Luminist Archives
|
First published by the International Anarchist Publishing Committee of America |
American traditions, begotten of religious rebellion, small
self-sustaining communities, isolated conditions, and hard pioneer life, grew
during the colonization period of one hundred and seventy years from the
settling of Jamestown to the outburst of the Revolution. This was in fact the
great constitution-making epoch, the period of charters guaranteeing more or
less of liberty, the general tendency of which is well described by William Penn
in speaking of the charter for Pennsylvania: “I want to put it out of my power,
or that of my successors, to do mischief.”
The revolution is the sudden and unified consciousness of
these traditions, their loud assertion, the blow dealt by their indomitable will
against the counter force of tyranny, which has never entirely recovered from
the blow, but which
from then
till now has gone on remolding and re-grappling the instruments of governmental power, that the Revolution
sought to shape and hold as defenses of liberty.
To the average American of today, the Revolution means the
series of battles fought by the patriot army with the armies of England. The
millions of school children who attend our public schools are taught to draw
maps of the siege of Boston and the siege of Yorktown, to know the general plan
of the several campaigns, to quote the number of prisoners of war surrendered
with Burgoyne; they are required to remember the date when Washington crossed
the Delaware on the ice; they are told to “Remember Paoli,” to repeat “Molly
Stark’s a widow,” to call General Wayne “Mad Anthony Wayne,” and to execrate
Benedict Arnold; they know that the Declaration of Independence was signed on
the Fourth of July, 1776, and the Treaty of Paris in 1783; and then they think
they have learned the Revolution —
blessed be George Washington!
They have no idea why it should have been called a “revolution” instead of the
“English War,” or any similar title: it’s the name of it, that’s all. And
name-worship, both in child and man, has acquired such mastery of them, that the
name “American Revolution” is held sacred, though it means to them nothing more
than successful force, while the name “Revolution” applied to a further
possibility is a specter detested and abhorred. In neither case have they any
idea of the content of the word, save that of armed force. That has already
happened, and long happened, which Jefferson foresaw when he wrote:
“The spirit of the times may alter, will alter. Our rulers
will become corrupt, our people careless. A single zealot may become persecutor,
and better men be his victims. It can never be too often repeated that the time
for fixing every essential right, on a legal basis, is while our rulers are
honest, ourselves united. From the conclusion of this war we shall be going down
hill. It will not then be necessary to resort every moment to the people for
support. They will be forgotten, therefore, and their rights disregarded. They
will forget themselves in the sole faculty of making money, and will never think
of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights. The shackles, therefore,
which shall not be knocked off at the conclusion of this war, will be heavier
and heavier, till our rights shall revive or expire in a convulsion.”
To the men of that time, who voiced the spirit of that time,
the battles that they fought were the least of the Revolution; they were the
incidents of the hour, the things they met and faced as part of the game they
were playing; but the stake they had in view, before, during, and after the war,
the real Revolution, was a change in political institutions which should make of
government not a thing apart, a superior power to stand over the
people
with a whip, but a serviceable agent, responsible, economical, and trustworthy
(but never so much trusted as not to
be continually watched), for the transaction of such business as was the common
concern and to set the limits of the common concern at the line of where one
man’s liberty would encroach upon another’s.
They thus took their starting point for deriving a minimum
of government upon the same sociological ground that the modern Anarchist
derives the no-government theory; viz., that equal liberty is the political
ideal. The difference lies in the belief, on the one hand, that the closest
approximation to equal liberty might be best secured by the rule of the majority
in those matters involving united action of any kind (which rule of the majority
they thought it possible to secure by a few simple arrangements for election),
and, on the other hand, the belief that majority rule is both impossible and
undesirable; that any government, no matter what its forms, will be manipulated
by a very small minority, as the development of the States and United States
governments has strikingly proved; that candidates will loudly profess
allegiance to platforms before elections, which as officials in power they will
openly disregard, to do as they please; and that even if the majority will could
be imposed, it would also be subversive of equal liberty, which may be best
secured by leaving to the voluntary association of those interested in the
management of matters of common concern, without coercion of the uninterested or
the opposed.
