Sidney Lanier, the Language of Paradox, and Staging Contra
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Sidney Lanier, the Language of Paradox, and Staging Contra- dictory Political Ideals in the Battle for Civil Rights and the War against Terrorism during the Era of Reconstruction Brook Thomas ABSTRACT During the era of U.S. Reconstruction, emancipation and passage of the Thirteenth, Four- teenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution heightened an ongoing conflict between the nation’s civic ideals of liberty and equality. Whereas the first ten amendments comprising the Bill of Rights restricted the power of the national government in order to protect individual liberties, the Civil War Amendments gave new enforcement powers to the national government to ensure civil and political equality for former slaves. This essay explores how a couple of works of literature by authors trained in the law stage the conflict between civil liberties and civil rights. The primary focus is on two poems by the southerner Sidney Lanier: “Civil Rights” and “Them Ku Klux.” These poems do not confirm Percy Bysshe Shelley’s claim that poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world. Instead, by showing how poetry’s language of paradox dramatizes Sir Phillip Sidney’s recognition that “the poet […] never affirmeth,” they suggest an important role poetry can play in interdisciplinary studies of law and literature. 1. With the Union victory in the Civil War, the United States embarked on a project of reconstructing the nation after the abolition of slavery. Reconstructing a nation is quite different from restoring one as Great Britain hoped to do after its seventeenth-century civil war and the Cromwellian aftermath. “To restore” is to preserve an essence. The United States did not want to restore the Union to the condition before the war; it wanted to reconstruct it on the foundation of an amended Constitution. The three amendments added to the Constitution after the Civil War were dif- ferent in kind from the earlier amendments. Whereas the ten amendments mak- ing up the Bill of Rights restrict the power of the national government, these three give it new enforcement powers. Prior to the Civil War, it was up to the states to decide if they would be slave or free states. The Thirteenth Amendment gave the national government power to prohibit slavery in the entire country. The Four- teenth Amendment defined conditions for national citizenship, effectively over- ruling Dred Scott, which denied it to all people of African descent, free or slave. It also gave the national government power to prohibit states from abridging the privileges and immunities of U.S. citizenship, from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without the due process of law, and from denying any person equal protection under the law. The Fifteenth Amendment gave the national gov- 192 Brook Thomas ernment the power to make sure no one was denied the right to vote on the basis of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. The Civil War Amendments were the legal foundation of Reconstruction. Re- sistance to it made it “America’s unfinished revolution.” According to Eric Foner, Reconstruction’s promise certainly exceeded its accomplishments. Yet so long as Re- construction survived, so did the possibility of change […]. Its legacy deserves to survive as an inspiration to those Americans, black and white alike, who insist that the nation live up to the professed ideals of its political culture. (“Revisited” 82) The primary reason Reconstruction failed was racism. Nonetheless, a singular focus on race risks neglecting a deeper structural problem: the professed ideals of America’s political culture might be inherently contradictory. The Civil War Amendments were designed to bring about civil and political equality for freed- men. Indeed, the Fourteenth Amendment has the first substantive use of “equal” in the Constitution. In contrast, the Bill of Rights was designed to guarantee civil liberty. For many at the time, the new powers granted to the national government to ensure civil and political equality for African Americans came into conflict with the Bill of Rights’ goal of ensuring civil liberties by reigning in the power of a centralized national government. We get a sense of how this conflict emerged from the Civil War in a speech called “Are We a Nation?” that Charles Sumner, an architect of Radical Recon- struction, gave in New York on the fourth anniversary of “The Gettysburg Ad- dress.” Francis Lieber, a German immigrant who brought German ideas of the state and nation with him to the United States, was in the audience. Lieber hoped that the Civil War would lead to the nationalization of the United States by turn- ing a “Staatenbund” into a “Bundesstaat.” In South Carolina, as Sumner relates in his speech, Lieber had debated the premier theorist of states’ rights, J. C. Cal- houn, who once declared that the United States had no collective name “because we ought to have none; we are only States united and have no country” (Nation 47-48). Both Lieber and Sumner felt that the blood of the Civil War would have been spilled in vain unless the Union was transformed into a nation. The essential conditions of a nation, Sumner proclaimed, are “one sovereignty” and “one citi- zenship” (Nation 12). Granting that “for purposes of local self-government and to secure its educational and political blessings, the States are of unquestioned value,” he, nonetheless, insisted that “local sovereignty, whether in the name of State or prince, is out of place and incongruous with the idea of a Nation” (Nation 13; emphasis in original). Hand in hand with the notion of one sovereignty is that of one citizenship with equal rights for all. Evoking Lieber’s authority, he argued that a nation “is naturally dedicated to the maintenance of all the rights of the citizen as its practical end and object” (Nation 12). If prior to the Civil War there were both state and national citizenships, with most rights protected by the states, Sumner felt that, when it came to rights, there should be only national citizenship. “The rights of all must be placed under the protection of all; nor can there be any difference in different parts of the country. Here the rule must be uniform, and it must be sustained by the central part of the empire” (Nation 13). Referring to the Thirteenth Amendment, he enthuses, “Liberty is won; Equality must be won also. Sidney Lanier, the Language of Paradox, and Staging Contradictory Political Ideals 193 In England there is Liberty without Equality: in France Equality without Liberty. The two together must be ours” (Nation 63). Sumner knew that his insistence on the centralization of power in the national government would be controversial. The conflicts that would arise are foreshad- owed when Sumner acknowledges: “Call it imperialism, if you please, it is simply the imperialism of the Declaration of Independence with all of its promises ful- filled” (Nation 60). Whereas for Sumner the Revolutionary War put the national government of the United States, not the British crown, in control of an empire, for his opponents the primary reason for declaring independence from the British Em- pire was to protect liberties threatened by a distant, centralized power. The Consti- tution was ratified only because of assurances that it would be amended to include the Bill of Rights that protected civil liberties against the national government. This essay explores the contradictions that arise from Reconstruction’s efforts to serve both equality and liberty by exploring how a couple of authors trained in the law dealt with civil rights and the use of terrorist tactics to oppose those rights. My primary works are two dialect poems written by Sidney Lanier. My method, as it has been for thirty years, will be to “cross-examine” law and literature.1 A founding premise of “cross-examination” is that, although law and literature have overlapping concerns, the two have different social functions. Through leg- islation law helps to regulate society; through the judiciary it helps to resolve dis- putes and render judgments. In contrast, no work of literature has the authority to make laws or condemn someone to die. Even so, literature can still have an impact on the law. The German legal thinker Carl Schmitt makes a distinction between legality and legitimacy. Proponents of the modern Rechtsstaat claim to found the state on rule by law. But, Schmitt argues, it is impossible to find in the law an ad- equate foundation for the state. A state needs more than legality to make people believe its authority. A state must be legitimated by a sense of tradition and by constantly affirmed and recreated symbols and myths. Andrew Fletcher under- stood this in the eighteenth century when he wrote, “I know a very wise man […] [who] believed if a man were permitted to make all the ballads, he need not care who should make the laws of the nation” (108). Robert Cover, who has influenced many people working in law and literature, understood it as well. Whereas people have long sought to base legal systems on rational principles, Cover claimed that “No set of legal institutions or prescriptions exists apart from the narratives that locate it and give it meaning” (4-5). The narratives in works of literature can shape a culture’s sense of justice and, as a result, play a role in legitimating its legal sys- tem. But works of literature can also have the opposite effect. Not charged with rendering a final judgment or creating specific laws, they are freer to expose what some have called the untold story of the law that gives voice to people disadvan- taged by legislation or rulings by a judge or a jury.