I. The Peaceful Revolutionist
Josiah
Warren's claim - or others' claim on his behalf - that he was the first
American anarchist, rests largely on the now extremely rare periodical The
Peaceful Revolutionist,
of 1833, which Warren wrote and printed. That date indeed, for what it's worth,
places Warren's expression of anarchism before Thoreau's, or the radical
abolitionist Henry Wright's, though I daresay it was fairly commonplace in
radical Protestant religious movements of two centuries before. We could say,
however, that The Peaceful Revolutionist was a very early expression of
secular anarchism, preceding Proudhon, for example. But how ever we may
adjudicate priority, The Peaceful Revolutionist contains some of Warren's liveliest
writing (e.g. truly public-spirited officials "are not found even in the
proportion of ten to the population of Sodom") and demonstrates that his
anarchism and individualism were fully formed by that date. His economic theory
was still nascent, and in place of the cost principle he deployed Owen's
principle of the equal exchange of labor; Warren's economics were not formed
fully until he had performed a variety of practical experiments.
The PR was presented from the edge of
America (deepest Cincinnati) and in a different context altogether than his
work of the 1850s or 1870s. Warren's reaction to Owen was still his fundamental
source of energy, and he had recently read Alexander Bryan Johnson. In
addition, he's a bit bolder on some matters than he was later to become: he rarely
expressed his atheism post-PR, for example. What I intend to do is reproduce
one entire issue (dated April 5, 1833, and listed as vol. 1, no. 4; holdings of
the Wisconsin Historical Society), which I think imparts a nice savor. Then I
will give extracts of other issues.
My
"redaction" consists of alterations of punctuation, removal of
italics, small caps etc.
The texts are drawn from three
issues. As far as I have been able to conclude, these are the only issues
extant, though there were at least five: four from 1833, and one printed in
1848. There may have been others. The final bit reprinted here, "On
Originality," is one Warren's liveliest and most personal essays.
Individuality
When Robert Owen
promulgated the proposition that "we are effects of causes, and therefore
cannot deserve praise of blame," a very few looked upon this as the proper
basis of an entirely new state of society which alone could produce "peace
on earth and good will among men"; while others called Mr. Owen a madman,
some charged him with being an agent of the king of England sent here to
undermine our republic.
Some suspected he was a designing speculator; some thought he was the
antichrist spoken of in the Christian bible; and some took him to be the
preacher of some new religion.
Thus did this simple
language of Mr. Owen produce almost as many different conclusions as there were
individuals who heard it. The general observer referred it to all human
thoughts, feelings, and actions, and attributed this difference to the
different causes which had acted upon each individual, and therefore attached
neither merit to themselves nor demerit to those who differed from them; and
upon this knowledge individual liberty was so far established. But it was
established only with a few, and with them, in the mind only. Our surrounding
institutions, customs and public opinion calls for conformity: they require us
to act in masses like herds of cattle: they do not recognize the fact that we
think and feel individually and ought to be at liberty to act individually. But
this liberty cannot be enjoyed in combinations, masses and connections in which
one cannot move without affecting another.
Nothing is more common than
such remarks as the following. "No two things are alike." "There
can be no rules without exceptions" &c. Yet, we are constantly called
upon to conform to rules that do not suit our case, to acquiesce in numerous
different opinions all at the same moment, and no laws in the world preserve
the liberty of the governed to make exceptions to the rules which they are
required to obey. To give others the power to construe laws and make exceptions
is equivalent to giving them the power to govern without laws.
A little observation will
disclose an individuality in persons, times, and circumstances which has
suggested the idea that one of our most fatal errors has been the laying down
rules, laws, and principles without preserving the liberty of each person to
apply them according to the individuality
of his views, and the circumstances of different cases. In other words,
our error, like that of all the world that has gone before us has been, the
violation of individual liberty.
The first objection
that is made to the above will illustrate the individuality of minds and show
our error in depending on conformity.
The foregoing article
was chiefly written soon after our experiment at New Harmony to suggest the
cause of our failure. I had written much more to illustrate that individuality
to which I have alluded and which may be considered the governing principle in
every step which has been taken in the experiment now in progress.
But I suppress what I
had written and refer readers to a much superior illustration of the same
subject which came to hand last week in a pamphlet entitled "A Discourse
on Language," by A.B. Johnson.
This is a
continuation of his invaluable labors on language. The perusal of it furnished
another strong proof that there are great truths upon which men, even strangers
to each other and in different parts of the world will agree as soon as we
begin to look through words to things. The singular coincidence of my own views
with those of such a mind as Mr. Johnson's would amply compensate me for their
being out of fashion with half the world beside.
I have already had, and
shall often have, occasion to avail myself of Mr. Johnson's labors. I crave his
forgiveness for detaching as it were an eye of the forehead of a fine portrait,
but my apology will be found in utility.
