La libertà è libertà di lavoro. Senza quest’ultima libertà, anche al più fazioso dei politicanti, appare evidente come non ci possa essere affatto libertà di persona, libertà di decidere del proprio corpo e della propria vita. È chiaro che, se consideriamo fondamentale la capacità lavorativa di un tessuto sociale formato da individui lavoratori, poniamo immediatamente l’attenzione su un aspetto solo nel processo economico umano: il produttore! Su di loi il sindacalismo rivoluzionario costruirà l’uomo nuovo, la nuova società, il lavoro-gioia.

Il produttore è l’unico elemento sociale in grado di poter decidere delle sorti della sua comunità. Ricordiamo con nostalgia il momento rinascimentale della nostra Firenze quando il governo era sostenuto da arti e mestieri. Chi non produce non vale nulla! Ma per ottenere il massimo dagli individui che compongono la società occorre riservare a tutti le migliori condizioni di elevazione sociale e culturale e tutte le possibilità lavorative. Per questo il sindacalismo aveva già previsto l’istruzione gratuita di scienze, arti umanistiche, mestieri.

La Rivoluzione Francese ha fornito a tutti il grande inganno. I giacobini hanno illuso il popolo di essere dalla loro parte. Quella Rivoluzione ormai ci appare in tutto il suo splendore e fetore: una Rivoluzione borghese che ha appestato l’Europa intera! L’ultima Rivoluzione che il nostro continente ricordi. La borghesia era ormai matura, si stava scaldando nelle coorti, nelle amministrazioni, nelle università. Tra il 1789 e il 1848 la borghesia è scesa in campo per combattere le sue ultime battaglie: ottenuto il potere, che un tempo era stato del monarca e dei suoi servili sudditi, si è ritirata, lavandosi le mani del sangue prodotto e barricandosi nei loro terreni, nelle loro fabbriche. Ora il sindacalismo è pronto a sostituire una nuova filosofia di pensiero, una nuova filosofia politica ad essi. Siamo pronti per superare questa fase storica, pronti per superare il CAPITALISMO.

Image from www.pgmuseum.org

A Country Girl once riding past a turnpike gate without paying the usual fee, the tollman hailed her and demanded it; she asked him by what authority he desired toll of her; he answered, the sign would convince her that the law required six cents for a man and a horse. “Well,” replied the girl, “this is a woman and a mare, therefore, you have nothing to expect;” and she rode off, leaving him the laughing-stock of the bystanders.

Huron Reflector (Norwalk, Ohio) Oct 31, 1848

Mon nom est sur les listes de Paris pour la députation, [...] J’espère ne pas être élu.

L. Mme Hanska 17 mars 1848

Votre Mougick n’aura pas eu plus d’une vingtaine de voix, ainsi cela vous donne la mesure de la sagesse des électeurs

L. Mme Hanska 29 avril 1848

Honoré de Balzac a plusieurs fois des lubies politiques. Il songe se présenter en 1832 à Chinon sous une étiquette légitimiste (les légitimistes ignorent alors le régime royaliste-bourgeois de Louis Philippe), mais avec la loi du cens, cela ne marche pas ; et puis c’est peut-être mieux ainsi car peut-être est-il en train de se faire manipuler. En 1848, il peut cette fois-ci se présenter aux législatives à Paris. Il est alors très connu comme écrivain, mais, comme les mines d’argent en Sardaigne, comme la plantation d’ananas en région parisienne, comme les journaux dont il est propriétaire, comme l’édition ou encore l’imprimerie, comme tout ce qu’il entreprend et qui n’est pas écrire, Balzac se fourvoie, n’obtient qu’un nombre ridicule de voix, et même s’il n’espérait pas être élu, cela doit quand même blesser une ambition bien affirmé comme la sienne.

Image from www.archives.gov

From the O.S. Journal.

Inverse “Absquatulation” — The Tables Turned — The Ass Standing to Hay, but wouldn’t eat!

The scene in the Senate, yesterday afternoon, on the passage of the bill to amend the Congressional Districting law, was “rich” (as the Senator from Hamilton would say) beyond anything that has been witnessed this session. The majority proceeded with the business before them very orderly, and with no seeming haste, offering to the minority full swing at the bill. In the first place, it will be remembered, the State Printer discovered that the copy of the bill laid on the table of Senators, was a “forgery.” This astute discovery being exposed, what was next to be done? There was a bill — it was no forgery — should they stand up to the rack “fodder or no fodder,” or should they “absquatulate.” –

Unfortunately, they had passed a law during the session of 1842-’3, when running over with patriotism at the outrageous conduct of the Whigs, which might be a little troublesome should they attempt that Constitutional remedy, so they began casting about for a substitute. They could play Dummy! — So they opened their mouths and proclaimed aloud that they couldn’t talk! — they would walk up to the rack, but they wouldn’t touch that bundle of hay, the vile thing — their “democratic” stomachs revolted at being obliged to eat their own trash — no! they would starve first! — they felt indignant! — and if the majority would stuff them, they would stand mute, their mouths sealed, and if all their friends would do the same thing, it would be some time before the majority got the bundle of hay eaten — that it would! — (Here the scene changed — the open mouths were shut — and there sat the Senators, the one from Hamilton and the one from Richland taking the lead, playing “absquatulation” on an inverse rule. They would not speak, not they — the majority might whisk the bundle of hay under their noses, but they wouldn’t open their mouths, if they died for it!)

At this point of the proceedings, a new act in the drama was being enacted by the majority. The first part had been broad farce — that which was to follow, was clearly tragi-comical. Mr. Kelley, from Franklin, rose, and began reading the proceedings of “an unprecedentedly large  meeting of citizens from different portions of Ohio, convened at the Market-house in Columbus, on the evening of Tuesday, August 11th, 1842,” to express their opinion of absquatulation in the abstract and in the concrete — of “absquatulaton” direct, and of “absquatulaton” inverse. –

At this meeting presided as Chairman, “the Hon. DAVID T. DISNEY, of Hamilton county.” Mr. K. read the patriotic remarks of the Hon. Chairman, on taking the Chair, in explanation of the objects of the meeting. “This is no matter of party interest,” said the eloquent chairman — “it is above and beyond mere party — it is one which appeals to the heart and judgment of every man — it is an assault upon your Constitution — it is a dissolution of your Government.”

During the reading of the very moving remarks of the chairman, the muscles of the Senator from Hamilton were observed to twitch. The scene was “rich, racy, to use his own favorite expression.

It was supposed too that some slight recollection of the provisions of the Constitution was flitting across the minds of the dumb members, just at this time, wherein it is provided — that “each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, and punish its members for disorderly behavior.” There was a rule compelling the members to think of absquatulation direct, that is, resigning, when they would no longer be members. But then it occurred to the logical mind of the member from Richland, that it was not “disorderly” to refuse to talk. He seemed to think that “disorder” consisted in kicking up a fuss generally, like the member from Hamilton in the lower House — taking off your coat, rolling up your sleeves, and kicking up your heels. And “absquatulation” inverse, was not “absquatulation” direct — for though the mind might be absent, the body was there. They could count their bodies, but they couldn’t count their noes, for they wouldn’t open their mouths, Constitution or no Constitution!

Well — there say the Dummys. Mr. Kelley proceeded with the reading of the proceedings. He had got through with the pathetic speech of the Chairman, and he came next to the preamble of the Resolutions. From this he read — “And, whereas, the power to repeal the bill about to be passed, was boldly claimed upon the floor of the Senate, by one of the Senators who aided in this revolutionary attempt, AND THAT POWER NEVER DENIED, it is now too late to claim that if the law was odious to the People, still would it be saddled upon them for the next ten years”!!!

At the reading of this, the lips of the Dummys dropped, and it was supposed they would open their mouths. But this bill does not follow out the remedy above conceded — it does not repeal, it only AMENDS! Of course, said the Senator of Hamilton to himself, I admit the doctrine of Repeal — ain’t I going for repeal of the Bank Law? To be sure I am — and if these Whigs would only go for Repeal, I would be with ‘em but not to amend! No, no — repeal, destroy, break down, but never amend and build up!

– In this state of suspense the bill was gone through with, and put on its passage in the Senate. The time had arrived for seeing how many intended to play “absquatulation” in dumb show. The Constitution requires a quorum of two-thirds to do business. The question was put — a sufficient number, under a sense of duty imposed by their oaths while members, answered to their names to make a quorum, and the bill passed. Thus ended “absquatulation” inversed — and so ended this game of wickeness and folly. We have not heard this morning from the Dummys, whether they have recovered their speech or not. The bill has yet to pass the House.

Huron Reflector (Norwalk, Ohio) Mar 18, 1845

Alfred Kelley

Alfred Kelley: His Life and Work

by the Hon. James L. Bates 1888 (Read it online HERE)

Image from http://lh5.ggpht.com

Locofoco “Absquatulation.”

Our readers will learn, by perusing the proceedings of the State Legislature, that the Locofoco members of the Senate arrested the proceedings of that body on the 14th instant, by absenting themselves from the Senate chamber while the Apportionment Bill was under consideration in that body. This high-handed act was committed by every Locofoco member of the Senate, with the exception of Messrs. Archbold and Spindler, thus leaving the Senate without a quorum for the transaction of further business. A call of the Senate took place, and the proper officer sent for the absentees, who announced that he could find but two of them, and that they refused to return to the Senate. The reason the “Absquatulators” assign for the course they have pursued, is, that the majority were about to pass an Apportionment Bill which contained a provision for dividing the county of Hamilton into two districts, which provision they claim to be unconstitutional; and rather than see the constitution violated, they say they were determined to commit the “treasonable” act of breaking up the Legislature, and dissolving the State Government. They well knew that unless the present Legislature passed a law to apportion the members among the several counties of the State, there existed no authority under the constitution for holding another election for members of the Legislature, and that the State Government would be at an end, — and yet they deliberately vacated their seats.

We are somewhat anxious to know what our neighbors of the Experiment will say to this “treasonable” act of his Locofoco brethren. –

When the Whig Senators resigned, at the extra session in 1842, for the purpose of preventing the passage of the bill to divide the State into Congressional Districts, no person was louder or more bitter in his denunciations of those who felt it their duty to defeat that unjust measure in the only constitutional manner that was left to them, than the editor of the Experiment. Their resignations, too, only had the effect of postponing the apportionment bill until the next session of the Legislature, and the people then had ample time to elect their Congressmen before they were required to assemble at the national capital. But now, the absence of the Locofoco Senators, if persisted in, will prevent an organization of the State Government next winter — leave the office of Auditor of State vacant — defeat, among other important measures, the passage of the bill making appropriations for the support of the State Government for the ensuing year — and leave the affairs of our State in confusion.

The Statesman and other Locofoco papers, uphold and approve the course pursued by the refractory Senators, and we have no doubt our neighbor will be found following in the footsteps of his illustrious leader — Sam Medary.

Huron Reflector (Norwalk, Ohio) Feb 22, 1848

Samuel Medary

For more on Samuel Medary:

Historical Collections Relating to Gwynedd (Pennsylvania)
By Howard M. Jenkins
Second Edition 1897

Scroll down a bit HERE.

Image from http://omp.ohiolink.edu

The Legislature.

This body adjourned sine die on Friday last, having been in session about eleven weeks, during which time a large amount of business has been accomplished. The session was prolonged somewhat in consequence of the factious course pursued by the fifteen Locofoco “Absquatulaors.”

The bill dividing the State into Legislative districts for the ensuing four years, which caused so much squirming among the Locofoco, became a law in spite of the fifteen Locofoco Senators who fled from the Senate at the bidding of Sam Medary, and issued their decrees from “No. 18.” We learn from the Cleveland Herald, that the following is the mudus operandi by which the bill was passed into a law:

The Senatorial Absquatulators and their party associates in the House who had signed and sealed a contract to back up the revolution, were completely out-generaled in the final action on the apportionment bill, and by one of the quietest as well as most worthy men in the house.

