Chapter 3 The Inescapable Compromise and One Country, Two Systems

Brother Lu: Hello! Letter received, thank you!You said in your letter that you were really puzzled by the question I mentioned and that you were waiting for my next letter.I will continue to write down. The birth of the United States was essentially the result of this land being cultivated for 150 years, gradually maturing and beginning to be cleared.Some of the people who live here are no longer just caught up in compiling Lawtonian writings for a living.According to legend, it was compiled by Dai Sheng in the Western Han Dynasty, and the current edition is annotated by Zheng Xuan in the Eastern Han Dynasty. They began to ask themselves, why did they come here after all the hardships?What exactly do you want?

In fact, this problem is not only their problem, but also the problem of today's generations of new immigrants.In the United States today, you can meet immigrants with relatively poor living conditions but with a peaceful mind; you can also meet immigrants with relatively better conditions but complaining.The reason is that when they first came to this land, what they sought was different. Those colonial immigrants before independence finally realized that the British dynasty that ruled them for a long time ignored their basic needs.This demand is clearly written on their banner demanding independence, which is "the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".You must have discovered that this introspection is actually another reflection on the basic problem of human beings, that is, "human nature".

The key point is that they logically deduce a basic truth, that is, the basic rights of people they pursue must be based on a scientific Marxist French Althusser (Louis Althusser, that is, "everyone lives And equality". At this time, they realized that what they wanted to clean up and liquidate seemed to be more than just the British dynasty. In front of them, the question that I mentioned to you, Maya Angelou, the black American poetess of today clearly arises: Do people need to liberate themselves?Does man need to liberate others?Can a person liberate himself without liberating others?Can a person liberate others without liberating himself?

For these questions, of course, people at that time could not unanimously draw a correct conclusion.However, these problems are unavoidable.The "War of Independence" in the United States is our customary name.The English name used in American history textbooks is actually the word "American Revolution". In other words, the American Revolution was " Whether the "real revolution" or "false revolution" depends on how to deal with the issue of slavery brought about by the colonial period. Is the slogan of equal freedom a superficial article to fool the British, or a strategy formulated to drive the British away, or is it a The true ideals of the new nation to be born, the attitude to the slave question, became a touchstone.

If the United States that is about to be established allows the highest principle of "all men are created equal" to coexist with the status quo of slavery in the North American colonies, it will produce the greatest absurdity.For the northern mainstream of thought that had long thought and debated slavery, this was an intolerable ailment of colonial history.Now, the time for a breakthrough has finally arrived, and the dispute of more than a hundred years should now have a result.In the North, therefore, the settlement of slavery progressed rapidly.The slave trade had largely ceased in the North during the Revolutionary War.Even Virginia and Maryland, which belong to the South and are located at the junction of the North and the South, have always been full of contradictions, also legislated to stop the slave trade during the war.

Thus, in the American Revolutionary War, you can see a strange sight: a new nation, its own survival, is still on the battlefield between life and death.However, while they were fighting the British there, they were perversely stabbing themselves.Therefore, the vigorous "War of Independence" was really only half of the "American Revolution", and the other half they fell on themselves. You already know that slavery was largely abolished in northern Massachusetts and Pennsylvania during the Revolutionary War.Maybe you've also noticed that in a difficult war situation, it's not a good time to sit down and think and sort yourself out.The main contradiction at that time was undoubtedly independence.Before the war, the situation was very tense.In the war, there are even more guns pressing in front of you.Therefore, it is not easy for the moral issue of slavery, which is not directly related to the War of Independence itself, to be raised based on an ideal and to start substantive steps.

Not long after the war ended, the northern states first enacted legislation to prohibit the slave trade, and then began to end slavery in the colonial period. With the post-war reconstruction, this cleanup was basically over in most areas. However, this still doesn't answer your question, why did slavery in the United States drag on for decades and even lead to a Civil War?It is the special circumstances in which the United States is very different from other countries that make the problem far more complicated than you might think. In the early days of the founding of the United States, on the issue of slavery, it can be said that two mouse droppings ruined a pot of soup.What's going on here?

Because among the newly born thirteen states in the United States, two states are actually far behind the mainstream of American thought and history. Although they cannot oppose the abolition of slavery in principle, they always try to extend it as long as possible. The longevity of slavery to preserve their interests.Between "benefit" and "righteousness", they chose "benefit".These two states are Georgia and South Carolina. Georgia and South Carolina, those are two very special places.Even today, when transportation and communication in the United States are highly developed, you can still find very conservative small towns there.They appreciate their traditional values ​​and resist new things almost instinctively.Not only is it difficult to accept foreign cultures from other countries, but also the fashionable northerners.Not long ago, we were in a small southern town and found a sticker on a car saying, "Since the north is so good, why don't you move back to live!" We couldn't help but laugh.

As I mentioned earlier, the composition of immigrants in a colony played an almost decisive role in forming the style of the place. Then, who were the sources of immigrants in these two colonies? The original immigrants to South Carolina were mainly from an island country called Barbados in the West Indies.The West Indies were also a British colony at the time.This region bore the brunt of the slave trade boom, so much so that many slaves in North America were bought "second-hand" from the West Indies.Barbados' slave trade from Africa has reached such an extent that in 1980, its population consisted of 91 percent blacks and only 4 percent whites.

In Barbados, although the proportion of blacks and whites was not as disparate as it was in 1980, the whites there were used to importing blacks on a large scale and without restraint for planting labor, and they were used to controlling a large number of black slaves that greatly outnumbered themselves.Under such circumstances, severe laws of punishment to deter slaves were almost inevitable. South Carolina was developed relatively late.Its climate and conditions are very suitable for agricultural cultivation similar to Barbados.Its development was actually the result of a planned expansion into North America by some ambitious white men in Barbados.Therefore, when they "developed over", they also moved almost intact a set of "Barbados model" unprecedented in North America.As a result, here is the only colony in North America where the proportion of blacks is much higher than that of whites.In the early days of development in 1680, the proportion of whites in South Carolina was still about 83%. Thirty-three percent, the number of blacks is twice that of whites.

