True Civilization

This is a redacted and condensed version of True Civilization: An Immediate Necessity and the Last Ground of Hope for Mankind, Being the Results and Conclusion of Thirty-Nine Years' Laborious Study and Experiments in Civilization as it is, and in Different Enterprises for Reconstruction. Published in 1863, in the midst of the Civil War, it reveals a number of difficulties and tensions within the country, within the American libertarian tradition faced with slavery and a war for its destruction, and within Warren's thought. As with many libertarian theorists (Lysander Spooner is a notable example), Warren faced the dilemma of obviously sympathizing with the abolition of slavery, while just as obviously finding the idea of secession to be legitimate and well within the American political tradition. Warren here, even more than usual, takes his stand on the Declaration of Independence, and connects his anarchism to the mainstream of American political thought. There is much that is new here, including, apparently, endorsement of a set of quasi-state institutions, including possibly a libertarian military and some sort of proposal for arbitration panels. In addition, there is a trenchant critique of what Warren calls "clanship" and of nationalism. There is also much that is not new, including a fourth chapter that is essentially a republication of the economic sections of Equitable Commerce. At any rate, herein is revealed the not-so-subterranean connection of radical individualism with a cosmopolitan outlook on humanity: individualism as a way to reveal the connections of all persons across nations, cultures, religions, regions. Of course, the basic Warren positions of nominalism, pragmatism, and equitable commerce remain intact. But the mood has shifted. Where once Warren anticipated redemption, he now fears that he is living in an apocalypse. Where he once hoped that many would hear his call and adopt his principles, now he speaks as a lone voice in the wilderness.

Chapter 1: Government and its True Function

I implore my fellow-men not longer to commit themselves to indiscriminate subordination to any human authority or to the fatal delusions of logic and analogies, nor even to ideas or principles (so called), but to maintain, as far as possible, at all times, the freedom to act according to the apparent merits of each individual case as it may present itself to each individual understanding. There is no other safety for us--no other security for civilization.

If I should prove myself right in ninety-nine points in this work, do not, therefore, conclude that I am right in the hundredth without examination and your own sanction: that one point might be the one in which I was wrong or misunderstood.

With all due deference to other judgments I venture to assert that our present deplorable condition, like that of many other parts of the world, is in consequence of the people in general never having perceived, or else having lost sight of, the legitimate object of all governments as displayed or implied in the American "Declaration of Independence."

Every individual of mankind has an "inalienable right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness;" "and it is solely to protect and secure the enjoyment of these rights unmolested that governments can properly be instituted among men." In other terms, self-sovereignty is an instinct of every living organism; and it being an instinct, cannot be alienated or separated from that organism. It is the instinct of self-preservation. The votes of ten thousand men cannot alienate it from a single individual, nor could the bayonets of twenty thousand men neutralize it in any one person any more than they could put a stop to the instinctive desire for food in a hungry man.

The action of this instinct being involuntary, every one has the same absolute right to its exercise that he has to his complexion or the forms of his features, to any extent, not disturbing another; and it is solely to prevent or restrain such disturbances or encroachments, that governments are properly instituted. In still shorter terms, the legitimate and appropriate mission of governments is the defence and protection of the inalienable right of sovereignty in every individual within his or her own sphere.

But what is it that constitutes encroachment?

Suppose my house to be on fire, and I seize a pail of water in the hands of a passer-by, without waiting to explain or ask leave--this would be one degree of encroachment, but perhaps the owner would excuse it on the ground of its necessity. Suppose a man walks into my house without waiting for leave--it may or may not disturb or offend me, or constitute a degree of encroachment. If I find that he has no excusable errand, and require him to retire and he refuses, this would be a degree of encroachment which I might meet with a few words, and might need no government to assist me. If he proceeds to rob the house, I may have reason to think that he is driven to desperation by having a starving family, and I may not resort to violence; or I may perceive that he is a wanton and reckless robber or fillibuster, and that this is an unnecessary encroachment, which, in defence of my own rights, as well as the same rights in others, I am justifiable in resisting; and if I have not sufficient power to do so without endangering myself or property, I will call for help. This help, whether in the form of police or an army, is government, and its function is to use force, to prevent him from using force against me and mine; it interferes, with my consent, to prevent interference with my sovereign right to control my own. Its mission is "intervention for the sake of non-intervention."

If he has already got possession of my purse, I should want him to be compelled, without any unnecessary violence, to give it up; and, perhaps, to compensate the police; and, till I had learned better, I might have approved of his being confined in prison till he had done this, and compensated me for being disturbed. But there are objections to proceeding to these complicated measures. There is no principle (generally) known, by which to determine what constitutes compensation. He could not get properly compensated for his work, which might be a greater injustice to him than he had done to me; and it would inflict on his innocent father, mother, brothers, and sisters, his wife and children, and all his friends, incalculable injustice and suffering, and this would be no compensation to me: besides, I (as a citizen of the same world) am a partner in the crime by not having prevented the temptation to it.

With all these considerations against pursuing him farther, I think it the best present expedient to put up with the restoration of my purse, as he gains nothing to tempt the continuance of the business. The word expedient may look loose and unsatisfactory. But among all the works of mankind there is nothing higher than expedients.

The instinct of self-preservation or self-sovereignty is not the work of man, but to keep it constantly in mind as a sacred right in all human intercourse is highly expedient.

Perceiving that we can invent nothing higher than expedients, we necessarily set aside all imperative or absolute authorities, all sanguinary and unbending codes, creeds, and theories, and leave every one Free to choose among expedients: or, in other words, we place all action upon the voluntary basis. Do not be alarmed, We shall see this to be the highest expedient whenever it is possible.

It is only when the voluntary is wantonly encroached upon, that the employment of force is expedient or justifiable.

It appears, however, that no rule or law can be laid down to determine beforehand, what will constitute an offensive encroachment--what one will resist another will excuse, and the subtle diversities of different persons and cases, growing out of the inherent individualities of each, have defied all attempts at perfect formulizing excepting this of the Sovereignty of every individual over his or her own; and even this must be violated in resisting its violation!

The legitimate sphere of every individual has never been publicly determined; but until it is clearly defined, we can never tell what constitutes encroachment-- what may be safely excused, or what may be profitably resisted.

We will attempt then to define the sphere within which every individual may legitimately, rightly exercise supreme power or absolute authority. This sphere would include his or her person, time, property, and responsibilities.

By the word right is meant simply that which necessarily tends towards the end in view. The end in view here is permanent and universal peace, and security of person and property.

First, then, while admitting this right of Sovereignty in every one, I shall not be guilty of the ill manners of attempting to offensively enforce any of my theoretical speculations, which has been the common error of all governments. This itself would be an attempted encroachment that would justify resistance.

If the Declaration of Independence, or this sacred right of individual sovereignty, had been commonly appreciated a year ago in the "United States," they would not now be disunited. None of the destruction of persons and property which has blackened the past year would have occurred, nor would twelve hundred thousand citizens now be bent on destroying each other and their families and homes in these States.

Every individual would have been free to entertain any theory of government whatever for himself or herself, and to test it by experiment within equitable limits; an issue would be raised only where this sacred right was denied, or against any who should have undertaken to enforce any theory of government whatever upon any individual against his or her consent. The frank and honest admission of this inalienable right would even now change the issue of this present war, and carry relief and protection to the invaded or oppressed, and war or resistance to the oppressor only, whether he were found on one side or the other of a geographical line. Mere theorists say that "the laws of nations decide that a state of war (between two nations) puts all the members of each, in hostility to each other": and that "the laws of nations justify us in doing all the harm we can to our enemies." We need no death-warrant from "authority" against these barbarian theories. The very statement of them becomes their execution.

The whole proper business of government is the restraining offensive encroachments, or unnecessary violence to persons and property, or enforcing compensation therefor: but if, in the exercise of this power, we commit any unnecessary violence to any person whatever or to any property, we, ourselves, have become the aggressors, and should be resisted.

But who is to decide how much violence is necessary in any given case? We here arrive at the pivot upon which all power now turns for good or evil; this pivot, under formal, exacting, aggressive institutions or constitutions, is the person who decides as to their meaning. If one decides for all, then all but that one are, perhaps, enslaved. If each one's title to sovereignty is admitted, there will be different interpretations, and this freedom to differ will ensure emancipation, safety, repose, even in a political atmosphere. All the co-operation we ought to expect will come from the coincidence of motives according to the merits of each case as estimated by different minds. Where there is evidence of aggression palpable to all minds, all might co-operate to resist it: and where the case is not clearly made out, there will be more or less hesitation. Two great nations will not then be so very ready to jump at each other's throats when the most cunning lawyers are puzzled to decide which is wrong.