The House some time previous passed the Senate Apportionment Bill with amendments. It was sent to the Senate for concurrence. The Senate disagreed. The House insisted on its amendments — then moved a reconsideration, and receded from some of its amendments. — The bill was again sent to the Senate. The Senate were about to take the vote upon the question of concurring with the remaining House amendments, when the absquatulation took place. Peaceful and legal measures were employed to bring the recreants back to duty, and these failing, the Whigs of the House “did up the job in a hurry.”

In pursuance to a preconcerted arrangement, when the Locos in the House were somewhat off their guard, Mr. Park, of Lorain, rose and offered a resolution, which he sent to the chair. Now Mr. P. is a philanthropist as well as a Solon, and a portion of his business this session as well as the previous one, had been to get the Legislature to allow a cripple among his constituents by the name of Coppins, to peddle without license. Of course when Mr. P. offered his resolution the Locos thought it must pertain to the Coppins project, and paid no attention to it. What made them still more off their guard was the fact that the Speaker was not in the Chair, but it was occupied at the time by Dr. Truesdale, of Trumbull. The resolution was read rather rapidly, the Whigs voting  Aye, and the Locos two or three of them saying No, and it was declared carried before the opposition collected themselves enough to ask for a division of the question, to call the ayes and nays, or to absquatulate!

When they finally came to their senses, they found that the resolution declared that the House receded from all the amendments of the House to the Apportionment Bill, which the Senate had not concurred in, and that the bill was a law!

Uncle Toby says “our army swore terribly in Flanders,” but that swearing we are told, was not a priming to the oaths of Ohio Locofocoism at the successful maneuvre of Mr. Park, of Lorain. Absquatulation at once fizzled out! and the Legislators who had sneaked to the tavern, sneaked back to the Senate Chamber! –

Farmer Park had blocked the Revolution!

Huron Reflector (Norwalk, Ohio) Feb 29, 1848

Image from http://karenswhimsy.co

The Revolution — The Great Day.

Thanks to the vigilance of our city authorities or to some other cause, no violence has yet been perpetrated, no wrong has been done, no hen roost has been robbed, no watchful mother goose had been untimely torn from her callow offspring.

Rain, that stern and relentless enemy of popular movements, sat in early in the morning, and has fallen during the whole day; and powder and patriotism have alike suffered under the influence of its rigid conversatism. The advances of the Revolutionary army have been made under cover of their umbrellas; and have given no alarm and done no damage.

The plan of taking possession of the vacant public buildings at Franklinton, organizing there a provisional government, and making that place the capital of the State of Locodom, which was projected yesterday, has, as we are informed, been abandoned, at least until the weather changes.

– O.S. Jour.

THE DEMOCRACY IN COUNCIL.

The agony is over. The long talked of Convention of the disorganizing, revolutionary Democracy has met and separated. The great cloud which arose with so much bluster, has spent itself in wind, and now is not even so large as Tom Thumb’s hand. The great bull-frogs of the party; as John Brough and others of acknowledged parts, hopped about a little, with an occasional boo-o-boo, marked with the melancholy languor which distinguishes the moanings of a dying calf. The reptile tribe, who have been for years winding their coils tighter and tighter about the consumption-stricken carcass of Locofocoism, as Sam Medary and his abettors, moving sluggishly in their slimy beds, emitting now and then a hiss which only served to make the little polliwogs of the Democratic family, wiggle their little tails like mad. Yes, the agony is over, and the sun shines as brightly as ever, the stars twinkle at night, without any apparent diminution of lustre, the earth rolls along in her orbit, and thank fortune the constitution still stands! Law and order reigns, and the evil day — the day of anarchy and blood, if not altogether abolished, is at least far away.

Cleveland Herald.

Huron Reflector (Norwalk, Ohio) May 23, 1848

Below is an excerpt that gives some context to the above news articles. To read more, click the link below.

Volume 38 OHIO HISTORY: The Scholarly Journal of the Ohio Historical Society

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850 (continued)
by Edgar Allan Holt

CHAPTER VI

THE APPORTIONMENT BILL OF FEBRUARY, 1848 [excerpt]

The first Ohio State Constitution provided that the General Assembly should apportion representation among the several counties in proportion to population.

The controversy over the constitutionality of the act passed by the Whig Legislature on February 18, 1848, in accordance with this provision of the State Constitution, became so bitter that it convulsed the State for two years; interrupted legislative procedure for weeks; led to a realignment of parties and to the election of Salmon P. Chase to the United States Senate.

Before the State elections were held in October, 1847, attention had been called by Whig papers to the need of a fair districting of the State, on the ground that the Democrats had been able to control the General Assembly, previously, by gerrymandering. The issue assumed additional importance because upon the 1848-1849 Legislature depended the election of a successor to William Allen to the United States Senate. The Hamilton Intelligencer favored dividing the State into single member districts; and the Clermont Courier recalled how the Democrats in 1839-1840 had united Clermont, Brown, and Clinton Counties in order to overcome Whig majorities.

Reapportionment had not figured in the campaign of 1847, and the Democratic leaders, therefore, were all the more surprised, when on January 12, 1848, an apportionment measure was introduced by the Whigs in the Senate, providing among other things, for the division of Hamilton County into two electoral districts and assigning two senators and five representatives to the whole County as before. This measure the Democrats denounced as unfair, unjust and unconstitutional, and centered their fire on the proposed division of Hamilton County.

Image from www.aboutfamouspeople.com

Death of John Quincy Adams!

The Telegraph reports the death, on the 24th ultimo, of JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, the illustrious sage of Quincy. The whole nation will deplore the loss of this great and good man. Venerable alike for his years, his honors, his eminent worth, and his faithful and distinguished public services, he had outlived the rancor of party, and won the admiration and respect even of those who most bitterly opposed him. He died, as he lived, in the service of his country, leaving behind him a reputation for ability second to but one or two in the roll of America’s Great Men, and a character of honesty, integrity, public and private virtue, second to none. His name will be embalmed with those of WASHINGTON, FRANKLIN, JEFFERSON, HAMILTON and other Sages and Statesmen in the hearts of the American people — fitting Mausoleum for a PATRIOT’s Memory!

[Sent. & Gaz.

Mr. ADAMS was struck with paralysis on the 21st., whilst in his seat, in the House. He lingered till the 24th, having been speechless all the while.

Watertown Chronicle (Watertown, Wisconsin) Mar 8, 1848

From the Ohio State Journal.

THE ABSQUATULATION.

TUNE -- The Cow died on. [see note below]

Trouble in Columbus,
Locos raising Ned,
Kicking up a rumpus –
Squally times ahead!
Rushing like a hurricane,
Madly they convene.
Room at the ‘American,’
In Number 18.

Senate Hall deserted,
Fifteen Locos fly;
Nineteen Whigs diverted,
Never say die;
Speaker Goddard, frowning
With majestic mien,
Sendeth Sergeant Downing
To Number 18.

Sergeant, with his warrant,
Thought the Devil’s to pay,
Bold as a Knight Errant
Wends his winding way.
Crowding through spectators
Tickled at the scene,
For absquatulators
In Number 18.

Rats abroad when roaming,
Watching — every one –
When ratcatchers ‘re coming
To the hole will run –
So the “fifteen” scatter;
Scampering are seen –
Said Kelsey “what’s the matter
In Number 18?”

Sergeant Downing, rapping,
Tapping at the door,
Didn’t catch them napping,
But upon the floor –
Some were tossing coppers,
Some looked quite serene.
Some were telling whoppers,
In Number 18.

Olds, the master spirit,
Spoke — ‘he had the floor’ –
“Sergeant Downing, hear it:
Never, nevermore.
With the Whigs up yonder
“Patriots” will be seen,
But we’ll give ‘em thunder
From Number 18!

“Fiery persecution –
On our shoulders broad
Stands the Constitution:
Heavens! what a load!”
Doctor raised his spectacles,
Spectacles of green –
Down a tear trickles,
In Number 18!

“Ask the Speaker Goddard,
Never at a loss,
How I’m to be foddered
In Pickaway and Ross?
I am independent,
What may intervene,
Lord of the Ascendant
In Number 18.

“If from here I’m driven,
What shall I go at? –
I’m only fit for Heaven,
And hardly fit for that!
Sergeant Downing, travel!”
Said he, quite serene,
“We’ll raise the very Devil
In number 18!”

Downing took the message,
As he came away;
Blocking up the passage
People in dismay,
Gathering around him,
Wish the news to glean –
Asking if he found ‘em
In Number 18.

Barbers with their razors,
Doctors with their bills,
Landlords, and, O scizzors!
Washwomen with ?ills;
All the nooks and corners
Emptying were seen –
“Shouldn’t crowd the mourners”
In Number 18.

Fallen in with misery
Upon evil times –
Can’t get in the Treasury,
Can’t get at the dimes!
Treasury doors are fasten’d,
Treasurer Bliss is keen;
Sorely — sorely chastened,
Is Number 18.

Calm as summer morning
Warrant was returned;
Senators, discerning,
Quietly adjourned; –
Smothering a dry laugh,
Many Whigs were seen –
“Couldn’t come the Giraffe”
In Number 18.

Good old Father Cronise,
Unsophisticated,
Wishing he in nowise
Had absquatulated,
By himself stood musing –
Thought ’twas rather green
Domes he should be losing;
For Number 18.

Close behind him — startled,
Sergeant-at-Arms, there,
O if the old man “tortled,”
Jumping like a deer.
Lightning-like retreated,
A blue streak is seen,
Cronise evaporated,
From Number 18.

Down the street dashing,
Hair wildly streaming.
Through the mud splashing,
Children all screaming –
Barking dogs — all sizes,
Accompanying seen.
The flight of Cronise’s
From Number 18.

Locos no concession
Meeting as a boon,
Yielded at discretion
Saturday at noon;
Spitefully as pet Bears,
Suffering from spleen,
“Such a getting down stairs”
From Number 18.

Jonah in a bad snap,
Swallowed UP a whale;
Rats in a steel trap,
Certainly should squeal;
Locos, though disgusted,
Once again convene –
Guess the TIN PAK “busted”
In Number 18.

Olds, the great concocter
Wouldn’t yet come in,
Whigs had the Doctor
Where Caleb had the hen;
The Doctor he is eloquent,
The Doctor isn’t green,
But the Dr. saw the Elephant
In Number 18.

Huron Reflector (Norwalk, Ohio) Feb 29, 1848

NOTE: In regards to the tune: “the tune the old cow died of” being merely a proverbial or slang way of expressing “the music is insufferably bad.” P. P.

Posted by Jim Dixon on the Mudrat Cafe website.

This first biography was written the year before he died.

BIOGRAPHY.

Sketches of the Public Men of the United States.

BY ERASTUS BROOKS.

JOHN QUINCY ADAMS.

IT would be more difficult to tell when John Quincy Adams was not in public life, and more difficult to state the honors he has not enjoyed from his countrymen, than those which he has. No child was ever blessed with a nobler father, or a purer mother, than John Quincy Adams. The father was one of the foremost and bravest spirits of the revolution, and the mother has all the heroism and intelligence of the worthiest women of her age and time. She was the daughter of the Rev. William Smith, of Weymouth, and one of the two sisters, both of whom were remarkable and exemplary women, the one marrying the Hon. Richard Cranch, of Quincy, father of the present Chief Justice Cranch of Washington, and the other the Rev. Mr. Shaw, one of the old and honorable Congregational Ministers of New England. Of the father I need not speak, and of the mother I will only add, that those who will read her published letters to husband, son and niece, pronounce the author of the truths and wisdom therein embodied, worthy of the highest eulogium language can bestow. Nor shall I attempt — for time and space would fail me — to enumerate more than the most public events in the career of Ex-President Adams.

