruction is almost universally disparaged by American historians. Former Confederate states were held under what was essentially a military occupation which damaged their economic production and held them as essential slaves of the GOP. The period of Reconstruction ended with the heated and contested Presidential election of 1876 as Democratic candidate Samuel Tilden soared in nationwide popularity with nearly 51% of the majority voting for him. His Republican opponent, Rutherford B. Hayes, staggered with three points less in the nationwide vote. For a long time 20 electoral votes were contested as Tilden held a 184-165 lead. Back then, 185 was the deciding number. After long and bitter contentions, the electoral votes were given to Hayes with the concessions that Republicans would withdraw military troops.

The period of Reconstruction ended. Then came the Jim Crow laws and with them, the Confederate monuments. While it is easy to connect these statues to a "culture of racism", historians tend to know that people are more complex then what our modernist sensibilities seek to limit to them. For these Southerners, it wasn't simply about an animosity they held toward blacks, it was an animosity they had been fostering from the Reconstruction period toward the Union. The Union were centralizers and oppressors. These statues were put up in protest. But statues were put up, nonetheless.

This is the difference between Black Lives Matter, Anti-fa, and White Southerners. White Southerners have a culture. BLM and Anti-fa are about cultural destruction and annihilation. To White Southerners, these things have strong significant meaning and represents their history of oppression. BLM and Anti-fa have been able to scream that they have victimhood status but they use their victimhood to drag people down to their own inhuman level. They do not build culture or contribute to society. They denigrate and degrade society. The people who put up statues of Martin Luther King, Jr., Booker T. Washington, Sojourner Truth, Frederick Douglass, Malcolm X, these are the people who build and contribute to culture. Confederate statues were placed in protest of the Union and they built up a culture and contributed to American culture. The solution to their existence is not to destroy or remove them but to leave them up and add more statues of honorable men.