NO TREASON No. 1
No. 14 Bromfield Street
Entered according to Act of congress, in the year 1867,
By LYSANDER SPOONER,
in the Clerk's office of the District Court of the United States, for the
District of Massachusetts.
INTRODUCTORY
The question of treason is distinct from that of slavery; and is the same that
it would have been, if free States, instead of slave States, had seceded. On the
part of the North, the war was carried on, not to liberate slaves, but by a
government that had always perverted and violated the Constitution, to keep the
slaves in bondage; and was still willing to do so, if the slaveholders could be
thereby induced to stay in the Union.
The principle, on which the war was waged by the North, was simply this: That
men may rightfully be compelled to submit to, and support, a government that
they do not want; and that resistance, on their part, makes them traitors and
criminals. No principle, that is possible to be named, can be more
self-evidently false than this; or more self-evidently fatal to all political
freedom. Yet it triumphed in the field, and is now assumed to be established, If
it really be established, the number of slaves, instead of having been
diminished by the war, has been greatly increased; for a an, thus subjected to a
government that he does not want, is a slave. And there is no difference, in
principle --- but only in degree --- between political and chattel slavery. The
former, no less than the latter, denies a man's ownership of himself and the
products of his labor; and [*iv] asserts that other men may own him, and dispose
of him and his property, for their uses, and at their pleasure.
Previous to the war, there were some grounds for saying that --- in theory, at
least, if not in practice --- our government was a free one; that it rested on
consent. But nothing of that kind can be said now, if the principle, on which
the North carried on the war, is irrevocably established. If that principle be
not the principle of the Constitution, the fact should be known. If it were the
principle of the Constitution, the Constitution itself should be at once
overthrown.
NO TREASON No. 1.
I The question of treason is distinct from that of slavery
Notwithstanding all the proclamations we have made to mankind, within the last
ninety years, that our government rests on consent, and that that was the
rightful basis on which any government could rest, the late war has practically
demonstrated that our government rests upon force --- as much so as any
government that ever existed.
The North has thus virtually said to the world: It was all very well to prate of
consent, so long as the objects to be accomplished were to liberate ourselves
from our connection with England, and also to coax a scattered and jealous
people into a great national union; but now that those purposes have been
accomplished, and the power of the North has become consolidated, it is
sufficient for us --- as for all governments --- simply to say: Our power is our
right.
In proportion to her wealth and population, the North has probably expended more
money and blood to maintain her power over an unwilling people, than any other
government ever did. And in her estimation, it is apparently the chief glory of
her success, and an adequate compensation for all her own losses, and an ample
justification for all her devastation and carnage of the South, that all
pretence of any necessity for consent to the perpetuity or power of government,
is (as she thinks) forever expunged from the minds of the people. In short, the
North [*6] exults beyond measure in the proof she has given, that a government,
professedly resting on consent, will expend more life and treasure in crushing
dissent, than any government, openly founded on force, has ever done. And she
claims that she has done all this in behalf of liberty! In behalf of free
government! In behalf of the principle that government should rest on consent!
If the successors of Roger Williams, within a hundred years after their State
had been founded upon the principle of free religious toleration, and when the
Baptists had become strong on the credit of that principle, had taken to burning
heretics with a fury never seen before among men; and had they finally gloried
in having thus suppressed all question of the truth of the State religion; and
had they further claimed to have done all this in behalf of freedom of
conscience, the inconsistency between profession and conduct would scarcely have
been greater than that of the North, in carrying on such a war as she has done,
to compel men to live under and support a government that they did not want; and
in then claiming that she did it in behalf of the of the principle that
government should rest on consent.
This astonishing absurdity and self-contradiction are to be accounted for only
by supposing, either that the lusts of fame, and power, and money, have made her
utterly blind to, or utterly reckless of, he inconsistency and enormity of her
conduct; or that she has never even understood what was implied in a
government's resting on consent. Perhaps this last explanation is the true one.
In charity to human nature, it is to be hoped that it is.
NO TREASON No. 1.
II What, then, is implied in a government's resting on consent?
If it be said that the consent of the strongest party, in a nation, is all that
is necessary to justify the establishment of a government that shall have
authority over the weaker party, it may be answered that the most despotic
governments in the world rest upon that very principle, viz: the consent of the
strongest party. These governments are formed simply by the consent or agreement
of the strongest party that they will act in concert in subjecting the weaker
party to their dominion. And the despotism, and tyranny, and injustice of these
governments consist in that very fact. Or at least that is the first step in
their tyranny; a necessary preliminary to all the oppressions that are to
follow.
If it be said that the consent of the most numerous party, in a nation, is
sufficient to justify the establishment of their power over the less numerous
party, it may be answered: First. That two men have no more natural right to
exercise any kind of authority over one, than one has to exercise the same
authority over two.
A man's natural rights are his own, against the whole world; and any
infringement of them is equally a crime, whether committed by one man, or by
millions; whether committed by one man, calling himself a robber, (or by any
other name indicating his true character,) or by millions, calling themselves a
government.
Second. It would be absurd for the most numerous party to talk of establishing a
government over the less numerous party, unless the former were also the
strongest, as well as the most numerous; for it is not to be supposed that the
strongest party would ever submit to the rule of the weaker party, merely
because the latter were the most numerous. And as a matter of fact, it is
perhaps never that governments are established by the most numerous party. They
are usually, if not always, established by the less numerous party; their
superior strength consisting of their superior wealth, intelligence, and ability
to act in concert.
Third. Our Constitution does not profess to have been established simply by the
majority; but by "the people;" the minority, as much as the majority. Fourth. If
our fathers, in 1776, had acknowledged the principle that a majority had the
right to rule the minority, we should never have become a nation; for they were
in a small minority, as compared with those who claimed the right to rule over
them. Fifth. Majorities, as such, afford no guarantees for justice. They are men
of the same nature as minorities. They have the same passions for fame, power,
and money, as minorities; and are liable and likely to be equally --- perhaps
more than equally, because more boldly --- rapacious, tyrannical and
unprincipled, if entrusted with power. There is no more reason, then, why a man
should either sustain, or submit to, the rule of the majority, than of a
minority. Majorities and minorities cannot rightfully be taken at all into
account in deciding questions of justice.
And all talk about them, in matters of government, is mere absurdity. Men are
dunces for uniting to sustain any government, or any laws, except those in which
they are all agreed. And nothing but force and fraud compel men to sustain any
other. To say that majorities, as such, have a right to rule minorities, is
equivalent to saying that minorities have, and ought to have, no rights, except
such as majorities please to allow them.
Sixth. It is not improbable that many or most of the worst of governments ---
although established by force, and by a few, in the first place --- come, in
time, to be supported by a majority. But if they do, this majority is composed,
in large part, of the most ignorant, superstitious, timid, dependent, servile,
and corrupt portions of the people; of those who have been over-awed by the
power, intelligence, wealth, and arrogance; of those who have been deceived by
the frauds; and of those who have been corrupted by the inducements, of the few
who really constitute the government. Such majorities, very likely, could be
found in half, perhaps nine-tenths, of all the countries on the globe. What do
they prove? Nothing but the tyranny and corruption of the very governments that
have reduced so large portions of the people to their present ignorance,
servility, degradation, and corruption; an ignorance, servility, degradation,
and corruption that are best illustrated in the simple fact that they do sustain
governments that have so oppressed, degraded, and corrupted them. They do
nothing towards proving that the governments themselves are legitimate; or that
they ought to be sustained, or even endured, by those who understand their true
character.
The mere fact, therefore, that a government chances to be sustained by a
majority, of itself proves nothing that is necessary to be proved, in order to
know whether such government should be sustained, or not. Seventh. The principle
that the majority have a right to rule the minority, practically resolves all
government into a mere contest between two bodies of men, as to which of them
shall be masters, and which of them slaves; a contest, that --- however bloody
--- can, in the nature of things, never be finally closed, so long as man
refuses to be a slave.
III
But to say that the consent of either the strongest party, or the most numerous
party, in a nation, is sufficient justification for the establishment or
maintenance of a government that shall control the whole nation does not obviate
the difficulty. The question still remains, how comes such a thing as "a nation"
to exist? How do millions of men, scattered over an extensive territory --- each
gifted by nature with individual freedom; required by the law of nature to call
no man, or body of men, his masters; authorized by that law to seek his own
happiness in his own way, to do what he will with himself and his property, so
long as he does not trespass upon the equal liberty of others; authorized also,
by that law, to defend his own rights, and redress his own wrongs; and to go to
the assistance and defense of any [*10] of his fellow men who may be suffering
any kind of injustice --- how do millions of such men come to be a nation, in
the first place?
How is it that each of them comes to be stripped of his natural, God-given
rights, and to be incorporated, compressed, compacted, and consolidated into a
mass with other men, whom he never saw; with whom he has no contract; and
towards many of whom he has no sentiments but fear, hatred, or contempt?
How does he become subjected to the control of men like himself, who, by nature,
had no authority over him; but who command him to do this, and forbid him to do
that, as if they were his sovereigns, and he their subject; and as if their
wills and their interests were the only standards of his duties and his rights;
and who compel him to submission under peril of confiscation, imprisonment, and
death?
Clearly all this is the work of force, or fraud, or both. By what right, then,
did we become "a nation?" By what right do we continue to be "a nation?" And by
what right do either the strongest, or the most numerous, party, now existing
within the territorial limits, called "The United States," claim that there
really is such "a nation" as the United States? Certainly they are bound to show
the rightful existence of "a nation," before they can claim, on that ground,
that they themselves have a right to control it; to seize, for their purposes,
so much of every man's property within it, as they may choose; and, at their
discretion, to compel any man to risk his own life, or take the lives of other
men, for the maintenance of their power. To speak of either their numbers, or
their strength, is not to the purpose. The question is by what right does the
nation exist? And what right commits so many atrocities by its authority? Or for
its preservation? The answer to this question must certainly be, that at least
such a nation exists by no right whatever. We are, therefore, driven to the
acknowledgment that nations and governments, if they can rightfully exist at
all, can exist only by consent.
IV.
The question, then, returns, what is implied in a government's resting on
consent? Manifestly this one thing (to say nothing of the others) is necessarily
implied in the idea of a government's resting on consent, viz: the separate,
individual consent of every man who is required to contribute, either by
taxation or personal service, to the support of the government.
All this, or nothing, is necessarily implied, because one man's consent is just
as necessary as any other man's. If, for example, A claims that his consent is
necessary to the establishment or maintenance of government, he thereby
necessarily admits that B's and every other man's are equally necessary; because
B's and every other man's right are just as good as his own. On the other hand,
if he denies that B's or any other particular man's consent is necessary, he
thereby necessarily admits that neither his own, nor any other man's is
necessary; and that government need to be founded on consent at all.
There is, therefore, no alternative but to say, either that the separate,
individual consent of every man, who is required to aid, in any way, in
supporting the government, is necessary, or that the consent of no one is
necessary.
Clearly this individual consent is indispensable to the idea of treason; for if
a man has never consented or agreed to support a government, he breaks no faith
in refusing to support it. And if he makes war upon it, he does so as an open
enemy, and not as a traitor that is, as a betrayer, or treacherous friend. All
this, or nothing, was necessarily implied in the Declaration made in 1776. If
the necessity for consent, then announced, was a sound principle in favor of
three millions of men, it was an equally sound one in favor of three men, or of
one man. If the principle was a sound one in behalf of men living on a separate
continent, it was an equally sound one in behalf of a man living on a separate
farm, or in a separate house.
Moreover, it was only as separate individuals, each acting for himself, and not
as members of organized governments, that the three millions declared their
consent to be necessary to their support of a government; and, at the same time,
declared their dissent to the support of the British Crown. The governments,
then existing in the Colonies, had no constitutional power, as governments, to
declare the separation between England and America. On the contrary, those
governments, as governments, were organized under charters from, and
acknowledged allegiance to, the British Crown. Of course the British king never
made it one of the chartered or constitutional powers of those governments, as
governments, to absolve the people from their allegiance to himself. So far,
therefore, as the Colonial Legislatures acted as revolutionists, they acted only
as so many individual revolutionists, and not as constitutional legislatures.
And their representatives at Philadelphia, who first declared Independence,
were, in the eye of the constitutional law of that day, simply a committee of
Revolutionists, and in no sense constitutional authorities, or the
representatives of constitutional authorities.
It was also, in the eye of the law, only as separate individuals, each acting
for himself, and exercising simply his natural rights as an individual, that the
people at large assented to, and ratified the Declaration. It was also only as
so many individuals, each acting for himself, and exercising simply his natural
rights, that they revolutionized the constitutional character of their local
governments, (so as to exclude the idea of allegiance to Great Britain);
changing their forms only as and when their convenience dictated. The whole
Revolution, therefore, as a Revolution, was declared and accomplished by the
people, acting separately as individuals, and exercising each his natural
rights, and not by their governments in the exercise of their constitutional
powers. It was, therefore, as individuals, and only as individuals, each acting
for himself alone, that they declared that their consent that is, their
individual consent for each one could consent only [*13] for himself --- was
necessary to the creation or perpetuity of any government that they could
rightfully be called on to support. In the same way each declared, for himself,
that his own will, pleasure, and discretion were the only authorities he had any
occasion to consult, In determining whether he would any longer support the
government under which be had always lived.
And if this action of each individual were valid and rightful when he had so
many other individuals to keep him company, it would have been, in the view of
natural justice and right, equally valid and rightful, if he had taken the same
step alone.
He had the same natural right to take up arms alone to defend his own property
against a single tax-gatherer, that he had to take up arms in company with three
millions of others, to defend the property of all against an army of
tax-gatherers. Thus the whole Revolution turned upon, asserted, and, in theory,
established, the right of each and every man, at his discretion, to release
himself from the support of the government under which he had lived. And this
principle was asserted, not as a right peculiar to themselves, or to that time,
or as applicable only to the government then existing; but as a universal right
of all men, at all times, and under all circumstances.
George the Third called our ancestors traitors for what they did at that time.
But they were not traitors in fact, whatever he or his laws may have called
them. They were not traitors in fact, because they betrayed nobody, and broke
faith with nobody. They were his equals, owing him no allegiance, obedience, nor
any other duty, except such as they owed to mankind at large. Their political
relations with him had been purely voluntary. They had never pledged their faith
to him that they would continue these relations any longer than it should please
them to do so; and therefore they broke no faith in parting with him. They
simply exercised their natural right of saying to him, and to the English
people, that they were under no obligation to continue their political
connection with them, and that, for reasons of their own, they chose to dissolve
it.
What was true of our ancestors is true of revolutionists in general. The
monarchs and governments, from whom they choose to separate, attempt to
stigmatize them as traitors. But they are not traitors in fact; in much they
betray, and break faith with, no one. Having pledged no faith, they break none.
