{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_36145/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_36145","id":"gutenberg_36145","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/36145","summary":null,"tags":["Category: American Literature","Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Politics","Constitutional law -- United States"],"text":"</pre>\n\n\n\nProduced by Susan Goble, Curtis Weyant, David E. Brown,\nand the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at\nhttp://www.pgdp.net\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  NO TREASON.\n\n  No. VI.\n\n  The Constitution of no Authority.\n\n  BY LYSANDER SPOONER.\n\n  BOSTON:\n  PUBLISHED BY THE AUTHOR.\n  1870.\n\n\n\n\nNo Treason\n\nThe Constitution of No Authority\n\n\n\n\nI.\n\n\nThe Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no\nauthority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and\nman. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between\npersons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract\nbetween persons living eighty years ago. And it can be supposed to have\nbeen a contract then only between persons who had already come to years\nof discretion, so as to be competent to make reasonable and obligatory\ncontracts. Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion\neven of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or\nasked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any\nformal manner. Those persons, if any, who did give their consent\nformally, are all dead now. Most of them have been dead forty, fifty,\nsixty, or seventy years. _And the Constitution, so far as it was their\ncontract, died with them._ They had no natural power or right to make it\nobligatory upon their children. It is not only plainly impossible, in\nthe nature of things, that they _could_ bind their posterity, but they\ndid not even attempt to bind them. That is to say, the instrument does\nnot purport to be an agreement between any body but \"the people\" _then_\nexisting; nor does it, either expressly or impliedly, assert any right,\npower, or disposition, on their part, to bind anybody but themselves.\nLet us see. Its language is:\n\n    We, the people of the United States (that is, the people _then\n    existing_ in the United States), in order to form a more perfect\n    union, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common\n    defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings\n    of liberty to ourselves _and our posterity_, do ordain and\n    establish this Constitution for the United States of America.\n\nIt is plain, in the first place, that this language, _as an agreement_,\npurports to be only what it at most really was, viz., a contract between\nthe people then existing; and, of necessity, binding, as a contract,\nonly upon those then existing. In the second place, the language neither\nexpresses nor implies that they had any intention or desire, nor that\nthey imagined they had any right or power, to bind their \"posterity\" to\nlive under it. It does not say that their \"posterity\" will, shall, or\nmust live under it. It only says, in effect, that their hopes and\nmotives in adopting it were that it might prove useful to their\nposterity, as well as to themselves, by promoting their union, safety,\ntranquility, liberty, etc.\n\nSuppose an agreement were entered into, in this form:\n\nWe, the people of Boston, agree to maintain a fort on Governor's Island,\nto protect ourselves and our posterity against invasion.\n\nThis agreement, as an agreement, would clearly bind nobody but the\npeople then existing. Secondly, it would assert no right, power, or\ndisposition, on their part, to compel their \"posterity\" to maintain such\na fort. It would only indicate that the supposed welfare of their\nposterity was one of the motives that induced the original parties to\nenter into the agreement.\n\nWhen a man says he is building a house for himself and his posterity, he\ndoes not mean to be understood as saying that he has any thought of\nbinding them, nor is it to be inferred that he is so foolish as to\nimagine that he has any right or power to bind them, to live in it. So\nfar as they are concerned, he only means to be understood as saying that\nhis hopes and motives, in building it, are that they, or at least some\nof them, may find it for their happiness to live in it.\n\nSo when a man says he is planting a tree for himself and his posterity,\nhe does not mean to be understood as saying that he has any thought of\ncompelling them, nor is it to be inferred that he is such a simpleton as\nto imagine that he has any right or power to compel them, to eat the\nfruit. So far as they are concerned, he only means to say that his hopes\nand motives, in planting the tree, are that its fruit may be agreeable\nto them.\n\nSo it was with those who originally adopted the Constitution. Whatever\nmay have been their personal intentions, the legal meaning of their\nlanguage, so far as their \"posterity\" was concerned, simply was, that\ntheir hopes and motives, in entering into the agreement, were that it\nmight prove useful and acceptable to their posterity; that it might\npromote their union, safety, tranquility, and welfare; and that it might\ntend \"to secure to them the blessings of liberty.\" The language does not\nassert nor at all imply, any right, power, or disposition, on the part\nof the original parties to the agreement, to compel their \"posterity\" to\nlive under it. If they had intended to bind their posterity to live\nunder it, they should have said that their object was, not \"to secure to\nthem the blessings of liberty,\" but to make slaves of them; for if their\n\"posterity\" are bound to live under it, they are nothing less than the\nslaves of their foolish, tyrannical, and dead grandfathers.\n\nIt cannot be said that the Constitution formed \"the people of the United\nStates,\" for all time, into a corporation. It does not speak of \"the\npeople\" as a corporation, but as individuals. A corporation does not\ndescribe itself as \"we,\" nor as \"people,\" nor as \"ourselves.\" Nor does a\ncorporation, in legal language, have any \"posterity.\" It supposes itself\nto have, and speaks of itself as having, perpetual existence, as a\nsingle individuality.\n\nMoreover, no body of men, existing at any one time, have the power to\ncreate a perpetual corporation. A corporation can become practically\nperpetual only by the voluntary accession of new members, as the old\nones die off. But for this voluntary accession of new members, the\ncorporation necessarily dies with the death of those who originally\ncomposed it.\n\nLegally speaking, therefore, there is, in the Constitution, nothing that\nprofesses or attempts to bind the \"posterity\" of those who established\nit.\n\nIf, then, those who established the Constitution, had no power to bind,\nand did not attempt to bind, their posterity, the question arises,\nwhether their posterity have bound themselves. If they have done so,\nthey can have done so in only one or both of these two ways, viz., by\nvoting, and paying taxes.\n\n\n\n\nII.\n\n\nLet us consider these two matters, voting and tax paying, separately.\nAnd first of voting.\n\nAll the voting that has ever taken place under the Constitution, has\nbeen of such a kind that it not only did not pledge the whole people to\nsupport the Constitution, but it did not even pledge any one of them to\ndo so, as the following considerations show.\n\n1. In the very nature of things, the act of voting could bind nobody\nbut the actual voters. But owing to the property qualifications\nrequired, it is probable that, during the first twenty or thirty years\nunder the Constitution, not more than one-tenth, fifteenth, or perhaps\ntwentieth of the whole population (black and white, men, women, and\nminors) were permitted to vote. Consequently, so far as voting was\nconcerned, not more than one-tenth, fifteenth, or twentieth of those\nthen existing, could have incurred any obligation to support the\nConstitution.\n\nAt the present time, it is probable that not more than one-sixth of the\nwhole population are permitted to vote. Consequently, so far as voting\nis concerned, the other five-sixths can have given no pledge that they\nwill support the Constitution.\n\n2. Of the one-sixth that are permitted to vote, probably not more than\ntwo-thirds (about one-ninth of the whole population) have usually voted.\nMany never vote at all. Many vote only once in two, three, five, or ten\nyears, in periods of great excitement.\n\nNo one, by voting, can be said to pledge himself for any longer period\nthan that for which he votes. If, for example, I vote for an officer who\nis to hold his office for only a year, I cannot be said to have thereby\npledged myself to support the government beyond that term. Therefore, on\nthe ground of actual voting, it probably cannot be said that more than\none-ninth or one-eighth, of the whole population are usually under any\npledge to support the Constitution.\n\n3. It cannot be said that, by voting, a man pledges himself to support\nthe Constitution, unless the act of voting be a perfectly voluntary one\non his part. Yet the act of voting cannot properly be called a\nvoluntary one on the part of any very large number of those who do vote.\nIt is rather a measure of necessity imposed upon them by others, than\none of their own choice. On this point I repeat what was said in a\nformer number,[a] viz.:\n\n    \"In truth, in the case of individuals, their actual voting is\n    not to be taken as proof of consent, _even for the time being_.\n    On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without his\n    consent having even been asked a man finds himself environed by\n    a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him\n    to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of\n    his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees,\n    too, that other men practice this tyranny over him by the use of\n    the ballot. He sees further, that, if he will but use the ballot\n    himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this\n    tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he\n    finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use\n    the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he\n    must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these\n    two. In self-defence, he attempts the former. His case is\n    analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle,\n    where he must either kill others, or be killed himself. Because,\n    to save his own life in battle, a man attempts to take the lives\n    of his opponents, it is not to be inferred that the battle is\n    one of his own choosing. Neither in contests with the\n    ballot--which is a mere substitute for a bullet--because, as his\n    only chance of self-preservation, a man uses a ballot, is it to\n    be inferred that the contest is one into which he voluntarily\n    entered; that he voluntarily set up all his own natural rights,\n    as a stake against those of others, to be lost or won by the\n    mere power of numbers. On the contrary, it is to be considered\n    that, in an exigency into which he had been forced by others,\n    and in which no other means of self-defence offered, he, as a\n    matter of necessity, used the only one that was left to him.\n\n    \"Doubtless the most miserable of men, under the most oppressive\n    government in the world, if allowed the ballot, would use it, if\n    they could see any chance of thereby meliorating their\n    condition. But it would not, therefore, be a legitimate\n    inference that the government itself, that crushes them, was one\n    which they had voluntarily set up, or even consented to.\n\n    \"Therefore, a man's voting under the Constitution of the United\n    States, is not to be taken as evidence that he ever freely\n    assented to the Constitution, _even for the time being_.\n    Consequently we have no proof that any very large portion, even\n    of the actual voters of the United States, ever really and\n    voluntarily consented to the Constitution, _even for the time\n    being_. Nor can we ever have such proof, until every man is left\n    perfectly free to consent, or not, without thereby subjecting\n    himself or his property to be disturbed or injured by others.\"\n\nAs we can have no legal knowledge as to who votes from choice, and who\nfrom the necessity thus forced upon him, we can have no legal knowledge,\nas to any particular individual, that he voted from choice; or,\nconsequently, that by voting, he consented, or pledged himself, to\nsupport the government. Legally speaking, therefore, the act of voting\nutterly fails to pledge _any one_ to support the government. It utterly\nfails to prove that the government rests upon the voluntary support of\nanybody. On general principles of law and reason, it cannot be said that\nthe government has any voluntary supporters at all, until it can be\ndistinctly shown who its voluntary supporters are.\n\n4. As taxation is made compulsory on all, whether they vote or not, a\nlarge proportion of those who vote, no doubt do so to prevent their own\nmoney being used against themselves; when, in fact, they would have\ngladly abstained from voting, if they could thereby have saved\nthemselves from taxation alone, to say nothing of being saved from all\nthe other usurpations and tyrannies of the government. To take a man's\nproperty without his consent, and then to infer his consent because he\nattempts, by voting, to prevent that property from being used to his\ninjury, is a very insufficient proof of his consent to support the\nConstitution. It is, in fact, no proof at all. And as we can have no\nlegal knowledge as to who the particular individuals are, if there are\nany, who are willing to be taxed for the sake of voting, we can have no\nlegal knowledge that any particular individual consents to be taxed for\nthe sake of voting; or, consequently, consents to support the\nConstitution.