The labors of this
gentleman appear but little known. Whether it is because they are superior to
the intellects of the critics, or whether because as he says "criticism
like every other mercenary employment will conform to the market," or
whether the veil of individuality precludes our investigation of motives, I
shall not wait for critics, but act individually and without hesitation
acknowledge the benefit I have derived from Mr. J's "Lectures on
Language."
It is the first of
all books which I ought to have read, and I shall take care that my children
benefit by it. I recommend it to all of whatever age or profession, and
especially to those with whom I am to hold any intercourse; and, let me here
inform my readers that I use language with a constant regard for its principles
as developed by Mr. Johnson. Enquirers will thus always have a key to my
meaning, and opposers (should I have them) may save themselves much labor by
studying his work, as I do not intend to enter into any argument where the
language does not refer to some sensible "phenomena."
Mr. Johnson's
elucidation of language is a bridge over which I have escaped from the
bewildering labyrinths of verbal delusions called arguments and controversies,
and I do not expect to recross it but as a free child of a peaceful village
would approach the uproar and confusion of a noisy city on a holiday in pursuit
of variety.
Ed. P.R.
------------
Cure for the
Ague
Passing through
the New York canal in 1831, I was seized for the first time with a fit of the
ague. It was soon stopped with sulphate of quinine. It returned again in '32,
on getting wet in a shower. Quinine would now keep it off only a day or two; a
little exercise or exposure to the sun brought it back repeatedly till I lost
all faith in quinine and resorted to a variety of other prescriptions with
little success. A friend referred me to an article in the New Harmony
Gazette (3rd vol.) on
Piperine, or extract of black pepper, which it described as superior to quinine
as a cure for the ague, that it was more effectual and left the patient less
liable to dropsy and some other diseases. A medical friend also concurred in
this, and added that he had for several months used no other remedy than common
black pepper. His common practice was to advise patients to take their pepper
box and mix up the pepper with flour and molasses or any thing that will make
it into pills, and to take one or two every hour or two. He said he had
scarcely ever known this to fail, nor had the disease ever returned as after
taking quinine.
I tried this and have not had a
fit of ague since. I have also recommended to four of my acquaintance, one of
whom had had the ague six months; it succeeded in every case.
How far these facts justify
a general rule I leave each individual to judge.
Ed.
---------
A Brush at Old
Cobwebs
Laws and
governments are professedly instituted for the security of person and property,
but they have never accomplished this object. Even to this day every newspaper
shows that they commit more crimes upon persons and property and contribute
more to their insecurity than all criminals put together. The greatest crime
which can be committed society and which causes poverty and lays the foundation
of almost all other crimes, is the monopoly of the soil. This has not only been
permitted but protected or perpetrated by every government of modern times up
to the last accounts from the congress of the United States. For this enormous
crime, according to the spirit of all law, these legislators ought to be severely
punished. But the principles of law are false. Every act of every legislator
has been an effect over which he could have no control while the causes
existed. This is the only ground upon which they can rationally be acquitted,
and the same would protect all other criminals from being lawfully murdered and
should teach legislators to remove causes rather than spend people's money in
punishing effects. (Legislators have decided that "society has a right to
take the life of criminals to preserve itself." Society has left its
interests to be preserved by forms of words like this, and gone to sleep, while
the causes of crime have remained untouched, and continue to accumulate unseen
[Warren's note]).
Beauchamp was hanged for
killing Col Sharp to revenge what public opinion called an unpardonable
offence, thus showing that he would risk his life to stand fair in the public
eye.
Surely the public safety could not require the death of one so blindly obedient
to its voice. But the law required his death; he was a sacrifice therefore to
law, but not to the public good. If any cases would justify murdering a
criminal, they must be very different from this, and if the experiments of
three thousand years have not produced laws better adapted to the individuality
of cases, perhaps we had better give up such projects and try the effects of so
arranging our affairs that we can act in each case according to its merits.
Laws cannot be adapted to
the individuality of cases, and if they could, laws are language which is
subject to different interpretations according to the individuals who are
appointed to administer them. Therefore, it is individuals rather than laws
that govern. Every election illustrates this: we are told that our destinies
depend on the election of this or that man to office. Why? It is men not laws
or principles that govern society. There is an individuality among judges and
jurors as among all other persons, so that he whom one judge or jury would
acquit, another would condemn. Judge Jeffreys acquired the popular epithet of
"bloody Jeffreys" from the remarkable number of persons condemned
under his administration of the same laws which in other hands would have
acquitted them. There is no
security in laws. We must seek it elsewhere.
Citizens cannot know
today what will be lawful tomorrow; laws made this year are unmade the next and
their repeal is often our only intimation that they existed. All these
uncertainties must exist even when laws are framed with greatest wisdom and
administered with the purest devotedness to the public good without the least
tinge of personal feeling or private interest, provided such phenomena are to
be found, but every newspaper that comes to hand convinces that such are not
found even in the proportion of ten to the population of Sodom; but that,
notwithstanding all that revolutions have cost the world, laws and governments
still are what they always have been, viz. public means for private ends.