They are simply men, who, for reasons of their own --- whether good or bad, wise
or unwise, is immaterial --- choose to exercise their natural right of
dissolving their connection with the governments under which they have lived. In
doing this, they no more commit the crime of treason --- which necessarily
implies treachery, deceit, breach of faith --- than a man commits treason when
he chooses to leave a church, or any other voluntary association, with which he
has been connected. This principle was a true one in 1776. It is a true one now.
It is the only one on which any rightful government can rest. It is the one on
which the Constitution itself professes to rest. If it does not really rest on
that basis, it has no right to exist; and it is the duty of every man to raise
his hand against it.
If the men of the Revolution designed to incorporate in the Constitution the
absurd ideas of allegiance and treason, which they had once repudiated, against
which they had fought, and by which the world had been enslaved, they thereby
established for themselves an indisputable claim to the disgust and detestation
of all mankind.
In subsequent numbers, the author hopes to show that, under the principle of
individual consent, the little government that mankind need, is not only
practicable, but natural and easy; and that the Constitution of the United
States authorizes no government, except one depending wholly on voluntary
support.
NO TREASON No. II
The Constitution.
BY LYSANDER SPOONER
BOSTON:PUBLISHED BY THE AUTHOR
No. 14 Bromfield Street.
In 1867
Entered according to Act of congress, in the year 1867,
By LYSANDER SPOONER,
in the Clerk's office of the District Court of the United States, for the
District
of Massachusetts.
NO TREASON.
NO. II
I.
The Constitution says:
"We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union,
establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense,
promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves
and our posterity do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United
States of America. " The meaning of this is simply We, the people of the United
States, acting freely and voluntarily as individuals, consent and agree that we
will cooperate with each other in sustaining such a government as is provided
for in this Constitution. The necessity for the consent of "the people" is
implied in this declaration.
The whole authority of the Constitution rests upon it. If they did not consent,
it was of no validity. Of course it had no validity, except as between those who
actually consented. No one's consent could be presumed against him, without his
actual consent being given, any more than in the case of any other contract to
pay money, or render service. And to make it binding upon any one, his
signature, or other positive evidence of consent, was as necessary as in the
case of any other-contract. If the instrument meant to say that any of "the
people of the United States" would be bound by it, who did not consent, it was
usurpation and a lie. The most that can be inferred from the form, "We, the
people," is, that the instrument offered membership to all "the people of the
United States;" leaving it for them to accept or refuse it, at their pleasure.
The agreement is a simple one, like any other agreement. It is the same as one
that should say: We, the people of the town of A-----, agree to sustain a
church, a school, a hospital, or a theatre, for our children and ourselves. Such
an agreement clearly could have no validity, except as between those who
actually consented to it. If a portion only of "the people of the town of
A-----," should assent to this contract, and should then proceed to compel
contributions of money or service from those who had not consented, they would
be mere robbers; and would deserve to be treated as such.
Neither the conduct nor the rights of these signers would be improved at all by
their saying to the dissenters: We offer you equal rights with ourselves, in the
benefits of the church, school, hospital, or theatre, which we propose to
establish, and equal voice in the control of it. It would be a sufficient answer
for the others to say: We want no share in the benefits, and no voice in the
control, of your institution; and will do nothing to support it.
The number who actually consented to the Constitution of the United States, at
the first, was very small. Considered as the act of the whole people, the
adoption of the Constitution was the merest farce and imposture, binding upon
nobody. The women, children, and blacks, of course, were not asked to give their
consent. In addition to this, there were, in nearly or quite all the States,
property qualifications that excluded probable one half, two thirds, or perhaps
even three fourths, of the white male adults from the right of suffrage. And of
those who were allowed that right, we know not how many exercised it.
Furthermore, those who originally agreed to the Constitution could thereby bind
nobody that should come after them. They could contract for nobody but
themselves. They had no more natural right or power to make political contracts,
binding upon succeeding generations, than they had to make marriage or business
contracts binding upon them.
Still further. Even those who actually voted for the adoption of the
Constitution did not pledge their faith for any specific time; since no specific
time was named, in the Constitution, during which the association should
continue. It was, therefore, merely an association during pleasure; even as
between the original parties to it. Still less, if possible, has it been any
thing more than a merely voluntary association, during pleasure, between the
succeeding generations, who have never gone through, as their fathers did, with
so much even as any outward formality of adopting it, or of pledging their faith
to support it.
Such portions of them as pleased, and as the States permitted to vote, have only
done enough, by voting and paying taxes, (and unlawfully and tyrannically
extorting taxes from others,) to keep the government in operation for the time
being. And this, in the view of the Constitution, they have done voluntarily,
and because it was for their interest, or pleasure, and not because they were
under any pledge or obligation to do it.
Any one man, or any number of men, have had a perfect right, at any time, to
refuse his or their further support; and nobody could rightfully object to his
or their withdrawal.
There is no escape from these conclusions, if we say that the adoption of the
Constitution was the act of the people, as individuals, and not of the States,
as States. On the other hand, if we say that the adoption was the act of the
States, as States, it necessarily follows that they had the right to secede at
pleasure, inasmuch as they engaged for no specific time.
The consent, therefore, that has been given, whether by individuals, or by the
States, has been, at most, only a consent for the time being; not an engagement
for the future.
In truth, in the case of individuals, their actual voting is not to be taken as
proof of consent, even for the time being. On the contrary, it is to be
considered that, without his consent having ever been asked, a man finds himself
environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to
pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural
rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men
practice this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot.
He sees further that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance
of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own.
In short, be finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the
ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave.
And he has no other alternative than these two. In self-defense, he attempts the
former.
His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he
must either kill others, or be killed himself. Because, to save his own life in
battle, a man attempts to take the lives of his opponents, it is not to be
inferred that the battle is one of his own choosing. Neither in contests with
the ballot --- which is a mere substitute for a bullet --- because, as his only
chance of self-preservation, a man uses a ballot, is it to be inferred that the
contest is one into which he voluntarily entered; that he voluntarily set up all
his own natural rights, as a stake against those of others, to be lost or won by
the mere power of numbers.
On the contrary, it is to be considered that, in an exigency, into which he had
been forced by others, and in which no other means of self-defense offered, he,
as a matter of necessity, used the only one that was left to him. Doubtless the
most miserable of men, under the most oppressive government in the world, if
allowed the ballot, would use it, if they could see any chance of thereby
ameliorating their condition. But it would not therefore be a legitimate
inference that the government itself, that crushes them, was one which they had
voluntarily set up, or ever consented to.
Therefore a man's voting under the Constitution of the United States, is not to
be taken as evidence that he ever freely assented to the Constitution, even for
the time being. Consequently we have no proof that any very large portion, even
of the actual voters of the United States, ever really and voluntarily consented
to the Constitution, even for the time being. Nor can we ever have such proof,
until every man is left perfectly free to consent, or not, without thereby
subjecting himself or his property to injury or trespass from others.
II.
The Constitution says:
"Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against
them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." This is the
only definition of treason given by the Constitution, and it is to be
interpreted, like all other criminal laws, in the sense most favorable to
liberty and justice.
Consequently the treason here spoken of, must be held to be treason in fact, and
not merely something that may have been falsely called by that name.
To determine, then, what is treason in fact, we are not to look to the codes of
Kings, and Czars, and Kaisers, who maintain their power by force and fraud; who
contemptuously call mankind their "subjects;" who claim to have a special
license from heaven to rule on earth; who teach that it is a religious duty of
mankind to obey them; who bribe a servile and corrupt priest-hood to impress
these ideas upon the ignorant and superstitious; who spurn the idea that their
authority is derived from, or dependent at all upon, the consent of their
people; and who attempt to defame, by the false epithet of traitors, all who
assert their own rights, and the rights of their fellow men, against such
usurpations.
Instead of regarding this false and calumnious meaning of the word treason, we
are to look at its true and legitimate meaning in our mother tongue; at its use
in common life; and at what would necessarily be its true meaning in any other
contracts, or articles [*8] of association, which men might voluntarily enter
into with each other. The true and legitimate meaning of the word treason, then,
necessarily implies treachery, deceit, and breach of faith. Without these, there
can be no treason.
A traitor is a betrayer --- one who practices injury, while professing
friendship. Benedict Arnold was a traitor, solely because, while professing
friendship for the American cause, he attempted to injure it. An open enemy,
however criminal in other respects, is no traitor. Neither does a man, who has
once been my friend, become a traitor by becoming an enemy, if before doing me
an injury, he gives me fair warning that he has become an enemy; and if he makes
no unfair use of any advantage which my confidence, in the time of our
friendship, had placed in his power.
For example, our fathers --- even if we were to admit them to have been wrong in
other respects --- certainly were not traitors in fact, after the fourth of July
1776; since on that day they gave notice to the King of Great Britain that they
repudiated his authority, and should wage war against him. And they made no
unfair use of any advantages, which his confidence had previously placed in
their power.
It cannot be denied that, in the late war, the Southern people proved themselves
to be open and avowed enemies, and not treacherous friends. It cannot be denied
that they gave us fair warning that they would no longer be our political
associates, but would, if need were, fight for a separation. It cannot be
alleged that they made any unfair use of advantages, which our confidence, in
the time of our friendship, had placed in their power. Therefore they were not
traitors in fact: and consequently not traitors within the meaning of the
Constitution. Furthermore, men are not traitors in fact, who take up arms
against the government, without having disavowed allegiance to it, provided they
do it, either to resist the usurpations of the government, or to resist what
they sincerely believe to be such usurpations.
It is a maxim of law that there can be no crime without a criminal intent. And
this maxim is as applicable to treason as to any other crime. For example, our
fathers were not traitors in fact, for resisting the British Crown, before the
fourth of July 1776 --- that is, before they had thrown off allegiance to him
--- provided they honestly believed that they were simply defending their rights
against his usurpations. Even if they were mistaken in their law, that mistake,
if an innocent one, could not make them traitors in fact. For the same reason,
the Southern people, if they sincerely believed --- as it has been extensively,
if not generally, conceded, at the North, that they did --- in the so-called
constitutional theory of "State Rights," did not become traitors in fact, by
acting upon it; and consequently not traitors within the meaning of the
Constitution.
III.
The Constitution does not say who will become traitors, by "levying war against
the United States, or adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."
It is, therefore, only by inference, or reasoning, that we can know who will
become traitors by these acts. Certainly if Englishmen, Frenchmen, Austrians, or
Italians, making no professions of support or friendship to the United States,
levy war against them, or adhere to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort,
they do not thereby make themselves traitors, within the meaning of the
Constitution; and why?
Solely because they would not be traitors in fact. Making no professions of
support or friendship, they would practice no treachery, deceit, or breach of
faith. But if they should voluntarily enter either the civil or military service
of the United States, and pledge fidelity to them, (without being naturalized,)
and should then betray the trusts reposed in them, either by turning their guns
against the United States, or by giving aid and comfort to their enemies, they
would be traitors in fact; and therefore traitors within the meaning of the
Constitution; and could be lawfully punished as such.
There is not, in the Constitution, a syllable that implies that persons, born
within the territorial limits of the United States, have allegiance imposed upon
them on account of their birth in the country, or that they will be judged by
any different rule, on the subject of treason, than persons of foreign birth.
And there is no power, in Congress, to add to, or alter, the language of the
Constitution, on this point, so as to make it more comprehensive than it now is.
Therefore treason in fact --- that is, actual treachery, deceit, or breach of
faith --- must be shown in the case of a native of the United States, equally as
in the case of a foreigner, before he can be said to be a traitor. Congress have
seen that the language of the Constitution was insufficient, of itself to make a
man a traitor --- on the ground of birth in this country --- who levies war
against the United States, but practices no treachery, deceit, or breach of
faith.
They have, therefore --- although they had no constitutional power to do so ---
apparently attempted to enlarge the language of the Constitution on this point.
And they have enacted: "That if any person or persons, owing allegiance to the
United States of America, shall levy war against them, or shall adhere to their
enemies, giving them aid and comfort, * * * such person or persons shall be
adjudged guilty of treason against the United States, and shall suffer death."
--- Statute, April 30, 1790, Section 1. It would be a sufficient answer to this
enactment to say that it is utterly unconstitutional, if its effect would be to
make any man a traitor, who would not have been one under the language of the
Constitution alone.
The whole pith of the act lies in the words, "persons owing allegiance to the
United States." But this language really leaves the question where it was
before, for it does not attempt to show or declare who does "owe allegiance to
the United States;" although those who passed the act, no doubt thought, or
wished others to think, that allegiance was to be presumed (as is done under
other governments) against all born in this country, (unless possibly slaves).
The Constitution itself, uses no such word as "allegiance," "sovereignty,"
"loyalty," "subject," or any other term, such as is used by other governments,
to signify the services, fidelity, obedience, or other duty, which the people
are assumed to owe to their government, regardless of their own will in the
matter. As the Constitution professes to rest wholly on consent, no one can owe
allegiance, service, obedience, or any other duty to it, or to the government
created by it, except with his own consent.
The word allegiance comes from the Latin words ad and lingo, signifying to bind
to. Thus a man under allegiance to a government is a man bound to it; or bound
to yield it support and fidelity. And governments, founded otherwise than on
consent, hold that all persons born under them, are under allegiance to them;
that is, are bound to render them support, fidelity, and obedience; and are
traitors if they resist them.
But it is obvious that, in truth and in fact, no one but himself can bind any
one to support any government. And our Constitution admits this fact when it
concedes that it derives its authority wholly from the consent of the people.
And the word treason is to be understood in accordance with that idea. It is
conceded that a person of foreign birth comes under allegiance to our government
only by special voluntary contract. If a native has allegiance imposed upon him,
against his will, he is in a worse condition than the foreigner; for the latter
can do as he pleases about assuming that obligation. The accepted interpretation
of the Constitution, therefore, makes the foreigner a free person, on this
point, while it makes the native a slave.
The only difference --- if there be any --- between natives and foreigners, in
respect of allegiance, is, that a native has a right --- offered to him by the
Constitution --- to come under allegiance to the government, if be so please;
and thus entitle himself to membership in the body politic. His allegiance
cannot be refused. Whereas a foreigner's allegiance can be refused, if the
government so please.
IV.
The Constitution certainly supposes that only man, as an individual, can commit
the crime of treason. It would be very curious to see a man indicted, convicted,
or hanged, otherwise than as an individual; or accused of having committed his
treason otherwise than as an individual. And yet it is clearly impossible that
any one can be personally guilty of treason, can be a traitor in fact, unless
he, as an individual, has in some way voluntarily pledged his faith and fidelity
to the government. Certainly no man, or body of men, could pledge it for him,
without his consent; and no man, or body of men, have any right to presume it
against him, when he has not pledged it, himself.