\n\n5. At nearly all elections, votes are given for various candidates for\nthe same office. Those who vote for the unsuccessful candidates cannot\nproperly be said to have voted to sustain the Constitution. They may,\nwith more reason, be supposed to have voted, not to support the\nConstitution, but specially to prevent the tyranny which they anticipate\nthe successful candidate intends to practice upon them under color of\nthe Constitution; and therefore may reasonably be supposed to have voted\nagainst the Constitution itself. This supposition is the more\nreasonable, inasmuch as such voting is the only mode allowed to them of\nexpressing their dissent to the Constitution.\n\n6. Many votes are usually given for candidates who have no prospect of\nsuccess. Those who give such votes may reasonably be supposed to have\nvoted as they did, with a special intention, not to support, but to\nobstruct the execution of, the Constitution; and, therefore, against the\nConstitution itself.\n\n7. As all the different votes are given secretly (by secret ballot),\nthere is no legal means of knowing, from the votes themselves, who votes\nfor, and who against, the Constitution. Therefore, voting affords no\nlegal evidence that any particular individual supports the Constitution.\nAnd where there can be no legal evidence that any particular individual\nsupports the Constitution, it cannot legally be said that anybody\nsupports it. It is clearly impossible to have any legal proof of the\nintentions of large numbers of men, where there can be no legal proof of\nthe intentions of any particular one of them.\n\n8. There being no legal proof of any man's intentions, in voting, we can\nonly conjecture them. As a conjecture, it is probable, that a very large\nproportion of those who vote, do so on this principle, viz., that if, by\nvoting, they could but get the government into their own hands (or that\nof their friends), and use its powers against their opponents, they\nwould then willingly support the Constitution; but if their opponents\nare to have the power, and use it against them, then they would _not_\nwillingly support the Constitution.\n\nIn short, men's voluntary support of the Constitution is doubtless, in\nmost cases, wholly contingent upon the question whether, by means of the\nConstitution, they can make themselves masters, or are to be made\nslaves.\n\nSuch contingent consent as that is, in law and reason, no consent at\nall.\n\n9. As everybody who supports the Constitution by voting (if there are\nany such) does so secretly (by secret ballot), and in a way to avoid all\npersonal responsibility for the act of his agents or representatives, it\ncannot legally or reasonably be said that anybody at all supports the\nConstitution by voting. No man can reasonably or legally be said to do\nsuch a thing as to assent to, or support, the Constitution, _unless he\ndoes it openly, and in a way to make himself personally responsible for\nthe acts of his agents, so long as they act within the limits of the\npower he delegates to them_.\n\n10. As all voting is secret (by secret ballot), and as all secret\ngovernments are necessarily only secret bands of robbers, tyrants, and\nmurderers, the general fact that our government is practically carried\non by means of such voting, only proves that there is among us a secret\nband of robbers, tyrants and murderers, whose purpose is to rob,\nenslave, and, so far as necessary to accomplish their purposes, murder,\nthe rest of the people. The simple fact of the existence of such a band\ndoes nothing towards proving that \"the people of the United States,\" or\nany one of them, voluntarily supports the Constitution.\n\nFor all the reasons that have now been given, voting furnishes no legal\nevidence as to who the particular individuals are (if there are any),\nwho voluntarily support the Constitution. It therefore furnishes no\nlegal evidence that anybody supports it voluntarily.\n\nSo far, therefore, as voting is concerned, the Constitution, legally\nspeaking, has no supporters at all.\n\nAnd, as matter of fact, there is not the slightest probability that the\nConstitution has a single bona fide supporter in the country. That is to\nsay, there is not the slightest probability that there is a single man\nin the country, who both understands what the Constitution really is,\n_and sincerely supports it for what it really is_.\n\nThe ostensible supporters of the Constitution, like the ostensible\nsupporters of most other governments, are made up of three classes,\nviz.: 1. Knaves, a numerous and active class, who see in the government\nan instrument which they can use for their own aggrandizement or wealth.\n2. Dupes--a large class, no doubt--each of whom, because he is allowed\none voice out of millions in deciding what he may do with his own person\nand his own property, and because he is permitted to have the same voice\nin robbing, enslaving, and murdering others, that others have in\nrobbing, enslaving, and murdering himself, is stupid enough to imagine\nthat he is a \"free man,\" a \"sovereign\"; that this is \"a free\ngovernment\"; \"a government of equal rights,\" \"the best government on\nearth,\"[b] and such like absurdities. 3. A class who have some\nappreciation of the evils of government, but either do not see how to\nget rid of them, or do not choose to so far sacrifice their private\ninterests as to give themselves seriously and earnestly to the work of\nmaking a change.\n\n\n\n\nIII.\n\n\nThe payment of taxes, being compulsory, of course furnishes no evidence\nthat any one voluntarily supports the Constitution.\n\n1. It is true that the _theory_ of our Constitution is, that all taxes\nare paid voluntarily; that our government is a mutual insurance company,\nvoluntarily entered into by the people with each other; that each man\nmakes a free and purely voluntary contract with all others who are\nparties to the Constitution, to pay so much money for so much\nprotection, the same as he does with any other insurance company; and\nthat he is just as free not to be protected, and not to pay tax, as he\nis to pay a tax, and be protected.\n\nBut this theory of our government is wholly different from the practical\nfact. The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man:\n\"Your money, or your life.\" And many, if not most, taxes are paid under\nthe compulsion of that threat.\n\nThe government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring\nupon him from the roadside, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed\nto rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that\naccount; and it is far more dastardly and shameful.\n\nThe highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and\ncrime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim\nto your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He\ndoes not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired\nimpudence enough to profess to be merely a \"protector,\" and that he\ntakes men's money against their will, merely to enable him to \"protect\"\nthose infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect\nthemselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He\nis too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore,\nhaving taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does\nnot persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to\nbe your rightful \"sovereign,\" on account of the \"protection\" he affords\nyou. He does not keep \"protecting\" you, by commanding you to bow down\nand serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do\nthat; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his\ninterest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a\ntraitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without\nmercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too\nmuch of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and\nvillainies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you,\nattempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.\n\nThe proceedings of those robbers and murderers, who call themselves \"the\ngovernment,\" are directly the opposite of these of the single\nhighwayman.\n\nIn the first place, they do not, like him, make themselves individually\nknown; or, consequently, take upon themselves personally the\nresponsibility of their acts. On the contrary, they secretly (by secret\nballot) designate some one of their number to commit the robbery in\ntheir behalf, while they keep themselves practically concealed. They say\nto the person thus designated:\n\nGo to A---- B----, and say to him that \"the government\" has need of\nmoney to meet the expenses of protecting him and his property. If he\npresumes to say that he has never contracted with us to protect him, and\nthat he wants none of our protection, say to him that that is our\nbusiness, and not his; that we _choose_ to protect him, whether he desires\nus to do so or not; and that we demand pay, too, for protecting him. If\nhe dares to inquire who the individuals are, who have thus taken upon\nthemselves the title of \"the government,\" and who assume to protect him,\nand demand payment of him, without his having ever made any contract\nwith them, say to him that that, too, is our business, and not his; that\nwe do not _choose_ to make ourselves _individually_ known to him; that\nwe have secretly (by secret ballot) appointed you our agent to give him\nnotice of our demands, and, if he complies with them, to give him, in\nour name, a receipt that will protect him against any similar demand for\nthe present year. If he refuses to comply, seize and sell enough of his\nproperty to pay not only our demands, but all your own expenses and\ntrouble beside. If he resists the seizure of his property, call upon the\nbystanders to help you (doubtless some of them will prove to be members\nof our band). If, in defending his property, he should kill any of our\nband who are assisting you, capture him at all hazards; charge him (in\none of our courts) with murder; convict him, and hang him. If he should\ncall upon his neighbors, or any others who, like him, may be disposed to\nresist our demands, and they should come in large numbers to his\nassistance, cry out that they are all rebels and traitors; that \"our\ncountry\" is in danger; call upon the commander of our hired murderers;\ntell him to quell the rebellion and \"save the country,\" cost what it\nmay. Tell him to kill all who resist, though they should be hundreds of\nthousands; and thus strike terror into all others similarly disposed.\nSee that the work of murder is thoroughly done; that we may have no\nfurther trouble of this kind hereafter. When these traitors shall have\nthus been taught our strength and our determination, they will be good\nloyal citizens for many years, and pay their taxes without a why or a\nwherefore.\n\nIt is under such compulsion as this that taxes, so called, are paid. And\nhow much proof the payment of taxes affords, that the people consent to\nsupport \"the government,\" it needs no further argument to show.\n\n2. Still another reason why the payment of taxes implies no consent, or\npledge, to support the government, is that the taxpayer does not know,\nand has no means of knowing, who the particular individuals are who\ncompose \"the government.\" To him \"the government\" is a myth, an\nabstraction, an incorporeality, with which he can make no contract, and\nto which he can give no consent, and make no pledge. He knows it only\nthrough its pretended agents. \"The government\" itself he never sees. He\nknows indeed, by common report, that certain persons, of a certain age,\nare permitted to vote; and thus to make themselves parts of, or (if they\nchoose) opponents of, the government, for the time being. But who of\nthem do thus vote, and especially how each one votes (whether so as to\naid or oppose the government), he does not know; the voting being all\ndone secretly (by secret ballot). Who, therefore, practically compose\n\"the government,\" for the time being, he has no means of knowing. Of\ncourse he can make no contract with them, give them no consent, and make\nthem no pledge. Of necessity, therefore, his paying taxes to them\nimplies, on his part, no contract, consent, or pledge to support\nthem--that is, to support \"the government,\" or the Constitution.\n\n3. Not knowing who the particular individuals are, who call themselves\n\"the government,\" the taxpayer does not know whom he pays his taxes to.\nAll he knows is that a man comes to him, representing himself to be the\nagent of \"the government\"--that is, the agent of a secret band of\nrobbers and murderers, who have taken to themselves the title of \"the\ngovernment,\" and have determined to kill everybody who refuses to give\nthem whatever money they demand. To save his life, he gives up his money\nto this agent. But as this agent does not make his principals\nindividually known to the taxpayer, the latter, after he has given up\nhis money, knows no more who are \"the government\"--that is, who were the\nrobbers--than he did before. To say, therefore, that by giving up his\nmoney to their agent, he entered into a voluntary contract with them,\nthat he pledges himself to obey them, to support them, and to give them\nwhatever money they should demand of him in the future, is simply\nridiculous.\n\n4. All political power, as it is called, rests practically upon this\nmatter of money. Any number of scoundrels, having money enough to start\nwith, can establish themselves as a \"government\"; because, with money,\nthey can hire soldiers, and with soldiers extort more money; and also\ncompel general obedience to their will. It is with government, as Caesar\nsaid it was in war, that money and soldiers mutually supported each\nother; that with money he could hire soldiers, and with soldiers extort\nmoney. So these villains, who call themselves governments, well\nunderstand that their power rests primarily upon money. With money they\ncan hire soldiers, and with soldiers extort money. And, when their\nauthority is denied, the first use they always make of money, is to hire\nsoldiers to kill or subdue all who refuse them more money.\n\nFor this reason, whoever desires liberty, should understand these vital\nfacts, viz.: 1. That every man who puts money into the hands of a\n\"government\" (so called), puts into its hands a sword which will be used\nagainst himself, to extort more money from him, and also to keep him in\nsubjection to its arbitrary will. 2. That those who will take his money,\nwithout his consent, in the first place, will use it for his further\nrobbery and enslavement, if he presumes to resist their demands in the\nfuture. 