|
|
|
Erwacht, erwacht, ihr Blumen, zur Wonne!
Seht die Sonne! ^ IX
Farbenfroh am Himmelssaum,
östlich grüßt ihr Morgentraum!
Lächelnd kommt sie aufgestiegen \ GEMISCHTER CHOR
Aus -den Fluten der Nacht,
Läßt von lichter Stirne fliegen
Strahlenlockenpracht !
ARNOLD SCHÖNBERG
Published in 1881, twenty years exactly after the Secession, Jefferson Davis Mémoires for their difference of interpretation in the facts and causes of the Civil war are interesting since his conclusions are quite astray from the main stream..
With the author's key words : wholly constitutional ... to restore government .... founding fathers had intended... while putting aside as minute history what he calls 'African servitude", it is not hard to go again through a historical check list.
But Suffice tho of a single quote, writen in march 1861, by his own vice president Alexander Stephens to frown at his claims and conclude humbly that No, President Davis, "would not pass muster as Historian"..:
“The original Union rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. (but) our new government is founded on exactly the opposite idea: its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This our new government is the first in the history of the world based on this great truth” (Lecture 18.3.4 Confederate Constitution Pt. 4 00:21)
But I want to take this reflexion one step further and raise another question : Why? Why Jefferson Davis, did choose to take a path in reading facts and not another? Here again, we are confronted to a fundamental issue : the nature of wars.
Wars are progressive. You donnot Wake up to it one morning and find war at your door replacing peace. It can built on illusions but it comes hardly as a surprise. The antebellum America appears as such, for its intricacies and complexities engulfed :
Economical reasons : the expansion of the Union with the creating new states, touching now up to the Pacific Ocean, with at its core raising the issue of "free (from slaves)" or "slave states". Leading to, or being added to :
Ideological reasons : The South became embattled as it lost in way of life and in numbers. More and more population was living up in the North when most of the wealth was still coming from the South. " Cotton is King" wrote Hammond....one could read there : we work, you gain. This produced a situation of imbalance and insecurity from a population who came and see itself more as a seperate civilization, AND a minority - the planters and political elite - treated badly Under the yolk of a growing majority - the Northen states with manufacters strong of 22 millions inhabitants.
Political occasions : When an extremist streak (the Fire eaters) becomes central in power and influence, its wrecking ability is tremendous and a capital element in creating havoc. This is what happened in the polical parties of the Whigs and the Democrats when they wrought defiance and untrust, creating the path to war. In a general atmosphere of defiance and aggressivity....
Moral reasons are décisives in conflicts. Values taking on its fragile shoulder, the whole identity of a conflict, the Southerners self imaged in a distorted way as the " victims". . Thus behaving more and more in a defensive way and indicated that it will do almost anything NOT to change. Moreover, hypocrisy of the North over the slave issue is often cited, as in Dred Scott case when brought at one stage in front of the Missouri Supreme Court in 1852
The court repudiated its rulings in the Winny v. Whitesides and Rachel v. Walker cases and excoriated perceived Northern hypocrisy about slavery: ‘we will not go to them to learn law, morality or religion on the subject.’http://www.historynet.com/dred-scott
I can understand though the uncaniness in believing that a nation would go on a crusade against slavery. I have this feeling that nobody out there is going for philanthropic reason but for their interest only. But, I think that for a nation to go to war, there is always a pivotal reason which is often based on interest or self preservation as well as, something to "glue" the whole thing...One does not only stand up and fight, one has to have to a very good reason to do so...and often, values and ideals are so strong to unite, that they can move the crowds to do something over and beyond their interest and self preservation.
The slavery issue was just This issue.
War can be appearing at the end of a manichean rope ...but it is won for a reason.
After four weeks of Prof's Mac Curry formidable course - thank you Prof - and a life long reflecting on this topic above, I have come to basic basic questions that will lay the first stage of my attempt to enunciate the contours of an answers, or answers, when dealing with historical debates.
and this is what I have come to generate as a general framemind for some of our most formidable and central question here : why did slavery was widely used in the New New Republic but even strengthened through its first 1787 Constitution?
I think, one aspect of it is about the genesis of knowledge. I think, before reaching many conclusion, we should try and understand a process which involves not only societal processes, that is class status conscience one but the very nature of generating knowledge
Knowledge is deeply contextual. Before the great democratic upheaval movements of the end of the 18th C and the 19th C. and on, knowledge was the priviledge of the elite. So ideas were their private garden.
This is never to claim that before the Enlightement, there was no relecting on ideas, issues, life, death, poverty, piety, religion and science but a very few of them had the Tools to handle them.
Furthemore, we are in an ever changing world where limits were more or less permeable; today they are almost universily permeable but they know many setbacks as well : what we call cultural communities withing societies.
this long intro to say the following : in a midley of ideas, old and new, of acts, old and new, of inventions of and new, of upheavals, old and new, there is no right and wrong, or even no clear issue over an unclear issue; but a medley of discussions over issues that the people involved in defining them, are permeated by many elements stemming from many elements that form a society. Hence, the ambivalence on slavery here...
Take for exemple the idea of wrong doing and handling the fate of animals.
all the possible scppes of opinions do exist today on that very important issue, I would even say, and it is better understandable here to use this term : COexist. Many ideas coexist around an decision to be taken. The one, or the Ones which will have the upper hand over the others is extremely difficult to know afront.
What is the most chocking though is the following. In an everchanging world where some of the very basis of humanity have been recoginazed all over the world and accepted as the basis to form the backgroung of a civilization, the sudden appearance of a movement, completely foreign to it can and deos have to puzzle us....
when one idea is formating - like a nine months birth - in the woumb of a society and becomes an entity in itself, after long labor nights, why deos this very idea sometimes seem to want to go back to the woumb and destroy its very essence : this is what happened to Nazi germany, a phenomenon that we will now understand fully, if ever, for the next hundred years at least.
אני לא חשה בטוב בכלל
לכן לא אוכל לכתוב כאן לזמן מה...
לא לדאוג
גם אתזה נעבור
rachmaninoff interpretation of his own Etude and Kissin's one.
who says that all interpretations are the same.
everything is the same but always different :! for the ones who think that the world is simple !