Theorize as we may about the interpretation of the Constitution, every individual does unavoidably measure it and all other words by his own peculiar understanding or conceits, whether he understands himself or not, and should, like General Jackson, recognize the fact, "take the responsibility of it," and qualify himself to meet its consequences.

It will be asked, what could be accomplished by a military organization, if every subordinate were allowed to judge of the propriety of an order before he obeyed it? I answer that nothing could be accomplished that did not commend itself to men educated to understand, and trained to respect the rights of persons and property as set forth in the Declaration of Independence; and that here, and here only, will be found the long-needed check to the barbarian wantonness that lays towns in ashes and desolates homes and hearts for brutal revenge, or to act office, or for a little vulgar newspaper notoriety.

But what shall ensure propriety of judgment or uniformity or coincidence between the subordinates and the officers? I answer, Drill, Discipline,-- of mind as well as of arms and legs,-- teaching all to realize their true mission. The true object of all their power being clearly defined and made familiar, there would at once be a coincidence unknown before, and but slight chance of dissent when there was good ground for co-operation.

No subordination can be more perfect than that of an orchestra, but it is all voluntary.

If it be true that the sole proper function of coercive force is to restrain or repair all unnecessary violence, then the conclusion is inevitable that all penal laws (for punishing a crime or an act after it is committed except so far as they work to compensate the injured party equitably) are themselves criminal. The excuse is that punishment is "a terror to evildoers"; but those who punish instead of preventing crime are themselves evildoers, and according to their own theory they should be punished and terrified. But the theory is false: consistently carried out, it would depopulate the world. Such are the fogs in which we get astray when we trust ourselves away from first premises and substitute speculative theories in their stead.

The barbarian habit of shedding blood for irreparable offences ("as a terror to evil-doers") carried fully out, mutual slaughter will continue till there would not be a man, woman, or child, living upon the earth.

A man cannot alienate his inalienable right of self-preservation or sovereignty by joining the military or any other combination. The assumption that this is possible has produced all our political confusion and violence, and will continue to produce just such fruits to the end of time, if the childish blunder is not exposed and corrected.

Having one man as general over thousands, arises from the natural necessity for individuality in the directing mind when numbers wish to move together; but it does not necessarily imply any superiority of judgment or motive in the director of a movement beyond those of the subordinates, any more shall the driver of an omnibus is presumed to know the road better than the passengers. They may all know the road equally well, but if they all undertake to drive the horses, none of their purposes will be answered; and it would be equally ridiculous for the driver, under the plea of upholding subordination, to insist on carrying his passengers where they did not want to go, or refuse to let them get out when they wanted to "secede."

The most intelligent people always make the best subordinates in a good cause, and in our modern military it will require more true manhood to make a good subordinate than it will to be a leader. For the leader may very easily give orders, but they take the responsibility of that only, while the subordinate takes the responsibility of executing them, and it will require the greatest and highest degree of manhood, of self-government, presence of mind, and real heroism to discriminate on the instant and to stand up individually before all the corps and future criticisms, and assume, alone, the responsibility of dissent or disobedience. His only support and strength would be in his consciousness of being more true to his professed mission than the order was, and in the assurance that he would be sustained by public opinion and sympathy as far as that mission was understood.

Subordinates have many times refused to fire on their fellow-citizens in obedience to the mere wantonness of authority, or of the ferocity of a crude discipline, and have thus, like William Tell, entitled themselves to the lasting gratitude and affection of generations.

Even children, when drilled and trained with this idea (which is simply the true democratic idea), would become an ever-ready police to protect each other and the gardens, fruits, and other property around them, instead of being, as they often are, the Imps of disturbance and destruction. The height of their ambition being to play "soger" [i.e. soldier], and fight somebody or destroy something.

This is our fault. The democratic idea, theoretically at the base of American institutions, has never been introduced into our military discipline, nor into our courts, nor into our laws, and only in a caricatured and distorted shape into our political system, our commerce, our education, and public opinion.

A "Union" not only on paper, but rooted in the heart, whose members, trained in the constant reverence for the inalienable right of sovereignty in every person, would be habituated to forbearance towards even wrong opinions and different educations and tastes, to patient endurance of irremediable injuries, and a self-governing deportment and gentleness of manner, and a prompt but careful resistance to wanton aggression wherever found, which would meet with a ready and an affectionate welcome in any part of the world.

No coercive system of taxation could be necessary to such a government. A government so simple that children will be first to comprehend it, and which even they can see it for their interests to assist: and then would as readily play "soger" to prevent mischief, as to do mischief.

With our mind's eye steadily fixed on this great democratic principle and object, let us immediately commence the agitation of the idea of forming companies of home-guards on this principle.

Let any one who feels so disposed, take the first steps and invite the co-operation of persons sufficiently intelligent to comprehend the object to form a nucleus. (The known habitual regard to the "inalienable rights" of persons and property would be the best title to membership). Then, commence drill and discipline, keeping in mind all the time the kind of discipline required, which would be partly in the form of lectures taking as texts the details of the destruction of persons and property going on all around us, and showing with how much less violence the same or better objects could have been accomplished: and in the drill, giving some orders to do some unnecessary harm, on purpose to be disobeyed in order to accustom the subordinates to "look before they leap" or strike.

Such a military force would be within but not under discipline. In other words, its "sabbath would be made for man-- not man for its sabbath" [Mark 2:27]. To be under instead of within discipline is a mistake as fatal as that of getting under water in stead of within water.

Companies thus formed would do well to communicate with each other, which would be all the general organization required for a world-wide co-operation.

The charms of music, of mutual sympathy, the beauties of order, and of unity of dress and of movement in military displays, now so seductive to purposes of destruction and degradation, would entice to the highest and noblest objects of human ambition, which would never need a field of activity as long as wanton oppression (even of a single individual) has footing on the earth.

Government, strictly and scientifically speaking, is a coercive force; a man, while governed with his own consent, is not governed at all.

Deliberative bodies, such as legislatures, congresses, conventions, courts, etc., scientifically speaking, are not government, which is simply coercive force. But, inasmuch as that force should never be employed without a deliberate reference to its legitimate object, and upon which all available wisdom should be brought to bear, a deliberative council, acting before or with the government, seems highly expedient if not indispensable.

Moreover there are subjects now before us, and continually arising, on which, by timely forethought, violent issues may be prevented from arising, and many most important subjects may be adjusted by counsel alone, without any appeal to force.

Such counselors should not be tempted by unearned salaries and honors, nor by compensation measured by the necessities or weakness and defencelessness of their clients; nor should they consist of those who, like editors of news, can make more money by wars and other calamities than they can by peace and general prosperity, but let the counselors be those who are willing to wait, like tillers of the soil, for compensation according to the quantity and quality of their work. Let compensation or honors come in the form of voluntary contributions after benefits have been realized.

It is therefore suggested that any person, of either sex, who may coincide with this proposition, and who feels competent to give counsel in any department of human affairs, publicly announce the fact, as lawyers and physicians now do, or permit their names and functions to be made accessible to the public in some manner, so that whoever may need honest counsel on any subject may know where to find it. If a meeting of such counselors is thought desirable by any interested party, he or she can invite such as are thought to be most competent for the occasion, according to the subject to be considered.

These counselors, while in session, would constitute a deliberative assembly, or advisory tribunal. It might consist of both sexes or either sex, according to the nature of the subject to be deliberated upon.

After deliberation, or whenever any interested party feels ready to make up an opinion, let him or her write it down with the reasons for it, and present it to the counselors and the audience, for their signatures, and let the document go forth to the public or to the interested parties. If there are several such documents, those having the signatures of counselors or persons most known to be reliable would have the most weight; but, in order to ensure any influence or benefit from either, let compensation come to the counselors like that to Rowland Hill, in voluntary contributions after the benefits of the opinions have, to some extent, been realized.[1]

After having thus brought the best experience and well-balanced counsels to bear upon any subject without satisfying all parties, every person has a sovereign right to differ from all the opinions of the tribunal while not invading or disturbing other persons or property.