3. That it is a perfect absurdity to suppose that any body of\nmen would ever take a man's money without his consent, for any such\nobject as they profess to take it for, viz., that of protecting him; for\nwhy should they wish to protect him, if he does not wish them to do so?\nTo suppose that they would do so, is just as absurd as it would be to\nsuppose that they would take his money without his consent, for the\npurpose of buying food or clothing for him, when he did not want it. 4.\nIf a man wants \"protection,\" he is competent to make his own bargains\nfor it; and nobody has any occasion to rob him, in order to \"protect\"\nhim against his will. 5. That the only security men can have for their\npolitical liberty, consists in their keeping their money in their own\npockets, until they have assurances, perfectly satisfactory to\nthemselves, that it will be used as they wish it to be used, for their\nbenefit, and not for their injury. 6. That no government, so called, can\nreasonably be trusted for a moment, or reasonably be supposed to have\nhonest purposes in view, any longer than it depends wholly upon\nvoluntary support.\n\nThese facts are all so vital and so self-evident, that it cannot\nreasonably be supposed that any one will voluntarily pay money to a\n\"government,\" for the purpose of securing its protection, unless he\nfirst makes an explicit and purely voluntary contract with it for that\npurpose.\n\nIt is perfectly evident, therefore, that neither such voting, nor such\npayment of taxes, as actually takes place, proves anybody's consent, or\nobligation, to support the Constitution. Consequently we have no\nevidence at all that the Constitution is binding upon anybody, or that\nanybody is under any contract or obligation whatever to support it. And\nnobody is under any obligation to support it.\n\n\n\n\nIV.\n\n\n_The Constitution not only binds nobody now, but it never did bind\nanybody._ It never bound anybody, because it was never agreed to by\nanybody in such a manner as to make it, on general principles of law and\nreason, binding upon him.\n\nIt is a general principle of law and reason, that a _written_ instrument\nbinds no one until he has signed it. This principle is so inflexible a\none, that even though a man is unable to write his name, he must still\n\"make his mark,\" before he is bound by a written contract. This custom\nwas established ages ago, when few men could write their names; when a\nclerk--that is, a man who could write--was so rare and valuable a\nperson, that even if he were guilty of high crimes, he was entitled to\npardon, on the ground that the public could not afford to lose his\nservices. Even at that time, a written contract must be signed; and men\nwho could not write, either \"made their mark,\" or signed their contracts\nby stamping their seals upon wax affixed to the parchment on which their\ncontracts were written. Hence the custom of affixing seals, that has\ncontinued to this time.\n\nThe law holds, and reason declares, that if a written instrument is not\nsigned, the presumption must be that the party to be bound by it, did\nnot choose to sign it, or to bind himself by it. And law and reason both\ngive him until the last moment, in which to decide whether he will sign\nit, or not. Neither law nor reason requires or expects a man to agree to\nan instrument, _until it is written_; for until it is written, he cannot\nknow its precise legal meaning. And when it is written, and he has had\nthe opportunity to satisfy himself of its precise legal meaning, he is\nthen expected to decide, and not before, whether he will agree to it or\nnot. And if he does not _then_ sign it, his reason is supposed to be,\nthat he does not choose to enter into such a contract. The fact that the\ninstrument was written for him to sign, or with the hope that he would\nsign it, goes for nothing.\n\nWhere would be the end of fraud and litigation, if one party could bring\ninto court a written instrument, without any signature, and claim to\nhave it enforced, upon the ground that it was written for another man to\nsign? that this other man had promised to sign it? that he ought to have\nsigned it? that he had had the opportunity to sign it, if he would? but\nthat he had refused or neglected to do so? Yet that is the most that\ncould ever be said of the Constitution.[c] The very judges, who profess\nto derive all their authority from the Constitution--from an instrument\nthat nobody ever signed--would spurn any other instrument, not signed,\nthat should be brought before them for adjudication.\n\nMoreover, a written instrument must, in law and reason, not only be\nsigned, but must also be delivered to the party (or to some one for\nhim), in whose favor it is made, before it can bind the party making it.\nThe signing is of no effect, unless the instrument be also delivered.\nAnd a party is at perfect liberty to refuse to deliver a written\ninstrument, after he has signed it. He is as free to refuse to deliver\nit, as he is to refuse to sign it. The Constitution was not only never\nsigned by anybody, but it was never delivered by anybody, or to\nanybody's agent or attorney. It can therefore be of no more validity as\na contract, than can any other instrument, that was never signed or\ndelivered.\n\n\n\n\nV.\n\n\nAs further evidence of the general sense of mankind, as to the practical\nnecessity there is that all men's _important_ contracts, especially\nthose of a permanent nature, should be both written and signed, the\nfollowing facts are pertinent.\n\nFor nearly two hundred years--that is, since 1677--there has been on the\nstatute book of England, and the same, in substance, if not precisely in\nletter, has been re-enacted, and is now in force, in nearly or quite all\nthe States of this Union, a statute, the general object of which is to\ndeclare that no action shall be brought to enforce contracts of the more\nimportant class, _unless they are put in writing, and signed by the\nparties to be held chargeable upon them_.[d]\n\nThe principle of the statute, be it observed, is, not merely that\nwritten contracts shall be signed, but also that all contracts, except\nthose specially exempted--generally those that are for small amounts,\nand are to remain in force but for a short time--_shall be both written\nand signed_.\n\nThe reason of the statute, on this point, is, that it is now so easy a\nthing for men to put their contracts in writing, and sign them, and\ntheir failure to do so opens the door to so much doubt, fraud, and\nlitigation, that men who neglect to have their contracts--of any\nconsiderable importance--written and signed, ought not to have the\nbenefit of courts of justice to enforce them. And this reason is a wise\none; and that experience has confirmed its wisdom and necessity, is\ndemonstrated by the fact that it has been acted upon in England for\nnearly two hundred years, and has been so nearly universally adopted in\nthis country, and that nobody thinks of repealing it.\n\nWe all know, too, how careful most men are to have their contracts\nwritten and signed, even when this statute does not require it. For\nexample, most men, if they have money due them, of no larger amount than\nfive or ten dollars, are careful to take a note for it. If they buy even\na small bill of goods, paying for it at the time of delivery, they take\na receipted bill for it. If they pay a small balance of a book account,\nor any other small debt previously contracted, they take a written\nreceipt for it.\n\nFurthermore, the law everywhere (probably) in our country, as well as in\nEngland, requires that a large class of contracts, such as wills, deeds,\netc., shall not only be written and signed, but also sealed, witnessed,\nand acknowledged. And in the case of married women conveying their\nrights in real estate, the law, in many States, requires that the women\nshall be examined separate and apart from their husbands, and declare\nthat they sign their contracts free of any fear or compulsion of their\nhusbands.\n\nSuch are some of the precautions which the laws require, and which\nindividuals--from motives of common prudence, even in cases not required\nby law--take, to put their contracts in writing, and have them signed,\nand, to guard against all uncertainties and controversies in regard to\ntheir meaning and validity. And yet we have what purports, or professes,\nor is claimed, to be a contract--the Constitution--made eighty years\nago, by men who are now all dead, and who never had any power to bind\n_us_, but which (it is claimed) has nevertheless bound three generations\nof men, consisting of many millions, and which (it is claimed) will be\nbinding upon all the millions that are to come; but which nobody ever\nsigned, sealed, delivered, witnessed, or acknowledged; and which few\npersons, compared with the whole number that are claimed to be bound by\nit, have ever read, or even seen, or ever will read, or see. And of\nthose who ever have read it, or ever will read it, scarcely any two,\nperhaps no two, have ever agreed, or ever will agree, as to what it\nmeans.\n\nMoreover, this supposed contract, which would not be received in any\ncourt of justice sitting under its authority, if offered to prove a debt\nof five dollars, owing by one man to another, is one by which--_as it is\ngenerally interpreted by those who pretend to administer it_--all men,\nwomen and children throughout the country, and through all time,\nsurrender not only all their property, but also their liberties, and\neven lives, into the hands of men who by this supposed contract, are\nexpressly made wholly irresponsible for their disposal of them. And we\nare so insane, or so wicked, as to destroy property and lives without\nlimit, in fighting to compel men to fulfill a supposed contract, which,\ninasmuch as it has never been signed by anybody, is, on general\nprinciples of law and reason--such principles as we are all governed by\nin regard to other contracts--the merest waste paper, binding upon\nnobody, fit only to be thrown into the fire; or, if preserved, preserved\nonly to serve as a witness and a warning of the folly and wickedness of\nmankind.\n\n\n\n\nVI.\n\n\nIt is no exaggeration, but a literal truth, to say that, by the\nConstitution--_not as I interpret it, but as it is interpreted by those\nwho pretend to administer it_--the properties, liberties, and lives of\nthe entire people of the United States are surrendered unreservedly into\nthe hands of men who, it is provided by the Constitution itself, shall\nnever be \"questioned\" as to any disposal they make of them.\n\nThus the Constitution (Art. I, Sec. 6) provides that, \"for any speech or\ndebate (or vote), in either house, they (the senators and\nrepresentatives) shall not be questioned in any other place.\"\n\nThe whole law-making power is given to these senators and\nrepresentatives (when acting by a two-thirds vote)[e]; and this\nprovision protects them from all responsibility for the laws they make.\n\nThe Constitution also enables them to secure the execution of all their\nlaws, by giving them power to withhold the salaries of, and to impeach\nand remove, all judicial and executive officers, who refuse to execute\nthem.\n\nThus the whole power of the government is in their hands, and they are\nmade utterly irresponsible for the use they make of it. What is this but\nabsolute, irresponsible power?\n\nIt is no answer to this view of the case to say that these men are under\noath to use their power only within certain limits; for what care they,\nor what should they care, for oaths or limits, when it is expressly\nprovided, by the Constitution itself, that they shall never be\n\"questioned,\" or held to any responsibility whatever, for violating\ntheir oaths, or transgressing those limits?\n\nNeither is it any answer to this view of the case to say that the\nparticular individuals holding this power can be changed once in two or\nsix years; for the power of each set of men is absolute during the term\nfor which they hold it; and when they can hold it no longer, they are\nsucceeded only by men whose power will be equally absolute and\nirresponsible.\n\nNeither is it any answer to this view of the case to say that the men\nholding this absolute, irresponsible power, must be men chosen by the\npeople (or portions of them) to hold it. A man is none the less a slave\nbecause he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.\nNeither are a people any the less slaves because permitted periodically\nto choose new masters. What makes them slaves is the fact that they now\nare, and are always hereafter to be, in the hands of men whose power\nover them is, and always is to be, absolute and irresponsible.[f]\n\nThe right of absolute and irresponsible dominion is the right of\nproperty, and the right of property is the right of absolute,\nirresponsible dominion. The two are identical; the one necessarily\nimplying the other. Neither can exist without the other. If, therefore,\nCongress have that absolute and irresponsible law-making power, which\nthe Constitution--according to their interpretation of it--gives them,\nit can only be because they own us as property. If they own us as\nproperty, they are our masters, and their will is our law. If they do\nnot own us as property, they are not our masters, and their will, as\nsuch, is of no authority over us.\n\nBut these men who claim and exercise this absolute and irresponsible\ndominion over us, dare not be consistent, and claim either to be our\nmasters, or to own us as property. They say they are only our servants,\nagents, attorneys, and representatives. But this declaration involves an\nabsurdity, a contradiction. No man can be my servant, agent, attorney,\nor representative, and be, at the same time, uncontrollable by me, and\nirresponsible to me for his acts. It is of no importance that I\nappointed him, and put all power in his hands. If I made him\nuncontrollable by me, and irresponsible to me, he is no longer my\nservant, agent, attorney, or representative. If I gave him absolute,\nirresponsible power over my property, I gave him the property. If I gave\nhim absolute, irresponsible power over myself, I made him my master, and\ngave myself to him as a slave. And it is of no importance whether I\ncalled him master or servant, agent or owner. The only question is, what\npower did I put into his hands? Was it an absolute and irresponsible\none? or a limited and responsible one?