The weekend in April that A24 Studio’s Civil War came out I decided to go down to Stones River National Battlefield (if the South had won it would be called Murfreesboro Battlefield) in northern Tennessee and contemplate what ‘civil war’ really was.
one is Thomas Jefferson’s suggestion of ‘a little rebellion now and then’ as an aspect of the historical context for the 2d civil war (I agree with your numbering)…. and keeping in mind the difference between ‘rebellion’ and ‘revolution’, as the rebel barons expressed in the middle ages: they were not in revolt against but rather resisting monarchical pretensions. [I briefly discuss this in my book, citing Luke Sunderland, Rebel Barons: Resisting Royal Power in Medieval Culture (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017)]
two is a book suggestion: my friend Phoebe Sheldon uncovered a cache of letters held in her family for generations and discovered what seems an eyewitness account of Stonewall Jackson’s death. I won’t spoil the story, but here’s the book: Rufus: A Boy’s Extraordinary Experiences in the Civil War — http://www.brookhollowpress.org/publications/rufus/
OCR of screenshot excerpts from Chapter Two, "Revolt":
{footnote} I take inspiration here from Julia Kristeva, who, by tracking the historical development of the terms revolt and ‘revolution’, shows that the two were not linked in their modern political senses until the eighteenth century. Before, both retained the sense of their Latin root volvere. to turn. In medieval thought, revolution connoted the circular movement of the planets, cycles of history, and ideas of return. Revolte evokes a movement from order to chaos but then back to the same order (Sens et non-sens de la revolte, pp. 6-8; on Kristevas concept of revolt, see Sunderland, ‘The Art of Revolt’).
The tendency to see all collective expressions of discontent as steps towards revolution owes much to Marx. Foucault therefore argues that insurrection is often confused with revolutionary aims; hence the value of uprisings as an end in themselves is lost to view (‘Inutile de se soulever?’ , p. 791).
I will argue that the _chansons de geste_ provide a literary space for thinking through the difficult yet vital task of revolt, and that they thus provide a rival discourse to medieval political theory: against the latter's moral imperative to know your place, they assert a moral imperative to rebel. In this, I go against teleological accounts of
rising royal power, and against William Calins view of the _chanson de geste_ as ‘an
early form of _Bildungsroman_, where the feisty baron gradually learns his place.
The epics crackle with tension between barons and the king. Rebel heroes are more
numerous and popular than loyal ones. Even the ultimate company man, Roland,....
My argument in this chapter is that this represents a misunderstanding
of the aims of baronial revolt. The rebel baron _chansons de geste_ teach the nobles not
just to rebel, but how to rebel: they argue that particular types of rebellious action,
under specific circumstances, do not equal treason. Though they are invested in
hierarchy and monarchy, the epics share with political theorists the view of royal
courts as places of intrigue, betrayal, scandal and the fear that untrammelled royal
powers will inevitably become tyranny. They think that political power will always
need a moral corrective. However, rather than ethical and legal learning, it is violent
aristocratic opposition that will provide this fail-safe mechanism. As well as
setting out modes of rebellion, the _chansons de geste_ examine ways in which compromises and settlements can be reached, via rites of gift-giving and mercy. They
envisage politics as a movement between opposition and reconciliation, rather
than in terms of rigid structures of hierarchical differentiation.
Thanks Peter. Fascinating. Will have some essays coming out in December where I mostly seek to revive the medieval conception of revolution. Can’t say I’m opposed to a good revolt now and then. Interesting how much ideas tend to feed into one another around here.
Hmmm.... a lot to ponder there. My sense is that the French Revolution was an example of nobility just below the royalty rebelling and, in this case, overturning the old order (although there was a lot more to it than that). I don't know if I'm totally off base ... just a vague sort of impression I've gotten through various readings.
In this case, and in the case I believe of the revolutions of the Americas, it is unclear whether the new order that was established was better than the old.
I've been really interested in the work of Mees Baaijen lately (you can find him here on Substack and on Winter Oak Press). He posits that the money power that began to gain influence first in Venice and Genoa (and by the way, this ties in a lot to the conquest of the Americas) was able to establish proxies that it could control--remote control--the first prominent one being Spain. But that moreover this power, after European colonies were established all over the world, proceeded some time later to incite revolutions and independence--to the end of establishing nation states with no allegiance to monarchy--but then to continue to rule those new states through finance. So these revolutions, while weakening European empires, effected a new order--novus ordum mundi.
In other words, the money power which began in Venice and Genoa, then Holland, then Britain (and later the United States) was able to manipulate revolutions to its own ends.