To ensure the best order in such a deliberative assembly, no other subject than the one for which it is called should be introduced without unanimous consent; as each and every one has a sovereign right to appropriate his own time and to choose the subjects that shall occupy his attention: and a constant regard to the same right, fully appreciated by all, will suggest the careful avoidance of all unnecessary disturbance which might prevent any one from hearing whatever he or she prefers to listen to. This sentiment becoming familiar to all as a monitor, but little disturbance would occur-- when it did occur, the principle itself would immediately prompt its appreciators to stop it with as little violence as possible.

A subject of great or universal interest may be laid before all such tribunals in the world, and their decisions brought to every city, village, and neighborhood, and to every door; and the relief from all disturbing controversies would be felt at every fireside.

The sanction of such tribunals, to any enterprise for public benefit, would place its author or inventor fairly before the public for their patronage, instead of being left to starve for want of attention; while the absence or want of such sanction would put a sudden stop to the swarms of impostures and fallacies that now wear out the attention to no purpose, and render valueless the announcements of even valuable things: while with such a sanction, the public might fool; at advertisements with some prospect of benefit therefrom.

We will ask them what constitutes legitimate property? We will ask them for the least violent mode of securing land to the homeless and starving. Also, what would constitute the just reward of labor? We shall invite them to consider what ought to be the circulating medium, or money? How it happens that the producers and makers of everything have comparatively nothing? And we shall ask them for some mode of adapting supplies to demands, for a better postal system, for a more equitable system of buying and selling, for a program of education in accordance with the democratic principle.

A conservatory and library will naturally spring up, where the records of the tribunal decisions and other contributions to public welfare will be preserved for reference and diffusion; and the world will begin to know its benefactors.

A modern military, as a government, will be necessary only in the transitionary stage of society from confusion and wanton violence to true order and mature civilization.

When the simply wise shall sit in calm deliberation, patiently tracing out the complicated and entangled causes of avarice, of robberies, of murders, of wars, of poverty, of desperation, of suicides, of slaveries and fraud, violence and suffering of all kinds, and shall have found appropriate and practical means of preventing instead of punishing them, then the military will be the fitting messengers of relief and harbingers of security and of peace, of order and unspeakable benefits wherever their footsteps are found; and, instead of being the desolators of the world, they will be hailed from far and near as the blessed benefactors of mankind.

If others see in this only the 'inauguration of anarchy," let no attempt be made to urge them into conformity, but let them freely and securely await the results of demonstration.

Chapter 2: Self-Preservation

Words, though they are things themselves, are mainly the signs of things.

We see the sign of "Dry Goods." The sign is exceedingly well executed, but it gives us no adequate idea of the goods within; no one would order any quantity of them before going within to examine the things to which the sign referred.

My words here are intended to be the signs of ideas or facts; but even the best-chosen and best-arranged words are full of ambiguity and imperfections, and it is unsafe for a reader to take it for granted that the writer on a subject of vital interest can do everything for him. There is a part which the reader is obliged to act for himself; that is, to look beyond or within the mere words or signs for the idea intended to be conveyed With this precaution kept vividly before the reader, the mere execution of the sign is of secondary importance. Delicious foreign fruits and spices are brought to us in very rough and crude envelopes; but they are the best the conditions of their producers afford, and we are content to get our figs, our dates and cinnamon without much regard to the mats in which they are conveyed to us.

Before we begin to probe the festering mass now called "civilization," let us prepare ourselves with all the spirit of forbearance which the case allows, that we need not add any unnecessary pangs to the already exhausted and dying patient.

" I know," says B., " that you do not admit analogies as proof, but is there not some indication of the divine law in the large fishes eating up the little ones, and in spiders spinning webs to entrap flies? Is not this the work of the Deity, who is all perfection, and can we hope to alter these things permanently for the better?"

Answer. Are we willing to admit from the first glance at analogies that the law for fishes and insects is also the law for cultivated, civilized man!

Cultivation is as much the law for man as primitive crudity is. But suppose we admit that the same law governs men, fishes, and insects. What is that law which is inherent and indestructible in all? It is the instinct of self-preservation. Fishes and insects would not perhaps eat each other raw and alive, if, like man, they had the means of preparation and cooking; nor would they run the risk, nor take the trouble of pursuing each other in continuous warfare, if, like men, they had more safe or expeditious modes of preserving their existence. It is our particular privilege to have an abundance of superior modes, and it is only for want of the appreciation of them, or when cut off from them by casualties that we are driven to the level of fishes and spiders. Although we cannot talk at all without resorting to analogies to illustrate our meaning, nothing is more likely to lead us astray when they are too readily accepted as parallels.

Every thing and person is invested with some peculiarities, which constitute its, his, or her individuality. And it is not safe for us to lose sight of this for a moment in our intercourse with each other. The fishes, the insects, and perhaps all animals, man included, act according to their external and internal conditions.

This is one divine law; self-preservation is another divine or primitive law. The modes of living and eating are not laws, but customs, or habits, or expedients, and are subject to modifications as conditions change. (The Divine, as I understand and use the word, means, simply, the not human. The sun, the winds, the tides, electricity, and whatever else exists without the aid of man are of divine origin -- that is, not of human origin. I prefer however, in order to avoid ambiguity and misunderstanding, to distinguish all these as belonging to primitive nature, and the works of man as of the secondary nature. Hence may arise the phrases primitive sphere, and secondary sphere.)

The carefully bred and cultivated man or woman who would take pains to extricate a fly from a spider's web, or who would sit up all night to keep the flies away from a sick infant, or to wet its lips occasionally, and who from pure humanitary feelings would almost sicken at the idea of eating the smallest morsel of nicely cooked veal, might, in the frenzy of starvation on a wrecked vessel, involuntarily seize and devour with frightful voracity a portion of a fellow-passenger, even a dear friend, from the sheer, uncontrollable instinct of self-preservation.

Such is the overwhelming power of conditions. The same instinct is at work in both opposite cases: in the most delicate attentions to the happiness of others, pleasure is derived in proportion to the pleasure conferred or the pain averted; which, for want of better phraseology, may be ranked as one of the modes of pursuing happiness, or of the promptings of the instinct of self-satisfaction or self-preservation: exactly the same instinct that leads to such opposite results under other conditions.

Self-preservation is the law of fish, of insects, and of men and women, but let us take care that we do not assume an accident to be a law, and so content ourselves to remain on a level with worms and bugs. Our immense resources are as natural, as much (the law) to us as the want of them is to insects; and it is by using them that we have thus far ameliorated our condition; and, by still greater and better uses of them, we may reach an infinitely higher plane, or modes of life, than any ever yet realized. It is the difference in our capacities for improvement, not in the fundamental or primitive laws, that lead to such different results.

Chapter 3: Probing Civilization

The primitive, uncultivated undeveloped man finds himself abroad among lions, tigers, hyenas, orang-outangs, gorillas, reptiles, and insects, all making war -- no, not making war (they have not sunk so low) but from the unregulated instinct of self-preservation, and the pressure of conditions, all preying upon each other.

The same instinct prompts them to herd together, for mutual protection against outside aggression. Having once formed a tribe or clan, clanship becomes looked upon as the warrant for safety, and all outside of any particular clan or tribe become, by degrees, ranked as enemies, aliens, or foreigners, to be weakened, conquered, or exterminated; and he who proves most expert in the work of murder or of plundering the outsiders, is considered the one most fit to secure and administer peace, justice, and true order within his own tribe, and is at once proclaimed as the great Matiambo, Moene, Chief, King, or President of the tribe or clan.

There being, as yet, no constitutions, no legislatures nor Courts to regulate the internal affairs of the Clan, this great Matiambo is, they think, a necessity, and it is equally a necessity, that, having a Matiambo, every one should render unhesitating obedience to his will, or all would be "anarchy and confusion."

Thus these poor primitive creatures reason. There is no fault in the logic and therefore there is no fault seen in the results. The Matiambo becomes drunk with power of which he knows not the true use. He may become crazy with vanity or with embarrassing cares, and they see him in the streets with drawn sword in his hand, cutting off the heads of whomsoever he meets to test the "loyalty" of his subjects, loyalty even to a crazy savage being the highest virtue known, and disloyalty punished with the most wanton barbarity. Thus the Matiambo proves a more destructive enemy than all the foreigners put together could prove, if each one was left to defend himself. But horror-stricken as the poor barbarian subjects may be, and trembling in every limb (for no one knows whose turn may come next), as a kind of propitiatory offering they break out in chorus.

Hurrah, hurrah, hurrah!

Hurrah for Hug-ga-boo-jug!