\n\nFor still another reason they are neither our servants, agents,\nattorneys, nor representatives. And that reason is, that we do not make\nourselves responsible for their acts. If a man is my servant, agent, or\nattorney, I necessarily make myself responsible for all his acts done\nwithin the limits of the power I have intrusted to him. If I have\nintrusted him, as my agent, with either absolute power, or any power at\nall, over the persons or properties of other men than myself, I thereby\nnecessarily make myself responsible to those other persons for any\ninjuries he may do them, so long as he acts within the limits of the\npower I have granted him. But no individual who may be injured in his\nperson or property, by acts of Congress, can come to the individual\nelectors, and hold them responsible for these acts of their so-called\nagents or representatives. This fact proves that these pretended agents\nof the people, of everybody, are really the agents of nobody.\n\nIf, then, nobody is individually responsible for the acts of Congress,\nthe members of Congress are nobody's agents. And if they are nobody's\nagents, they are themselves individually responsible for their own acts,\nand for the acts of all whom they employ. And the authority they are\nexercising is simply their own individual authority; and, by the law of\nnature--the highest of all laws--anybody injured by their acts, anybody\nwho is deprived by them of his property or his liberty, has the same\nright to hold them individually responsible, that he has to hold any\nother trespasser individually responsible. He has the same right to\nresist them, and their agents, that he has to resist any other\ntrespassers.\n\n\n\n\nVII.\n\n\nIt is plain, then, that on general principles of law and reason--such\nprinciples as we all act upon in courts of justice and in common\nlife--the Constitution is no contract; that it binds nobody, and never\ndid bind anybody; and that all those who pretend to act by its\nauthority, are really acting without any legitimate authority at all;\nthat, on general principles of law and reason, they are mere usurpers,\nand that everybody not only has the right, but is morally bound, to\ntreat them as such.\n\nIf the people of this country wish to maintain such a government as the\nConstitution describes, there is no reason in the world why they should\nnot sign the instrument itself, and thus make known their wishes in an\nopen, authentic manner; in such manner as the common sense and\nexperience of mankind have shown to be reasonable and necessary in such\ncases; _and in such manner as to make themselves (as they ought to do)\nindividually responsible for the acts of the government_. But the people\nhave never been asked to sign it. And the only reason why they have\nnever been asked to sign it, has been that it has been known that they\nnever would sign it; that they were neither such fools nor knaves as\nthey must needs have been to be willing to sign it; that (at least as it\nhas been practically interpreted) it is not what any sensible and honest\nman wants for himself; nor such as he has any right to impose upon\nothers. It is, to all moral intents and purposes, as destitute of\nobligation as the compacts which robbers and thieves and pirates enter\ninto with each other, but never sign.\n\nIf any considerable number of the people believe the Constitution to be\ngood, why do they not sign it themselves, and make laws for, and\nadminister them upon, each other; leaving all other persons (who do not\ninterfere with them) in peace? Until they have tried the experiment for\nthemselves, how can they have the face to impose the Constitution upon,\nor even to recommend it to, others? Plainly the reason for such absurd\nand inconsistent conduct is that they want the Constitution, not solely\nfor any honest or legitimate use it can be of to themselves or others,\nbut for the dishonest and illegitimate power it gives them over the\npersons and properties of others. But for this latter reason, all their\neulogiums on the Constitution, all their exhortations, and all their\nexpenditures of money and blood to sustain it, would be wanting.\n\n\n\n\nVIII.\n\n\nThe Constitution itself, then, being of no authority, on what authority\ndoes our government practically rest? On what ground can those who\npretend to administer it, claim the right to seize men's property, to\nrestrain them of their natural liberty of action, industry, and trade,\nand to kill all who deny their authority to dispose of men's properties,\nliberties, and lives at their pleasure or discretion?\n\nThe most they can say, in answer to this question, is, that some half,\ntwo-thirds, or three-fourths, of the male adults of the country have a\n_tacit understanding_ that they will maintain a government under the\nConstitution; that they will select, by ballot, the persons to\nadminister it; and that those persons who may receive a majority, or a\nplurality, of their ballots, shall act as their representatives, and\nadminister the Constitution in their name, and by their authority.\n\nBut this tacit understanding (admitting it to exist) cannot at all\njustify the conclusion drawn from it. A tacit understanding between A,\nB, and C, that they will, by ballot, depute D as their agent, to deprive\nme of my property, liberty, or life, cannot at all authorize D to do so.\nHe is none the less a robber, tyrant, and murderer, because he claims to\nact as their agent, than he would be if he avowedly acted on his own\nresponsibility alone.\n\nNeither am I bound to recognize him as their agent, nor can he\nlegitimately claim to be their agent, when he brings no _written_\nauthority from them accrediting him as such. I am under no obligation to\ntake his word as to who his principals may be, or whether he has any.\nBringing no credentials, I have a right to say he has no such authority\neven as he claims to have: and that he is therefore intending to rob,\nenslave, or murder me on his own account.\n\nThis tacit understanding, therefore, among the voters of the country,\namounts to nothing as an authority to their agents. Neither do the\nballots by which they select their agents, avail any more than does\ntheir tacit understanding; for their ballots are given in secret, and\ntherefore in a way to avoid any personal responsibility for the acts of\ntheir agents.\n\nNo body of men can be said to authorize a man to act as their agent, to\nthe injury of a third person, unless they do it in so open and authentic\na manner as to make themselves personally responsible for his acts. None\nof the voters in this country appoint their political agents in any\nopen, authentic manner, or in any manner to make themselves responsible\nfor their acts. Therefore these pretended agents cannot legitimately\nclaim to be really agents. Somebody must be responsible for the acts of\nthese pretended agents; and if they cannot show any open and authentic\ncredentials from their principals, they cannot, in law or reason, be\nsaid to have any principals. The maxim applies here, that what does not\nappear, does not exist. If they can show no principals, they have none.\n\nBut even these pretended agents do not themselves know who their\npretended principals are. These latter act in secret; for acting by\nsecret ballot is acting in secret as much as if they were to meet in\nsecret conclave in the darkness of the night. And they are personally as\nmuch unknown to the agents they select, as they are to others. No\npretended agent therefore can ever know by whose ballots he is selected,\nor consequently who his real principals are. Not knowing who his\nprincipals are, he has no right to say that he has any. He can, at most,\nsay only that he is the agent of a secret band of robbers and murderers,\nwho are bound by that faith which prevails among confederates in crime,\nto stand by him, if his acts, done in their name, shall be resisted.\n\nMen honestly engaged in attempting to establish justice in the world,\nhave no occasion thus to act in secret; or to appoint agents to do acts\nfor which they (the principals) are not willing to be responsible.\n\nThe secret ballot makes a secret government; and a secret government is\na secret band of robbers and murderers. Open despotism is better than\nthis. The single despot stands out in the face of all men, and says: I\nam the State: My will is law: I am your master: I take the\nresponsibility of my acts: The only arbiter I acknowledge is the sword:\nIf any one denies my right, let him try conclusions with me.\n\nBut a secret government is little less than a government of assassins.\nUnder it, a man knows not who his tyrants are, until they have struck,\nand perhaps not then. He may _guess_, beforehand, as to some of his\nimmediate neighbors. But he really knows nothing. The man to whom he\nwould most naturally fly for protection, may prove an enemy, when the\ntime of trial comes.\n\nThis is the kind of government we have; and it is the only one we are\nlikely to have, until men are ready to say: We will consent to no\nConstitution, except such an one as we are neither ashamed nor afraid to\nsign; and we will authorize no government to do anything in our name\nwhich we are not willing to be personally responsible for.\n\n\n\n\nIX.\n\n\nWhat is the motive to the secret ballot? This, and only this: Like other\nconfederates in crime, those who use it are not friends, but enemies;\nand they are afraid to be known, and to have their individual doings\nknown, even to each other. They can contrive to bring about a sufficient\nunderstanding to enable them to act in concert against other persons;\nbut beyond this they have no confidence, and no friendship, among\nthemselves. In fact, they are engaged quite as much in schemes for\nplundering each other, as in plundering those who are not of them. And\nit is perfectly well understood among them that the strongest party\namong them will, in certain contingencies, murder each other by the\nhundreds of thousands (as they lately did do) to accomplish their\npurposes against each other. Hence they dare not be known, and have\ntheir individual doings known, even to each other. And this is avowedly\nthe only reason for the ballot: for a secret government; a government by\nsecret bands of robbers and murderers. And we are insane enough to call\nthis liberty! To be a member of this secret band of robbers and\nmurderers is esteemed a privilege and an honor! Without this privilege,\na man is considered a slave; but with it a free man! With it he is\nconsidered a free man, because he has the same power to secretly (by\nsecret ballot) procure the robbery, enslavement, and murder of another\nman, and that other man has to procure his robbery, enslavement, and\nmurder. And this they call equal rights!\n\nIf any number of men, many or few, claim the right to govern the people\nof this country, let them make and sign an open compact with each other\nto do so. Let them thus make themselves individually known to those whom\nthey propose to govern. And let them thus openly take the legitimate\nresponsibility of their acts. How many of those who now support the\nConstitution, will ever do this? How many will ever dare openly proclaim\ntheir right to govern? or take the legitimate responsibility of their\nacts? Not one!\n\n\n\n\nX.\n\n\nIt is obvious that, on general principles of law and reason, there\nexists no such thing as a government created by, or resting upon, any\nconsent, compact, or agreement of \"the people of the United States\" with\neach other; that the only visible, tangible, responsible government that\nexists, is that of a few individuals only, who act in concert, and call\nthemselves by the several names of senators, representatives,\npresidents, judges, marshals, treasurers, collectors, generals,\ncolonels, captains, etc., etc.\n\nOn general principles of law and reason, it is of no importance whatever\nthat those few individuals profess to be the agents and representatives\nof \"the people of the United States\"; since they can show no credentials\nfrom the people themselves; they were never appointed as agents or\nrepresentatives in any open, authentic manner; they do not themselves\nknow, and have no means of knowing, and cannot prove, who their\nprincipals (as they call them) are individually; and consequently\ncannot, in law or reason, be said to have any principals at all.\n\nIt is obvious, too, that if these alleged principals ever did appoint\nthese pretended agents, or representatives, they appointed them secretly\n(by secret ballot), and in a way to avoid all personal responsibility\nfor their acts; that, at most, these alleged principals put these\npretended agents forward for the most criminal purposes, viz: to plunder\nthe people of their property, and restrain them of their liberty; and\nthat the only authority that these alleged principals have for so doing,\nis simply a _tacit understanding_ among themselves that they will\nimprison, shoot, or hang every man who resists the exactions and\nrestraints which their agents or representatives may impose upon them.\n\nThus it is obvious that the only visible, tangible government we have is\nmade up of these professed agents or representatives of a secret band of\nrobbers and murderers, who, to cover up, or gloss over, their robberies\nand murders, have taken to themselves the title of \"the people of the\nUnited States\"; and who, on the pretense of being \"the people of the\nUnited States,\" assert their right to subject to their dominion, and to\ncontrol and dispose of at their pleasure, all property and persons found\nin the United States.\n\n\n\n\nXI.\n\n\nOn general principles of law and reason, the oaths which these pretended\nagents of the people take \"to support the Constitution,\" are of no\nvalidity or obligation. And why? For this, if for no other reason, viz.,\n_that they are given to nobody_. There is no privity (as the lawyers\nsay)--that is, no mutual recognition, consent, and agreement--between\nthose who take these oaths, and any other persons.