V.
It is plain, therefore, that if, when the Constitution says treason, it means
treason --- treason in fact, and nothing else --- there is no ground at all for
pretending that the Southern people have committed that crime. But if, on the
other hand, when the Constitution says treason, it means what the Czar and the
Kaiser mean by treason, then our government is, in principle, no better than
theirs; and has no claim whatever to be considered a free government.
VI.
One essential of a free government is that it rests wholly on voluntary support.
And one certain proof that a government is not free, is that it coerces more or
less persons to support it, against their will. All governments, the worst on
earth, and the [*13] most tyrannical on earth, are free governments to that
portion of the people who voluntarily support them.
And all governments though the best on earth in other respects --- are
nevertheless tyrannies to that portion of the people --- whether few or many ---
who are compelled to support them against their will. A government is like a
church, or any other institution, in these respects. There is no other criterion
whatever, by which to determine whether a government is a free one, or not, than
the single one of its depending, or not depending, solely on voluntary support.
VII.
No middle ground is possible on this subject. Either "taxation without consent
is robbery," or it is not. If it is not, then any number of men, who choose, may
at any time associate; call themselves a government; assume absolute authority
over all weaker than themselves; plunder them at will; and kill them if they
resist. If, on the other hand, taxation without consent is robbery, it
necessarily follows that every man who has not consented to be taxed, has the
same natural right to defend his property against a tax gatherer that he has to
defend it against a highwayman.
VIII.
It is perhaps unnecessary to say that the principles of this argument are as
applicable to the State governments, as to the national one. The opinions of the
South, on the subjects of allegiance and treason, have been equally erroneous
with those of the North.
The only difference between them, has been, that the South has had that a man
was (primarily) under involuntary allegiance to the State government; while the
North held that he was (primarily) under a similar allegiance to the United
States government; whereas, in truth, he was under no involuntary allegiance to
either.
IX.
Obviously there can be no law of treason more stringent than has now been
stated, consistently with political liberty. In the very nature of things there
can never be any liberty for the weaker party, on any other principle; and
political liberty always means liberty for the weaker party. It is only the
weaker party that is ever oppressed. The strong are always free by virtue of
their superior strength. So long as government is a mere contest as to which of
two parties shall rule the other, the weaker must always succumb. And whether
the contest be carried on with ballots or bullets, the principle is the same;
for under the theory of government now prevailing, the ballot either signifies a
bullet, or it signifies nothing. And no one can consistently use a ballot,
unless he intends to use a bullet, if the latter should be needed to insure
submission to the former.
X.
The practical difficulty with our government has been, that most of those who
have administered it, have taken it for granted that the Constitution, as it is
written, was a thing of no importance; that it neither said what it meant, nor
meant what it said; that it was gotten up by swindlers, (as many of its authors
doubtless were,) who said a great many good things, which they did not mean, and
meant a great many bad things, which they dared not say; that these men, under
the false pretence of a government resting on the consent of the whole people,
designed to entrap them into a government of a part; who should be powerful and
fraudulent enough to cheat the weaker portion out of all the good things that
were said, but not meant, and subject them to all the bad things that were
meant, but not said. And most of those who have administered the government,
have assumed that all these swindling intentions were to be carried into effect,
in the place of the written Constitution. Of all these swindles, the treason
swindle is the most flagitious. It is the most flagitious, because it is equally
flagitious, in principle, with any; and it includes all the others.
It is the instrumentality by which all the others are mode effective. A
government that can at pleasure accuse, shoot, and hang men, as traitors, for
the one general offence of refusing to surrender themselves and their property
unreservedly to its arbitrary will, can practice any and all special and
particular oppressions it pleases.
The result --- and a natural one --- has been that we have had governments,
State and national, devoted to nearly every grade and species of crime that
governments have ever practiced upon their victims; and these crimes have
culminated in a war that has cost a million of lives; a war carried on, upon one
side, for chattel slavery, and on the other for political slavery; upon neither
for liberty, justice, or truth.
And these crimes have been committed, and this war waged, y men, and the
descendants of men, who, less than a hundred years ago, said that all men were
equal, and could owe neither service to individuals, nor allegiance to
governments, except with their own consent.
XI.
No attempt or pretence, that was ever carried into practical operation amongst
civilized men --- unless possibly the pretence of a "Divine Right," on the part
of some, to govern and enslave others embodied so much of shameless absurdity,
falsehood, impudence, robbery, usurpation, tyranny, and villainy of every kind,
as the attempt or pretence of establishing a government by consent, and getting
the actual consent of only so many as may be necessary to keep the rest in
subjection by force. Such a government is a mere conspiracy of the strong
against the weak. It no more rests on consent than does the worst government on
earth.
What substitute for their consent is offered to the weaker party, whose rights
are thus annihilated, struck out of existence, by the stronger? Only this: Their
consent is presumed! That is, these usurpers condescendingly and graciously
presume that those whom they enslave, consent to surrender their all of life,
liberty, and property into the hands of those who thus usurp dominion over them!
And it is pretended that this presumption of their consent --- when no actual
consent has been given --- is sufficient to save the rights of the victims, and
to justify the usurpers! As well might the highwayman pretend to justify himself
by presuming that the traveler consents to part with his money? As well might
the assassin justify himself by simply presuming that his victim consents to
part with his life?
As well the holder of chattel slaves to himself by presuming that they consent
to his authority, and to the whips and the robbery, which he practices upon
them. The presumption is simply a presumption that the weaker party consents to
be slaves. Such is the presumption on which alone our government relies to
justify the power it maintains over its unwilling subjects. And it was to
establish that presumption as the inexorable and perpetual law of this country,
that so much money and blood have been expended.
NO TREASON.
No. VI.
The Constitution of no Authority.
BY LYSANDER SPOONER
BOSTON:
PUBLISHED BY THE AUTHOR,
1870.
Entered according to Act of congress, in the year 1870, By LYSANDER SPOONER, in
the Clerk's office of the District Court of the United States, for the District
of Massachusetts. The first and second numbers of this series were published in
1867. For reasons not necessary to be explained, the sixth is now published in
advance of the third, fourth, and fifth.
NO TREASON
NO. VI.
THE CONSTITUTION OF NO AUTHORITY
I.
The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or
obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so
much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing.
It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years
ago. And it can be supposed to have been a contract then only between persons
who had already come to years of discretion, so as to be competent to make
reasonable and obligatory contracts. Furthermore, we know, historically, that
only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the
subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in
any formal manner. Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally,
are all dead now. Most of them have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy
years. And the constitution, so far as it was their contract, died with them.
They had no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children. It
is not only plainly impossible, in the nature of things, that they could bind
their posterity, but they did not even attempt to bind them. That is to say, the
instrument does not purport to be an agreement between any body but "the people"
then existing; nor does it, either expressly or impliedly, assert any right,
power, or disposition, on their part, to bind anybody but themselves.
Let us see. Its language is: "We, the people of the United States (that is, the
people then existing in the United States), in order to form a more perfect
union, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the
general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our
posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of
America." It is plain, in the first place, that this language, as an agreement,
purports to be only what it at most really was, viz., a contract between the
people then existing; and, of necessity, binding, as a contract, only upon those
then existing. In the second place, the language neither expresses nor implies
that they had any right or power, to bind their "posterity" to live under it. It
does not say that their "posterity" will, shall, or must live under it. It only
says, in effect, that their hopes and motives in adopting it were that it might
prove useful to their posterity, as well as to themselves, by promoting their
union, safety, tranquility, liberty, etc.
Suppose an agreement were entered into, in this form:
We, the people of Boston, agree to maintain a fort on Governor's Island, to
protect ourselves and our posterity against invasion. This agreement, as an
agreement, would clearly bind nobody but the people then existing. Secondly, it
would assert no right, power, or disposition, on their part, to compel, their
"posterity" to maintain such a fort. It would only indicate that the supposed
welfare of their posterity was one of the motives that induced the original
parties to enter into the agreement.
When a man says he is building a house for himself and his posterity, he does
not mean to be understood as saying that he has any thought of binding them, nor
is it to be inferred that he [*5] is so foolish as to imagine that he has any
right or power to bind them, to live in it. So far as they are concerned, he
only means to be understood as saying that his hopes and motives, in building
it, are that they, or at least some of them, may find it for their happiness to
live in it.
So when a man says he is planting a tree for himself and his posterity, he does
not mean to be understood as saying that he has any thought of compelling them,
nor is it to be inferred that he is such a simpleton as to imagine that he has
any right or power to compel them, to eat the fruit. So far as they are
concerned, he only means to say that his hopes and motives, in planting the
tree, are that its fruit may be agreeable to them.
So it was with those who originally adopted the Constitution. Whatever may have
been their personal intentions, the legal meaning of their language, so far as
their "posterity" was concerned, simply was, that their hopes and motives, in
entering into the agreement, were that it might prove useful and acceptable to
their posterity; that it might promote their union, safety, tranquility, and
welfare; and that it might tend "to secure to them the blessings of liberty."
The language does not assert nor at all imply, any right, power, or disposition,
on the part of the original parties to the agreement, to compel their
"posterity" to live under it. If they had intended to bind their posterity to
live under it, they should have said that their objective was, not "to secure to
them the blessings of liberty," but to make slaves of them; for if their
"posterity" are bound to live under it, they are nothing less than the slaves of
their foolish, tyrannical, and dead grandfathers. It cannot be said that the
Constitution formed "the people of the United States," for all time, into a
corporation. It does not speak of "the people" as a corporation, but as
individuals.
A corporation does not describe itself as "we," nor as "people," nor as
"ourselves. " Nor does a corporation, in legal language, have any "posterity."
It supposes itself to have, and speaks of itself as having, perpetual existence,
as a single individuality.
Moreover, no body of men, existing at any one time, have the power to create a
perpetual corporation. A corporation can become practically perpetual only by
the voluntary accession of new members, as the old ones die off. But for this
voluntary accession of new members, the corporation necessarily dies with the
death of those who originally composed it. Legally speaking, therefore, there
is, in the Constitution, nothing that professes or attempts to bind the
"posterity" of those who establish[ed] it. If, then, those who established the
Constitution, had no power to bind, and did not attempt to bind, their
posterity, the question arises, whether their posterity have bound themselves.
If they have done so, they can have done so in only one or both of these two
ways, viz., by voting, and paying taxes.
II.
Let us consider these two matters, voting and tax paying, separately. And first
of voting.
All the voting that has ever taken place under the Constitution, has been of
such a kind that it not only did not pledge the whole people to support the
Constitution, but it did not even pledge any one of them to do so, as the
following considerations show.
1.In the very nature of things, the act of voting could bind nobody but the
actual voters. But owing to the property qualifications required, it is probable
that, during the first twenty or thirty years under the Constitution, not more
than one-tenth, fifteenth, or perhaps twentieth of the whole population (black
and white, men, women, and minors) were permitted to vote. Consequently, so far
as voting was concerned, not more than one-tenth, fifteenth, or twentieth of
those then existing, could have incurred any obligation to support the
Constitution. At the present time, it is probable that not more than one-sixth
of the whole populations are permitted to vote. Consequently, so far as voting
is concerned, the other five-sixths can have given no pledge that they will
support the Constitution.
2. Of the one-sixth that are permitted to vote, probably not more than
two-thirds (about one-ninth of the whole population) have usually voted. Many
never vote at all. Many vote only once in two, three, five, or ten years, in
periods of great excitement. No one, by voting, can be said to pledge himself
for any longer period than that for which he votes. If, for example, I vote for
an officer who is to hold his office for only a year, I cannot be said to have
thereby pledged myself to support the government beyond that term. Therefore, on
the ground of actual voting, it probably cannot be said that more than one-ninth
or one-eighth, of the whole population are usually under any pledge to support
the Constitution.
3. It cannot be said that, by voting, a man pledges himself to support the
Constitution, unless the act of voting be a perfectly voluntary one on his part.
Yet the act of voting cannot properly be called a voluntary one on the part of
any very large number of those who do vote. It is rather a measure of necessity
imposed upon them by others, than one of their own choice. On this point I
repeat what was said in a former number, "In truth, in the case of individuals,
their actual voting is not to be taken as proof of consent, even for the time
being. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without his consent having
even been asked a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot
resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego
the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments.
He sees, too, that other men practice this tyranny over him by the use of the
ballot.
He sees further, that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance
of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own.
In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he uses
the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a
slave. And he has no other alternative than these two.
In self-defense, he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man
who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed
himself. Because, to save his own life in battle, a man takes the lives of his
opponents, it is not to be inferred that the battle is one of his own choosing.
Neither in contests with the ballot --- which is a mere substitute for a bullet
--- because, as his only chance of self- preservation, a man uses a ballot, is
it to be inferred that the contest is one into which he voluntarily entered;
that he voluntarily set up all his own natural rights, as a stake against those
of others, to be lost or won by the mere power of numbers.
On the contrary, it is to be considered that, in an exigency into which he had
been forced by others, and in which no other means of self-defense offered, he,
as a matter of necessity, used the only one that was left to him. "Doubtless the
most miserable of men, under the most oppressive government in the world, if
allowed the ballot, would use it, if they could see any chance of thereby
meliorating their condition. But it would not, therefore, be a legitimate
inference that the government itself, that crushes them, was one which they had
voluntarily set up, or even consented to. "Therefore, a man's voting under the
Constitution of the United States, is not to be taken as evidence that he ever
freely assented to the Constitution, even for the time being. Consequently we
have no proof that any very large portion, even of the actual voters of the
United States, ever really and voluntarily consented to the Constitution, even
for the time being. Nor can we ever have such proof, until every man is left
perfectly free to consent, or not, without thereby subjecting himself or his
property to be disturbed or injured by others."
As we can have no legal knowledge as to who votes from choice, and who from the
necessity thus forced upon him, we can have no legal knowledge, as to any
particular individual, that he voted from choice; or, consequently, that by
voting, he consented, or pledged himself, to support the government. Legally
[*9] speaking, therefore, the act of voting utterly fails to pledge any one to
support the government. It utterly fails to prove that the government rests upon
the voluntary support of anybody. On general principles of law and reason, it
cannot be said that the government has any voluntary supporters at all, until it
can be distinctly shown who its voluntary supporters are.
