CSA vs. USA Constitution

[thea_447]

Back to the discussion of the origins of jazz, I've found this:

Origins of Jazz
Jazz developed in the latter part of the 19th cent. from black work songs, field shouts, sorrow songs, hymns, and spirituals whose harmonic, rhythmic, and melodic elements were predominantly African. Because of its spontaneous, emotional, and improvisational character, and because it is basically of black origin and association, jazz has to some extent not been accorded the degree of recognition it deserves. European audiences have often been more receptive to jazz, and thus many American jazz musicians have become expatriates.

At the outset, jazz was slow to win acceptance by the general public, not only because of its cultural origin, but also because it tended to suggest loose morals and low social status. However, jazz gained a wide audience when white orchestras adapted or imitated it, and became legitimate entertainment in the late 1930s when Benny Goodman led racially mixed groups in concerts at Carnegie Hall. Show tunes became common vehicles for performance, and, while the results were exquisite, rhythmic and harmonic developments were impeded until the mid-1940s.

Jazz is generally thought to have begun in New Orleans, spreading to Chicago, Kansas City, New York City, and the West Coast. The blues, vocal and instrumental, was and is a vital component of jazz, which includes, roughly in order of appearance: ragtime; New Orleans or Dixieland jazz; swing; bop, or bebop; progressive, or cool, jazz; neo-bop, or hard-bop; third stream; mainstream modern; Latin-jazz; jazz-rock; and avant-garde or free jazz.

And, as for New Orleans jazz, here's something else:

By the beginning of the 19th century New Orleans was inhabited by whites, blacks and creoles, often the offsprings or descendants of white slave owners and black slave women. These creoles mostly lived in the old French quarter, in houses with front porches and wrought iron balconies whose patterns resembled lacework.

Jazz was born and developed around 1900 in this city, in a musical climate laden with folkloristic influences ranging from ragtime to spirituals, from work songs to blues, from minstrel shows to marching bands, from the colorful Mardi gras celebrations to the picturesque funeral processions.

According to historians, the legendary Buddy V, a cornet player born in 1878, was the first jazz musician.

>From 1910 to 1917, night spots in Storyville, New Orleans' red light district, became the ideal environment for jazz.

Some piano players played in brothels in order to "turn on" their customers. Bands, instead, usually played in variety theaters and dance halls.

Small jazz bands, however, also played on the street corners, especially after Storyville was "shut down" by the authorities (1917). "Cutting contests" between various "kings" would take place in the streets and squares of the city, whereupon they would attempt to outblow and outdo each other, notes being their only weapons.

In this legendary city, greats like Jelly Roll Morton, King Oliver, Sidney Bechet, Johnny Dodds, Honore Dutrey, Henry Allen, Albert Nichols, Baby Dodds, Kid Ory, Jimmy Noone, Papa Celestin and Omer Simeon walked their first musical steps.

Among these was Louis Armstrong, who learned to play in reform school. Many of the solo artists left New Orleans looking for fame and fortune, some to Chicago or New York, others to Los Angeles and other cities, spreading their musical influence everywhere.

One of jazz's earliest recordings was made in was made in 1917 by the "Original Dixieland Jazz Band", originally of New Orleans.

Between the late thirties and the early forties, a return to the early jazz artists began, thus making such famous again old favorites as Kid Ory, Barney Bigard, Sidney Bechet, Papa Mutt Carey, Bunk Johnson and others.

In the 1950's many leading jazz musicians started playing "New Orleans style" again and met with great success. Among these were Kid Ory, Wilbur and Sidney De Paris, Paul Barbain, Teddy Buckner, Red Allen, Omer Simeon and many others.

Many musicians, like Louis Armstrong, Jack Teagarden, Sidney Bechet and Bobby Hackett never ceased to include in their recordings and live performances the most characteristic tunes of the New Orleans sound.

[unionblue]

Hal,

Proceed to get bored.

I've answered to my satisfaction and to others here. While they may not agree, they are not confused with my views on the subject here.

Unionblue

[georgiana]

Precisely. It’s called “liberty”. Can be scary, but generally held to be better than the alternatives.

Well, I suppose that depends on which side of old lady liberty you happen to be sitting at the time in question, Bill. I’ll be frank, as a woman; there are not a handful of states, North or South, that I would trust with my liberty even today, let alone in 1860 (or 1960 for that matter). What “liberty” I possess was shoved down the throat of the states, which were, by 1919, even more adept at their argument that their right to “liberty” included the right to determine which members of society were permitted to enjoy its fruits. African-Americans were certainly not alone in having to turn to the federal government to seek vindication for individual rights.

In this nation’s history, I find that states have acted far more to restrict individual rights than the federal government. As the historical record amply demonstrates, complaints about encroachments into state powers are typically well-grounded in the argument that states have the power to restrict individual rights if they so choose. I’m all for liberty, Bill, but I’m for placing it beyond the reach of not only the federal government, but state governments as well.

It is unfortunate that the champions of state sovereignty and decentralization of power hitched such principles to state-mandated and state-enforced servitude, segregation, and disenfranchisement, even staining the liberty-loving principle of property with the notion that there could be property in human beings. As someone who values the true principles of liberty, I feel contempt for those who jeopardized these things by placing them in the service of such contemptible causes.

