UNDERSTANDING FEDERAL HISTORY, A VISIT TO A CIVIL WAR MUSTER IN MICHIGAN, MILITARY HISTORY and the MIDDLE EAST TODAY
UNDERSTANDING FEDERAL HISTORY, A VISIT TO A CIVIL WAR MUSTER IN MICHIGAN, MILITARY HISTORY and the MIDDLE EAST TODAY
By Kevin A. Stoda in Kuwait
In late August, I attended my first Civil War Muster in Jackson, Michigan. It was the 23rd such event held at Jackson’s Cascades. Civil War musters are considered among the largest full-family participatory events in the United States, so I figured it was about time that I experienced one myself.
At Civil War musters individuals and families dress up in costumes and uniforms from the mid-19th Bellum period in U.S. history. In this case, over 1000 participants (including whole families) camped out in canvas tents for two nights and two days as battles were carried out in the afternoons between the Union and Confederate forces, reenacting to a great degree events that occurred over 160 years ago.
However, this sort of American weekend celebration is not necessarily focused on who wins the battles—battles which might only last a few minutes in time. Civil War Muster culture is more importantly understood as an educational and uniting experience for all participants and visitors.
Before and after the main battles at Jackson that day, one could wander the camps between North and South. Along the way, one could discuss the activities and ways of life of the participants along with learning about the lifestyles & practices of life of bygone eras. One could even find “Southerners” and “Northerners” sharing coffee and civil conversations together.
CLOTHING & MILITIAS
The first thing I noticed about the many women at this particular muster was that their outfits were fairly reminiscent of what I see on a daily basis living in Kuwait. The ladies wore long dresses and were quite proud to do so. They also wore hats, head coverings, and even occasionally a veil.
The next similarity in dress to Arab cultures came in the form of the uniforms of some of the Northern and Southern troops. For example, the men representing one Pennsylvania militia unit from the 1850s wore a military uniform reminiscent of what was certainly worn in both the North African and in Ottoman regions throughout both the entire 19th and part of the early 20th century. Several of these soldiers even wore fez hats. The red decorative design on these uniforms also looked positively Islamic, i.e. imitating the art forms of Arab and Islamic designers or artisans
I enquired about the history of this particularly Arab-looking uniform of a 19th century American militia The muster participants were glad to educate me. “Yes, the uniforms were modeled on a French and North African design used in the 19th Century.” I was informed that a variety of local militias in the USA (both North and South) in the 1840s and 1850s had adopted such uniforms, i.e. uniforms based on the French & North African design. When these various militias took sides in the Civil War, these soldiers and units continued to wear their own locally designed uniforms and head gear.
A third similarity to the Middle East (this time to the Middle East of 2007) then dawned on me as I observed these different militias uniforms worn around me that weekend at the Jackson Cascades Muster. This similarity was namely that there were certainly different tribes and militias who had come together to make up the Civil War in the USA in 1861 through 1865. This was, in a way, reminiscent to how wars in the Middle East are still carried out today.
MILITIAS IN INTERNAL AMERICAN WARS
Wars are historically very messy affairs!
For thousands of years, different troops in most wars were not made up of a single unified army facing off against another single unified army. Armies were made up of locally recruited and regional militias. Therefore, any military historian would have anticipated the multi-tribal and multi-militia facets of the current civil wars that the US has been waltzing into and among (with great bombing and destructive fanfare) in both Afghanistan since 2001 and in Iraq since 2003.
My home state, Kansas, was embroiled in civil war in the 1850s and 1860s. The Kansas territory at that time was known as “Bloody Kansas” from 1854 to 1865. This was an era of tribal, ideological, religious, and militia wars. This period was a nightmare where both local and neighboring tribes lined up against one another. Moreover, funds and “foreign” support (from across the Kansas border and often from Missouri) on behalf of the various sides supporting militias, jayhawkers and bald-knobbers kept the battle raging for over a decade.
Eventually, only the national territorial Civil War came to overshadow the battlegrounds of Kansas—marginalizing the Kansas bloodbath as a sideshow in a greater regional conflict.
Will such a sideshow position in a regional conflict be the future of Iraq? This is what the Bush Administration and neighboring states of Iraq fear today—whether they are Saudis, Syrians, Kuwaitis, Turks, Persians.
The U.S. leadership should have seen this all coming. Any civil war historian could see that neither the Northern nor Southern forces were monolithic forces. I observed it in the uniforms and traditions shared by the various actors at the Michigan Muster I witnessed first-hand this past month There were diverse groups of militia-men (black or white or Native American) who took sides in the Great Civil War in the U.S. from 1861 to 1865—and in Kansas, even during the years before that vicious war..