\n\nIf I go upon Boston Common, and in the presence of a hundred thousand\npeople, men, women and children, with whom I have no contract on the\nsubject, take an oath that I will enforce upon them the laws of Moses,\nof Lycurgus, of Solon, of Justinian, or of Alfred, that oath is, on\ngeneral principles of law and reason, of no obligation. It is of no\nobligation, not merely because it is intrinsically a criminal one, _but\nalso because it is given to nobody_, and consequently pledges my faith\nto nobody. It is merely given to the winds.\n\nIt would not alter the case at all to say that, among these hundred\nthousand persons, in whose presence the oath was taken, there were two,\nthree, or five thousand male adults, who had _secretly_--by secret\nballot, and in a way to avoid making themselves _individually_ known to\nme, or to the remainder of the hundred thousand--designated me as their\nagent to rule, control, plunder, and, if need be, murder, these hundred\nthousand people. The fact that they had designated me secretly, and in a\nmanner to prevent my knowing them individually, prevents all privity\nbetween them and me; and consequently makes it impossible that there can\nbe any contract, or pledge of faith, on my part towards them; for it is\nimpossible that I can pledge my faith, in any legal sense, to a man whom\nI neither know, nor have any means of knowing, individually.\n\nSo far as I am concerned, then, these two, three, or five thousand\npersons are a secret band of robbers and murderers, who have secretly,\nand in a way to save themselves from all responsibility for my acts,\ndesignated me as their agent; and have, through some other agent, or\npretended agent, made their wishes known to me. But being, nevertheless,\nindividually unknown to me, and having no open, authentic contract with\nme, my oath is, on general principles of law and reason, of no validity\nas a pledge of faith to them. And being no pledge of faith to them, it\nis no pledge of faith to anybody. It is mere idle wind. At most, it is\nonly a pledge of faith to an unknown band of robbers and murderers,\nwhose instrument for plundering and murdering other people, I thus\npublicly confess myself to be. And it has no other obligation than a\nsimilar oath given to any other unknown body of pirates, robbers, and\nmurderers.\n\nFor these reasons the oaths taken by members of Congress, \"to support\nthe Constitution,\" are, on general principles of law and reason, of no\nvalidity. They are not only criminal in themselves, and therefore void;\nbut they are also void for the further reason _that they are given to\nnobody_.\n\nIt cannot be said that, in any legitimate or legal sense, they are\ngiven to \"the people of the United States\"; because neither the whole,\nnor any large proportion of the whole, people of the United States ever,\neither openly or secretly, appointed or designated these men as their\nagents to carry the Constitution into effect. The great body of the\npeople--that is, men, women and children--were never asked, or even\npermitted, to signify, in any _formal_ manner, either openly or\nsecretly, their choice or wish on the subject. The most that these\nmembers of Congress can say, in favor of their appointment, is simply\nthis: Each one can say for himself:\n\nI have evidence satisfactory to myself, that there exists, scattered\nthroughout the country, a band of men, having a tacit understanding with\neach other, and calling themselves \"the people of the United States,\"\nwhose general purposes are to control and plunder each other, and all\nother persons in the country, and, so far as they can, even in\nneighboring countries; and to kill every man who shall attempt to defend\nhis person and property against their schemes of plunder and dominion.\nWho these men are, _individually_, I have no certain means of knowing,\nfor they sign no papers, and give no open, authentic evidence of their\nindividual membership. They are not known individually even to each\nother. They are apparently as much afraid of being individually known to\neach other, as of being known to other persons. Hence they ordinarily\nhave no mode either of exercising, or of making known, their individual\nmembership, otherwise than by giving their votes secretly for certain\nagents to do their will. But although these men are individually\nunknown, both to each other and to other persons, it is generally\nunderstood in the country that none but male persons, of the age of\ntwenty-one years and upwards, can be members. It is also generally\nunderstood that _all_ male persons, born in the country, having certain\ncomplexions, and (in some localities) certain amounts of property, and\n(in certain cases) even persons of foreign birth, are _permitted_ to be\nmembers. But it appears that usually not more than one half, two-thirds,\nor, in some cases, three-fourths, of all who are thus permitted to\nbecome members of the band, ever exercise, or consequently prove, their\nactual membership, in the only mode in which they ordinarily can\nexercise or prove it, viz., by giving their votes secretly for the\nofficers or agents of the band. The number of these secret votes, so far\nas we have any account of them, varies greatly from year to year, thus\ntending to prove that the band, instead of being a permanent\norganization, is a merely _pro tempore_ affair with those who choose to\nact with it for the time being. The gross number of these secret votes,\nor what purports to be their gross number, in different localities, is\noccasionally published. Whether these reports are accurate or not, we\nhave no means of knowing. It is generally supposed that great frauds are\noften committed in depositing them. They are understood to be received\nand counted by certain men, who are themselves appointed for that\npurpose by the same secret process by which all other officers and\nagents of the band are selected. According to the reports of these\nreceivers of votes (for whose accuracy or honesty, however, I cannot\nvouch), and according to my best knowledge of the whole number of male\npersons \"in my district,\" who (it is supposed) were permitted to vote,\nit would appear that one-half, two-thirds or three-fourths actually did\nvote. Who the men were, individually, who cast these votes, I have no\nknowledge, for the whole thing was done secretly. But of the secret\nvotes thus given for what they call a \"member of Congress,\" the\nreceivers reported that I had a majority, or at least a larger number\nthan any other one person. And it is only by virtue of such a\ndesignation that I am now here to act in concert with other persons\nsimilarly selected in other parts of the country. It is understood among\nthose who sent me here, that all the persons so selected, will, on\ncoming together at the City of Washington, take an oath in each other's\npresence \"to support the Constitution of the United States.\" By this is\nmeant a certain paper that was drawn up eighty years ago. It was never\nsigned by anybody, and apparently has no obligation, and never had any\nobligation, as a contract. In fact, few persons ever read it, and\ndoubtless much the largest number of those who voted for me and the\nothers, never even saw it, or now pretend to know what it means.\nNevertheless, it is often spoken of in the country as \"the Constitution\nof the United States\"; and for some reason or another, the men who sent\nme here, seem to expect that I, and all with whom I act, will swear to\ncarry this Constitution into effect. I am therefore ready to take this\noath, and to co-operate with all others, similarly selected, who are\nready to take the same oath.\n\nThis is the most that any member of Congress can say in proof that he\nhas any constituency; that he represents anybody; that his oath \"to\nsupport the Constitution,\" _is given to anybody_, or pledges his faith\nto _anybody_. He has no open, written, or other authentic evidence,\nsuch as is required in all other cases, that he was ever appointed the\nagent or representative of anybody. He has no written power of attorney\nfrom any single individual. He has no such legal knowledge as is\nrequired in all other cases, by which he can identify a single one of\nthose who pretend to have appointed him to represent them.\n\nOf course his oath, professedly given to them, \"to support the\nConstitution,\" is, on general principles of law and reason, an oath\ngiven to nobody. It pledges his faith to nobody. If he fails to fulfil\nhis oath, not a single person can come forward, and say to him, you have\nbetrayed me, or broken faith with me.\n\nNo one can come forward and say to him: I appointed you my attorney to\nact for me. I required you to swear that, as my attorney, you would\nsupport the Constitution. You promised me that you would do so; and now\nyou have forfeited the oath you gave to me. No single individual can say\nthis.\n\nNo open, avowed, or responsible association, or body of men, can come\nforward and say to him: We appointed you our attorney, to act for us. We\nrequired you to swear that, as our attorney, you would support the\nConstitution. You promised us that you would do so; and now you have\nforfeited the oath you gave to us.\n\nNo open, avowed, or responsible association, or body of men, can say\nthis to him; because there is no such association or body of men in\nexistence. If any one should assert that there is such an association,\nlet him prove, if he can, who compose it. Let him produce, if he can,\nany open, written, or other authentic contract, signed or agreed to by\nthese men; forming themselves into an association; making themselves\nknown as such to the world; appointing him as their agent; and making\nthemselves individually, or as an association, responsible for his acts,\ndone by their authority. Until all this can be shown, no one can say\nthat, in any legitimate sense, there is any such association; or that he\nis their agent; or that he ever gave his oath to them; or ever pledged\nhis faith to them.\n\nOn general principles of law and reason, it would be a sufficient answer\nfor him to say, to all individuals, and all pretended associations of\nindividuals, who should accuse him of a breach of faith to them:\n\nI never knew you. Where is your evidence that you, either individually\nor collectively, ever appointed me your attorney? that you ever required\nme to swear to you, that, as your attorney, I would support the\nConstitution? or that I have now broken any faith I ever pledged to you?\nYou may, or you may not, be members of that secret band of robbers and\nmurderers, who act in secret; appoint their agents by a secret ballot;\nwho keep themselves individually unknown even to the agents they thus\nappoint; and who, therefore, cannot claim that they have any agents; or\nthat any of their pretended agents ever gave his oath, or pledged his\nfaith, to them. I repudiate you altogether. My oath was given to others,\nwith whom you have nothing to do; or it was idle wind, given only to the\nidle winds. Begone!\n\n\n\n\nXII.\n\n\nFor the same reasons, the oaths of all the other pretended agents of\nthis secret band of robbers and murderers are, on general principles of\nlaw and reason, equally destitute of obligation. They are given to\nnobody; but only to the winds.\n\nThe oaths of the tax-gatherers and treasurers of the band, are, on\ngeneral principles of law and reason, of no validity. If any tax\ngatherer, for example, should put the money he receives into his own\npocket, and refuse to part with it, the members of this band could not\nsay to him: You collected that money as our agent, and for our uses; and\nyou swore to pay it over to us, or to those we should appoint to receive\nit. You have betrayed us, and broken faith with us.\n\nIt would be a sufficient answer for him to say to them:\n\nI never knew you. You never made yourselves individually known to me. I\nnever gave my oath to you, as individuals. You may, or you may not, be\nmembers of that secret band, who appoint agents to rob and murder other\npeople; but who are cautious not to make themselves individually known,\neither to such agents, or to those whom their agents are commissioned to\nrob. If you are members of that band, you have given me no proof that\nyou ever commissioned me to rob others for your benefit. I never knew\nyou, as individuals, and of course never promised you that I would pay\nover to you the proceeds of my robberies. I committed my robberies on my\nown account, and for my own profit. If you thought I was fool enough to\nallow you to keep yourselves concealed, and use me as your tool for\nrobbing other persons; or that I would take all the personal risk of the\nrobberies, and pay over the proceeds to you, you were particularly\nsimple. As I took all the risk of my robberies, I propose to take all\nthe profits. Begone! You are fools, as well as villains. If I gave my\noath to anybody, I gave it to other persons than you. But I really gave\nit to nobody. I only gave it to the winds. It answered my purposes at\nthe time. It enabled me to get the money I was after, and now I propose\nto keep it. If you expected me to pay it over to you, you relied only\nupon that honor that is said to prevail among thieves. You now\nunderstand that that is a very poor reliance. I trust you may become\nwise enough to never rely upon it again. If I have any duty in the\nmatter, it is to give back the money to those from whom I took it; not\nto pay it over to such villains as you.\n\n\n\n\nXIII.\n\n\nOn general principles of law and reason, the oaths which foreigners\ntake, on coming here, and being \"naturalized\" (as it is called), are of\nno validity. They are necessarily given to nobody; because there is no\nopen, authentic association, to which they can join themselves; or to\nwhom, as individuals, they can pledge their faith. No such association,\nor organization, as \"the people of the United States,\" having ever been\nformed by any open, written, authentic, or voluntary contract, there is,\non general principles of law and reason, no such association, or\norganization, in existence. And all oaths that purport to be given to\nsuch an association are necessarily given only to the winds. They cannot\nbe said to be given to any man, or body of men, as individuals, because\nno man, or body of men, can come forward _with any proof_ that the oaths\nwere given to them, as individuals, or to any association of which they\nare members. To say that there is a tacit understanding among a portion\nof the male adults of the country, that they will call themselves \"the\npeople of the United States,\" and that they will act in concert in\nsubjecting the remainder of the people of the United States to their\ndominion; but that they will keep themselves personally concealed by\ndoing all their acts secretly, is wholly insufficient, on general\nprinciples of law and reason, to prove the existence of any such\nassociation, or organization, as \"the people of the United States\"; or\nconsequently to prove that the oaths of foreigners were given to any\nsuch association.