To be continued
--------------
From an English
Paper: Glorious Uncertainty of the Law
The late Charles
Gardyne, of Middleton, had an interesting lawsuit some time previous to his
death, with the taxman of the tolls and the road trustees there, on the
doubtful question whether the vehicle in which he rode was a taxed cart or a
chaise - a point which made an essential difference in the rate of toll. After
the decision of the supreme court, Mr. Gardyne had the result painted in large
legible characters on the back of the carriage as follows.
A Taxed Cart by act of
Parliament.
A Taxed Cart, by decision
of the sheriff of Forfairshire.
A Taxed Cart, by decision
of the court of session.
A Chaise, by a second
decision of the same court.
Eight wise Judges said it
was a Chaise.
Six not less wise said it
was a Cart.
It has been three
years on its law journey and at last has been obliged to stop for want of law
grease.
Charles
Gardyne Froick's Taxed Cart
Mr. G rode in
this vehicle on all necessary occasions, during the remainder of his life, and
exhibited it at Perth once during the circuit, at the George Inn door, to no
small dismay of the judges, council, and agents, and the amusement of the
citizens.
------------
The Utica
Co-Operator
invites
discussion relative the use of machinery. This is well; it is surely time that
this subject was understood. I therefore invite attention to the application of
the equal exchange of labor to the use of machinery as was stated in our first
number, and as illustrated in our report of practical progress which will be found
below.
I submit this view of this
important subject for the consideration of all those who are honestly pursuing
the solution of this riddle.
J.W.
Principles and
Progress of an Experiment of Rational Social Intercourse
There is now in
operation a steam saw mill, probably the first machinery of importance ever got
up and worked upon such principles. It is intended to work upon the principle
of equal exchange of labor, by which nothing is allowed for capital invested,
but all who act upon this principle are to receive the lumber by giving as many
hours of their labor as has been the human labor bestowed on the lumber. Upon
this principle machine labor benefits all equally, the owner receiving no more
of its advantages than any other citizen.
It will be perceived
upon reflection that the use of machinery upon this simple and just principle
will enable society to preserve itself from the dreadful reaction to which
machinery is now driving the working classes.
The principle upon
which this machinery is to work, makes it for the interest of every one to
assist in getting it into operation, therefore several persons have been
steadily co-operating together for two years past to attain this result,
without entering into any verbal contract, combination, or partnership. Every
one has acted upon his own individual responsibility and judgment. No one has
been required in any particular to conform to any laws, rules, or votes of
majorities, nor to surrender any portion of his individual liberty. Rather, in
every step of the progress the sovereignty of every individual has been strictly preserved, and the most
complete and harmonious co-operation have been attained.
There is an old dogma held
as much mysterious reverence as many others equally vague and mischievous that
"when we enter into society we must necessarily surrender a portion of our
individual liberty." Aesop saw the subtilty and mischief in this verbal
delusion when he wrote the fable of a man modestly asking the forest for a bit
of wood, just to make him an axe-handle. The good-natured, unsuspecting forest
readily granted it, but no sooner did the man get the handle than he fell to
work prostrating the whole forest, who began to repent giving the little bit of
wood. But it was too late; it should not have granted the axe-handle.
Men have consented to give
up a portion of their liberty of construing their own language and of
determining how much liberty the word 'portion' shall mean in different cases,
but they have left it to the rulers, who have almost invariably decided that
the word means the axe-handle.
In our little
experiment we have never granted this axe-handle: we have at no time agreed to
surrender any portion of our future liberty, nor have we pledged not to make
small sacrifices for the greater benefit of others, but we have preserved our
individual liberty to act according to the circumstances of individual cases.
Thus, in Feb. 1831 the
writer of this was present when one of a company suggested that the first thing
requisite upon our future location would be a saw mill. This was seen by all,
but had it not been, no law or vote of the majority could have convinced any
one. Therefore neither would have been resorted to, but such persons would have
been left to the free exercise of their own judgment, while others who felt
more confident would have gone forward. They could have involved no one but
themselves.
Another of the
company suggested that we meet that evening to ascertain what could be done
towards raising enough credit for the accomplishment of our purpose. It was
enough to suggest this, for, as the machinery would work equally for the
benefit of all, each felt an interest in attending the meeting and in
contributing what he could do to forwarding the object. So everyone attended
without any rule or law on the subject. When there, we did not refer to any
laws or rules to tell us how to act, but some one, knowing the object which
brought every one there, perceived that anything calculated to promote that object
would be acceptable to all present. On this knowledge he acted, and proposed
that anyone disposed to invest capital in this in this undertaking by making it
known would enable us to judge whether our object was attainable; but no rule,
law, dogma, or pledge, or vote of the majority was resorted to in order to
induce any one to make an investment. Every one was left free to act according
to his individual means, and to be the only judge what portion of his
individual convenience he would "give up for the general good" in
that particular case. Nor did any law or vote of the majority appoint any
person to receive the investments and manage the machinery, but every one was
at liberty to invest his means where he had the most confidence, &c.