4. As taxation is made compulsory on all, whether they vote or not, a large
proportion of those who vote, no doubt do so to prevent their own money being
used against themselves; when, in fact, they would have gladly abstained from
voting, if they could thereby have saved themselves from taxation alone, to say
nothing of being saved from all the other usurpations and tyrannies of the
government. To take a man's property without his consent, and then to infer his
consent because he attempts, by voting, to prevent that property from being used
to his injury, is a very insufficient proof of his consent to support the
Constitution. It is, in fact, no proof at all. And as we can have no legal
knowledge as to who the particular individuals are, if there are any, who are
willing to be taxed for the sake of voting, we can have no legal knowledge that
any particular individual consents to be taxed for the sake of voting; or,
consequently, consents to support the Constitution.
5. At nearly all elections, votes are given for various candidates for the same
office. Those who vote for the unsuccessful candidates cannot properly be said
to have voted to sustain the Constitution. They may, with more reason, be
supposed to have voted, not to support the Constitution, but specially to
prevent the tyranny which they anticipate the successful candidate intends to
practice upon them under color of the Constitution; and therefore may reasonably
be supposed to have voted against the Constitution itself. This supposition is
the more reasonable, inasmuch as such voting is the only mode allowed to them of
expressing their dissent to the Constitution.
6. Many votes are usually given for candidates who have no prospect of success.
Those who give such votes may reasonably be supposed to have voted as they did,
with a special intention, not to support, but to obstruct the execution of, the
Constitution; and, therefore, against the Constitution itself.
7. As all the different votes are given secretly (by secret ballot), there is no
legal means of knowing, from the votes themselves, who votes for, and who votes
against, the Constitution.
Therefore, voting affords no legal evidence that any particular individual
supports the Constitution. And where there can be no legal evidence that any
particular individual supports the Constitution, it cannot legally be said that
anybody supports it. It is clearly impossible to have any legal proof of the
intentions of large numbers of men, where there can be no legal proof of the
intentions of any particular one of them.
8. There being no legal proof of any man's intentions, in voting, we can only
conjecture them. As a conjecture, it is probable, that a very large proportion
of those who vote, do so on this principle, viz., that if, by voting, they could
but get the government into their own hands (or that of their friends), and use
its powers against their opponents, they would then willingly support the
Constitution; but if their opponents are to have the power, and use it against
them, then they would not willingly support the Constitution. In short, men's
voluntary support of the Constitution is doubtless, in most cases, wholly
contingent upon the question whether, by means of the Constitution, they can
make themselves masters, or are to be made slaves. Such contingent consent as
that is, in law and reason, no consent at all.
9. As everybody who supports the Constitution by voting (if there are any such)
does so secretly (by secret ballot), and in a way to avoid all personal
responsibility for the acts of his agents or representatives, it cannot legally
or reasonably be [*11] said that anybody at all supports the Constitution by
voting. No man can reasonably or legally be said to do such a thing as assent
to, or support, the Constitution, unless he does it openly, and in a way to make
himself personally responsible for the acts of his agents, so long as they act
within the limits of the power he delegates to them.
10. As all voting is secret (by secret ballot), and as all secret governments
are necessarily only secret bands of robbers, tyrants, and murderers, the
general fact that our government is practically carried on by means of such
voting, only proves that there is among us a secret band of robbers, tyrants,
and murderers, whose purpose is to rob, enslave, and, so far as necessary to
accomplish their purposes, murder, the rest of the people. The simple fact of
the existence of such a band does nothing towards proving that "the people of
the United States," or any one of them, voluntarily supports the Constitution.
For all the reasons that have now been given, voting furnishes no legal evidence
as to who the particular individuals are (if there are any), who voluntarily
support the Constitution. It therefore furnishes no legal evidence that anybody
supports it voluntarily. So far, therefore, as voting is concerned, the
Constitution, legally speaking, has no supporters at all. And, as a matter of
fact, there is not the slightest probability that the Constitution has a single
bona fide supporter in the country. That is to say, there is not the slightest
probability that there is a single man in the country, who both understands what
the Constitution really is, and sincerely supports it for what it really is.
The ostensible supporters of the Constitution, like the ostensible supporters of
most other governments, are made up of three classes, viz.: A. Knaves, a
numerous and active class, who see in the government an instrument which they
can use for their own aggrandizement or wealth. B. Dupes --- a large class, no
doubt --- each of whom, because he is allowed one voice out of millions in
deciding what he may do with his own person and his own property, and because he
is permitted to have the same voice in robbing, enslaving, and murdering others,
that others have in robbing, enslaving, and murdering himself, is stupid enough
to imagine that he is a "free man," a "sovereign"; that this is "a free
government"; "a government of equal rights," "the best government on earth," and
such like absurdities.
C. A class who have some appreciation of the evils of government, but either do
not see how to get rid of them, or do not choose to so far sacrifice their
private interests as to give themselves seriously and earnestly to the work of
making a change.
III.
The payment of taxes, being compulsory, of course furnishes no evidence that any
one voluntarily supports the Constitution.
It is true that the theory of our Constitution is, that all taxes are paid
voluntarily; that our government is a mutual insurance company, voluntarily
entered into by the people with each other; that that each man makes a free and
purely voluntary contract with all others who are parties to the Constitution,
to pay so much money for so much protection, the same as he does with any other
insurance company; and that he is just as free not to be protected, and not to
pay tax, as he is to pay a tax, and be protected. But this theory of our
government is wholly different from the practical fact. The fact is that the
government, like a highwayman, says to a man: Your money, or your life." And
many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat.
The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him
from the roadside, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his
pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is
far more dastardly and shameful. The highwayman takes solely upon himself the
responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he
has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own
benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired
impudence enough to profess to be merely a "protector," and that he takes men's
money against their will, merely to enable him to "protect" those infatuated
travelers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate
his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such
professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as
you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against
your will; assuming to be your rightful "sovereign," on account of the
"protection" he affords you. He does not keep "protecting" you, by commanding
you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you
to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his
interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an
enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his
authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of
such impostures, and insults, and villainies as these. In short, he does not, in
addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave. The
proceedings of those robbers and murderers, who call themselves "the
government," are directly the opposite of these of the single highwayman.
In the first place, they do not, like him, make themselves individually known;
or, consequently, take upon themselves personally the responsibility of their
acts. On the contrary, they secretly (by secret ballot) designate some one of
their numbers to commit the robbery in their behalf, while they keep themselves
practically concealed. They say to the person thus designated: Go to A_____
B_____, and say to him that "the government" has need of money to meet the
expenses of protecting him and his property. If he presumes to say that he has
never contracted with us to protect him, and that he wants none of our
protection, say to him that that is our business, and not his; that we choose to
protect him, whether he desires us to do so or not; and that we demand pay, too,
for protecting him. If he dares to inquire who the individuals are, who have
thus taken upon themselves the title of "the government," and who assume to
protect him, and demand payment of him, without his having ever made any
contract with them, say to him that that, too, is our business, and not his;
that we do not choose to make ourselves individually known to him; that we have
secretly (by secret ballot) appointed you our agent to give him notice of our
demands, and, if he complies with them, to give him, in our name, a receipt that
will protect him against any similar demand for the present year.
If he refuses to comply, seize and sell enough of his property to pay not only
our demands, but all your own expenses and trouble beside. If he resists the
seizure of his property, call upon the bystanders to help you (doubtless some of
them will prove to be members of our band.)
If, in defending his property, he should kill any of our band who are assisting
you, capture him at all hazards; charge him (in one of our courts) with murder;
convict him, and hang him.
If he should call upon his neighbors, or any others who, like him, may be
disposed to resist our demands, and they should come in large numbers to his
assistance, cry out that they are all rebels and traitors; that "our country" is
in danger; call upon the commander of our hired murderers; tell him to quell the
rebellion and "save the country," cost what it may. Tell him to kill all who
resist, though they should be hundreds of thousands; and thus strike terror into
all others similarly disposed.
See that the work of murder is thoroughly done; that we may have no further
trouble of this kind hereafter. When these traitors shall have thus been taught
our strength and our determination, they will be good loyal citizens for many
years, and pay their taxes without a why or a wherefore. It is under such
compulsion as this that taxes, so called, are paid. And how much proof the
payment of taxes affords, that the people consent to "support the government,"
it needs no further argument to show.
2. Still another reason why the payment of taxes implies no consent, or pledge,
to support the government, is that the taxpayer does not know, and has no means
of knowing, who the particular individuals are who compose "the government." To
him "the government" is a myth, an abstraction, an in corporeality, with which
he can make no contract, and to which he can give no consent, and make no
pledge. He knows it only through its pretended agents. "The government" itself
he never sees. He knows indeed, by common report, that certain persons, of a
certain age, are permitted to vote; and thus to make themselves parts of, or (if
they choose) opponents of, the government, for the time being. But who of them
do thus vote, and especially how each one votes (whether so as to aid or oppose
the government), he does not know; the voting being all done secretly (by secret
ballot). Who, therefore, practically compose "the government," for the time
being, he has no means of knowing. Of course he can make no contract with them,
give them no consent, and make them no pledge. Of necessity, therefore, his
paying taxes to them implies, on his part, no contract, consent, or pledge to
support them --- that is, to support "the government," or the Constitution.
3. Not knowing who the particular individuals are, who call themselves "the
government," the taxpayer does not know whom he pays his taxes to. All he knows
is that a man comes to him, representing himself to be the agent of "the
government" --- that is, the agent of a secret band of robbers and murderers,
who have taken to themselves the title of "the government," and have determined
to kill everybody who refuses to give them whatever money they demand. To save
his life, he gives up his money to this agent. But as this agent does not make
his principals individually known to the taxpayer, the latter, after he has
given up his money, knows no more who are "the government" --- that is, who were
the robbers --- than he did before. To say, therefore, that by giving up his
money to their agent, he entered into a voluntary contract with them, that he
pledges himself to obey them, to support them, and to give them whatever money
they should demand of him in the future, is simply ridiculous.
4. All political power, so called, rests practically upon this matter of money.
Any number of scoundrels, having money enough to start with, can establish
themselves as a "government"; because, with money, they can hire soldiers, and
with soldiers extort more money; and also compel general obedience to their
will. It is with government, as Caesar said it was in war, that money and
soldiers mutually supported each other; that with money he could hire soldiers,
and with soldiers extort money. So these villains, who call themselves
governments, well understand that their power rests primarily upon money. With
money they can hire soldiers, and with soldiers extort money. And, when their
authority is denied, the first use they always make of money, is to hire
soldiers to kill or subdue all who refuse them more money.
For this reason, whoever desires liberty, should understand these vital facts,
viz.: 1. That every man who puts money into the hands of a "government" (so
called), puts into its hands a sword which will be used against him, to extort
more money from him, and also to keep him in subjection to its arbitrary will.
2. That those who will take his money, without his con- sent, in the first
place, will use it for his further robbery and enslavement, if he presumes to
resist their demands in the future. 3. That it is a perfect absurdity to suppose
that any body of men would ever take a man's money without his consent, for any
such object as they profess to take it for, viz., that of protecting him; for
why should they wish to protect him, if he does not wish them to do so?
To suppose that they would do so, is just as absurd as it would be to suppose
that they would take his money without his consent, for the purpose of buying
food or clothing for him, when he did not want it. 4. If a man wants
"protection," he is competent to make his own bargains for it; and nobody has
any occasion to rob him, in order to "protect" him against his will.
5. That the only security men can have for their political liberty consists in
their keeping their money in their own pockets, until they have assurances,
perfectly satisfactory to themselves, that it will be used as they wish it to be
used, for their benefit, and not for their injury. 6. That no government, so
called, can reasonably be trusted for a moment, or reasonably be supposed to
have honest purposes in view, any longer than it depends wholly upon voluntary
support. These facts are all so vital and so self-evident, that it cannot
reasonably be supposed that any one will voluntarily pay money to a
"government," for the purpose of securing its protection, unless he first make
an explicit and purely voluntary contract with it for that purpose. It is
perfectly evident, therefore, that neither such voting, nor such payment of
taxes, as actually takes place, proves anybody's consent, or obligation, to
support the Constitution. Consequently we have no evidence at all that the
Constitution is binding upon anybody, or that anybody is under any contract or
obligation whatever to support it. And nobody is under any obligation to support
it.
IV.
The constitution not only binds nobody now, but it never did bind anybody. It
never bound anybody, because it was never agreed to by anybody in such a manner
as to make it, on general principles of law and reason, binding upon him. It is
a general principle of law and reason, that a written instrument binds no one
until he has signed it.
This principle is so inflexible a one, that even though a man is unable to write
his name, he must still "make his mark," before he is bound by a written
contract. This custom was established ages ago, when few men could write their
names; when a clerk --- that is, a man who could write --- was so rare and
valuable a person, that even if he were guilty of high crimes, he was entitled
to pardon, on the ground that the public could not afford to lose his services.
Even at that time, a written contract must be signed; and men who could not
write, either "made their mark," or signed their contracts by stamping their
seals upon wax affixed to the parchment on which their contracts were written.
Hence the custom of affixing seals, that has continued to this time.
The laws holds, and reason declares, that if a written instrument is not signed,
the presumption must be that the party to be bound by it, did not choose to sign
it, or to bind himself by it. And law and reason both give him until the last
moment, in which to decide whether he will sign it, or not.
Neither law nor reason requires or expects a man to agree to an instrument,
until it is written; for until it is written, he cannot know its precise legal
meaning. And when it is written, and he has had the opportunity to satisfy
himself of its precise legal meaning, he is then expected to decide, and not
before, whether he will agree to it or not. And if he do not then sign it, his
reason is supposed to be, that he does not choose to enter into such a contract.
The fact that the instrument was written for him to sign, or with the hope that
he would sign it, goes for nothing.
Where would be the end of fraud and litigation, if one party could bring into
court a written instrument, without any signature, and claim to have it
enforced, upon the ground that it was written for another man to sign? that this
other man had promised to sign it? That he ought to have signed it? that he had
had the opportunity to sign it, if he would? But that he had refused or
neglected to do so? Yet that is the most that could ever be said of the
Constitution. The very judges, who profess to derive all their authority from
the Constitution --- from an instrument that nobody ever signed --- would spurn
any other instrument, not signed, that should be brought before them for
adjudication. Moreover, a written instrument must, in law and reason, not only
be signed, but must also be delivered to the party (or to some one for him), in
whose favor it is made, before it can bind the party making it. The signing is
of no effect, unless the instrument is also delivered. And a party is at perfect
liberty to refuse to deliver a written instrument, after he has signed it. The
Constitution was not only never signed by anybody, but it was never delivered by
anybody, or to anybody's agent or attorney. It can therefore be of no more
validity as a contract, then can any other instrument that was never signed or
delivered.
V.
As further evidence of the general sense of mankind, as to the practical
necessity there is that all men's important contracts, especially those of a
permanent nature, should be both written and signed, the following facts are
pertinent.