Among the fundamental likeness between the Revolutionary
Republicans and the Anarchists is the recognition that the little must precede
the great; that the local must be the basis of the general; that there can be a
free federation only when there are free communities to federate; that the
spirit of the latter is carried into the councils of the former, and a local
tyranny may thus become an instrument for general enslavement. Convinced of the
supreme importance of ridding the municipalities of the institutions of tyranny,
the most strenuous advocates of independence, instead of spending their efforts
mainly in the general Congress, devoted themselves to their home localities,
endeavoring to work out of the minds of their neighbors and fellow-colonists the
institutions of entailed property, of a State-Church, of a class-divided people,
even the institution of African slavery itself. Though largely unsuccessful, it
is to the measure of success they did achieve that we are indebted for such
liberties as we do retain, and not to the general government. They tried to
inculcate local initiative and independent action. The author of the Declaration
of Independence, who in the fall of ’76 declined a re-election to Congress in
order to return to Virginia and do his work in his own local assembly, in
arranging there for public education which he justly considered a matter of
“common concern,” said his advocacy of public schools was not with any “view to
take its ordinary branches out of the hands of private enterprise, which manages
so much better the concerns to which it is equal”; and in endeavoring to make
clear the restrictions of the Constitution upon the functions of the general
government, he likewise said:
“Let the general government be reduced to foreign concerns
only, and let our affairs be disentangled from those of all other nations,
except as to commerce, which the merchants will manage for themselves, and the
general government may be reduced to a very simple organization, and a very
inexpensive one; a few plain duties to be performed by a few servants.”
This then was the American tradition, that private
enterprise manages better all that to which it IS equal. Anarchism declares that
private enterprise, whether individual or cooperative, is equal to all the
undertakings of society. And it quotes the particular two instances, Education
and Commerce, which the governments of the States and of the United States have
undertaken to manage and regulate, as the very two which in operation have done
more to destroy American freedom and equality, to warp and distort American
tradition, to make of government a mighty engine of tyranny, than any other
cause, save the unforeseen developments of Manufacture.
It was the intention of the Revolutionists to establish a
system of common education, which should make the teaching of history one of its
principal branches; not with the intent of burdening the memories of our youth
with the dates of battles or the speeches of generals, nor to make the Boston
Tea Party Indians the one sacrosanct mob in all history, to be revered but never
on any account to be imitated, but with the intent that every American should
know to what conditions the masses of people had been brought by the operation
of certain institutions, by what means they had wrung out their liberties, and
how those liberties had again and again been filched from them by the use of
governmental force, fraud, and privilege. Not to breed security, laudation,
complacent indolence, passive acquiescence in the acts of a government protected
by the label “home-made,” but to beget a wakeful jealousy, a never-ending
watchfulness of rulers, a determination to squelch every attempt of those
entrusted with power to encroach upon the sphere of individual action —
this was the prime motive of the
revolutionists in endeavoring to provide for common education.
“Confidence,” said the revolutionists who adopted the
Kentucky Resolutions, “is everywhere the parent of despotism; free government is
founded in jealousy, not in confidence; it is jealousy, not confidence, which
prescribes limited constitutions to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust
with power; our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no
further, our confidence may go... In questions of power, let no more be heard of
confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the
Constitution.”
These resolutions were especially applied to the passage of
the Alien laws by the monarchist party during John Adams’ administration, and
were an indignant call from the State of Kentucky to repudiate the right of the
general government to assume undelegated powers, for said they, to accept these
laws would be “to be bound by laws made, not with our. consent, but by others
against our consent —
that is, to surrender the form of
government we have chosen, and to live under one deriving its powers from its
own will, and not from our authority.” Resolutions identical in spirit were also
passed by Virginia, the following month; in those days the States still
considered themselves supreme, the general government subordinate.
To inculcate this proud spirit of the supremacy of the
people over their governors was to be the purpose of public education! Pick up
today any common school history, and see how much of this spirit you will find
therein. On the contrary, from cover to cover you will find nothing but the
cheapest sort of patriotism, the inculcation of the most unquestioning
acquiescence in the deeds of government, a lullaby of rest, security, confidence —
the doctrine that the Law can do
no wrong, a Te Deum in praise of the continuous encroachments of the powers of
the general government upon the reserved rights of the States, shameless
falsification of all acts of rebellion, to put the government in the right and
the rebels in the wrong, pyrotechnic glorifications of union, power, and force,
and a complete ignoring of the essential liberties to maintain which was the
purpose of the revolutionists. The anti-Anarchist law of post-McKinley passage,
a much worse law than the Alien and Sedition acts which roused the wrath of
Kentucky and Virginia to the point of threatened rebellion, is exalted as a wise
provision of our All-Seeing Father in Washington.