I muttered to myself as I continued my tour of this particular Civil War muster, “What kind of American history had young George W. Bush learnt when he was studying back in Yale or in Texas so many years ago?”
TENTS
I continued to enjoy the ambience of Civil War-era camaraderie while walking among the variety of tents sent up on that weekend at the Jackson Cascade’s 23rd Annual Civil War Muster. Even after a very rainy night before, these hardy campers and warriors were radiating in the communal living involved in such a muster.
There were muffins and stews on the fire. There were rifles set up in teepee fashion. There were cups of water being served in tin cups to warriors. There were drummers and flutists playing music together. Meanwhile, cavalry horses were being fed.
Further, here-and-there were male and female fighters taking target- or shooting practice. There were also other militias practicing marching in step. There were also large cannons being polished. In short, there were photo-ops galore.
Moreover, there were displays, presentations and debates being carried out under a variety of other much larger tents than the individual troops were using to camp out in. Immediately, I was reminded by the sight of such large tents of the preferred type of tents used for weekend camping in Kuwait by the local Arab populations, i.e. modern peoples who were also trying on weekends to reenact a way of life their own ancestors had once known so intimately.
That is right! Half-way around the globe, Kuwaitis in the thousands also spend weekends moving into tents and living out in the open under the desert sky and stars. They and their families see it as an important bonding facet of their lives in the 21st Century.
More importantly, many Kuwaiti families and tribes still meet under actual large tents on an even more regular basis to discuss among themselves the latest issues or to hear political and educational speeches today. This tradition of Kuwaitis holding such meetings either at homes or under tents is known in Kuwait as the practice of holding a “diwaniya”. It is usually an all-male affair, but even this ancient tradition has been opened to some women today—just as in the U.S.A females have joined militia units meeting and camping out in Civil War muster tents these recent generations.
In other words, as I walked around Jackson Cascades Park on the weekend of August 25 & 26, 2007, I continued to be amazed at the similarities to the Middle East today and what was being lived out before me in the USA that very day.
As I wandered among the tents taking photos and listening to discussions, a kernel of an idea within my thoughts took form. I began to dream of a day when a Civil War-era Muster and its tents might be used in some future period as an educational or cross-culturally bonding event for both Americans and Arabs.
Some of the displays that weekend in Jackson, Michigan among the larger tents included a history of blacks in the Civil War. This tent was promoted by some members representing Detroit’s 102nd, under which one of the original all black units from Detroit had served in that civil war.
An elderly black women was giving a presentation in the corner of that tent on how secret signals were sewn into traditional quilts during the days of the Abolition Movement in the USA. Those symbols indicated how and where the escapee needed to proceed on their route northwards on the Underground Railway.
Another poster board in the same tent explained that blacks fought on both sides of the Civil War. There had even been an all-black cavalry unit in the South. However, most black troops were rounded up in that war to primarily do the grunt work, including doing back breaking work of building fortifications and digging trenches.
One dark-skinned muster participant stated proudly that in his unit there were at least 3 members of his present unit who could trace their family tree back to one of these original black units in the Civil War.
At another tent further up-the-hill, I heard a speech given by a muster participant dressed as a funeral undertaker of that era. The man introduced himself as “an entrepreneur”. The entrepreneur noted that in the late 1850s and early 1860s he had seen the potential of investing in and promoting new embalming technologies in America. Proper embalming techniques would enabled bodies to be moved long distance for burial during and after the Civil War.
I thought to myself, “This particular “entrepreneur” could have called himself a ‘Civil War entrepreneur.’”
This thought, in turn, led me to recall that half-a-world away many war- and civil war- entrepreneurs were now in the Gulf region today, including Halliburton in Iraq and the local out-sourcer known as First Kuwaiti. (Many of these war-entrepreneurial firms have been famously exploiting, endangering and misleading foreign laborers in the neighboring war zones for years.) In short, there is certainly money to be made in war and entrepreneurs aren’t far behind—if they aren’t actually leading the charge.
CIVIL WAR-ERA GUNS IN MODERN WARFARE
At another tent, a speaker on weapons was giving a presentation on the history of another new technology developed for the American Civil War—namely the Gatling Gun. The speaker narrated a history of this Civil War-era machine gun. As he talked, he took the listener from the 1860s through to the present day as to how the design of this weapon has been useful. The narration proceeded roughly as follows.
By 1910, the usefulness of the Gatling gun to national armed forces in America was considered “null”. At that time, most of the remaining Gatling guns in the U.S. defense arsenal were melted down for their copper.
However, after WWII the creation of faster aircraft, especially jetfighter planes, led to the return of the Gatling gun design—as the firing pattern served many crafts better than had guns which had been serving American forces well on regular WWII-era planes. Soon, during the Vietnam War, the Gatling gun design was added for use in helicopters.
