The Constitution of No Authority
created 27/05/2003 - 11:25, updated 27/05/2003 - 11:26 by cybe
Printer-friendly versionSend to friend
By Lysander Spooner
(condensed and edited).
Introduction by Frederick Mann.
READERS ARE PARTICULARLY URGED TO OBEY ALL
There is a game called "U.S.A." The play
of the game is concentrated on parts of a board called "United
States of America." But players can move all over the world. The
players have different pieces they move around. Some pieces are considered
more important and more powerful than other pieces. The pieces are called
names like "president," "senator," "representative,"
"secretary," "judge," "general," "captain,"
"governor," "attorney," "marshall," "sheriff,"
"policeman," "policewoman," "businessman,"
"businesswoman," "doctor," "soldier,"
"citizen," "employee," "taxpayer," "voter,"
"parent," "child," "teacher," "preacher,"
"journalist," "unemployee," "criminal,"
The pieces considered to be most important (joined
in an association called the "government") make up the rules
of the game as they go along. The rules are called "laws."
The "most important players" change the rules whenever they
like. The score of the game is kept with tokens called "money."
The board on which the game is played has good squares,
neutral squares, and bad squares. If a piece lands on a good square,
the player might win a million tokens or get a promotion and exchange
his or her piece for a more important piece. If a piece lands on a neutral
square, the player just continues as usual. If a piece lands on a bad
square, the player might get sick and/or die, or might have "money"
tokens or "property" "seized" by the "most
important players," or is locked up in "jail" by the
"most important players." Sometimes when two pieces land on
the same square, they form a union called "marriage" - this
could be good, neutral, or bad.
The "most important players" compel the
players with pieces called "children" to move into squares
(good, neutral, or bad?) called "schools," where the pieces
are "educated" so they will learn that the game called "U.S.A."
is the only game and the best game in the world. Of course, they are
also "educated" on how to play the game.
Sometimes the "most important players" organize
a subgame called "war." The purpose of this subgame is to
destroy as many pieces as possible. When a player's piece is destroyed,
the player is killed and buried.
The silly little game called "U.S.A." also
has elements called "problems" that need to be "solved."
These "problems" are called names like: "terrorism,"
"unemployment," "inflation," "depression,"
"drug addiction," "pollution," "crime,"
"rape," "child abuse," "suicide," etc.,
Practically all humans have been "educated"
to believe that they must play silly little games like "U.S.A."
throughout their lives. And if they don't like their silly little games,
they must change their silly little games, for example, by begging "the
most important players" to change some of the rules of their silly
Horror of horrors! Humans are "educated"
to believe that their silly little games are real life. They have no
idea that what they are doing is just playing a silly, arbitrary, optional
game, and that they can play many other games if they wake up. Is it
justified to ask whether practically all humans are like characters
in an Alice-in-Wonderland dream who never wake up?
Terra Libra is an entirely new game. Free Sovereign
Citizens of Terra Libra jump out of the silly little games to the maximum
practical degree. They create their own new games and make their own
rules. Of course, there are "most important players" with
guns and jails who try to force everyone to play their silly little
game. Terra Librans apply freedom technology to play the games of their
THE 'BIG LIE' PHENOMENON.
It is a principle of political propaganda that:
"THE BIGGER THE LIE, THE MORE EASILY PEOPLE BELIEVE
As Nietzsche wrote, "Everything the state says
is a lie." This report sets out to demonstrate that everything
about the pretended "state" is a lie - including the pretended
"state" itself. It is a gigantic fraud, a hoax, a nothing.
This report may contradict some of your basic ideas
about the world - even if you are a most advanced Thinker, Libertarian,
or Anarchist. "Cognitive dissonance" refers to the intellectual
disruption that is caused by new or unusual ideas that challenge some
of your current basic ideas. Your challenge is to handle any cognitive
dissonance that may be caused by this report, and not to let it interfere
with your integration of this information.
BRIEF BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF LYSANDER SPOONER.
This brief biography is based on the chapter, "Lysander
Spooner, Dissident Among Dissidents," in the book Men Against
by James J. Martin (Ralph Myles Publisher, Colorado Springs;
1970). I (Frederick Mann) first read The Constitution of no Authority
(probably Spooner's most famous essay) in 1976. It had a profound
effect on my thinking. First it became clear to me that there is no
legitimate country called "The United States of America" -
it is a gigantic hoax, a fraud, a nothing. Next I realized that all
other pretended "countries" in the world were also hoaxes,
frauds, or nothings - there were hucksters, hoaxes, and believers. The
people who call themselves "governments" are liars and imposters
- Spooner's essential message.
Lysander Spooner was born on January 19, 1808 in Athol,
MA. He died in May, 1887 in Boston, MA. He grew up on a farm, which
he left at age 25 to become a clerk in Worcester. Soon thereafter he
started studying law. His first seven years as a lawyer were spent in
Spooner became involved in the Freethought movement
as a pamphleteer during the thirties. In 1836 he wrote, "all men
of common sense disregard authority." During the late 1830s he
also became an ardent advocate for Free Banking and alternative currencies,
and wrote extensively on these subjects over a period of thirty years.
In 1844 Spooner started his own postal service, the
American Letter Mail Company, carrying letters between New York, Philadelphia,
and Baltimore. In 1845 his postal company was "outlawed" by
the government. Benjamin Tucker called Spooner "the father of cheap
postage in America." (Tucker was one of the most influential early
American Anarchists. He said, "Liberty, to be effective, must find
its first application in the realm of economics." James Martin
devotes two chapters to Tucker in Men Against the State
Spooner opposed slavery. In 1845 and 1846 he published
two booklets titled The Unconstitutionality of Slavery
described Spooner as "one of the profoundest political philosophers
that ever added to the knowledge of mankind."
Spooner was also an advocate of natural law or common
law. In 1846 he published Poverty: Its Illegal Causes and Legal Cure
He wrote that it was a principle of natural law that every man was entitled
to "all the fruits of his own labor"; and "There is,
and can be, correctly speaking, no law but natural law." He was
a strong opponent of all violations of the right to make contracts,
particularly the granting of monopolies by "terrocrats" (coercive
government agents or terrorist bureaucrats).
In 1852 he published An Essay On The Trial By Jury
He asserted that there had never been a single legal jury trial in the
United States since the adoption of the pretended "constitution."
No one has explained as well as Spooner, what the phrase "trial
by jury" means.
During his career as a dissident, Spooner gradually
became more radical. Early on, much of his economic, financial, and
political criticism was based on the argument that various measures
were unconstitutional. Later on, he started to expose the illegality
of the pretended "constitution" itself. Soon after the Civil
War he began publishing a series of pamphlets under the title, No
. The final one appeared in 1870 and was subtitled The
Constitution of No Authority
(Ralph Myles Publisher, Colorado Springs;
In my opinion, Lysander Spooner was the greatest lawyer
there has ever been.
GULLIVER'S TRAVELS AND ALICE IN WONDERLAND.
by Jonathan Swift, and Alice's
Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking-Glass
Carroll can be regarded as introductions to the Spooner-insight. All
three of these books are analyzed in Report #TL07A: Gulliver's Travels
and Alice in Wonderland insofar as they relate to the Spooner-insight.
In his Introduction to Gulliver's Travels
Michael Foot wrote, "It is an attempt to tear off the mask of imposture
from the world..."
The essence of the Spooner-insight is that all the
political systems in his time (1869) were fraudulent impostures. This
is as true today as it was in Spooner's time.
Note: In the rest of this report double quotation
marks are used to invalidate the concept enclosed within quotation marks.
For example, "constitution" indicates that the validity of
the notion of a "U.S. Constitution" is being rejected. Sometimes
'pretended' is added to emphasize the rejection of the word, concept,
or notion. It is vital that you understand this syntax (grammatical
structure). Where the report says 'pretended "president",'
for example, it means that there is no real president - the idea that
there is a real president is being rejected. In other words, the person
masquerading as "president" is an imposter and a liar.
The Spooner-insight may be the most challenging viewpoint
of political systems you have been confronted with. It is vital that
you think it through in all its details and implications.
Because the basic political notions have been powerfully
imprinted in your brain, you may be faced with a formidable challenge.
In effect, what you may have to do is drastically change what has been
'burned into your brain' all your life. Because the basic political
notions are represented by physical patterns in your brain, you may
have to think about the Spooner-insight for at least 21 days before
it 'sinks in.'
In order to fully understand the Spooner-insight,
you will probably have to read this entire report.
Eight Elements of the Spooner-Insight.
The pretended "U.S. constitution" has been
a fraud and a hoax from the outset. It was never signed as a contract
in any legal way by anyone. It never bound anyone. It was foisted on
a naive, gullible, credulous populace. Therefore, the pretended "United
States of America" has been a fraud and a hoax from the outset.
It has always been a nothing masquerading as a something. It is pure
imagination or make-believe. The pretended "government of the U.S.A."
has no legal authority whatsoever. It is a hoax and a fraud in its entirety.
All the people claiming to be "presidents," "senators,"
"representatives," "secretaries," "judges,"
"generals," "ambassadors," etc. of the pretended
"U.S.A." are liars and imposters, whether they realize it
or not. They are hucksters and hoaxers. The pretended "laws"
of the pretended "U.S.A." are in reality no more than absurd
noises and scribbles made by liars and imposters. The same applies to
all other pretended "states" and "countries" of
the world. Their pretended "emperors," "kings,"
"queens," "prime ministers," etc. have all been
liars and imposters all along. Likewise, all their pretended "laws"
have in reality been no more than absurd noises and scribbles of liars
and imposters. The real rulers all along have been the major money lenders
behind the scenes. The pretended "presidents," "senators,"
"representatives," "secretaries," "judges,"
"generals," "ambassadors," "emperors,"
"kings," "queens," "prime ministers,"
etc. are mostly pawns of the money lenders. In reality the whole world
is ruled by secret bands of money lenders, tyrants, robbers, and murderers.