For nearly two hundred years --- that is, since 1677 --- there has been on the
statute book of England, and the same, in substance, if not precisely in letter,
has been re-enacted, and is now in force, in nearly or quite all the States of
this Union, a statute, the general object of which is to declare that no action
shall be brought to enforce contracts of the more important class, unless they
are put in writing, and signed by the parties to be held chargeable upon them.
The principle of the statute, be it observed, is, not merely that written
contracts shall be signed, but also that all contracts, except for those
specially exempted --- generally those that are for small amounts, and are to
remain in force for but a short time --- shall be both written and signed.
The reason of the statute, on this point, is, that it is now so easy a thing for
men to put their contracts in writing, and sign them, and their failure to do so
opens the door to so much doubt, fraud, and litigation, that men who neglect to
have their contracts --- of any considerable importance --- written and signed,
ought not to have the benefit of courts of justice to enforce them. And this
reason is a wise one; and that experience has confirmed its wisdom and
necessity, is demonstrated by the fact that it has been acted upon in England
for nearly two hundred years, and has been so nearly universally adopted in this
country, and that nobody thinks of repealing it. We all know, too, how careful
most men are to have their contracts written and signed, even when this statute
does not require it. For example, most men, if they have money due them, of no
larger amount than five or ten dollars, are careful to take a note for it. If
they buy even a small bill of goods, paying for it at the time of delivery, they
take a receipted bill for it. If they pay a small balance of a book account, or
any other small debt previously contracted, they take a written receipt for it.
Furthermore, the law everywhere (probably) in our country, as well as in
England, requires that a large class of contracts, such as wills, deeds, etc.,
shall not only be written and signed, but also sealed, witnessed, and
acknowledged. And in the case of married women conveying their rights in real
estate, the law, in many States, requires that the women shall be examined
separate and apart from their husbands, and declare that they sign their
contracts free of any fear or compulsion of their husbands.
Such are some of the precautions which the laws require, and which individuals
--- from motives of common prudence, even in cases not required by law --- take,
to put their contracts in writing, and have them signed, and, to guard against
all uncertainties and controversies in regard to their meaning and validity.
And yet we have what purports, or professes, or is claimed, to be a contract ---
the Constitution --- made eighty years ago, by men who are now all dead, and who
never had any power to bind us, but which (it is claimed) has nevertheless bound
three generations of men, consisting of many millions, and which (it is claimed)
will be binding upon all the millions that are to come; but which nobody ever
signed, sealed, delivered, witnessed, or acknowledged; and which few persons,
compared with the whole number that are claimed to be bound by it, have ever
read, or even seen, or ever will read, or see. And of those who ever have read
it, or ever will read it, scarcely any two, perhaps no two, have ever agreed, or
ever will agree, as to what it means.
Moreover, this supposed contract, which would not be received in any court of
justice sitting under its authority, if offered to prove a debt of five dollars,
owing by one man to another, is one by which --- as it is generally interpreted
by those who pretend to administer it --- all men, women and children throughout
the country, and through all time, surrender not only all their property, but
also their liberties, and even lives, into the hands of men who by this supposed
contract, are expressly made wholly irresponsible for their disposal of them.
And we are so insane, or so wicked, as to destroy property and lives without
limit, in fighting to compel men to fulfill a supposed contract, which, inasmuch
as it has never been signed by anybody, is, on general principles of law and
reason --- such principles as we are all governed by in regard to other
contracts --- the merest waste of paper, binding upon nobody, fit only to be
thrown into the fire; or, if preserved, preserved only to serve as a witness and
a warning of the folly and wickedness of mankind.
VI.
It is no exaggeration, but a literal truth, to say that, by the Constitution ---
not as I interpret it, but as it is interpreted by those who pretend to
administer it --- the properties, liberties, and lives of the entire people of
the United States are surrendered unreservedly into the hands of men who, it is
provided by the Constitution itself, shall never be "questioned" as to any
disposal they make of them. Thus the Constitution (Art. I, Sec. 6) provides
that, "for any speech or debate [or vote,] in either house, they [the senators
and representatives] shall not be questioned in any other place." The whole
law-making power is given to these senators and representatives [when acting by
a two-thirds vote] and this provision protects them from all responsibility for
the laws they make. The Constitution also enables them to secure the execution
of all their laws, by giving them power to withhold the salaries of, and to
impeach and remove, all judicial and executive officers, who refuse to execute
them.
Thus the whole power of the government is in their hands, and they are made
utterly irresponsible for the use they make of it. What is this but absolute,
irresponsible power? It is no answer to this view of the case to say that these
men are under oath to use their power only within certain limits; for what care
they, or what should they care, for oaths or limits, when it is expressly
provided, by the Constitution itself, that they shall never be "questioned," or
held to any responsibility whatever, for violating their oaths, or transgressing
those limits?
Neither is it any answer to this view of the case to say that the men holding
this absolute, irresponsible power must be men chosen by the people (or portions
of them) to hold it. A man is nonetheless a slave because he is allowed to
choose a new master once in a term of years. Neither are a people any the less
slaves because permitted periodically to choose new masters. What makes them
slaves is the fact that they now are, and are always hereafter to be, in the
hands of men whose power over them is, and always is to be, absolute and
irresponsible. The right of absolute and irresponsible dominion is the right of
property, and the right of property is the right of absolute, irresponsible
dominion.
The two are identical; the one necessarily implies the other. Neither can exist
without the other. If, therefore, Congress has that absolute and irresponsible
law-making power, which the Constitution --- according to their interpretation
of it --- gives them, it can only be because they own us as property.
If they own us as property, they are our masters, and their will is our law. If
they do not own us as property, they are not our masters, and their will, as
such, is of no authority over us.
But these men who claim and exercise this absolute and irresponsible dominion
over us, dare not be consistent, and claim either to be our masters, or to own
us as property. They say they are only our servants, agents, attorneys, and
representatives. But this declaration involves an absurdity, a contradiction. No
man can be my servant, agent, attorney, or representative, and be, at the same
time, uncontrollable by me, and irresponsible to me for his acts. It is of no
importance that I appointed him, and put all power in his hands. If I made him
uncontrollable by me, and irresponsible to me, he is no longer my servant,
agent, attorney, or representative. If I gave him absolute, irresponsible power
over my property, I gave him the property. If I gave him absolute, irresponsible
power over myself, I made him my master, and gave myself to him as a slave. And
it is of no importance whether I called him master or servant, agent or owner.
The only question is, what power did I put in his hands? Was it an absolute and
irresponsible one? or a limited and responsible one?
For still another reason they are neither our servants, agents, attorneys, nor
representatives. And that reason is, that we do not make ourselves responsible
for their acts. If a man is my servant, agent, or attorney, I necessarily make
myself responsible for all his acts done within the limits of the power I have
entrusted to him. If I have entrusted him, as my agent, with either absolute
power, or any power at all, over the persons or properties of other men than
myself, I thereby necessarily make myself responsible to those other persons for
any injuries he may do them, so long as he acts within the limits of the power I
have granted him. But no individual who may be injured in his person or
property, by acts of Congress, can come to the individual electors, and hold
them responsible for these acts of their so-called agents or representatives.
This fact proves that these pretended agents of the people, of everybody, are
really the agents of nobody. If, then, nobody is individually responsible for
the acts of Congress, the members of Congress are nobody's agents. And if they
are nobody's agents, they are themselves individually responsible for their own
acts, and for the acts of all whom they employ.
And the authority they are exercising is simply their own individual authority;
and, by the law of nature --- the highest of all laws --- anybody injured by
their acts, anybody who is deprived by them of his property or his liberty, has
the same right to hold them individually responsible, that he has to hold any
other trespasser individually responsible. He has the same right [*26] to resist
them, and their agents, that he has to resist any other trespassers.
VII.
It is plain, then, that on general principles of law and reason --- such
principles as we all act upon in courts of justice and in common life --- the
Constitution is no contract; that it binds nobody, and never did bind anybody;
and that all those who pretend to act by its authority, are really acting
without any legitimate authority at all; that, on general principles of law and
reason, they are mere usurpers, and that everybody not only has the right, but
is morally bound, to treat them as such. If the people of this country wish to
maintain such a government as the Constitution describes, there is no reason in
the world why they should not sign the instrument itself, and thus make known
their wishes in an open, authentic manner; in such manner as the common sense
and experience of mankind have shown to be reasonable and necessary in such
cases; and in such manner as to make themselves (as they ought to do)
individually responsible for the acts of the government. But the people have
never been asked to sign it. And the only reason why they have never been asked
to sign it, has been that it has been known that they never would sign it; that
they were neither such fools nor knaves as they must needs have been to be
willing to sign it; that (at least as it has been practically interpreted) it is
not what any sensible and honest man wants for himself; nor such as he has any
right to impose upon others.
It is, to all moral intents and purposes, as destitute of obligations as the
compacts, which robbers and thieves and pirates enter into with each other, but
never sign.
If any considerable number of the people believe the Constitution to be good,
why do they not sign it themselves, and make laws for, and administer them upon,
each other; leaving all [*27] other persons (who do not interfere with them) in
peace? Until they have tried the experiment for themselves, how can they have
the face to impose the Constitution upon, or even to recommend it to, others?
Plainly the reason for absurd and inconsistent conduct is that they want the
Constitution, not solely for any honest or legitimate use it can be of to
themselves or others, but for the dishonest and illegitimate power it gives them
over the persons and properties of others. But for this latter reason, all their
eulogiums on the Constitution, all their exhortations, and all their
expenditures of money and blood to sustain it, would be wanting.
VIII.
The Constitution itself, then, being of no authority, on what authority does our
government practically rest? On what ground can those who pretend to administer
it, claim the right to seize men's property, to restrain them of their natural
liberty of action, industry, and trade, and to kill all who deny their authority
to dispose of men's properties, liberties, and lives at their pleasure or
discretion? The most they can say, in answer to this question, is, that some
half, two-thirds, or three-fourths, of the male adults of the country have a
tacit understanding that they will maintain a government under the Constitution;
that they will select, by ballot, the persons to administer it; and that those
persons who may receive a majority, or a plurality, of their ballots, shall act
as their representatives, and administer the Constitution in their name, and by
their authority.
But this tacit understanding (admitting it to exist) cannot at all justify the
conclusion drawn from it. A tacit understanding between A, B, and C, that they
will, by ballot, depute D as their agent, to deprive me of my property, liberty,
or life, cannot at all authorize D to do so. He is nonetheless a robber, tyrant,
and murderer, because he claims to act as their agent, than he would be if he
avowedly acted on his own responsibility alone.
Neither am I bound to recognize him as their agent, nor can he legitimately
claim to be their agent, when he brings no written authority from them
accrediting him as such. I am under no obligation to take his word as to who his
principals may be, or whether he has any. Bringing no credentials, I have a
right to say he has no such authority even as he claims to have: and that he is
therefore intending to rob, enslave, or murder me on his own account. This tacit
understanding, therefore, among the voters of the country, amounts to nothing as
an authority to their agents. Neither do the ballots by which they select their
agents, avail any more than does their tacit understanding; for their ballots
are given in secret, and therefore in such a way as to avoid any personal
responsibility for the acts of their agents.
No body of men can be said to authorize a man to act as their agent, to the
injury of a third person, unless they do it in so open and authentic a manner as
to make themselves personally responsible for his acts. None of the voters in
this country appoint their political agents in any open, authentic manner, or in
any manner to make themselves responsible for their acts. Therefore these
pretended agents cannot legitimately claim to be really agents. Somebody must be
responsible for the acts of these pretended agents; and if they cannot show any
open and authentic credentials from their principals, they cannot, in law or
reason, be said to have any principals. The maxim applies here, that what does
not appear, does not exist. If they can show no principals, they have none.
But even these pretended agents do not themselves know who their pretended
principals are. These latter act in secret; for acting by secret ballot is
acting in secret as much as if they were to meet in secret conclave in the
darkness of the night. And they are personally as much unknown to the agents
they select, [*29] as they are to others.
No pretended agent therefore can ever know by whose ballots he is selected, or
consequently who his real principles are. Not knowing who his principles are, he
has no right to say that he has any. He can, at most, say only that he is the
agent of a secret band of robbers and murderers, who are bound by that faith
which prevails among confederates in crime, to stand by him, if his acts, done
in their name, shall be resisted.
Men honestly engaged in attempting to establish justice in the world, have no
occasion thus to act in secret; or to appoint agents to do acts for which they
(the principals) are not willing to be responsible. The secret ballot makes a
secret government; and a secret government is a secret band of robbers and
murderers. Open despotism is better than this. The single despot stands out in
the face of all men, and says:
I am the State: My will is law: I am your master: I take the responsibility of
my acts: The only arbiter I acknowledge is the sword: If anyone denies my right,
let him try conclusions with me.
But a secret government is little less than a government of assassins. Under it,
a man knows not who his tyrants are, until they have struck, and perhaps not
then. He may guess, beforehand, as to some of his immediate neighbors. But he
really knows nothing. The man to whom he would most naturally fly for
protection, may prove an enemy, when the time of trial comes. This is the kind
of government we have; and it is the only one we are likely to have, until men
are ready to say: We will consent to no Constitution, except such an one as we
are neither ashamed nor afraid to sign; and we will authorize no government to
do anything in our name which we are not willing to be personally responsible
for.
IX.
What is the motive to the secret ballot? This, and only this: Like other
confederates in crime, those who use it are not friends, but enemies; and they
are afraid to be known, and to have their individual doings known, even to each
other. They can contrive to bring about a sufficient understanding to enable
them to act in concert against other persons; but beyond this they have no
confidence, and no friendship, among themselves. In fact, they are engaged quite
as much in schemes for plundering each other, as in plundering those who are not
of them.
And it is perfectly well understood among them that the strongest party among
them will, in certain contingencies, murder each other by the hundreds of
thousands (as they lately did do) to accomplish their purposes against each
other. Hence they dare not be known, and have their individual doings known,
even to each other. And this is avowedly the only reason for the ballot: for a
secret government; a government by secret bands of robbers and murderers. And we
are insane enough to call this liberty! To be a member of this secret band of
robbers and murderers is esteemed a privilege and an honor! Without this
privilege, a man is considered a slave; but with it a free man! With it he is
considered a free man, because he has the same power to secretly (by secret
ballot) procure the robbery, enslavement, and murder of another man, and that
other man has to procure his robbery, enslavement, and murder. And this they
call equal rights!
If any number of men, many or few, claim the right to govern the people of this
country, let them make and sign an open compact with each other to do so. Let
them thus make themselves individually known to those whom they propose to
govern. And let them thus openly take the legitimate responsibility of their
acts. How many of those who now support the Constitution, will ever do this? How
many will ever dare openly proclaim their right to govern? or take the
legitimate responsibility of their acts?