Notwithstanding all this individuality of action, not the least clashing or
jarring has occurred on any one point, but the machinery is now in operation;
it employs the capital of several persons who are at liberty to withdraw it at
any time they may choose to do so. But while the machinery is used upon the
principle of equal exchange, we cannot choose to embarrass its operations.
Therefore any pledge or contract to invest for any certain time is not only
unnecessary, but it would produce a feeling of restraint which would render us
all uneasy until our capital was withdrawn, and thus might the machinery be
stopped by the injudicious means used adopted to ensure its permanence: and
thus would this violation of individual liberty perhaps defeat its own object
as laws and governments defeat their object. Their professed object is the
security and good order of society. But the moment that any such power is
erected over one's person or property, that moment he feels insecure and sees
that his greatest chance of security is in getting possession of the governing
power - in governing, rather than being governed - of being the hammer rather
than the anvil and the strife for the attainment of this power, has in all ages
up to the present hour produced more confusion, destruction of life and
property, and more crimes and intense misery than all other causes put
together.
I venture the
assertion that the establishing of such powers has been the greatest error of
mankind, and that society never will enjoy peace or security until it has done
with these barbarisms and acknowledges the inalienable right of every
individual to the sovereignty of their own person, time, and property.
J.W.
------------
To the Readers
of the Free Enquirer
In No. 18, third
Vol. of the Free Enquirer I commenced a report of our new social experiment
founded upon individual liberty and equal exchange of labor, and partly
promised a continuation of it. But the circumstances explained in the first
number caused the delay of this report until the present time.
Will the editor of the Free Enquirer if he please insert this, and inform his
readers that The Peaceful Revolutionist is established for the purpose of continuing the subject.
The P.R. is published on,
or near, the first day of each month. Each number consists of four pages of the
same size as the pages of the Free Enquirer. The price, when paid in money, is
thirty-seven cents for the first six months. But, as circumstances may require
changes, no subscriptions are at present received for a longer term.
All subscriptions payable
in advance, as the amount would not justify any expense in its collection.
Any person who will forward
one dollar post paid, will be entitled to have four copies sent to any names
they may furnish, and in the same proportion for a greater number.
A few copies from the
first to the present (fourth) number are yet on hand.
Address the
proprietor of The Peaceful Revolutionist, or Josiah Warren, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Previous subscribers
will perceive a little difference between the above terms and those proposed in
a former number but the difference will be placed to their credit.
-------------
Society as it Is
If one wishes to
hire a house, the owner knows not what rent to ask, he considers the demand or
want for houses and asks whatever he thinks he can get without any regard to
the cost of the house, and the one who hires it, seeks to get it as cheap as
possible and is regardless of the cost as the owner. Each contends for the
victory rather than for justice. It is for the interest of one to make the
other feel as much want as possible, and for the interest of the other to
conceal his wants. Whatever either may say, neither can be believed. Confidence
cannot exist under such circumstances.
The owner of the house goes
to purchase a pair of shoes, and he knows by experience that the seller will
ask as much as he thinks he can get and is therefore prepared to commence a
little war about the price. He puts his shoes on and the sole rips off the
first day. He goes to the seller who tells him the maker lives in Boston or
Lynn or some place so far off as to be beyond the reach of responsibility. The
responsibility is divided between the maker and the seller and rests on
neither. (Such are some of the reasons for individuality of responsibilities
and arranging our affairs within such limits that responsibility may rest
unequivocally where it ought, so that every one would be governed by the only
government that can safely be trusted, viz, the natural and unavoidable
consequences of actions. [Warren's note]).
The shoe seller wants to
purchase a coat, but he cannot tell where, to apply to the best advantage till
he has tried all over the city, because "new arrivals" may have
changed the prices since yesterday at twelve o'clock. After having made
enquiries from one store to another and striving with the sellers to get it as
cheap as possible and they sell it as dear as possible, he purchases perhaps a
blue coat after having spent as
much time and labor as might have made the cloth - he puts it on and is caught
in a shower and his blue coat turns red. But the manufacturer lives in another
state, or another nation, is beyond the reach of responsibility, and may
continue to manufacture and sell blue red coats as long as this species of
fraud enables him to get more than he could by any honest, useful employment.
No wonder that
Jefferson called cities the sores of society.
The equal exchange of
labor would give as great a reward for honest and useful employments as for
useless and fraudulent ones, and individual and unequivocal responsibilities
(if for no other reasons) would induce a preference for the honest. The
necessity of paying for what we consume in equal amount of our own labor might
induce a preference for the useful.