\n\n\n\n\nXIV.\n\n\nOn general principles of law and reason, all the oaths which, since the\nwar, have been given by Southern men, that they will obey the laws of\nCongress, support the Union, and the like, are of no validity. Such\noaths are invalid, not only because they were extorted by military\npower, and threats of confiscation, and because they are in\ncontravention of men's natural right to do as they please about\nsupporting the government, _but also because they were given to nobody_.\nThey were nominally given to \"the United States.\" But being nominally\ngiven to \"the United States,\" they were necessarily given to nobody,\nbecause, on general principles of law and reason, there were no \"United\nStates,\" to whom the oaths could be given. That is to say, there was no\nopen, authentic, avowed, legitimate association, corporation, or body of\nmen, known as \"the United States,\" or as \"the people of the United\nStates,\" to whom the oaths could have been given. If anybody says there\nwas such a corporation, let him state who were the individuals that\ncomposed it, and how and when they became a corporation. Were Mr. A, Mr.\nB, and Mr. C members of it? If so, where are their signatures? Where the\nevidence of their membership? Where the record? Where the open,\nauthentic proof? There is none. Therefore, in law and reason, there was\nno such corporation.\n\nOn general principles of law and reason, every corporation, association,\nor organized body of men, having a legitimate corporate existence, and\nlegitimate corporate rights, must consist of certain known individuals,\nwho can prove, by legitimate and reasonable evidence, their membership.\nBut nothing of this kind can be proved in regard to the corporation, or\nbody of men, who call themselves \"the United States.\" Not a man of them,\nin all the Northern States, can prove by any legitimate evidence, such\nas is required to prove membership in other legal corporations, that he\nhimself, or any other man whom he can name, is a member of any\ncorporation or association called \"the United States,\" or \"the people of\nthe United States,\" or, consequently, that there is any such\ncorporation. And since no such corporation can be proved to exist, it\ncannot of course be proved that the oaths of Southern men were given to\nany such corporation. The most that can be claimed is that the oaths\nwere given to a secret band of robbers and murderers, who called\nthemselves \"the United States,\" and extorted those oaths. But that\ncertainly is not enough to prove that the oaths are of any obligation.\n\n\n\n\nXV.\n\n\nOn general principles of law and reason, the oaths of soldiers, that\nthey will serve a given number of years, that they will obey the orders\nof their superior officers, that they will bear true allegiance to the\ngovernment, and so forth, are of no obligation. Independently of the\ncriminality of an oath, that, for a given number of years, he will kill\nall whom he may be commanded to kill, without exercising his own\njudgment or conscience as to the justice or necessity of such killing,\nthere is this further reason why a soldier's oath is of no obligation,\nviz., that, like all the other oaths that have now been mentioned, _it\nis given to nobody_. There being, in no legitimate sense, any such\ncorporation, or nation, as \"the United States,\" nor, consequently, in\nany legitimate sense, any such government as \"the government of the\nUnited States,\" a soldier's oath given to, or contract made with, such\nnation or government, is necessarily an oath given to, or a contract\nmade with, nobody. Consequently such oath or contract can be of no\nobligation.\n\n\n\n\nXVI.\n\n\nOn general principles of law and reason, the treaties, so called, which\npurport to be entered into with other nations, by persons calling\nthemselves ambassadors, secretaries, presidents, and senators of the\nUnited States, in the name, and in behalf, of \"the people of the United\nStates,\" are of no validity. These so-called ambassadors, secretaries,\npresidents, and senators, who claim to be the agents of \"the people of\nthe United States,\" for making these treaties, can show no open,\nwritten, or other authentic evidence that either the whole \"people of\nthe United States,\" or any other open, avowed, responsible body of men,\ncalling themselves by that name, ever authorized these pretended\nambassadors and others to make treaties in the name of, or binding upon\nany one of, \"the people of the United States,\" or any other open,\navowed, responsible body of men, calling themselves by that name, ever\nauthorized these pretended ambassadors, secretaries, and others, in\ntheir name and behalf, to recognize certain other persons, calling\nthemselves emperors, kings, queens, and the like, as the rightful\nrulers, sovereigns, masters, or representatives of the different peoples\nwhom they assume to govern, to represent, and to bind.\n\nThe \"nations,\" as they are called, with whom our pretended ambassadors,\nsecretaries, presidents, and senators profess to make treaties, are as\nmuch myths as our own. On general principles of law and reason, there\nare no such \"nations.\" That is to say, neither the whole people of\nEngland, for example, nor any open, avowed, responsible body of men,\ncalling themselves by that name, ever, by any open, written, or other\nauthentic contract with each other, formed themselves into any bona\nfide, legitimate association or organization, or authorized any king,\nqueen, or other representative to make treaties in their name, or to\nbind them, either individually, or as an association, by such treaties.\n\nOur pretended treaties, then, being made with no legitimate or bona fide\nnations, or representatives of nations, and being made, on our part, by\npersons who have no legitimate authority to act for us, have\nintrinsically no more validity than a pretended treaty made by the Man\nin the Moon with the king of the Pleiades.\n\n\n\n\nXVII.\n\n\nOn general principles of law and reason, debts contracted in the name of\n\"the United States,\" or of \"the people of the United States,\" are of no\nvalidity. It is utterly absurd to pretend that debts to the amount of\ntwenty-five hundred millions of dollars are binding upon thirty-five or\nforty millions of people, when there is not a particle of legitimate\nevidence--such as would be required to prove a private debt--that can be\nproduced against any one of them, that either he, or his properly\nauthorized attorney, ever contracted to pay one cent.\n\nCertainly, neither the whole people of the United States, nor any number\nof them, ever separately or individually contracted to pay a cent of\nthese debts.\n\nCertainly, also, neither the whole people of the United States, nor any\nnumber of them, ever, by any open, written, or other authentic and\nvoluntary contract, united themselves as a firm, corporation, or\nassociation, by the name of \"the United States,\" or \"the people of the\nUnited States,\" and authorized their agents to contract debts in their\nname.\n\nCertainly, too, there is in existence no such firm, corporation, or\nassociation as \"the United States,\" or \"the people of the United\nStates,\" formed by any open, written, or other authentic and voluntary\ncontract, and having corporate property with which to pay these debts.\n\nHow, then, is it possible, on any general principle of law or reason,\nthat debts that are binding upon nobody individually, can be binding\nupon forty millions of people collectively, when, on general and\nlegitimate principles of law and reason, these forty millions of people\nneither have, nor ever had, any corporate property? never made any\ncorporate or individual contract? and neither have, nor ever had, any\ncorporate existence?\n\nWho, then, created these debts, in the name of \"the United States\"? Why,\nat most, only a few persons, calling themselves \"members of Congress,\"\netc., who pretended to represent \"the people of the United States,\" but\nwho really represented only a secret band of robbers and murderers, who\nwanted money to carry on the robberies and murders in which they were\nthen engaged; and who intended to extort from the future people of the\nUnited States, by robbery and threats of murder (and real murder, if\nthat should prove necessary), the means to pay these debts.\n\nThis band of robbers and murderers, who were the real principals in\ncontracting these debts, is a secret one, because its members have never\nentered into any open, written, avowed, or authentic contract, by which\nthey may be individually known to the world, or even to each other.\nTheir real or pretended representatives, who contracted these debts in\ntheir name, were selected (if selected at all) for that purpose secretly\n(by secret ballot), and in a way to furnish evidence against none of the\nprincipals _individually_; and these principals were really known\n_individually_ neither to their pretended representatives who contracted\nthese debts in their behalf, nor to those who lent the money. The money,\ntherefore, was all borrowed and lent in the dark; that is, by men who\ndid not see each other's faces, or know each other's names; who could\nnot then, and cannot now, identify each other as principals in the\ntransactions; and who consequently can prove no contract with each\nother.\n\nFurthermore, the money was all lent and borrowed for criminal purposes;\nthat is, for purposes of robbery and murder; and for this reason the\ncontracts were all intrinsically void; and would have been so, even\nthough the real parties, borrowers and lenders, had come face to face,\nand made their contracts openly, in their own proper names.\n\nFurthermore, this secret band of robbers and murderers, who were the\nreal borrowers of this money, having no legitimate corporate existence,\nhave no corporate property with which to pay these debts. They do indeed\npretend to own large tracts of wild lands, lying between the Atlantic\nand Pacific Oceans, and between the Gulf of Mexico and the North Pole.\nBut, on general principles of law and reason, they might as well pretend\nto own the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans themselves; or the atmosphere and\nthe sunlight; and to hold them, and dispose of them, for the payment of\nthese debts.\n\nHaving no corporate property with which to pay what purports to be their\ncorporate debts, this secret band of robbers and murderers are really\nbankrupt. They have nothing to pay with. In fact, they do not propose to\npay their debts otherwise than from the proceeds of their future\nrobberies and murders. These are confessedly their sole reliance; and\nwere known to be such by the lenders of the money, at the time the money\nwas lent. And it was, therefore, virtually a part of the contract, that\nthe money should be repaid only from the proceeds of these future\nrobberies and murders. For this reason, if for no other, the contracts\nwere void from the beginning.\n\nIn fact, these apparently two classes, borrowers and lenders, were\nreally one and the same class. They borrowed and lent money from and to\nthemselves. They themselves were not only part and parcel, but the very\nlife and soul, of this secret band of robbers and murderers, who\nborrowed and spent the money. Individually they furnished money for a\ncommon enterprise; taking, in return, what purported to be corporate\npromises for individual loans. The only excuse they had for taking these\nso-called corporate promises of, for individual loans by, the same\nparties, was that they might have some apparent excuse for the future\nrobberies of the band (that is, to pay the debts of the corporation),\nand that they might also know what shares they were to be respectively\nentitled to out of the proceeds of their future robberies.\n\nFinally, if these debts had been created for the most innocent and\nhonest purposes, and in the most open and honest manner, by the real\nparties to the contracts, these parties could thereby have bound nobody\nbut themselves, and no property but their own. They could have bound\nnobody that should have come after them, and no property subsequently\ncreated by, or belonging to, other persons.\n\n\n\n\nXVIII.\n\n\nThe Constitution having never been signed by anybody; and there being no\nother open, written, or authentic contract between any parties whatever,\nby virtue of which the United States government, so called, is\nmaintained; and it being well known that none but male persons, of\ntwenty-one years of age and upwards, are allowed any voice in the\ngovernment; and it being also well known that a large number of these\nadult persons seldom or never vote at all; and that all those who do\nvote, do so secretly (by secret ballot), and in a way to prevent their\nindividual votes being known, either to the world, or even to each\nother; and consequently in a way to make no one openly responsible for\nthe acts of their agents, or representatives,--all these things being\nknown, the questions arise: _Who_ compose the real governing power in\nthe country? Who are the men, _the responsible men_, who rob us of our\nproperty? Restrain us of our liberty? Subject us to their arbitrary\ndominion? And devastate our homes, and shoot us down by the hundreds of\nthousands, if we resist? How shall we find these men? How shall we know\nthem from others? How shall we defend ourselves and our property against\nthem? Who, of our neighbors, are members of this secret band of robbers\nand murderers? How can we know which are _their_ houses, that we may\nburn or demolish them? Which _their_ property, that we may destroy it?\nWhich their persons, that we may kill them, and rid the world and\nourselves of such tyrants and monsters?