Not one! It is obvious that, on general principles of law and reason, there
exists no such thing as a government created by, or resting upon, any consent,
compact, or agreement of "the people of the United States" with each other; that
the only visible, tangible, responsible government that exists, is that of a few
individuals only, who act in concert, and call themselves by the several names
of senators, representatives, presidents, judges, marshals, treasurers,
collectors, generals, colonels, captains, etc., etc.
On general principles of law and reason, it is of no importance whatever that
these few individuals profess to be the agents and representatives of "the
people of the United States"; since they can show no credentials from the people
themselves; they were never appointed as agents or representatives in any open,
authentic manner; they do not themselves know, and have no means of knowing, and
cannot prove, who their principals (as they call them) are individually; and
consequently cannot, in law or reason, be said to have any principals at all.
It is obvious, too, that if these alleged principals ever did appoint these
pretended agents, or representatives, they appointed them secretly (by secret
ballot), and in a way to avoid all personal responsibility for their acts; that,
at most, these alleged principals put these pretended agents forward for the
most criminal purposes, viz.: to plunder the people of their property, and
restrain them of their liberty; and that the only authority that these alleged
principals have for so doing, is simply a tacit understanding among themselves
that they will imprison, shoot, or hang every man who resists the exactions and
restraints which their agents or representatives may impose upon them.
Thus it is obvious that the only visible, tangible government we [*32] have is
made up of these professed agents or representatives of a secret band of robbers
and murderers, who, to cover up, or gloss over, their robberies and murders,
have taken to themselves the title of "the people of the United States"; and
who, on the pretense of being "the people of the United States," assert their
right to subject to their dominion, and to control and dispose of at their
pleasure, all property and persons found in the United States.
XI.
On general principles of law and reason, the oaths, which these pretended agents
of the people take "to support the Constitution," are of no validity or
obligation. And why? For this, if for no other reason, viz., that they are given
to nobody. There is no privities (as the lawyers say) --- that is, no mutual
recognition, consent, and agreement --- between those who take these oaths, and
any other persons. If I go upon Boston Common, and in the presence of a hundred
thousand people, men, women and children, with whom I have no contract upon the
subject, take an oath that I will enforce upon them the laws of Moses, of
Lycurgus, of Solon, of Justinian, or of Alfred, that oath is, on general
principles of law and reason, of no obligation. It is of no obligation, not
merely because it is intrinsically a criminal one, but also because it is given
to nobody, and consequently pledges my faith to nobody. It is merely given to
the winds.
It would not alter the case at all to say that, among these hundred thousand
persons, in whose presence the oath was taken, there were two, three, or five
thousand male adults, who had secretly --- by secret ballot, and in a way to
avoid making themselves individually known to me, or to the remainder of the
hundred thousand --- designated me as their agent to rule, control, plunder,
and, if need be, murder, these hundred thousand people. The fact that they had
designated me secretly, and in a manner to prevent my knowing them individually,
prevents all privities between them and me; and consequently makes it impossible
that there can be any contract, or pledge of faith, on my part towards them; for
it is impossible that I can pledge my faith, in any legal sense, to a man whom I
neither know, nor have any means of knowing, individually. So far as I am
concerned, then, these two, three, or five thousand persons are a secret band of
robbers and murderers, who have secretly, and in a way to save themselves from
all responsibility for my acts, designated me as their agent; and have, through
some other agent, or pretended agent, made their wishes known to me.
But being, nevertheless, individually unknown to me, and having no open,
authentic contract with me, my oath is, on general principles of law and reason,
of no validity as a pledge of faith to them. And being no pledge of faith to
them, it is no pledge of faith to anybody. It is mere idle wind.
At most, it is only a pledge of faith to an unknown band of robbers and
murderers, whose instrument for plundering and murdering other people, I thus
publicly confess myself to be. And it has no other obligation than a similar
oath given to any other unknown body of pirates, robbers, and murderers. For
these reasons the oaths taken by members of Congress, "to support the
Constitution," are, on general principles of law and reason, of no validity.
They are not only criminal in themselves, and therefore void; but they are also
void for the further reason that they are given to nobody. It cannot be said
that, in any legitimate or legal sense, they are given to "the people of the
United States"; because neither the whole, nor any large proportion of the
whole, people of the United States ever, either openly or secretly, appointed or
designated these men as their agents to carry the Constitution into effect. The
great body of the people --- that is, men, women, and children --- were never
asked, or even permitted, to signify, in any [*34] formal manner, either openly
or secretly, their choice or wish on the subject. The most that these members of
Congress can say, in favor of their appointment, is simply this: Each one can
say for himself: I have evidence satisfactory to myself, that there exists,
scattered throughout the country, a band of men, having a tacit understanding
with each other, and calling themselves "the people of the United States," whose
general purposes are to control and plunder each other, and all other persons in
the country, and, so far as they can, even in neighboring countries; and to kill
every man who shall attempt to defend his person and property against their
schemes of plunder and dominion. Who these men are, individually, I have no
certain means of knowing, for they sign no papers, and give no open, authentic
evidence of their individual membership. They are not known individually even to
each other. They are apparently as much afraid of being individually known to
each other, as of being known to other persons.
Hence they ordinarily have no mode either of exercising, or of making known,
their individual membership, otherwise than by giving their votes secretly for
certain agents to do their will. But although these men are individually
unknown, both to each other and to other persons, it is generally understood in
the country that none but male persons, of the age of twenty-one years and
upwards, can be members. It is also generally understood that all male persons,
born in the country, having certain complexions, and (in some localities)
certain amounts of property, and (in certain cases) even persons of foreign
birth, are permitted to be members. But it appears that usually not more than
one half, two-thirds, or in some cases, three-fourths, of all who are thus
permitted to become members of the band, ever exercise, or consequently prove,
their actual membership, in the only mode in which they ordinarily can exercise
or prove it, viz., by giving their votes secretly for the officers or agents of
the band. The number of these secret [*35] votes, so far as we have any account
of them, varies greatly from year to year, thus tending to prove that the band,
instead of being a permanent organization, is a merely pro tempore affair with
those who choose to act with it for the time being. The gross number of these
secret votes, or what purports to be their gross number, in different
localities, is occasionally published. Whether these reports are accurate or
not, we have no means of knowing. It is generally supposed that great frauds are
often committed in depositing them.
They are understood to be received and counted by certain men, who are
themselves appointed for that purpose by the same secret process by which all
other officers and agents of the band are selected.
According to the reports of these receivers of votes (for whose accuracy or
honesty, however, I cannot vouch), and according to my best knowledge of the
whole number of male persons "in my district," who (it is supposed) were
permitted to vote, it would appear that one-half, two-thirds or three-fourths
actually did vote. Who the men were, individually, who cast these votes, I have
no knowledge, for the whole thing was done secretly. But of the secret votes
thus given for what they call a "member of Congress," the receivers reported
that I had a majority, or at least a larger number than any other one person.
And it is only by virtue of such a designation that I am now here to act in
concert with other persons similarly selected in other parts of the country. It
is understood among those who sent me here, that all persons so selected, will,
on coming together at the City of Washington, take an oath in each other's
presence "to support the Constitution of the United States. " By this is meant a
certain paper that was drawn up eighty years ago. It was never signed by
anybody, and apparently has no obligation, and never had any obligation, as a
contract. In fact, few persons ever read it, and doubtless much the largest
number of those who voted for me and the others, never even saw it, or now
pretend to know what it means. Nevertheless, it is often spoken of in the
country as "the Constitution of the United States"; and for some reason or
other, the men who sent me here, seem to expect that I, and all with whom I act,
will swear to carry this Constitution into effect. I am therefore ready to take
this oath, and to co-operate with all others, similarly selected, who are ready
to take the same oath.
This is the most that any member of Congress can say in proof that he has any
constituency; that he represents anybody; that his oath "to support the
Constitution," is given to anybody, or pledges his faith to anybody. He has no
open, written, or other authentic evidence, such as is required in all other
cases, that he was ever appointed the agent or representative of anybody. He has
no written power of attorney from any single individual. He has no such legal
knowledge as is required in all other cases, by which he can identify a single
one of those who pretend to have appointed him to represent them.
Of course his oath, professedly given to them, "to support the Constitution,"
is, on general principles of law and reason, an oath given to nobody. It pledges
his faith to nobody. If he fails to fulfill his oath, not a single person can
come forward, and say to him, you have betrayed me, or broken faith with me. No
one can come forward and say to him: I appointed you my attorney to act for me.
I required you to swear that, as my attorney, you would support the
Constitution. You promised me that you would do so; and now you have forfeited
the oath you gave to me. No single individual can say this. No open, avowed, or
responsible association, or body of men, can come forward and say to him: We
appointed you our attorney, to act for us. We required you to swear that, as our
attorney, you would support the Constitution. You promised us that you would do
so; and now you have forfeited the oath you gave to us. No open, avowed, or
responsible association, or body of men, can say this to him; because there is
no such association or body of men in existence. If any one should assert that
there is such an association, let him prove, if he can, who compose it.
Let him produce, if he can, any open, written, or other authentic contract,
signed or agreed to by these men; forming themselves into an association; making
themselves known as such to the world; appointing him as their agent; and making
themselves individually, or as an association, responsible for his acts, done by
their authority. Until all this can be shown, no one can say that, in any
legitimate sense, there is any such association; or that he is their agent; or
that he ever gave his oath to them; or ever pledged his faith to them.
On general principles of law and reason, it would be a sufficient answer for him
to say, to all individuals, and to all pretended associations of individuals,
who should accuse him of a breach of faith to them: I never knew you. Where is
your evidence that you, either individually or collectively, ever appointed me
your attorney? that you ever required me to swear to you, that, as your
attorney, I would support the Constitution? or that I have now broken any faith
that I ever pledged to you?
You may, or you may not, be members of that secret band of robbers and
murderers, who act in secret; appoint their agents by a secret ballot; who keep
themselves individually unknown even to the agents they thus appoint; and who,
therefore, cannot claim that they have any agents; or that any of their
pretended agents ever gave his oath, or pledged his faith to them. I repudiate
you altogether. My oath was given to others, with whom you have nothing to do;
or it was idle wind, given only to the idle winds. Be gone!
XII.
For the same reasons, the oaths of all the other pretended agents of this secret
band of robbers and murderers are, on [*38] general principles of law and
reason, equally destitute of obligation. They are given to nobody; but only to
the winds. The oaths of the tax-gatherers and treasurers of the band, are, on
general principles of law and reason, of no validity. If any tax-gatherer, for
example, should put the money he receives into his own pocket, and refuse to
part with it, the members of this band could not say to him: You collected that
money as our agent, and for our uses; and you swore to pay it over to us, or to
those we should appoint to receive it. You have betrayed us, and broken faith
with us.
It would be a sufficient answer for him to say to them:
I never knew you. You never made yourselves individually known to me. I never
game by oath to you, as individuals. You may, or you may not, be members of that
secret band, who appoint agents to rob and murder other people; but who are
cautious not to make themselves individually known, either to such agents, or to
those whom their agents are commissioned to rob. If you are members of that
band, you have given me no proof that you ever commissioned me to rob others for
your benefit. I never knew you, as individuals, and of course never promised you
that I would pay over to you the proceeds of my robberies. I committed my
robberies on my own account, and for my own profit. If you thought I was fool
enough to allow you to keep yourselves concealed, and use me as your tool for
robbing other persons; or that I would take all the personal risk of the
robberies, and pay over the proceeds to you, you were particularly simple. As I
took all the risk of my robberies, I propose to take all the profits. Be gone!
You are fools, as well as villains. If I gave my oath to anybody, I gave it to
other persons than you.
But I really gave it to nobody. I only gave it to the winds. It answered my
purposes at the time. It enabled me to get the money I was after, and now I
propose to keep it. If you expected me to pay it over to you, you relied only
upon that honor that is said to prevail among thieves. You now understand that
that is a very poor reliance. I trust you may become wise enough to never rely
upon it again. If I have any duty in the matter, it is to give back the money to
those from whom I took it; not to pay it over to villains such as you.
XIII.
On general principles of law and reason, the oaths which foreigners take, on
coming here, and being "naturalized" (as it is called), are of no validity. They
are necessarily given to nobody; because there is no open, authentic
association, to which they can join themselves; or to whom, as individuals, they
can pledge their faith. No such association, or organization, as "the people of
the United States," having ever been formed by any open, written, authentic, or
voluntary contract, there is, on general principles of law and reason, no such
association, or organization, in existence. And all oaths that purport to be
given to such an association are necessarily given only to the winds.
They cannot be said to be given to any man, or body of men, as individuals,
because no man, or body of men, can come forward with any proof that the oaths
were given to them, as individuals, or to any association of which they are
members. To say that there is a tacit understanding among a portion of the male
adults of the country, that they will call themselves "the people of the United
States," and that they will act in concert in subjecting the remainder of the
people of the United States to their dominion; but that they will keep
themselves personally concealed by doing all their acts secretly, is wholly
insufficient, on general principles of law and reason, to prove the existence of
any such association, or organization, as "the people of the United States"; or
consequently to prove that the oaths of foreigners were given to any such
association.
XIV.
On general principles of law and reason, all the oaths which, since the war,
have been given by Southern men, that they will obey the laws of Congress,
support the Union, and the like, are of no validity. Such oaths are invalid, not
only because they were extorted by military power, and threats of confiscation,
and because they are in contravention of men's natural right to do as they
please about supporting the government, but also because they were given to
nobody. They were nominally given to "the United States." But being nominally
given to "the United States," they were necessarily given to nobody, because, on
general principles of law and reason, there were no "United States," to whom the
oaths could be given. That is to say, there was no open, authentic, avowed,
legitimate association, corporation, or body of men, known as "the United
States," or as "the people of the United States," to whom the oaths could have
been given. If anybody says there was such a corporation, let him state who were
the individuals that composed it, and how and when they became a corporation.
Were Mr. A, Mr. B, and Mr. C members of it? If so, where are their signatures?
Where the evidence of their membership? Where the record? Where the open,
authentic proof? There is none. Therefore, in law and reason, there was no such
corporation. On general principles of law and reason, every corporation,
association, or organized body of men, having a legitimate corporate existence,
and legitimate corporate rights, must consist of certain known individuals, who
can prove, by legitimate and reasonable evidence, their membership.
But nothing of this kind can be proved in regard to the corporation, or body of
men, who call themselves "the United States ”. Not a man of them, in all the
Northern States, can prove by any legitimate evidence, such as is required to
prove membership in other legal corporations, that he himself, or any other man
whom he can name, is a member of any corporation or association called "the
United States," or "the people of the United States," or, consequently, that
there is any such corporation. And since no such corporation can be proved to
exist, it cannot of course be proved that the oaths of Southern men were given
to any such corporation. The most that can be claimed is that the oaths were
given to a secret band of robbers and murderers, who called themselves "the
United States," and extorted those oaths. But that is certainly not enough to
prove that the oaths are of any obligation.