Such is the spirit of government-provided schools. Ask any
child what he knows about Shays’ rebellion, and he will answer, “Oh, some of the
farmers couldn’t pay their taxes, and Shays led a rebellion against the
court-house at Worcester, so they could burn up the deeds; and when Washington
heard of it he sent over an army quick and taught ’em a good lesson”—“And what
was the result of it?” “The result? Why —
why— the result was —
Oh yes, I remember —
the result was they saw the need
of a strong federal government to collect the taxes and pay the debts.” Ask if
he knows what was said on the other side of the story, ask if he knows that the
men who had given their goods and their health and their strength for the
freeing of the country now found themselves cast into prison for debt, sick,
disabled, and poor, facing a new tyranny for the old; that their demand was that
the land should become the free communal possession of those who wished to work
it, not subject to tribute, and the child will answer “No.” Ask him if he ever
read Jefferson’s letter to Madison about it, in which he says:
“Societies exist under three forms, sufficiently
distinguishable: 1. without government, as among our Indians; 2. under
government wherein the will of every one has a just influence, as is the case in
England in a slight degree, and in our States in a great one; and 3. under
government of force, as is the case in all other monarchies, and in most of the
other republics. To have an idea of the curse of existence in these last, they
must be seen. It is a government of wolves over sheep. It is a problem not clear
in my mind that the first condition is not the best. But I believe it to be
inconsistent with any great degree of population. The second state has a great
deal of good in it...It has its evils too, the principal of which is the
turbulence to which it is subject. ...But even this evil is productive of good.
It prevents the degeneracy of government, and nourishes a general attention to
public affairs. I hold that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing.”
Or to another correspondent:
“God forbid that we should ever be twenty years without such
a rebellion!...What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not
warned from time to time that the people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let
them take up arms... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time
with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”
Ask any school child if he was ever taught that the author
of the Declaration of Independence, one of the great founders of the common
school, said these things, and he will look at you with open mouth and
unbelieving eyes. Ask him if he ever heard that the man who sounded the bugle
note in the darkest hour of the Crisis, who roused the courage of the soldiers
when Washington saw only mutiny and despair ahead, ask him if he knows that this
man also wrote, “Government at best is a necessary evil, at worst an intolerable
one,” and if he is a little better informed than the average he will answer, “Oh
well, he [Tom Paine] was an infidel!” Catechize him about the merits of the
Constitution which he has learned to repeat like a poll-parrot, and you will
find his chief conception is not of the powers withheld from Congress, but of
the powers granted.
Such are the fruits of government schools. We, the
Anarchists, point to them and say: If the believers in liberty wish the
principles of liberty taught, let them never entrust that instruction to any
government; for the nature of government is to become a thing apart, an
institution existing for its own sake, preying upon the people, and teaching
whatever will tend to keep it secure in its seat. As the fathers said of the
governments of Europe, so say we of this government also after a century and a
quarter of independence: “The blood of the people has become its inheritance,
and those who fatten on it will not relinquish it easily.”
Public education, having to do with the intellect and spirit
of a people, is probably the most subtle and far-reaching engine for molding the
course of a nation; but commerce, dealing as it does with material things and
producing immediate effects, was the force that bore down soonest upon the paper
barriers of constitutional restriction, and shaped the government to its
requirements. Here, indeed, we arrive at the point where we, looking over the
hundred and twenty five years of independence, can see that the simple
government conceived by the revolutionary republicans was a foredoomed failure.
It was so because of: 1) the essence of government itself; 2) the essence of
human nature; 3) the essence of Commerce and Manufacture.