It is also worth noting the fact that, in any of the British colonies in North America, slaveholders have always been in the minority among the whites.Thus, the ratio of white slaveholders to black slaves in South Carolina was actually more disparate than the population ratio.So, under the anxiety of being unmanageable, in 1696, South Carolina passed an almost replica of the Barbados slave law of 1688. The viewpoint of this slave law was also unheard of in North America at that time.The law held that slaves were "savage, wanton, and ferocious" and "innately inclined to riot, robbery, and brutality."Therefore, there are also very cruel corporal punishment regulations in this law.The pattern of slave management formed in this way, not to mention the British colonies in the north, even in Virginia, which also belongs to the south, sounds shocking. Even in the same period of slavery, the conditions of slaves were very different.Before the establishment of the United States, in New England and New York, the treatment of blacks was no different from ordinary servants and farm workers. In Pennsylvania and New Jersey, it was already equivalent to mild serfdom. Even in Maryland and Virginia, which are at the border of the North and the South, It is also similar to a family hierarchy.The state of slavery in South Carolina was undoubtedly quite abrupt in North America. South Carolina is relatively closed.It seldom has a strong legal cultural tradition inherited from Britain like other colonies, and it is basically ruled by lords.It has few decent cities except Charleston, which developed by importing slaves.In the first nearly one hundred years, the proceedings of the entire colony were handed over to a "commander of the gendarmerie", who had the final say.This is unimaginable for other North American colonies that follow the mature laws of the United Kingdom. Recently, we went to Charleston, South Carolina.It is one of the first five cities in North America. It is located on the Atlantic Ocean and has a very beautiful seaside.Even today, it is still not a big city.It is full of various historical sites and is very charming.However, whether we stand by the sea or walk in its streets, we cannot forget the fact that one-third of all the slaves sold to North America landed here.It was also one of the last two major ports that insisted on importing slaves after the birth of the United States.The other, which I mentioned earlier, is the port city in Georgia where we spent New Year's Day this year, Sevanna. So it was no accident that the Civil War ended in Charleston. So what about Georgia?It is a side-by-side neighbor to the west of South Carolina.The barrier-like Appalachian Mountains in northern Georgia, under the traffic conditions at the time, almost completely cut off its connection with the British colonies in the north. The dividing line between it and South Carolina is a long river. Savannah River. Compared with the north, Georgia's development experience and immigration sources are a very different story. The development of Georgia was one hundred and ten years later than the pioneers of Protestant immigrants who came to New England on the "Mayflower".It was carefully arranged by the United Kingdom, and it was an immigration plan planned like the "military reclamation farm" at the beginning.The leader of this plan is a general named Oglathorpe.In Georgia today, you can now and then come across a street named after him, or accidentally bump into one of his statues.He himself seems to be an impeccable good man, putting aside his good life in England, but he wholeheartedly wants to come to this new continent that has been developed for more than a hundred years, find a piece of "wasteland", and start a career. So what was the "cause" General Oglathorpe was looking for?It's nothing short of a charity.He wants to open up a "poor man's paradise" here.If this business is successful, it can achieve the effect of killing two birds with one stone.On the one hand, it is beneficial to Britain. You can see from a slogan at the time: "Send all the poor away, and Britain will be richer."By now, you must have guessed that Georgia's immigrant caravan is "Britain's poor." You still only guessed half right. The selection conditions were not only the poor, but also the most "poor" debtors who had no means of livelihood in the UK.At the same time, the applicant's behavior must not be deviant in any way, and his thoughts must not be fanciful, otherwise, he will not meet the conditions for entering this "model farm".Therefore, their average education level is extremely low. However, these Georgia immigrants encountered rare good luck in the history of North American pioneering, and did not experience the hunger and cold like other immigrant pioneers at all.Under the influence of General Oglathorpe, they were the full attention of British charities from the