Mr. A. is fast verging on four score years, having been born on the 11th of July, 1767. Nearly 60 years of this time, in one way or another, he has been in public life, and has filled the highest offices, — and almost all grades of office, — known either to our National or State Governments. He was cradled almost in the Revolution, and lived thro’ it, of necessity, not only an active spectator, but sometimes a participator, — and that not in an humble way, — in some of its most important events. Ten years after he was born, and in the midst of the Revolution, he accompanied his father to Europe. It was John Quincy Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Arthur Lee, as is known, who composed the Commission at Versailles. –

John Q. Adams was absent but eighteen months, and during this time improved himself in the study of French and Latin, and other branches of learning. Old John Adams landed in Boston, in August ‘79, in the very density of the darkness of the Revolution. He was not permitted to remain longer than three months at home, the scene for the greatest service being then upon the European side of the Atlantic as a negotiator with powers friendly to the United States, and with those like France, who were hostile to England. Again the son accompanied the father to Europe and at a time, too, when the ocean was almost dotted with English ships in search of every thing American, or friendly to the independent colonies which could be found. It was during the voyage that old John Adams was placed in charge of the Commodore Tucker, one of the thunderbolts of old ocean, and every bit as brave as Paul Jones, or any of the fabled heroes of the sea.

The little vessel of the Commodore had many a hair-breadth escape from capture, but the master was determined never to yield without a struggle, no matter what force might attack him. At one time real danger was at hand, and the life of Adams was deemed as precious as the great mission he had in charge. Tucker insisted, therefore, that Adams should, as the Ambassador of the country keep out of harm’s way. The minister tried but in vain, to obey orders, for no sooner was there real danger at hand, than he was foremost in the fight, and so impatient of restraint, as to mingle with the humble sailors, in defence of the ship. Adams, however, arrived safely out, and Holland for a time became the scene of his labors.

He was a beggar at the footstool of thrones and principalities, for means to carry on the war of his country with England, and among kings, noblemen and aristocratic bankers, for it was not easy then to obtain the ’sinews of war,’ at home or abroad. Ours was a young nation in the New world, and the most powerful nation in the Old denounced us as traitors and rebels. But against all odds, our fathers faithfully struggled, patiently endured, and in the end gloriously triumphed. It was in such a school as this that John Quincy Adams was taught, and with a mother to guide him who loved to instil into his mind those principles of religious and civil liberty, higher than which no nation or body of men ever aimed to obtain. He was surrounded too, often by the great and good men of the Revolution.

These, the companions of his father, were his great moral exemplars. He was favored beyond this with the companionship of some of the most distinguished men of the Old World. John Adams, even at this time, when his son was not 18 years of age, in one of his letters, spoke of him with the affection and respect of a true father, in these words: “The strict and inviolate regard you have ever paid to truth, gives me pleasing hope that you will not swerve from her dictates, but add justice, fortitude, and every manly virtue, which can adorn a good citizen, do honor to your country, and render your parents supremely happy, and particularly your affectionate mother.”

Young Adams soon visited many parts of Europe. He was put to school alternately at Paris, Amsterdam and Leyten, and afterward accompanied Francis Dana, in 1781, to St. Petersburgh, where he acted as the private secretary of our Minister.

He returned home, after visiting Northern Europe, Germany in part, Holland, France and England. It was his good fortune to be with his father at the signing of the treaty of Peace in Paris, 1783.  At London he was favored, as a listener to the eloquence of Burke, Sheridan, Fox, Pitt, a galaxy of names that no one English Parliament before or since, has ever exhibited. All these men at this time were in the zenith of their powers. Pitt stood at the head of the British Ministry, with his three great rivals arrayed against him. This was before young Adams was 20 years of age. Indeed soon after he was 18, he entered Harvard College, far advanced in his studies, and in 1787 graduated and turned his attention at once and with great assiduity to the law, a profession on which at one time he thought he should have to depend for the means of support. He studied vigorously under Theophilus Parson — once a distinguished Chief Justice in Massachusetts. He became at this time apparently ambitious of fame, and distinguished himself particularly with his pen, in his opposition to some popular essays from the famous Thomas Paine.

Later in life he was the public defender of Washington, for the course pursued by the father of his country toward the then singular minister of France, the famous Genet. His first honors came from the hands of the first President, and under all administrations, since then, he has held conspicuous positions derived from the people, the State, or from the Federal government. — Washington sent him to the Netherlands under the recommendation of Thomas Jefferson — who afterwards also gave him a distinguished post abroad.

The conflict with the father would not allow Mr. Jefferson to be alienated from the son. Mr. Adams, therefore went hither and thither at the call of his government, & was ever ready to go where he could do the most good. Now at the Court of Holland, and again at the Court of St. James; to day hurrying off to Berlin, and to-morrow to Portugal; this year an important negociator with Prussia, the next serving in the Legislature of his State, the third a Senator in Congress, the 4th a Professor of Oratory and Rhetoric in his old Alma Mater, and soon after again, flying upon the wings of the wind for distant Russia, as the Minister Plenipotentiary of his government.

It was Mr. Adams who incited the emperor of Russia to mediate as a friendly power for the restoration of peace between the governments of England and the United States. It was he too who was one of the Commissioners (with Clay and Gallatin) to negotiate the treaty of peace which was signed at Ghent, in Dec. 1814. His father, in his presence, had signed the first treaty of peace at Paris, and it was his good fortune to sign the second treaty himself at Ghent. Honors still followed him. Mr. Madison appointed him Ambassador to England, which office he held, until Mr. Monroe, at the commencement of his administration, called him home, not to retirement, but to be his Secretary of State — an office which all will admit be filled with the most marked ability. Still his course was onward and upward, and when Mr. Monroe served out his two terms, Mr. Adams became his successor in the Presidential office, receiving the votes of 13 states, which was then the requisite number in the house of Representatives, as one of the 3 competitors who had failed to be elected by the people.

Since then the career of Mr. Adams has been too familiar to need comment at my hands. There are various opinions, too, as to the propriety of his course, and the justice of his sentiments. Desiring not to discuss party or sectional questions in these sketches, I prefer to leave the subject of this sketch just where it is, only adding that Mr. Adams was elected to Congress in 1831, that he has been a member ever since, and that he will in all probability die at his post, and with the harness on his back. Most heartily do I believe him to be governed by the patriotism and the highest sense of honor. — Those who differ from him — and there are few men who have not widely differed from him at times, — are bound to concede this. — To praise his vast amount of intelligence, whether the result of his observation or study, or whether appertaining to political historical or biblical knowledge, would be “the wasteful and ridiculous excess of gilding refined gold.” The life of such a man is one of the most incidents that illustrate our nations history, and as such it ought to be cherished as a precious legacy by the American people.

Ohio Repository, The (Canton, Ohio) Jun 24, 1847

Image from Image from http://angam.ang.univie.ac.at

From the New York Tribune.

JOHN QUINCY ADAMS

Another, and almost the only link which binds the political history of our country’s present to the past era of her first existence as a nation, has been broken by the death of this venerable statesman. It is as if that great time, with the great men to whom it gave birth, and who have now taken their revered places in the world’s history, were removed farther from us, with the departure of one in whom they still lived and spoke. It is the fate of no common life, to contain within the span of its earthly rising and setting, such experience as his embraced; — the growth of a feeble colony, into one of the mightiest empires of all time — the spectacle of a total revolution in the world’s politics, science and philosophy — the birth and development of a wonderful age. Yet such a life was his, whose loss we deplore — for whom the nation will sorrow, as one man — whose memory will become a part of our childrens’ heritage, and whose labors will stand as a pillar, upholding the majesty of human Freedom.

John Quincy Adams was born at Braintree (afterward Quincy) Mass. on the 11th of July, 1767. He received his name from his great-grandfather, John Quincy, who, in the early part of the century, was honored with many civil distinctions from the Governor of the Providence, and who died a few hours after the birth of the boy who took his name. His childhood was passed during the stormy times of the Revolution; and even as a child he participated in some of its most memorable occurrences. — When John Adams was appointed Joint Commissioner to France in 1777, with Franklin and Lee, John Quincy accompanied him, though at this time but eleven years of age. He spent eighteen months in Paris, at school, and returned to America with his father in 1779. During this visit he enjoyed the instructions of Franklin, who conceived a strong attachment for his young countryman.

In three months after their arrival, John Adams was again dispatched by Congress to Europe, and set sail, with his son, in a French frigate for Brest. They has a perilous passage, for the ocean was at that time thronged with British fleets, and their capture was only avoided by the daring and courage of the commander. The frigate was driven by violent storms into the port of Ferrol, in Spain, whence they traveled by land to Paris. They went soon after to Holland, where he studied for some time at Amsterdam and at the celebrated University of Leyden.

In July, 1781, Francis Dana, (father of Richard H. Dana, the poet,) who had accompanied John Adams as Secretary of Legation, was appointed Minister to Russia, and took with him young John Quincy, then but fourteen years of age, as his Private Secretary. After a year’s residence in St. Petersburg, he left Mr. Dana, and in the Fall of 1782 and the following Winter traveled alone thro’ Sweeden, Denmark and Hamburg to Holland, where he arrived in April. His father was then in Paris, but visiting the Hague in July, he took his son with him on his return. The treaty of peace was signed in September, and from that time till May, 1785, he resided with his father in England and France, having intercourse with the most distinguished society of those countries. In London he was introduced upon the floor of Parliament, and heard some of the finest efforts of Pitt, Burke, Fox and Sheridan. His acquaintance with Jefferson, who was then Minister to France, dates from this period, and he was afterward strongly recommended to the notice of Washington by that great statesman.

When his father was appointed Minister to the Court of St. James, in 1785, as he was desirous of completing his education in his native country, he obtained permission to return. He entered an advanced class in Harvard University, and graduated at the end of two years. — Making choice of the law for his profession, he studied in the office of the celebrated Theoplilus Parsons, at Newburyport, and afterwards established himself in Boston, where he remained four years, satisfying himself with extending his knowledge of the principles of law, and writing occasional political essays.

But when, in 1794, the country was aroused and excited by the appeals of the French Minister, Genet, Mr. Adams entered the field with three articles under the signature of “Marcellus,” in which he set forth, what has since been a prominent part of his political creed — the obligation of neutrality concerning the policy or conflicts of other nations. In these letters he anticipated the precise course which was recommended by Washington and agreed to by his cabinet. His reputation for clear judgment and political foresight, thus honorably established, introduced him to the notice of Washington, to whose esteem and confidence he was at once admitted.

At the recommendation of Jefferson, he was appointed Minister to Holland in May, 1794, and from that time until 1801, remained abroad, serving the country in various diplomatic capacities. Immediately before the expiration of Washington’s term he received the appointment of Minister to Portugal, but while on his way to Lisbon, his destination was changed by President Adams to Berlin, where he resided four years. During this period he visited the Riesengebirge, the wild mountain district of Silesia, the haunt of German fairy tradition, which at that time was hardly known to tourists. He was the first American who ascended the Schneekoppe, which is considered the highest mountain in Central Europe, north of the Danube. His letters descriptive of this tour appeared in the Portfolio, published in Philadelphia, but were afterwards published in a volume, which was reprinted in London, and translated into French and German. His position in Europe at this time, enabled him to look upon the great scenes enacted around him, as an unprejudiced spectator, and his calm philosophic mind improved this opportunity of studying a terrible page in Modern History. He supported the character of his country abroad with dignity and honor, and returned divested of party prejudice by his long absence, and glowing with a spirit of hte most pure and single-minded patriotism.

