Fade the Butcher
03-12-2006, 05:30 AM
I picked up this book today in the library as part of my ongoing inquiry into the history of the civil rights movement. I will use this thread to post commentary.
Nonviolence is an orphan among democratic ideas. It has nearly vanished from public discourse even though the basic element of free government -- the vote -- has no other meaning. Every ballot is a piece of nonvilence, signifying hard won consent to raise politics above firepower and bloody conquest
This is an unusual interpretation of American history. The United States itself was born in an act of violence. Ever hear of the American Revolution? The Boston Tea Party was an act of violence. The Sons of Liberty were terrorists engaged in rebellion against their sovereign, King George III of England. The American Revolution itself was only enthusiastically supported by a minority of Americans. The majority of the American colonists were either loyalists or indifferent to the revolutionary cause. An enormous amount of violence was metted out against Americans by other Americans during and after the American Revolution. Furthermore, Americans used systematic violence and racial cleansing to expand their frontiers and also to put down various rebellions in the ensuing century, from the Whiskey Rebellion to the War Between the States. Americans use violence to bring "freedom" and "democracy" to the world at large today. Few countries in the last two centuries have engaged in more violence than America; have spent more time and more money crafting weapons of violence like the atomic bomb and the stealth bomber. The United States alone accounts for half of the world's military spending today.
Such compacts work more or less securely in different lands. Nations gain strength from vote-based institutions in commerce and civil society, but the whole architecture of representative democracy springs from the handiwork of nonviolence.
This is a breathtaking statement. America was founded as a republic, not a democracy. The United States only became a democracy in later years. The nineteenth amendment that gave women the right to vote was not passed until 1920. The fifteenth amendment that gave blacks voting rights was not ratified until 1870. In subsequent decades, blacks were systematically disenfranchised in the South and did not regain full voting rights in many areas until 1965. Indians did not gain full citizenship until 1924. Asians were not allowed to naturalize and gain voting rights until the twentieth century. Even most white males did not overcome the property restrictions that denied them voting rights until well into the Jacksonian Era. The architecture of democracy, in fact, sprang from confrontation and struggle against an entrenched propertied elite that zealously defended their interests. America became a powerful nation in spite of democracy, not because of it, through actions that were anything but democratic.
America's Founders centered political responsibility in the citizens themselves, but, nearly two centuries later, no one expected a largely invisible and dependent racial minority to ignite protests of steadfast courage -- boycotts, sit-ins, Freedom Rides, jail marches -- dramatized by stunning forebearance and equilibrium into the jaws of hatred.
America's Founders centered political responsibility in a narrow elite of propertied white males whom they believed were entitled to the right of self-government on account of their virtue. They created a republic of republics, not a national democracy. The American Founders were deeply suspicious of democracy which they associated with mob rule. Alexander Hamilton even wanted George Washington to become a monarch. I'm not aware of a single Founder who was not of the view that blacks were an inferior race and America was a white country either.
During the short career of Martin Luther King, Jr., between 1954 and 1968, the nonviolent civil rights movement lifted the patriotic spirit of the United States toward our defining national purpose.
Martin Luther King and his followers went out of their way to provoke violent confrontations with law enforcement, as was the case in Birmingham which was specifically selected above all other cities for this reason. Our national purpose has nothing whatsoever to do with civil rights. It wasn't until the 1860s and 1870s that the first federal civil rights legislation was passed (and then, for the sole reason to build up a Republican Party in the occupied South). It wasn't until the 1950s and 1960s that such legislation became meaningful because the previous civil rights legislation had been invalidated by the Supreme Court during the late nineteenth century. But this is our transcendental national purpose!
James Madison, arguing in 1788 to ratify the novel Constitution of the United States, called upon "every votary of freedom to rest all our political experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government."
James Madison was a white supremacist, a racist, and a slaveowner who spent his elderly years as the president of the American Colonization Society pursuing his dream of deporting blacks to Africa.
This revolutionary premise challenged the once universal hierarchy of rulers and subjects along with its stubborn assumption that a populace needs by superior force or authority
This was hardly the case. The American Constitution is anything but a revolutionary document. It is a profoundly reactionary system of checks and balances designed to preserve the rule of the better element of society and check democracy as far as possible. The President of the United States is not directly elected by the people. Senators were not popularly elected until the ratification of the seveneeth amendment in 1913. The justices of the Supreme Court are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Supreme Court gained the power of judicial review under the federalist John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison. The House of Representatives is an inferior branch of government and U.S. representatives are limited to two year terms. No reasonable person can claim that the U.S. Constitution was designed with the object of promoting democracy in mind.
Madison also prescribed a bold commitment to the wisdom of citizens at large.
His handiwork suggests otherwise.
This public trust surfaces in close elections, when it becomes more than a theoretical article of faith that the power of a great nation can turn on the last trickle of marginal voters to the polls. Without "virtue in the people," wrote Madison, "no theoretical checks, no form of government, can render us secure."
Branch totally misunderstands what Madison, the political theorist, is saying. This is a republican argument, not a liberal one. Liberals take for granted that men are naturally good and should therefore be free. Republicans argue that men are naturally vicious and attain freedom through the instruction and practice of the moral virtues. These two worldviews are totally at odds with one another. A liberal would infer that all men are capable of self-government because they are naturally good. A republican would infer that only a small minority of men are capable of self-government because virtue is the prerequisite of freedom. The idea that James Madison was a liberal is absurd and the system of government he helped design reflects his belief that man is vicious and must be controlled by his natural superiors.
