Chapter 8 Choked bones left over from history

Brother Lu: Hello! Thanks for your letter.You said that you didn't expect the "Armstad" case to contain so much content, and you found it very interesting.But as for the stalemate in American history mentioned later in my last letter, you said that this difficult problem is not difficult to solve. Isn’t it just a Civil War to liberate slaves? This reminds me of my first visit to Bruno, an old man in his seventies in the south, when I first arrived in the United States.That day, we sat for a while, and the friend who went with me happily told the old man that she gave me an English name.As soon as Bruno's wife heard it, she said that it contained characters from the Warring States Period.Its purpose is roughly attributed to Lao Zhuang, and often to Buddha, ah, this name happens to be the same as the name of the first black student to enter a public university here.As a result, everyone naturally talked about the racial issues in the South, and even brought it all the way to the Civil War.I couldn't keep up with English at the time, so I dragged behind with half understanding.Bruno saw that I seldom spoke, maybe he was afraid of neglecting me, so he asked, have you heard of the American Civil War in China?My answer is similar to yours. I said, I have heard of it. Isn’t it the Civil War that liberated slaves?Bruno listened to my answer and said, yeah, it's just not that simple.

Bruno's words left a deep impression on me.The longer I stay here, the more I feel that no matter how convenient the means of transportation in modern society is and how close the distance between the two continents is, when trying to understand each other, there are often distances between them that are still there now. How much distance.Because one thing, one phenomenon, will be gradually simplified in the mutual transmission of distance.When it was passed to the other side, the original dinosaur had only a skeleton left.As for a historical event, it is not only washed by long-distance waves, but also washed by time. When it crosses the ocean, it is not only a bone, but also a fossil of a bone.It seems that after being simplified, it appears to be clear and easy to grasp, but the historical lessons it leaves people with flesh and blood are often lost on the way.So, I think, what I should chat with you in the letter is to make up for some missing things as much as possible.As long as you read it, you will find that it is not that simple.Even if my goal is achieved.

We still have to go back to the "bones" of the United States before the Civil War.At the time of the Constitutional Convention, few, even those who strongly opposed slavery, believed that there must be a clause compelling the states to abolish slavery immediately.Because, after reading my previous letters on the historical situation, you must also agree that this was not possible at the time.This is a historical legacy that is almost inherent to the entire colony. Its entire economy and way of life are entangled in it, and there must be a process of sorting out changes.In fact, the few colonies that abolished slavery during the War of Independence also went through a gradual process, the difference being that their process of change started earlier and more consciously.Therefore, under the circumstances at that time, it should be reasonable to ask for a buffer period.

The question is whether this buffer period should be mandated by federal legislation, or should be controlled by the states themselves according to the actual situation.At this time, there are two stages of the abolition of slavery.The first stage is to prohibit the importation of slaves, and the second stage is to completely abolish slavery.The ultimate cosmology is the "worldview". , The compromise reached was that the 20-year buffer period in the first phase would be covered by federal legislation across the board. This is the first of the three compromise provisions in the Constitution.Therefore, when the "Armstad" case happened, this compromise clause had already entered history.Then came the second stage, that is, the regulation of the grace period for the implementation of complete abolition.The compromise reached on this article is for the states to decide for themselves.Therefore, in the Constitution, there is no mandatory enforcement period for the abolition of slavery throughout the Federation.

Had it not been for the new circumstances brought about by the rapid enlargement of the Union territories, the second phase of total abolition would have been, as might be expected, left to the states gradually.Because on the eve of the Civil War, among the thirteen states when the nation was founded, there were actually only four and a half states that had not abolished slavery, but eight and a half states that gradually abolished slavery and became free states.This half is West Virginia, which was split from Virginia. Even in at least half of the four and a half southern states, there is hope that they will sort themselves out.For example, before the "Armstad" case occurred, the Virginia State Legislature had been in a heated debate.In one parliamentary vote about sixty members were in favor of the immediate abolition of slavery and about sixty against it.The remaining dozen or so members of parliament agreed to issue an anti-slavery declaration immediately, but they were afraid that the conflict would intensify, and hoped that the proposal would be postponed during conflicts.

At this time, the moral pressure on the slave states was much greater.Even if it doesn't make the few remaining slave states abolish slavery on their own.In this case, there is a very high possibility that the federal law will be enforced by normal procedures such as promoting the amendment.However, history has given the United States a "prank super". It can also be said that history has presented the United States with a difficult problem. As we already know, the doubling of the expansion of the Union made the whole situation unrecognizable. The provisions on the two specific issues of the grace period for the abolition of slavery not only did not disappear into history as scheduled, but instead emerged. So what exactly do these two provisions mean?

When the Constitution was drafted, since it was agreed to give the abolition of slavery a buffer and transitional period, there were naturally some specific issues to be resolved during this period.The first is how the population is calculated.Since there were still slaves in some states during the buffer period, there was the question of how slaves were counted in the population.Because it directly affects the direct tax revenue and the number of representatives of each state in proportion to the population.Therefore, the provision of "free population plus three-fifths of the other population" appeared.It is a slave. When calculating the population, it is calculated as three-fifths of free people.This is a compromise with the specific problems of the abolitionist grace period.It is known as the "three-fifths compromise" in American history.