His friends did not allow him to pause in the career which had been marked out for him both by nature and education. He was elected to the Massachusetts Senate in 1802, and in the same year to the Senate of the U. States. In addition to this high distinction, he was appointed Professor of Rhetoric and Oratory in Harvard University, and during the recesses of Congress delivered a series of lectures which were attended by crowded audiences, and afterwards published in two octavo volumes. A course which he delivered on the “Art of Good Speaking,” was exceedingly popular, and his own fine oratorical talents enabled him to do the subject full justice.

His course in the Senate was in harmony with the circumstances of his election. He was unpledged to the support of any particular men or measures, though considered a moderate Federalist, and chosen Senator by a majority of that party. But his long experience of public life and the principles of Government placed him above distinction of party, and his course was independent, and marked by a conscientious adherence to his sense of right and duty. For his course in relation to the Embargo he received the censure of the Massachusetts Legislature, and on this account resigned his seat in 1808.

Immediately after Madison’s accession to the Presidency in 1809, he received the appointment of Minister to Russia, and during his residence of five years in St. Petersburg, he enjoyed the respect and confidence of the Emperor Alexander to a degree seldom bestowed upon the representatives of other nations. It was this esteem which induced the Emperor, after the Peack of 1812, to offer his mediation in the then existing war between the United States and England. Though this was declined by England, it produced an offer on her part of direct negotiation, and John Quincy Adams was placed at the head of the Commissioners who met at Ghent. Singularly enough, he occupied the same situation as his father, thirty years before, and sustained the national honor with equal faithfulness.

In February, 1815, he was appointed Minister to Great Britain, and continued to act in that capacity until Monroe’s accession, in 1817, when he was recalled in order to serve the country in a more exalted and important station — that of Secretary of State, which is only second in responsibility to the Executive office itself. His long absence abroad rendered him better competent to conduct our relations with foreign nations than any statesman our country has ever produced.

During the eight years of his service as Secretary of State, he retained the full confidence of Mr. Monroe, and assisted in the accomplishment of measures which have contributed to our national glory and prosperity. We need only mention the recognition of the independence of the South American Republics, first advocated by Henry Clay, in the House of Representatives, and the successful acquisition of Florida and adjustment of the Spanish claims, to point out the value and importance of his official labors.

When the time of Monroe’s retirement drew near, the claims of Mr. Adams to the high office could not be overlooked. His long and eminent services, firm integrity of principle and lofty patriotism, made him the choice of all intelligent and calm-thinking men. From the popularity of Jackson, Crawford and Clay, each of whom was the candidate of a large party, the electoral colleges were able to make no nomination, and the question devolved on Congress. At the first ballot Mr. Adams received the votes of thirteen States, which constituted a majority. A Committee of the House accordingly waited upon him to notify him of his election, and received an answer of acceptance.

During the four years of his administration he preserved the same calm balance of judgment, the same undeviating attachment to principle, which had distinguished his former political life. His course was moderate, dignified, and characterized by great republican simplicity. The financial affairs of the nation were conducted with the strictest integrity; large sums were expended upon internal improvements — more, indeed, was effected in the permanent improvement of the country than during all the administrations of his predecessors; upward of five millions of dollars were appropriated in pensions and private bounties, and yet thirty millions of the national debt had been paid off at the end of his term. The violent and bitter opposition he met with, is well known. The friends of Jackson and Crawford combined in a hostility to the measures of his administration, which rested not until it had produced his defeat at the Presidential election in 1828. The effect of this unprincipled partisan feeling, in its opposition to the high liberal arms of Mr. Adams, was felt in the embarrassments which were brought on the country by his successor. Some later historian, scanning this period with an unprejudiced eye, will do full honor to his acts, and the high principles by which he was governed.

After Jackson’s inauguration he retired to the old homestead at Quincy, where he passed a year or two in the enjoyment of tranquil domestic life, and surrounded with the happiest social relations. But such a man as he could not be spared long from the Councils of the Nation. — In 1830 he was elected to represent the Congressional District in which he resided, and in the following year took his seat in the House of Representatives. Since then he has been elected to nine successive Congressional terms, the duties of which he has faithfully performed; till, after sixty-seven years spent in the service of his country, he has died with his hand to her labors — his last words uttered in her Hall of Council.

His acts in the House of Representatives are part of the knowledge of every American. — They will be cited, in after years, as noble example of that exalted honesty which can sacrifice everything in pursuance of what it believes to be just and true. It was owing to his persevering efforts alone that the disgraceful gag law was removed form the statutes of Congress; and there is scarcely a more thrilling incident in the history of our legislation than the effect of his eloquent reply to the dark menaces of the Southern spirit.

Despite the violent opposition and enmity which his upright and independent career excited, we doubt whether any man has been more universally venerated and beloved. — There is no sublimer instance of popular affection on record, than was exhibited during his visit to the West, a few years ago. The spontaneous expression of love and reverence, which men of all creeds and parties offered to the old man, gave his journey the character of a triumphal march — but a grander march than ever followed the laden chariots of the ancient victors of the world, along the Appian or Flaminian way. It was one of those spectacles of a nation’s gratitude, which rarely occur more than once in an era — an expression of such deep and touching feeling, and such fervent enthusiasm as could have been exhibited by no other people on earth.

His youth, almost his childhood, was consecrated to his country’s service; his long life and wonderful energies have been consumed in building up the fabric of her greatness; and he has drawn his last breath under the shelter of her legislative dome. His nearer relatives will lament his departure, but she will be left, most vacant at his loss — she will be chief mourner beside his grave.

Huron Reflector (Norwalk, Ohio) Mar 7, 1848

Image from http://features.csmonitor.com

From the National Intelligencer.

TOUCHING MEMORIAL.

Few of our readers but will read with deep and tender interest the following copy of verses, written by Mr. Adams on the day preceding his fatal attack of illness, and designed to accompany his autograph signature, which had been requested by a female friend.

Written for MISS C.L. EDWARDS, of Massachusetts, on the day preceding his attack.

BY JOHN QUINCY ADAMS.

In days of yore, the poet’s pen
From wing of bird was plundered,
Perhaps of goose, but, now and then,
From Jove’s own Eagle sundered.
But, now, metallic pens disclose
Alone the poet’s numbers;
In iron inspiration glows,
Or with the poet slumbers.

Fair damsel! could my pen impart,
In prose or lofty rhyme,
The pure emotions of my heart,
To speed the flight of time;
What metal from the womb of earth
Could worth intrinsic bear,
To stamp with corresponding worth
The blessings thou shouldst share?

Ohio Repository, The (Canton, Ohio) Mar 8, 1848

*****

You can follow John Quincy Adams on twitter! JQAdams_MHS

More info at the Massachusetts Historical Society

Dinamarca es un país de la Unión Europea (desde 1972) ubicado al norte del continente en la península de Jutlandia, y unas 400 islas que la rodean. De ellas sólo hay 82 deshabitadas. Su nombre aparece escrito por primera vez en la runa de Jelling 1, dedicada por el rey Gorm a su esposa en el siglo X. Es además conocida por ser la patria de uno de los personajes fundamentales de Shakespeare, Hamlet.

Sus pasado se remonta a fechas Paleolíticas , pues en el 12.000 a.C. ya había presencia humana, que perduró durante el Neolítico, la Edad del Cobre y el Hierro. Las culturas del Hierro, mantuvieron contactos comerciales con los romanos, y hay estudios que afirman que pudieron formar parte de ese genérico que se aplicaba a los barbaros (extranjeros) de “pueblos germánicos”.

Su auge, desde luego vino con la cultura vikinga. Los vikingos poseían muchos más territorios de los que componen la actual Finlandia,especialmente en el siglo X. Tuvo un relenvancia en el escenario internacional en los siglos XIII y XVII, especialmente por su capacidad marítima, estando a la altura de otros países europeos como Gran Bretaña, Francia o Prusia (actual Alemania).

En siglo XIX va a traer consigo una seri de cambios decisivos en la configuración del actual estado de Dinamarca. El primero de ellos fue en 1848 (año de revoluciones de índole nacional o liberal entoda Europa), con la abolicón del absolutismo y la creación consecuente de un sistema parlamentario y constitucional.

Dinamarca se encontró de frente con las intenciones imperialistas de Bismarck, por lo que en la Guerra de Prusia contra Dinamarca, también conocida como la Guerra de Schleswig,  ésta cayó derrotada y perdió dos quintos de su extensión, así como un millón de habitantes de los 2′6 que habitaban el reino anteriomente. Así quedará establecido el actual territorio de Dinamarca, con excepción de Islandia, que se independizará en 1944.

Dinamarca consiguió mantener un papel neutral en la Primera Guerra Mundial, pero no en la Segunda, pues fue invadido por Alemania, entre 1940-45. Con el final de la guerra, la victoria alida supuso su desocupación, y así pudo en 1949 formar parte de los miembros fundadores del Tratado de Atlántico Norte (más conocido como OTAN).

Me parece importante que conzcamos un poco más de cerca a nuestros “vecinos del norte”, al fin y al cabo formamos parte de una comunidad (aunque sea sólo político.económica) que nos vincula más con estos territorios escandinavos.

TEN PLANKS OF THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO

Could this be happening in America?  If so, how?

Our “elected representatives” have passed laws implementing these anti-freedom concepts. The communists have achieved a de facto FEDERAL SOCIALIST GOVERNMENT in America.

In 1848 Karl Marx and Frederick Engels wrote a book outlining a political ideology, titled “The Communist Manifesto”. Marxism’s basic theme is that the proletariat (the “exploited” working class of a capitalistic society) will suffer from alienation and will rise up against the “bourgeoisie” (the middle class) and overthrow the system of “capitalism.” After a brief period of rule by “the dictatorship of the proletariat” the classless society of communism would emerge. In his Manifesto Marx described the following ten steps as necessary steps to be taken to destroy a free enterprise society!! Notice how many of these conditions, foreign to the principles that America was founded upon, have now, in 1997, been realized by the concerted efforts of socialist activists? Remember, government interference in your daily life and business is intrusion and deprivation of our liberties!

First Plank: Abolition of property in land and the application of all rents of land to public purposes. (Zoning – Model ordinances proposed by Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover widely adopted. Supreme Court ruled “zoning” to be “constitutional” in 1921. Private owners of property required to get permission from government relative to the use of their property. Federally owned lands are leased for grazing, mining, timber usages, the fees being paid into the U.S. Treasury.)

Second Plank: A heavy progressive or graduated incometax. (Corporate Tax Act of 1909. The 16th Amendment, allegedly ratified in 1913. The Revenue Act of 1913, section 2, Income Tax. These laws have been purposely misapplied against American citizens to this day.)

Third Plank: Abolition of all rights of inheritance. (Partially accomplished by enactment of various state and federal “estate tax” laws taxing the “privilege” of transfering property after death and gift before death.)

Fourth Plank: CONFISCATION OF THE PROPERTY OF ALL EMIGRANTS AND REBELS. (The confiscation of property and persecution of those critical – “rebels” – of government policies and actions, frequently accomplished by prosecuting them in a courtroom drama on charges of violations of non-existing administrative or regulatory laws.)

Fifth Plank: Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. (The Federal Reserve Bank, 1913- -the system of privately-owned Federal Reserve banks which maintain a monopoly on the valueless debt “money” in circulation.)

Sixth Plank: Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State. (Federal Radio Commission, 1927; Federal Communications Commission, 1934; Air Commerce Act of 1926; Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938; Federal Aviation Agency, 1958; becoming part of the Department of Transportation in 1966; Federal Highway Act of 1916 (federal funds made available to States for highway construction); Interstate Highway System, 1944 (funding began 1956); Interstate Commerce Commission given authority by Congress to regulate trucking and carriers on inland waterways, 1935-40; Department of Transportation, 1966.)

Seventh Plank: Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. (Depart-ment of Agriculture, 1862; Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1933 — farmers will receive government aid if and only if they relinquish control of farming activities; Tennessee Valley Authority, 1933 with the Hoover Dam completed in 1936.)

