Synthesized answer
Based solely on the provided passages, Schurz was alluding to the contradiction between the political principle of liberty (democracy) and the social institution of slavery [2]. He explicitly states, "Such a contradiction is that between liberty, founded upon the natural rights of man, and slavery, founded upon usurpation; between democracy... and privilege, which is the life-element of the slaveholding system" [2].
This contradiction demonstrates his concept of "the logic of things and events" because Schurz argues that a democratic system "cannot bear a direct contradiction between political principles on the one and social institutions on the other side" [1]. He explains that such inconsistencies "will and must bring forth questions and conflicts involving the very foundations of popular liberty" [1]. The "logic" is that the inherent conflict between slavery and democracy inevitably produces political crises—such as the restriction of free speech to protect slavery [3]—which cannot be resolved by compromise and will ultimately force a decision that determines "the practical existence of a people" [2].
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…
ifferent shapes, but when they have once taken possession of the political arena, they will overshadow all other issues. Everything else will be subordinate to them; they will form the only legitimate line of distinction between parties, and all attempts to divert public attention from them, or to palliate them with compromises or secondary issues, will prove futile and abortive. Their final decision, one way or the other, will decide the practical existence of a people. Such a contradiction is that between liberty, founded upon the natural rights of man, and slavery, founded upon usurpation;…
ifting? I will not dwell on our perverted commercial policy, nor on the question of internal improvements, and the like. I point out to you the general antagonism in which our political development is entangled. I have often been told that the slaveholders are right in restricting the liberties of speech and of the press, etc., on the subject of slavery; for those liberties unrestrained would be a real danger to them. No doubt they would be a danger, but there is no more crushing argument against slavery than this, no more conclusive proof of its entire incompatibility with true democracy.…
s which, as natural consequences, must spring from the mixture of the contradictory principles of slavery and democracy. When in a democratic community there is a powerful individual, or an association or class of men, whose claims and pretensions are in conflict with the natural rights of man in general, or with the legitimate claims of other individuals, and who deem their own particular interests above all other considerations, we may well say that the liberties of the people are in danger. When such individuals, or classes of men, find that their claims and pretensions cannot stand…
f protection I spoke of run contrary to the spirit of our institutions. Indeed, so it seems to be. What does that prove? Simply this: that a social institution which is in antagonism with the principles of democratic government cannot be maintained and protected by means which are in accordance with those principles; and, on the other hand, that a social institution that cannot be protected by means that are in accordance with the democratic principles of our government, must essentially be in antagonism to those principles. It proves that the people in the slaveholding States, although…
More questions about this book
- Schurz introduces "the logic of things and events" as an "overruling fatality" that determines the destiny of nations. How would you explain this concept to a modern audience, distinct from simple cause-and-effect, and what implications does it have for the perceived power of democratic government?
- 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"?