The second specific issue was raised by South Carolina, then an extreme southern state, when determining Article 4 of the Constitution, namely, the relationship between states. The first clause of Article IV of the Constitution states that each state must have complete reliance on and respect for the public acts, records, and judicial procedures of other states.This is the divide and conquer principle you are already familiar with.Every state is like an "independent small country". Once you cross the state border Lomonosov (I]KIVHKJIVQRSIT^M_MNMJMS, it is like going to another country, and the rules and regulations are different. So the problem comes. System There were free states at the time of the Constitution, and there will be more and more. In this way, the problem of black slaves in slave states starting to run to free states will naturally arise. Because the United States has never had a household registration system, entering any place, staying, Even if they are people from that place. If there is no legal restriction, as soon as a black slave crosses the state border and enters a free state, he immediately becomes a free person according to the laws of the free state. Then they all ran away. In this case, slavery How else can states preserve their labor?

Therefore, South Carolina proposed to add a paragraph to the second item of Article 4, that is, the item related to the return of criminals seized from other states, that is, a state shall not release legal labor from other states. servitude of the person, and shall be surrendered at the request of the person concerned.Later, this clause became known as the "Fugitive Slave Clause". This paragraph was added without much controversy after it was proposed by South Carolina at the time.If you analyze carefully, you will find that since everyone recognizes that there is a transitional stage for the abolition of slavery, since this legislative power has been transferred to the state level, and since each state must respect the laws of other states, then this result is completely within this logic of.However, in order to solve the specific problems of the "one country, two systems" transitional period, the two compromise clauses thus retained produced completely different effects in the implementation.Both clauses implicitly recognize the "state"'s legislative power over slavery, and are of the same nature.However, little attention has been paid to the first item on population counting, while the item on fugitive slaves has become a real nightmare for all Americans.

As more and more slave-holding states joined the Union, the legislative power left to the states became an excuse for maintaining slavery in the South.It can be said that the terms of the compromise concerning the population count are "invisible", but it is impossible to close your eyes and say that you cannot see the escaped slaves one by one.The Fugitive Slave Clause is then the necessary transitional stage of all the ideas from which it has arisen. ", became a real "bone of the throat", and the issue of fugitive slaves became the most specific and sharp point of conflict between the North and the South on slavery, on the concept of nation-building, on race and human nature, and so on.

The "runaway slave plot" is also the reason why the "Armstad" case has caused such a big response in the United States.Because the case of the "Armstad" riot is the most extreme example of the fugitive slave incident.Because the blacks on board not only wanted to escape, but also used all means to achieve their goals, including riots and murder.Therefore, the result of the final victory of the blacks itself is enough to cover up the shortcomings of all judicial challenges.The people of the Northern Free States almost refused to see that this case did not make substantial progress on the "fugitive slave issue" legally, but emotionally insisted that this was a major victory on the fugitive slave issue. In fact, in the early days of the founding of the People's Republic of China, when this "fugitive slave clause" was established, no one regarded it as a big problem.Because the free state had just started at that time, and there were not many escaped slaves who crossed the border, it was not obvious that it would cause any social conflicts, and it did not even attract any social attention, just some cases.However, with the rapid development of the free states that abolished slavery in the north, and the almost simultaneous development of the newly joined slave-holding states, with the popularity and rise of the anti-slavery movement in the north, and with the news of the free states spreading among slaves in the south Word spread quietly among the public that what South Carolina's representatives feared when the constitution was drafted, finally happened in large numbers. In the slave states in the south, especially the so-called "upper southern states", that is, several southern states adjacent