Eighth Plank: Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies especially for agriculture. (First labor unions, known as federations, appeared in 1820. National Labor Union established 1866. American Federation of Labor established 1886. Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 placed railways under federal regulation. Department of Labor, 1913. Labor-management negotiations sanctioned under Railway Labor Act of 1926. Civil Works Administration, 1933. National Labor Relations Act of 1935, stated purpose to free inter-state commerce from disruptive strikes by eliminating the cause of the strike. Works Progress Administration 1935. Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, mandated 40-hour work week and time-and-a-half for overtime, set “minimum wage” scale. Civil Rights Act of 1964, effectively the equal liability of all to labor.)

Ninth Plank: Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country. (Food processing companies, with the co-operation of the Farmers Home Administration foreclosures, are buying up farms and creating “conglomerates.”)

Tenth Plank: Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production. (Gradual shift from private education to publicly funded began in the Northern States, early 1800’s. 1887: federal money (unconstitutionally) began funding specialized education. Smith-Lever Act of 1914, vocational education; Smith-Hughes Act of 1917 and other relief acts of the 1930’s. Federal school lunch program of 1935; National School Lunch Act of 1946. National Defense Education Act of 1958, a reaction to Russia’s Sputnik satellite demonstration, provided grants to education’s specialties. Federal school aid law passed, 1965, greatly enlarged federal role in education, “head-start” programs, textbooks, library books.

(Research source: Encyclopedia Britannica.)

Source: http://www.criminalgovernment.com/docs/planks.html

High Lights of History -  By J Carroll Mansfield

Sutter's Sawmill - January 1848

Valuable Yellow Dust

Gold From the American River!

Rush of Goldseekers

New Castle News (New Castle, Pennsylvania) Jul 17, 1926

Zu einer Recherche zum Umfeld der Emordung von Rosa Luxemburg (anläßlich eines Filmabends “Rosa Luxemburg“) habe ich einen Text zusammengestellt, den ich mit euch teilen möchte.
Ich setze jetzt mal den willkürlichen Anfang der Vorgeschichte des Films auf das Jahr 1815. Dem jahr des Wiener Kongresses. Der fand anläßlich der Niederlage Napoleons statt und leitete die Periode der Restauration ein, deren Ziel es war die alte Ordnung (also monarchistische Herrschaft) wiederherzustellen. Wichtiger Begriff ist da der Vormärz. Das führte zu Widerständen des Bürgertums und auch die Ideen der Nationenbildung in Einheit und Freiheit als Gegenmodell zur Monarchie und die Aufklärung hatten sich doch zu weit verbreitet, so dass die Ideen sich auf verschiedene Schichten/Klassen ausbreitete. In diese Zeit fällt auch die ROMANTIK. Die Angst vor Revolutionen führte zur Zensur, Verfolgung und Unterdrückung von Opposition.

Ich zitiere mal aus der Wikipedia:

Eine wesentliche Qualität der Beschlüsse besteht darin, dass der reaktionäre Staat liberale und nationale Ideen als Volksverhetzung begriff und die Träger dieser Ideen als Demagogen verfolgte. Diese Demagogenverfolgung fand besonders intensiv in Preußen statt. Betroffen durch Verfolgung und Inhaftierung waren z.B. Ernst Moritz Arndt, Karl Marx, Heinrich Hoffmann von Fallersleben, Hans Ferdinand Maßmann, Christian Sartorius, Georg Büchner, Friedrich Ludwig Jahn, Karl Theodor Welcker und Friedrich Gottlieb Welcker, aber auch der im damals dänischen Schleswig-Holstein lebende Uwe Jens Lornsen. E. T. A. Hoffmann, der 1819 bis 1821 als Kammergerichtsrat selbst in der preußischen Immediat-Kommission zur Ermittlung hochverräterischer Verbindungen und anderer gefährlicher Umtriebe saß, hat die Vorgangsweise der Behörden in seiner Erzählung Meister Floh satirisch dargestellt. Er bekam dadurch selbst Schwierigkeiten mit der Zensur und der Disziplinarbehörde.

Ihre Forderungen formulierten sie z.B. beim Hambacher Fest (1832).

Also es ging, so interpretiere ich im wesentlichen bei dem Kampf um Volkssouveränität. Ich zitiere die Wikipedia:

Das Prinzip der Volkssouveränität bestimmt das Volk zum souveränen Träger der Staatsgewalt. Die Verfassung als politisch-rechtliche Grundlage eines Staates beruht danach auf der verfassungsgebenden Gewalt des Volkes. Nicht ein Monarch, sondern das Volk in seiner Gesamtheit steht einzig über der Verfassung.

Pressefreiheit und vieles andere waren wohl eher Beiwerk, dass als Bedrohung des monarchischen Prinzips gesehen wurde.

Aktiv war dabei der Deutsche Bund (bestehend aus Königreichen udn Herzogtümern), der 1815 auf dem Wiener Kongress gegründet wurde und bis 1866 bestand hatte:

Als Nachfolge”organisation” des Heiligen Römischen Reiches Deutscher Nationen.

1844 fand der Weberaufstand (Hungerrevolte) statt. 1848/1849 erfolgte die sog. “Deutsche Revolution”, die vorwiegend von Anhängern des Liberalismus geprägt war. Also Anhängern des Parlamentarismus. Andere Kräfte wie Frühsozialisten, Anarchisten u.ä. waren in den Parlamenten gar nicht oder kaum vertreten.

Wikipedia zu Frühsozialismus:

Zentral bei den frühen Sozialisten ist der Begriff der menschlichen Natur, so Leszek Kołakowski. In diesem fundamentalen Sinn seien alle Menschen gleich – mit identischen Rechten und Pflichten. Für diese Autoren gehe es vor allem um die Frage, warum die bisherige Geschichte mit ihren Kriegen und der Ausbeutung der natürlichen Bestimmung des Menschen genau entgegengesetzt verlaufen sei. Der Begriff der menschlichen Natur führe dann zur Idee der kommunistischen Despotie. Es sei für die Frühsozialisten unwichtig, ob die Menschen selbst für die Verwirklichung des Kommunismus sind. Kołakowski zitiert den kommunistischen Autor Jean-Jacques Pillot, demzufolge man auch nicht die Insassen einer Irrenanstalt frage, ob sie ihr Bad nehmen wollen. Kołakowski begegnet dem mit der Frage, wer denn darüber entscheide, wer Arzt und wer Irrer sei.

Ach ja, bei meinen Recherchen bin ich darauf gestoßen, dass das Wort “Parlamentarismuscharakteristika” lang ist.

Vorgeschichte
In dieser Zeit fand auch die Industrielle Revolution und die Ausbildung eines Proletariates statt – eine radikale Umwälzung der Gesellschaft. Aus Bauern wurden Arbeiter und eine neue Mittelschicht des Bürgertums entstand. Das Bürgertum setzte sich z.B. damals schon für einen Freihandel ein, denn die Zölle drückten ihre Gewinnmargen.

Da politische Organisationen Repressionen ausgesetzt waren wurden Tarnvereine wie Turnbünde und Burschenschaften gegründet. Diese hatten neben den nationalistischen Ideen damals bereits auch antijudaistische und rassistische Tendenzen. Diese Studentenbünde (Corps) halfen auch wesentlich bei der Organisation der Revolution.

Paulskirchenverfassung
Interessant aus meiner Sicht ist, dass die Abgeordneten der Paulskirche von einem Siebenerausschuss eingeladen wurde. Die Zusammensetzung war, was die Sozialstruktur angeht nicht repräsentativ: „Dreimal 100 Advokaten – Vaterland, du bist verraten; dreimal 100 Professoren – Vaterland, du bist verloren!” sagt man damals. Zahlenmäßig sehr schwach vertreten waren Handwerker und Vertreter aus der Landwirtschaft.

Hier die drei Lager laut Wikipedia:

1. Die „demokratische Linke“ – im Jargon der damaligen Zeit auch als die „Ganzen“ bezeichnet, die sich aus der extremen und der gemäßigten Linken zusammensetzten (der Deutsche Hof sowie die späteren Abspaltungen Donnersberg, Nürnberger Hof und Westendhall)
2. Die „liberale Mitte“ – die so genannten „Halben“, die sich aus dem linken und rechten Zentrum zusammensetzten (das rechtsliberale Casino und der linksliberale Württemberger Hof sowie die späteren Abspaltungen Augsburger Hof, Landsberg und Pariser Hof)
3. Die „konservative Rechte“ aus Protestanten und Konservativen (Steinernes Haus bzw. nach dem Wechsel des Klublokals Café Milani. Die Café Milani-Fraktion … verfolgte die Großdeutsche Lösung und vertrat einen föderalen Staat, in dem das Parlament auf Verfassungsfragen beschränkt bleiben sollte und die Reichsregierung nicht kontrollierte. Die Einzelstaaten sollten Monarchien bleiben, eigenständige Heere behalten sowie von der Reichsverfassung abweichende Konstitutionen.” Diese Fraktion kann man teilweise auch zur Reaktion zählen (Die Reaktion)

Interessant hierbei die Dualität zwischen Rückwärtsgewandtheit/Reaktion der Rechten auf der einen Seite und der Vorwärtsgewandtheit der Linken auf der anderen. Ihr erinnert euch, dass die Sozialdemokratische Zeitschrift “Vorwärts” hiess – und so muss man denke ich auch das Spannungsverhältnis zwischen Rechts und Links betrachten.

Legitimationsproblem
Versammeln kann sich jeder, aber diese Versammlung hatte keine. Als der Deutsche Bund einen Waffenstillstand mit Dänemark schloss wegen der Schleswig-Holstein-Frage, kam es zu den Septemberunruhen. Bemerkenswert hierbei:
“Bei der drei Tage andauernden Debatte vom 14. bis zum 16. September argumentierte die Linke hauptsächlich nationalistisch und idealistisch, wobei sie insbesondere die deutsche Ehre betonte, die es zu retten gälte. Die Rechte allerdings bat in ihrer Argumentation um mehr Besonnenheit, da die Regierungsverhältnisse zu unsicher seien, denn Dahlmanns Versuch der Regierungsumbildung war ja gescheitert. Deutschland sei zudem nicht fähig einen Krieg ohne Preußen zu führen, da es ohne ein Heer oder eine Flotte machtlos war.” – Schließlich stimmte das Parlament dem Friedensvertag, den es nicht verhandelt hatte zu.

Aus irgendeinem Grunde rief das Parlament preussische und österreichische Bundestruppen zu Hilfe, die wohl das Parlament schützen sollten (? Unklar, gerne Tips). Bei einem Tumult vor der Paulskirche griffen die Preussischen Soldaten ein und verstärkten damit Ressentiments. (Wikipedia:) “Es begann ein Barrikadenkampf zwischen revolutionären Arbeitern, Bauern und Handwerkern einerseits und dem preußischen und österreichischen Militär auf der anderen Seite. Der Aufstand wurde sehr schnell unterdrückt, da die Handwerker, Tagelöhner und Gesellen spontan und planlos vorgegangen waren. Sie hatten zwar an ca. 40 Stellen in der Stadt Barrikaden errichtet, aber versäumt, wichtige militärische Zufahrtswege zu sperren und aus den Dörfern Unterstützung zu holen. Gegen Mitternacht war der Aufstand bereits niedergeschlagen. Bei den Kämpfen fielen 30 Aufständische und 12 Soldaten …. Sowohl die Linke wie auch die Rechte distanzierte sich von dem Aufstand, da dieser nur von blinder Wut getragen worden sei, die nichts mit Politik zu tun habe … Die Nationalversammlung hatte seit dem Septemberaufstand ihre Glaubwürdigkeit verloren und fand zu keiner Zusammenarbeit mehr zwischen dem bürgerlich-liberalen und dem radikaldemokratischem Lager. Diese frühe Spaltung der Kräfte war für das spätere Scheitern der Nationalversammlung von entscheidender Bedeutung … Die radikalen Demokraten, die zugleich links und nationalistisch gesinnt waren, sahen sich von da an nicht mehr durch die Nationalversammlung repräsentiert und griffen in verschiedenen Staaten des Deutschen Bundes zu eigenständigen revolutionären Aktionen.“

Radikale Linke wie Robert Blum wurden ohne Beachtung ihrer Immunität standrechtlich erschossen. Beide Seiten betrachteten dieses Kapitel als Bestätigung ihrer Vorurteile über die Rechte oder die Linke.