The Founding Fathers were honorable
and sincere men with the best of intentions. The U.S. Constitution is
a legitimate contract "to form a more perfect union, establish
justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense,
promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to
ourselves and our posterity."
The Founding Fathers were mostly
lawyers. In their pretended "constitution" they misrepresented
themselves as "We the people of the United States." They arbitrarily
excluded women and blacks. They knew common law (in use at the time),
which requires that for a contract to be valid it needs to be entered
into knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally by all parties. For a
written contract to be valid, it must be signed by all parties. The
Declaration of Independence
was signed as a mutual pledge between
the signatories. Comparing the Declaration to the pretended "constitution"
may lead you to the conclusion that the latter was a betrayal of the
former. Some of the Founding Fathers realized that the "constitution"
was a betrayal of liberty, so they formulated the "bill of rights"
in an attempt to undo the betrayal. The pretended "bill of rights"
became part of the pretended "constitution" nearly three years
after the latter was signed. The pretended "constitution"
has been a fraud and a hoax from the outset - and an abomination, particularly
if compared to the Declaration of Independence
How to Grasp and Integrate the Spooner-Insight
- Read this entire report.
Don't discuss this report with just anyone. We have
all been brainwashed since early childhood with political lies. They
are burned into our brains. The whole population has been duped, hoodwinked,
brainwashed. If you show this report to others, most will tell you it
is insane. They have been duped, hoodwinked, brainwashed. Even if you
are an advanced Libertarian or Anarchist thinker, you may gain important
insights from this report. Read Report #TL07A: Gulliver's Travels
and Alice in Wonderland
. If necessary, re-read the eight elements
of the Spooner-insight at least once a day for at least 21 days. At
times thoughts may come up like, "I must be crazy to even consider
the Spooner-insight." Don't let these thoughts stop you from reprogramming
your brain. If necessary, re-read this entire report from time to time.
Think about the implications of the Spooner-insight and how the implications
affect what you think you need to do to increase your personal freedom,
wealth, and power.
As Nietzsche wrote, "Everything the state says
is a lie." All our political systems are based on lies. The pretended
"constitution" is a lie. The pretended "U.S.A."
is a lie. All other pretended "constitutions" and pretended
"countries" are lies. The idea that George Bush is "president
of the U.S.A." is a lie - whether he knows it or not. The same
applies to all the other politicians in the world. It is all lies.
The whole population of earth is being continuously
mind-controlled by the media to believe the colossal political lies.
You have to put in the effort to un-MK-Ultra yourself and reprogram
your mind. You have to do some serious thinking. You may have to think
about the Spooner-insight for at least 21
days to let it 'sink in.'
THE CONSTITUTION OF NO AUTHORITY.
By Lysander Spooner (condensed and edited).
Who is Bound by the Pretended "Constitution?"
The "constitution" (pretended) has no inherent
authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless
as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport
to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most,
to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago. [This
essay was written in 1869.] Furthermore, we know, historically, that
only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted
on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent
or dissent in any formal manner. Those persons, if any, who did give
their consent formally, are all dead now. Most of them have been dead
forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years. And the pretended "constitution,"
so far as it was their contract, died with them. They had no natural
power or right to make it obligatory upon their children. It is not
only plainly impossible, in the nature of things, that they could bind
their posterity, but they did not even attempt to bind them. That is
to say, the instrument [the pretended "constitution"] does
not purport to be an agreement between anybody but "the people"
then existing; nor does it, either expressly or impliedly, assert any
right, power, or disposition, on their part, to bind anybody but themselves.
Let us see. Its language is:
"We, the people of the United States (that is,
the people then existing in the pretended "United States"),
in order to form a more perfect union, insure domestic tranquility,
provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure
the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and
establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
It is plain, in the first place, that this language,
as an agreement, purports to be only what it at most really was, viz.,
a contract between the people then existing; and, of necessity, binding,
as a contract, only upon those then existing. In the second place, the
language neither expresses nor implies that they had any intention or
desire, nor that they imagined they had any right or power, to bind
their "posterity" to live under it. It does not say that their
"posterity" will, shall, or must live under it. It only says,
in effect, that their hopes and motives in adopting it were that it
might prove useful to their "posterity," as well as to themselves,
by promoting their union, safety, tranquility, liberty, etc.
Legally speaking, therefore, there is nothing in the
pretended "constitution" that professes or attempts to bind
the "posterity" of those who established it. If, then, those
who established the pretended "constitution," had no power
to bind, and did not attempt to bind their posterity, the question arises,
whether their posterity have bound themselves. If they have done so,
they can have done so in only one or both of these two ways, viz., by
voting, and paying taxes.
Does Voting Imply Support of the Pretended "Constitution?"
Let us consider these two matters, voting and tax
paying, separately; and first, voting. All the voting that has ever
taken place under the pretended "constitution" has been of
such a kind that it not only did not pledge the whole people to support
the pretended "constitution," but it did not even pledge any
one of them to do so, as the following considerations show.
In the very nature of things, the act of voting could
bind nobody but the actual voters. Many never vote at all. Many vote
only once in two, three, five, or ten years, in periods of great excitement.
No one, by voting, can be said to pledge himself for any longer period
than that for which he votes. If, for example, I vote for an officer
who is to hold his office for only a year, I cannot be said to have
thereby pledged myself to support the pretended "constitution"
beyond that term. It cannot be said that, by voting, a man pledges himself
to support the pretended "constitution," unless the act of
voting be a perfectly voluntary one on his part. Yet the act of voting
cannot properly be called a voluntary one on the part of any very large
number of those who do vote. It is rather a measure of necessity imposed
upon them by others. In truth, in the case of individuals, their actual
voting is not to be taken as proof of consent, even for the time being.
On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without his consent having
even been asked a man finds himself environed by a gang of tyrants,
robbers, and murderers (masquerading as a "government") that
he cannot resist; terrocrats who force him to pay money, render service,
and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of
weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practice this tyranny
over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further, that, if he will
but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself
from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short,
he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the
ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become
a slave. And he has no alternative than these two. In self-defence,
he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man who has
been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed
himself. Because, to save his own life in battle, a man attempts to
take the lives of his opponents, it is not to be inferred that the battle
is one of his own choosing. Neither in contests with the ballot - which
is a mere substitute for the bullet - because, as his only chance of
self-preservation, a man uses a ballot, is it to be inferred that the
contest is one into which he voluntarily entered; that he voluntarily
set up all his own natural rights, as a stake against those of others,
to be lost or won by the mere power of numbers. On the contrary, it
is to be considered that, in an exigency into which he had been forced
by others, and in which no other means of self-defence offered, he,
as a matter of necessity, used the only one that was left to him. As
we can have no legal knowledge as to who votes from choice, and who
from the necessity thus forced upon him, we can have no legal knowledge,
as to any particular individual, that he voted from choice; or consequently,
that by voting, he consented, or pledged himself, to support any pretended
"constitution" or the terrocrats, who use it as a shield to
justify their plunder and murder.
Legally speaking, therefore, the act of voting utterly
fails to pledge anyone to support any pretended "constitution."
It utterly fails to prove that the "authority" or "jurisdiction"
(pretended) of any terrocrats rest upon the voluntary support of anyone.
On general principles of law and reason, it cannot be said that any
terrocrats have any voluntary supporters at all, until it can be distinctly
shown precisely who their voluntary supporters are. As taxation is made
compulsory on all, whether they vote or not, a large proportion of those
who vote, no doubt do so to prevent their own money being used against
themselves; when, in fact, they would have gladly abstained from voting,
if they could thereby have saved themselves from taxation alone, to
say nothing of being saved from all the other usurpations and tyrannies
of terrocrats. To take a man's property without his consent, and then
to infer his consent because he attempts, by voting, to prevent that
property from being forcibly taken from him and used to his injury,
is a very insufficient proof of his consent to support the pretended
"constitution." It is, in fact, no proof at all. At nearly
all elections, votes are given for various candidates for the same office.
Those who vote for the unsuccessful candidates cannot properly be said
to have voted to sustain the pretended "constitution." On
the contrary, they may reasonably be supposed to have voted against
the pretended "constitution." This supposition is the more
reasonable, inasmuch as such voting is the only mode allowed to them
of expressing their dissent to the pretended "constitution."
Many votes are usually given for candidates who have no prospects of
success. Those who give such votes may reasonably be supposed to have
voted as they did, with special intention, not to support, but to obstruct
the execution of, the pretended "constitution." As all the
different votes are given secretly (by secret ballot), there is no legal
means of knowing, from the votes themselves, who votes for, and who
against, the pretended "constitution." Therefore, voting affords
no legal evidence that any particular individual supports the pretended
"constitution." And where there can be no legal evidence that
any particular individual supports the pretended "constitution,"
it cannot be legally said that anybody supports it at all. It is clearly
impossible to have any legal proof of the intentions of large numbers
of men, where there can be no legal proof of the intentions of any particular
one of them. There being no legal proof of any man's intentions, in
voting, we can only conjecture them. Men's voluntary support of the
pretended "constitution" is doubtless, in most cases, wholly
contingent upon the question whether, by means of the pretended "constitution,"
they can make themselves masters, or be made slaves. Such contingent
consent as that is, in law and reason, no consent at all. As everybody
who supports the pretended "constitution" by voting (if there
are any such) does so secretly (by secret ballot), and in a way to avoid
all personal responsibility for the act of his agents or representatives,
it cannot legally or reasonably be said that anybody at all supports
the pretended "constitution" by voting. No man can reasonably
or legally be said to do such a thing as to assent to, or support, the
pretended "constitution," unless he does it openly, and in
a way to make himself personally responsible for the acts of his agents,
so long as they act within the limits of the power he delegates to them.