beginning, and their lives were taken care of everywhere. Looking at the long ration lists they got, even today I seem to be envy them.Even if you don't get anything, relying on these rations, you can live without worrying about food and clothing.This "model farm" has almost everything considered and arranged for them. However, they also lost the most fundamental things of other colonial immigrants.Their lives are passive.Once there, they have to accept many of the ethics of a "new life".For example, prohibition of alcohol, prohibition of land sales, and so on.They cannot even decide what crops to plant in the field. Georgia is also unique in its handling of slavery.Immigrants also have no initiative on this issue.General Oglathorpe enforced the prohibition of slavery from the outset, mainly out of administrative considerations. However, the whole of Georgia is a large, vast forest.Under the strong summer sun, trees, shrubs and weeds all grow like crazy.Almost every family is at a loss as to what to do with their allotted fifty acres of woodland overgrown with wild plants.Without labor, there would be no crops.Therefore, under the circumstances at that time, looking at the black slaves all over the land in South Carolina, the only neighbor, the local immigrants have always been indignant about the regulations that prohibit slavery. All this, combined with the passive state of life and the low level of education of the immigrants themselves, soon leads to a vicious circle of poverty and disadvantage as soon as rations are reduced.Much like South Carolina, the tyranny of management also leads to the tyranny of the judiciary.As a result, Georgia became a most hopeless colony, and immigrants fled. In order to persist in this "model" utopian fantasy, the British mainland also "transfused blood" to Georgia several times, but to no avail. In 1750, the local governing body began to back down on the slave issue, and two years later, in 1752, they finally abandoned the utopia and decided to quit the administration and let it run its course. At this time, the War of Independence was only twenty-five years away.In the past twenty-five years, Georgia has developed slowly on a very thin foundation. Five years before the War of Independence, in a huge and impoverished land with a total population of less than 10,000, slaves developed rapidly from scratch. accounted for roughly one-third of the population. Therefore, based on the overall level of immigration in Georgia, it is impossible to reflect on the slave issue at all.They have been holding back for decades, and finally allowed slavery, and had some hope of turning around and getting rich. It didn't take long before the War of Independence broke out.The inexplicable northerners want to say something about not being allowed to keep slaves, and nothing can be done! These two extreme southern states juxtaposed geographically have not had a single interesting figure in the history of North American thought development for a long time.In this way, it is even more impossible to communicate with other colonies. Before the War of Independence, the thirteen colonies had always lived their own lives, and the North and these two extreme southern colonies were geographically separated by the milder Virginia and North Carolina, so there was no communication . On the one hand, they were originally independent colonies, just like independent countries; on the other hand, they did not have any modern means of transportation and communication.The main means of transportation is the horse, but the road is not good.For a long time, there was not even a post office here.Five years before the start of the American Revolutionary War, the Postal Service was just beginning to be established.But postmen also rode horses, wading across rivers and mountains along winding paths.It takes two weeks of hard work to send a letter from New York to Boston, also in the north, let alone to the far south. At that time, for those northern colonies whose political systems and ideas were quite mature, their impressions of South Carolina and Georgia were almost like the South American countries of Ecuador and Guatemala in the impressions of Americans today.I know there is such a thing, but it is vague, and I don't know how to describe it.In this case, no matter how great the difference is between the North and the South, it is impossible to conflict with each other, because they do not meet each other at all. Therefore, when the event of independence from Britain brought together the representatives of the thirteen colonies in North America, it was the first real encounter between the north and the south of the British colonies in North America.At the beginning, I just heard that there were a group of people who wanted to be independent in each colony, so I thought that everyone could unite and work together.But when they really