Hurrah for Hug-ga-boo-joo!

The king of the world is the great Hug-ga-boo.

Hurrah for the son of the sun!

Hurrah for the son of the moon!

If he ever dies, he will die too soon.

Buffalo of Buffaloes, Bull of Bulls,

He sits on a throne of his enemies' skulls,

And if he wants more to play at foot-ball,

Ours are at his service -- All, all, all.

Hug-ga-boo-jug -- Hug-ga-boo-joo!

The king of the world is the great Hug-ga-boo.

We are still, at this moment, in the midst of barbarism. Civilization has made no advance in the political sphere beyond the most crude and savage tribes. It has made little progress except in mechanism. Take that away, and what should we exhibit as civilization? Even in mechanism the arts of destruction have gone beyond those of preservation, and the best military commander is announced, without blushing, to be he who can most adroitly mislead, deceive, entrap, and kill his fellow-men, who are at least his equals in every view of manhood and worth.

No people can ever rise above this barbarian level as long as they unhesitatingly follow any leaders without thinking where they are going. We want a Luther in the political sphere, and another in the financial sphere, another in the commercial, another in the educational sphere, to rouse the people to use their own experience.

Clanship is the worst feature of barbarism. As soon as different tribes are formed, each member prefers, or is compelled to profess to prefer, his own clan or tribe to all others, on pain of being murdered as a "traitor." His motto must be, like that of Daniel Webster, My tribe, my whole tribe, and nothing but my tribe! That of Daniel Webster was, "My country, my whole country, and nothing but my country!"[2]

This spirit arrays all tribes, clans, and countries against each other; and hostilities once commenced between them, they are increased and perpetuated for retaliation or revenge, and excused as "terrors to evildoers." In this way it becomes equivalent to a death-warrant to belong to any clan or party; and yet, if one belongs to none, but wishes to discriminate and do justice by acknowledging the right that there may be among either party, then all parties are against him; for, say they, "whoever is not for us is against us."

Our present internal war is of barbarian origin. It grows directly out of clanship, or tribeism. One portion of the tribe (or nation) wanted to form a tribe or nation by itself, but the other portion undertook to prevent them. They said that the "fathers had said that the tribe should remain one and inseparable now and forever." That the fathers had spoken, and that it was the duty of all of us to obey.

Yes, replies the other party, "and the fathers have said another thing too -- they said that whenever the government of a tribe was not satisfactory to the governed, they have a right to 'alter or abolish it.'"

But, replies the first party, "you must take the mode prescribed by the constitution." But, says the second, "we don't choose to be ruled by your constitution -- it is no longer our constitution. It does not suit us -- we propose to have one of our own." "But, says the first party, "you must get a majority of the tribe to consent to that." But, says the second, "we do not consent to ask leave of your majority; and if you insist on that, you deny all right of political freedom, which is a direct return to barbaric government, or to the right of the strongest."

To this, the first party replies that to permit disintegration without the consent of the majority is to "inaugurate universal confusion."

Now, reader, just pause a moment. Had there been no clan or "Union" formed at all, or had it continued no longer than the occasion for it, this war would never have arisen. Other disturbances might have come from other causes, but never from this. But, to preserve this clanship unbroken, and retain all its members in peaceful repose, the advocates of "unbroken Union" abruptly refuse to negotiate with the receding party (who offer compensation for what they must take with them), thereby finally denying their right to become a separate parley, and pronouncing the final word that the Union recognizes no two parties who can negotiate with each other; which is equivalent to saying that the political Union (or clanship) is more sacred than persons, or property, or freedom, or any other inalienable human right. Thus completely destroying the last vestige of union between the parties, and forcing both into hostile attitudes, and both prepare to destroy each other.

Now are heard the wails of distress from all quarters. The papers are filled with accounts of brutal violence on both sides -- villages burning -- men hanging -- ferocity let loose in every horrid shape and form. The heated passions on both sides become more and more ferocious. A curious way to promote union! A frenzy of rage sweeps over the land while I write. The last step of despotism has been taken by both governments. Freedom of action and speech are annihilated in "the land of the free and the home of the brave." Even these written words may prove the death-warrant of the writer. Nothing but the clamor of war and the fear of prisons and violent deaths, smother, for the moment, the low moan from desolated hearths and broken hearts from the depths of the hell we are in.

In the mean time, where is the "Union"?

If the clan or "Union" had never been formed, or bad it continued no longer than was agreeable to the parties to it, this war would never have occurred.

I take up some of the papers nearest at hand, and I read that one man is nailed to a tree -- absolutely crucified and left, gagged, starving to death for several days; not for any of his own acts, but for the acts or theories of his clan or party. Immediately the cry of "revenge" is heard, not against the particular perpetrators of the horrid deed, but against the party or clan to which he belongs, the innocent portions of whom are more likely to suffer for the crime than the perpetrators of it. Thus clanship, annihilating all individual responsibility, leaves rapacity and cruelty unrestrained.

Again I read, "Ten thousand men killed and wounded, but a much larger number on the enemy's side. The town of S--- in ashes; N--- is threatened; the village of B--- in flames within sight, and old men, children, and women screaming frantically, and running in all directions."

The blood boils, the brain is on fire when the corpse of a dear son, a father, or husband is found on the field, or amid the ruins of once peaceful homes. Frenzy and despair take possession of some, and a desperate spirit of revenge inspires other women who will soon be mothers; of the children born in the midst of these horrors, many will be stillborn, others wholly or partly idiots, others with an uncontrollable hereditary disposition to shed blood -- to destroy whatever or whoever comes in their way. Then come more wars, murders, and violence beyond computation. What then, is the prospect for the next generation and their descendants? Let it be observed that, before displaying such shocking prospects, the preventive has been already presented in the first chapter. Let us see if the preventive is really there.

When one party first proposed to disintegrate itself from the political "Union" (clan), if the other portion had said, according to the Declaration of Independence, "As the right of any people to alter or abolish any government is absolute and 'inalienable,' of course, you have the whole of the deciding power in your own hands. We can have no voice in the matter unless you desire it as counsel. We think it would be a dangerous and difficult expedient for both parties; but this opinion we submit only as advice. If you decide on leaving us, we have some forts, mints, and other communistic property to divide, but we anticipate no difficulty in regard to that. Each party, or both together, can call councils of the best-balanced minds to deliberate on the subject and suggest the best modes of adjustment, and we dare say that this will not be difficult." Would not this mode, or rather this great principle, having been applied in the right time, have prevented all these horrors and this destruction?

What is the reply to this? Is it what we see in the newspapers? -- that it would "encourage disintegration and be the inauguration of universal confusion"? That the war is "to preserve the nation as a nation and the Union unbroken?" These statements, uniformly insisted on, even by the executive himself, prove decidedly and fully that the war has been inaugurated and prosecuted merely to preserve clanship, as I have stated, for nationality is no more or less than clanship, and clanship is the worst feature of barbarism. I do not accuse any one of intentional wickedness nor of wantonness or indifference to the horrors that surround and involve us; on the contrary, I see the whole to be a lamentable mistake, the unavoidable result of a blind reverence for precedents, for legal technicalities and formal institutions, instead of for the deep underlying principles which gave rise to the institutions. Now look at the results. If we are now in civilization, what is barbarism?

Let us, in imagination at least, have done with clanship, and converse as two individuals disintegrated from all party or partial trammels.

A. says, "I can find no fault with the proposition you make with regard to the councils of deliberation or reference, and feel happy to think that the great idea underlying our institutions is not forgotten or ignored, but that it even instructs us what to do in the greatest and most difficult trial. But why do you think that an immediate separation would be a bad expedient for both of us?"

B. replies, "First on account of the geographical interlockings of our interests which may be very difficult to disentangle suddenly. Then there is your slave system. The right of self-sovereignty in every human being, which gives you the supreme right to leave us without asking our leave gives to your slaves the same right to leave you, and also gives to every man, woman, and child the same supreme right to sympathize with and assist the distressed or oppressed wherever they are found as the greatest and holiest mission of life; and this might lead to new disasters for which we have no preventive or remedy provided. You have been born under the system, and your habits make you entirely dependent upon slaves. I do not blame you for the circumstances under which you were born; I hardly know which of the two classes is most enslaved, or most to be pitied, slaves or masters.