to the north, more and more black slaves crossed the state line and entered the free northern states.Therefore, the heart of the fugitive slave is like a blank slate, and all ideas come from feelings and reflections (spiritual book, catching fugitive slaves, and actively helping slaves escape, as well as the establishment of stricter fugitive slave laws and anti-fugitive slave laws in northern states Legislative confrontation was out of control. "Victory Escape" became an integral part of American social life at that time. You must have seen that the essence of this "victorious escape" is to generate a large number of "illegal activities".Regardless of whether a law is outdated or not, before a new contract is created, activities that violate the original law are illegal acts.The formation of this situation can be said to be "abnormal" in the United States.The point is that there is no way out for the stalemate between the North and the South.The legal way Americans are used to, the way to go through judicial challenges, is blocked by the "fugitive slave clause" left by history, and for a while it cannot reach the legal number of votes to obtain the constitutional amendment.In other words, there is a "miracle" in the history of the United States. The attitude towards a legal provision is not only almost half to half in number, but also two extremes.However, according to everyone's original agreement, more than half of the people have to ask for revisions before they can be counted.However, the reality happens to be "even power and enemy".At the same time, for the large number of anti-slavery in the North, this, unlike other legal issues, can wait slowly.This is not only freedom at stake, but even human life.As a result, "violations" have increased dramatically. The most typical of these is the so-called "underground railway".This is a "criminal group" involving many people.They formed a network and organized the slaves in the south to be picked up one by one.Send to a safe place.Even at the expense of sending it across the country, it has been sent to Canada. The little black slave Antonio on the "Amstad" actually managed to get to Canada with the help of Tai Peng by using this "underground railway".The author of "Uncle Tom's Cabin" that you are familiar with also wrote this novel by obtaining a lot of first-hand information through contact with the "Underground Railroad". The most prosperous era of the "Underground Railroad" started from the year when the "Armstad" case was tried until the outbreak of the Civil War.I have always believed that the two are by no means unrelated. The reason why I want to emphasize the "illegal nature" of these activities here is that not only is this unusual in American history, but it is also a signal that it has entered a crisis for any society.So, does such a crisis necessarily lead to a war? This "big outbreak" is not only a change in technology, but also a change in social relations. Its important knot is to exchange the lives of countless people for a social change?I think that's not the case. Let's go back to the United States at that time.From the long colonial years, the United States has inherited many wonderful parts from the British system. When it was founded, it not only preserved these heritages well, but also made it more thorough and perfect.From the gradual resolution of the issue of slavery in the North of the United States, you can see that the leading spiritual part of this country has quite strong self-reflection and self-correction functions, and it is a relatively complete contract society. In this case, it can still make further efforts on the road it has already walked.On the one hand, it affects the South with the most basic principles of human nature.Make it gradually changed, starting with some of the more moderate southern states (such as Virginia), and prompting them to complete the abolition legislation on a state basis.This is not a fantasy, because the ultimate change in the American South began with the awakening and reversal of this basic position of human nature. On the other hand, when there are new states joining the United States, strive for them to be free states, so as to expand the power of free states.On this point, before the "Armstad" case, the North and the South had begun to compete in Congress, named Nan Lei, and scholars called him Mr. Lizhou.People from Yuyao, Zhejiang.Ask to learn from Liu Zongzhou. , it should be said that the north is still quite effective.Beginning with the Missouri Compromise in 1821, it was stipulated that slavery could not go beyond 36 degrees 30 minutes north latitude.Since then, every time a new state joins, even if it is also in the South, it also has slavery. The North has learned from the past and is no longer willing to sacrifice such a principle easily.Therefore, every time the new state joins later, it will become a struggle between the North and the South, with periodic