encountered each other, they realized that there was such a big distance between them. Yes, they all have to be independent.However, the goals are quite different. As you already know, as the main force of the United States later, "independence" originated from a higher humanitarian goal, which is an "American Revolution".For them, if "equality and freedom" is not an ideal that everyone can pursue, and if a system cannot be established to ensure its realization, then this new country that is about to be born will have no meaning. As for the conservative forces represented by the two extreme southern states, they cannot theoretically compete with the "naive Yankees", but in their hearts, their "independence" is practical.That is, the British were in charge before, but in the future they can be in charge.At the time, on the one hand, they did not want to give up their economic interests supported by slavery.For them, economic development is the top priority.On the other hand, when these enslaved subjects were "blacks," their guilt about slavery was greatly reduced.Why do you say this way? I think it is necessary to take a serious look at the "racial discrimination issue" entangled in "American slavery" here. More than 300 years ago, when blacks first appeared in North America, racial discrimination was very common.Here, I think it is necessary to break some fixed concepts of "racial discrimination". The word "discrimination" means "different treatment" in English, and "racial discrimination" means "different treatment" on racial issues.It is produced by difference.In fact, in the beginning, when human races met, it was very natural and very easy to happen.Only when human beings experience long-term coexistence under rational thinking can it be possible to truly overcome this psychological barrier and treat "racial differences" with a normal mind.To this day, this is still a topic that all nations in the world must take seriously. And whites and blacks are precisely the two groups with the greatest contrast.Three hundred years ago, when they met in North America, not only would they startle each other outwardly, but they would also have a strong psychological discomfort. Coupled with their cultural differences, in the early days of their relationship, they would be It is natural to have a "discriminatory" response.It is not normal to say that you can get along with each other without thinking about it, and you are as close as brothers.Maybe you don't agree with me on this statement.Coincidentally, I recently saw a Chinese here introduce Kang Youwei's "Book of Great Harmony", and there is a passage talking about Kang Youwei's reaction when he first met a black person in "Book of Great Harmony".Maybe it can be used as a "circumstantial evidence". You also know that Kang Youwei was one of the most enlightened people among the Chinese in the late Qing Dynasty who could accept new ideas.At that time, it can be said that he was a thought pioneer who had books and opinions, and dared to act.His "Book of Great Harmony" has been written since 1884, and it was completed at the beginning of this century, more than 100 years after the independence of the United States, and almost 20 years after the "Civil War" was fought.In the "Book of Datong", he vigorously advocated a "Great Harmony Society" where "there is no country, no emperor, everyone is equal, and the world is the same." He wrote with confidence and spoke with great intensity. However, when he first met black Kang Youwei, who was unprepared, was obviously at a loss for a while. He couldn't imagine that such a "kind of people" could be included in his "Great Harmony World". He described black people like this, "However, the body of a black person is not smelly.... Therefore, in the world of Datong, white people and yellow people can be equal. Its jaws are like a pig's, its eyes are like a cow's, its chest is full of hair, its hands and feet are black, its stupid like a sheep's hog, and it's scary to look at it." As a result, Kang Youwei, who advocated "everyone is equal," actually came up with a more terrible solution than slavery for the blacks who could not be tolerated by the "Great Harmony World". For those who are sick, the healers drink the medicine that kills offspring, so as to stop their offspring.” According to this passage, we can completely define Kang Youwei, who was stunned and at a loss in front of black people, as a genocidal fascist according to our standards today, and denounce his hypocrisy of "Datong World".But I think, in fact, the unlucky Kang Youwei was just frightened after being shocked when he saw an unexpected "strange race" for the first time.In his heart, he probably positioned black people as a kind of "monster" between humans and apes, so he couldn't imagine how to "coexist on an equal footing" with them. North America has in fact gone down the exact same