Whitman's Preface to Leaves of Grass -- The Role of the Poet

     In Walt Whitman's social commentary in the preface to Leaves of Grass, he sets aside the poet from all other men and assigns them many important roles. Whitman asserts that in America, poets will put to use better than anywhere else in the world, performing such tasks as keeping the peace or inciting war through public speaking, encouraging the development of the nation, and even making legal decisions. The poet as described by Whitman is a near-mythical figure who is intellectually and spiritually enlightened far above the masses. The ideal poet will essentially just be a great watcher of the universe. Whitman describes him as follows: “He is a seer … he is individual … he is complete in himself... [h]e is not one of the chorus … he does not stop for any regulation . . . he is the president of regulation." The greatest poets function purely as observers, analyzers, and recorders. They are on the outside looking in at society, so to speak. They do not themselves interact with society or the world; they merely observe, and thanks to their superior knowledge and understanding of the workings of the universe, they are the only ones who are truly able to see what is going on. Their abilities allow them to truly and wholly comprehend the phenomena taking place around them. Above all, the function of the poet is to be a judge. Whitman even goes so far as to say "He is no arguer . . . he is judgment [...] [h]e judges not as the judge judges but as the sun falling around a helpless thing." In this sense, Whitman says the poet should act as a benign yet universal decider of the nature of things. He should never interfere, but always watch and make judgments based on his observations.

--Wald der Schnell

Whitman's Preface to Leaves of Grass -- Beginning Overview

     Leaves of Grass is a collection of poems by Walt Whitman including the famous “Song of Myself” and “I Sing the Body Electric.” The lesser-know preface to this work is an entire philosophical essay in itself. From the very beginning, Whitman speaks very highly of the new America. He elaborately praises America for everything from its mixture of cultures to its acceptance of various ideas to its geography. He seems to believe that America is a unique country in the history of the world, stating that "The United States themselves are essentially the greatest poem." Where Emerson in "The American Scholar" described America as a nation with the potential to become a utopia, Whitman practically says it is a utopia already.
     As for the text itself, Emerson frequently employs the use of very long lists to give visual descriptions. Unfortunately, these lists can become very tiresome to read, and seem to detract from the overall point of the essay.

--Wald der Unglücklich

Thoreau's Resistance to Civil Government

     "Resistance to Civil Government" is an essay written by Henry David Thoreau in 1849. It details Thoreau's ideas on what the structure and function of government should be and contains some social commentary and criticism by him as well. The work itself is slightly contradictory as a whole. The first line clearly expresses Thoreau's belief that "That government is best which governs least," yet the work goes on to explain that, though it may not be ideal, it is necessary for a government to be in place. Thoreau describes that due to the inherently selfish and egocentric nature of man, a government of some sort is necessary on a practical level, even though it should not be theoretically. One of the reasons Thoreau dislikes government is because government get its power from the the strongest group, but not necessarily the right (intellectually or morally) group. To attempt to compensate for the inevitable errors and evils that come with government, Thoreau pleads to individuals to do what they believe is ethically right, even if goes against what the government says. He also suggests that people distance themselves from the institution of government as much as possible, positing that one cannot see it for what it really is if one is part of it. Ultimately, Thoreau is not calling for the abolition of government altogether, he just want a better and differently organized one. He asserts that the highest and most ideal form of society is one in which the individual is recognized and allowed to live and act for himself without being controlled by others.

--Wald der Unerbittlich

Jefferson's Declaration of Independence

     Thomas Jefferson's original submission of the Declaration of Independence and the final document as we know it today have several significant difference between them. In fact, had Jefferson's version gone on to be ratified in its entirety, the United States of America as we know it today would almost likely be a very different place. The most obvious and important omission in Congress's final draft is the paragraph dealing with slavery. Jefferson originally intended for the Declaration of Independence to put an end to slavery in America. Unfortunately, in order to get enough support from all of the colonies to ratify the document, the prohibition of slavery had to be eliminated. Another interesting difference between the two is the removal of "inherent" in the second paragraph to describe the rights of all men. In the changed version, human rights are described as merely inalienable. Perhaps the writers wanted to suggest that natural rights can (or at least should) not be taken away from anyone, but they are not necessarily a given; that is to say, not everyone is born into a situation where they already have these rights, but nevertheless, all humans should have these rights. Lastly to be discussed, in Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration of Independence, the last sentence reads: "And for the support of this declaration, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor," but the last sentence of the current Declaration reads: "And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor." This change seems to have been made to indicate a religious affiliation for the United States. I would expect that this alteration was made to garner support for the document from the strongly Puritan and other religious colonies.

--Wald der Versäumnis