Finally, the speaker glowed, “The third or fourth generation Gatling gun is much larger than that used in the civil war-era and later.” In short, the current generation-descendents of the Gatling Gun have been used to fire extremely large uranium-tipped weapons by U.S. forces in the Gulf region starting in 1991--and elsewhere throughout the world today.
I couldn’t imagine that many other listeners--other than myself-- looked at this speaker’s comments at that moment with the horror I perceived at that moment.
I had slowly comprehended that the recently created model of Richard J. Gatling’s weapon on the table in front of me had grown up to become a modern-day leviathan—leaving a uranium tipped Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan in its wake.
Feeling a bit dismayed at the pride with which the speaker raved on-and-on about this pre-runner of modern mass-murder technology, I turned away from this speaker’s tent.
CONSTITUTIONAL TENT
In other words, with an awkward sadness in my heart at this technological wonder of American ingenuity, I turned on my heels and proceeded to another tent where an important debate was taking place.
It was a fascinating debate under a large tent where two famous-looking speakers were standing as I walked by. One speaker was dressed as Abraham Lincoln, leader of the United States of America. The other was dressed as Jefferson Davis, leader of the Confederate States of America. They were well-prepared and able speakers taking part in a debate that should have taken place over 160 years ago--but which never did.
Both speakers talked of the U.S. constitution as though it was much more than simply a piece of paper. Recall that Bismarck of this same era of the 1860s had questioned whether any constitution was more than a piece of paper.
As I looked around the room at the audience—many dressed in ante-bellum finery—I saw that everyone took the U.S. constitution to be the key agreement bonding a nation together.
I recalled, as I listened to the speakers, that one of the key differences between the participants in today’s Iraq and the speakers and listeners at that tent far-across the Atlantic ocean in Michigan is this very fact: American’s have historically hardly ever seen their constitution as SIMPLY a piece of paper, i.e. which someone could just walk away from, toss in a trash bin, and do as whatever one wanted with . (The historical exception is occurring during the W. Bush Administration in this 3rd Millennium whereby the document could be simply be tossed away from the public scene and ignored.)
“Abraham Lincoln” reminded the listeners that a constitution is a contract and asked, “What would be the point of two parties signing a document if one party could simply walk away from the document and forget that the document was ever legally binding on him or his community?”
Naturally, a rebuttal from “Jeff Davis”, included the charge, “It is historically accurate to say isn’t it, that you argued the opposite point of view when speaking on Texas a few decades ago.” Over two decades earlier, Lincoln had advocated Texas leaving its union with Mexico.
“Jeff Davis” represented, of course, the southern view, and he was of the mind that the South had bent over backwards trying not to leave the union for over seven decade prior to succession. The speaker argued that the founding fathers, or declarers of independence in 1776 would have approved of the South’s determination as a group of states to form a new and more perfect union.
This was a fairly refreshing fictitious and civil debate between “Lincoln” and “”Jefferson” on federalism and what it means to support one’s country, one’s region, one’s tribe or family.
At that moment, I certainly wished that representatives from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Turkey, Syria, and Iran were present to listen to and comment on the underlying federalist struggle being carried out before me that 25th of August 2007 in the green and tent-filled Cascade Park in Jackson, Michigan.
Perhaps, if the U.S. in April or May 2003 had sat down with all neighboring tribes and local militias under one tent and really discussed what federalism entailed based on prior historical mistakes, wars, and civil war, all parties could have reached a more civil union prior to 2007.
Instead, everyone is remaining in a state of stress and alert that could have been avoided, i.e. fingers are pointing from one Iraqi state to another and from one neighboring state to another—as well as back to occupying U.S.A and Britian.
FEDERALISM
I, myself, have spent the past two decades studying and experiencing federalism in a variety of its forms. I have enjoyed, therefore, not only the opportunity to study federalism in the United States, but I have observed it federatins intimately lived out in the years of working in the United Arab Emirates, Germany and Mexico. Federalism, like democracy itself, is a dirty and messy affair but it may be the best that a mixed group of peoples can ever create.
Besides, as a religious individual, I know that the Middle Eastern tribes invented federalism a long time ago, i.e. in Biblical times. The original twelve tribes of Israel were example of such a federal structure. Therefore, as federalism is a native concept to the Middle East, it can potentially be a quite practical unifying force and form for states and regions. Whether the federal union is made up of states, tribes or emirates is irrelevant. A federal design can be worked out.
Interestingly, one of the most profound modern students of federal theory, Daniel Elazar, noted over two decades ago that almost from the beginning of American Constitutional history, the dichotomy between individual states and federal foreign relations began to break down in the U.S.