To be continued.
--------------
The Western
Courier
I thank the
editor of that paper for publishing my advertisement regarding the printing
apparatus, but by transferring the article without explanation it reads as if
the Courier was printed
with the apparatus. I need not suggest the necessity of a correction. J.
Warren.
-------------
Moral Philosophy
According to Paley
Morality has for
its object the good of society and is founded upon three laws, as follows: (1)
The law of the land. (2) The law of custom. (3) The law of scriptures.
Therefore, whatever practice among men is agreeable to the law of land, to the
law of custom, and the scriptures is moral and just because it promotes the
good of society.
Remarks. Nothing
is easier than to construe the language of these laws to mean any thing which
suits the interests, prejudices or passions of those who construe and apply
them. Consequently, nothing is more common than to see them prostituted to the
basest purposes.
Moral Philosophy
According to Truth
Morality is the
practice of securing to man his just rights, or permitting him to enjoy them,
and has for its object the happiness of man. Otherwise, it is but an idle word,
and worse than useless.
Man's rights are as
folows.
(1) All men,
women, and children have an equal right to the free use of all elements
existing in a state of natuure. (2) All men, women, and children have a right
to enjoy or consume whatever is produced by his or her labor, or an equivalent
when exchanged. Therefore, any law of the land, law of custom, or law of
scripture which has any tendency to prevent any man, woman, or child from
enjoying these rights is immoral.
J.P.
It may be
objected that our friend J.P.'s language is as equivocal as Mr. Paley's, and
like his admits of being prostituted to the worst purposes: but neither these
nor any other verbal forms would be subject to this objection provided every
citizen was at liberty to construe and apply them for himself, and only for
himself. But the exercise of this liberty as in most other cases, requires an
organisation of society without close connections of persons or interests.
Ed. P.R.
-----------
Education by
Legislation
I received a few
days since a copy of a petition to congress "praying" their aid in the
establishment of schools throughout the Union for the education of all children
at public expense.
I know this measure
has been advocated by some of the best heads and hearts in the world, but they
are not of this world.
However benevolent the
motives of those who are active in this measure, I fear it is not calculated to
produce the results which the enlightened friends of the rising generation aim
at. At least, this is my individual opinion, therefore I cannot find a motive
to co-operate in this measure. I could give many reasons for this opinion, but
it may be sufficient to state a few of the most prominent.
I would prefer to
ascertain and assist in establishing remedies rather than waste time in
exposing the sickening corruption that every where surrounds us, and would
speak of principles rather than of persons, where the liberty of choice is
allowed me. But in this case, as legislators stand in the way, I must say that
I have no confidence in them, nor in the ultimate benefit of any measure that
might be entrusted to them. If there are any among them who would not sell
their people for a mess of pottage, they cannot place themselves above
suspicion.
Again, I think that
the power of educating the rising generation is of too much importance to be
trusted in a manageable shape in the hands of any small body of men, as society
is now constituted.
The iron ore while
diffused through the quarry, is at least harmless, though useless. But,
converted into a surgeon's knife it may preserve life or administer death,
according to the manner of application.
Another objection to
such a measure in my mind is that it would increase our connected interests and
divided responsibilities, which I think are two of the roots of our social
evils. The reverse of this is the very foundation of the education which I
expect to give my children, and which I will now attempt to give in a few
general terms, but in detail hereafter as we progress in practice.
First, I shall dissolve as far as
practicable all connected interests and connected responsibilities between
myself and my children, throw them upon their own resources, and enable them to
learn by experience the responsibilities of life, assuming all the consequences
of all their actions and inaction. Thus situated, they see and feel the utility
and the necessity of the instruction and the habits which we desire to give
them, and ask our assistance as a favor, which is commonly resisted as an
arbitrary infliction of tasks which they cannot appreciate and consequently can
feel no interest in acquiring. Thus placed they will experience the natural
rewards and punishments of their conduct, which I consider the only form of
government that does not produce more evil than good.
I shall see that they
are in possession of their natural birthright, the soil, and all the products
of their own exertions, or their equivalent, and shall act as their friend
rather than as their master: or, as one member of society should act towards
another, strictly respecting their individual rights and thus teaching them by
example to respect those of other people.
I am convinced from
all I have read or seen that law makers will be the last to learn and respect
these rights: a proof of which is they are no where enjoyed. Nowhere is the
soil inherited as an inalienable right, scarcely anywhere is labor rewarded
with its equivalent, no where under any government is personal liberty enjoyed,
nor (except for a few individuals) is it even understood. Instead, therefore, of
praying law makers to take care of my children, I should consider it as praying
the fox to take care of the chickens.
A man of old called
great [Alexander], offered his services to Diogenes [the Cynic], who replied
that the greatest service he could render, would be to stand from between him
and the sun. And all I ask of lawmakers is to stand aside and keep from between
me and my individual rights.