As all voting is secret (by secret ballot), and as all secret "governments"
(pretended) are necessarily only secret bands of tyrants, robbers, and
murderers, the general fact that terrocrats are voted for, does nothing
towards proving that "the people of the United States," or
any one of them, voluntarily supports the pretended "constitution."
So far, therefore, as voting is concerned, the pretended
"constitution," legally speaking, has no supporters at all.
And, as a matter of fact, there is not the slightest probability that
the pretended "constitution" has a single legitimate supporter
in the country. That is to say, there is not the slightest probability
that there is a single man in the country, who both understands what
the pretended "constitution" really is, and sincerely supports
it for what it really is.
The ostensible supporters of the pretended "constitution,"
like the ostensible supporters of most terrocrats, are made up of three
classes, viz.: Knaves, a numerous and active class, who see terrocrats
as people they can use for their own aggrandizement or wealth. Dupes
- a large class, no doubt - each of whom, because he is allowed one
voice out of millions in deciding what he may do with his own person
and his own property, and because he is permitted to have the same voice
in enslaving, robbing, and murdering others, that others have in enslaving,
robbing, and murdering himself, is stupid enough to imagine that he
is a "free man," a "sovereign"; that this is "a
free government," "a government of equal rights," "the
best government on earth," and such like absurdities. A class who
have some appreciation of the evils of terrocrats, but either do not
see how to get rid of them, or do not choose to so far sacrifice their
private interests as to give themselves seriously and earnestly to the
work of making a change.
Does Paying Taxes Imply Support of the Pretended "Constitution?"
The payment of taxes, being compulsory, of course
furnishes no evidence that anyone voluntarily supports the pretended
"constitution" (or any supposed "government" under
it), as the following considerations show. It is true that the theory
of our pretended "constitution" is that all our taxes are
paid voluntarily; that our terrocrats operate a "mutual insurance
company," voluntarily entered into by the people with each other;
that each man makes a free and purely voluntary contract with all others
who are parties to the pretended "constitution," to pay so
much money for so much protection, the same as he does with any other
insurance company; and that he is just as free not to be protected,
and not to pay tax, as he is to pay a tax, and be protected. But this
theory of our terrocrats is wholly different from the practical fact.
The fact is that our terrocrats, like highwaymen, say to a man: "Your
money, or your life."
And many, if not most, taxes are paid
under the compulsion of that threat. Our terrocrats do not, indeed,
waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the roadside, and,
holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the
robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and is is far more
dastardly and shameful. The highwayman takes solely upon himself the
responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend
that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to
use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but
a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely
a "protector," and that he takes men's money against their
will, merely to enable him to "protect" those infatuated travellers,
who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate
his peculiar system of "protection." He is too sensible a
man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your
money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in
following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful
"sovereign," on account of the "protection" he affords
you. He does not keep "protecting" you, by commanding you
to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding
you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it
for his interest and pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a "rebel,"
a "traitor," and an "enemy" to your "country,"
and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his "authority"
or "jurisdiction," or resist his demands. He is too much of
a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villainies
as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt
to make you either his dupe or his slave. The proceedings of those tyrants,
robbers, and murderers, who call themselves "the government,"
are directly the opposite of these of the single highwayman. Still another
reason why the payment of taxes implies no consent, or pledge, to support
the pretended "constitution" or the pretended "government,"
is that the taxpayer does not know, and has no means of knowing, who
the particular terrocrats are, who have taken upon themselves the title
of "the government," and who assume to "protect"
him, and demand payment of him, without his having ever made any contract
with them. To him "the government" is a myth, an abstraction,
an incorporality, with which he can make no contract, and to which he
can give no consent, and make no pledge. He knows it only through its
pretended agents. "The government" itself he never sees. Not
knowing who the particular individuals are, who call themselves "the
government," the taxpayer does not know whom he pays his taxes
to. All he knows is that a man comes to him, representing himself to
be the agent of "the government" - that is, the agent of a
secret gang of tyrants, robbers, and murderers, who have taken to themselves
the title of "the government," and have determined to jail
or kill anybody who refuses to give them whatever money they demand.
To save his life, he gives up his money to this agent. But as the agent
does not make his principals individually known to the taxpayer, the
latter, after he has given up his money, knows no more who are "the
government" - that is who were the robbers - than he did before.
To say, therefore, that by giving up his money to their agent, he entered
into a voluntary contract with them, that he pledges himself to obey
them, to support them, and to give them whatever money they should demand
of him in the future, is simply ridiculous. All political power, as
it is called, rests practically upon this matter of money. Any number
of scoundrels, having money enough to start with, can establish themselves
as a "government" (pretended); because, with money, they can
hire soldiers, and with soldiers extort more money; and also compel
general obedience to their will. It is with pretended "government,"
as Caesar said it was in war, that money and soldiers mutually supported
each other; that with money he could hire soldiers, and with soldiers
extort more money. So these villains, who call themselves "governments,"
well understand that their power rests primarily upon money. With money
they can hire soldiers, and with soldiers extort money. And, when their
"authority" or "jurisdiction" (pretended) are denied,
the first use they always make of money, is to hire soldiers to kill
or subdue all who refuse them more money. For this reason, whoever desires
liberty, should understand these vital facts, viz.:
(a) That every man who puts money into the hands of
terrocrats (who masquerade as "government"), puts into their
hands a sword which will be used against himself, to extort more money
from him, and also to keep him in subjection of their arbitrary will.
(b) That those who will take his money, without his
consent, in the first place, will use it for his further robbery and
enslavement, if he presumes to resists their demands in the future.
(c) That it is a perfect absurdity to suppose that
any body of men would ever take a man's money without his consent, for
any such object as they profess to take it for, viz., that of protecting
him; for why should they wish to protect him, if he does not wish them
to do so?
(d) If a man wants protection, he is competent to
make his own bargains for it; and nobody has any occasion to rob him,
in order to "protect" him against his will.
(e) That the only security men can have for their
political liberty, consists in their keeping their money in their own
pockets, until they have assurances, perfectly satisfactory to themselves,
that it will be used as they wish it to be used, for their benefit,
and not for their injury.
(f) That no criminals (whether they call themselves
"government" or not), can be trusted for a moment, or reasonably
be supposed to have honest purposes in view, for as long as they depend
on extortion, rather than voluntary support.
These facts are all so vital and so self-evident,
that it cannot reasonably be supposed that anyone will voluntarily pay
money to the terrocrats who masquerade as "the government,"
for the purpose of securing their protection, unless he first makes
an explicit and purely voluntary contract with them for that purpose.
It is perfectly evident, therefore, that neither such
voting, nor such payment of taxes, as actually takes place, proves anybody's
consent, or obligation, to support the pretended "constitution."
Consequently we have no evidence at all that the supposed "constitution"
is binding upon anybody, or that anybody is under any contract or obligation
whatever to support it. And nobody is under any obligation to support
Contracts Must Be Signed.
The pretended "constitution" not only binds
nobody now, but it never did bind anybody. It never bound anybody, because
it was never agreed to by anybody in such a manner as to make it, on
general principles of law and reason, binding upon him.
It is a general principle of law and reason, that
a written instrument binds no one until he has signed it. This principle
is so inflexible a one, that even though a man is unable to write his
name, he must still "make his mark," or stamp his seal upon
wax affixed to the parchment, before he is bound by any contract.
The very men who drafted it, never signed the pretended
"constitution" in any way to bind themselves by it, as a contract.
And not one of them probably ever would have signed it in any way to
bind himself by it, as a contract. The imposter "judges,"
who profess to derive all their supposed "authority" from
the pretended "constitution" - from an instrument that nobody
ever signed - would spurn any other instrument, not signed, that should
be brought before them for adjudication.
Irresponsible Power Derived from the Pretended "Constitution".
Such are some of the precautions which the laws require,
and which individuals - from the motives of common prudence, even in
cases not required by law - take, to put their contracts in writing,
and have them signed, and, to guard against all uncertainties and controversies
in regard to their meaning and validity. And yet we have what purports,
or professes, or is claimed, to be a contract - the pretended "constitution"
- made eighty years ago, by men who are now all dead, and who never
had any power to bind us, but which (it is claimed) has nevertheless
bound three generations of men, consisting of many millions, and which
(it is claimed) will be binding upon all the millions that are to come;
but which nobody ever signed, sealed, delivered, witnessed, or acknowledged;
and which few persons, compared with the whole number that are claimed
to be bound by it, have ever read, or even seen, or ever will read,
or see. And of those who ever have read it, or ever will read it, scarcely
any two, perhaps no two, have ever agreed, or ever will agree, as to
what it means.
Moreover, this supposed "contract," which
would not be received in any court of justice sitting under its supposed
"authority," if offered to prove a debt of five dollars, is
one by which - as it is generally interpreted by those who pretend to
"administer" it - all men, women, and children throughout
the country, and through all time, surrender not only their property,
but also their liberties, and even their lives, into the hands of men
who by this supposed "contract," are expressly made wholly
irresponsible for their disposal of them. And we are so insane, or so
wicked, as to destroy property and lives without limit, in fighting
to compel men to fulfill a supposed "contract," which, inasmuch
as it has never been signed by anybody, is, on general principles of
law and reason, the merest waste paper, binding upon nobody, fit only
to be thrown into the fire; or, if preserved, preserved only to serve
as a witness and a warning of the folly and wickedness of mankind.
It is no exaggeration, but a literal truth, to say
that, by the pretended "constitution" - not as I interpret
it, but as it is interpreted by those who pretend to "administer"
it - the properties, liberties, and lives of the entire people of the
supposed "United States" are surrendered unreservedly into
the hands of men who, it is provided by the pretended "constitution"
itself, shall never be "questioned" as to any disposal they
make of them. Thus the pretended "constitution" (Art. I, Sec.
