Monday, February 21, 2005
- The John Adams Year UvA lecture series. FIRST LECTURE SERIES: John Adams and the Early Republic
Pauline Maier (*), Massachusetts Institute of Technology: The Founding Fathers' development of independence and drafting of the Declaration.
In the third lecture of the John Adams Year 2005 Celebration Series, Pauline Maier emphasized the role played by John Adams in the preparation of the Declaration of Independence. In a memorial delivered in Leyden on April 19, 1781 --that is, exactly five years after the start of the war against Britain-- Adams wrote:
"That memorable act ... immortal declaration ... not the effect of any passion ... maturely discussed ... adopted by Congress with the unanimous consent of the whole people ... never a law, edict, placard, or constitution was adopted with more thoughtfulness than the Declaration of Independence."
John Adams --who in the first part of his public career had defended the British soldiers who took part in the Boston Massacre (**)-- was the most vocal member of the Second Continental Congress in matters related to American independence. In early 1776, he drew up an agenda for Congress which included: the forming of alliances, the negotiation of commercial treaties, the issuance of coin and currency and ... the declaration of independence.
The problem was that several colonies --including Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Delaware and New York-- had given their delegates instructions precluding anything but reconciliation with Britain. Nevertheless, in the early spring Congress took several drastic steps. Silas Deane was sent on a mission to France, and envoys were sent to Canada. Congress also authorized privateers to attack British ships.
These measures involved many hours of intense negotiations. Adams had to be there, talking, arguing, persuading. This came naturally to him, says Pauline Maier, because as a lawyer he was used to speak to juries. She adds, however, that Adams found it very difficult to moderate himself. He was passionately involved with the American cause, and he had little patience with members of Congress who wanted to proceed more slowly.
An important breakthrough came when Adams and the Virginian Richard Henry Lee managed to get a unanimous assignment calling for all colonies to set up their own governments. On June 7, 1776, Congress adopted a resolution declaring that:
"These united colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown; and that all political connexion between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved."
Although Prof. Maier says she cannot prove it, she thinks that John Adams was happy about the fact that Thomas Jefferson was appointed to write the Declaration of Independence, even though his own name would not be directly linked to that venerable document. With Jefferson busy at his desk, Adams had more time to work behind the scenes, rallying public opinion to the cause of American independence.
Jefferson and Trial by Jury in the Declaration
I asked Prof. Maier (during the break) why Congress edited the reference to trial by jury. In Jefferson's original draft, one reads: "... for depriving us of the benefits of trial by jury." But Congress changed that passage to: "... for depriving us in many cases of the benefits of trial by jury."
Prof. Maier answered very simply: Jefferson wanted everything to look "universal"; besides, trials by jury were taking place all the time. (The original draft and Congress' changes can be seen here.)
(*) Her book on the Declaration is American Scripture: Making the Declaration of Independence. New York: Knopf, 1997. You can read a review here.
(**) Maier thinks that the decision to represent the British soldiers was taken with the consent of the "radicals", which included Adams' cousin Samuel Adams. They wanted to make the point that, in America, anybody could get a fair trial.
Pauline Maier (*), Massachusetts Institute of Technology: The Founding Fathers' development of independence and drafting of the Declaration.
In the third lecture of the John Adams Year 2005 Celebration Series, Pauline Maier emphasized the role played by John Adams in the preparation of the Declaration of Independence. In a memorial delivered in Leyden on April 19, 1781 --that is, exactly five years after the start of the war against Britain-- Adams wrote:
"That memorable act ... immortal declaration ... not the effect of any passion ... maturely discussed ... adopted by Congress with the unanimous consent of the whole people ... never a law, edict, placard, or constitution was adopted with more thoughtfulness than the Declaration of Independence."
John Adams --who in the first part of his public career had defended the British soldiers who took part in the Boston Massacre (**)-- was the most vocal member of the Second Continental Congress in matters related to American independence. In early 1776, he drew up an agenda for Congress which included: the forming of alliances, the negotiation of commercial treaties, the issuance of coin and currency and ... the declaration of independence.
The problem was that several colonies --including Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Delaware and New York-- had given their delegates instructions precluding anything but reconciliation with Britain. Nevertheless, in the early spring Congress took several drastic steps. Silas Deane was sent on a mission to France, and envoys were sent to Canada. Congress also authorized privateers to attack British ships.