path.In such cases, rationality plays a very important role.And the level of education, including religious education, often plays an important role in promoting the depth of people's rationality. Regarding the issue of "racial discrimination", we will have a lot of discussions in the future.Let's go back to before the independence of the United States, the first time the thirteen colonies came together, and the first encounter between the North and the South... You may have another question, that is, why did I say that on the issue of slavery in the United States, it was two rat droppings that ruined a pot of soup?Why is it said that the two states juxtaposed at the southernmost ends of the thirteen colonies at that time became the "curse" of the slavery problem in the United States? Didn't "South" also include several other colonies?You are right to ask. Before the independence of the United States, the South also included the three colonies of Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina.However, the attitudes of these three colonies to the slave question were far less extreme. For example, after the independence of the United States, the three southern colonies all took the first step to solve the slave problem, stopped the slave trade, and tried to solve this problem step by step.Half of them later even joined the northern camp, such as Maryland. North Carolina has always been heavily influenced by Virginia.Virginia, at the junction of the North and the South, has become a tearing point of different ideas between the North and the South, and often suffers from it.On the final settlement of the slave issue, there were fierce contradictions and internal debates from beginning to end, which even led to its own split.Half of Virginia later resolutely joined the camp of the North and became today's West Virginia. Therefore, if there were no southern colonies with two extremes, I believe that the United States after independence would get rid of the problem of slavery left over from the British colonial period relatively quickly.However, due to the existence of an extreme south, history has left a thorny problem for this new country that is about to be born, and it can even be said that it has left a time bomb for 80 years, until the Civil War 80 years later. , it exploded. From the focus of contradictions in Virginia, it can best reflect the conflict about the slavery issue when the United States was born. Virginia is a very special land.Its special lies not only in its special geographical location in the gap between the north and the south, but also in the characteristics of its immigrant settlers. Of course, in Virginia, as in other states, there are still a large number of ordinary immigrants who are extremely poor.But the group of immigrants who are the spiritual leader of this land is a group of nobles who fled during the political turmoil in Britain.Many were subordinates of the beheaded King Charles I.As a result, the aristocratic style of British gentlemen also affected their attitudes towards slavery.On the one hand, they are very accustomed to, and even appreciate, the strict hierarchy formed by masters and domestic slaves.On the other hand, their good education makes it impossible for them to avoid thinking about "human nature".Therefore, the discussion about slavery never stops here.The debate is the most intense, with great ups and downs. The real development of Virginia was decades later than that of the North.In the early days of the slave trade, there was also a hesitation here.From today's perspective, this is hardly an objection, and even seems absurd.Because this voice from Virginia questioned not whether slaves should be used, but where to buy slaves. There were two different sources of slaves in North America at the time.Simply put, it is the difference between "first-hand goods" and "second-hand goods".Those that come directly from Africa are "first-hand", and those that come from South America and the West Indies are "second-hand".Some people in Virginia objected to the direct import of slaves from Africa, and they proposed to import only "second-hand" slaves.why? Isn't "first-hand goods" cheaper? This is the remnant conscience in their hearts that has not been blown away by the wind and dust of the desert.In the depths of their hearts, they are blocked in front of the "moral threshold" that "turns a free man into a slave".The reality of the New World made these Virginia opponents know that they were powerless to change the trend of importing slaves, so they proposed to import "second-hand slaves" only indirectly from other places.In this way, at least they did not directly participate in the crime of turning a free man into a slave, but only moved a black man who had become a slave to a place of labor. So why do we still say that such a strange question of where slaves were bought is also one of the