[bill_torrens]

Georgiana,

In this nation’s history, I find that states have acted far more to restrict individual rights than the federal government.

I’m not sure I understand this. Neither a state nor a federal government can ever “act” in any way at all, since they are abstractions. When we talk about them acting what we mean is that a group of politicians are doing the acting on their behalf. I know this is a statement of the blindingly obvious, but I genuinely don’t see how an individual politician can be the embodiment of repression and reaction when he represents his state but a champion of enlightened thought when he moves on to represent the federal government. He or she remains the same person, surely?

It is unfortunate that the champions of state sovereignty and decentralization of power hitched such principles to state-mandated and state-enforced servitude, segregation, and disenfranchisement, even staining the liberty-loving principle of property with the notion that there could be property in human beings. As someone who values the true principles of liberty, I feel contempt for those who jeopardized these things by placing them in the service of such contemptible causes.

Fair enough. This means that you feel contempt for the United States which came into the world in 1776, and for everyone involved in creating that nation. Unless, that is, you are being strictly selective about when and where this contempt is applied.

Bill

[unionblue]

Dear Bill,

Old Friend, are you deliberately trying to be obtuse or vague with the above comment concerning the states being able to 'act?' That 'only' individuals, politicians or otherwise, make the 'real' decisions?

Of course you recognize the idea of a state being made up of individuals and the majority of those individuals making a consensus and thereby directing those individual politicians to take a certain course of action, do you not? Why make it sound like some theoretical formula rarely understood or conceived?

And I am certain that I did not read in Miss Georgina's post ANY statement that inferred she had contempt for the United States which 'came into the world in 1776' and for everyone involved in the creation of that nation. There are surely specific examples, even fairly recent ones, of states denying human and civil rights when it suits them and I am very sure you are aware of them. So why this tack?

Two examples of the National government having to set right what certain states were doing wrong to its citizens for racist and unlawful reasons can be found at the following web sites:

U.S. Grant and Civil Rights
http://www.grantstomb.org/exhcivil.html

The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/jimcrow/index.html

I am sure you will agree that trying to have it all your own way in your little corner doesn't mean you are right or that it is wrong of the central/Federal government to step in to insure that it's citizen's rights are protected throughout the ENTIRE nation.

Just Curious,
Unionblue


(Message edited by Unionblue on November 09, 2004)

[bill_torrens]

Neil,

I’m glad to see you so pugnacious and full of verve this early in the day.

I’m not being dogmatic about this. I don’t live under a Federal political system myself, and I’m just struggling towards a proper understanding of it. My point was simply that – as I understand it - the politicians who wield the power of the Federal government would also have represented their respective States at some stage. And so I don’t really see how they can be reactionaries while wearing their state hats but progressive freedom lovers while wearing their federal hats. This theory seems to involve an alchemy which I simply don’t understand.

And I also take the view that, regardless of the country, centralised power is a greater threat to the liberty of the individual citizen than delegated, local power. “Big government is nearly always bad” may be a tad simplistic, but it works for me.

Bill

[unionblue]

Bill,

Yes, it does seem as though what seems fairly simple to me might be a bit confusing to one from another country, even if he is a 'cousin.'

The State level and Federal level of governments must seem a bit confusing, but in my own view, the state folks take care of what's in their state borders, the Federal boys take care of internal and external business for the entire country.

I take issue with the idea that Big government is automatically a 'bad' thing. Again, I doubt very much if Civil Rights would have gotten anywhere in this nation if it had not been for efforts of the 'big' Federal government. Again Bill, when we speak of change, we both have come to realize that it is the one thing people say they want the most but desire the least in reality. Sometimes it takes that big, outside (out-of-state) influence to make change happen.

As much as most Americans gripe about it, it has taken Big government to handle some problems of the nation, even at the state level. In some sections of the country, and not especially the South, I would be fearful of some folks religious convictions being the source of law for the citizens at large.

Just a view from one on this side of the pond.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[hawglips]

I take issue with the idea that Big government is automatically a 'bad' thing

There is an equation with liberty on one side and government on the other, and as one expands the other contracts.

The Bill of Rights, for example, were put into the Constitution to protect our liberties from big government.

And the CSA Constitution worked those same rights into the body of the document, and sought to close the loopholes in the old one, such as "promote the general welfare" and appropriations, in order to protect the people from big government.

Hal

[unionblue]

Hal,

And included the idea that those in slavery could have no protection. Does this qualify as some sort of protection from Big government? What loophole did that close? Redress? Appeals? What did those sections of the Confederate constitution protect the people from? Or do we just continue to write those four million off as 'property' and put our minds at rest that the Confederate constitution was simply protecting all us poor slobs from the evils of big government?

Still doesn't wash, Hal, and it took the National government of the United States to eradicate one of the most evil institutions ever placed upon this nation, simply because the States would not permit it.

Unionblue

[bill_torrens]

Neil

"The state folks take care of what's in their state borders, the Federal boys take care of internal and external business for the entire country."

This is where I do get a bit confused. Forgive me for being a constitutional dunce, but are Congressmen meant to represent the national interest or their respective states’ interests? Bear in mind that my familiarity with American politics begins and ends with the mid-19th century. When I read extracts from Congressional debates in that era all I can see is a group of people who were articulating their own sectional interests. They seem, in effect, to have been representing their states. So who exactly was meant to hold a detached, national perspective on things?

Bill