\n\nThese are questions that must be answered, before men can be free;\nbefore they can protect themselves against this secret band of robbers\nand murderers, who now plunder, enslave, and destroy them.\n\nThe answer to these questions is, that only those who have the will and\nthe power to shoot down their fellow men, are the real rulers in this,\nas in all other (so-called) civilized countries; for by no others will\ncivilized men be robbed, or enslaved.\n\nAmong savages, mere physical strength, on the part of one man, may\nenable him to rob, enslave, or kill another man. Among barbarians, mere\nphysical strength, on the part of a body of men, disciplined, and acting\nin concert, though with very little money or other wealth, may, under\nsome circumstances, enable them to rob, enslave, or kill another body of\nmen, as numerous, or perhaps even more numerous, than themselves. And\namong both savages and barbarians, mere want may sometimes compel one\nman to sell himself as a slave to another. But with (so-called)\ncivilized peoples, among whom knowledge, wealth, and the means of acting\nin concert, have become diffused; and who have invented such weapons and\nother means of defense as to render mere physical strength of less\nimportance; and by whom soldiers in any requisite number, and other\ninstrumentalities of war in any requisite amount, can always be had for\nmoney, the question of war, and consequently the question of power, is\nlittle else than a mere question of money. As a necessary consequence,\nthose who stand ready to furnish this money, are the real rulers. It is\nso in Europe, and it is so in this country.\n\nIn Europe, the nominal rulers, the emperors and kings and parliaments,\nare anything but the real rulers of their respective countries. They are\nlittle or nothing else than mere tools, employed by the wealthy to rob,\nenslave, and (if need be) murder those who have less wealth, or none at\nall.\n\nThe Rothschilds, and that class of money-lenders of whom they are the\nrepresentatives and agents--men who never think of lending a shilling to\ntheir next-door neighbors, for purposes of honest industry, unless upon\nthe most ample security, and at the highest rate of interest--stand\nready, at all times, to lend money in unlimited amounts to those robbers\nand murderers, who call themselves governments, to be expended in\nshooting down those who do not submit quietly to being robbed and\nenslaved.\n\nThey lend their money in this manner, knowing that it is to be expended\nin murdering their fellow men, for simply seeking their liberty and\ntheir rights; knowing also that neither the interest nor the principal\nwill ever be paid, except as it will be extorted under terror of the\nrepetition of such murders as those for which the money lent is to be\nexpended.\n\nThese money-lenders, the Rothschilds, for example, say to themselves: If\nwe lend a hundred millions sterling to the queen and parliament of\nEngland, it will enable them to murder twenty, fifty, or a hundred\nthousand people in England, Ireland, or India; and the terror inspired\nby such wholesale murder, will enable them to keep the whole people of\nthose countries in subjection for twenty, or perhaps fifty, years to\ncome; to control all their trade and industry; and to extort from them\nlarge amounts of money, under the name of taxes; and from the wealth\nthus extorted from them, they (the queen and parliament) can afford to\npay us a higher rate of interest for our money than we can get in any\nother way. Or, if we lend this sum to the emperor of Austria, it will\nenable him to murder so many of his people as to strike terror into the\nrest, and thus enable him to keep them in subjection, and extort money\nfrom them, for twenty or fifty years to come. And they say the same in\nregard to the emperor of Russia, the king of Prussia, the emperor of\nFrance, or any other ruler, so called, who, in their judgment, will be\nable, by murdering a reasonable portion of his people, to keep the rest\nin subjection, and extort money from them, for a long time to come, to\npay the interest and principal of the money lent him.\n\nAnd why are these men so ready to lend money for murdering their fellow\nmen? Solely for this reason, viz., that such loans are considered better\ninvestments than loans for purposes of honest industry. They pay higher\nrates of interest; and it is less trouble to look after them. This is\nthe whole matter.\n\nThe question of making these loans is, with these lenders, a mere\nquestion of pecuniary profit. They lend money to be expended in robbing,\nenslaving, and murdering their fellow men, solely because, on the whole,\nsuch loans pay better than any others. They are no respecters of\npersons, no superstitious fools, that reverence monarchs. They care no\nmore for a king, or an emperor, than they do for a beggar, except as he\nis a better customer, and can pay them better interest for their money.\nIf they doubt his ability to make his murders successful for maintaining\nhis power, and thus extorting money from his people in future, they\ndismiss him as unceremoniously as they would dismiss any other hopeless\nbankrupt, who should want to borrow money to save himself from open\ninsolvency.\n\nWhen these great lenders of blood-money, like the Rothschilds, have\nloaned vast sums in this way, for purposes of murder, to an emperor or a\nking, they sell out the bonds taken by them, in small amounts, to\nanybody, and everybody, who are disposed to buy them at satisfactory\nprices, to hold as investments. They (the Rothschilds) thus soon get\nback their money, with great profits; and are now ready to lend money in\nthe same way again to any other robber and murderer, called an emperor\nor a king, who, they think, is likely to be successful in his robberies\nand murders, and able to pay a good price for the money necessary to\ncarry them on.\n\nThis business of lending blood-money is one of the most thoroughly\nsordid, cold-blooded, and criminal that was ever carried on, to any\nconsiderable extent, amongst human beings. It is like lending money to\nslave traders, or to common robbers and pirates, to be repaid out of\ntheir plunder. And the men who loan money to governments, so called, for\nthe purpose of enabling the latter to rob, enslave, and murder their\npeople, are among the greatest villains that the world has ever seen.\nAnd they as much deserve to be hunted and killed (if they cannot\notherwise be got rid of) as any slave traders, robbers, or pirates that\never lived.\n\nWhen these emperors and kings, so-called, have obtained their loans,\nthey proceed to hire and train immense numbers of professional\nmurderers, called soldiers, and employ them in shooting down all who\nresist their demands for money. In fact, most of them keep large bodies\nof these murderers constantly in their service, as their only means of\nenforcing their extortions. There are now, I think, four or five\nmillions of these professional murderers constantly employed by the\nso-called sovereigns of Europe. The enslaved people are, of course,\nforced to support and pay all these murderers, as well as to submit to\nall the other extortions which these murderers are employed to enforce.\n\nIt is only in this way that most of the so-called governments of Europe\nare maintained. These so-called governments are in reality only great\nbands of robbers and murderers, organized, disciplined, and constantly\non the alert. And the so-called sovereigns, in these different\ngovernments, are simply the heads, or chiefs, of different bands of\nrobbers and murderers. And these heads or chiefs are dependent upon the\nlenders of blood-money for the means to carry on their robberies and\nmurders. They could not sustain themselves a moment but for the loans\nmade to them by these blood-money loan-mongers. And their first care is\nto maintain their credit with them; for they know their end is come, the\ninstant their credit with them fails. Consequently the first proceeds of\ntheir extortions are scrupulously applied to the payment of the interest\non their loans.\n\nIn addition to paying the interest on their bonds, they perhaps grant to\nthe holders of them great monopolies in banking, like the Banks of\nEngland, of France, and of Vienna; with the agreement that these banks\nshall furnish money whenever, in sudden emergencies, it may be necessary\nto shoot down more of their people. Perhaps also, by means of tariffs on\ncompeting imports, they give great monopolies to certain branches of\nindustry, in which these lenders of blood-money are engaged. They also,\nby unequal taxation, exempt wholly or partially the property of these\nloan-mongers, and throw corresponding burdens upon those who are too\npoor and weak to resist.\n\nThus it is evident that all these men, who call themselves by the\nhigh-sounding names of Emperors, Kings, Sovereigns, Monarchs, Most\nChristian Majesties, Most Catholic Majesties, High Mightinesses, Most\nSerene and Potent Princes, and the like, and who claim to rule \"by the\ngrace of God,\" by \"Divine Right\"--that is, by special authority from\nHeaven--are intrinsically not only the merest miscreants and wretches,\nengaged solely in plundering, enslaving, and murdering their fellow men,\nbut that they are also the merest hangers on, the servile, obsequious,\nfawning dependents and tools of these blood-money loan-mongers, on whom\nthey rely for the means to carry on their crimes. These loan-mongers,\nlike the Rothschilds, laugh in their sleeves, and say to themselves:\nThese despicable creatures, who call themselves emperors, and kings, and\nmajesties, and most serene and potent princes; who profess to wear\ncrowns, and sit on thrones; who deck themselves with ribbons, and\nfeathers, and jewels; and surround themselves with hired flatterers and\nlickspittles; and whom we suffer to strut around, and palm themselves\noff, upon fools and slaves, as sovereigns and lawgivers specially\nappointed by Almighty God; and to hold themselves out as the sole\nfountains of honors, and dignities, and wealth, and power--all these\nmiscreants and imposters know that we make them, and use them; that in\nus they live, move, and have their being; that we require them (as the\nprice of their positions) to take upon themselves all the labor, all the\ndanger, and all the odium of all the crimes they commit for our profit;\nand that we will unmake them, strip them of their gewgaws, and send them\nout into the world as beggars, or give them over to the vengeance of the\npeople they have enslaved, the moment they refuse to commit any crime we\nrequire of them, or to pay over to us such share of the proceeds of\ntheir robberies as we see fit to demand.\n\n\n\n\nXIX.\n\n\nNow, what is true in Europe, is substantially true in this country. The\ndifference is the immaterial one, that, in this country, there is no\nvisible, permanent head, or chief, of these robbers and murderers, who\ncall themselves \"the government.\" That is to say, there is no _one man_,\nwho calls himself the state, or even emperor, king, or sovereign; no one\nwho claims that he and his children rule \"by the Grace of God,\" by\n\"Divine Right,\" or by special appointment from Heaven. There are only\ncertain men, who call themselves presidents, senators, and\nrepresentatives, and claim to be the authorized agents, _for the time\nbeing, or for certain short periods, of all_ \"the people of the United\nStates\"; but who can show no credentials, or powers of attorney, or any\nother open, authentic evidence that they are so; and who notoriously are\nnot so; but are really only the agents of a secret band of robbers and\nmurderers, whom they themselves do not know, and have no means of\nknowing, individually; but who, they trust, will openly or secretly,\nwhen the crisis comes, sustain them in all their usurpations and crimes.\n\nWhat is important to be noticed is, that these so-called presidents,\nsenators, and representatives, these pretended agents of all \"the people\nof the United States,\" the moment their exactions meet with any\nformidable resistance from any portion of \"the people\" themselves, are\nobliged, like their co-robbers and murderers in Europe, to fly at once\nto the lenders of blood money, for the means to sustain their power. And\nthey borrow their money on the same principle, and for the same\npurpose, viz., to be expended in shooting down all those \"people of the\nUnited States\"--their own constituents and principals, as they profess\nto call them--who resist the robberies and enslavement which these\nborrowers of the money are practising upon them. And they expect to\nrepay the loans, if at all, only from the proceeds of the future\nrobberies, which they anticipate it will be easy for them and their\nsuccessors to perpetrate through a long series of years, upon their\npretended principals, if they can but shoot down now some hundreds of\nthousands of them, and thus strike terror into the rest.\n\nPerhaps the facts were never made more evident, in any country on the\nglobe, than in our own, that these soulless blood-money loan-mongers are\nthe real rulers; that they rule from the most sordid and mercenary\nmotives; that the ostensible government, the presidents, senators, and\nrepresentatives, so called, are merely their tools; and that no ideas\nof, or regard for, justice or liberty had anything to do in inducing\nthem to lend their money for the war. In proof of all this, look at the\nfollowing facts.\n\nNearly a hundred years ago we professed to have got rid of all that\nreligious superstition, inculcated by a servile and corrupt priesthood\nin Europe, that rulers, so called, derived their authority directly from\nHeaven; and that it was consequently a religious duty on the part of the\npeople to obey them. We professed long ago to have learned that\ngovernments could rightfully exist only by the free will, and on the\nvoluntary support, of those who might choose to sustain them. We all\nprofessed to have known long ago, that the only legitimate objects of\ngovernment were the maintenance of liberty and justice equally for all.\nAll this we had professed for nearly a hundred years. And we professed\nto look with pity and contempt upon those ignorant, superstitious, and\nenslaved peoples of Europe, who were so easily kept in subjection by the\nfrauds and force of priests and kings.