"The principle upon which you claim the right to secede from us is perfectly unassailable it is the inalienable right of self-sovereignty but it extends farther than you may have contemplated it. It is a full and complete warrant for any one of your citizens to place himself above all your legislation, above the whole confederacy, and appeal to the world for protection, and having asserted the principle in your own favor, you cannot successfully deny it to others.

"I cannot say what others may do, and, as you know, I cannot dictate to others, without denying their right to think; and decide for themselves; but while I assert the right of freedom to all slaves, black and white, I will exert myself to foresee and prevent, as far as possible, all unnecessary violence to you from slaves or from any other source."

A. asks, "Is this the philosophy of your party? If it is, I belong to it, in the Union or out of the Union."

B. "I cannot speak for a party, but only for myself positively, and of probabilities with regard to other individuals as far as I know them. No other person is in any way pledged to or responsible for anything I may say or promise."

A. "But what shall be done with the Constitution?"

B. "I do not know what others may do with it -- my constitution is within me. The right of self-sovereignty in every individual is my constitution."

A. "Really, this is rather a new view to take of politics, but it is in perfect accordance with the spirit of all constitutions. I find myself in union with you at any rate; on that principle there never can be secession at all. There can be no secession from the freedom to secede!"

1 would gladly turn now from the sickening, fainting patient before us, but must probe a little farther.

Clanship, by destroying individual responsibility, enables the crafty criminal to escape, and expose the innocent of his tribe to retribution. Six men are hung on one tree for daring to be of the other party, and those who hung them belonged to the party professing to be contending for freedom! Others are forced to expose their lives and die fighting against the party of their choice! They must do this or be shot by order of their rulers!

Reader, which party do you think it was that hung these men for a difference of political preferences? Which party is it that forces men, with "inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," to fight against their own wills or be shot? Which party is it that murders men for taking flown a flag, or preferring one flag to another? Which party is it that professes to be fighting for freedom?

He must reply, It is both parties, and that both profess to be contending for freedom!

Both claim to be contending for self-preservation. That is nothing new, but that all the powers of both parties should be bestowed in destroying instead of preserving life, property, and freedom can be accounted for only by the blind readiness with which the present imitates the past, without any reference to the inevitable consequences. Which party is it that does not suppress the freedom of action, of speech, and of the press and punish with imprisonment or death an honest avowal of an opinion in favour of the opposite party?

Which party is it that does not treat as treason, punishable with death, the admission of a single point wherein the opposite party may be right, as "giving aid and comfort to the enemy"? In other words, which party is it that does not threaten to punish with death that single item of justice? Who would ever think of introducing such monstrous rules if they were new? But they are found among the "precedents," the "usages of governments!" "the laws of war," "the laws of nations," and are therefore blindly followed though they lead the very leaders into the ditch or over the precipice. This blind repetition of barbarism must be criticised and stopped, or one continuous round of mutual murder and destruction will continue to the end of time.

The hanging of these men and the desolating of their families was in strict logical accordance with the barbarian "laws of war," which are an ever-ready excuse for every wild and shocking atrocity that rapacity, revenge, or wantonness may prompt. The "laws of war," say these barbarians, put all the members of a tribe (nation) in hostility with each other. And when at war we may properly " do all the harm we can to our enemies." Both parties take their texts from the same authorities. 'The "laws of war," "military necessity," the laws of nations, are constantly in the mouths of both parties as excuses for all their barbarian acts, and yet, when one commits an atrocity in strict accordance with these admitted axioms, the other party forthwith talks of revenge.

If one party is more humane or more civilized than the other, it acts less in accordance with these "laws of war "; and if one individual is more civilized or humane than the rest of his party, or both parties, he is not at home in either; on the contrary, for his beautiful humanitary feelings, for his high sense of honor, justice, and discrimination, he has two chances of being murdered, where blind, headlong party ferocity has only one.

And so it has always been under all political systems or codes, as illustrated by the case of General Patkul, who was broken on the wheel by order of Charles XII of Sweden, under a charge of "treason," for attempting, by pacific negotiations, to bring about a cessation of hostilities between his country and its antagonist. The humanity of Patkul did not show sufficient loyalty to Charles's "authority."[3]

There are no " laws of war," "nor laws of nations," nor military necessities, nor laws of men, that ought to command a moment's respect or attention, unless they tend to diminish suffering instead of increasing it: and true civilization will discard everything, that prompts or excuses any unnecessary violence to any person or property.

The fatal tendency of an unquestioning readiness to follow precedents may possibly have led to the shocking ease of crucifixion mentioned; perhaps it was prompted by the common blunder as a "terror to evildoers," perhaps the horrid thought was first suggested to the perpetrators by the precedent so painfully familiar to all Christendom.

A similar atrocity was perpetrated in the French Revolution A young woman only for being of the other party, a fact over which she had no control, was also crucified. Her feet were spiked to the ground, wide apart, and she was made to stand by a tree, to which she was bound, and a slow fire was placed and kept under her till she died in the most excruciating torture.

Now that the race is so far sunken, either by hereditary propensities, or by a continuous, unhesitating copying of the past, what can we do better than to step up at once above these horrid precedents and authorities, and interfere to prevent all unnecessary and wanton violence? This was probably the original design of making laws, as it is celled, and trial by jury, etc., but they have all failed; for barbarism and insane violence reign triumphant throughout the misnomer of civilization.

Did human beings ever commit any other blunder so great as that of forming themselves into clans or nations? When the passions or propensities have possession, the intellect sleeps, and responsibility being annihilated, there is nothing too horrible to expect. I venture the assertion that there is but one way to emerge from this otherwise endless chaos of misery and degradation; that is, directly to bestow all practicable energies in the direction indicated in the first chapter, and to solicit the cooperation of all persons, without regard to party, sect, theories, sex, or nation, to consider in leisure and in calmness the basis of true civilization.

Clanship can exist among fishes of one kind among ants, bees, and other insects, and among the crude clans of men, who like ants, bees, or dried herrings on a stick, have no individual development, but who are all alike. When the mental eyes they had have been punched out by barbarian power in the process of stringing them on the stick of subordination or loyalty: and if no intellectual expansion were possible, clanship would continue to desolate the earth; but just in proportion to intellectual expansion, individuality makes its appearance, and begins to conflict with the dried-herring subordination, and naturally gives rise to the first steps in disintegration or the commencement of true civilization.

Fortunately for us, external force cannot limit nor suppress ideas. Take a hundred persons as completely "unitized," and as destitute of ideas as dried herrings, and place them within a building having iron walls three feet thick, and guarded by a thousand men, ideas may find their way among them that can liberate them from that condition, or destroy them.

A savage who has for half a lifetime eaten with his fingers out of the same dish with twenty others, all obstructing each other's movements, conceives, perhaps, the idea of a wooden paddle or a pointed stick to use in the communistic dish. But it's not " the fashion." It is not " according to precedents." It is not what "the fathers intended." But he may say to himself, "I am not one of the fathers, I am another person. I don't see why I should not have my way as well as they, provided I do not put the fathers, nor anybody else, to any inconvenience."

The germ of true civilization is now fairly planted and perhaps it expands so far that he sees that a separate sleeping apartment would be more agreeable to all in a hot climate than sleeping in one nest with twenty or thirty others, like a litter of pigs; but then this would be "disintegration," and might not be permitted by the "majority," for it is "isolation" and "selfishness," and not according to the "precedents" and "best authorities"; "society has a right to the society of all its members." " Well," says the savage, "I will not then be a member of any society. I will be an individual."

Now a piece of ground is wanted to stand his house upon. This possession of a piece of land disintegrated, individualized from the communistic domain, has been considered one of the greatest and most indispensable features of civilization, and so it is. But beyond this, society has attained little or nothing by the way of adjustment.

A barbarian strolling, upon the beach, perhaps in search of tortoises, accidentally picks up a little shell that is rather new to him, and he shows it to another savage, who, for the sake of the novelty, offers to give him for it the beaver which he has just caught, and the exchange is made; and so the second owner of the shell, when his curiosity its satisfied, gives it to a third person for a tortoise-shell. A ship arrives on the coast in search of tortoise-shells, and gives this savage beads, nails, and a hatchet for his shell. Immediately every savage abandons his hunting of beavers and every other pursuit for the hunting of tortoises; in the course of which they find more of the little shells, and give them the name of "cowries." One cowry once having purchased a beaver, this "precedent" is accepted as "authority " for the "market-price" of a beaver; so as many cowries as each finds, so many beavers he considers himself "worth," and, by degrees, as this "roast pig" progresses, these cowries are given and received for ivory, fish, etc., and become a circulating medium, or money. But, in making these exchanges no reference whatever is had to the time or trouble in procuring either the cowries or the articles exchanged for them; it being altogether a matter of accident, no calculations can be made.