Of the essence of government, I have
already said, it is a thing apart, developing its own interests at the expense of what
opposes it; all attempts to make it anything else fail. In this Anarchists agree
with the traditional enemies of the Revolution, the monarchists, federalists,
strong government believers, the Roosevelts of today, the Jays, Marshalls, and
Hamiltons of then —
that Hamilton, who, as Secretary
of the Treasury, devised a financial system of which we are the unlucky
heritors, and whose objects were twofold: To puzzle the people and make public
finance obscure to those that paid for it; to serve as a machine for corrupting
the legislatures; “for he avowed the opinion that man could be governed by two
motives only, force or interest”; force being then out of the question, he laid
hold of interest, the greed of the legislators, to set going an association of
persons having an entirely separate welfare from the welfare of their electors,
bound together by mutual corruption and mutual desire for plunder. The Anarchist
agrees that Hamilton was logical, and understood the core of government; the
difference is, that while strong governmentalists believe this is necessary and
desirable, we choose the opposite conclusion,
no government
whatsoever.
As to the essence of human nature, what our national
experience has made plain is this, that to remain in a continually exalted moral
condition is not human nature. That has happened which was prophesied: we have
gone down hill from the Revolution until now; we are absorbed in “mere
money-getting.” The desire for material ease long ago vanquished the spirit of
’76. What was that spirit? The spirit that animated the people of Virginia, of
the Carolinas, of Massachusetts, of New York, when they refused to import goods
from England; when they preferred (and stood by it) to wear coarse, homespun
cloth, to drink the brew of their own growths, to fit their appetites to the
home supply, rather than submit to the taxation of the imperial ministry. Even
within the lifetime of the revolutionists, the spirit decayed. The love of
material ease has been, in the mass of men and permanently speaking, always
greater than the love of liberty. Nine hundred and ninety nine women out of a
thousand are more interested in the cut of a dress than in the independence of
their sex; nine hundred and ninety nine men out of a thousand are more
interested in drinking a glass of beer than in questioning the tax that is laid
on it; how many children are not willing to trade the liberty to play for the
promise of a new cap or a new dress? That it is which begets the complicated
mechanism of society; that it is which, by multiplying the concerns of
government, multiplies the strength of government and the corresponding weakness
of the people; this it is which begets indifference to public concern, thus
making the corruption of government easy.
As to the essence of Commerce and Manufacture, it is this:
to establish bonds between every corner of the earths surface and every other
corner, to multiply the needs of mankind, and the desire for material possession
and enjoyment.
The American tradition was the isolation of the States as
far as possible. Said they: We have won our liberties by hard sacrifice and
struggle unto death. We wish now to be let alone and to let others alone, that
our principles may have time for trial; that we may become accustomed to the
exercise of our rights; that we may be kept free from the contaminating
influence of European gauds, pageants, distinctions. So richly did they esteem
the absence of these that they could in all fervor write: “We shall see
multiplied instances of Europeans coming to America, but no man living will ever
seen an instance of an American removing to settle in Europe, and continuing
there.” Alas! In less than a hundred years the highest aim of a “Daughter of the
Revolution” was, and is, to buy a castle, a title, and rotten lord, with the
money wrung from American servitude! And the commercial interests of America are
seeking a world empire!
In the earlier days of the revolt and subsequent
independence, it appeared that the “manifest destiny” of America was to be an
agricultural people, exchanging food stuffs and raw materials for manufactured
articles. And in those days it was written: “We shall be virtuous as long as
agriculture is our principal object, which will be the case as long as there
remain vacant lands in any part of America. When we get piled upon one another
in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become corrupt as in Europe, and go to
eating one another as they do there.” Which we are doing, because of the
inevitable development of Commerce and Manufacture, and the concomitant
development of strong government. And the parallel prophecy is likewise
fulfilled: “If ever this vast country is brought under a single government, it
will be one of the most extensive corruption, indifferent and incapable of a
wholesome care over so wide a spread of surface.” There is not upon the face of
the earth today a government so utterly and shamelessly corrupt as that of the
United States of America. There are others more cruel, more tyrannical, more
devastating; there is none so utterly venal.