outbreaks like malaria.When the "Amstad" case happened, the confrontation was quite balanced at that time, but later, with the efforts of the North, on the eve of the Civil War, in terms of the number of states, there were already many more free states than slave states .Notwithstanding the small size of some free states, Congress has two senators per state, a force to be reckoned with in legislation.Moreover, as I mentioned earlier, the establishment of constitutional amendments is ultimately based on the "state" as the vote-counting unit. Even on the issue of fugitive slaves, legal solutions were being sought in the North.There are actually two parts to the problem of fugitive slaves.Part of it is the section where slaves escaped from the South. Of course, this is against the local laws. However, this is a problem caused by the slave system in the South, and it can only be resolved with the resolution of the system itself.What really troubled the North was the second part of the fugitive slave problem, the period after the slaves had fled to the North.In this section, northern antislaveryists had been looking for ways to legally protect fugitive slaves.Lawyers continue to attempt judicial challenges. The "Amstad" case is just one of the more prominent cases.At the same time, with the expansion of the public opinion base against slavery in the north, the free states began to have the conditions to gradually formulate laws so that northerners could legally help fugitive slaves on their own territory.At that time, it caused a lot of conflicts and also caused a judicial battle.There has been quite a bit of tit-for-tat legislation at the federal and state levels.For example, in order to balance contradictions, Congress passed the "Federal Fugitive Slave Act" several times.The free states in the north have established "personal liberty laws" in their own states to fight against it.These legislation stipulated that state officials could not help slave owners from the south to catch escaped slaves.Challenging cases caused by escaped slaves in the north can be described as endless.Many of these cases have made it to the Supreme Court. For example, in 1842, the year after the "Armstad" case ended, the Supreme Court decided another famous fugitive slave case, the "Morgan case".When you see this, you may not be able to help but ask, since the United States does not have a household registration system and is so mobile, how can this fugitive slave be caught?This is indeed a big problem.This is why the South is particularly sensitive to the issue of escaped slaves, and the reason why the federal legislation on escaped slaves is also particularly pressing.It is because it is difficult to catch, if the north does not cooperate, or even assists the escaped slaves, then there is no way.The loss of slaves was a blow to the southern economy and a serious "property loss" to slave owners.Therefore, at that time, some professional "catch escaped slaves" like private detectives appeared.This case was caused by a "capturing escaped slave" named Pulig. In 1837, Pliger captured a black slave named Margaret Morgan in Pennsylvania.She had escaped from the South to Pennsylvania, where she had lived for a considerable time.God knows how this Pulig found her.Puliger then ties under a federal fugitive slave law of 1793.It is the general outline of Han Yu's philosophical thought.Based on the theory of the difference between Chinese and barbarians, and derogatory criticism, apply for an escort certificate in Pennsylvania.What's going on here? Because, when the relationship between states is involved in the constitution, it only establishes such a principle that one state must respect the laws of another state.When slaves from one state went to another state, the latter could not arbitrarily release the labor status of those who came from other states, and they had to surrender them when the other party asked.However, there are a host of specific problems here.For example, it is often not the police but only civilians who come out to arrest them.So when a civilian escorts another civilian and walks on the street, isn't this kidnapping?Such a situation would of course invite the intervention of the police along the route.Therefore, when the fugitive slave case finally became a relatively common situation, and there were many conflicts between the arresting party and the Northern Free States, they asked the Federation to come out and formulate a detailed implementation of the fugitive slave case. Law is such a detailed regulation.For example, after catching a fugitive slave, you must go to the relevant local department to obtain an escort certificate, which can be checked by the police along the way to prove that it is a legal act, not a kidnapping.Therefore, the "professional policeman" named Pliger asked the Pennsylvania magistrate for such a proof of escort. However, you have long known that Pennsylvania is an area with the