There is no basis for calculation; but the cowries prove very convenient; for they enable each one to confine his attention and preparations to one particular pursuit, and to exchange its products for all the things he needs, instead of being obliged to do everything for himself to disadvantage. By only catching beavers and giving them for cowries, he can procure fish, tortoise-shells, ivory, muskrats, moccasins, mats, spears, etc., which is an immense saving of time and trouble to him. Others, seeing this, imitate his example, and as the accumulation of cowries affords a prospect of everything needed, the pursuit and accumulation of cowries becomes the rage of all; every savage abandons his beaver-hunting, or his fishing, his musk-rat traps, etc., and all rush to the hunt for cowries. They get a large supply, but there is nothing to buy with them! There are no fish caught, no muskrats, no mats made, no ivory found, no mellons raised. The ship has carried away all the tortoise-shells, and the cowries are comparatively worthless.

One old cunning savage, seeing the general thoughtless rush for cowries, had taken advantage of it and "bought up" all the fish, musk-rats, ivory, mats, spears, nails, etc., against their return. He now has all in his own power, for "whoever feeds can govern," and he demands the whole of their cowries for the few supplies that they are obliged to have to supply present necessities, and the population give him all the cowries they have gathered along the whole coast for months, in exchange for a few necessaries which they could have made for themselves in as many hours. They feel that they are wronged, but do not see where the wrong is.

The next day the cunning old savage's house and sheds are set on fire for revenge, and no one being disposed to help him, they and all their contents are consumed, cowries and all, and he is reduced to beggary; but no one relieves him. The cowries have all been collected for miles along the beach and he can get none: he is not qualified to make mats, nor spears, nor nails, nor to catch beavers, and he wanders about a miserable and despised savage, having made himself miserable by overreaching his fellow-savages.

There has been no improvement upon that crude and barbarous money to this day of the Christian era, 1862, unless it is in substituting little bits of copper, or other comparatively worthless metals with the semblance of a man's head or some animal upon them, instead of the cowries, as a circulating medium.

Bank-notes, promising to pay these bits of metal on demand, if they were not the means of defrauding as well as of deluding the public, would be an improvement upon metals, as being more convenient of carriage, and costing less trouble in many ways; but, being, as they are, the means of innumerable and constant frauds and delusion, they are barbarian money barbarized. All the crudity in principle remains, with intentional frauds added.

No reference whatever is had to the comparative trouble that anything costs the one who first obtains or produces it, but whoever stumbles in his rambles upon a lump of any of these metals, has, forthwith, according to the size of the lump, a demand upon every product and service under the sun.

There being no principle known for the regulation or adjustment of the quantity of these metals, which should be given in exchange for any service or commodity, the whole is left to accident, or else to some, like the cunning savage, to take advantage of the necessities of others, and a general scramble ensues to get the advantage or to escape being overreached. In this general strife, those with the longest purses, or the most cunning, or who are most unscrupulous and false, prevail. Those who have few or no cowries and the less crafty are trodden under foot, and ground to powder and what is called society has blundered on into a universal scramble for the largest possible accumulation of cowry metals, as offering the best among poor chances of security against the general rapacity. In this melee the instinct of self-preservation in each one is almost wholly bent on keeping uppermost, instead of being crushed below. Political power and money are the principal means of attaining ends, and these are therefore pursued with unscrupulous desperation.

A little money (by usury) "makes more," but it takes from those who have less, till those with less have none to take. Then woe to those who are found in such ranks. Nobody will be found there who can avoid it. Driven to work for whatever money-holders choose to give, they take the pittance rather shall starve, and starve when they cannot get the work or the pittance. Then who that can avoid it will belong to the ranks of starved, ragged, abused, insulted labor? Whoever can avoid it will do so, and the burdens fall upon the weak who have no means of escape.

This is the origin of all slaveries. They all grow out of the fact that civilization has not yet proceeded far enough to discover what would be a proper, legitimate, equitable compensation or price even for a barrel of flour.

When the masses are silenced by weakness, the conflict becomes intensified between the few who have monopolized money and the governing or political power. 'The mass become mere ciphers to be placed by the sides of these figures, only to increase their magnitude and power in their contests with each other. The right of might is the only umpire known or acknowledged, and conquest becomes the object of all.

Looking at causes, and understanding the instinct of self-preservation, who wonders at the miser? Who wonders at the borders of black or white slaves? Who wonders at burglary, highway robbery, thefts, frauds, bribery, and corruption in office? or at the general distrust of man in his kind? or at the extremes of waste and walls that are so often found face to face?

The two great elements of power are the governing (military) force and money.

The equilibrium of the governing power has already been suggested in the first chapter; but until a principle is found and accepted which can harmoniously regulate compensation for labor (or regulate prices), and establish an equilibrium of the money power, we can hardly assert that civilization has fairly commenced.

[Chapter 4: The Principle of Equivalents

(this is a recapitulation, in more or less precisely the same words, of the economic sections of Equitable Commerce.)]

Chapter 5. Organization and Co-Operation Without Sectism or Clanship, and Conflict Without Freedom

Organization and clanship are both prompted, in some respects, by similar motives: the universal desire for sympathy, the need of mutual assistance, and other expected benefits. But while clanship, with its usual concomitants, is more destructive to the very ends proposed than any external enemy could prove, organization without these concomitants, and in accordance with the great primitive laws, may enable us to realize more than utopians ever dreamed of.

Such is the instinctive yearning for sympathy with our kind, there is no cost too great to pay for it.

It is so pleasant to coincide with those around us, and we are so wretched when in continuous collision with the feelings, tastes, or opinions of others, that it is not surprising that we often fall in with customs and fashions without examination, and go with whatever current is running rather than array ourselves hopelessly against them.

A poor young woman stole a fashionable bonnet, for the sake of appearing at church in the mode. She was arrested and sent to prison, and her self-respect destroyed for life, because her desire for the sympathy of her kind was stronger or more directly present to her than the fear of the prison. The word glory: what does it mean but the public sympathy or notice that one gets by a public act? The incendiary who set on fire the Temple of Ephesus, in order, as he said," to immortalize himself," was contented to get even that degree of glory which followed from giving the public an event to talk about. His name was necessarily in many mouths, and that was enough to tempt him to the crime, as he could get glory in no other way.[4]

The devotees of India, who will hold one hand straight up above their heads, and never change its position during life, or fold both across their breasts, and keep them so for years; or Simon Stylites who remained on the top of a high naked column for thirty years, day and night, exposed to all weathers; and the devotees who voluntarily suspend themselves on hooks stuck through the flesh of their sides, and allow themselves to be suspended high in the air and swung around for hours, exposed to public gaze, all, probably, are or were actuated by similar motives to the one under contemplation.

Perhaps this explains the subtle fascination there is in the news of calamities - the destruction of life and property. They make everybody talk with each other; they find themselves, for the moment, on the same plane. The starved sympathies are fed.

The uncultivated girl, in Bulwer's Last Days of Pompeii, is made to say, "Oh, pray the gods send us a criminal for the lions to tear, or the holidays will be good for nothing."[5]

Even hostility and persecution for unavoidable differences of opinion probably arise from this same desire for unity, harmony, or sympathy. This may explain the involuntary repugnance to even needed innovations or improvements: the tardiness in adopting them, and even the persecution of them; the spirit is, perhaps, the same. Probably this is the explanation of the pertinacity with which it is insisted on that " the Union must and shall be preserved," though compulsion is directly against the great principle that gave rise to it. The same impulse prompts thousands to join any movement, or noise of any kind, without much conscious design, or to do anything which feeds this natural yearning for sympathy or companionship

What else can explain the omnipotence of public opinion where there is no opinion? Yet it holds, as it were, all the governments in the world between its thumb and finger, and in its hand the destinies of the race.

When we find ourselves on the immovable plane for the preservation of life, property, and happiness, this sympathetic element, a thousand- fold stronger, will work for instead of against true civilization.

It is not till after long and painful experience and study that we discover that the precedents, traditions, authorities, and fictions upon which society has been allowed to grow up, do not coincide with each other, nor with the great unconquerable primitive or divine laws.

Far be it from me to attempt to conquer this greatest of all sources of human happiness, or to place one unnecessary obstacle in its way. The great problem is, How can this great, universal divine desire for sympathy be harmlessly exercised to its full satisfaction, and continue undisturbed?