heralds of anti-slavery?People nowadays even have every reason to accuse this practice of being ridiculous, hypocritical, and nothing more than ostrich-style self-deception.However, I feel that I cannot underestimate the "English gentleman's sense of honor" that survived the difficult early days of pioneering.Because under the threat of external torrents, some people finally hesitated before the moral threshold.They still have some sense of shame in the face of temptation.It is the shame and rationality retained in this point that gradually developed and gave birth to a group of thinkers.This made Virginia not only a frontier for southern change, but also a group of thinkers in Virginia who expressed the essence of northern thought. In 1776, the second year of the "War of Independence" and the eve of the adoption of the "Declaration of Independence", in order to swear the rights of civil liberties and prepare for the declaration of independence, in Williamsburg, the capital of Virginia, the Virginia Assembly authorized George. Mason draws up a "Declaration of Rights." Don't underestimate this "Declaration of Rights", which is actually the "Bill of Rights" I mentioned to you many times, which is the predecessor of the first ten amendments to the US Constitution. Williamsburg is a very interesting historical town.It was the seat of the Governor's Mansion in colonial Virginia.Among the colonies in North America, the British Governor's government in Virginia is particularly powerful. Today, in the Governor's Mansion, you can still see walls and walls full of strange interior decorations made of exquisite guns, as if giving a powerful A small interpretation of colonial history. However, a set of British-style democratic institutions followed by Virginia is also quite sound.Walking in the small streets of Williamsburg and in the Capitol, you sometimes can't help but have the idea that maybe it is the British themselves who have taught such a rebellious "American son" by hand. The basis of Mason's argument at the beginning of this document is that "everyone is born free and independent and has natural rights", which immediately sparked four days of fierce debate among Virginia congressmen wearing wigs.One of the reasons put forward by the opposition is extremely simple. If this document is passed, which confirms that everyone is born free and has natural human rights, what will my slave do? This document is passed.However, the debate did not end there, and it expanded across North America.This time it was triggered by the Declaration of Independence. It was another thinker from Virginia who was entrusted by the then "Continental Congress" to draft the "Declaration of Independence".This is the famous Thomas Jefferson.He rented two cottages near the meeting.There are only the simplest daily necessities in the hut.Under the dim candlelight, Jefferson wrote vigorously with a quill pen, thinking like a fountain. Now that I think about it, Thomas Jefferson certainly deserves his reputation, but as an entrusted drafter, the basic ideas he expressed are shared by the founders of the United States and shared by this land. of.He not only reaffirmed the principle of "all men are created equal" at the beginning of the chapter, but also expounded in detail the anger of the founders of the United States at the Emperor's implementation of slavery in the North American colonies. This passage from Jefferson's manuscript of the United States' Declaration of Independence.It was finally deleted due to strong opposition from two extreme southern states.So, maybe you haven't read these words, it should make up for that gap. In 1776, in the manuscript of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson condemned the slave trade to North America promoted by the Emperor, launching a "cruel war against humanity. He raped the life and The right to be free, and they have never offended him. This war has deceived and coerced them, so that they either died a tragic death in transit, or were sent to the other side of the world as slaves. This war was waged shamelessly by evil forces The pirate wars of the United Kingdom were precisely the wars waged by the Christian King of Great Britain. He decided to open up a market where human beings could be bought and sold. He abused his legislative veto and used it to suppress the All legislative attempts to ban and limit this dirty business." You might think that this paragraph of condemnation of the Emperor’s slave policy in North America was just Jefferson’s improvisation when drafting the Declaration of Independence, and it did not necessarily represent the basic trend of Americans demanding independence at that time.However, this is not the case. Representatives of the thirteen colonies met once in October 1774, more than a year before Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence, and after three days