6) provides that, "for any speech or debate (or vote), in either
house, they (the pretended "senators" and "representatives")
shall not be questioned in any other place." The whole pretended
"law-making power" is given to these pretended "senators"
and "representatives" (when acting by a two-thirds vote -
and this two-thirds vote may be but two-thirds of a quorum; that is,
two-thirds of a majority); and this provision protects them from all
the pretended "laws" they make.
The pretended "constitution" also enables
them to secure the execution of all their supposed "laws,"
by giving them power to withhold the salaries of, and to impeach and
remove, all "judicial and executive officers," who refuse
to execute them. Thus the whole power of the gang of tyrants, robbers,
and murderers who masquerade as "government" is in their hands,
and they are made utterly irresponsible for the use they make of it.
What is this but absolute, irresponsible power?
It is no answer to this view of the case to say that
these men are under pretended "oath" to use their power only
within certain limits; for what care they, or what should they care,
for pretended "oaths" and limits, when it is expressly provided
in the pretended "constitution" itself, that they shall never
be "questioned," or held to any responsibility whatever, for
violating their pretended "oaths," or transgressing those
Neither is it any answer to this view of the case
to say that the particular individuals holding this power can be changed
once in two or six years; for the power of each set of men is absolute
during the term for which they hold it; and when they can hold it no
longer, they are succeeded only by men whose power will be equally absolute
Neither is it any answer to this view of the case
to say that the men holding this absolute, irresponsible power, must
be men chosen by the people (or portions of them) to hold it. A man
is nonetheless a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master
once in a term of years. Neither are a people any the less slaves because
they are permitted to periodically choose new masters. What makes them
slaves is the fact that they now are, and are always hereafter to be,
in the hands of men whose power over them is, and always is to be, absolute
and irresponsible. And of what appreciable value is it to any man, as
an individual, that he is allowed a voice in choosing these public masters?
His voice is only one of several millions.
The right of absolute and irresponsible dominion is
the right of property, and the right of property is the right of absolute,
irresponsible dominion. The two are identical; the one necessarily implying
the other. Neither can exist without the other. If, therefore, the individuals
who pretend to constitute the pretended "congress," have the
absolute and irresponsible "law-making power," which the pretended
"constitution" - according to their interpretation of it -
gives them, it can only be because they own us as property. If they
own us as property, they are our masters, and their will is our "law."
If they do not own us as property, they are not our masters, and their
will, as such, is of no "authority" over us.
But these men who claim and exercise this absolute
and irresponsible dominion over us, dare not be consistent, and claim
either to be our masters, or to own us as property. They say they are
only our servants, agents, attorneys, and representatives. But this
declaration involves an absurdity, a contradiction. No man can be my
servant, agent, attorney, or representative, and be, at the same time,
uncontrollable by me, and irresponsible to me for his acts. It is of
no importance that I appointed him, and put all power in his hands.
If I made him uncontrollable by me, and irresponsible to me, he is no
longer my servant, agent, attorney, or representative. If I gave him
absolute, irresponsible power over my property, I gave him the property.
If I gave him absolute, irresponsible power over myself, I made him
my master, and gave myself to him as a slave. And it is of no importance
whether I called him master or servant, owner or agent. The only question
is, what power did I put into his hands? Was it an absolute and irresponsible
one? or a limited and responsible one?
For still another reason they are neither our servants,
agents, attorneys, or representatives. And that reason is, that we do
not make ourselves responsible for their acts. If a man is my servant,
agent, or attorney, I necessarily make myself responsible for all his
acts done within the limits of the power I have entrusted to him. If
I have entrusted him, as my agent, with either absolute power, or any
power at all, over the persons or properties of other men than myself,
I thereby necessarily make myself responsible to those other persons
for any injuries he may do them, so long as he acts within the limits
of the power I have granted him. But no individual who may be injured
in his person or property by the acts of the individuals who pretend
to constitute the pretended "congress," can come to the individual
electors, and hold them responsible for these acts of their pretended
agents or representatives. This fact proves that these pretended agents
of the people, of everybody, are really the agents of nobody.
If, then, nobody is individually responsible for the
acts of the members who pretend to constitute the pretended "congress,"
then these members are nobody's agents. And if they are nobody's agents,
they are themselves individually responsible for their own acts, and
for the acts of all whom they employ. And the authority they are exercising
is simply their own individual authority; and, by the law of nature
- the highest of all laws - anybody injured by their acts, anybody who
is deprived by them of his property or his liberty, has the same right
to hold them individually responsible. He has the same right to resist
them, and their agents, that he has to resist any other trespassers
It is plain, then, that on general principles of law
and reason - such principles as we all act upon in courts of justice
and in common life - the pretended "constitution" is no contract;
that it binds nobody, and never did bind anybody; and that all those
who pretend to act by its "authority," are really acting without
any legitimate authority at all; that on general principles of law and
reason, they are mere usurpers, and that everybody not only has the
right, but is morally bound to treat them as such.
If some people wish to establish and maintain such
a "government," as the pretended "constitution"
describes, there is no reason in the world why they should not sign
the instrument itself, and thus make known their wishes in an open,
authentic manner; in such manner as the common sense and experience
of mankind have shown to be reasonable and necessary in such cases;
and in such manner as to make themselves (as they ought to do) individually
responsible for the acts of their pretended "government."
But no one has ever been asked to sign it. And the only reason why they
have never been asked to sign it, is that it is known that they never
would sign it; that they were neither such fools nor knaves as they
must needs be to be willing to sign it; that (at least as it has been
practically interpreted) it is not what any sensible and honest man
wants for himself; nor such as he has any right to impose upon others.
It is, to all moral intents and purposes, as destitute of obligation
as the compacts which thieves, robbers, and pirates enter into with
each other, but never sign.
If any considerable number of people believe the pretended
"constitution" to be good, why do they not sign it themselves,
and make laws for, and administer them upon, each other, leaving all
other persons (who do not interfere with them) in peace? Until they
have tried the experiment for themselves, how can they have the gall
to impose their pretended "constitution" upon, or even to
recommend it to, others? Plainly the reason for such absurd and inconsistent
conduct is that they want the pretended "constitution," not
solely for any honest or legitimate use it can be to themselves or others,
but for the dishonest and illegitimate power it gives them over the
persons and properties of others. It is for this latter reason, that
they eulogize the pretended "constitution," that they exhort
the gullible to revere it, that they expend so much money and blood
to sustain it.
VI. The Pretended "Authority" of Pretended
The pretended "constitution" itself, then,
being of no authority, on what authority does our pretended "government"
practically rest? On what ground can those who pretend to "administer"
it, claim the right to seize men's property, to restrain them of their
natural liberty of action, industry, and trade, and to kill all who
deny their supposed "authority" to dispose of men's properties,
liberties, and lives at their pleasure or discretion?
The most they can say, in answer to this question,
is, that some half, two-thirds, or three-fourths, of the male adults
of the country have a tacit understanding that they will maintain a
pretended "government" under the pretended "constitution";
that they will select, by ballot, the persons to administer it; and
that those persons who may receive a majority, or a plurality, of their
ballots, shall act as their representatives, and administer the pretended
"constitution" in their name, and by their authority.
But this tacit understanding (admitting it to exist)
cannot at all justify the conclusion drawn from it. A tacit understanding
between A, B, and C, that they will, by ballot, depute D as their agent,
to deprive me of my property, liberty, or life, cannot at all authorize
D to do so. He is none the less a tyrant, robber, and murderer, because
he claims to act as their agent, than he would be if he avowedly acted
on his own responsibility alone.
Neither am I bound to recognize him as their agent,
nor can he legitimately claim to be their agent, when he brings no written
authority from them accrediting him as such. I am under no obligation
to take his word as to who his principals may be, or whether he has
any. Bringing no credentials, I have a right to say he has no such authority
even as he claims to have, and that he is therefore intending to rob,
enslave, or murder me on his own account.
This tacit understanding, therefore, among the voters
of the country, amounts to nothing as an authority to their agents.
Neither do the ballots by which they select their agents, avail any
more than does their tacit understanding; for their ballots are given
in secret, and therefore in a way to avoid any personal responsibility
for the acts of their agents.
No body of men can be said to authorize a man to act
as their agent, to the injury of a third person, unless they do it in
so open and authentic a manner as to make themselves personally responsible
for his acts. None of the voters in this country appoint their political
agents in any open, authentic manner, or in any manner to make themselves
responsible for their acts. Therefore these pretended agents cannot
legitimately claim to be really agents. Somebody must be responsible
for the acts of these pretended agents; and if they cannot show any
open and authentic credentials from their principals, they cannot, in
law or reason, be said to have any principals. The maxim applies here,
that what does not appear, does not exist. If they can show no principal,
they have none.
But even these pretended agents do not themselves
know who their pretended principals are. These latter act in secret;
for acting by secret ballot is acting in secret as much as if they were
to meet in secret conclave in the darkness of the night. And they are
personally as much unknown to the agents they select, as they are to
others. No pretended agent therefore can ever know by whose ballots
he is selected, or consequently who his real principals are. Not knowing
who his principals are, he has no right to say that he has any. He can,
at most, say only that he is the agent of a secret gang of tyrants,
robbers, and murderers, who are bound by that faith which prevails among
confederates in crime, to stand by him, if his acts, done in their name,
shall be resisted.
Men honestly engaged in attempting to establish justice
in the world, have no occasion thus to act in secret; or to appoint
agents to do acts for which they (the principals) are not willing to
be personally responsible.
The secret ballot makes a secret tyranny, a secret
gang of tyrants, robbers, and murderers. Open despotism is better than
this. The single despot stands out in the face of all men, and says:
"I am the state; my will is law; I am your master; I take the responsibility
of my acts; the only arbiter I acknowledge is the sword; if any one
denies my right, let him try conclusions with me."