Immerhin schaffte man es Grundrechte für einen zukünftigen deutschen Staat zu definieren.

Eigentlich wollte die Nationalversammlung eine Großdeutsche Lösung, die aber vom österreichischen Kaiser abgelehnt wurde. Also bot man dem preussischen Kaiser die Krone für einen Staat mit einer Kleindeutschen Lösung (ohne Österreich) an. Dieser lehnte jedoch ab:

In der Folgezeit setzte Preussen einige der Ideen der Nationalversammlung sozusagen von oben um (kleindeutscher Bund unter preußischer Führung).

Friedrich Wilhelm IV. richtete am 5. Dezember 1848 das Preussische Abgeordnetenhaus ein .(Wikipedia: “Die Wahl der Abgeordneten erfolgte nach dem Dreiklassenwahlrecht. Das Wahlverfahren war indirekt. Die Wahlberechtigten wählten in der Urwahl – getrennt in drei Klassen – Wahlmänner und diese dann die Abgeordneten ihres Wahlbezirks. … Wahlberechtigt war jeder (männliche) Preuße ab 24 Jahre, der in einer preußischen Gemeinde seit mindestens sechs Monaten seinen Wohnsitz hatte und nicht durch rechtskräftiges Urteil die bürgerlichen Rechte verloren hatte oder öffentliche Armenunterstützung erhielt. Wählbar zum Abgeordneten war, wer das 30. Lebensjahr vollendet hatte, seit mindestens drei Jahren Preuße war und die bürgerlichen Rechte nicht durch rechtskräftiges Urteil verloren hatte. … Die Stimmabgabe dauerte in der Regel mehrere Stunden und fand durchgehend werktags statt….Das Wahlverfahren in Kombination mit der Wahlkreiseinteilung führte zu einer sehr starken Bevorzugung der Konservativen. 1913 erhielten sie 14,8% der Urwählerstimmen, hatten aber 149 der 443 Sitze im Abgeordnetenhaus (inkl. zwei Hospitanten), die Freikonservativen erreichten sogar 53 Sitze mit nur 2% der Urwählerstimmen. Die SPD hingegen erhielt 1913 mit 28,4% der Urwähler nur 10 Sitze.“
Next Stop: Deutscher Krieg 1870/71
Als nächsten Stop in der Deutschen Geschichte würde ich den Deutschen Krieg sehen, mit dem Preussen unter Bismarcks Führungversuchte seine Dominanz auszunutzen, um seinen Einfluss zu vergrößern. Machen wirs kurz: Preussen schlug Österreich.
Next Stop: Deutsch-Französischer Krieg von 1870

Kurz: Die Preussen schlug in Allianz mit Bayern, Württemberg und Baden Frankreich und das Deutsche Reich wurde gegründet. In gewissem Sinne erfolgte die Umsetzung so mancher Ideale der Deutschen Revolution jetzt durch Kriege und Expansion. Die Verwendung der Begrifflichkeit Deutsches Reich knüpfte an das Heilige Römische Reich Deutscher Nation (962–1806).

Interessant evt. auch der staatsrechtliche Exkurs in der Wikipedia:

“Mit der Errichtung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland wurde nicht ein neuer westdeutscher Staat gegründet, sondern ein Teil Deutschlands neu organisiert […]. Die Bundesrepublik Deutschland ist also nicht „Rechtsnachfolger“ des Deutschen Reiches, sondern als Staat identisch mit dem Staat „Deutsches Reich“ (Bundesverfassungsgericht vom 31. Juli 1973)”

Und nochn Nietzsche:

„Von allen schlimmen Folgen aber, die der letzte mit Frankreich geführte Krieg hinter sich drein zieht, ist vielleicht die schlimmste ein weitverbreiteter, ja allgemeiner Irrthum: der Irrthum der öffentlichen Meinung und aller öffentlich Meinenden, dass auch die deutsche Kultur in jenem Kampfe gesiegt habe und deshalb jetzt mit den Kränzen geschmückt werden müsse, die so ausserordentlichen Begebnissen und Erfolgen gemäss seien. Dieser Wahn ist höchst verderblich: nicht etwa weil er ein Wahn ist – denn es giebt die heilsamsten und segensreichsten Irrthümer – sondern weil er im Stande ist, unseren Sieg in eine völlige Niederlage zu verwandeln: in die Niederlage, ja Exstirpation des deutschen Geistes zugunsten des ‚deutschen Reiches‘.“
– Friedrich Nietzsche zur Gründung des Deutschen Reiches 1871: Unzeitgemäße Betrachtungen, 1873–1876, Erstes Stück, Kapitel 1

Weiteres

1878 wurden die Sozialistengesetzte verabschiedet. Das Gesetz verbot sozialistische und sozialdemokratische Organisationen und deren Aktivitäten im Deutschen Reich außerhalb des Reichstags und der Landtage. Es kam damit einem Parteiverbot gleich. Viele Sozialisten setzten sich unter dem repressiven politischen Druck des Gesetzes ins ausländische Exil ab, vor allem nach Frankreich, die Schweiz oder England. Die SAP konnte jedoch weiter im Parlament vertreten sein und bekam auch immer mehr Stimmen, so dass der Reichstag 1890 eine weitere Verlängerung des Gesetzes ablehnte. Nach der Aufhebung des Sozialistengesetzes blieb die Sozialdemokratie, die sich seit dem Erfurter Programmparteitag 1891 SPD nennt, ein ernstzunehmender Machtfaktor. 1912 schließlich sollte sie gar stärkste Partei im Reichstag werden. …

Der Geist des Sozialistengesetzes wirkte jedoch auch nach 1890 in Gesellschaft und Politik des Deutschen Reiches fort. Die Sozialdemokraten wurden noch lange nach der Aufhebung des Gesetzes als „vaterlandslose Gesellen“ diffamiert (u.a. 1907 bei der sogenannten „Hottentottenwahl“). Erst bei der Auslösung des Ersten Weltkrieges im August 1914, als es darum ging, die Volksmassen für den Krieg zu mobilisieren, überdachte Kaiser Wilhelm II. als „Oberster Kriegsherr “ Deutschlands die auch von ihm bis zuletzt vertretene Strategie der politischen Isolierung der Sozialdemokratie und verkündete – nach seinem Verständnis im Interesse des Reiches – mit Blick auf die Sozialdemokraten, er kenne „keine Parteien mehr, sondern nur noch Deutsche“. Darauf stimmte die SPD-Reichstagsfraktion, seit dem Tode August Bebels (1913) unter dem Vorsitz des gemäßigt reformorientierten Friedrich Ebert – neben Hugo Haase – geschlossen für die ersten Kriegskredite und leitete die Burgfriedenspolitik ein.

Interpretation
Die Sozialdemokraten als Parlamentarische Linke, ob nun als ADAV, SDAP, SAP oder SPD waren immer schon nationalstaatlich und nicht internationalistisch ausgerichtet. (S.a. Ferdinand Lassale ) und nie revolutionär.

Ich denke, dass der Knax 1848 war. Und dass das Kernproblem der Nationalismus war, der in der Sozialdemokratie ebenfalls mehr Zustimmung fand, als Ideen einer Sozialrevolution. Die SPD kämpfte um Anerkennung. Und dafür war sie bereit andere Ideal zu opfern. Insofern stellt aus meiner Sicht die SPD über die Geschichte Deutschlands hinweg immer wieder die nützlichen Idioten, die zwar immer auch die Stimmen der Arbeiter bzw. der Masse der Wähler bei Wahlen erheischen können, aber nicht im Namen dieser handeln: Sie 1. Weltkrieg, siehe Weimarer Republik.

Sozialrevolutionäre und Anarchisten haben es immer abgelehnt über den Weg der Parlamente die eigenen Ideale zu verraten. Die deutsche Sozialdemokratie scheint aber innigst verbunden mit dem Parlamentarismus, den ich mal negativ interpretiere in dem Sinne, dass hier die Idee ist, das Politik eben eigentlich primär in den Parlamenten passiert und nicht durch direkte Mitbestimmung der Bürger oder zumindest die Berücksichtigung des Wählerwillens (keine Wiederbewaffnung, Atomausstieg, keine Kriegsbeteiligung, etc. etc. )

Gerne nehme ich Verbesserungsvorschläge und Korrekturen auf.

POZNÁVAME SVOJU VLASŤ

Hilda Rösslerová – Sláviková

OBSAH

Predhovor . . . . 5
Poznávame svoju vlasť . . . . 7
I. Naše hlavné mesto . . . . 10
Bratislava . . . . 13
Devín . . . . 40
II. Sídla našich krajov . . . . 48
Trnava . . . . 49
Nitra . . . . 57
Trenčín . . . . 69
Žilina . . . . 78
Banská Bystrica . . . . 85
Košice . . . . 96
Prešov . . . . 106

III. Svet o nás vie . . . . 115
Vysoké Tatry – Poprad . . . . 117
Levoča . . . . 124
Banská Štiavnica . . . . 137
Kremnica . . . . 145
Martin . . . . 152

IV. Naše osobnosti . . . . 164
M. R. Štefánik . . . . 165
Ľ. Podjavorinská-Riznerová . . . . 174
Štúrovci a revolúcia 1848/1849 . . . . 182

Využitie materiálu o osobnostiach vo výchovno-vzdelávacom procese . . . . 190

Použitá a odporúčaná literatúra . . . . 191

I will simply express my strong belief, that that point of self-education which consists in teaching the mind to resist its desires and inclinations, until they are proved to be right, is the most important of all, not only in things of natural philosophy, but in every department of daily life.

            – Michael Faraday

                ‘Observations On Mental Education’, a lecture before the Prince Consort and the Royal Institution, May 6, 1854.          Experimental researches in chemistry and physics (1859), 477.

The world little knows how many of the thoughts and theories which have passed through the mind of a scientific investigator, have been crushed in silence and secrecy by his own severe criticism and adverse examination!

            – Michael Faraday

                ‘Observations On Mental Education’, a lecture before the Prince Consort and the Royal Institution, May 6, 1854.          Experimental researches in chemistry and physics (1859), 486.

What a delight it is to think that you are quietly and philosophically at work in the pursuit of science…rather than fighting amongst the crowd of black passions and motives that seem now a days to urge men every where into action.  What incredible scenes every where, what unworthy motives ruled for the moment, under high sounding phrases and at the last what disgusting revolutions.

            – Michael Faraday        Letter to C. Schrenbein, December 15, 1848.

Nothing is too wonderful to be true if it be consistent with the laws of nature.
            – Michael Faraday (exact source unknown)

The five essential entrepreneurial skills for success are

concentration,

discrimination,

organization,

innovation and

communication.                         – Michael Faraday (exact source unknown)

“His [Faraday's] soul was above all littleness and proof to all egotism.”

            – John Tyndall                   Faraday as a Discoverer (1868), 104.

Michael Faraday was born this date 9/22/1791 at Newington, England (one mile south of London Bridge.)  He was one of ten children born to a poor  blacksmith; reportedly so poor a loaf of bread may have had to last all week.

At fourteen he apprenticed to a bookbinder learning much by reading (after work) the books being printed.  This led to him seeking (and at twenty-two gaining) a position with Sir Humphrey Davey.  Faraday traveled eighteen months with him obtaining a “university education” as his assistant.