Pigs, bees, fishes, ants, etc., being probably nearly alike, intellectually, can live in comparative peace and sympathy, having but few subjects to dispute about; but just in proportion to culture or expansion of the feelings, tastes, and intellects is the necessity and the tendency to take more room; so that each person, like a planet, can move in his own orbit without disturbing others. This is disintegration.

In closely entangled interests, as in all " communism," there is a necessity of agreement and conformity, and some must be more or less pained by the collisions of opinions, tastes, wishes, etc., between them. Not, perhaps, any more at the sacrifices required of one's self than from perceiving that others make sacrifices for us. One or the other is inevitable, just in proportion to the number or magnitude of the interests held in common.

Let us illustrate: In a certain town in Indiana there was, in 1841, a schoolhouse built by neighborhood subscription. The subscribers, however, as might have been expected, soon began to differ about the choice of a teacher; but there was no room to differ within the combined interest. Only one party could possibly have its way. The very best of reasons and arguments were furnished on both sides, and "irresistible logic " showed how right and how wrong both parties were; but none of the arguments had any other effect than to make the breach between them wider and wider. For, whereas they differed about only one thing at first, they differed about twenty things in as many minutes of disputation

Meeting after meeting was had, and dispute after dispute roused, by degrees, a hostile feeling on both sides, so that, although both parties were "professors of religion," one man rushed at his antagonist with a huge club, but was in his turn subdued by an overpowering force, "and the meeting broke up in anarchy." That night some one, seeing no better means of putting an end to the war, set the valuable house on fire, and it was burned to ashes. The root of the whole of the trouble was communism, or union of property in the schoolhouse.

Had there been no union of property in the schoolhouse, and had the teacher acted on his individual responsibility with his patrons, the difficulty and destruction would not have occurred, whatever diversity there might have been between the parties. But having taken the first erroneous step in communism of property, if it had been fashionable in the neighborhood to have referred the case to judicious tribunals (as proposed in the first chapter) who understood the philosophy of the difficulty, these tribunals might, perhaps, have given such advice as would have averted all the trouble.

Another case. In the house of a friend, where I was staying, I heard, in a room next to my own, two girls disputing and crying for a long time. Passing by their door I learned that they had some playthings in common. Mary said that Annie wouldn't let her handle the cups and saucers, though "their governess told them that they must be accommodating to each other."

"Yes," replied Annie, sobbing, " but she meant that you must be accommodating as well as me, and when I want to put up the things you ought to let me." Both were really distressed to find themselves quarrelling, and I said to them, " Don't blame yourselves nor each other, girls; the fault is not in either of you; it is in having your playthings in common. There should be only one owner to one thing. Whatever was given to you should have been given to one or the other, or divided between you. I advise you at once to divide your things between yourselves, and that each should sacredly respect the absolute right of the other to control her own in any manner whatever, and not to set up any demand on each other to be any more accommodating than she is at the time. Such a demand is a partial denial of her right of control over her own, which not only makes you disagreeable companions to each other, but raises disputes that never can be settled by words."

At a place called Brush Creek, in Michigan, there was a meeting- house built by subscription among the neighbors, who happened to agree in that one particular idea, that a house of worship was necessary. It was built of logs, in the loghouse fashion, and locked together at the corners. It was no sooner built than their coincidence was at an end, for there was immediately a difference among them with regard to the doctrine that should be advocated there. Here, as usual, diversity took them by surprise, and it being a disturbing element under the circumstances, it was looked upon as an " enemy, and each strove to conquer it in himself and in his opponents. They did not know that diversity was any part of Divinity, but they looked upon it as a proof of perversity, or the workings of the old virus of original depravity, and supposed that in warring against each other they were vindicating unity; for to admit of schism and diversity unrebuked was to encourage disintegration, which would " inaugurate universal confusion." So the parties contended with each other till they had exhausted all their resources, and destroyed all their union, and one man was so exasperated at the crude attempts to put him down, that he went home and got a yoke of oxen, hitched a chain to one of the logs in the side of the house, tore it out, and dragged it home for firewood, as his share of the communistic property.

Having committed the blunder of getting into communism, had the case been referred to an intelligent and disinterested neighborhood-council before building the house, it probably never would have been built on the communistic principle; but having committed this first mistake, it had become too late to exercise the right of individual ownership over one log, because this could not be done without doing greater violence to the same right of the other owners, whose property was seriously injured thereby. Had there been a clear idea among them of what the absolute right is, they would all have seen that they were equally partners in a blunder in forming the union, and not a violent word would probably have been spoken, and they would have talked only of individualizing or disintegrating their claims to the property. Different expedients might have been suggested, such as one party buying the other out, or some individual buying the whole out.

In this case the "government," seeing that the exercise of right had been rendered impossible by the union of the property, would restrain the persisting in its exercise in the particular form adopted by the desperate man, and might have required him to take an equivalent for his log, over which lie could exercise his right of ownership without damaging the other parties.

This makes the government, as a last resort, a final umpire to decide between expedients when the right has been rendered impossible, but it does not rise above absolute human rights, and it is rendered safe by being dependent on the voluntary action or sovereign will of those who are required to execute any decision.

Another case. Two men were left joint heirs of one house; one wanted to sell it, and the other was opposed to selling it. They argued and disputed till they grew hot, and then one carried the case to the courts, and kept it there till more than the price of the house had been consumed in litigation, but all without decision, for the " precedents " and statutes were silent on the subject, and nothing could be done outside of "precedents" and "statutes." Finally, desperation took the case in hand: one party sawed the house in two from top to bottom, and moved his part away! Not a dollar would have been spent in litigation, and no feeling of desperation or enmity would have arisen, if both parties had known at first that disintegration was the remedy required; or had they referred the case to a neighborhood council called for the purpose (not elected to judge the case before it occurred), who were not trammeled by unbending precedents, statutes, and wordy forms, and who were not biased by the prospect of votes for office, or a large fee for making trouble, they might have given advice founded on a knowledge of the root of such difficulties, and most likely the parties would have been saved their quarrels, their expenses, and the desperate remedy resorted to.

Communists, like moths flitting round a lamp, seem to learn nothing from their burnt, disabled, and prostrate companions, and never know that the flame can kill till it is too late to profit by the knowledge; and the opposers, while they can reason like philosophers against the principle of communism, will advocate exactly the communistic principle in their political unions, organizations, confederacies and other combined interests.

What is called conservatism has all the time been entirely right in its objections to communism, and in insisting on individual ownership and individual responsibilities both of which communism annihilates; conservatism has also shown wisdom in its aversion to sudden and great changes, for none have been devised that contained the elements of success.

Let us proceed to examine our germs of true or harmonic organization.

A man wants to raise a house; he cannot do it alone, and invites his neighbors to help him. They are willing to do so, either from sympathy, for the enjoyment of the companionship of the occasion, or for pecuniary compensation, or without any particular conscious motive. Whether they are moved by one motive or another, their movement is voluntary, and the raising of the house is the point of coincidence between them -the object which brings them together, and which gives rise to the co-operation between them.

Twenty men assemble on the ground, but they can do nothing, if the whole twenty undertake to give directions. Even two cannot do so, without leading directly to confusion and counteraction. Primitive or divine law does not tolerate anything more or less than individuality in any lead. Who should be the lead on this occasion but he who takes the risks and bears all costs? He may prefer to delegate his function, but may with propriety resume it at any moment.

Ten men are requested to lift a timber; they all get ready to do so, but they cannot lift together till some word or sign is given. Select three of the wisest or most experienced of the company to give that word or sign, and confusion would result, but let only one, though a mere child, give the word, and the timber moves.

This I understand to be the philosophy of leadership, and also of monarchy and despotism. But why have they proved so destructive of the ends proposed by them? It is because of the unconscious attempt to unite or combine the lead and the deciding power or sovereignty in one person.

The twenty men had each a mind and a motive of his own to help at the raising, and though the motives were different, this difference did not prevent their coinciding or co-operating action in that one individual thing to be done. The owner of the house did not undertake to decide that these men should help him. Each decided for himself that he would help, and these coinciding, individual sovereign decisions only wanted a lead, and all was well.

I repeat that the great error has been in the attempt to combine the lead and the deciding or sovereign power in one person, instead of recognizing the deciding power where divine law has irrevocably fixed it, in every individual of the race.