But a secret tyranny is little less than a tyranny
of assassins. Under it, a man knows not who his tyrants are, until they
have struck, and perhaps not then. He may guess, beforehand, as to some
of his immediate neighbors. But he really knows nothing with certainty.
The man to whom he would most naturally fly for protection, may prove
an enemy, when the time of trial comes.
This is the kind of tyranny we have; and it is the
only one we are likely to have, until men are ready to say: "We
will consent to no constitution, except such an one as we are neither
ashamed nor afraid to sign; and we will authorize no agents or representatives
to do anything in our name which we are not willing to be personally
VII. The Secret Ballot What is the motive behind
the secret ballot?
This, and only this: like other confederates in crime,
those who use it are not friends, but enemies, and they are afraid to
be known, and to have their individual doings known, even to each other.
They can contrive to bring about a sufficient understanding to enable
them to act in concert against other persons; but beyond this they have
no confidence, and no friendship, among themselves. In fact, they are
engaged quite as much in schemes for plundering each other, as in plundering
those who are not of them. And it is perfectly well understood among
them that the strongest party among them will, in certain contingencies,
murder each other by the hundreds of thousands (as they lately did do)
to accomplish their purposes against each other. Hence they dare not
be known, and have their individual doings known, even to each other.
And this is avowedly the only reason for the ballot: for a secret tyranny;
a tyranny by secret bands of tyrants, robbers, and murderers. And we
are insane enough to call this liberty! To be a member of this secret
gang of tyrants, robbers, and murderers is esteemed a privilege and
an honor! Without this privilege, a man is considered a slave; but with
it a free man! With it he is considered a free man, because he has the
same power to secretly (by secret ballot) procure the robbery, enslavement,
and murder of another man, and that other man has to procure his robbery,
enslavement, and murder. And this they call equal rights!
If any number of men, many or few, claim the right
to "govern" the people of this country, let them make and
sign an open compact with each other to do so. Let them thus make themselves
individually known to those whom they propose to "govern."
And let them thus openly take the legitimate responsibility of their
acts. How many of those who now support the pretended "constitution,"
will ever do this? How many will ever dare openly proclaim their right
to "govern"?, or take the legitimate responsibility for their
acts? Not one!
VIII. Pretended "Government" is a
It is obvious that, on general principles of law and
reason, there is no such thing as a "government," created
by, or resting upon, any consent, compact, or agreement of "the
people of the United States" with each other; that what we have
is a tyranny, composed of a few individuals only, who act in concert,
and call themselves by the several names of "senators," "representatives,"
"presidents," "judges," "marshalls," "treasurers,"
"collectors," "generals," "colonels,"
"captains," etc., etc.
On general principles of law and reason, it is of
no importance whatever, that those few individuals profess to be the
agents and representatives of "the people of the United States";
since they can show no credentials from the people themselves; they
were never appointed as agents or representatives in any open, authentic
manner, they do not themselves know, and have no means of knowing, and
cannot prove, who their principals (as they call them) are individually;
and consequently cannot, in law or reason, be said to have any principals
It is obvious, too, that if these alleged principals
ever did appoint these pretended agents, or representatives, they appointed
them secretly (by secret ballot), and in a way to avoid all personal
responsibility for their acts; that, at most, these alleged principals
put these pretended agents forward for the most criminal purposes, viz.:
to plunder the people of their property, and restrain them of their
liberty; and that the only authority that these alleged principals have
for so doing, is simply a tacit understanding among themselves that
they will imprison, shoot, or hang every man who resists the exactions
and restraints which their agents or representatives may impose upon
Thus it is obvious that what we have is a tyranny,
made up of these professed agents or representatives of a secret gang
of tyrants, robbers, and murderers, who, to cover up, or gloss over,
their robberies and murders, have taken to themselves the title of "the
people of the United States"; and who, on the pretense of being
"the people of the United States," assert their right to subject
to their dominion, and to control and dispose of at their pleasure,
all property and persons found in the country.
IX. Meaningless "Oaths" Given to the
On general principles of law and reason, the pretended
"oaths" which these pretended agents of the people take to
support and uphold the pretended "constitution," are of no
validity or obligation. And why? For this, if for no other reason, viz.,
that they are given to nobody. There is no "privity" (as the
lawyers say) - that is, no mutual recognition, consent, and agreement
- between those who take these pretended "oaths," and any
other persons. If I go upon Boston Common, and in the presence of a
hundred thousand people, men, women, and children, with whom I have
no contract on the subject, take a pretended "oath" that I
will enforce upon them the laws of Moses, of Lycurgus, of Solon, of
Justinian, or of Alfred, that pretended "oath" is, on general
principles of law and reason, of no obligation. It is of no obligation,
not merely because it is intrinsically a criminal one, but also because
it is given to nobody, and consequently pledges my faith to nobody.
It is merely given to the winds.
Unlike The Covenant of God, to which every single
person gave their verbal and binding agreement, binding upon their children
X. Responsibilities of Tax-Gatherers.
For the same reasons, the pretended "oaths"
of all the other pretended agents of this secret gang of tyrants, robbers,
and murderers are, on general principles of law and reason, equally
destitute of obligation. They are given to nobody; but only to the winds.
The pretended "oaths" of the tax-gatherers
and treasurers of the gang, are, on general principles of law and reason,
of no validity. If any tax-gatherer, for example, should put the money
he receives into his own pocket, and refuse to part with it, the members
of this gang could not say to him: "You collected that money as
our agent, and for our uses; and you swore to pay it over to us, or
to those we should appoint to receive it. You have betrayed us, and
broken faith with us."
It would be a sufficient answer for him to say to
them: "I never knew you. You never made yourselves individually
known to me. I never gave my pretended "oath" to you, as individuals.
You may, or you may not, be members of that secret gang, who appoint
agents to rob and murder other people; but who are cautious not to make
themselves individually known, either to such agents, or to those whom
their agents are commissioned to rob. If you are members of that gang,
you have given me no proof that you ever commissioned me to rob others
for your benefit. I never knew you, as individuals, and of course never
promised you that I would pay over to you the proceeds of my robberies.
I committed my robberies on my own account, and for my own profit. If
you thought I was fool enough to allow you to keep yourselves concealed,
and use me as your tool for robbing other persons; or that I would take
all the personal risk of the robberies, and pay over the proceeds to
you, you were particularly stupid. As I took all the risk of my robberies,
I propose to take all the profits. Begone! You are fools, as well as
villains. If I gave my pretended "oath" to anybody, I gave
it to other persons than you. But I really gave it to nobody. I only
gave it to the winds. It answered my purposes at the time. It enabled
me to get the money I was after, and now I propose to keep it. If you
expected me to pay it over to you, you relied only upon that honor that
is said to prevail among thieves. You now understand that that is a
very poor reliance. I trust you may become wise enough to never rely
upon it again. If I have any duty in the matter, it is to give back
the money to those from whom I stole it; not to pay it over to such
villains as you."
XI. Pretended "Oaths" by Foreigners,
Southerners, and Soldiers.
On general principles of law and reason, the pretended
"oaths" which foreigners take, on coming here, and being "naturalized"
(as it is called), are of no validity. They are necessarily given to
nobody; because there is no open, authentic association, to which they
can join themselves; or to whom, as individuals, they can pledge their
faith. No such association, or organization, as "the people of
the United States," having ever been formed by any open, written,
authentic, or voluntary contract, there is, on general principles of
law and reason, no such association, or organization, in existence.
And all pretended "oaths" that purport to be given to such
an association are necessarily given only to the winds. They cannot
be said to be given to any man, or body of men, as individuals, because
no man, or body of men, can come forward with any proof that the pretended
"oaths" were given to them, as individuals, or to any association
of which they are members. To say that there is a tacit understanding
among a portion of the male adults of the country, that they will call
themselves "the people of the United States," and that they
will act in concert in subjecting the remainder of the people of the
country to their dominion; but that they will keep themselves personally
concealed by doing all their acts secretly, is wholly insufficient,
on general principles of law and reason, to prove the existence of any
such association, or organization, as "the people of the United
States"; or consequently to prove that the pretended "oaths"
of foreigners were given to any such association.
On general principles of law and reason, all the pretended
"oaths" which since the civil war, have been given by southern
men, that they will obey the pretended "laws of congress,"
support the supposed "union," and the like, are of no validity.
Such pretended "oaths" are invalid, not only because they
were extorted by military power, and threats of confiscation, and because
they are in contravention of men's natural right to do as they please
(provide they do not harm others and their property), but also because
they were given to nobody. They were nominally given to the supposed
"United States." But being nominally given to the supposed
"United States," they were necessarily given to nobody, because,
on general principles of law and reason, there were no pretended "United
States," to whom the pretended "oaths" could be given.
That is to say, there was no open, authentic, avowed, legitimate association,
corporation, or body of men, known as the "United States,"
or as "the people of the United States," to whom the pretended
"oaths" could have been given. If anybody says there was such
a corporation, let him state who were the individuals that composed
it, and how and when they became a corporation. Were Mr. A, Mr. B, and
Mr. C members of it? If so, where are their signatures? Where is the
evidence of their membership? Where is the record? Where is the open,
authentic proof? There is none. Therefore, in law and reason, there
was no such corporation.
On general principles of law and reason, every corporation,
association, or organized body of men, having a legitimate corporate
existence, and legitimate corporate rights, must consist of certain
known individuals, who can prove, by legitimate and reasonable evidence,
their membership. But nothing of this kind can be proved in regard to
the corporation, or body of men, who call themselves "the United
States." Not a man of them, in all the pretended "northern
States," can prove by any legitimate evidence, such as is required
to prove membership in other legal corporations, that he himself, or
any other man whom he can name, is a member of any corporation or association
called "the United States," or "the people of the United
States," or, consequently, that there is any such corporation.