Faraday went on to make great and well known discoveries in electro-magnetism and chemistry.  He was a true scientist – he pursued truth.

Many may not know that Faraday was a Christian (Presbyterian- Sandamanian),[1]  His was a deep faith which led him to make his confession at twenty-nine and later to become a minister in his church.  He died in 1867.

(ripreso anche da una delle mie rassegne preferite, Radio Tre Tabloid)

Intervista. «Non la metto certo in discussione, ma fu una riunificazione drammatica, pensata ai danni della Chiesa e voluta da una élite antitaliana». Mazzini? Un manovratore rivoluzionario dall’estero. Cavour? Un genio ma illiberale. Garibaldi? In Perù trasportava guano e cinesi.

Che effetto fa essere citata dal premier?
Naturalmente sono lusingata, all’epoca feci una trafila editoriale di un anno e mezzo per stampare il libro, ricevetti molti rifiuti anche scritti. Mi rivolsero persino accuse pesanti. E allo stesso tempo sono estremamente sorpresa perché la storiografia ufficiale ha sempre negato la realtà drammatica del Risorgimento, e quindi che la citazione sia istituzionale, cioè venga dal presidente del Consiglio è un fatto storico. Quella di Berlusconi è una citazione molto coraggiosa. Nello stesso contesto, il premier ha raccontato di aver chiesto perdono per le efferatezze compiute dagli italiani in Libia. Il mio auspicio è che come è stato trovato coraggio per la Libia, si possa riuscire a chiedere perdono ai cattolici dell’800 per come sono stati calunniati e maltrattati.

Esiste un altro Risorgimento?
I fatti sono andati diversamente da come sono stati raccontati, l’unità d’Italia nasce da un peccato originale. Non metto in discussione l’unità italiana e il suo valore, ma voglio dimostrare che il processo di unificazione è stato portato avanti da una élite profondamente antitaliana. La citazione di Berlusconi però non riguarda “L’altro Risorgimento (Piemme), ma l’altra mia pubblicazione, Risorgimento da riscrivere (Ares). C’è una differenza sostanziale. Risorgimento da riscrivere è un testo scientifico dove le note addirittura sopravanzano il testo. L’altro Risorgimento è divulgativo, e non poteva essere scritto se non fosse esistito il primo, con tutta la mole impressionante di citazioni e documenti, tra cui le trascrizioni dei dibattiti nel Parlamento subalpino dove si preparava un attacco violentissimo all’Italia cattolica. Il tentativo di risolvere il patrimonio culturale sociale e religioso della nazione ha portato all’emigrazione, alla volontà di riscrivere i connotati nazionali, lacerando il Paese fino alla sciagura della Prima guerra mondiale, con centinaia di migliaia di morti. E infatti, come per le chiese, un’altra cosa ci accomuna: i monumenti dei caduti della Prima guerra mondiale.

Alla sbarra ci sono sempre Mazzini, Garibaldi e Cavour. Agli inizi degli anni 90, durante un Meeting di Cl, Vittorio Messori aupiscava addirittura una Norimberga del Risorgimento.
Sono però personaggi diversi, da non accomunare. Indro Montanelli ha scritto un libro piacevolissimo sulla genesi delle lotte risorgimentali dove Mazzini viene restituito come “un sacrificatore di vita altrui”, un manovratore rivoluzionario che viveva però all’estero. In un testo del 1832 Mazzini definisce l’unificazione un fatto violento, ci si deve impossessare in maniera violenta del potere. Garibaldi era un personaggio dal basso spessore culturale. In Perù organizzava i viaggi della nave Carmen, all’andata trasportava guano per poi tornare con i cinesi. Ma è una storia rimossa, e raccontata in un libro introvabile di De Vecchi.

E Cavour?
Cavour era un personaggio eccezionale, disposto a sacrificare qualsiasi idea di coerenza per raggiungere l’obiettivo che si era proposto. L’ho raccontato ne I panni sporchi dei Mille, l’invasione del Regno delle Due Sicilie nelle testimonianze di La Farina, Pellion, Boggio edito da Liberal di Adornato. La spedizione venne organizzata a tavolino da Cavour e dall’ex mazziniano La Farina, convinto che bisognasse seguire la monarchia sabauda. Nelle tante lettere private di La Farina, che non è un personaggio marginale ma uni degli artefici dell’unità d’Italia, si racconta che tutte le mattine per quattro anni, dal 1856, due tre ore prima dell’alba, nella stanza di Cavour organizzavano l’invasione delle due Sicilie. Ma Cavour non voleva che si sapesse, «Guardi che se viene fuori io la rinnego come Pietro», perché ufficialmente il regno di Sardegna passava per un regno pacifico, mentre fomentava violenza.

Cosa si può fare per superare questa rimozione?
Le fonti, vanno studiate le fonti. Io sono partita dai dibattiti del Parlamento subalpino, discorsi, corrispondenze varie, resoconti di viaggi ufficiali, circolari. Un testo fondamentale per l’800 italiano ma praticamente introvabile sono le Memorie per la storia dei nostri tempi, dal Congresso di Parigi nel 1856 ai primi giorni del 1863 di don Giacomo Margotti, una poderosa opera di duemila pagine di citazioni, interventi, articoli di giornali stranieri. Esiste una copia a Palazzo Caetani. Bisogna andare ai fatti. Per fare l’Italia è stata infranta la Costituzione, lo Statuto del 1848. Anche le logge massoniche e i giornali liberali denunciavano la pretesa di voler affrancare gli italiani dalla una presunta schiavitù cattolica. Se per l’Unesco abbiamo più del 60 per cento patrimonio culturale del pianeta, non lo dobbiamo certamente al Risorgimento. Che fossimo schiavi del cattolicesimo era una falsità.

Secondo lei ha senso la divisione tra tra destra liberale e reazionaria?
No, è solo una cosa ideologica. Vediamo i fatti. Il primo articolo dello Statuto (che entra in vigore il 4 marzo 1848) dichiara: «La religione cattolica apostolica e romana è la sola religione di Stato». Ma poi il regno abolisce la personalità giuridica degli ordini. In Senato, nel pieno del dibattito che va avanti da sei mesi fino al maggio 1855, sulla legge per la soppressione dell’ordine dei mendicanti e contemplativi – cioè francescani, domenicani e suore di clausura – (con relativo incameramento di beni), Cavour ha sempre sostenuto che il provvedimento fosse popolare presso l’opionine pubblica. Quando però al Senato, il maresciallo Della Torre gli ribatte che non è vero, che le chiese sono ovunque stracolme di fedeli che pregano perché la legge non veda la luce, che lui vede tutti che pregano in chiesa, Cavour risponde così: «Mi stupiscono molto che l’onorevole maresciallo citi l’opinione di persone e masse che non sono e non possono essere rappresentate legalmente». Quindi per Cavour, quello che pensava allora il 98 per cento della popolazione non contava. E noi lo definiamo liberalismo? Rispetto a questo scandalo, le definizioni saltano tutte. Bisogna tenere conto di cosa è stato fatto. E in nome di cosa.

Una crisi liberale che ha portato fino alla Prima guerra mondiale?
Non sono una storica del fascismo o della Prima guerra mondiale, sono solo una specialista del Risorgimento, la mia è solo una opinione. Il liberalismo con i disastri della Prima guerra mondiale non funzionava più. Il fascismo è la conseguenza ovvia del disastro liberale, salviamo il salvabile tramite un volto nuovo, quello di Mussolini. Le circolari del Grande Oriente parlano di una partecipazione voluta in contrapposizione alla morale cattolico-pacifista. Bisognava cementare l’Italia come popolo di guerrieri, ma al presso di seicentomila morti, venne distrutta l’economia del Paese.

Era il 19 agosto quando New York Herald, dichiarava aperta la corsa all’oro in California. Ora tutti sapevamo che la corsa all’ora era iniziata ben sei mesi prima, ma ciò non fede demordere migliaia e migliaia di avventori professionisti e non in questa estenuante ricerca alla corsa all’oro. Una migrazione interna del continenete che in preda alla frenesia della caccia si trasferiva con l’intera famiglia sulle rive dei fiumi. Ore e ore passate setacciando ogni argine del fiume, in cerca di quelle pepite tanto luccicanti.

Ausfahrt zum Stadion

Das Warten hat ein Ende: Die Bundesliga hat den ersten Spieltag der Saison bereits hinter sich gelassen. Und natürlich gab es auch im Ruhrgebiet allerlei sehenswerte Spiele. Die Auftaktniederlage meines favorisierten Heimatvereins Rot-Weiß Oberhausen, der 0:3 gegen Union Berlin verloren hat, habe ich mittlerweile verarbeitet. Und gestern war ich dann bei meinem Lieblingsverein der 1. Bundesliga – dem VfL Bochum, der beim ersten Heimspiel Borussia Mönchengladbach zu Gast hatte. Beide haben in der vergangenen Saison oft am ganz unteren Ende der Tabelle gestanden und hatten zeitweise Abstiegspanik. Bochum jedoch hat in den vergangenen 15 Begegnungen niemals gegen Gladbach verloren. So war also die Stimmung der Bochumer Fans in erster Linie hoffnungsvoll und positiv. Doch was erwartete die Fans im Stadion für ein Krimispektakel!

Spielstätte des VfL

Schon in den ersten Minuten zeichnete sich ab, dass die Bochumer nicht ins Spiel kamen. Gladbach war die klar stärkere und aufgeräumtere Mannschaft. Die Bochumer Pässe waren schlecht, die kurzen Ecken erwiesen sich als völlig sinnfrei – unter den Fans in der Ostkurve machte sich nach und nach schlechte Stimmung breit. Dann das 0:1. Fassungsloses Erstarren. Doch ein Fan gibt ja nicht gleich auf – schließlich waren erst 19 Minuten gespielt. Als dann gerade mal sieben Minuten später das 0:2 fiel, war es in der Ostkurve erstmal still. Die Fangesänge wurden weniger, die Stimmung zusehends mieser.

Der Gästeblock bebte dementsprechend heftiger. Und als dann schließlich in der 40. Minute das 0:3 durch die Gladbacher erzielt wurde, verließen die ersten Bochumfans wütend das Stadion.

Enttäuschung und Wut in der Ostkurve

Die Mannschaft wurde ausgebuht, der Bestürzung wurde verbal und durch eindeutige Gesten Ausdruck verliehen.

Doch offenbar sind die Bochumer Jungs nach der Halbzeitpause aus dem Tiefschlaf erwacht (oder Marcel Koller hat harte Strafen angedroht, falls die zweite Halbzeit nicht besser ausfallen würde). Endlich platzte – nachdem Gladbach die Chance auf das 0:4 vergab – bei Bochum der Knoten.

Doppelpack durch Azaouagh

Zwei Traumtore durch Azaouagh innerhalb von 48 Sekunden in der 51. und 52. Spielminute gaben den VfL-Fans neue Hoffnung. Gerade noch dachten alle an die große Auftaktblamage, und plötzlich gab es die realistische Chance, den Rückstand wieder aufzuholen.

Nun war der Gästeblock erstarrt – die Ostkurve schrie sich vor Begeisterung die Stimmbänder wund. Nachdem dann auch noch Gladbachs Abwehrchef Dante wegen Foulspiels an Sestak mit dem roten Karton vom Platz gefegt wurde, war kein Halten mehr. Schließlich sorgte der Gefoulte dann auch noch für den verdienten 3:3-Ausgleich. Ein Feuerwerk der Emotionen im rewirpower-Stadion!

Der erlösende Ausgleich

Like any other science, neuroscience has its founding myths, historical anecdotes, legendary figures… Phineas Gage is one of the most famous.