of debate, passed a document boycotting trade with Great Britain .In this document, there is already a clause against the slave trade: "After December, we will no longer import and buy any slaves. After that, we will stop all slave trade. Not only will we no longer be involved in it, we will no longer trade with ships that were involved in the slave trade". Before the "Declaration of Independence", similar agreements were passed several times, and all of them were implemented.Even an extreme southern state like South Carolina tried hard to obey such a basic trend. Therefore, South Carolina also cut off trade with Georgia simply because Georgia did not abide by the prohibition of the slave trade. protocol. However, the original agreement was only an expression of dissatisfaction with the colonial policy of the British Crown, and had nothing to do with independence.When, in the summer of 1776, he finally decided to declare independence, the "Declaration of Independence" drafted by Jefferson was also submitted for discussion.At this time, the two colonies at the southern extremes finally realized that the principles of this declaration will be the fundamental principles of the new country that is about to be born. If they obey this basic trend again, their losses will no longer be gains. Less than the replenishment of new slave labor.Even slavery, on which their economy now depends, would collapse as quickly as it was happening in the North. So, when the representatives of the colonies were discussing the "Declaration of Independence" in the tall but not spacious parliament hall in Philadelphia, South Carolina and Georgia, a part of them that were incompatible with mainstream American thought, finally had a showdown.South and North are finally going head-to-head.Arguing is difficult.Because this is a debate between "virtual" and "real". The whole mainstream emphasizes the idea of ​​statehood, which South Carolina and Georgia cannot argue with.Thus, they emphasized economic development.For them, the economy is the lifeline. If they risk cutting off the lifeline for a single idea, they would rather withdraw from the "America" ​​that is still seeking "independence" and only exists on a piece of paper. It was supposed to seek "independence" and the enemy was at present, but the dispute fell on the "slave issue".The war is going on.那种紧张和危险的气氛，我们从“独立宣言”的第一次刊印中，就可以感受得到。因为在第一次印刷的“独立宣言”，就是现在存放于费城博物馆的最早版本上，你是找不到各殖民地代表的签名的。因为当时的战局还太不清楚，一旦失败，这些签名者作为“叛乱分子”，还必须躲避各殖民地当局的报复。直到战局开始明朗之后，公开发行的“独立宣言”才有了这些代表们的签名。 所以，在几天激烈的争论之后，通过的“独立宣言”是一个双方妥协的产物。他们必须以妥协达到维持这个联盟，仗才可能打胜，美国才可能诞生，历史才有可能向前走出一步，。 妥协的结果是，他们删去了具体谴责奴隶制的条文，却保存了人人生而平等，并具有天赋人权的建国原则。 我记得有一天黄昏，我们在南卡罗莱纳的港口城市查尔斯顿的街上，漫无目的地闲逛。在这样的老城里，你可以时时遇到一些钉着各种铭牌的历史遗迹。我们不断地停下来，读着一块又一块的牌子，读出一段又一段已经被淹没的历史来。后来，我们停在一幢楼房门边一块精美的铜牌前，牌子上刻着，就在这幢楼里曾经住着“独立宣言”的签署者。我几乎是本能地“哇”地叫了一声，心想这可是太了不起啦。 可是，我们马上意识到，曾经住在这幢楼里，就是当时南卡罗莱纳的代表，主要就是在他的坚持下，删去了杰弗逊起草的“独立宣言”中，有关直接谴责奴隶制的文字。为此，杰弗逊始终愤怒不已。 然而，当时大敌当前，妥协是必须的。妥协后的文本，对于极端的两个南方殖民地来说，至少解除了必须立即在他们的土地上彻底废奴的威胁；对于代表着美国主流思想的北方来说，“人人生而平等”原则的确立，就是向它的具体实现走出了关键的第一步。只要你同意了这个原则，奴隶制的结束，只是一个迟早的问题。 但是，此后建立的美国，为这一原则的实现需要经历怎样的艰难和付出多少代价， 在1776年7月6日他们宣布独立的一刻，是妥协的双方谁都没有预料到的。 位于费城的那幢尖顶的殖民时期的议会大厦，今天在美国就是大名鼎鼎的旅游观光点，独立宫。那间签署“独立宣言”的议会厅，一个个小会议桌上都铺着灰绿色的桌布，桌上还散放着一些纸和鹅毛笔。当年签署宣言的代表们虽然都已经不在了，但是想象一下当年的激辩，你还是会感觉这个议会厅显得有些拥挤。 这个议会厅的布置是十分简朴的。但是，如果在你的想象中，那些“共商革命”，声讨奴隶制，正在与英皇的军队对抗的人们，是一批衣衫洗得发白，甚至打着补丁，斗志昂扬的“革命家”，那可是大错特错了。他们都穿着最正规的礼服，按照英国的传统习惯，所有的人在这样的场合都还戴着假发。他们当时差不多都是各个殖民地的议会成员。 基于殖民地精英政治的传统，他们大多数都来自有产业，有影响的家族。在当时北美这样一个农业社会里，不论他们来自南方还是北方，在他们的家产中，最重要的组成部分之一，就是奴隶。因此，这是一个令人奇怪的，让从小熟读诸多革命理论的我们感到不可想象的一场“革命”。 在美国独立时的十三个州里，大部分州的奴隶制的废除，就是白人，富人，甚至是奴隶主们，经过理性反省，决心通过他们手中的立法权，从法律上解决黑人奴隶问题。也就是亲手通过立法程序，将自己的一份重要财产化为乌有。他们中间哪怕是最激烈地反对奴隶制的代表，都是如此。 你已经知道，美国独立之后，大部分地区的奴隶制都陆续彻底废除，经历的程序和方式却就是这样的一种非暴力的“自我革命”。 这不是我们习惯的少数职业革命家和热血青年，抛家弃产投向革命的故事。这是作为代表整个社会利益集团的立法机构，用立法的手段，仅仅为一个人性反省和道德理由而放弃自身利益的一个行为。 不管这听上去是多么地不可思议，多么地不符合我们习惯了的“革命逻辑”，可是，看到底，说白了，“美国革命”解放奴隶的部分，就是这么回事。 每每想到这里，我一方面对人类理性可能产生的力量惊讶不已，另一方面，我也觉得，这样的“革命”，如果根本没有象南卡罗莱纳和佐治亚这样的极端南方跳出来反对，如果在这些“革命者”身上找不到矛盾和反复，而是一帆风顺地就“革命成功”，反倒是要令人生疑了。 我们站在费城“独立宫”的这个议会厅的时候，它的色调给我的印象是灰色和沉重的。一丝也没有轻松的感觉。这个议会厅在美国历史上曾经负担了双重的重大使命。因为十年之后，美国的唯一一部宪法，也是在这里制定的。从整体上来说，这个宪法的通过几乎是重复了“独立宣言”的过程。它确立了自由的目标，建立了一套完善的民主制度，对公民权利从制度上作出了保障，但是，对如何消除殖民时期所遗留的奴隶制问题的具体步骤上，依然是有妥协的。 由于美国宪法本文从不修改，它是以修正案的形式来适应时间的变化的。因此，它所有的历史痕迹都没有被抹去。这样，在今天的美国宪法中，任何人都可以很容易地找到这些妥协的内容，尽管这些条文现在已经不再有任何意义。你可以看到，在向南方妥协的下面三个宪法条文里，事实承认了南方蓄奴现状的继续存在。 例如，美国宪法规定，每个州的众议员人数是按照人口比例产生的。南方如果只计自由人的话，众议员人数将大大减少。最后，达成妥协，在美国宪法的第一条第二款里，同意了南方在计产生众议员人口数量时，一个非自由人等于五分之三个自由人。收税时也按此法计算。 又例如，在宪法第一条第九款中，有一个移民条款，就是规定在1808年之前，国会不得禁止任何一州认为应准其入境的人入境。实际上这也是对南方的一个妥协。极端南方的两个州，就是在这个条款之下，争取到最后十年进口奴隶的机会。 再有，就是宪法第四条的第二款规定，凡根据一州之法应在该州服劳役者，如逃往另一州，另一州不得根据自己的法律，解除他的劳役，而必须将人交出。事实上，这就是指的南方逃往北方的逃奴。 制宪会议的历程是漫长的，时间长达整整三个多月。这三个妥协条文的产生也是极为艰难的。但是，从今天来看，制宪会议的妥协仍旧是历史的必然。 我们参观独立宫的时候，讲解员是一个瘦高个的黑人。他把孩子们都安排在第一排，一边讲一边提出一些与二百多年前的历史有关的问题。每提出一个问题，那些七八岁到十来岁的孩子，一个个高举着手争着回答，没等我们反应过来，孩子们已毫不含糊地答了出来，得到提问者一个劲儿的赞扬。 这个黑人讲解员也谈到了当时殖民地遗留的奴隶问题，以及在这个问题上“独立宣言”和制宪过程中对南方的妥协。