And since no such corporation can be proved to exist, it cannot of course
be proved that the pretended "oaths" of southern men were
given to any such corporation. The most that can be claimed is that
the pretended "oaths" were given to a secret gang of tyrants,
robbers, and murderers, who called themselves "the United States,"
and extorted those pretended "oaths." But that certainly is
not enough to prove that the pretended "oaths" are of any
On general principles of law and reason, the pretended
"oaths" of soldiers, that they will serve a given number of
years, that they will obey the orders of their superior officers, that
they will bear true allegiance to the supposed "government,"
and so forth, are of no obligation. Independently of the criminality
of an pretended "oath," that, for a given number of years,
he will kill all whom he may be commanded to kill, without exercising
his own judgment or conscience as to the justice or necessity of such
killing, there is this further reason why a soldier's pretended "oath"
is of no obligation, viz., that, like all the other pretended "oaths"
that have now been mentioned, it is given to nobody. There being, in
no legitimate sense, any such corporation, or nation, as "the United
States," nor, consequently, in any legitimate sense, any such entity
as "the government of the United States," a soldier's pretended
"oath" given to, or contract made with, such an absent entity,
is necessarily an pretended "oath" given to, or a contract
made with, nobody. Consequently such pretended "oath" or contract
can be of no obligation or authorization. Hence any killing done by
such a soldier is done purely on his personal responsibility.
XII. Invalidity of Pretended "Treaties".
On general principles of law and reason, the "treaties"
(pretended) which purport to be entered into with other supposed "nations,"
by persons calling themselves "ambassadors," "secretaries,"
"presidents," and "senators" of the supposed "United
States," in the name, and in behalf, of "the people of the
United States," are of no validity. These pretended "ambassadors,"
"secretaries," "presidents," and "senators,"
who claim to be the agents of "the people of the United States,"
for making these purported "treaties," can show no open, written,
or other authentic evidence that either the whole "people of the
United States," or any other open avowed, responsible body of men,
calling themselves by that name, ever authorized these pretended "ambassadors"
and others to make treaties in the name of, or binding upon any one
of, "the people of the United States," or any other open,
avowed, responsible body of men, calling themselves by that name. No
one ever authorized these pretended "ambassadors," "secretaries,"
and others, in their name and behalf, to recognize certain other persons,
calling themselves "emperors," "kings," "queens,"
and the like, as the rightful rulers, sovereigns masters, or representatives
of the different peoples whom they assume to "govern," to
represent, and to bind.
The "nations," as they are called, with
whom our pretended "ambassadors," "secretaries,"
"presidents," and "senators" profess to make supposed
"treaties" are as much myths as our own. On general principles
of law and reason, there are no such "nations." That is to
say, neither the whole people of "England," for example, nor
any open, avowed, responsible body of men, calling themselves by that
name, ever, by any open, written, or other authentic contract with each
other, formed themselves into any bona fide, legitimate association
or organization, or authorized any pretended "king," "queen,"
or other representative to make treaties in their name, or to bind them,
either individually, or as an association, by such treaties.
Our pretended "treaties," then, being made
with no legitimate or bona fide "nations," or representatives
of "nations," and being made, on our part, by persons who
have no legitimate authority to act for us, have intrinsically no more
validity than a pretended "treaty" made by the "Man in
the Moon" with the "King of the Pleiades."
On general principles of law and reason, debts contracted
in the name of "the United States," or of "the people
of the United States," are of no validity. It is utterly absurd
to pretend that debts to the amount of twenty-five hundred millions
of dollars are binding upon thirty-five or forty millions of people,
when there is not a particle of legitimate evidence - such as would
be required to prove a private debt - that can be produced against any
one of them, that either he, or his properly authorized attorney, ever
contracted to pay one cent.
Certainly, neither the whole people of the country,
nor any number of them, ever separately or individually contracted to
pay a cent of these debts. Certainly, also, neither the whole people
of the country, nor any number of them, by any open, written, or other
authentic and voluntary contract, united themselves as a firm, corporation,
or association, by the name of "the United States," or "the
people of the United States," and authorized their agents to contract
debts in their name. Certainly, too, there is in existence no such firm,
corporation, or association as "the United States," or "the
people of the United States," formed by any open, written, or other
authentic and voluntary contract, and having corporate property with
which to pay these debts.
How, then, is it possible, on any general principle
of law or reason, that debts that are binding upon nobody individually,
can be binding upon forty millions of people collectively, when, on
general and legitimate principles of law and reason, these forty millions
of people neither have, nor ever had, any corporate property?, never
made any corporate or individual contract?, and neither have, nor ever
had, any corporate existence?
Who, then, created these debts, in the name of "the
United States"? Why, at most, only a few persons, calling themselves
"members of congress," etc., who pretended to represent "the
people of the United States," but who really represented only a
secret gang of tyrants, robbers, and murderers, who wanted money to
carry on the robberies and murders in which they were then engaged;
and who intended to extort from the future people of the country, by
robbery and threats of murder (and real murder if that should prove
necessary), the means to pay these debts.
This gang of tyrants, robbers, and murderers, who
were the real principals in contracting these debts, is a secret one,
because its members have never entered into any open, written, avowed,
or authentic contract, by which they may be individually known to the
world, or even to each other. Their real or pretended representatives,
who contracted these debts in their name, were selected (if selected
at all) for that purpose secretly (by secret ballot), and in a way to
furnish evidence against none of the principals individually; and these
principals were really known individually neither to their pretended
representatives who contracted these debts in their behalf nor to those
who lent the money. The money, therefore, was all borrowed and lent
in the dark; that is, by men who did not see each other's faces, or
know each other's names; who could not then, and cannot now, identify
each other as principals in the transactions; and who consequently can
prove no contract with each other.
[Can you now see why some refer to them as the Hidden
Hand, or Shadow Government?]
Furthermore, the money was all lent and borrowed for
criminal purposes; that is, for purposes of robbery and murder; and
for this reason the contracts were all intrinsically void, and would
have been so, even though the real parties, borrowers and lenders had
come face to face, and made their contracts openly, in their own proper
Furthermore, this secret gang of robbers and murderers,
who were the real borrowers of this money, having no legitimate corporate
existence, have no corporate property with which to pay these debts.
They do indeed pretend to own large tracts of wild lands, lying between
the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, and between the Gulf of Mexico and
the North Pole. But, on general principles of law and reason, they might
as well pretend to own the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans themselves; or
the atmosphere and the sunlight; and to hold them, and dispose of them,
for the payment of these debts.
Having no corporate property with which to pay what
purports to be their corporate debts, this secret gang of tyrants, robbers,
and murderers are really bankrupt. They have nothing to pay with. In
fact, they do not propose to pay their debts otherwise than from the
proceeds of their future robberies and murders. These are confessedly
their sole reliance; and were known to be such by the lenders of the
money, at the time the money was lent. And it was, therefore, virtually
a part of the contract, that the money should be repaid only from the
proceeds of these future robberies and murders. For this reason, if
for no other, the contracts were void from the beginning.
In fact, these apparently two classes, borrowers and
lenders, were really one and the same class. They borrowed and lent
money from and to themselves. They themselves were not only part and
parcel, but the very life and soul, of this secret gang of tyrants,
robbers, and murderers, who borrowed and spent the money. Individually
they furnished money for a common enterprise; taking, in return, what
purported to be corporate promises for individual loans. The only excuse
they had for taking these pretended corporate promises of, for individual
loans by, the same parties, was that they might have some apparent excuse
for the future robberies of the gang (that is, to pay the debts of the
corporation), and that they might also know what shares they were to
be respectively entitled to out of the proceeds of their future robberies.
Finally, if these debts had been created for the most
innocent and honest purposes, and in the most open and honest manner,
by the real parties to the contracts, these parties could thereby have
bound nobody but themselves, and no property but their own. They could
have bound nobody that should have come after them, and no property
subsequently created by, or belonging to, other persons.
XIV. The Lenders of Blood-Money.
The pretended "constitution" having never
been signed by anybody; and there being no other open, written, or authentic
contract between any parties whatever, by virtue of which the "United
States government" (pretended), is maintained; and it being well
known that none but male persons, of twenty-one years of age and upwards,
are allowed any voice in the supposed "government"; and it
being also well known that a large number of these adult persons seldom
or never vote at all; and that all those who do vote, do so secretly
(by secret ballot ), and in a way to prevent their individual votes
being known, either to the world, or even to each other; and consequently
in a way to make no one openly responsible for the acts of their agents,
or representatives - all these things being known - the questions arise:
Who composes the real "governing power" in the country? Who
are the men, the responsible men, who rob us of our property? Who restrain
us of our liberty? Subject us to their arbitrary dominion? And devastate
our homes, and shoot us down by the hundreds of thousands, if we resist?
How shall we find these men? How shall we know them from others? How
shall we defend ourselves and our property against them? Who, of our
neighbors, are members of this secret gang of tyrants, robbers and murderers?
How can we know which are their houses, that we may burn or demolish
them? Which their property, that we may destroy it? Which their persons,
that we may kill them, and rid the world and ourselves of such tyrants
These are questions that must be answered before men
can be free; before they can protect themselves against this secret
gang of tyrants, robbers, and murderers, who now plunder, enslave, and
destroy them. The answer to these questions is, that only those who
have the will and the power to shoot down their fellow men, are the
real rulers in this, as in all other pretended "civilized countries,"
for by no others will civilized men be robbed, or enslaved.
Among savages, mere physical strength, on the part
of one man may enable him to rob, enslave, or kill another man. Among
barbarians, mere physical strength, on the part of a body of men, disciplined,
and acting in concert, though with very little money or other wealth,
may, under some circumstances, enable them to rob enslave, or kill another
body of men, as numerous, or perhaps even more numerous, than themselves.