These measures involved many hours of intense negotiations. Adams had to be there, talking, arguing, persuading. This came naturally to him, says Pauline Maier, because as a lawyer he was used to speak to juries. She adds, however, that Adams found it very difficult to moderate himself. He was passionately involved with the American cause, and he had little patience with members of Congress who wanted to proceed more slowly.
An important breakthrough came when Adams and the Virginian Richard Henry Lee managed to get a unanimous assignment calling for all colonies to set up their own governments. On June 7, 1776, Congress adopted a resolution declaring that:
"These united colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown; and that all political connexion between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved."
Although Prof. Maier says she cannot prove it, she thinks that John Adams was happy about the fact that Thomas Jefferson was appointed to write the Declaration of Independence, even though his own name would not be directly linked to that venerable document. With Jefferson busy at his desk, Adams had more time to work behind the scenes, rallying public opinion to the cause of American independence.
Jefferson and Trial by Jury in the Declaration
I asked Prof. Maier (during the break) why Congress edited the reference to trial by jury. In Jefferson's original draft, one reads: "... for depriving us of the benefits of trial by jury." But Congress changed that passage to: "... for depriving us in many cases of the benefits of trial by jury."
Prof. Maier answered very simply: Jefferson wanted everything to look "universal"; besides, trials by jury were taking place all the time. (The original draft and Congress' changes can be seen here.)
(*) Her book on the Declaration is American Scripture: Making the Declaration of Independence. New York: Knopf, 1997. You can read a review here.
(**) Maier thinks that the decision to represent the British soldiers was taken with the consent of the "radicals", which included Adams' cousin Samuel Adams. They wanted to make the point that, in America, anybody could get a fair trial.
- DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA: THE PRIVATE AND THE PUBLIC
Lecturer: Eduard van de Bilt
Harriet Beecher Stowe. Uncle Tom's Cabin. Harvard Library Classics, 1853. Edited by Kenneth S. Lynne, 1962
(PART II) Aspects of the book related to the issue of the private & the public. Jaime: Ophelia is an interesting character, because she sums up what Northerners feel: they are very pro-equality in public, but still prejudiced in private. Carla: Ophelia is very much on her own. She is un-married, which was unusual at the time. She voices her opinions independently -- she does not reflect the voice of the church or of husbands.
Prof. van de Bilt: the way the issue of family life is presented, it looks as if Stowe conceives society as one large family. If family life were to break down, you could expect (according to Stowe) the public domain to be in trouble as well. Does the author go too far in that direction?
There are no "institutional" suggestions. To turn society into one large family: that is as far as Stowe is willing to go in terms of improving society. There are no other "institutional" proposals in Oncle Tom's Cabin. But there's a problem: the public sphere is not a mere extension of the private sphere. The two are in essence distinct from each other. Carla: religion, according to Stowe, is the way to unite the private and the public spheres.
Final comment: even if the book does not bring everything together, it offers --in odd ways-- many ideas about the relationship between the private and the public. In that respect, it provides the basic material of the course.
Lecturer: Eduard van de Bilt
Harriet Beecher Stowe. Uncle Tom's Cabin. Harvard Library Classics, 1853. Edited by Kenneth S. Lynne, 1962
(PART II) Aspects of the book related to the issue of the private & the public. Jaime: Ophelia is an interesting character, because she sums up what Northerners feel: they are very pro-equality in public, but still prejudiced in private. Carla: Ophelia is very much on her own. She is un-married, which was unusual at the time. She voices her opinions independently -- she does not reflect the voice of the church or of husbands.
Prof. van de Bilt: the way the issue of family life is presented, it looks as if Stowe conceives society as one large family. If family life were to break down, you could expect (according to Stowe) the public domain to be in trouble as well. Does the author go too far in that direction?
There are no "institutional" suggestions. To turn society into one large family: that is as far as Stowe is willing to go in terms of improving society. There are no other "institutional" proposals in Oncle Tom's Cabin. But there's a problem: the public sphere is not a mere extension of the private sphere. The two are in essence distinct from each other. Carla: religion, according to Stowe, is the way to unite the private and the public spheres.
Final comment: even if the book does not bring everything together, it offers --in odd ways-- many ideas about the relationship between the private and the public. In that respect, it provides the basic material of the course.