And yet even in the very days of the prophets, even with
their own consent, the first concession to this later tyranny was made. It was
made when the Constitution was made; and the Constitution was made chiefly
because of the demands of Commerce. Thus it was at the outset a merchant’s
machine, which the other interests of the country, the land and labor interests,
even then foreboded would destroy their liberties. In vain their jealousy of its
central power made enact the first twelve amendments. In vain they endeavored to
set bounds over which the federal power dare not trench. In vain they enacted
into general law the freedom of speech, of the press, of assemblage and
petition. All of these things we see ridden roughshod upon every day, and have
so seen with more or less intermission since the beginning of the nineteenth
century. At this day, every police lieutenant considers himself, and rightly so,
as more powerful than the General Law of the Union; and that one who told Robert
Hunter that he held in his fist something stronger than the Constitution, was
perfectly correct. The right of assemblage is an American tradition which has
gone out of fashion; the police club is now the mode. And it is so in virtue of
the people’s indifference to liberty, and the steady progress of constitutional
interpretation towards the substance of imperial government.
It is an American tradition that a standing army is a
standing menace to liberty; in Jefferson’s presidency the army was reduced to
3,000 men. It is American tradition that we keep out of the affairs of other
nations. It is American practice that we meddle with the affairs of everybody
else from the West to the East Indies, from Russia to Japan; and to do it we
have a standing army of 83,251 men.
It is American tradition that the financial affairs of a
nation should be transacted on the same principles of simple honesty that an
individual conducts his own business; viz., that debt is a bad thing, and a
man’s first surplus earning should be applied to his debts; that offices and
office holders should be few. It is American practice that the general
government should always have millions [of dollars] of debt, even if a panic or
a war has to be forced to prevent its being paid off; and as to the application
of its income office holders come first. And within the last administration it
is reported that 99,000 offices have been created at an annual expense of
1,663,000,000. Shades of Jefferson! “How are vacancies to be obtained? Those by
deaths are few; by resignation none.” [Theodore] Roosevelt cuts the knot by
making 99,000 new ones! And few will die —
and none resign. They will beget
sons and daughters, and Taft will have to create 99,000 more! Verily a simple
and a serviceable thing is our general government.
It is American tradition that the Judiciary shall act as a
check upon the impetuosity of Legislatures, should these attempt to pass the
bounds of constitutional limitation. It is American practice that the Judiciary
justifies every law which trenches on the liberties of the people and nullifies
every act of the Legislature by which the people seek to regain some measure of
their freedom. Again, in the words of Jefferson: “The Constitution is a mere
thing of wax in the hands of the Judiciary, which they may twist and shape in
any form they please.” Truly, if the men who fought the good fight for the
triumph of simple, honest, free life in that day, were now to look upon the
scene of their labors, they would cry out together with him who said:
“I regret that I am now to die in the belief that the
useless sacrifices of themselves by the generation of ’76 to acquire
self-government and happiness to their country, is to be thrown away by the
unwise and unworthy passions of their sons, and that my only consolation is to
be that I shall not live to see it.”
And now, what has Anarchism to say to all this, this
bankruptcy of republicanism, this modern empire that has grown up on the ruins
of our early freedom? We say this, that the sin our fathers sinned was that they
did not trust liberty wholly. They thought it possible to compromise between
liberty and government, believing the latter to be “a necessary evil,” and the
moment the compromise was made, the whole misbegotten monster of our present
tyranny began to grow. Instruments which are set up to safeguard rights become
the very whip with which the free are struck.
Anarchism says, Make no laws whatever concerning speech, and
speech will be free; so soon as you make a declaration on paper that speech
shall be free, you will have a hundred lawyers proving that “freedom does not
mean abuse, nor liberty license”; and they will define and define freedom out of
existence. Let the guarantee of free speech be in every man’s determination to
use it, and we shall have no need of paper declarations. On the other hand, so
long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to
tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote
themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put
shackles upon sleeping men.
The problem then becomes, Is it possible to stir men from
their indifference? We have said that the spirit of liberty was nurtured by
colonial life; that the elements of colonial life were the desire for sectarian
independence, and the jealous watchfulness incident thereto; the isolation of
pioneer communities which threw each individual strongly on his own resources,
and thus developed all-around men, yet at the same time made very strong such
social bonds as did exist; and, lastly, the comparative simplicity of small
communities.