\n\nNotwithstanding all this, that we had learned, and known, and professed,\nfor nearly a century, these lenders of blood money had, for a long\nseries of years previous to the war, been the willing accomplices of the\nslave-holders in perverting the government from the purposes of liberty\nand justice, to the greatest of crimes. They had been such accomplices\n_for a purely pecuniary consideration_, to wit, a control of the markets\nin the South; in other words, the privilege of holding the slave-holders\nthemselves in industrial and commercial subjection to the manufacturers\nand merchants of the North (who afterwards furnished the money for the\nwar). And these Northern merchants and manufacturers, these lenders of\nblood-money, were willing to continue to be the accomplices of the\nslave-holders in the future, for the same pecuniary consideration. But\nthe slave-holders, either doubting the fidelity of their Northern\nallies, or feeling themselves strong enough to keep their slaves in\nsubjection without Northern assistance, would no longer pay the price\nwhich these Northern men demanded. And it was to enforce this price in\nthe future--that is, to monopolize the Southern markets, to maintain\ntheir industrial and commercial control over the South--that these\nNorthern manufacturers and merchants lent some of the profits of their\nformer monopolies for the war, in order to secure to themselves the\nsame, or greater, monopolies in the future. These--and not any love of\nliberty or justice--were the motives on which the money for the war was\nlent by the North. In short, the North said to the slave-holders: If you\nwill not pay us our price (give us control of your markets) for our\nassistance against your slaves, we will secure the same price (keep\ncontrol of your markets) by helping your slaves against you, and using\nthem as our tools for maintaining dominion over you; for the control of\nyour markets we will have, whether the tools we use for that purpose be\nblack or white, and be the cost, in blood and money, what it may.\n\nOn this principle, and from this motive, and not from any love of\nliberty, or justice, the money was lent in enormous amounts, and at\nenormous rates of interest. And it was only by means of these loans that\nthe objects of the war were accomplished.\n\nAnd now these lenders of blood-money demand their pay; and the\ngovernment, so called, becomes their tool, their servile, slavish,\nvillainous tool, to extort it from the labor of the enslaved people both\nof the North and the South. It is to be extorted by every form of\ndirect, and indirect, and unequal taxation. Not only the nominal debt\nand interest--enormous as the latter was--are to be paid in full; but\nthese holders of the debt are to be paid still further--and perhaps\ndoubly, triply, or quadruply paid--by such tariffs on imports as will\nenable our home manufacturers to realize enormous prices for their\ncommodities; also by such monopolies in banking as will enable them to\nkeep control of, and thus enslave and plunder, the industry and trade of\nthe great body of the Northern people themselves. In short, the\nindustrial and commercial slavery of the great body of the people, North\nand South, black and white, is the price which these lenders of blood\nmoney demand, and insist upon, and are determined to secure, in return\nfor the money lent for the war.\n\nThis programme having been fully arranged and systematized, they put\ntheir sword into the hands of the chief murderer of the war, and charge\nhim to carry their scheme into effect. And now he, speaking as their\norgan, says: \"_Let us have peace_.\"\n\nThe meaning of this is: Submit quietly to all the robbery and slavery we\nhave arranged for you, and you can have \"peace.\" But in case you resist,\nthe same lenders of blood-money, who furnished the means to subdue the\nSouth, will furnish the means again to subdue you.\n\nThese are the terms on which alone this government, or, with few\nexceptions, any other, ever gives \"peace\" to its people.\n\nThe whole affair, on the part of those who furnished the money, has\nbeen, and now is, a deliberate scheme of robbery and murder; not merely\nto monopolize the markets of the South, but also to monopolize the\ncurrency, and thus control the industry and trade, and thus plunder and\nenslave the laborers, of both North and South. And Congress and the\npresident are today the merest tools for these purposes. They are\nobliged to be, for they know that their own power, as rulers, so-called,\nis at an end, the moment their credit with the blood-money loan-mongers\nfails. They are like a bankrupt in the hands of an extortioner. They\ndare not say nay to any demand made upon them. And to hide at once, if\npossible, both their servility and their crimes, they attempt to divert\npublic attention, by crying out that they have \"Abolished Slavery!\" That\nthey have \"Saved the Country!\" That they have \"Preserved our Glorious\nUnion!\" and that, in now paying the \"National Debt,\" as they call it (as\nif the people themselves, _all of them who are to be taxed for its\npayment_, had really and voluntarily joined in contracting it), they are\nsimply \"Maintaining the National Honor!\"\n\nBy \"maintaining the national honor,\" they mean simply that they\nthemselves, open robbers and murderers, assume to be the nation, and\nwill keep faith with those who lend them the money necessary to enable\nthem to crush the great body of the people under their feet; and will\nfaithfully appropriate, from the proceeds of their future robberies and\nmurders, enough to pay all their loans, principal and interest.\n\nThe pretense that the \"abolition of slavery\" was either a motive or\njustification for the war, is a fraud of the same character with that of\n\"maintaining the national honor.\" Who, but such usurpers, robbers, and\nmurderers as they, ever established slavery? Or what government, except\none resting upon the sword, like the one we now have, was ever capable\nof maintaining slavery? And why did these men abolish slavery? Not from\nany love of liberty in general--not as an act of justice to the black\nman himself, but only \"as a war measure,\" and because they wanted his\nassistance, and that of his friends, in carrying on the war they had\nundertaken for maintaining and intensifying that political, commercial,\nand industrial slavery, to which they have subjected the great body of\nthe people, both white and black. And yet these imposters now cry out\nthat they have abolished the chattel slavery of the black man--although\nthat was not the motive of the war--as if they thought they could\nthereby conceal, atone for, or justify that other slavery which they\nwere fighting to perpetuate, and to render more rigorous and inexorable\nthan it ever was before. There was no difference of principle--but only\nof degree--between the slavery they boast they have abolished, and the\nslavery they were fighting to preserve; for all restraints upon men's\nnatural liberty, not necessary for the simple maintenance of justice,\nare of the nature of slavery, and differ from each other only in degree.\n\nIf their object had really been to abolish slavery, or maintain liberty\nor justice generally, they had only to say: All, whether white or black,\nwho want the protection of this government, shall have it; and all who\ndo not want it, will be left in peace, so long as they leave us in\npeace. Had they said this, slavery would necessarily have been abolished\nat once; the war would have been saved; and a thousand times nobler\nunion than we have ever had would have been the result. It would have\nbeen a voluntary union of free men; such a union as will one day exist\namong all men, the world over, if the several nations, so called, shall\never get rid of the usurpers, robbers, and murderers, called\ngovernments, that now plunder, enslave, and destroy them.\n\nStill another of the frauds of these men is, that they are now\nestablishing, and that the war was designed to establish, \"a government\nof consent.\" The only idea they have ever manifested as to what is a\ngovernment of consent, is this--that it is one to which everybody must\nconsent, or be shot. This idea was the dominant one on which the war was\ncarried on; and it is the dominant one, now that we have got what is\ncalled \"peace.\"\n\nTheir pretenses that they have \"Saved the Country,\" and \"Preserved our\nGlorious Union,\" are frauds like all the rest of their pretenses. By\nthem they mean simply that they have subjugated, and maintained their\npower over, an unwilling people. This they call \"Saving the Country\"; as\nif an enslaved and subjugated people--or as if any people kept in\nsubjection by the sword (as it is intended that all of us shall be\nhereafter)--could be said to have any country. This, too, they call\n\"Preserving our Glorious Union\"; as if there could be said to be any\nUnion, glorious or inglorious, that was not voluntary. Or as if there\ncould be said to be any union between masters and slaves; between those\nwho conquer, and those who are subjugated.\n\nAll these cries of having \"abolished slavery,\" of having \"saved the\ncountry,\" of having \"preserved the union,\" of establishing \"a government\nof consent,\" and of \"maintaining the national honor,\" are all gross,\nshameless, transparent cheats--so transparent that they ought to deceive\nno one--when uttered as justifications for the war, or for the\ngovernment that has succeeded the war, or for now compelling the people\nto pay the cost of the war, or for compelling anybody to support a\ngovernment that he does not want.\n\nThe lesson taught by all these facts is this: As long as mankind\ncontinue to pay \"national debts,\" so-called--that is, so long as they\nare such dupes and cowards as to pay for being cheated, plundered,\nenslaved, and murdered--so long there will be enough to lend the money\nfor those purposes; and with that money a plenty of tools, called\nsoldiers, can be hired to keep them in subjection. But when they refuse\nany longer to pay for being thus cheated, plundered, enslaved, and\nmurdered, they will cease to have cheats, and usurpers, and robbers, and\nmurderers and blood-money loan-mongers for masters.\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX.\n\n\nInasmuch as the Constitution was never signed, nor agreed to, by\nanybody, as a contract, and therefore never bound anybody, and is now\nbinding upon nobody; and is, moreover, such an one as no people can ever\nhereafter be expected to consent to, except as they may be forced to do\nso at the point of the bayonet, it is perhaps of no importance what its\ntrue legal meaning, as a contract, is. Nevertheless, the writer thinks\nit proper to say that, in his opinion, the Constitution is no such\ninstrument as it has generally been assumed to be; but that by false\ninterpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in\npractice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the\nConstitution itself purports to authorize. He has heretofore written\nmuch, and could write much more, to prove that such is the truth. But\nwhether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is\ncertain--that it has either authorized such a government as we have had,\nor has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to\nexist.\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n\n[a] See _No Treason_, No. 2, pages 5 and 6.\n\n[b] Suppose it be \"the best government on earth,\" does that prove its\nown goodness, or only the badness of all other governments?\n\n[c] The very men who drafted it, never signed it in any way to bind\nthemselves by it, _as a contract_. And not one of them probably ever\nwould have signed it in any way to bind himself by it, _as a contract_.\n\n[d] I have personally examined the statute books of the following\nStates, viz.: Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode\nIsland, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware,\nVirginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama,\nMississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois,\nWisconsin, Texas, Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Kansas,\nNevada, California, and Oregon, and find that in all these States the\nEnglish statute has been re-enacted, sometimes with modifications, but\ngenerally enlarging its operations, and is now in force.\n\nThe following are some of the provisions of the Massachusetts statute:\n\n\"No action shall be brought in any of the following cases, that is to\nsay: ...\n\n\"To charge a person upon a special promise to answer for the debt,\ndefault, or misdoings of another: ...\n\n\"Upon a contract for the sale of lands, tenements, hereditaments, or of\nany interest in, or concerning them; or\n\n\"Upon an agreement that is not to be performed within one year from the\nwriting thereof:\n\n\"Unless the promise, contract, or agreement, upon which such action is\nbrought, or some memorandum or note thereof, is in writing, and signed\nby the party to be charged therewith, or by some person thereunto by him\nlawfully authorized.\"\n\n\"No contract for the sale of goods, wares, or merchandise, for the price\nof fifty dollars or more, shall be good or valid, unless the purchaser\naccepts and receives part of the goods so sold, or gives something in\nearnest to bind the bargain, or in part payment; or unless some note or\nmemorandum in writing of the bargain is made and signed by the party to\nbe charged thereby, or by some person thereunto by him lawfully\nauthorized.\"\n\n[e] And this two-thirds vote may be but two-thirds of a quorum--that is\ntwo-thirds of a majority--instead of two-thirds of the whole.\n\n[f] Of what appreciable value is it to any man, as an individual, that\nhe is allowed a voice in choosing these public masters? His voice is\nonly one of several millions.\n\n\n\n\nTranscriber's Notes:\n\n\n  Passages in italics are indicated by _italics_.\n\n  Inconsistencies in spelling and hyphenation have been retained from\n  the original.\n\n  Obvious typographical errors have been corrected as follows:\n\n    Page 22: \"do\" changed to \"does\"\n\n  Punctuation has been corrected without note.","title":"No Treason, Vol. VI.: The Constitution of No Authority","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":19618}