And among both savages and barbarians, mere want may sometimes compel
one man to sell himself as a slave to another. But with so-called "civilized
peoples," among whom knowledge, wealth, and the means of acting
in concert, have become diffused; and who have invented such weapons
and other means of defense as to render mere physical strength of less
importance; and by whom soldiers in any requisite number, and other
instrumentalities of war in any requisite amount, can always be had
for money, the question of war, and consequently the question of power,
is little else than a mere question of money. As a necessary consequence,
those who stand ready to furnish this money, are the real rulers. It
is so in Europe, and it is so in this country.
In Europe, the nominal rulers, the pretended "emperors,"
"kings," and "parliaments," are anything but the
real rulers of their respective countries. They are little or nothing
else than mere tools, employed by the wealthy to rob, enslave, and (if
need be) murder those who have less wealth, or none at all. The Rothschilds,
and that class of money-lenders of whom they are the representatives
and agents - men who never think of lending a shilling to their next-door
neighbors, for purposes of honest industry, unless upon the most ample
security, and at the highest rate of interest - stand ready, at all
times, to lend money in unlimited amounts to those tyrants, robbers,
and murderers, who call themselves "governments," to be expended
in shooting down those who do not submit quietly to being robbed and
They lend their money in this manner, knowing that
it is to be expended in murdering their fellow men, for simply seeking
their liberty and their rights; knowing also that neither the interest
nor the principal will ever be paid, except as it will be extorted under
terror of the repetition of such murders as those for which the money
lent is to be expended.
These money-lenders, the Rothschilds, for example,
say to themselves: If we lend a hundred millions sterling to the pretended
"queen and parliament of England," it will enable them to
murder twenty, fifty, or a hundred thousand people in England, Ireland,
or India; and the terror inspired by such wholesale murder, will enable
them to keep the whole people of those countries in subjection for twenty,
or perhaps fifty, years to come; to control all their trade and industry;
and to extort from them large amounts of money, under the name of taxes;
and from the wealth thus extorted from them, they ( the "queen"
and "parliament") can afford to pay us a higher rate of interest
for our money than we can get in any other way. Or, if we lend this
sum to the pretended "emperor of Austria," it will enable
him to murder so many of his people as to strike terror into the rest
and thus enable him to keep them in subjection, and extort money from
them, for twenty or fifty years to come. And they say the same in regard
to the pretended "czar of Russia," the "king of Prussia,"
the "emperor of France," or any other so called "ruler,"
who, in their judgment, will be able, by murdering a reasonable portion
of his people, to keep the rest in subjection, and extort money from
them, for a long time to come, to pay the interest and principal of
the money lent to him.
"And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that
kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do.
But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear Him, which after He
hath killed hath power to cast into hell-fire; yea, I say unto you,
Fear Him." - Christ, Luke 12:4-5.]
And why are these men so ready to lend money for murdering
their fellow men? Solely for this reason, viz., that such loans are
considered better investments than loans for purposes of honest industry.
They pay higher rates of interest; and it is less trouble to look after
them. This is the whole matter.
The question of making these loans is, with these
lenders, a mere question of pecuniary profit. They lend money to be
expended in robbing, enslaving, and murdering their fellow men, solely
because, on the whole, such loans pay better than any others. They are
no respecters of persons, no superstitious fools, that reverence pretended
"monarchs." They care no more for a pretended "king,"
or "emperor," than they do for a beggar, except as he is a
better customer, and can pay them better interest for their money. If
they doubt his ability to make his murders successful for maintaining
his power, and thus extorting money from his people in future, they
dismiss him as unceremoniously as they would dismiss any other hopeless
bankrupt, who should want to borrow money to save himself from open
When these great lenders of blood-money, like the
Rothschilds, have loaned vast sums in this way, for purposes of murder,
to a pretended "emperor" or "king," they sell out
the bonds taken by them, in small amounts, to anybody, and everybody,
who are disposed to buy them at satisfactory prices, to hold as investments.
They (the Rothschilds and their ilk) thus soon get back their money,
with great profits; and are now ready to lend money in the same way
again to any other tyrant, robber, and murderer, called an "emperor"
or "king," who, they think, is likely to be successful in
his robberies and murders, and able to pay a good price for the money
necessary to carry on his robberies and murders.
This business of lending blood-money is one of the
most thoroughly sordid, cold-blooded, and criminal that was ever carried
on, to any considerable extent, amongst human beings. It is like lending
money to slave traders, or to common robbers and pirates, to be repaid
out of their plunder. And the men who loan money to pretended "governments"
for the purpose of enabling the latter to rob, enslave, and murder their
people, are among the greatest, villains that the world has ever seen.
And they as much deserve to be hunted and killed (if they cannot otherwise
be gotten rid of) as any slave traders, robbers, or pirates that ever
When these "emperors" and "kings,"
pretended, have obtained their loans they proceed to hire and train
immense numbers of professional murderers, called "soldiers,"
and employ them in shooting down all who resist their demands for money.
In fact, most of them keep large bodies of these murderers constantly
in their service, as their only means of enforcing their extortions.
There are now, I think, four or five millions of these professional
murderers constantly employed by the pretended "sovereigns"
of Europe. The enslaved people are, of course, forced to support and
pay all these murderers, as well as to submit to all the other extortions
which these murderers are employed to enforce.
It is only in this way that most of the pretended
"governments" of Europe are maintained. These pretended "governments"
are in reality only great bands of tyrants, robbers, and murderers,
organized, disciplined, and constantly on the alert. And the pretended
"sovereigns," in these different supposed "governments,"
are simply the heads, or chiefs, of different bands of tyrants, robbers,
and murderers. And these heads or chiefs are dependent upon the lenders
of blood-money for the means to carry on their robberies and murders.
They could not sustain themselves a moment but for the loans made to
them by these blood-money loan-mongers. And their first care is to maintain
their credit with them; for they know their end is come, the instant
their credit with them fails. Consequently the first proceeds of their
extortions are scrupulously applied to the payment of the interest on
In addition to paying the interest on their bonds,
they perhaps grant to the holders of them great monopolies in banking,
like the Banks of England, of France, and of Vienna (and since 1913
the Federal Reserve Bank of New York), with the agreement that these
banks shall furnish money whenever, in sudden emergencies, it may be
necessary to shoot down more of their people. Perhaps also, by means
of tariffs on competing imports, they give great monopolies to certain
branches of industry, in which these lenders of blood-money are engaged.
They also, by unequal taxation, exempt wholly or partially the property
of these loan-mongers, and throw corresponding burdens upon those who
are too poor and weak to resist.
Thus it is evident that all these men, who call themselves
by the high-sounding names of "Emperors," "Kings,"
"Sovereigns," "Monarchs," "Most Christian Majesties,"
"Most Catholic Majesties," "High Mightinesses,"
"Most Serene and Potent Princes," and the like, and who claim
to rule "by the grace of God," by "Divine Right"
- that is, by "special authority from Heaven" - are intrinsically
not only the merest miscreants and wretches, engaged solely in plundering,
enslaving, and murdering their fellow men, but that they are also the
merest hangers on, the servile, obsequious, fawning dependents and tools
of these blood-money loan-mongers, on whom they rely for the means to
carry on their crimes. These loan-mongers, like the Rothschilds, laugh
in their sleeves, and say to themselves: These despicable creatures,
who call themselves "emperors," and "kings," and
"majesties," and "most serene and potent princes,"
who profess to wear "crowns," and sit on "thrones";
who deck themselves with ribbons, and feathers, and jewels; and surround
themselves with hired flatterers and lickspittles; and whom we suffer
to strut around, and palm themselves off, upon fools and slaves, as
"sovereigns and lawgivers specially appointed by Almighty God";
and to hold themselves out as the sole fountains of honors, and dignities,
and wealth, and power - all these miscreants and imposters know that
we make them, and use them; that in us they live, move, and have their
being; that we require them (as the price of their positions ) to take
upon themselves all the labor, all the danger, and all the odium of
all the crimes they commit for our profit; and that we will unmake them,
strip them of their gewgaws, and send them out into the world as beggars,
or give them over to the vengeance of the people they have enslaved,
the moment they refuse to commit any crime we require of them, or to
pay over to us such share of the proceeds of their robberies as we see
fit to demand.
XV. The Superstitious Belief in Pretended "Authorities".
Now, what is true in Europe, is substantially true
in this country. The difference is the immaterial one, that, in this
country, there is no visible, permanent head, or chief, of these tyrants,
robbers, and murderers, who call themselves "the government."
That is to say, there is no one man, who calls himself "the state,"
or even "emperor," "king," or "sovereign";
no one who claims that he and his children rule "by the Grace of
God," by "Divine Right," or by "special appointment
from Heaven." There are only certain men, who call themselves "presidents,"
"senators," and "representatives," and claim to
be the authorized agents, for the time being, or for certain short periods,
of all "the people of the United States"; but who can show
no credentials, or powers of attorney, or any other open, authentic
evidence that they are so, and who notoriously are not so; but are really
only the agents of a secret gang of tyrants, robbers, and murderers,
whom they themselves do not know, and have no means of knowing, individually;
but who, they trust, will openly or secretly, when the crisis comes,
sustain them in all their usurpations and crimes.
What is important to be noticed is, that these pretended
"presidents," "senators," and "representatives,"
these pretended agents of all "the people of the United States,"
the moment their exactions meet with any formidable resistance from
any portion of "the people" themselves, are obliged, like
their co-robbers and murderers in Europe, to fly at once to the lenders
of blood-money, for the means to sustain their power. And they borrow
their money on the same principle, and for the same purpose, viz., to
be expended in shooting down all those "people of the United States"
- their own constituents and principals, as they profess to call them
- who resist the robberies and enslavement which these borrowers of
the money are practising upon them. And they expect to repay the loans,
if at all, only from the proceeds of the future robberies, which they
anticipate it will be easy for them and their successors to perpetrate
through a long series of years, upon their pretended principals, if
they can but shoot down now some hundreds of thousands of them, and
thus strike terror into the rest.