longest history of anti-slavery in the United States. It abolished slavery as far back as the Revolutionary War.The people there are the least likely to see any "capture of escaped slaves".Therefore, the local magistrate flatly rejected Plig's request.Pligg relies on this to make a living, so of course he refuses to give up easily.So, he had no choice but to take Margaret Morgan and her children into custody without any supporting documents, and went south all the way back to Maryland.One of these children was conceived after Margaret Morgan arrived in Pennsylvania and was born in this free state.After Pennsylvania's discovery, they were determined to try to rescue the black slave girl and her child, even though the person had been taken away.Therefore, according to the "Personal Liberty Act" established by Pennsylvania in 1826, the courts from Pennsylvania to Maryland filed a lawsuit against Pligg for "kidnapping". After negotiation, the two parties agreed to expedite the judicial process so that the case could enter the Supreme Court of the United States as soon as possible to confirm how much autonomy the state has in implementing the detailed rules of the Federal Fugitive Slave Act.This was in 1842 and laid down some rules and methods.The Negroes who had organized an "Armstad" that combined religion, philosophy, and politics had just left the United States, and they were freed in this court.However, I have already mentioned in the "Armstad" case that those blacks were freed because the court determined that they were not legal slaves. A continuation of the fugitive slave problem, Margaret Morgan was a legal slave who escaped the law.How will the Supreme Court decide this case this time?At that time, the whole country could be said to be "waiting and seeing". As a result, the Supreme Court voted eight to one in favor of Puliger.It was Justice Storey, whom we have already been familiar with in the "Armstad" case, who announced this ruling.Here's the verdict: First, it was decided that the "Federal Fugitive Slave Act" was not unconstitutional.This refers to the "Fugitive Slave Clause," one of the three compromise clauses in the Constitution that you already know.At the same time, he pointed out that if the content of Pennsylvania's "Personal Liberty Act" was extended to interfere with the extradition process of fugitive slaves, it would be unconstitutional.Then, Justice Storey ruled that the "Runaway Slave Clause" of the Constitution already implied the owner's right to regain the fugitive slave. The proof is also legal.But in the end, Justice Storey declared that the states should enforce federal laws, but if they did not, the federal government had no power to compel them to do so.The rationale is that the federal government does not have the right to make "executive demands" on state officials. Here, everyone should wake up from the excessive intoxication of the "Armstad" victory.Because, obviously, this time everyone has clearly seen that the "bone" left over from history is still there.Later, Justice Storey's son once said such a sentence.The essence of the judgment, he said, was anti-slavery.In the history of the United States, the judgment of this case is still regarded as a favorable case for anti-slavery.what about this? We have mentioned that the power of the Supreme Court is limited, and the justices can only use "whether it is unconstitutional" as the criterion for "judicial review".Therefore, this result is inevitable.But the Dialogue", "Actor's Discussion", "Ramore's Nephew", etc.See "article, all also note that the last part of the Supreme Court's judgment is very unusual, it states that the federal government has no power to compel state T. Morgan, however, in the sense of judicial challenges, there are still gains. Because this is tantamount to giving the free states in the north an excuse. After that, if there are escaped slaves, the northern states will have a reason to refuse to give the southern states With due cooperation. And you also know that in the mobile environment in the United States, especially in the North, if there is no such cooperation, the law of success in catching escaped slaves will be greatly reduced. Many future escaped slaves will be taken from it. Benefit, and really get away with it. From the judgment of this case, we can actually see more things.You will find that at that time, the relationship between the federation and the state was far from being straightened out, and both sides were cautiously making some legal trials and explorations.Just like the newly established United Nations, no one has a clear idea of ​​how to coexist and restrain it and its member states that are so different from each other.New questions often arise to test such a complex relationship. There is another case that is also very interesting, although it is not a fugitive slave case.But looking deeper, from the perspective of southern black slaves fighting for freedom, it