Elazar’s research and other’s governmental analyses or findings over the centuries imply that individual states in a federal system will and do carry out carry out cross border relations. This is part and parcel of a federal system.
So, it should not come as a surprise that states and regions in present day Iraq favor relations with one foreign power over another. Even the Governor George W. Bush in Texas in the 1990s, led his state to promote stronger relations between border states and Mexico.
Elazar also notes that even in the original 18th Century U.S. Constitution, individual states were given specific rights to carry out relations with individual Indian tribes. That is, states or tribes embracing or adjacent (to) individual states have been enabled from conception by the U.S. Constitution to carry out relationships with these neighboring tribes (or intra-regional nations).
Why does it then come as a surprise to Americans and American statesmen in the 21st Century that in the case of Iraq’s newly formed federation, cross-border tribes (and relationships among these tribes) and bordering states do, in fact, effect Iraq daily and these same parties will continue to be playing active cross border roles and carrying out cross-border relations with Iraqi states and regions now and in the future?
In short, once any state or becomes federal (or confederal), it’s international relations will not be driven simply according to “unitary state theory”—which has dominated American foreign policy for centuries.
At this junction in history, federative solutions are ever-more necessary as the “unitary state actor paradigm” of international relations continues to (a) crumble or (b) evolve into multi-lateral paradigms in this 3rd millennium. [Regional political historians and experts of the Middle East have to admit that even in officially centrist Saudi Arabia, the emirate system—a federative approach to governance-- is alive and strong within its borders and among the tribes and families dictating governance there Similar structures exist or have been developing in other regional states, too.)
CURRENTLY
Now, ongoing U.S. and Middle Eastern speculations are irrelevant as to whether Iraq (1) will collapse into multiple countries, (2) will remain unified and federal, or (3) will be taken over eventually by a new regional strong man.
The fact is, by choosing to build (and in the U.S.’ case—strongly support a federal solution in Iraq--) the Iraqi peoples and their representative have opened their nation to federal solutions. It is time to seize the day by educating one another in the region about all of the workable alternatives to civil war that a federal structure can imply.
Federal states and nations can be quite robust in the long term—whether or not neighboring unitary and autocratic states like Turkey, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Syria or Iran recognize federative potential for future security or not. The U.S. in Iraq has already a strong positive link with the Kurdish region. It is up to the U.S. to throw all of its effort into building a positive relationship with the other regional actors and regional tribes and governments.
The most important fact for U.S. federal and foreign policy to recognize is that federal states almost never go to war with each other.
Second, federal states—either autocratic or democratic ones—(as long as they remain federal) will tend to become more democratic over the long term or they will simply become de-facto centralized states as were the Soviet Union and Pakistan when they were federative nations.
The only negative caveat is that some weaker federal states tend to fall into civil war.
On the other hand, stronger federal states, like Switzerland and Canada never fall into civil war.
Further, the history of the United States has included consistent positive impulses to renewing federalism--often in the wake of centrist government-led imperialistic misadventures abroad. Recall how the debacle of the Vietnam War helped lead to calls for greater federal balance and stronger balance between the branches of governance in the U.S.A. starting in the early to mid-1970s.
Similarly, Germany re-embraced federalism in the late 1940s after the Nazi-centrists under Hitler step-by-step totally ridded both German and Austrian governments of federalism throughout the 1930s.
Finally, having federations fall apart is not always a bad thing. Two recent examples of this include the dissolution of Czechoslovakia in 1991-1992 and the dissolution of the Soviet Union in that same period.
In conclusion, both Gulf Arabs and Americans need to discuss the positive aspects of building federal states, just as members of the European have been doing for nearly 60 years. Perhaps, they could even invite their Persian and Turkish neighbors to such a table eventually.
Meanwhile, not only do I look forward to us all getting under a big tent and agreeing as to how both democracy and the promotion of positive aspects of federalism can solve not only problems in Iraq or the Middle East. I am also looking forward to the day when Americans, Canadians, and Mexicans can demand a federal approach to cross border relations and NAFTA—in contrast to the current centrist or top-down approach we have had to date.
NOTES
Cascades’ Civil War Muster, http://www.civilwarmuster.org/
Covenant Theology, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_Theology
Elazar, Daniel J., Publius, Vol. 14, No. 4, Federated States and International Relations (Autumn, 1984), pp. 1-4.