He was a railroad worker who, on September 13, 1848, was victim of a dynamite explosion which sent a long metal pole through his left chick, eye orbit, brain, and got out the top of his head. Much of the medial region of his prefrontal cortex was just suddenly wiped out… and Phineas Gage survived.

This made him a living experiment in the role of the brain in higher cognitive functions. The myths has it that his basic cognitive skills were undamaged, but that his social behavior shifted dramatically – Phineas became much more irritable and aggressive.

Since then, Phineas Gage is an obliged fixture for undergrad textbooks in cognitive neuroscience (like in Gazzaniga et al. textbook, on p. 600).  Until a few days ago, you were most likely to be presented to Phineas in the following guise:

Phineas Gage's crane

The amazing event is that a daguerreotype of him has just been identified, and that is the buzz of summer ‘09 in the community of neuroscientists! The daguerreotype was in a collection for years, but the owners thought it was the portrait of a whale hunter. So please join me in greeting Phineas Gage. Note the metal pole in his hand: yes, it is the one which pierced his crane.

Phineas Phage

Sheriffs Office
August 22 1848
I do hereby Certify that the written notice of Emancipation was regularly posted up in the room occupied by the 1st District Court of New Orleans for the full space term of forty days [???] from the 12 July 1848 up to this date.

[signature]

NOTICE. Benjamin Morgan INHABITANT OF THE PARISH OF ORLEANS, having intention to emancipate the Slave named “Helen,” aged about fifty-four years. Every person having any legal opposition to said emancipation, are required to file said opposition in the Office of the Clerk of the 1st District Court of New Orleans within forty days from the date of the present notice.

New-Orleans, 12th July 1848.

[signature]
Sheriff.

[Folder 31?]

Sheriffs Office

August 22 1848

I do hereby Certify that the within notice of Emancipation . . . for the full space and term of forty days  . . . from the 12 July 1848 up to this . . . I Alfredy Rousseau Clerk of the First District Court of New Orleans do hereby certify that no opposition has been filed against the emancipation of the within named slave New Orleans 22d August 1848

[signature]

Let the deed of emancipation of the within named slave be executed before An . . . Notary public of this city New Orleans 22d August 1848.
John M. Henry, Judge

In a new Books and Culture review, Ryan Patrico discusses Mike Rapport’s recent book 1848: Year of Revolution.  Noting that this work covers the period of such diverse figures as Marx, Toqueville, and Bismarck, Patrico nevertheless fails to notice an obvious implication of his summary; while he admits that “the average rioter simply wanted bread on the table and saw violence as one of his few remaining options,” he does not point out the obvious Marxist resonance of this fact.  Since this is, in Rapport’s judgment, the major underlying cause of revolutions, at a time when a higher view of human nature due to the Enlightenment and lower Industrial Revolution living conditions clashed, one might see Marx as a contemporary of the New England Transcendentalists, believing that current conditions did not befit the inherent dignity of the working classes.  Violence aside, it is noteworthy that such material causes are apparently the common denominator among the otherwise disparate European revolutions of 1848.

1848.  Lincoln is a representative to the US Congress.  The issue of where the border of Texas was at the time of the beginning of the Mexican War will be an issue Lincoln comes back to.

Washington, June 27, 1848.

Friend Greeley: In the “Tribune” of yesterday I discovered a little editorial paragraph in relation to Colonel Wentworth of Illinois, in which, in relation to the boundary of Texas, you say: “All Whigs and many Democrats having ever contended it stopped at the Nueces.” Now this is a mistake which I dislike to see go uncorrected in a leading Whig paper. Since I have been here, I know a large majority of such Whigs of the House of Representatives as have spoken on the question have not taken that position. Their position, and in my opinion the true position, is that the boundary of Texas extended just so far as American settlements taking part in her revolution extended; and that as a matter of fact those settlements did extend, at one or two points, beyond the Nueces, but not anywhere near the Rio Grande at any point. The “stupendous desert” between the valleys of those two rivers, and not either river, has been insisted on by the Whigs as the true boundary.

Will you look at this? By putting us in the position of insisting on the line of the Nueces, you put us in a position which, in my opinion, we cannot maintain, and which therefore gives the Democrats an advantage of us. If the degree of arrogance is not too great, may I ask you to examine what I said on this very point in the printed speech I send you.

Yours truly,

A. LINCOLN.

Nu inseamna ca cineva este nationalist, poate chiar extremist, daca acorda pentru ziua de azi ceva mai multa atentie. Pe 26 iunie 1848 se emitea un decret prin care se stabileau pozitia si culorile pentru drapelul Principatelor Romane, care nu erau inca unite. Dincolo de prezentarea sterila a unor date istorice, cred ca cel mai bine e sa intelegem care era situatia romanilor de atunci.

Perioada revolutiilor din 1848, pentru ca nu numai la noi au fost, era una destul de chinuita. Veneam dupa un secol de conducere fanariota impusa de imperiul otoman, in care birurile deveneau tot mai greu de suportat, perioada finalizata cu revolutia lui Tudor Vladimirescu, din 1821, impotriva otomanilor, revolutie incheiata cu o infrangere. In decurs de mai putin de 50 de ani suferisem pierderi teritoriale semnificative, jumatate din Moldova (numita abia atunci Basarabia) la 1812 catre rusi, dupa ce in 1775 pierdusem nordul actualei Moldove catre austrieci, plus Oltenia tot catre austrieci pentru vreo 20 de ani, circa 1819-1839. Sa nu uitam de rascoala lui Horea, Closca si Crisan din 1784, care a avut un sfarsit tragic. Veneam, asadar, dupa schingiuiri si ciopartiri teritoriale, coroborate cu pierderea tot mai intensa a drepturilor romanilor din Transilvania.
In tot acest timp, mai multi romani studiaza in Vest si fie participa la revolutiile nationaliste, escaladate ca un val inca de la Revolutia Franceza din 1789, fie sunt starniti de euforia acestui val de eliberare nationala. E suficient sa-i pomenim pe Nicolae Balcescu si pe Ion Heliade-Radulescu, care au facut parte dintr-un guvern provizoriu, stabilit prin proclamatia de la Islaz. Din pacate, situatia de dupa revolutie nu dureaza decat trei luni, pentru ca a fost inabusita prin intrarea armatelor ruse si turcesti.

Nu vreau sa repet munca istoricilor, dar trebuie sa stim cat de cat contextul acelor vremuri pentru a vedea cat de mult au riscat unii pentru a da o sansa independentei acestor mici tarisoare romane. Nu-i de mirare ca in 1859 a avut deja loc prima Unire.
Vedeti ce inseamna sacrificiul pentru viitorul unei comunitati, al unei tari si al unui popor?! Astazi, insa, suntem guvernati de zeul banului, de interese si de oportunism. Nimeni nu se mai inhama in vreo functie importanta fara a avea intai castiguri materiale mari. Iar daca cineva vrea sa faca treaba, nu prea e lasat de ceilalti pentru ca apare imediat discrepanta. Sigur, nu toti au sufletul putred. Sunt si exceptii izolate. Spre exemplu, Sibiul, cel putin din ce am vazut cu ochii mei, a avut parte de multe fonduri, dar acolo chiar s-au facut multe. Asta da gospodarie. Adica bagi mana pana la umar in sacul cu bani publici, dar sa si lasi ceva in urma. Ori, cei mai multi nu au masura.
Vedeti voi, timpurile difera mult de atunci, din 1848. Atunci luptam pentru o eliberare teritoriala fata de niste straini. Simbolistica era puternica si materiala. Dusmanii erau vazuti ca un corp strain, iar obiectivele pentru care luptam erau concrete, independenta teritoriala, decizionala, administrativa, etc. Astazi, avem tot o forma de sclavie. Suntem sclavii unui sistem si ai unei mentalitati mostenite si adancite de comunism. Deci “lanturile” nu mai sunt concrete, palpabile. Doar ca le simtim zi de zi. Iar dusmanii nu mai sunt externi. Noi suntem dusmanii nostri. Noi insine ne subjugam si ne furam pe noi. Pentru asta cred ca avem nevoie de o alta forma de revolutie. Poate una la fel de perfida ca sistemul impotriva caruia trebuie sa lupte.

“Nu lasa moartea sa te gaseasca stand!”

The middle thirty years of the nineteenth century were a revolutionary time, and one longs for a taste of that in the poetry — for a poem that goes beyond piecemeal criticism to denounce the entire shape of life as laid out by society.

Lucy Larcom’s “Prudence” is one such poem — one of the more devastating feminist critiques of the time. So much of the nineteenth-century women’s poetry now anthologized is subtle in its critique; persuasively so when one reads a single poem slowly. But the cumulative effect of many read quickly is the opposite. One feels engaged in a process of adjustment, with outrage muted. Anti-slavery poetry is of course an exception.

Larcom was as well prepared as any freeborn American poet to grasp the import of the ideas we now associate with 1848. She was 24 years old that magic year, and had already given up work in the Lowell mills to become a schoolteacher. She later edited the children’s magazine Our Young Folks and wrote several books in poetry and prose, including A New England Girlhood Outlined from Memory. That memoir contains a beautiful description of revolutionary desire, in the chapter entitled “Beginning to Work,” under the guise of millennialism. “The thought of it,” she writes, “was continually breaking out, like bloom and sunshine, from the stern doctrines of the period.”

1848 was the year of the Communist Manifesto, but also the Declaration at Seneca Falls. I like to think that “Prudence” (published two decades later, in 1869)  is echoing both, the first in the line “Something more has haunted Prudence” — I don’t need to say why, right? — and the second in its title, which echoes the following lines from Seneca Falls, an exact repetition of the Declaration of Independence save for the final sentence:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their duty to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of the women under this government, and such is now the necessity which constrains them to demand the equal station to which they are entitled.

In later printings, “Prudence” was called “A Little Old Girl,” but this gives away the story too quickly, as I have done too — sorry!— with this prefatory note. Without that preparation, you would think, stopping at stanza one, that the poem is a pedagogical exercise intended to prepare young girls for marriage. Exactly the sort of thing that Larcom condemns.  In retrospect, one can see that she has given an inkling of her intention in line four, in the unromantic activity of sweeping floors, but we are so trained to read knitting and baking — also mentioned — as good things, that it takes the killer eighth line to make us see where we are. Or rather, where Prudence is: in a world of incessant labor undertaken for men. As we come to learn, this imprisonment is maintained by women; could not be maintained without them.

It is the entirety of the girl’s context that demands change, not just her immediate predicament, and this is what makes Larcom’s poem revolutionary. Imagine “Prudence” in one of McGuffey’s Readers, or read aloud in a classroom today:

Prudence

What is this round world to Prudence,
With her round, black, restless eyes,
But a world for knitting stockings,
Sweeping floors, and baking pies?

’Tis a world that women work in,
Sewing long seams, stitch by stitch:
Barns for hay, and chests for linen; —
’Tis a world where men grow rich.

Ten years old is little Prudence;
Ten years older still she seems,
With her busy eyes and fingers,
With her grown-up thoughts and schemes.

Sunset is the time for candles;
Cows are milked at fall of dew;
Beans will grow, and melons ripen,
When the summer skies are blue.

Is there more than work in living?
Yes; a child must go to school,
And to meeting every Sunday;
Not a heathen be, or fool.

Something more has haunted Prudence
In the song of bird and bee,
In the low wind’s dreamy whisper
Through the light-leaved poplar-tree.

Something lingers, bends above her,
Leaning at the mossy well;
Some sweet murmur from the meadows;
On the air some gentle spell.

But she will not stop to listen: —
Maybe there are witches yet!
So she runs away from beauty;
Tries its presence to forget.

’Tis the way her mother taught her;
Prudence is not much to blame.
Work is good for child or woman;
Childhood’s jailer, — ’tis a shame!

Gravely at the romping children
Their grave heads the gossips shake;
Saying, with a smile for Prudence,
“What a good wife she will make!”