All this has disappeared. As to sectarianism, it is only by
dint of an occasional idiotic persecution that a sect becomes interesting; in
the absence of this, outlandish sects play the fool’s role, are anything but
heroic, and have little to do with either the name or the substance of liberty.
The old colonial religious parties have gradually become the “pillars of
society,” their animosities have died out, their offensive peculiarities have
been effaced, they are as like one another as
beans in a
pod, they build churches —
and sleep in them.
As to our communities, they are hopelessly and helplessly
interdependent, as we ourselves are, save that continuously diminishing
proportion engaged in all around farming; and even these are slaves to
mortgages. For our cities, probably there is not one that is provisioned to last
a week, and certainly there is none which would not be bankrupt with despair at
the proposition that it produce its own food. In response to this condition and
its correlative political tyranny, Anarchism affirms the economy of
self-sustenance, the disintegration of the great communities, the use of the
earth.
I am not ready to say that I see clearly that this will take
place; but I see clearly that this
must take place if ever again men are
to be free. I am so well satisfied that the mass of mankind prefer material
possessions to liberty, that I have no hope that they will ever, by means of
intellectual or moral stirrings merely, throw off the yoke of oppression
fastened on them by the present economic system, to institute free societies. My
only hope is in the blind development of the economic system and political
oppression itself. The great characteristic looming factor in this gigantic
power is Manufacture. The tendency of each nation is to become more and more a
manufacturing one, an exporter of fabrics, not an importer. If this tendency
follows its own logic, it must eventually circle round to each community
producing for itself. What then will become of the surplus product when the
manufacturer shall have no foreign market? Why, then mankind must face the
dilemma of sitting down and dying in the midst of it, or confiscating the goods.
Indeed, we are partially facing this problem even now;
and-so far we are sitting down and dying. I opine, however, that men will not do
it forever, and when once by an act of general expropriation they have overcome
the reverence and fear of property, and their awe of government, they may waken
to the consciousness that things are to be used, and therefore men are greater
than things. This may rouse the spirit of liberty.
If, on the other hand, the tendency of invention to
simplify, enabling the advantages of machinery to be combined with smaller
aggregations of workers, shall also follow its own logic, the great
manufacturing plants will break up, population will go after the fragments, and
there will be seen not indeed the hard, self-sustaining, isolated pioneer
communities of early America, but thousands of small communities stretching
along the lines of transportation, each producing very largely for its own
needs, able to rely upon itself, and therefore able to be independent. For the
same rule holds good for societies as for individuals —
those may be free who are able to
make their own living.
In regard to the breaking up of that vilest creation of
tyranny, the standing army and navy, it is clear that so long as men desire to
fight, they will have armed force in one form or another. Our fathers thought
they had guarded against a standing army by providing for the voluntary militia.
In our day we have lived to see this militia declared part of the regular
military force of the United States, and subject to the same demands as the
regulars. Within another generation we shall probably see its members in the
regular pay of the general government. Since any embodiment of the fighting
spirit, any military organization, inevitably follows the same line of
centralization, the logic of Anarchism is that the least objectionable form of
armed force is that which springs up voluntarily, like the minute men of
Massachusetts, and disbands as soon as the occasion which called it into
existence is past: that the really desirable thing is that all men —
not Americans only —
should be at peace; and that to
reach this, all peaceful persons should withdraw their support from the army,
and require that all who make war shall do so at their own cost and risk; that
neither pay nor pensions are to be provided for those who choose to make
man-killing a trade.
As to the American tradition of non-meddling, Anarchism asks
that it be carried down to the individual himself. It demands no jealous barrier
of isolation; it knows that such isolation is undesirable and impossible; but it
teaches that by all men’s strictly minding their own business, a fluid society,
freely adapting itself to mutual needs, wherein all the world shall belong to
all men, as much as each has need or desire, will result.
And when Modern Revolution has thus been carried to the
heart of the whole world —
if it ever shall be, as I hope it
will —
then may we hope to see a
resurrection of that proud spirit of our fathers which put the simple dignity of
Man above the gauds of wealth and class, and held that to, be an American was
greater than to be a king.
In that day there shall be neither kings nor Americans —
only Men; over the whole earth,
Men. |
A pamphlet copy of this essay is available from the Luminist Bookstore. |