has similarities with the fugitive slave case. In 1854, more than ten years after the above story and the "Armstad" case, a black slave named Jed Scott filed a lawsuit in the state court of Missouri, suing his Master, plead that you should be a free man.Missouri was still a slave state at that time, how could such a case come out? Scott was born into a slave family in a Virginia estate.At the age of 37, he was sold as a servant to an army doctor in Missouri.Two years later, in 1834, the army changed defenses, and he followed the military doctor to Illinois, the Free State.Two years later, it was 1836 (ius Meinong, 1853-1920) and Ellenfels (Christian Von, he married a female slave of the master and had two children. In that year, their family followed The master changed defense and came to Wisconsin, another free state. In 1838, the master took his family and moved back to Missouri, a slave state. Five years after returning to Missouri, their military doctor master passed away in 1843. Before that , There has been peace between master and servant. The two states of Illinois and Wisconsin became free states in the Missouri Compromise I mentioned earlier. After the owner's death, the family was sold by the army doctor's wife to her brother Sanford.The Scotts spent another 11 years at the Sanford home.It seems that there is no story.But in 1854, Scott suddenly filed a complaint in the state court, suing Sanford to hold them as slaves illegally, and he demanded the free status of the whole family.The reason is that their family lived in the Free State from 1834 to 1838.Once a citizen of a free state. This case was brought to the court of a slave state by black slaves.You may feel that this is certainly not hopeful, as you extrapolate from experience.However, after a trial, a jury composed of local residents ruled in favor of the black Scott.His master Sanford certainly refused to accept this result.The case was appealed to the Supreme Court of Missouri, and the state court's decision was overturned.So, of course, the plaintiff quit, so Scott went to the federal court again.At this time, Sanford simply proposed that the case should be dismissed at all, because no matter whether Scott should be his slave or not, African-Americans are not citizens and have no right to sue at all.This seems to be a high-level move, because in this way, Sanford skipped the lawsuit at all, which can be described as a "surprise victory."With such a principled "theory", the case was brought to the US Supreme Court as a matter of course. At the Supreme Court, this 1854 decision made the Scott case one of the most famous in American history.How famous is it?That is, if you visit the Supreme Court of the United States today, there will be a short video for every visitor, introducing the history of the Supreme Court.In this short ten-minute video, the case will be mentioned to you.This video will tell you about Checking Manuscripts, etc.The book clarifies Zhang's views on Confucian classics, philosophy, history, and literature. The Supreme Court of the United States has also made very serious mistakes. That is, in the "Scott Case" judgment in 1854, it was determined that blacks are not citizens in the United States. Therefore, citizenship cannot be enjoyed. Today, when you hear this conclusion, you must think that it is not only absurd, but also beyond common sense and reason.However, if you analyze it in depth, you will find that this does not mean that the Supreme Court of the United States at that time controlled its judgment with prejudice and was completely irrational, but that the limitations of the times made the justices in a dilemma and had to do it as a last resort.Incidentally, the nine justices voted seven to two.This judgment is undoubtedly wrong.But why can we today, without thinking about it, be sure that it is wrong?Because today, we are very accustomed to the judgment method of the so-called "natural law".In other words, humanity and humanity are the touchstones by which any law and human behavior is measured. You must have noticed that since the Declaration of Independence of the United States is based on the theory of "equal liberty", that is to say, the United States has been established on the basis of natural law from the very beginning. However, compared with many other regions, it is easier to grasp the essence of the problems left over from history and its own social problems when thinking and solving its own problems, and it is more able to go straight to the root of the problem.Because in fact this is a simple country, there is no profound theory coiling in front of it.In other places, when social problems arise, complex intellectual theoretical discussions will be carried out, like peeling off bamboo shoots, with countless layers of theoretical shells. It may take a long time to peel and go around for a long time, but still can't find out what is the reason. What kind of deviation has occurred in