Perhaps the facts were never made more evident, in
any country on the globe, than in our own, that these soulless blood-money
loan-mongers are the real rulers; that they rule from the most sordid
and mercenary motives; that the ostensible "government," the
pretended "presidents," "senators," and "representatives,"
pretended, are merely their tools; and that no ideas of, or regard for,
justice or liberty had anything to do in inducing them to lend their
money for the war. In proof of all this, look at the following facts.
Nearly a hundred years ago we professed to have gotten
rid of all that religious superstition, inculcated by a servile and
corrupt priesthood in Europe, that supposed "rulers" derived
their pretended "authority" directly from "heaven";
and that it was consequently a religious duty on the part of the people
to obey them. We professed long ago to have learned that governments
could rightfully occur only by the free will, and on the voluntary support,
of those who might choose to sustain them. We all professed to have
known long ago, that the only legitimate objects of government were
the maintenance of liberty and justice equally for all. All this we
had professed for nearly a hundred years. And we professed to look with
pity and contempt upon those ignorant, superstitious, and enslaved peoples
of Europe, who were so easily kept in subjection by the frauds and force
of their terrocrats.
Notwithstanding all this, that we had learned, and
known, and professed, for nearly a century, that these lenders of blood-money
had, for a long series of years previous to the civil war, been the
willing accomplices of the slave-holders in perverting the pretended
"government" from the purposes of liberty and justice, to
the greatest of crimes. They had been such accomplices for a purely
pecuniary consideration, to wit, a control of the markets in the South;
in other words, the privilege of holding the slave-holders themselves
in industrial and commercial subjection to the manufacturers and merchants
of the North (who afterwards furnished the money for the war). And these
Northern merchants and manufacturers, these lenders of blood-money,
were willing to continue to be the accomplices of the slave-holders
in the future, for the same pecuniary consideration. But the slave-holders,
either doubting the fidelity of their Northern allies, or feeling themselves
strong enough to keep their slaves in subjection without Northern assistance,
would no longer pay the price which these Northern men demanded. And
it was to enforce this price in the future-that is, to monopolize the
Southern markets, to maintain their industrial and commercial control
over the South - that these Northern manufacturers and merchants lent
some of the profits of their former monopolies for the war, in order
to secure to themselves the same, or greater, monopolies in the future.
These - and not any love of liberty or justice - were the motives on
which the money for the war was lent by the North. In short, the North
said to the slave-holders: If you will not pay us our price (give us
control of your markets) for our assistance against your slaves, we
will secure the same price (keep control of your markets ) by helping
your slaves against you, and using them as our tools for maintaining
dominion over you; for the control of your markets we will have, whether
the tools we use for that purpose be black or white, and be the cost,
in blood and money, what it may.
[ "No servant can serve two masters: for either he will
hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one,
and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and materialism. And the
politicians also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they
And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before
men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed
among men is abomination in the sight of God." - Christ,
On this principle, and from this motive, and not from
any love of liberty, or justice, the money was lent in enormous amounts,
and at enormous rates of interest. And it was only by means of these
loans that the objects of the war were accomplished.
And now these lenders of blood-money demand their
pay; and the "government," pretended, becomes their tool,
their servile, slavish, villainous tool, to extort it from the labor
of the enslaved people both of the North and the South. It is to be
extorted by every form of direct, and indirect, and unequal taxation.
Not only the nominal debt and interest - enormous as the latter was
- are to be paid in full, but these holders of the debt are to be paid
still further - and perhaps doubly, triply, or quadruply paid - by such
tariffs on imports as will enable our home manufacturers to realize
enormous prices for their commodities; also by such monopolies in banking
as will enable them to keep control of, and thus enslave and plunder,
the industry and trade of the great body of the Northern people themselves.
In short, the industrial and commercial slavery of the great body of
the people, North and South, black and white, is the price which these
lenders of blood-money demand, and insist upon, and are determined to
secure, in return for the money lent for the war.
This program having been fully arranged and systematized,
they put their sword into the hands of the chief murderer of the war
(pretended "general" Grant), and charge him to carry their
scheme into effect. And now he, speaking as their organ, says: "Let
us have peace." The meaning of this is: Submit quietly to all the
robbery and slavery we have arranged for you, and you can have "peace."
But in case you resist, the same lenders of blood-money, who furnished
the means to subdue the South, will furnish the means again to subdue
you. These, alone, are the terms on which terrocrats ever give "peace"
to "their people."
The whole affair, on the part of those who furnished
the money, has been, and now is, a deliberate scheme of robbery and
murder; not merely to monopolize the markets of the South, but also
to monopolize the currency, and thus control the industry and trade,
and thus plunder and enslave the laborers, of both North and South.
And the imposters who masquerade as "congress" and "the
president" are today the merest tools for these purposes. They
are obliged to be, for they know that their own power, as "rulers,"
pretended, is at an end, the moment their credit with the blood-money
loan-mongers fails. They are like a bankrupt in the hands of an extortioner.
They dare not say nay to any demand made upon them. And to hide at once,
if possible, both their servility and their crimes, they attempt to
divert public attention, by crying out that they have "Abolished
Slavery!" That they have "Saved the Country!" That they
have "Preserved our Glorious Union!" and that, in now paying
the "National Debt" as they call it (as if the people themselves,
all of them who are to be taxed for its payment, had really and voluntarily
joined in contracting it), they are simply "Maintaining the National
By "maintaining the national honor," they
mean simply that they themselves, tyrants, robbers, and murderers, assume
to be "the nation," and will keep faith with those who lend
them the money necessary to enable them to crush the great body of the
people under their feet; and will faithfully appropriate, from the proceeds
of their future robberies and murders, enough to pay all their loans,
principal and interest.
The pretense that the "abolition of slavery"
was either a motive or justification for the war, is a fraud of the
same character with that of "maintaining the national honor."
Who, but such usurpers, robbers, and murderers as they, ever established
slavery? And why did these men abolish slavery? Not from any love of
liberty in general - not as an act of justice to the black man himself,
but only "as a war measure," and because they wanted his assistance,
and that of his friends, in carrying on the war they had undertaken
for maintaining and intensifying that political, commercial, and industrial
slavery, to which they have subjected the great body of the people,
both white and black. And yet these imposters now cry out that they
have abolished the chattel slavery of the black man - although that
was not the motive of the war - as if they thought they could thereby
conceal, atone for, or justify that other slavery which they were fighting
to perpetuate, and to render more rigorous and inexorable than it ever
was before. There was no difference in principle - but only one of degree
- between the slavery they boast they have abolished, and the slavery
they were fighting to preserve; for all restraints upon men's natural
liberty, not necessary for the simple maintenance of justice, are of
the nature of slavery, and differ from each other only in degree.
If their object had really been to abolish slavery,
or maintain liberty or justice generally, they had only to say: "All,
whether white or black, who want the protection of this government,
shall have it; and all who do not want it, will be left in peace, so
long as they leave us in peace." Had they said this, slavery would
necessarily have been abolished at once; the war would have been saved;
and a thousand times nobler union than we have ever had would have been
the result. It would have been a voluntary union of free men; such a
union as will one day occur among all men, the world over, if the several
"nations," so called, shall ever get rid of the usurpers,
robbers, and murderers, called "governments," that now plunder,
enslave, and destroy them.
Still another of the frauds of these men is, that
they are now establishing, and that the war was designed to establish,
"a government of consent." The only idea they have ever manifested
as to what is a "government of consent," is this - that it
is one to which everybody must consent, or be shot. This idea was the
dominant one on which the war was carried on; and it is the dominant
one, now that we have gotten what is called "peace."
Their pretenses that they have "Saved the Country,"
and "Preserved our Glorious Union," are frauds like all the
rest of their pretenses. By them they mean simply that they have subjugated,
and maintained their power over, an unwilling people. This they call
"Saving the Country"; as if an enslaved and subjugated people
- or as if any people kept in subjection by the sword (as it is intended
that all of us shall be hereafter) - could be said to have any "country."
This, too, they call "Preserving our Glorious Union"; as if
there could be said to be any union, glorious or inglorious, that was
not voluntary. Or as if there could be said to be any union between
masters and slaves; between those who conquer, and those who are subjugated.
All these cries of having "abolished slavery,"
of having "saved the country," of having "preserved the
union," of establishing "a government of consent," and
of "maintaining the national honor," are all gross, shameless,
transparent cheats - so transparent that they ought to deceive no one
- when uttered as justifications for the war, or for now compelling
people to pay the cost of the war, or for compelling anybody to support
terrocrats against their will.
The lesson taught by all these facts is this: As long
as mankind continues to pay "national debts," pretended -
that is, so long as they are such dupes and cowards as to pay for being
cheated, plundered, enslaved, and murdered - so long there will be enough
to lend the money for those purposes; and with that money a plenty of
tools, called soldiers, can be hired to keep them in subjection. But
when they refuse any longer to pay for being thus cheated, plundered,
enslaved, and murdered, they will cease to have cheats, and usurpers,
and robbers, and murderers, and blood-money loan-mongers for masters.
Inasmuch as the pretended "constitution"
was never signed, nor agreed to, by anybody, as a contract, and therefore
never bound anybody, and is now binding upon nobody; and is, moreover,
such a one as no people can ever hereafter be expected to consent to,
except as they may be forced to do so at the point of the bayonet, it
is perhaps of no importance what its true legal meaning, as a contract,
is. Nevertheless, the writer thinks it proper to say that, in his opinion,
the pretended "constitution" is no such instrument as it has
generally been assumed to be; but that by false interpretations, and
naked usurpations, the gang of terrocrats has made in practice a very
widely, and almost wholly, different thing from the intended "government"
the supposed "constitution" itself purports to authorize.
He has heretofore written much, and could write much more, to prove
that such is the truth. But whether the pretended "constitution"
really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has
either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless
to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.