Synthesized answer
The "logic of things and events" is described as an "overruling fatality" that stands above the power of majorities and governments [1]. It is the "close connection between cause and effect, between principle and fact" that cannot be severed [1]. This logic is not subject to artificial arrangements or delusive settlements, but proceeds with the "steady step of fate" [2]. It forces choices and will not be turned by eloquence or argument; instead, it shapes and changes laws and constitutions according to its immutable rules [2, 5].
This concept implies significant limitations on the perceived power of democratic government. While democratic systems may overcome local and temporary inconveniences, they cannot withstand a direct contradiction between political principles and social institutions [1]. If a government disregards fundamental principles like equal rights and consults only its interests, it will lose the power to stem the "current" of events and will face new abuses and encroachments [2]. The passages suggest that a policy controlled by the "spirit of the times" and based on a "just appreciation of circumstances," which follows the "voice of events," is safe and "eminently…
Synthesized from the book passages below. Chat with the book on Feynman for follow-up.
From the book
superhuman efforts against certain impending dangers; but an overruling fatality seems to frustrate all their exertions. This overruling fatality, which stands above the power of majorities and governments, I will call by a simple term— the logic of things and events . It is the close connection between cause and effect, between principle and fact—a connection which cannot be severed, and the clear knowledge of which is the only safe foundation for political wisdom. I have been taught by history that a democratic system of government, although it may overcome local and temporary…
e is a thing which stands above the command of the most ingenious of politicians: it is the logic of things and events . It cannot be turned and twisted by artificial arrangements and delusive settlements; it will go its own way with the steady step of fate. It will force you, with uncompromising severity, to choose between two social organizations, one of which is founded upon privilege, and the other upon the doctrine of equal rights. Force instead of right, privilege instead of equality, expediency instead of principle, being once the leading motives of your policy, you will have no power…
termine their character by their own conceptions. Every such attempt will prove abortive, and lead to violent reactions. A policy which is so controlled by the spirit of the times, and is based upon a just appreciation of circumstances, may, perhaps, not be very brilliant, but it will be safe, and, above all, eminently democratic. And I venture to suggest that a great many of those who indulge in the highest sounding figures of speech as to what great things they would do, if they had the power, would hardly he capable of conceiving so wise an idea as that which the President expressed in…
to restore those principles to life, the government is obliged to trust its authority to the loyal action of the people. Therein is the embarrassment which a rebellion in a democratic republic will necessarily produce. What does it mean, the restoration of the Union? It means the restoration of individual liberty in all its parts, and of that ramification of political power in which self-government consists. If it meant anything else, if it meant the permanent holding in subjection of conquered provinces, if it meant the rule of force, if it meant the subversion of those principles of…
can be no true statesman whose ideas and conceptions are not founded upon profound moral convictions of right and wrong. [Applause.] What, then, shall we say of him who boastingly parades his indifference as a virtue? May we not drop the discussion about his statesmanship, and ask, What is he worth as a man? [Repeated cheers.] Yes; he mistakes the motive power which shapes the events of history. I find that in the life of free nations mere legal disquisitions never turned the tide of events, and mere constitutional constructions never determined the tendency of an age. The logic of things…
More questions about this book
- Schurz warns that a democratic system "cannot bear a direct contradiction between political principles on the one and social institutions on the other side." Based on the historical context of his 1858 speech, what specific contradiction do you believe he was alluding to, and how did it demonstrate his concept of "the logic of things and events"?
- If "the logic of things and events" truly stands "above the power of majorities and governments," what role, if any, does Schurz suggest human effort, debate, or political leaders can play in influencing or averting "irrepressible conflicts"?
- Schurz claims that deep-seated inconsistencies "will overshadow all other issues" and become the "only legitimate line of distinction between parties." Can you identify a contemporary societal issue that appears to fit this description, and what makes it similarly "irrepressible" according to Schurz's framework?
- Schurz posits that "clear knowledge" of the connection between "cause and effect, between principle and fact" is the "only safe foundation for political wisdom." What specific methods or types of analysis would a political leader need to employ to gain this "clear knowledge" and apply it effectively, thereby avoiding an "overruling fatality"?