Two weeks ago, we saw Lincoln at the cinema. It is a wonderful film; I particularly enjoyed the mellifluent personal insults hurled by Tommy Lee Jones in the character of Thaddeus Stevens. The film capably portrays the fear of the Southern Democrats that, if those whom they had oppressed were given even the slightest freedom, then the flood-gates would burst and the Negro would rise up against the White Man. I can’t help feeling that this fear lives on, and was revealed over the past six months, as it had been four years ago. But that’s a topic for a future posting.
The next morning, I read about the growing confrontation between President Mohammed Morsi and the Egyptian judiciary (see BBC News or Washington Post). Similar struggles between ethnic and sectarian groups can be seen in Iraq, the other southwest Asian fledgling democracy as can struggles between government, judiciary, and military in Pakistan, a not quite so fledgling democracy in south Asia.
The political struggles of the 13th Amendment (see also Wikipedia) must have been a mere fraction of those involved in constructing the Constitution itself and its first ten amendments. And yet, it seems that the early Americans were able to concoct a political arrangement relatively quickly, and with surprisingly little ensuing bloodshed, compared with the efforts going on in today’s emerging democracies. Is this really the case? And if so, why?