the theory of the first layer.Here, it is very simple, because it has only one simple reason.When faced with a problem, it is only necessary to compare it with the simple law of nature, although the solution of a social problem can never be simple.However, it is obviously much clearer in judging right from wrong and finding a solution to the problem. From the "Amstad case" and "Morgan case", you can see that the justices are very struggling to do their job.Because this is a period of historical change, the original and some even outdated laws are still in effect.But the life I want is to return to nature.His prose is about the English and French thinkers of the 17th and 18th centuries. They are only the judicial branch of the federal government, and they have a clear boundary with the legislative branch, so they cannot be misplaced.They can't enforce the law and legislate there at the same time.This is the most fundamental principle of the US Constitution, separation of powers and checks and balances.That is to say, when the monkeys divide the fruit, the monkey responsible for dividing the pile cannot pick first.Legislative and law-enforcing changes are equivalent to allowing the monkey in charge of sorting the piles to sort out the big piles and the small piles first, and then pick the big ones first, so there is no such thing as fair justice. However, during this period of change, when the legislative branches of the North and the South were evenly matched, a new law could not be enacted for a while.The judiciary appears to be ahead of its time.However, under the principle of separation of powers, the judiciary cannot be too advanced.This is the very obvious situation when the Supreme Court judged the "Armstad case" and "Morgan case".In both cases, the judiciary can be seen struggling. First of all, there are no serious legal problems with the judges in this judgment.Because their responsibility is to "determine in accordance with the Constitution," the issue of the citizenship of blacks was clearly stipulated in the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution 14 years after the case was judged.But in the first two cases they were already trying hard to push a more humane outcome in accordance with natural law.Then in the "Scott Case", when compared with the above two cases, it should be said that there is still room for maneuver, why did it deviate obviously from the natural law, so that people feel that there is a sudden retrogression? When we calm down and observe, we will find that this is not an accidental reversing.Because, unlike other fugitive slave cases, this case does not simply involve one or some slaves, whether they can obtain freedom in one case and later (torp, 1854-1924), Cassirer, etc.Particular attention is paid to logical and epistemological issues. , and it is not even just about an attitude towards slavery. The "smart" Sanford hit the right button and touched a question that most Americans at that time could not face directly, and therefore were still avoiding, that is, how to face a After the abolition of slavery, the United States where the black and white races merged.But Sanford pushed this issue "in advance" to the Supreme Court and everyone's nose. The issue of black citizenship he mentioned does not lead to the question of whether Scott, a black man, has the right to sue his master Sanford.We only need to deduce it backwards.If it is said that Scott has the right to sue his master, then he has the same citizenship rights as other white people.Then all blacks would have citizenship rights.Next, what was dragged out was the right to vote and the right to be elected.By this time, it will not only be a matter of racial co-existence, but if it is not done well, some states may be controlled by blacks after the abolition of slavery.Especially in the south, the proportion of blacks is quite high.There are one or two Southern states, and there are cases where the black population is larger than the white population.This was a completely unbelievable thing in the United States 150 years ago.In fact, this unresolved issue has gone far beyond calling for blacks to be liberated from slavery and gain equal rights to life.This issue is already a further claim for black political rights.However, under the limitations of historical understanding at that time, even white women were far from having political rights such as the right to vote and serve as jurors. 是的，这些最高法院的大法官们，依然记得他们在判定有关奴隶案件的时候，一再被提醒的“自然法”和“独立宣言”中有关“人人生而平等”的原则。可是，他们觉得自己对这个联邦的前途身负重任，假如仅仅因为他们作了一个“错误判决”，就要导致一场种族融合的混乱，而且会乱到什么地步，是否会乱到不可收拾还无可预测。What can I do? 我在给你写这些历史故事的时候，常常有一个习惯。就是写到某一个年代的时候，我会先想象一下当时的基本历史场景，然后把这个历史事件放进这个场景中去，然后《启蒙的辩证法》等。，那遥远年代的故事就更容易把握了。 那么，这些案子发生的时候，美国是什么样的面貌呢？我只想举一个简单的例子。你还记得我在前两封信中提到过凡布伦总统的前任，那个平民总统安吉鲁.杰克逊吧。他为了捍卫妻子的名誉，就与对手约好了决斗。结果，两人的枪法差不多，他身上一直留有无法取出的一颗子弹，而那个枪法略差一点的对手，就真的给打死了。在这里，几乎可以开出长长的一张名单，都是死于决斗的美国重要政治家，里面甚至包括“独立宣言”的一名签署者。这些参与决斗的政治家从国会议员到将军，州长，应有尽有。尽管，各地的法律在很早就宣布决斗为违法，但是，决斗几乎一直持续到南北战争。