Nonviolence is an orphan among democratic ideas. It has nearly vanished from public discourse even though the basic element of free government -- the vote -- has no other meaning. Every ballot is a piece of nonvilence, signifying hard won consent to raise politics above firepower and bloody conquest
This is an unusual interpretation of American history. The United States itself was born in an act of violence. Ever hear of the American Revolution? The Boston Tea Party was an act of violence. The Sons of Liberty were terrorists engaged in rebellion against their sovereign, King George III of England. The American Revolution itself was only enthusiastically supported by a minority of Americans. The majority of the American colonists were either loyalists or indifferent to the revolutionary cause. An enormous amount of violence was metted out against Americans by other Americans during and after the American Revolution. Furthermore, Americans used systematic violence and racial cleansing to expand their frontiers and also to put down various rebellions in the ensuing century, from the Whiskey Rebellion to the War Between the States. Americans use violence to bring "freedom" and "democracy" to the world at large today. Few countries in the last two centuries have engaged in more violence than America; have spent more time and more money crafting weapons of violence like the atomic bomb and the stealth bomber. The United States alone accounts for half of the world's military spending today.
Such compacts work more or less securely in different lands. Nations gain strength from vote-based institutions in commerce and civil society, but the whole architecture of representative democracy springs from the handiwork of nonviolence.
This is a breathtaking statement. America was founded as a republic, not a democracy. The United States only became a democracy in later years. The nineteenth amendment that gave women the right to vote was not passed until 1920. The fifteenth amendment that gave blacks voting rights was not ratified until 1870. In subsequent decades, blacks were systematically disenfranchised in the South and did not regain full voting rights in many areas until 1965. Indians did not gain full citizenship until 1924. Asians were not allowed to naturalize and gain voting rights until the twentieth century. Even most white males did not overcome the property restrictions that denied them voting rights until well into the Jacksonian Era. The architecture of democracy, in fact, sprang from confrontation and struggle against an entrenched propertied elite that zealously defended their interests. America became a powerful nation in spite of democracy, not because of it, through actions that were anything but democratic.
America's Founders centered political responsibility in the citizens themselves, but, nearly two centuries later, no one expected a largely invisible and dependent racial minority to ignite protests of steadfast courage -- boycotts, sit-ins, Freedom Rides, jail marches -- dramatized by stunning forebearance and equilibrium into the jaws of hatred.
America's Founders centered political responsibility in a narrow elite of propertied white males whom they believed were entitled to the right of self-government on account of their virtue. They created a republic of republics, not a national democracy. The American Founders were deeply suspicious of democracy which they associated with mob rule. Alexander Hamilton even wanted George Washington to become a monarch. I'm not aware of a single Founder who was not of the view that blacks were an inferior race and America was a white country either.
During the short career of Martin Luther King, Jr., between 1954 and 1968, the nonviolent civil rights movement lifted the patriotic spirit of the United States toward our defining national purpose.
Martin Luther King and his followers went out of their way to provoke violent confrontations with law enforcement, as was the case in Birmingham which was specifically selected above all other cities for this reason. Our national purpose has nothing whatsoever to do with civil rights. It wasn't until the 1860s and 1870s that the first federal civil rights legislation was passed (and then, for the sole reason to build up a Republican Party in the occupied South). It wasn't until the 1950s and 1960s that such legislation became meaningful because the previous civil rights legislation had been invalidated by the Supreme Court during the late nineteenth century. But this is our transcendental national purpose!
James Madison, arguing in 1788 to ratify the novel Constitution of the United States, called upon "every votary of freedom to rest all our political experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government."
James Madison was a white supremacist, a racist, and a slaveowner who spent his elderly years as the president of the American Colonization Society pursuing his dream of deporting blacks to Africa.
This revolutionary premise challenged the once universal hierarchy of rulers and subjects along with its stubborn assumption that a populace needs by superior force or authority
This was hardly the case. The American Constitution is anything but a revolutionary document. It is a profoundly reactionary system of checks and balances designed to preserve the rule of the better element of society and check democracy as far as possible. The President of the United States is not directly elected by the people. Senators were not popularly elected until the ratification of the seveneeth amendment in 1913. The justices of the Supreme Court are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Supreme Court gained the power of judicial review under the federalist John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison. The House of Representatives is an inferior branch of government and U.S. representatives are limited to two year terms. No reasonable person can claim that the U.S. Constitution was designed with the object of promoting democracy in mind.
Madison also prescribed a bold commitment to the wisdom of citizens at large.
His handiwork suggests otherwise.
This public trust surfaces in close elections, when it becomes more than a theoretical article of faith that the power of a great nation can turn on the last trickle of marginal voters to the polls. Without "virtue in the people," wrote Madison, "no theoretical checks, no form of government, can render us secure."
Branch totally misunderstands what Madison, the political theorist, is saying. This is a republican argument, not a liberal one. Liberals take for granted that men are naturally good and should therefore be free. Republicans argue that men are naturally vicious and attain freedom through the instruction and practice of the moral virtues. These two worldviews are totally at odds with one another. A liberal would infer that all men are capable of self-government because they are naturally good. A republican would infer that only a small minority of men are capable of self-government because virtue is the prerequisite of freedom. The idea that James Madison was a liberal is absurd and the system of government he helped design reflects his belief that man is vicious and must be controlled by his natural superiors.