Monday, February 14, 2005
- DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA: THE PRIVATE AND THE PUBLIC
Lecturer: Eduard van de Bilt
Harriet Beecher Stowe. Uncle Tom's Cabin. Harvard Library Classics, 1853. Edited by Kenneth S. Lynne, 1962.
(Part I). Prof. van de Bilt led a very interesting debate on the book, with emphasis on chapter IX ("In Which It Appears That a Senator Is But a Man".) Slowly but surely, he managed to turn our attention to the fact that Harriet Beecher Stowe's book, more than an anti-slavery manifesto, was in fact one of the first major pro-women accounts in Western literature.
When Ms. Bird asks her husband --the Senator-- about "a law forbidding people to give meat and drink to those poor colored folks that come along", the dialogue that ensues introduces the reader into a feminine world "ruled more by entreaty and persuasion than by command or argument."
According to Prof. van de Bilt, the chapter is particularly interesting because it highlights the role played by women in what became the abolitionist movement. Initially, Mrs. Bird is seen as acting within the limited private world of her own:
The light of the cheerful fire shone on the rug and carpet of a cosey parlor, and glittered on the sides of the tea-cups and well-brightened tea-pot, as Senator Bird was drawing off his boots, preparatory to inserting his feet in a pair of new handsome slippers, which his wife had been working for him while away on his senatorial tour. Mrs. Bird, looking the very picture of delight, was superintending the arrangements of the table... Mr. Bird: "... a cup of your good hot tea, and some of our good home living, is what I want."
When she switches to politics, she unwittinlgy enters the public sphere. "Now, John" --says she-- "I don't know anything about politics, but I can read my Bible; and there I see that I must feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and comfort the desolate; and that Bible I mean to follow." Here, Mrs. Bird, in her very simple language, is making the crucial distinction between law and legislation.
A piece of legislation that contradicts the principles of Christianity in such a glaring way cannot be obeyed as law. And she is immediately proven right, as she and her husband take action to shelter a poor fugitive woman with her child. In Oncle Tom's Cabin, says Prof. van de Bilt, all major female characters (except Mrs. St Clare) are heroes.
Women should not remain in the private sphere. They have the power to create inter-personal bonds; they have emphaty, the ability to make people see that they are really equal (Prof. van de Bilt added that president Clinton possessed this ability in abundance.)
Prof. van de Bilt's conclusion: why not develop, why not institutionalize emphaty in order to create a more just social order? After all, good examples and an attitude of benevolence can be the engines of change. Women, it would appear, do everything better than men -- including managing financial affairs, as the example of Mrs. Shelby shows.
I thought this last point was a bit far-fetched. There is something that only men can do. Only men can wage war. And war, in my opinion, is the only realistic way to put an end to slavery. This is one of the paradoxes of Uncle Tom's Cabin. While Harriet Beecher Stowe appears to favor a non-violent solution, we all know what happened in the end. War on a massive scale was the remedy.
Lecturer: Eduard van de Bilt
Harriet Beecher Stowe. Uncle Tom's Cabin. Harvard Library Classics, 1853. Edited by Kenneth S. Lynne, 1962.
(Part I). Prof. van de Bilt led a very interesting debate on the book, with emphasis on chapter IX ("In Which It Appears That a Senator Is But a Man".) Slowly but surely, he managed to turn our attention to the fact that Harriet Beecher Stowe's book, more than an anti-slavery manifesto, was in fact one of the first major pro-women accounts in Western literature.
When Ms. Bird asks her husband --the Senator-- about "a law forbidding people to give meat and drink to those poor colored folks that come along", the dialogue that ensues introduces the reader into a feminine world "ruled more by entreaty and persuasion than by command or argument."
According to Prof. van de Bilt, the chapter is particularly interesting because it highlights the role played by women in what became the abolitionist movement. Initially, Mrs. Bird is seen as acting within the limited private world of her own:
The light of the cheerful fire shone on the rug and carpet of a cosey parlor, and glittered on the sides of the tea-cups and well-brightened tea-pot, as Senator Bird was drawing off his boots, preparatory to inserting his feet in a pair of new handsome slippers, which his wife had been working for him while away on his senatorial tour. Mrs. Bird, looking the very picture of delight, was superintending the arrangements of the table... Mr. Bird: "... a cup of your good hot tea, and some of our good home living, is what I want."