J.W.
--------------
To subscribers
It is probable
that the next number will be delayed by the removal of the printing apparatus
to our new location, but this interruption will not be unnecessarily prolonged.
As the time of removal is uncertain, it would be well to address all letters
and papers to Cincinnati till the removal is announced.
------------
Perhaps there
has been too much repetition of the same ideas in our paper for the taste of
some. I regret the necessity for this, but it appears unavoidable in coming to
the understanding of others.
Ed. P.R.
February 5, 1933
(Vol. 1. No. 2.)
Surrounding Circumstances
alone produce
the differences between people of different nations: between a Hindoo who is
painfully careful of the feelings of the minutest insect, and a holy inquisitor
of Christendom who sits with perfect unconcern and hears the agonized shrieks
and sees the cracking skin and frying flesh of the burning unbeliever. It is
the influence of surrounding circumstances that makes one man a king, and
another a beggar, which divides society into rich and poor, which enables some
to command and others unable to do otherwise than obey. It is the influence of
circumstances which produces different classes in society, and that influence
only, which divides men into different political parties and ranges them under
different banners of religion. By that influence alone some are made to observe
with conscientious nicety the forms and ceremonies of the worship of a mass of
hideously painted wood, and the same influence induces others to seek favor in
the eyes of their god by murdering the former as idolatrous heathens.
If a child be placed
at birth among cannibals and surrounded with them only, will adopt their habits
and manners, and will eat human flesh with as little compunction as he would
eat the flesh of beasts and fowls, were he bred among us; and were he placed at
birth among the Hindoos, he would respect and worship bulls with as
conscientious a devotion as he would worship a mass of wood in India, or some
form of his imagination among Jews or Christians.
If he be placed at
birth exclusively among Presbyterians and their practices, he is likely to
become a Presbyterian; if among Quakers, a Quaker; among Shakers, a Shaker. And
upon the same principle he might be compelled to become a sincere believer in
any religion in the world, or a disbeliever in all religions.
He may be rendered
kind, hospitable, tender, and respectful of the feeling of others, or he may be
made brutally careless of all but himself, and a "demon of mischief to all
around him."
It will be seen that this
knowledge warrants us in a critical examination into our own condition and all
the circumstances which have surrounded us from birth, to see whether they have
been, or are, such as are most favourable to our happiness. And it teaches us
not to reverence or perpetuate bad circumstances simply because we are born
under them, for the same reason would justify cannibals in continuing the
custom of eating each other.
This knowledge therefore
lays a broad, rational, and consistent foundation for unlimited improvement. It
furnishes us with the rational data by which to estimate ourselves and our
customs, laws, habits, and opinions. And when we have so estimated them, we are
enabled to respect our own judgment and persevere in the measures which it
dictates and approves.
------------
Of our State
Difficulties &c.
We daily and hourly hear
our citizens ask each other, "What do you think of nullification?"
"What new states have come out in favor of nullification?" and so on.
If I can form any clear idea of this subject, it is a quarrel between dignity
and liberty - the one a shadow, the other a ghost.
Dignity insists upon
it that the laws shall be obeyed, and that the union must be preserved. But
these two words 'must' and 'shall' rouse the ghost of murdered liberty to
resistance. Dignity abandons the real subject of dispute, and resolves the
whole matter into a mystical reverence for the two words 'union' and 'laws.' I
say for two words, because if we look for their meaning we find, as in all
other words of a general and indefinite character, that there are very few if
any who will agree in their manner of applying them. If the word law has ever
meant one thing more than another, that thing has been the will of those in
power.
By the word 'union,'
some refer to certain words on paper, which serve as an excuse for a great deal
of speech making and disunion every year at the rate of eight dollars per day.
Others by the word 'union' understand a similarity of interests, feelings, and
objects; co-operating action and mutual assistance in case of need. The
question now occurs, which, or what union is it that is to be preserved? It can
be the former only that can be preserved; the latter is to be attained. It never has existed since the
revolution, and existed then only from the circumstances of the time. Mutual
danger and similar interests at that time induced fellow feeling and union in
sentiment and action. This union existed independent of words: it was the
necessary and unavoidable effect of the circumstances of that time, and it as
necessarily ceased as those circumstances ceased to exist. But our ancestors,
under the influence of that excitement, were betrayed into a compact of union:
a thing so extremely indefinite that perhaps there are no two individuals
concerned who can construe or apply it alike, and they did not preserve the
liberty to differ.
It might rationally be
asked, what has that to do with us? yet this incomprehensible something now
calls on us their posterity to feel and to act and talk alike, in cases where
the reasons for it and the power to do so do not exist. If there is any one point upon which
union of sentiment can be attained and to which every individual will consent,
it is, perhaps, in their liberty to differ from others. And if we are ever to
commence doing so doing as we would be done by, now is the time to respect the
liberty of others to differ from us.