Federalism, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/federalism/
Federalism, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism
Gatling Gun, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatling_gun
Gatling Gun History, http://www.bwefirearms.com/history.html
Michigan in the Civil War Message Board, http://history-sites.net/mb/cw/micwmb/index.cgi
Stoda, Kevin, A Federalist Peace Theory 1946-1992, http://www.geocities.com/eslkevin/FEDERALPEACETHEORY.HTML
The 7th Michigan Infantry, http://www.7thmichigan.us/Jackson_Civil_War_Muster.htm
By Kevin A. Stoda in Kuwait
In late August, I attended my first Civil War Muster in Jackson, Michigan. It was the 23rd such event held at Jackson’s Cascades. Civil War musters are considered among the largest full-family participatory events in the United States, so I figured it was about time that I experienced one myself.
At Civil War musters individuals and families dress up in costumes and uniforms from the mid-19th Bellum period in U.S. history. In this case, over 1000 participants (including whole families) camped out in canvas tents for two nights and two days as battles were carried out in the afternoons between the Union and Confederate forces, reenacting to a great degree events that occurred over 160 years ago.
However, this sort of American weekend celebration is not necessarily focused on who wins the battles—battles which might only last a few minutes in time. Civil War Muster culture is more importantly understood as an educational and uniting experience for all participants and visitors.
Before and after the main battles at Jackson that day, one could wander the camps between North and South. Along the way, one could discuss the activities and ways of life of the participants along with learning about the lifestyles & practices of life of bygone eras. One could even find “Southerners” and “Northerners” sharing coffee and civil conversations together.
CLOTHING & MILITIAS
The first thing I noticed about the many women at this particular muster was that their outfits were fairly reminiscent of what I see on a daily basis living in Kuwait. The ladies wore long dresses and were quite proud to do so. They also wore hats, head coverings, and even occasionally a veil.
The next similarity in dress to Arab cultures came in the form of the uniforms of some of the Northern and Southern troops. For example, the men representing one Pennsylvania militia unit from the 1850s wore a military uniform reminiscent of what was certainly worn in both the North African and in Ottoman regions throughout both the entire 19th and part of the early 20th century. Several of these soldiers even wore fez hats. The red decorative design on these uniforms also looked positively Islamic, i.e. imitating the art forms of Arab and Islamic designers or artisans
I enquired about the history of this particularly Arab-looking uniform of a 19th century American militia The muster participants were glad to educate me. “Yes, the uniforms were modeled on a French and North African design used in the 19th Century.” I was informed that a variety of local militias in the USA (both North and South) in the 1840s and 1850s had adopted such uniforms, i.e. uniforms based on the French & North African design. When these various militias took sides in the Civil War, these soldiers and units continued to wear their own locally designed uniforms and head gear.
A third similarity to the Middle East (this time to the Middle East of 2007) then dawned on me as I observed these different militias uniforms worn around me that weekend at the Jackson Cascades Muster. This similarity was namely that there were certainly different tribes and militias who had come together to make up the Civil War in the USA in 1861 through 1865. This was, in a way, reminiscent to how wars in the Middle East are still carried out today.
MILITIAS IN INTERNAL AMERICAN WARS
Wars are historically very messy affairs!
For thousands of years, different troops in most wars were not made up of a single unified army facing off against another single unified army. Armies were made up of locally recruited and regional militias. Therefore, any military historian would have anticipated the multi-tribal and multi-militia facets of the current civil wars that the US has been waltzing into and among (with great bombing and destructive fanfare) in both Afghanistan since 2001 and in Iraq since 2003.
My home state, Kansas, was embroiled in civil war in the 1850s and 1860s. The Kansas territory at that time was known as “Bloody Kansas” from 1854 to 1865. This was an era of tribal, ideological, religious, and militia wars. This period was a nightmare where both local and neighboring tribes lined up against one another. Moreover, funds and “foreign” support (from across the Kansas border and often from Missouri) on behalf of the various sides supporting militias, jayhawkers and bald-knobbers kept the battle raging for over a decade.
Eventually, only the national territorial Civil War came to overshadow the battlegrounds of Kansas—marginalizing the Kansas bloodbath as a sideshow in a greater regional conflict.
Will such a sideshow position in a regional conflict be the future of Iraq? This is what the Bush Administration and neighboring states of Iraq fear today—whether they are Saudis, Syrians, Kuwaitis, Turks, Persians.
The U.S. leadership should have seen this all coming. Any civil war historian could see that neither the Northern nor Southern forces were monolithic forces. I observed it in the uniforms and traditions shared by the various actors at the Michigan Muster I witnessed first-hand this past month There were diverse groups of militia-men (black or white or Native American) who took sides in the Great Civil War in the U.S. from 1861 to 1865—and in Kansas, even during the years before that vicious war..
I muttered to myself as I continued my tour of this particular Civil War muster, “What kind of American history had young George W. Bush learnt when he was studying back in Yale or in Texas so many years ago?”