参观结束之后，我问了他这样一个问题：对于当时对南方奴隶制度的妥协，你作为一个黑人，你是怎么看的呢？你是否为此感到气忿呢？ 他平和地回答说：“当时的奴隶制不能立即在南方废除，经济问题是一个最大的原因。同时，我也知道这不是一个简单的问题。我想，如果我完全用一个二十世纪末期的黑人的眼睛，去看待十八世纪对奴隶制的一个妥协，那是肯定会出偏差的。” 在美国，至今为止，对于这次妥协大家还是给予正面的评价。因为，正如这名黑人所说的，当时的情况是无法简单处理的。 在一百五十年的殖民时期，奴隶制已经成为各殖民地经济的一个重大支撑，北方虽然出于一个道德理念的推动，较快地纷纷自己立法废除了奴隶制。但是，北方也只有马萨诸塞和宾夕法尼亚是在独立战争中就完成这一过程的。北方的其它各地，是在独立之后通过停止进口，停止交易，然后逐步达到彻底废奴的。这个过程，个别北方州也化了几十年的时间。正因为这是一个由道德反省和理念推动的“自我革命”，因此，它不可能是摧毁性的，暴风骤雨式的，瞬息完成的。相反，它是分步骤的，是充满了妥协和矛盾的。 这种矛盾甚至反映在参与这场美国革命的最优秀的人物的身上。 我在前面提到过，地处南北交接处的弗吉尼亚就是一个充满矛盾的地方。今天谈起美国革命，这里还流传着一句这样的话，就是“华盛顿打下了一场美国革命，而杰弗逊则是思考了一场美国革命”。可见他们两人在这一段历史中的重要地位，而华盛顿和杰弗逊都是弗吉尼亚人。 你已经知道，弗吉尼亚的精神主体，是一批英国贵族移民形成的。他们在弗吉尼亚的上层形成了一种对于闲适高雅的庄园主生活的追求，常常，这种生活甚至都不是过分奢华的，但却是弗吉尼亚上层不可或缺的一种精神寄托。长期以来，家奴在这里成为一种传统。与极端的南方相比，这里逐渐温和的家奴制，其矛盾冲突远不是那么尖锐。因此，弗吉尼亚虽然很早就停止了奴隶交易，但是对于彻底废奴，不论在独立前还是独立后，一直有着激烈的争执。 杰弗逊，华盛顿等弗吉尼亚的革命者，都是激烈地主张废除奴隶制的。杰弗逊在弗吉尼亚的立法会议中，不止十次提出废奴的提议，但是都没有被通过。最终他失望地说，他只能把这个问题留给后代解决了。他的同名外孙，托玛斯.杰弗逊.伦道夫，后来也成为弗吉尼亚最积极主张废奴的议员之一。 但是，即使在他们身上，你还是可以看到巨大的矛盾。我们去过华盛顿的家，平心而论，即使不提他在独立战争中的丰功伟绩，也不谈他的美国首任总统的地位，就从一般的情况去看，华盛顿的家虽然非常大，风景很美（这在美国乡村很普遍），却是十分简朴的。他的故居只是一幢较大的全木结构的农宅。这些地是家传的，在他继承的遗产中也有一些家奴。华盛顿去世的时候，弗吉尼亚还没有立法废奴。于是他在自己的遗嘱里，解放了自己的所有奴隶。但是，在他的生前，他还是保留了这些家奴。 因为，华盛顿虽然为这个新国家奔波了一生，却并没有为自己在经济上取得额外利益。华盛顿的风格是非常乡土味儿的，对生活没有什么特别的要求。可是，如果他在生前失去他的家奴，他甚至可能再也无法维持一个简单宁静，却有着起码体面的晚年生活。因为，如果家奴们取得自由身份，他不一定再雇得起这么些仆人，为他照顾菜园和牛马。 杰弗逊从个人风格来说，与华盛顿有着很大的区别，似乎更多了一些贵族气质。他曾作为美国驻法国大使，长期住在巴黎。他还有很多业余爱好，生活品味也很高。例如，他从未学过建筑，却真刀真枪地画过五百多张建筑设计图。不仅设计了他所创建的弗吉尼亚大学的主要建筑群，还多年来一直梦想在自己的土地上，为自己设计一幢满意的住宅。他最终断断续续地真的这样做到了，他设计的屋子就座落在今天称之为“蒙迪采罗”的杰弗逊故土上。 蒙迪采罗最迷人的部分，还是弗吉尼亚丘陵起伏的自然风景。那幢住宅的设计是相当成功的，与环境非常协调，也是舒适的，但是，并不是非常大。它的规模还是适度的。这样的住宅就是在今天的美国，也是有一定普遍性的。蒙迪采罗与华盛顿故居相似的地方，就是它的地很大，就是在今天，没有十来个园林工人也是不可能照料得过来的。 杰弗逊对于建筑艺术的一份迷恋，对于建造一个蒙迪采罗的梦想，使他付出了巨大的代价。尽管这样建造一幢住宅，是今天许多人都可能实现的“美国梦”。但是杰弗逊却因此晚年负债。因为他也和华盛顿一样，一生的奔走和总统的职位，并没有为他换来额外的钱财。结果，杰弗逊不仅在生前保留了自己的家奴，去世时，他在遗嘱中也只解放了他的两名奴隶。他必须为自己的孩子多少留下一点生活的依靠。在他死后，蒙迪采罗立即被他的孩子出售抵债了。 在今天的蒙迪采罗和华盛顿故居，都向来访的参观者介绍这一段真实的故事，介绍曾经与这两个庄园有关的奴隶的情况。在蒙迪采罗的小礼品店里，有当时在这里住过的奴隶的照片制成的明信片，还有好几本研究蒙迪采罗的奴隶们的专著。没有人打算隐瞒这一段历史细节而为伟人作粉饰。对于美国人来说，历史就是历史。 在今天的美国，没有人为此而怀疑这样一批革命者在反对奴隶制时的真诚。事实上，在美国革命中，正是有了他们的思考，呼吁和努力，奴隶制才在大片的土地上立法废除。可是，不仅在这个过程中不同的地区会有冲突，不同的人会有争论，即使是在参与了美国革命的同一个人身上，你也会发现一些痛苦的矛盾，和无法超越的历史局限性。 华盛顿和杰弗逊在强烈呼吁废奴的时候，在一次次提出废奴议案的时候，他们当然知道这对于他们个人意味着什么。北方各州通过的一个个废奴法案，都会使那些立法的议员们失去曾经是自己重要的一份“财产”，甚至都大大地改变了他们的生活。他们只是无数这样的“革命者”中的一个罢了。 站在弗吉尼亚的议会厅里，他们出于人性的反省，竭力离开自己的利益，站在宗教和人性的立场上，呼吁解放奴隶。当废奴法案最终没有通过，他们回到家，回到原来的生活，更多地面对了自己的具体问题时，又留下了自己的合法奴隶。诚然，他们一向有严谨的法制概念，在没有新的立法的情况下，他们知道，任何人维持原来的蓄奴状况都是无可非议的。 但是，他们比任何人更清楚，他们完全应该以更响亮的个人行为，为自己呼吁的理想作一个推动，他们不可能不为自己家里还存在家奴这个事实，感到痛苦和羞耻。这也是华盛顿在遗嘱中解放了自己所有奴隶的原因。可是，他们没有能做得更早更彻底，确实是弗吉尼亚历史中的另一面局限了他们。 在一个纪录片中，我曾看到一名南方的黑人谈到杰弗逊的矛盾。他说，他永远不会忘记在种族隔离的时代，第一次读到杰弗逊所写的“人人生而平等”，“具有天赋权利”这样的字句，自己所感受的震撼和力量。在他后来更多地了解了一个充满矛盾的杰弗逊之后，他曾经十分遗憾。可是，他也渐渐理解了什么是历史的局限性，他依然认为，托玛斯.杰弗逊的思想为黑人的解放起了根本性的作用。 由此你可以推断，当废奴牵涉到卷入奴隶经济很深的地区时，事情就更为复杂了。在上次访问南卡罗莱纳的查尔斯顿时，我偶然读到了有关当地黑人自由民成为奴隶主的资料。 1825年9月，一个名叫南西.埃玛纽尔的查尔斯顿市的黑人自由民，租用了一个叫戴安娜的女奴，租金二点五美元一个月。1826年，一名叫海伦.英格丽的黑人混血妇女，租用一个叫莫斯利的男性奴隶，租金三点五美元一个月。同样在查尔斯顿，1841年，一个名叫贾克伯.维斯顿的自由黑人混血裁缝，在他开的裁缝铺里租用了一个叫亨利.戴梵的奴隶，第二年的一月份，就是1842年，他干脆买下了这个奴隶，花了七百美元。虽然这个购买资料在租用资料的十六年之后，但是，扣去十五年的价格上涨因素，你仍然可以发现，与租金相比，买一个奴隶的花费是相当大的。 这些资料里的主人都是自由之后的黑人。之所以我选用这样一类资料。是希望你在大致了解当时奴隶价格的同时，也能理解，在殖民地长期的奴隶制合法化之下，形成的对于奴隶的普遍概念。即使是一个普通劳动者，甚至是一个黑人，只要他是自由民，他也就有可能用毕生积蓄，去买一个奴隶。对于个人，奴隶已经是私人财产非同小可的一个部分。废奴，在当时的情况下，也就是通过法律，宣布所有这样的“财产”在顷刻之间化为乌有。在当时的社会经济状况下，在对奴隶经济依赖性越大的地区，例如在遍布着棉花稻米庄园的南方，牵扯的社会面也就更大。这就是那个黑人讲解员提到的，对南方废奴的妥协，“经济问题是一个最大的原因”的意思。 美国还有一个特殊的情况，是我们今天非常容易忽略的。也是要理解美国的历史，必须紧紧捏住一刻也不能丢掉的一个很重要的线索，那就是，这是一块分治的土地。为什么我要强调这样一个线索呢？因为这是我们非常容易中途失落的一个线索。它和我们所熟悉的国家模式太不相同了。 对于我们的文化来说，“一统天下”是每个皇上所寻求的丰功伟绩。认祖归宗则一直认到炎黄还不过瘾，非要寻根溯源到龙的头上方肯善罢甘休，这也几乎成了每个子民的祖传天性。而北美这块土地上那种离心状态，对于我们实在是匪夷所思。 在独立之前，这十三个殖民地完全相当于十三个独立的国家。在制宪会议召开时，他们所面对的建国初期的美国，其松散程度甚至更甚于今天的联合国。这种局面，也是源于这样一个“分治”的理想。 是的，对于美国人，分治不仅是一个现实，分治也是一个理想。实际上对于他们这是非常自然的。既然他们把寻求个人的自由作为一个理想，那么，分治只是这个自由理想的一个扩大版本而已。也就是说，一些自愿生活在某个州，某个城市，甚至某个社区的人们，他们当然应该有权决定自己以什么样的方式生活。因此，直至今日，美国人生活中的大量决策权仍在各州，甚至各个城市和村镇，甚至社区手中，联邦政府是无权干涉的。 但是今天的美国人，毕竟对于自己是“美国人”这一点已经相当明确了。这竟然还必须“归功于”第二次世界大战的发生。不仅是罗斯福总统在战前的新政加强了联邦政府的权力，更重要的是，珍珠港的炸弹使他们幡然醒悟，原来他们居然息息共存，属于一个共同的整体，它叫做美国。 也就是说，在此之前的漫长岁月里，大量的美国人更认为自己是“某州”这个“小国家”的公民。他们对于他们所生活的“州”这样一个邦国的认同，远远强于他们对于美国这个“联邦”的认同。这种情况在南方尤为普遍。二次大战以后，尽管这个国家的凝聚力大大加强，但是，和我们习惯了的文化相比，还是有很大的不同。 因此，正是出于对个人自由和区域分治理想的共识和尊重，美国从一开始就是一个群龙无首的国家。不仅在独立的那一天，没有一个“开国功臣”试图出来“掌控全局”，而且长达六年，甚至连总统都没有一个。出于同样的原因，美国从一开始，也就是一个善于妥协的国家。没有一个人是“权高位重”，“一言定乾坤”的。因此，从一开始，各州之间就习惯于“只有说服，没有压服”，说不服的时候，就只能由某一方作暂时的妥协了。美国基本上是在一系列的妥协之下，维持一个稳定的和循序渐进的进步的。最近，看到台湾的柏杨老先生非常精辟地说，“让步是一种能力”。那么，你可以说，美国人是从一开始就非常重视这种能力的。 然而，在奴隶问题上，北方作出妥协还有另一个重要的原因。那就是南方，甚至两个极端的南方州，南卡罗莱纳和佐治亚，也表示了他们的退让。首先，他们都承认美国的建国原则，也承认奴隶制不符合这样的原则，并且表示愿意向废奴的方向努力。他们所要求的只是更多的缓冲时间，以致于经济不要发生太大的动荡。 这样，代表着美国主流的北方，当时也很难拒绝给予南方这样的缓冲期；另一方面，他们也不认为，当时在各方面都相对落后的两个极端南方州，会成为一个很大的历史障碍。他们仍然相信人性和理性的力量，会在不久的将来在这个崇尚自由的国家全面取胜。 于是，由于这个妥协的达成，美国版的“一国两制”的局面，就事实发生了。一波波无可避免的历史浪潮，也因此在这个刚刚诞生的新国家掀起。给今天的美国人，甚至其他国家的人们，留下了一个个值得反复咀嚼的历史案例。这里面容纳了如此之多的人的心灵挣扎和感情纠葛，以致于我们今天审视这些历史脚印，依然心潮难平。 今天写得太晚了。先在这里打住吧。 wish it is good! Linda