The Crying of Lot 49, Group Read 2024

[J K Van Nort]

The 2 volume documentary history titled Debates on the Constitution by Library of America provides a well-rounded view of how the new nation saw the constitutional convention, process and the text itself. 

The idea of presidential immunity and presidential power were debated in terms of holding a president accountable. One prescient argument, paraphrased here, considered the difference between a mistake of decision-making as unimpeachable if it was about making a thinking error but quite impeachable for an emotional action. 

Also they repeatedly stress that the president could be tried in criminal court after he leaves office. 

Some of the back and forth are quite amazing. They generally refer to Shay’s Rebellion as the incident in Massachusetts rather than the historic name.

In solidarity,
James


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone


On Wednesday, June 19, 2024, 20:18, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:

nice...nice....to learn.....
On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 8:17 PM J K Van Nort <jkvannort at yahoo.com> wrote:

Shay’s rebellion convinced many to accept the constitution. In the Debate on the Constitution (LOA), many of those supporting the ratification discuss Shay’s rebellion and the potential of anarchy as reasons to ratify.

In solidarity,
James


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone


On Wednesday, June 19, 2024, 19:28, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:

Yes, anarchism in its origins is defined as nonviolent. Yes, the individual
is sacrosanct, in fact may be said to be all. (this is
a political limitation I would argue but that is a side bit). Anarchism in
history is IDEALLY like the deaf-mute dance in this novel--
a self-organizing movement.

If this is related to the blackest view of history as presented in *The
Courier's Tragedy, *and I think it is, it is a vision of a kind of
disruption
of the brutal order of things.  A disruption from the cycle of violence, of
torture, murder and destruction.  As many anarchists say, the State is
always a violent force in history.....then maybe, sometimes, violence
is necessary; has been necessary--or if that goes too morally far---at
least violence is, sometimes, an evil but real disruption too.

Fanon and others in P's time and ours?. The French Revolution?
Or in the American context I keep speaking of. That sentence I first
learned from the P--list I think, About Jefferson's "the tree of liberty
being refreshed
by the blood of patriots and tyrants".......letter by Thomas Jefferson to
John Adams' son-in-law about Shay's Rebellion, which was a failed rebellion
in which some rebels died:    and, of course, before the new
constitution....

Here's from the letter:
"Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the
single instance of Massachusets? And can history produce an instance of a
rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it’s motives. They were
founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20.
years without such a rebellion.[1]
<https://www.monticello.org/research-education/thomas-jefferson-encyclopedia/tree-liberty-quotation/#fn-1>
 The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a
lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13.
states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to
one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country before
ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can
preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time
that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.
The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What
signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be
refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is
it’s natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the
insurrection of Massachusets: and in the spur of the moment they are
setting up a kite to keep the hen yard in order. I hope in god this article
will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted."[2]
<https://www.monticello.org/research-education/thomas-jefferson-encyclopedia/tree-liberty-quotation/#fn-2>



On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 6:40 PM David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:

> I guess we need to examine the convergence of anarchy and violence.  I
> tend to think that anarchy is nonviolent at its heart, because anarchy
> seems to place individual choice as sacrosanct. But I suppose one might
> need to consider violence as a means to carve out a space (GR’s “Zone”) to
> allow for the possibility of anarchy.
>
> David Morris
>
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 5:57 PM Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> P. "the anarchist dressed all in black"....like Driblette's assassins
>> and the Tystero Force....the main part--the essence of it?
>>
>> Which is why it is disruptive but also sometimes violent?
>>
>> I often think of Dylan's two men on horseback in *All Along the
>> Watchtower*
>>
>> and Pynchon's two riders in* Against the Day....*
>> --
>> Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
>>
>
--
Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l