TENTS
I continued to enjoy the ambience of Civil War-era camaraderie while walking among the variety of tents sent up on that weekend at the Jackson Cascade’s 23rd Annual Civil War Muster. Even after a very rainy night before, these hardy campers and warriors were radiating in the communal living involved in such a muster.
There were muffins and stews on the fire. There were rifles set up in teepee fashion. There were cups of water being served in tin cups to warriors. There were drummers and flutists playing music together. Meanwhile, cavalry horses were being fed.
Further, here-and-there were male and female fighters taking target- or shooting practice. There were also other militias practicing marching in step. There were also large cannons being polished. In short, there were photo-ops galore.
Moreover, there were displays, presentations and debates being carried out under a variety of other much larger tents than the individual troops were using to camp out in. Immediately, I was reminded by the sight of such large tents of the preferred type of tents used for weekend camping in Kuwait by the local Arab populations, i.e. modern peoples who were also trying on weekends to reenact a way of life their own ancestors had once known so intimately.
That is right! Half-way around the globe, Kuwaitis in the thousands also spend weekends moving into tents and living out in the open under the desert sky and stars. They and their families see it as an important bonding facet of their lives in the 21st Century.
More importantly, many Kuwaiti families and tribes still meet under actual large tents on an even more regular basis to discuss among themselves the latest issues or to hear political and educational speeches today. This tradition of Kuwaitis holding such meetings either at homes or under tents is known in Kuwait as the practice of holding a “diwaniya”. It is usually an all-male affair, but even this ancient tradition has been opened to some women today—just as in the U.S.A females have joined militia units meeting and camping out in Civil War muster tents these recent generations.
In other words, as I walked around Jackson Cascades Park on the weekend of August 25 & 26, 2007, I continued to be amazed at the similarities to the Middle East today and what was being lived out before me in the USA that very day.
As I wandered among the tents taking photos and listening to discussions, a kernel of an idea within my thoughts took form. I began to dream of a day when a Civil War-era Muster and its tents might be used in some future period as an educational or cross-culturally bonding event for both Americans and Arabs.
Some of the displays that weekend in Jackson, Michigan among the larger tents included a history of blacks in the Civil War. This tent was promoted by some members representing Detroit’s 102nd, under which one of the original all black units from Detroit had served in that civil war.
An elderly black women was giving a presentation in the corner of that tent on how secret signals were sewn into traditional quilts during the days of the Abolition Movement in the USA. Those symbols indicated how and where the escapee needed to proceed on their route northwards on the Underground Railway.
Another poster board in the same tent explained that blacks fought on both sides of the Civil War. There had even been an all-black cavalry unit in the South. However, most black troops were rounded up in that war to primarily do the grunt work, including doing back breaking work of building fortifications and digging trenches.
One dark-skinned muster participant stated proudly that in his unit there were at least 3 members of his present unit who could trace their family tree back to one of these original black units in the Civil War.
At another tent further up-the-hill, I heard a speech given by a muster participant dressed as a funeral undertaker of that era. The man introduced himself as “an entrepreneur”. The entrepreneur noted that in the late 1850s and early 1860s he had seen the potential of investing in and promoting new embalming technologies in America. Proper embalming techniques would enabled bodies to be moved long distance for burial during and after the Civil War.
I thought to myself, “This particular “entrepreneur” could have called himself a ‘Civil War entrepreneur.’”
This thought, in turn, led me to recall that half-a-world away many war- and civil war- entrepreneurs were now in the Gulf region today, including Halliburton in Iraq and the local out-sourcer known as First Kuwaiti. (Many of these war-entrepreneurial firms have been famously exploiting, endangering and misleading foreign laborers in the neighboring war zones for years.) In short, there is certainly money to be made in war and entrepreneurs aren’t far behind—if they aren’t actually leading the charge.
CIVIL WAR-ERA GUNS IN MODERN WARFARE
At another tent, a speaker on weapons was giving a presentation on the history of another new technology developed for the American Civil War—namely the Gatling Gun. The speaker narrated a history of this Civil War-era machine gun. As he talked, he took the listener from the 1860s through to the present day as to how the design of this weapon has been useful. The narration proceeded roughly as follows.
By 1910, the usefulness of the Gatling gun to national armed forces in America was considered “null”. At that time, most of the remaining Gatling guns in the U.S. defense arsenal were melted down for their copper.
However, after WWII the creation of faster aircraft, especially jetfighter planes, led to the return of the Gatling gun design—as the firing pattern served many crafts better than had guns which had been serving American forces well on regular WWII-era planes. Soon, during the Vietnam War, the Gatling gun design was added for use in helicopters.
Finally, the speaker glowed, “The third or fourth generation Gatling gun is much larger than that used in the civil war-era and later.” In short, the current generation-descendents of the Gatling Gun have been used to fire extremely large uranium-tipped weapons by U.S. forces in the Gulf region starting in 1991--and elsewhere throughout the world today.