"Language has no
meaning when it does not refer to some taste, smell, sound, sight or feeling,
or, to some combination of these sensations" [Alexander Bryan Johnson] -
what does the word 'union' refer to? Not a taste, not a smell, not a sound; it
refers to nothing or, to sights or feelings. What sights? Co-operating actions?
These will be seen only as force excludes co-operating feelings, or only when
we have co-operating interests, as in the time of the revolution. What feeling
does the word 'union' refer to?? Does it refer to such of our clashing
interests have excited during the last ten years? Are these to be
"preserved"? Or, as artillery has been sent to enforce union, perhaps
the word refers to those feelings which accompany a broken head.
Or, is the artillery sent
there to compel our neighbors to bear expenses where they receive no benefits?
Jefferson says, "A wise and frugal government which restrains men from
injuring one another and shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own
pursuits of industry and improvements, and shall not take from the mouth of
industry the bread it has earned; this is the sum of good government."
Instead, therefore, of sending troops to compel our neighbors to appropriate a
portion of their property contrary to their feeling or judgment, should we not
have it sent to protect every individual in the "free management of their
industry" and the disposal of their proceeds in any way they themselves
may choose? If this is impracticable under present circumstances, then let us
turn our attention to these circumstances. Let us direct our artillery against
them rather than against persons. If the fault is in surrounding circumstances,
we are as much to blame as our southern brethren.
If our southern neighbors
cannot exercise their inalienable liberty without involving us in consequences
contrary to our interests, it shows that connected responsibilities and
clashing interests are the evils to be cured, and that disconnection or
co-operating interests are the rational and proper remedies. Not a
disconnection that would leave us liberty to act together where we might have
similar interests, but an undoing of whatever was done by our ancestors in a
moment of excitement. This makes us now think that we are bound to act together
in all cases even though all parties would be most benefited and union be best
preserved by encouraging the liberty to differ and to act individually. By
preserving the liberty to differ, we do not necessarily bind ourselves not to
agree in any cases, but let us preserve our liberty to agree or to differ as
circumstances may govern. Liberty is a safe, and the only safe principle to
which we can pledge ourselves. If it be objected that this liberty is
unattainable, and that great national objects could not be attained where such
latitude was encouraged, I reply that there can be no national object greater
than national happiness, and that this, as I understand it, consists of the
happiness of the individuals who compose the nation, and that individual
happiness consists in nothing so much as the liberty of person and property. If
this is unattainable in large masses, that shows us one circumstance with which
we have to contend, and proves that society will have to dissolve its imaginary
masses and resolve itself into individuals before liberty can be anything but a
word.
May 1848 (Volume
2, Number 1.)
Progress
Straws are often
better to show which way the wind blows than the most labored invention. I
cannot give a better sign of progress, than that the store-o-crat in the
neighborhood says we "must be stopped." I suppose he has heard of
calicoes being sold here on the cost principle for eleven cents a yard, similar
in quality to those often sold for twenty cents. It seems that his public
spirit has taken the alarm; he cannot allow the public to be so imposed upon;
threatens us with law on account of issuing labor notes as a circulating
medium. Why, bless you sir, this is nothing. The sun will still rise as usual.
I was prepared for
hostility from the store-o-crats, but found none that was alarming. On the
contrary, I met with two merchants whose hearts had not been destroyed by profit
making, and who acknowledged that these were the only correct and equitable
principles, that the sooner they prevailed, the better for every one, that they
almost hated themselves for the manner in which they were now compelled to get
their living out of their customers. Some of my best friends are no store
keepers in New Harmony, and were so, during the two years and a half of the
Time Store in that place. However, if we cannot get attention to the subject in
a more pleasant way, I, for one, should be glad of a little persecution,
particularly from a source so evidently self-interested.
----------------
Signs of
Returning Reason
The
"combined wisdom" of New York, it appears, has passed a law to unmake
the laws heretofore preventing married women from exercising their right of
individual property, beyond the control, and free from the liabilities of the
husband. The
legislators of several other states have already done themselves the credit of
doing this little item of justice. It is but an item of their just rights, and
yet this one step toward individuality constitutes one of the most important
features of modern legislation. How long are Ohio, Indiana, and the rest of the
states and the world to linger behind this simple demand of self evident equity
and common sense?
----------------
Revolution
All the world is
convulsed with revolution. Labor has at last suddenly recoiled from the
degradation, the starvation allotted to it and claims its rights. Alas! What
are they? This is the great problem which they aim to solve in the midst of
contradictory theories, clashing interests, and the confusion of political
revolution. The people govern the governments, and yet they demand of the
governments what they cannot do for themselves. If all the philanthropy, all
the capital, all the intellect, all the labor that have been bestowed upon
community and Fourierist experiments, by chosen spirits, peacefully stepping
aside from the confusion of the world and acting at their leisure; with the
best of motives and feelings; backed by the most desperate resolution; all end
in defeat and disappointment, what will be the end of the attempts to carry out
these systems, or any other, in large, promiscuous, national masses, in a day!