Coincidence must be had before anything requiring the co-operation of numbers can be properly done. As intellectual culture and expansion give rise to this dreaded diversity, culture is looked upon as dangerous, and the expression of opinions adverse to the governments are forbidden and punished with heavy penalties or cruel deaths.

These penalties inflicted for diversity are practical acknowledgments that the deciding power is inevitably fixed in, and inseparable from, each individual, who is therefore presented with an assortment of evils to choose from and decide upon. If he desires to disobey orders, he may calculate the value of his life to himself or others, his repugnance to pain and death, his chances of escape, and on these calculations he decides for himself at last.

Common soldiers suppose, when they enlist in the regular service, that they put themselves thenceforth, for a specified time, under the commands of their officers, with whom rest all deciding power as to their movements; and this power is supposed by officers and-men to be absolute, unqualified and final, and either would stare at calling the idea in question.

A company of regulars in Scotland were on the march towards the river Clyde. At the edge of the stream, the soldiers, rather than walk in and be drowned, halted without waiting for the order to halt, which was entirely contrary to the contract and the discipline. Officers and men were both taken by surprise with the fact that the deciding power was not with the officers - that it had suddenly made its appearance in an unexpected quarter; the instinct of self-preservation had suddenly assumed its sway, like an irresistible third party, and annulled the contract of "unqualified obedience to orders," contrary to discipline and to the previous understanding and intentions of both parties.

Thereupon a little storm cloud (no bigger than a man's hand) arose between men and master; but when they begin to debate, good-by to the dried-herring subordination. The instinct of self-preservation does not always wait to consult precedents nor interpretations of constitutions, the right of rebellion, nor authorities of any kind. It is its own authority, from which all others are derived.

In these states, the institutions are supposed to place all deciding power in the hands of certain men appointed to wield it; yet this same instinct is now at work in every breast in the nation, and every one is involuntarily debating or deciding in his own mind and feelings, according to his conditions, and there is no coincidence among any large portion of us. The deciding power is not in the men appointed to wield it.

It is worse than useless, it is calamitous, to legislate as if it were possible to divest ourselves of this involuntary instinct of self- preservation or self-sovereignty, and those who accept or act on such pledge commit as great an error as those who give it, and all contracts to this effect being impossible of fulfillment are null and void. We may delegate the leading function often with advantage, but it is folly, blindness, self-deception, and may be ruin, to commit ourselves unqualifiedly to implicit and unhesitating obedience to any personal lead for a single hour.

The most perfect lead would be that which was best adapted to the particular occasion for it; and as every occasion may be peculiar in itself, no one personal lead may be equally adapted to various occasions. A child might lead the lifting of the timbers of the house, but could not lead in the framing of it. The president of a railroad company may lead its affairs very satisfactorily, but might not be equally adapted to lead a child in the study of music.

A very common mistake is made in taking it for granted that, because a man has shown great capacity to lead in one direction or department, he is, therefore, most likely to prove a good lead in other directions. The contrary is most likely to be the fact, inasmuch as that the more time he has spent in qualifying himself for one function, the less he would have to bestow in others, as illustrated by the very profound conchologist who thought that the beans in his garden had come up " the wrong end first."

The most effectual lead is not necessarily always a person. It may be a thing, an idea, or a principle. A clock or a watch leads or governs the movements of many of us more than men do. But two clocks which should differ widely from each other would neutralize the lead, and make only confusion. If they harmonized with each other, one would be superfluous. But a plurality of men to lead any one movement, having more elements of diversity within them than unintellectual clocks, are more likely than they to differ, and lead to confusion.

A single man may lead the whole race, as is already demonstrated by the inventor of railroads, of steam power, etc.; but if he undertakes to decide that the public shall patronize or follow him, he will find himself at once in conflict with the third party - a divine law, from which, sooner or later, he will be obliged to retire.

The sphere of lead may harmlessly extend over the whole earth; but the sphere of sovereignty cannot harmlessly be extended beyond the person, time, property, and responsibilities of the one person who exercises that sovereignty.

What, then, is invasion? If you come into my house, against my will, this is an invasion of my property certainly; but if you have heard screams within, and calls for help, and you have come in to restrain me from invading the life of an inmate, though it be my own child, you have made a justifiable and legitimate choice of evils in violating my right of property to prevent me from violating greater rights. If I would have my absolute rights of property and person held inviolate, I must observe and hold sacred all the rights of others.

Though John Brown went into Virginia to relieve slaves from oppression, if he had compelled any slave, by fear or force, to join him against his will, this would have been oppression or invasion of the slave. This personal sovereignty should be above all other considerations.

A nation consists of all the individuals in it. An army which has entered a nation to protect even one individual from oppression, and has committed no unnecessary violence in doing so, has made a justifiable choice of evils.

When clanship or political systems are outgrown, and every individual is recognized as a sovereign member of the party of the whole, the same idea becomes only extended when the whole of the race should protect one member of the race from invasion.

We have seen that the lead and the deciding or sovereign power are two very distinct elements; that for true order, they must be disintegrated from each other, the one having unlimited scope, and the other confined to the person, time, property, and responsibilities of one Individual. Beyond this individual sphere no one, no number of men have a right of absolute sovereignty. We all have a right to sympathize with the distressed in any part of the world with but not against their consent or will.

I speak with decision, because, after forty years' study and experiments on these subjects, I have arrived at decisions for myself, and because I think the reader will prefer it as the most convenient language for him as well as for me, and because I think be will prefer the assurance which is afforded by placing myself under the responsibility of definite and positive assertions, rather than that I should give out vague hints and throw the responsibility of conclusions upon him. And after and in the midst of continuous reiteration of the sovereign right of every individual to decide for himself, he will not suspect me of attempting to decide for him against his consent.

While the deciding or sovereign power is understandingly left undisturbed where it really is (in the heart or head of every individual for himself), it matters but little who undertakes to lead. He who most addresses himself to the largest coincidence or most pressing wants of the time will have the most followers.

We see that primitive or divine law demands individuality in a lead. This lead is sometimes a man, sometimes a woman, a child, or a thing; it is also sometimes an idea. This latter has always been practically admitted by those who have attempted to generalize the experience of mankind into axioms, rules, written statutes, or (so called) laws, constitutions, etc. They intended these ideas as points of coincidence to lead or force the people into certain modes of action.

But in all these there has been the same fatal error: defective generalization.

A rule (or law) which may be good for the case in which it originated may not apply to any other case as well. New cases give rise to other rules which conflict with the first; which conflict, like that of the two different clocks, destroys the power of either to lead.

Then, again, arises (from the inevitable individuality of different minds) the different interpretations of the same rules or generalisms. Witness the different interpretations of the Constitution of the United States and all other constitutions.

They are liable to so many different constructions, that this diversity not only neutralizes their power to lead, but they become positive elements of antagonism and violent dissensions and mutual destruction, because their latent faults are too subtle for ready detection. They would be harmless and might be beneficial if there was no attempt to combine in them the sovereign power. To remedy this fatal defect, the word " shall" should be expunged, and the word "may" substituted.

Conscious of this defect to some extent, the makers of some of these verbal institutions have provided that the ultimate or final interpretation of them shall rest in the supreme courts; the practical working of which is to concentrate a coercive power in one person over the destinies of millions (witness the Dred Scott decision[6]) which is a return to despotism, and in the worst form, because it is disguised and hedged round with bewildering fictions and formulas.

The Constitution of the United States contains a great many formulas and generalizations, the whole being intended to lead to prosperity, security, and freedom. The unavoidable difference in the interpretations of the instrument, being provided for only in a form which gave the monopoly of the interpreting and enforcing power into a few hands, has led to the sudden check of all prosperity - has rendered all persons and property in the States as insecure as possible.

The Declaration of American Independence embraces a great universal fact, or primitive or divine law, intended to act as a point of coincidence for the co-operation and harmony of all mankind. But the same instrument also displays other features more prominent and more striking to common observation, while the germinal, central idea of the whole instrument lies bidden within its well-chosen phraseology, like the life-giving germ of the seed, beyond the external eye, and cognizable only by the penetrating mental vision.

Even there, in that sublime effort of virtue and genius, there is that plurality of elements, which, like the plurality of men, neutralize each other as a lead according to its noble design.

Struggling through centuries with such subtle difficulties and obstructions, the best minds have been bent on simplifying. Hence arose the formula, "Do unto others as ye would that they should do unto you"; and Christendom rejoiced in the apparent