Later, in Europe and Asia in the 20th century, the same money power broke down the old, stalwart empires (Prussia, Russia, Japan, China) through various means, not least through Marxist revolution which you mention.
I hope to dedicate a few posts to Mees Baaijen's work in the near future.
-----
But getting back to "rebellion" vs "revolution... I definitely think we need to have a healthy, rebellious attitude and the willingness to stand against tyranny, preferably before tyranny gets the upper hand. Certainly this means not complying with senseless mandates and encouraging others not to comply or to be duped... but what does it mean beyond that? What do you see as being needed/helpful?
I am not familiar with Baaijen. I look forward to learning.
Further thought on money power: the kings of old had trouble persuading parliaments to fund wars. They turned to the big banking families for loans. The ‘sovereign debt’ this created put the debtor king (dom) in the hands of the creditor bank family.
Consider the following quotes from Henry Carter Adams, "Public Debts: An Essay in the Science of Finance" (1887):
“When a responsible government desires to borrow money it must divest itself for the time being of all sovereign powers, and come before its subjects as a private corporation. It must bargain with those who have money to lend, and satisfy them as to questions of payment and security. From this it follows that a successful attempt to establish the borrowing system implies two things:
1. That a money market should have been previously established.
2. That there should be found, either in the structure of the government or in its actual management, a guarantee against repudiation.
***
The broad theory of constitutional liberty is that the people have the right to govern themselves; but the historical fact is that, in the attempt to realize this theory, the actual control of public affairs has fallen into the hands of those who possess property.
It follows from this that when property-owners lend to the government, they lend to a corporation controlled by themselves. The confidence which they repose in government does not rest upon sentiment or patriotism, nor does it show greater integrity on the part of people now than in former times; its simple interpretation is that the possessing classes have made their conception of rights and liberty the efficient idea of modern times, and that in some way the moneyed interest has captured the machinery of government.”
The confidence which they repose in government does not rest upon sentiment or patriotism, nor does it show greater integrity on the part of people now than in former times; its simple interpretation is that the possessing classes have made their conception of rights and liberty the efficient idea of modern times, and that in some way the moneyed interest has captured the machinery of government.”
Two things more:
one is Thomas Jefferson’s suggestion of ‘a little rebellion now and then’ as an aspect of the historical context for the 2d civil war (I agree with your numbering)…. and keeping in mind the difference between ‘rebellion’ and ‘revolution’, as the rebel barons expressed in the middle ages: they were not in revolt against but rather resisting monarchical pretensions. [I briefly discuss this in my book, citing Luke Sunderland, Rebel Barons: Resisting Royal Power in Medieval Culture (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017)]
two is a book suggestion: my friend Phoebe Sheldon uncovered a cache of letters held in her family for generations and discovered what seems an eyewitness account of Stonewall Jackson’s death. I won’t spoil the story, but here’s the book: Rufus: A Boy’s Extraordinary Experiences in the Civil War — http://www.brookhollowpress.org/publications/rufus/
Thanks for the Jeffersonian ruminations. Have ordered the ‘Rufus’ book: thanks much.
Interesting about "rebellon" vs. "revolt". Can you elaborate a little more?
See Luke Sunderland's Rebel Barons at Internet Archive: https://archive.org/details/rebelbaronsresis0000sund/mode/1up
OCR of screenshot excerpts from Chapter Two, "Revolt":
{footnote} I take inspiration here from Julia Kristeva, who, by tracking the historical development of the terms revolt and ‘revolution’, shows that the two were not linked in their modern political senses until the eighteenth century. Before, both retained the sense of their Latin root volvere. to turn. In medieval thought, revolution connoted the circular movement of the planets, cycles of history, and ideas of return. Revolte evokes a movement from order to chaos but then back to the same order (Sens et non-sens de la revolte, pp. 6-8; on Kristevas concept of revolt, see Sunderland, ‘The Art of Revolt’).
The tendency to see all collective expressions of discontent as steps towards revolution owes much to Marx. Foucault therefore argues that insurrection is often confused with revolutionary aims; hence the value of uprisings as an end in themselves is lost to view (‘Inutile de se soulever?’ , p. 791).
I will argue that the _chansons de geste_ provide a literary space for thinking through the difficult yet vital task of revolt, and that they thus provide a rival discourse to medieval political theory: against the latter's moral imperative to know your place, they assert a moral imperative to rebel. In this, I go against teleological accounts of
rising royal power, and against William Calins view of the _chanson de geste_ as ‘an
early form of _Bildungsroman_, where the feisty baron gradually learns his place.
The epics crackle with tension between barons and the king. Rebel heroes are more
numerous and popular than loyal ones. Even the ultimate company man, Roland,....