When she switches to politics, she unwittinlgy enters the public sphere. "Now, John" --says she-- "I don't know anything about politics, but I can read my Bible; and there I see that I must feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and comfort the desolate; and that Bible I mean to follow." Here, Mrs. Bird, in her very simple language, is making the crucial distinction between law and legislation.
A piece of legislation that contradicts the principles of Christianity in such a glaring way cannot be obeyed as law. And she is immediately proven right, as she and her husband take action to shelter a poor fugitive woman with her child. In Oncle Tom's Cabin, says Prof. van de Bilt, all major female characters (except Mrs. St Clare) are heroes.
Women should not remain in the private sphere. They have the power to create inter-personal bonds; they have emphaty, the ability to make people see that they are really equal (Prof. van de Bilt added that president Clinton possessed this ability in abundance.)
Prof. van de Bilt's conclusion: why not develop, why not institutionalize emphaty in order to create a more just social order? After all, good examples and an attitude of benevolence can be the engines of change. Women, it would appear, do everything better than men -- including managing financial affairs, as the example of Mrs. Shelby shows.
I thought this last point was a bit far-fetched. There is something that only men can do. Only men can wage war. And war, in my opinion, is the only realistic way to put an end to slavery. This is one of the paradoxes of Uncle Tom's Cabin. While Harriet Beecher Stowe appears to favor a non-violent solution, we all know what happened in the end. War on a massive scale was the remedy.
Friday, February 11, 2005
- Hernando de Soto. The Peruvian economist, who favors well-defined property rights for the poor, was sharply criticized by John Gavois in Slate. Here's a comment on the dispute, together with some relevant links. (More info on De Soto here.)
Monday, February 07, 2005
- DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA: THE PRIVATE AND THE PUBLIC
Lecturer: Eduard van de Bilt
And it's back to the classroom! Prof. van de Bilt devoted the introduction of the course to the reading list. He repeatedly asked us not to take more than twenty minutes for each presentation. The emphasis should be on a discussion centered on the central questions raised by the book.
Presentations should include some background info on the author and on the historical context of the book. We should state any problems we had with the book, like things we don't understand. Here's the reading list:
. Week 2, February 14. Harriet Beecher Stowe. Uncle Tom's Cabin (1852)
. Week 3, February 21. Idem.
. Week 4, February 28. Walter Lippmann. Public Opinion (1922)
. Week 5, March 7. John Dewey. The Public and its Problems (1927)
. Week 6, March 14. Sigmund Freud. Civilization and its Discontents (1930)
. Week 7, March 21. Betty Friedan. The Feminine Mystique (1963)
. Week 8, March 28. No session
. Week 9, April 4. Jürgen Habermas. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere (1989)
. Week 10, April 11. Jean-Luc Nancy. The Inoperative Community (Essay 1) (1991)
. Week 12, April 18. Anonymous (Joe Klein). Primary Colors (1996)
. Week 12, April 25. Robert Putnam. Bowling Alone (2000)
. Week 13, May 2. No session.
. Week 14, May 9. Individual meetings.
Lecturer: Eduard van de Bilt
And it's back to the classroom! Prof. van de Bilt devoted the introduction of the course to the reading list. He repeatedly asked us not to take more than twenty minutes for each presentation. The emphasis should be on a discussion centered on the central questions raised by the book.
Presentations should include some background info on the author and on the historical context of the book. We should state any problems we had with the book, like things we don't understand. Here's the reading list:
. Week 2, February 14. Harriet Beecher Stowe. Uncle Tom's Cabin (1852)
. Week 3, February 21. Idem.
. Week 4, February 28. Walter Lippmann. Public Opinion (1922)
. Week 5, March 7. John Dewey. The Public and its Problems (1927)
. Week 6, March 14. Sigmund Freud. Civilization and its Discontents (1930)
. Week 7, March 21. Betty Friedan. The Feminine Mystique (1963)
. Week 8, March 28. No session
. Week 9, April 4. Jürgen Habermas. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere (1989)
. Week 10, April 11. Jean-Luc Nancy. The Inoperative Community (Essay 1) (1991)
. Week 12, April 18. Anonymous (Joe Klein). Primary Colors (1996)
. Week 12, April 25. Robert Putnam. Bowling Alone (2000)
. Week 13, May 2. No session.
. Week 14, May 9. Individual meetings.