XV.
On general principles of law and reason, the oaths of soldiers, that they will
serve a given number of years, that they will obey the orders of their superior
officers, that they will bear true allegiance to the government, and so forth,
are of no obligation. Independently of the criminality of an oath, that, for a
given number of years, he will kill all whom he may be commanded to kill,
without exercising his own judgment or conscience as to the justice or necessity
of such killing, there is this further reason why a soldier's oath is of no
obligation, viz., that, like all the other oaths that have now been mentioned,
it is given to nobody. There being, in no legitimate sense, any such
corporation, or nation, as "the United States," nor, consequently, in any
legitimate sense, any such government as "the government of the United States,"
a soldier's oath given to, or contract made with, such a nation or government,
is necessarily an oath given to, or contract made with, nobody. Consequently
such an oath or contract can be of no obligation.
XVI.
On general principles of law and reason, the treaties, so called, which purport
to be entered into with other nations, [*42] by persons calling themselves
ambassadors, secretaries, presidents, and senators of the United States, in the
name, and in behalf, of "the people of the United States," are of no validity.
These so-called ambassadors, secretaries, presidents, and senators, who claim to
be the agents of "the people of the United States" for making these treaties,
can show no open, written, or other authentic evidence that either the whole
"people of the United States," or any other open, avowed, responsible body of
men, calling themselves by that name, ever authorized these pretended
ambassadors and others to make treaties in the name of, or binding upon any one
of, "the people of the United States," or any other open, avowed, responsible
body of men, calling themselves by that name, ever authorized these pretended
ambassadors, secretaries, and others, in their name and behalf, to recognize
certain other persons, calling themselves emperors, kings, queens, and the like,
as the rightful rulers, sovereigns, masters, or representatives of the different
peoples whom they assume to govern, to represent, and to bind.
The "nations," as they are called, with whom our pretended ambassadors,
secretaries, presidents, and senators profess to make treaties, are as much
myths as our own. On general principles of law and reason, there are no such
"nations." That is to say, neither the whole people of England, for example, nor
any open, avowed, responsible body of men, calling themselves by that name,
ever, by any open, written, or other authentic contract with each other, formed
themselves into any bona fide, legitimate association or organization, or
authorized any king, queen, or other representative to make treaties in their
name, or to bind them, either individually, or as an association, by such
treaties.
Our pretended treaties, then, being made with no legitimate or bona fide
nations, or representatives of nations, and being made, on our part, by persons
who have no legitimate authority to act for us, have intrinsically no more
validity than a pretended treaty made by the Man in the Moon with the king of
the Pleiades.
XVII.
On general principles of law and reason, debts contracted in the name of "the
United States," or of "the people of the United States," are of no validity. It
is utterly absurd to pretend that debts to the amount of twenty-five hundred
millions of dollars are binding upon thirty-five or forty millions of people,
when there is not a particle of legitimate evidence --- such as would be
required to prove a private debt --- that can be produced against any one of
them, that either he, or his properly authorized attorney, ever contracted to
pay one cent. Certainly, neither the whole people of the United States, nor any
number of them, ever separately or individually contracted to pay a cent of
these debts. Certainly, also, neither the whole people of the United States, nor
any number of them, every, by any open, written, or other authentic and
voluntary contract, united themselves as a firm, corporation, or association, by
the name of "the United States," or "the people of the United States," and
authorized their agents to contract debts in their name. Certainly, too, there
is in existence no such firm, corporation, or association as "the United
States," or "the people of the United States," formed by any open, written, or
other authentic and voluntary contract, and having corporate property with which
to pay these debts.
How, then, is it possible, on any general principle of law or reason, that debts
that are binding upon nobody individually, can be binding upon forty millions of
people collectively, when, on general and legitimate principles of law and
reason, these forty millions of people neither have, nor ever had, any corporate
property? Never made any corporate or individual contract? and neither have, nor
ever had, any corporate existence?
Who, then, created these debts, in the name of "the United States"? Why, at
most, only a few persons, calling themselves "members of Congress," etc., who
pretended to represent "the people of the United States," but who really
represented only a secret band of robbers and murderers, who wanted money to
carry on the robberies and murders in which they were then engaged; and who
intended to extort from the future people of the United States, by robbery and
threats of murder (and real murder, if that should prove necessary), the means
to pay these debts.
This band of robbers and murderers, who were the real principals in contracting
these debts, is a secret one, because its members have never entered into any
open, written, avowed, or authentic contract, by which they may be individually
known to the world, or even to each other.
Their real or pretended representatives, who contracted these debts in their
name, were selected (if selected at all) for that purpose secretly (by secret
ballot), and in a way to furnish evidence against none of the principals
individually; and these principals were really known individually neither to
their pretended representatives who contracted these debts in their behalf, nor
to those who lent the money.
The money, therefore, was all borrowed and lent in the dark; that is, by men who
did not see each other's faces, or know each other's names; who could not then,
and cannot now, identify each other as principals in the transactions; and who
consequently can prove no contract with each other. Furthermore, the money was
all lent and borrowed for criminal purposes; that is, for purposes of robbery
and murder; and for this reason the contracts were all intrinsically void; and
would have been so, even though the real parties, borrowers and lenders, had
come face to face, and made their contracts openly, in their own proper names.
Furthermore, this secret band of robbers and murderers, who were the real
borrowers of this money, having no legitimate corporate existence, have no
corporate property with which to pay these debts. They do indeed pretend to own
large tracts of wild lands, lying between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, and
between the Gulf of Mexico and the North Pole. But, on general principles of law
and reason, they might as well pretend to own the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans
themselves; or the atmosphere and the sunlight; and to hold them, and dispose of
them, for the payment of these debts. Having no corporate property with which to
pay what purports to be their corporate debts, this secret band of robbers and
murderers are really bankrupt. They have nothing to pay with. In fact, they do
not propose to pay their debts otherwise than from the proceeds of their future
robberies and murders. These are confessedly their sole reliance; and were known
to be such by the lenders of the money, at the time the money was lent. And it
was, therefore, virtually a part of the contract, that the money should be
repaid only from the proceeds of these future robberies and murders. For this
reason, if for no other, the contracts were void from the beginning.
In fact, these apparently two classes, borrowers and lenders, were really one
and the same class. They borrowed and lent money from and to themselves. They
themselves were not only part and parcel, but the very life and soul, of this
secret band of robbers and murderers, who borrowed and spent the money.
Individually they furnished money for a common enterprise; taking, in return,
what purported to be corporate promises for individual loans. The only excuse
they had for taking these so-called corporate promises of, for individual loans
by, the same parties, was that they might have some apparent excuse for the
future robberies of the band (that is, to pay the debts of [*46] the
corporation), and that they might also know what shares they were to be
respectively entitled to out of the proceeds of their future robberies.
Finally, if these debts had been created for the most innocent and honest
purposes, and in the most open and honest manner, by the real parties to the
contracts, these parties could thereby have bound nobody but themselves, and no
property but their own. They could have bound nobody that should have come after
them, and no property subsequently created by, or belonging to, other persons.
XVIII.
The Constitution having never been signed by anybody; and there being no other
open, written, or authentic contract between any parties whatever, by virtue of
which the United States government, so called, is maintained; and it being well
known that none but male persons, of twenty-one years of age and upwards, are
allowed any voice in the government; and it being also well known that a large
number of these adult persons seldom or never vote at all; and that all those
who do vote, do so secretly (by secret ballot), and in a way to prevent their
individual votes being known, either to the world, or even to each other; and
consequently in a way to make no one openly responsible for the acts of their
agents, or representatives, --- all these things being known, the questions
arise: Who compose the real governing power in the country? Who are the men, the
responsible men, who rob us of our property? Restrain us of our liberty? Subject
us to their arbitrary dominion? And devastate our homes, and shoot us down by
the hundreds of thousands, if we resist? How shall we find these men?
How shall we know them from others? How shall we defend ourselves and our
property against them? Who, of our neighbors, are members of this secret band of
robbers and murderers? How can we know which are their houses, that we may burn
or demolish them? Which their property, that we may destroy it? Which their
persons, that we may kill them, and rid the world and ourselves of such tyrants
and monsters?
These are questions that must be answered, before men can be free; before they
can protect themselves against this secret band of robbers and murderers, who
now plunder, enslave, and destroy them. The answer to these questions is, that
only those who have the will and power to shoot down their fellow men, are the
real rulers in this, as in all other (so-called) civilized countries; for by no
others will civilized men be robbed, or enslaved. Among savages, mere physical
strength, on the part of one man, may enable him to rob, enslave, or kill
another man. Among barbarians, mere physical strength, on the part of a body of
men, disciplined, and acting in concert, though with very little money or other
wealth, may, under some circumstances, enable them to rob, enslave, or kill
another body of men, as numerous, or perhaps even more numerous, than
themselves. And among both savages and barbarians, mere want may sometimes
compel one man to sell himself as a slave to another. But with (so-called)
civilized peoples, among whom knowledge, wealth, and the means of acting in
concert, have become diffused; and who have invented such weapons and other
means of defense as to render mere physical strength of less importance; and by
whom soldiers in any requisite number, and other instrumentalities of war in any
requisite amount, can always be had for money, the question of war, and
consequently the question of power, is little else than a mere question of
money. As a necessary consequence, those who stand ready to furnish this money,
are the real rulers. It is so in Europe, and it is so in this country.
In Europe, the nominal rulers, the emperors and kings and parliaments, are
anything but the real rulers of their respective countries.
They are little or nothing else than mere tools, em- [*48] ployed by the wealthy
to rob, enslave, and (if need be) murder those who have less wealth, or none at
all. The Rothschild’s, and that class of money-lenders of whom they are the
representatives and agents --- men who never think of lending a shilling to
their next-door neighbors, for purposes of honest industry, unless upon the most
ample security, and at the highest rate of interest --- stand ready, at all
times, to lend money in unlimited amounts to those robbers and murderers, who
call themselves governments, to be expended in shooting down those who do not
submit quietly to being robbed and enslaved.
They lend their money in this manner, knowing that it is to be expended in
murdering their fellow men, for simply seeking their liberty and their rights;
knowing also that neither the interest nor the principal will ever be paid,
except as it will be extorted under terror of the repetition of such murders as
those for which the money lent is to be expended.
These money-lenders, the Rothschild’s, for example, say to themselves: If we
lend a hundred millions sterling to the queen and parliament of England, it will
enable them to murder twenty, fifty, or a hundred thousand people in England,
Ireland, or India; and the terror inspired by such wholesale slaughter, will
enable them to keep the whole people of those countries in subjection for
twenty, or perhaps fifty, years to come; to control all their trade and
industry; and to extort from them large amounts of money, under the name of
taxes; and from the wealth thus extorted from them, they (the queen and
parliament) can afford to pay us a higher rate of interest for our money than we
can get in any other way. Or, if we lend this sum to the emperor of Austria, it
will enable him to murder so many of his people as to strike terror into the
rest, and thus enable him to keep them in subjection, and extort money from
them, for twenty or fifty years to come. And they say the same in regard to the
emperor of Russia, the king of Prussia, the emperor of France, or any other
ruler, so called, who, in their judgment, will be able, by murdering a
reasonable portion of his people, to keep the rest in subjection, and extort
money from them, for a long time to come, to pay the interest and the principal
of the money lent him. And why are these men so ready to lend money for
murdering their fellow men? Solely for this reason, viz., that such loans are
considered better investments than loans for purposes of honest industry. They
pay higher rates of interest; and it is less trouble to look after them.
This is the whole matter. The question of making these loans is, with these
lenders, a mere question of pecuniary profit. They lend money to be expended in
robbing, enslaving, and murdering their fellow men, solely because, on the
whole, such loans pay better than any others. They are no respecters of persons,
no superstitious fools that reverence monarchs. They care no more for a king, or
an emperor, than they do for a beggar, except, as he is a better customer, and
can pay them better interest for their money. If they doubt his ability to make
his murders successful for maintaining his power, and thus extorting money from
his people in future, they dismiss him unceremoniously as they would dismiss any
other hopeless bankrupt, who should want to borrow money to save himself from
open insolvency.
When these great lenders of blood-money, like the Rothschild’s, have loaned vast
sums in this way, for purposes of murder, to an emperor or a king, they sell out
the bonds taken by them, in small amounts, to anybody, and everybody, who are
disposed to buy them at satisfactory prices, to hold as investments. They (the
Rothschild’s) thus soon get back their money, with great profits; and are now
ready to lend money in the same way again to any other robber and murderer,
called an emperor or king, who, they think, is likely to be successful in his
robberies and murders, and able to pay a good price for the money necessary to
carry them on. This business of lending blood money is one of the most
thoroughly sordid, cold-blooded, and criminal that was ever carried on, to any
considerable extent, amongst human beings. It is like lending money to slave
traders, or to common robbers and pirates, to be repaid out of their plunder.
And the men who loan money to governments, so called, for the purpose of
enabling the latter to rob, enslave, and murder their people, are among the
greatest villains that the world has ever seen. And they as much deserve to be
hunted and killed (if they cannot otherwise be got rid of) as any slave traders,
robbers, or pirates that ever lived.
When these emperors and kings, so-called, have obtained their loans, they
proceed to hire and train immense numbers of professional murderers, called
soldiers, and employ them in shooting down all who resist their demands for
money. In fact, most of them keep large bodies of these murderers constantly in
their service, as their only means of enforcing their extortions. There are now,
I think, four or five millions of these professional murderers constantly
employed by the so-called sovereigns of Europe. The enslaved people are, of
course, forced to support and pay all these murderers, as well as to submit to
all the other extortions, which these murderers are employed to enforce. It is
only in this way that most of the so-called governments of Europe are
maintained. These so-called governments are in reality only great bands of
robbers and murderers, organized, disciplined, and constantly on the alert.
And the so-called sovereigns, in these different governments, are simply the
heads, or chiefs, of different bands of robbers and murderers. And these heads
or chiefs are dependent upon the lenders of blood money for the means to carry
on their robberies and murders. They could not sustain themselves a moment but
for the loans made to them by these blood-money loan-mongers. And their first
care is to maintain their credit with them; for they know their end is come, the
instant their credit with them fails. Consequently the first proceeds of their
extortions are scrupulously applied to the payment of the interest on their
loans.
In addition to paying the interest on their bonds, they perhaps grant to the
holders of them great monopolies in banking, like the Banks of England, of
France, and of Vienna; with the agreement that these banks shall furnish money
whenever, in sudden emergencies, it may be necessary to shoot down more of their
people. Perhaps also, by means of tariffs on competing imports, they give great
monopolies to certain branches of industry, in which these lenders of blood
money are engaged.