这就是美国一百五十年前的历史场景。生活在这种历史场景里的人，自然有他的历史局限性。 我还记得那年回去，遇到一个初次见面的学者朋友，他不知怎么和我聊起了美国的选举权。他的想法是，一人一票的选举实际上是有问题的。他问我，那些流浪汉，他们根本就没有社会责任感，他们也一人一票，知识分子也一人一票，这种看上去的公平是不是隐含了事实的不公平。我知道有很多人对于政治权利的问题，有过这样类似的思考，这显然是一个有意思的思考角度。我没认真想过，答不出来。我只是觉得这是个难题，因为，若是不一人一票的话，显然也够为难的，甚至是够“危险”的。因为，这样的话，又让谁来决定哪个人不该有一票，或者说哪个人应该有“加权票”呢？ 当我写到这个案子，看到大法官们“长考”前的愁眉苦脸，我突然想起了这位朋友关于政治权利问题的思考。于是发现，虽然相隔一百五十年，他们担心的事情其实在本质上是一样的。解放奴隶是一回事布鲁诺（GiordanoBruno，1548—1600）意大利哲学家。，可是，一想到那些承继着完全不同的文化，从里到外都和自己有着巨大差异，也不知道到底“野蛮”到什么程度的黑人，一想到要由自己给出判定，给予他们在这个国家完全平等的政治权利，也“一人一票”，甚至在黑人占多数的地方，可能出现黑人当选掌权管白人，大法官们就会觉得，这里肯定是有什么地方不对了。 在当时的黑人和白人之间，他们的差异远不限于皮肤的颜色，他们在文化上的差异，远大于今天的学者们所考虑的知识分子和流浪汉之间的差异。使我感到奇怪的，并不是在大法官的投票中，出现了认定黑人不应该有公民权的那七张赞成票，我奇怪的倒是，在当时的历史局限之下，居然还有两名大法官投了反对票。因为在那个年代，这在观念上确实是相当超前了。 可是，我在前面提到过一个自然法的衡量的问题。在美国，自始至今，就只有两个简单的文件在作为衡量标准。一是宪法，另一个是“独立宣言”。最高法院必须依据宪法，这是毋庸置疑的。因为宪法是最高大法。但是，宪法实际上只是一个联邦政府结构设计，以及在前十条宪法修正案中的对政府的制约规定。凡是与自然法有关的，也就是这个国家建国的根本理念，它的人性基础和人道原则，都在它的“独立宣言”里面。 然而，“独立宣言”只是当初对英国发出的一个“造反”宣言。痛陈英国的美洲殖民地政策之不是，而宣扬自己要建立一个新国家之理由和理念。尽管对我来讲，“独立宣言”更为“好看”，可是在最高法院甚然，心为甚。”《管子·心术上》亦有“心之在体，君之位，“独立宣言”并不成为一个判案的直接依据，因为这并不是一个“法”。但是，由于它是美国建国的一个关键性文件，又与美国人习惯的“自然法”一致，因此，你已经看到，在“阿姆斯达”案中，律师在辩护的时候，会常常提到“独立宣言”的原则，它也是大法官们在判案时一个重要的参照。在这个“斯高特案”中，由于问题直接涉及最基本的平等问题，也就是政治权利的种族平等问题，因此，大法官在作出判定时，他的判词大量涉及对于“独立宣言”理念的理解。这不仅是大法官在作出如此史无前例的一个判决的时候，他必须对美国人有个交代，这更反映了大法官们挣扎在人性与对于国家前途的忧心之间，必须能够有个使自己良心安宁的交代。 在这个判词中，提到了“独立宣言”的一段开场白。你我已经非常熟悉“独立宣言”中的这样一段话，“我们认为下面这些真理是不言而喻的：人人生而平等，造物者赋予他们若干不可剥夺的权利，其中包括生命权，自由权和追求幸福的权利”。然而，在这段话之前，还有这样一段开场白，“在有关人类事务的发展过程中，当一个民族必须解除其和另一个民族之间的政治联系，并在世界各国之间依照自然法则和上帝的旨意，接受分离并且平等的地位时，出于对人类舆论的尊重，必须把他们不得不分离的原因予以宣布。” 我看到的“独立宣言”中文译本，在上述这段文字中，都把出现两次的“分离”这个词(separate， separation)，也译成了“独立”。我记得以前跟你聊起过，美国的独立，与一般概念的殖民地独立的情况有所不同。尽管它和英国相距甚远，但是抽象的“本质世界”，它是最高的实在领域，物理世界依存于，它基本上是一个移民区，而且它当时的主要移民是来自英国，与英国有着千丝万缕的关系。所以，美国的建立，与其说是经过一场“独立战争”，还不如说是经历了一场“内战”。它要求的与其说是“殖民地独立”，还不如说是“地区独立自治”，或者干脆说是“地区分离”。这也就是在“独立宣言”的一开头，就两次提到“分离”的原因。 在中文译文中，几个译本都把“分离”译成“独立”，应该说也不是偶然的。因为在大家的印象中，这一段历史，就是一个“美国独立”。所以，也许这算不上是什么翻译上的错误。本来，翻译就可以是一种“意译”，在这个特定的历史事件中，定义为“独立”也没有什么不对。 可是，谁也没有想到，“独立宣言”开场白中的一个短语“分离并且平等”，不但是在两百多年前，被用于向世界解释“北美英属殖民地”为什么要变成“美国”的原因。而且，从“斯高特案”开始，“分离并且平等”，就成为美国大地上挥之不去的一个幽灵，一百五十年来，游荡至今，而且，还将长时期地继续游荡下去。它不仅成为南北战争后，南方种族隔离的依据，也成为今天黑白双方的种族分离主义者的理论根据。这个幽灵有着顽强生命力的原因之一，就在于它有“独立宣言”这样的重要“出典”。在任何讨论美国种族问题的书里，你都会无数次地与它“不期而遇”。这么一来，这个原本不成问题的“意译”，就阴差阳错地成了“错译”。因为这个意译切断了一个幽灵和它原来所附着的本体的关系，也使许多对美国种族问题感兴趣的中国人，由于这样一个意外的切割，在了解和理解这个问题的时候，失去了它的历史线索。 “分离并且平等”，是在“斯高特案”中，最高法院判词的解释中份量最重的部分之一。也就是说，当时的大法官找到这样一个说得通的道理，国家是一个民族或者说一群人的政治实体能够建设共产主义社会的结论。列宁指出，“恩格斯·第·一·个说，不同民族的人，或者说目标和文化不一致的群体，就可以建立自己的一个政治实体，这些人就拥有这个实体内的公民权和政治权利，他们和其它民族或者说政治实体，可以是分离的，分隔的，可是，这并不影响所有的政治实体之间相互平等的关系。他们依然可以在各自分离的状态，按照自己的意愿生活。这样一种关系依然是人道的，符合自然法和上帝的意旨的。也就是说，大同世界并不一定要种族融合。完全可以“分离并且平等”。自己活自己的。 所以，当时的最高法院判词的观点，就是这个国家要决定，它这个政治实体不要黑人的参与。这不是奴隶还是自由人的问题，而是这是一个白人文化的国家，必须作出一个选择。他们将来打算按照他们自己的文化和生活方式过下去，不愿意有黑人文化的加入，更不要说让黑人来投票决定白人该怎么过日子了。所以，他们的这个判案并不是和斯高特有什么过不去，而是他们不能让黑人在这个国家取得平等政治权利的问题上，出现一个突破口。因为如果这一点取得本质性的突破，他们无可预料这个国家将发生怎样的一个局面。 是的，这就是大法官们在一百多年前的历史局限，源自他们对种族融合以及对于自己的文化将会受到冲击的最初恐惧。这是整个时代的局限，那个时代的美国北方对种族问题的普遍认识，就是反奴隶制，要求给黑人自由，却事实上依然不能完全接受种族融合。就象他们认为妇女也天然地就不应该参政，不应该有选举权一样。许多积极地投入解放奴隶的人们，都认为这是理所当然的事情。他们不仅认为这是对这个国家的白人有好处，他们也真诚地认为，“分离并且平等”的实行，对于黑人也同样有利。他们坚信，在分开之后，双方在自己的文化中都会生活得更容易。 最典型的例子，就是美国殖民协会了。他们是由一些最积极废奴的人组成的一个民间组织。这个组织成立于1817年，他们的目标就是筹募经费，用这笔钱先是赎买黑奴，把他们从奴隶主手中救出来。然后帮助解放了的黑奴和自由的黑人回非洲。不仅支付他们的路费学流派均是庸俗进化论的宣传者。实证主义者斯宾塞对其曾，而且在西非帮助他们在那里建立一个自己的国家。这就是在整个非洲，唯一的一个没有受过殖民统治的国家，也是最早的一个共和制的国家，利比里亚。尽管那里有成分非常复杂的土著，但是，这个国家就是由这些“美洲黑人移民”建立起来的，官方语言为英语。这个美国殖民协会的黑人安置工作做得最多的时期，就是在“斯高特案”的前后五十年间。这个协会直到本世纪初才解散。 顺便提一句，这个传统其实延续至今，美国和欧洲国家提倡人权的人们，依然在做着同样的事情。前不久，就有欧洲的人权工作者拿着自己的钱，几百美元一个，从非洲苏丹当地的黑人奴隶主手中，买下上百个同样也是黑人的奴隶，就地释放。他们能够做的就是这个了，因为他们无权跑到别人的国家，去“废除奴隶制”。这种处境实际上和当时美国南北双方的状态十分相似。 有一点是肯定的，那就是当时的最高法院，对于如何真正做到“分离并且平等”，心里并没有个谱，因为这将是个庞大的计划。他们只是觉得这是在“法和原则”的范围之内，处理这个问题的一个最合适的方向。它也清楚地反映了当时的人们，对于一个种族融合的前景，是感到多么恐惧。 必须承认，这种恐惧并不是杞人忧天。只有真正在美国生活过，我们才能体会到这种种族融合带来的许多实际困难和困惑。因此，至今为止，“分离并且平等”不仅是一些白人种族分离主义的口号利卢卡奇、德国柯尔施（KarlKorsch，1886—1961）、意大利，同样也是许多黑人种族分离主义的目标。这些待我以后再给你聊吧。 在前面有关斯高特的经历介绍中，你也一定会发现，他的这个告状举动是有些蹊跷的。因为，从他的整个奴隶生涯来说，这个时刻不象是一个“爆发点”。这个行动似乎更应该发生在他离开自由州的时候，或者说，发生在他的老主人去世，他被迫易主的时候。但是，斯高特告状的时候，距离他离开自由州已经十六年，他来到这个新主人的家也已经十一年了。而且看来，他和这个家族的关系，在奴隶和奴隶主的关系中，还不是一个负面的典型。那么，这个案子是怎么“爆发”出来的呢？ 这又是一场由激进的反奴隶主义者鼓动的司法挑战。你知道，斯高特当时只是一名奴隶，他打了几年官司的法律费用，都是由一名叫做泰勒.伯楼的激进反奴隶主义者支付的。相信他也一定拥有最好的律师。然而，这个超前的挑战并没有成功。判决出来以后几个月，支持斯高特这场官司的泰勒.伯楼，就从他的主人桑弗德那里，把斯高特赎买了下来，终于使他成为一个自由人。 从这个背景情况中，你也可以看到，当时激进的反奴隶主义者相当活跃，他们的活动早已超出了自由州的范围，而且无孔不入。 然而，这个案子中有一个不起眼的部分不知你是否注意到了。就是在密苏里州法院初审时，在这个奴隶州的州法庭上，由当地陪审团作出的判定是有利于原告斯高特的。在那个时候，还没有黑人作陪审员。所以这个陪审团显然是由清一色的白人组成的。这也就是一个南方奴隶州，同样有可能走通“合法手段废奴”的一个例证。这些陪审员是普通民众，这就是民众在开始作时代转变的一个信号，因为民意是美国所有的州立法的唯一依据。 这是当时分歧矛盾如此之大的美国各州，他们之间的一个重要共同点。因为所有的州在一开始，就都建立在一个民主制度的基础上。他们的不同，就是各州的多数民众，对于人性这个基本问题的认知程度上，是有相当大的差异的。但是随着历史的前进，实际上南方也在逐步分裂和变化，真正采取极端态度的南方州并不很多。 遗憾的是，在美国两百多年历史的渐进变革中，它终于走了一次它自己的逻辑以外的道路，它打了一场为时四年的内战。尽管这只是唯一的一次，却给这里一代代的人们，留下了长久不能愈合的创伤。这一场战争，是美国最大的历史研究课题，每年都要出版许多有关这场战争的书籍，一百多年下来，已经堆积如山。我不想在信里给你写一部“内战战役史”，对于这场战争，我想使你了解的，还是这封信一开始时所说的，我只希望你明白战争的原因并不是你想象的那么简单。可惜，这封信又写长了，我只能在下一封信中再给你聊美国的南北战争了，真是很抱歉。 盼来信。 wish it is good! Linda