I couldn’t imagine that many other listeners--other than myself-- looked at this speaker’s comments at that moment with the horror I perceived at that moment.
I had slowly comprehended that the recently created model of Richard J. Gatling’s weapon on the table in front of me had grown up to become a modern-day leviathan—leaving a uranium tipped Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan in its wake.
Feeling a bit dismayed at the pride with which the speaker raved on-and-on about this pre-runner of modern mass-murder technology, I turned away from this speaker’s tent.
CONSTITUTIONAL TENT
In other words, with an awkward sadness in my heart at this technological wonder of American ingenuity, I turned on my heels and proceeded to another tent where an important debate was taking place.
It was a fascinating debate under a large tent where two famous-looking speakers were standing as I walked by. One speaker was dressed as Abraham Lincoln, leader of the United States of America. The other was dressed as Jefferson Davis, leader of the Confederate States of America. They were well-prepared and able speakers taking part in a debate that should have taken place over 160 years ago--but which never did.
Both speakers talked of the U.S. constitution as though it was much more than simply a piece of paper. Recall that Bismarck of this same era of the 1860s had questioned whether any constitution was more than a piece of paper.
As I looked around the room at the audience—many dressed in ante-bellum finery—I saw that everyone took the U.S. constitution to be the key agreement bonding a nation together.
I recalled, as I listened to the speakers, that one of the key differences between the participants in today’s Iraq and the speakers and listeners at that tent far-across the Atlantic ocean in Michigan is this very fact: American’s have historically hardly ever seen their constitution as SIMPLY a piece of paper, i.e. which someone could just walk away from, toss in a trash bin, and do as whatever one wanted with . (The historical exception is occurring during the W. Bush Administration in this 3rd Millennium whereby the document could be simply be tossed away from the public scene and ignored.)
“Abraham Lincoln” reminded the listeners that a constitution is a contract and asked, “What would be the point of two parties signing a document if one party could simply walk away from the document and forget that the document was ever legally binding on him or his community?”
Naturally, a rebuttal from “Jeff Davis”, included the charge, “It is historically accurate to say isn’t it, that you argued the opposite point of view when speaking on Texas a few decades ago.” Over two decades earlier, Lincoln had advocated Texas leaving its union with Mexico.
“Jeff Davis” represented, of course, the southern view, and he was of the mind that the South had bent over backwards trying not to leave the union for over seven decade prior to succession. The speaker argued that the founding fathers, or declarers of independence in 1776 would have approved of the South’s determination as a group of states to form a new and more perfect union.
This was a fairly refreshing fictitious and civil debate between “Lincoln” and “”Jefferson” on federalism and what it means to support one’s country, one’s region, one’s tribe or family.
At that moment, I certainly wished that representatives from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Turkey, Syria, and Iran were present to listen to and comment on the underlying federalist struggle being carried out before me that 25th of August 2007 in the green and tent-filled Cascade Park in Jackson, Michigan.
Perhaps, if the U.S. in April or May 2003 had sat down with all neighboring tribes and local militias under one tent and really discussed what federalism entailed based on prior historical mistakes, wars, and civil war, all parties could have reached a more civil union prior to 2007.
Instead, everyone is remaining in a state of stress and alert that could have been avoided, i.e. fingers are pointing from one Iraqi state to another and from one neighboring state to another—as well as back to occupying U.S.A and Britian.
FEDERALISM
I, myself, have spent the past two decades studying and experiencing federalism in a variety of its forms. I have enjoyed, therefore, not only the opportunity to study federalism in the United States, but I have observed it federatins intimately lived out in the years of working in the United Arab Emirates, Germany and Mexico. Federalism, like democracy itself, is a dirty and messy affair but it may be the best that a mixed group of peoples can ever create.
Besides, as a religious individual, I know that the Middle Eastern tribes invented federalism a long time ago, i.e. in Biblical times. The original twelve tribes of Israel were example of such a federal structure. Therefore, as federalism is a native concept to the Middle East, it can potentially be a quite practical unifying force and form for states and regions. Whether the federal union is made up of states, tribes or emirates is irrelevant. A federal design can be worked out.
Interestingly, one of the most profound modern students of federal theory, Daniel Elazar, noted over two decades ago that almost from the beginning of American Constitutional history, the dichotomy between individual states and federal foreign relations began to break down in the U.S.
Elazar’s research and other’s governmental analyses or findings over the centuries imply that individual states in a federal system will and do carry out carry out cross border relations. This is part and parcel of a federal system.