My argument in this chapter is that this represents a misunderstanding
of the aims of baronial revolt. The rebel baron _chansons de geste_ teach the nobles not
just to rebel, but how to rebel: they argue that particular types of rebellious action,
under specific circumstances, do not equal treason. Though they are invested in
hierarchy and monarchy, the epics share with political theorists the view of royal
courts as places of intrigue, betrayal, scandal and the fear that untrammelled royal
powers will inevitably become tyranny. They think that political power will always
need a moral corrective. However, rather than ethical and legal learning, it is violent
aristocratic opposition that will provide this fail-safe mechanism. As well as
setting out modes of rebellion, the _chansons de geste_ examine ways in which compromises and settlements can be reached, via rites of gift-giving and mercy. They
envisage politics as a movement between opposition and reconciliation, rather
than in terms of rigid structures of hierarchical differentiation.
Thanks Peter. Fascinating. Will have some essays coming out in December where I mostly seek to revive the medieval conception of revolution. Can’t say I’m opposed to a good revolt now and then. Interesting how much ideas tend to feed into one another around here.
Hmmm.... a lot to ponder there. My sense is that the French Revolution was an example of nobility just below the royalty rebelling and, in this case, overturning the old order (although there was a lot more to it than that). I don't know if I'm totally off base ... just a vague sort of impression I've gotten through various readings.
In this case, and in the case I believe of the revolutions of the Americas, it is unclear whether the new order that was established was better than the old.
I've been really interested in the work of Mees Baaijen lately (you can find him here on Substack and on Winter Oak Press). He posits that the money power that began to gain influence first in Venice and Genoa (and by the way, this ties in a lot to the conquest of the Americas) was able to establish proxies that it could control--remote control--the first prominent one being Spain. But that moreover this power, after European colonies were established all over the world, proceeded some time later to incite revolutions and independence--to the end of establishing nation states with no allegiance to monarchy--but then to continue to rule those new states through finance. So these revolutions, while weakening European empires, effected a new order--novus ordum mundi.
In other words, the money power which began in Venice and Genoa, then Holland, then Britain (and later the United States) was able to manipulate revolutions to its own ends.
Later, in Europe and Asia in the 20th century, the same money power broke down the old, stalwart empires (Prussia, Russia, Japan, China) through various means, not least through Marxist revolution which you mention.
I hope to dedicate a few posts to Mees Baaijen's work in the near future.
-----
But getting back to "rebellion" vs "revolution... I definitely think we need to have a healthy, rebellious attitude and the willingness to stand against tyranny, preferably before tyranny gets the upper hand. Certainly this means not complying with senseless mandates and encouraging others not to comply or to be duped... but what does it mean beyond that? What do you see as being needed/helpful?
I am not familiar with Baaijen. I look forward to learning.
Further thought on money power: the kings of old had trouble persuading parliaments to fund wars. They turned to the big banking families for loans. The ‘sovereign debt’ this created put the debtor king (dom) in the hands of the creditor bank family.
Consider the following quotes from Henry Carter Adams, "Public Debts: An Essay in the Science of Finance" (1887):
“When a responsible government desires to borrow money it must divest itself for the time being of all sovereign powers, and come before its subjects as a private corporation. It must bargain with those who have money to lend, and satisfy them as to questions of payment and security. From this it follows that a successful attempt to establish the borrowing system implies two things:
1. That a money market should have been previously established.
2. That there should be found, either in the structure of the government or in its actual management, a guarantee against repudiation.
***
The broad theory of constitutional liberty is that the people have the right to govern themselves; but the historical fact is that, in the attempt to realize this theory, the actual control of public affairs has fallen into the hands of those who possess property.
It follows from this that when property-owners lend to the government, they lend to a corporation controlled by themselves. The confidence which they repose in government does not rest upon sentiment or patriotism, nor does it show greater integrity on the part of people now than in former times; its simple interpretation is that the possessing classes have made their conception of rights and liberty the efficient idea of modern times, and that in some way the moneyed interest has captured the machinery of government.”
[pp. 7, 9]
full text in archive:
https://archive.org/details/publicdebtsessay0000henr/mode/1up
Thanks. I posted your comment in Notes.
rest of quote and link:
The confidence which they repose in government does not rest upon sentiment or patriotism, nor does it show greater integrity on the part of people now than in former times; its simple interpretation is that the possessing classes have made their conception of rights and liberty the efficient idea of modern times, and that in some way the moneyed interest has captured the machinery of government.”
https://archive.org/details/publicdebtsessay0000henr/mode/1up
Thanks for this very thoughtful commentary and detailed look at a single battle!
I’ll have more to say when I get to my laptop.
Thanks Peter. Interested to hear what you have to say.