They also, by unequal taxation, exempt wholly or partially the property of these
loan-mongers, and throw corresponding burdens upon those who are too poor and
weak to resist.
Thus it is evident that all these men, who call themselves by the high-sounding
names of Emperors, Kings, Sovereigns, Monarchs, Most Christian Majesties, Most
Catholic Majesties, High Mightiness, Most Serene and Potent Princes, and the
like, and who claim to rule "by the grace of God," by "Divine Right" --- that
is, by special authority from Heaven --- are intrinsically not only the merest
miscreants and wretches, engaged solely in plundering, enslaving, and murdering
their fellow men, but that they are also the merest hangers on, the servile,
obsequious, fawning dependents and tools of these blood-money loan-mongers, on
whom they rely for the means to carry on their crimes.
These loan-mongers, like the Rothschild’s, laugh in their sleeves, and say to
themselves: These despicable creatures, who call themselves emperors, and kings,
and majesties, and most serene and potent princes; who profess to wear crowns,
and sit on thrones; who deck themselves with ribbons, and feathers, and jewels;
and surround themselves with hired flatterers and lickspittles; and whom we
suffer to strut around, and palm themselves off, upon fools and slaves, as
sovereigns and lawgivers specially appointed by Almighty God; and to hold them-
selves out as the sole fountains of honors, and dignities, and wealth, and power
--- all these miscreants and imposters know that we make them, and use them;
that in us they live, move, and have their being; that we require them (as the
price of their positions) to take upon themselves all the labor, all the danger,
and all the odium of all the crimes they commit for our profit; and that we will
unmake them, strip them of their gewgaws, and send them out into the world as
beggars, or give them over to the vengeance of the people they have enslaved,
the moment they refuse to commit any crime we require of them, or to pay over to
us such share of the proceeds of their robberies as we see fit to demand.
XIX.
Now, what is true in Europe, is substantially true in this country. The
difference is the immaterial one, that, in this country, there is no visible,
permanent head, or chief, of these robbers and murderers who call themselves
"the government." That is to say, there is no one man, who calls himself the
state, or even emperor, king, or sovereign; no one who claims that he and his
children rule "by the Grace of God," by "Divine Right," or by special
appointment from Heaven. There are only certain men, who call themselves
presidents, senators, and representatives, and claim to be the authorized
agents, for the time being, or for certain short periods, of all "the people of
the United States"; but who can show no credentials, or powers of attorney, or
any other open, authentic evidence that they are so; and who notoriously are not
so; but are really only the agents of a secret band of robbers and murderers,
whom they themselves do not know, and have no means of knowing, individually;
but who, they trust, will openly or secretly, when the crisis comes, sustain
them in all their usurpations and crimes.
What is important to be noticed is, that these so-called presidents, senators,
and representatives, these pretended agents of all "the people of the United
States," the moment their exactions [*53] meet with any formidable resistance
from any portion of "the people" themselves, are obliged, like their co-robbers
and murderers in Europe, to fly at once to the lenders of blood money, for the
means to sustain their power. And they borrow their money on the same principle,
and for the same purpose, viz., to be expended in shooting down all those
"people of the United States" --- their own constituents and principals, as they
profess to call them --- who resist the robberies and enslavements which these
borrowers of the money are practicing upon them. And they expect to repay the
loans, if at all, only from the proceeds of the future robberies, which they
anticipate it will be easy for them and their successors to perpetrate through a
long series of years, upon their pretended principals, if they can but shoot
down now some hundreds of thousands of them, and thus strike terror into the
rest.
Perhaps the facts were never made more evident, in any country on the globe,
than in our own, that these soulless blood-money loan-mongers are the real
rulers; that they rule from the most sordid and mercenary motives; that the
ostensible government, the presidents, senators, and representatives, so called,
are merely their tools; and that no ideas of, or regard for, justice or liberty
had anything to do in inducing them to lend their money for the war.
In proof of all this, look at the following facts. Nearly a hundred years ago we
professed to have got rid of all that religious superstition, inculcated by a
servile and corrupt priesthood in Europe, that rulers, so called, derived their
authority directly from Heaven; and that it was consequently a religious duty on
the part of the people to obey them. We professed long ago to have learned that
governments could rightfully exist only by the free will, and on the voluntary
support, of those who might choose to sustain them. We all professed to have
known long ago, that the only legitimate objects of government were the
maintenance of liberty and justice equally for all. All this [*54] we had
professed for nearly a hundred years. And we professed to look with pity and
contempt upon those ignorant, superstitious, and enslaved peoples of Europe, who
were so easily kept in subjection by the frauds and force of priests and kings.
Notwithstanding all this, that we had learned, and known, and professed, for
nearly a century, these lenders of blood money had, for a long series of years
previous to the war, been the willing accomplices of the slaveholders in
perverting the government from the purposes of liberty and justice, to the
greatest of crimes. They had been such accomplices for a purely pecuniary
consideration, to wit, a control of the markets in the South; in other words,
the privilege of holding the slave-holders themselves in industrial and
commercial subjection to the manufacturers and merchants of the North (who
afterwards furnished the money for the war). And these Northern merchants and
manufacturers, these lenders of blood-money, were willing to continue to be the
accomplices of the slave-holders in the future, for the same pecuniary
considerations.
But the slaveholders, either doubting the fidelity of their Northern allies, or
feeling themselves strong enough to keep their slaves in subjection without
Northern assistance, would no longer pay the price, which these Northern men
demanded. And it was to enforce this price in the future --- that is, to
monopolize the Southern markets, to maintain their industrial and commercial
control over the South --- that these Northern manufacturers and merchants lent
some of the profits of their former monopolies for the war, in order to secure
to themselves the same, or greater, monopolies in the future. These --- and not
any love of liberty or justice --- were the motives on which the money for the
war was lent by the North. In short, the North said to the slave-holders: If you
will not pay us our price (give us control of your markets) for our assistance
against your slaves, we will secure the same price (keep control of your
markets) by helping your slaves against you, and using them as our tools for
maintaining dominion over you; for the control of your markets we will have,
whether the tools we use for that purpose be black or white, and be the cost, in
blood and money, what it may.
On this principle, and from this motive, and not from any love of liberty, or
justice, the money was lent in enormous amounts, and at enormous rates of
interest. And it was only by means of these loans that the objects of the war
were accomplished.
And now these lenders of blood money demand their pay; and the government, so
called, becomes their tool, their servile, slavish, villainous tool, to extort
it from the labor of the enslaved people both of the North and South.
It is to be extorted by every form of direct, and indirect, and unequal
taxation. Not only the nominal debt and interest --- enormous as the latter was
--- are to be paid in full; but these holders of the debt are to be paid still
further --- and perhaps doubly, triply, or quadruple paid --- by such tariffs on
imports as will enable our home manufacturers to realize enormous prices for
their commodities; also by such monopolies in banking as will enable them to
keep control of, and thus enslave and plunder, the industry and trade of the
great body of the Northern people themselves. In short, the industrial and
commercial slavery of the great body of the people, North and South, black and
white, is the price, which these lenders of blood money demand, and insist upon,
and are determined to secure, in return for the money lent for the war. This
program having been fully arranged and systematized, they put their sword into
the hands of the chief murderer of the war, and charge him to carry their scheme
into effect. And now he, speaking as their organ, says, "Let us have peace."
The meaning of this is: Submit quietly to all the robbery and slavery we have
arranged for you, and you can have "peace." But in case you resist, the same
lenders of blood money, who furnished the means to subdue the South, will
furnish the means again to subdue you. These are the terms on which alone this
government, or, with few exceptions, any other, ever gives "peace" to its
people.
The whole affair, on the part of those who furnished the money, has been, and
now is, a deliberate scheme of robbery and murder; not merely to monopolize the
markets of the South, but also to monopolize the currency, and thus control the
industry and trade, and thus plunder and enslave the laborers, of both North and
South. And Congress and the president are today the merest tools for these
purposes. They are obliged to be, for they know that their own power, as rulers,
so-called, is at an end, the moment their credit with the blood-money
loan-mongers fails. They are like a bankrupt in the hands of an extortioner.
They dare not say nay to any demand made upon them. And to hide at once, if
possible, both their servility and crimes, they attempt to divert public
attention, by crying out that they have "Abolished Slavery!" That they have
"Saved the Country!" That they have "Preserved our Glorious Union!" and that, in
now paying the "National Debt," as they call it (as if the people themselves,
all of them who are to be taxed for its payment, had really and voluntarily
joined in contracting it), they are simply "Maintaining the National Honor!" By
"maintaining the national honor," they mean simply that they themselves, open
robbers and murderers, assume to be the nation, and will keep faith with those
who lend them the money necessary to enable them to crush the great body of the
people under their feet; and will faithfully appropriate, from the proceeds of
their future robberies and murders, enough to pay all their loans, principal and
interest.
The pretense that the "abolition of slavery" was either a motive or
justification for the war is a fraud of the same character with that of
"maintaining the national honor." Who, but such usurpers, robbers, and murderers
as they, ever established slavery? Or what government, except one resting upon
the sword, like the one we now have, was ever capable of maintaining slavery?
And why did these men abolish slavery?
Not from any love of liberty in general --- not as an act of justice to the
black man himself, but only "as a war measure," and because they wanted his
assistance, and that of his friends, in carrying on the war they had undertaken
for maintaining and intensifying that political, commercial, and industrial
slavery, to which they have subjected the great body of the people, both black
and white. And yet these imposters now cry out that they have abolished the
chattel slavery of the black man --- although that was not the motive of the war
--- as if they thought they could thereby conceal, atone for, or justify that
other slavery which they were fighting to perpetuate, and to render more
rigorous and inexorable than it ever was before.
There was no difference of principle --- but only of degree --- between the
slavery they boast they have abolished, and the slavery they were fighting to
preserve; for all restraints upon men's natural liberty, not necessary for the
simple maintenance of justice, are of the nature of slavery, and differ from
each other only in degree. If their object had really been to abolish slavery,
or maintain liberty or justice generally, they had only to say: All, whether
white or black, who want the protection of this government, shall have it; and
all who do not want it, will be left in peace, so long as they leave us in
peace. Had they said this, slavery would necessarily have been abolished at
once; the war would have been saved; and a thousand times nobler union than we
have ever had would have been the result.
It would have been a voluntary union of free men; such a union as will one day
exist among all men, the world over, if the several nations, so called, shall
ever get rid of the usurpers, robbers, and murderers, called governments, that
now plunder, enslave, and destroy them.
Still another of the frauds of these men is, that they are now establishing, and
that the war was designed to establish, "a government of consent." The only idea
they have ever manifested as to what is a government of consent, is this ---
that it is one to which everybody must consent, or be shot. This idea was the
dominant one on which the war was carried on; and it is the dominant one, now
that we have got what is called "peace."
Their pretenses that they have "Saved the Country," and "Preserved our Glorious
Union," are frauds like all the rest of their pretenses. By them they mean
simply that they have subjugated, and maintained their power over, an unwilling
people. This they call "Saving the Country"; as if an enslaved and subjugated
people --- or as if any people kept in subjection by the sword (as it is
intended that all of us shall be hereafter) --- could be said to have any
country.
This, too, they call "Preserving our Glorious Union"; as if there could be said
to be any Union, glorious or inglorious, that was not voluntary. Or as if there
could be said to be any union between masters and slaves; between those who
conquer, and those who are subjugated. All these cries of having "abolished
slavery," of having "saved the country," of having "preserved the union," of
establishing "a government of consent," and of "maintaining the national honor,"
are all gross, shameless, transparent cheats --- so transparent that they ought
to deceive no one --- when uttered as justifications for the war, or for the
government that has succeeded the war, or for now compelling the people to pay
the cost of the war, or for compelling anybody to support a government that he
does not want.
The lesson taught by all these facts is this: As long as mankind continue to pay
"National Debts," so-called --- that is, so long as they are such dupes and
cowards as to pay for being cheated, plundered, enslaved, and murdered --- so
long there will be enough to lend the money for those purposes; and with that
money a plenty of tools, called soldiers, can be hired to keep them in
subjection.
But when they refuse any longer to pay for being thus cheated, plundered,
enslaved, and murdered, they will cease to have cheats, and usurpers, and
robbers, and murderers and blood-money loan-mongers for masters.
APPENDIX.
Inasmuch as the Constitution was never signed, nor agreed to, by anybody, as a
contract, and therefore never bound anybody, and is now binding upon nobody; and
is, moreover, such an one as no people can ever hereafter be expected to consent
to, except as they may be forced to do so at the point of the bayonet, it is
perhaps of no importance what its true legal meaning, as a contract, is.
Nevertheless, the writer thinks it proper to say that, in his opinion, the
Constitution is no such instrument as it has generally been assumed to be; but
that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been
made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the
Constitution itself purports to authorize. He has heretofore written much, and
could write much more, to prove that such is the truth. But whether the
Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain --- that it
has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to
prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.
NOTES
Suppose it be "the best government on earth," does that prove its own goodness,
or only the badness of all other governments? The very men who drafted it, never
signed it in any way to bind themselves by it, as a contract. And not one of
them probably ever would have signed it in any way to bind himself by it, as a
contract. I have personally examined the statute books of the following States,
viz.: Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut,
New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio,
Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Texas, Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa,
Minnesota, Nebraska, Kansas, Nevada, California, and Oregon, and find that in
all these States the English statute has been re-enacted, sometimes with
modifications, but generally enlarging its operations, and is now in force.
The following are some of the provisions of the Massachusetts statute:
"No action shall be brought in any of the following cases, that is to say:
“To charge a person upon a special promise to answer for a debt, default, or
misdoings of another: . . . .
"Upon a contract for the sale of lands, tenements, hereditaments, or of any
interest in, or concerning them; or
"Upon an agreement that is not to be performed within one year from the writing
thereof:
"Unless the promise, contract, or agreement, upon which such action is brought
or some memorandum or note thereof, is in writing, and signed by the party to be
charged therewith, or by some person thereunto by him lawfully authorized: . . .
. "No contract for the sale of goods, wares, or merchandise, for the price of
fifty dollars or more, shall be good and valid, unless the purchaser accepts and
receives part of the goods so sold, or gives something in earnest to bind the
bargain, or in part payment; or unless some note or memorandum in writing of the
bargain is made and signed by the party to be charged thereby, or by some person
thereunto by him lawfully authorized." And this two-thirds vote may be but
two-thirds of a quorum --- that is two-thirds of a majority --- instead of
two-thirds of the whole. Of what appreciable value is it to any man, as an
individual, that he is allowed a voice in choosing these public masters? His
voice is only one of several millions.