So, it should not come as a surprise that states and regions in present day Iraq favor relations with one foreign power over another. Even the Governor George W. Bush in Texas in the 1990s, led his state to promote stronger relations between border states and Mexico.
Elazar also notes that even in the original 18th Century U.S. Constitution, individual states were given specific rights to carry out relations with individual Indian tribes. That is, states or tribes embracing or adjacent (to) individual states have been enabled from conception by the U.S. Constitution to carry out relationships with these neighboring tribes (or intra-regional nations).
Why does it then come as a surprise to Americans and American statesmen in the 21st Century that in the case of Iraq’s newly formed federation, cross-border tribes (and relationships among these tribes) and bordering states do, in fact, effect Iraq daily and these same parties will continue to be playing active cross border roles and carrying out cross-border relations with Iraqi states and regions now and in the future?
In short, once any state or becomes federal (or confederal), it’s international relations will not be driven simply according to “unitary state theory”—which has dominated American foreign policy for centuries.
At this junction in history, federative solutions are ever-more necessary as the “unitary state actor paradigm” of international relations continues to (a) crumble or (b) evolve into multi-lateral paradigms in this 3rd millennium. [Regional political historians and experts of the Middle East have to admit that even in officially centrist Saudi Arabia, the emirate system—a federative approach to governance-- is alive and strong within its borders and among the tribes and families dictating governance there Similar structures exist or have been developing in other regional states, too.)
CURRENTLY
Now, ongoing U.S. and Middle Eastern speculations are irrelevant as to whether Iraq (1) will collapse into multiple countries, (2) will remain unified and federal, or (3) will be taken over eventually by a new regional strong man.
The fact is, by choosing to build (and in the U.S.’ case—strongly support a federal solution in Iraq--) the Iraqi peoples and their representative have opened their nation to federal solutions. It is time to seize the day by educating one another in the region about all of the workable alternatives to civil war that a federal structure can imply.
Federal states and nations can be quite robust in the long term—whether or not neighboring unitary and autocratic states like Turkey, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Syria or Iran recognize federative potential for future security or not. The U.S. in Iraq has already a strong positive link with the Kurdish region. It is up to the U.S. to throw all of its effort into building a positive relationship with the other regional actors and regional tribes and governments.
The most important fact for U.S. federal and foreign policy to recognize is that federal states almost never go to war with each other.
Second, federal states—either autocratic or democratic ones—(as long as they remain federal) will tend to become more democratic over the long term or they will simply become de-facto centralized states as were the Soviet Union and Pakistan when they were federative nations.
The only negative caveat is that some weaker federal states tend to fall into civil war.
On the other hand, stronger federal states, like Switzerland and Canada never fall into civil war.
Further, the history of the United States has included consistent positive impulses to renewing federalism--often in the wake of centrist government-led imperialistic misadventures abroad. Recall how the debacle of the Vietnam War helped lead to calls for greater federal balance and stronger balance between the branches of governance in the U.S.A. starting in the early to mid-1970s.
Similarly, Germany re-embraced federalism in the late 1940s after the Nazi-centrists under Hitler step-by-step totally ridded both German and Austrian governments of federalism throughout the 1930s.
Finally, having federations fall apart is not always a bad thing. Two recent examples of this include the dissolution of Czechoslovakia in 1991-1992 and the dissolution of the Soviet Union in that same period.
In conclusion, both Gulf Arabs and Americans need to discuss the positive aspects of building federal states, just as members of the European have been doing for nearly 60 years. Perhaps, they could even invite their Persian and Turkish neighbors to such a table eventually.
Meanwhile, not only do I look forward to us all getting under a big tent and agreeing as to how both democracy and the promotion of positive aspects of federalism can solve not only problems in Iraq or the Middle East. I am also looking forward to the day when Americans, Canadians, and Mexicans can demand a federal approach to cross border relations and NAFTA—in contrast to the current centrist or top-down approach we have had to date.
NOTES
Cascades’ Civil War Muster, http://www.civilwarmuster.org/
Covenant Theology, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_Theology
Elazar, Daniel J., Publius, Vol. 14, No. 4, Federated States and International Relations (Autumn, 1984), pp. 1-4.
Federalism, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/federalism/
Federalism, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism
Gatling Gun, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatling_gun
Gatling Gun History, http://www.bwefirearms.com/history.html
Michigan in the Civil War Message Board, http://history-sites.net/mb/cw/micwmb/index.cgi
Stoda, Kevin, A Federalist Peace Theory 1946-1992, http://www.geocities.com/eslkevin/FEDERALPEACETHEORY.HTML
The 7th Michigan Infantry, http://www.7thmichigan.us/Jackson_Civil_War_Muster.htm
posted by Kevin Anthony Stoda at 10:19 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home