In a moment! In a passion! In the frenzy of starvation! I tremble for the
result. The spirit is good, is holy; it is glorious. But here alone may ye
exult. Exult now, for
the future is not for exultation. Ye plant the worm with the tree: the future
is for disappointment, for confusion, perhaps for despair.
------------------
A Word on
Originality
To J.H.L.
It seems almost
necessary since what you mentioned yesterday, to say a word or two upon a
subject which I intended never to dwell upon, nor to be the first to broach. I
have always found that the idea of merit for originality, by exciting envy of
rivals, stood directly in the way of progress, and through the whole course of
twenty one years labor I have found the greatest obstacle in myself. My
personality stood directly in my way at every turn I could make. I have seen a
man deny the very success that he himself had prophesied beforehand, which I
could account for in no other way than that he feels jealous of the credit
which would attach to the author, and I have seen more than this.
I have a thousand
times felt that if the subject had originated with some one who was dead I
could have done, perhaps, a thousand times more for it. I have suffered and I
know that the subject has suffered much from this detracting spirit. A man by
the name of John Pickering in Cincinnatti has put forth what he denominates a
"criticism on Warren's system of equitable exchange" and says it
"professes to be a new development" &c. Now, whence this word
'professes'? Does he wish to intimate that I have put forth claims for
originality which are not true? My reputation is my property, and I am not
ready to surrender it at the demand of every one who chooses to attack it. He
calls it "Warren's system." I never called it so. He calls it
"Equitable Exchange," thereby confining the subject to merely
pecuniary matters. The work is entitled Equitable Commerce and it is explained on the title page as
extending to all intercourse of mankind.
In Cincinnati, in
1827 and '28, when, by placing my labor on equal terms with his as clock maker,
he saved about one third of his previous expenditures for store goods, he and
all others, I believe, pronounced the operation new. When his son, about 14 years old,
learned shoe making by paying 12 hours labor for instruction, instead of
serving the customary apprenticeship, and when he afterwards continued for
months to make shoes, which I sold him out of the Time Store at ordinary
prices, these "developments" were termed new. And when, in 1828 Mr. Pickering and his
two sons attended my school for instrumental music over the Time Store on the
corner of Fifth and Elm streets in Cincinnati, while some paid me ten dollars
per quarter, they paid for the same instruction, fourteen hours of their own
labor. If such developments as these and others peculiar to equitable commerce
in 1828 were made before the eighteenth of May 1827, then I was not the first
to develop them, ands the principal obstacle to my freedom of speech and action
on the subject will be removed.
I entitled my work "a
new development of principles" because I wished to inform the despairing
that there were grounds unknown to them, upon which they might rest a hope; but
I did not consider any man the originator of principles or truths. We only
discover and develop them. The idea of labor notes was suggested by Robert Owen
in 1826 as a medium of exchange between communities at New Harmony. Whether the
idea was ever applied before the Time Store of 1827, I know not.
A man must have a
good memory and more than memory to be able to trace his general conclusions
back to all the minute circumstances and reflections that have led to them; and
in this view, originality amounts to very little, even if it were worth
establishing. I think it high time that these trifles ceased to assume so much
importance with those who are acting the part of pioneers in the great work of
man's redemption from error and suffering. The principal reasons that I can see
for making this a subject at all are the necessity of replying to others when
they broach it and that, after having passed nearly a lifetime in something
like martyrdom for doing and thinking strange things, it is but natural to wish
to show our censors that we were all the time right and they themselves were
insane, were visionary. Having done this, we may consider the account settled
and we can begin anew, if it is not too late, or we can die free from the
affliction of having attached odium upon truth.
I hope this is the
only time that I shall feel called upon to say any thing upon the subject. I
would prefer to spend my time in a peaceful and uninterrupted practical
exhibition of the subject itself, which may qualify everyone to judge of it
according to its own intrinsic value, independent of any merely personal
considerations.
J.W.
--------------
I make no
apologies for the size of the sheet, for the type or the printing. I think that
those who would require them are not very desirable as pioneers in a
reformation based on common sense. If I saw a house on fire it is most likely I
should cry out to its inmates without hesitating to consider what tones would
be prescribed in the schools of elocution. I love to contemplate the beautiful,
but cannot afford to be whimsical. Nor am I disposed to acknowledge an
authority set up by capital, the direct tendency of which is to smother the
voice of poverty and suffering because it cannot speak with "new
type," "fine paper," "large sheet," &c., &c.,
&c. I refuse to follow any such lead; but rather intend to show at how
cheap a rate the voice of improvement can be heard. Particulars relative to
this will be given in the next number.
