💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › william-batchelder-greene-resistance-to-law.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 14:39:23. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Resistance to Law Author: William Batchelder Greene Date: April 30, 1851 Language: en Topics: law, resistance, illegalism Source: https://www.libertarian-labyrinth.org/blazing-star-library/william-b-greene-resistance-to-law-1851/
Mr. Editor:—In former times, when the people supposed that their kings
reigned by diving right, men were bound in conscience to obey the laws
with alacrity. But it happened, in the progress of events, that the
people rose against their rulers, as in England during the reign of
Charles Stuart; as in France during the reign of Louis XVIII, Charles X,
and Louis Philippe; as in America at the time of the Revolution. The
kings that reigned by divine right were deprived of their authority, and
new authorities were raised up for the government of the nations—upon
what were these new authorities founded? upon a new divine right? Not at
all. They were founded upon the force of arms, upon violence, upon the
law of the strongest. It is true that Charles II was restored to the
throne of England, and that with him was also restored the ancient
authority, as of divine right; but that divine right gave way again to
the law of force when William III mounted the throne, so that the
present government of England is founded on undoubted might, not on
divine right. It is true also that divine right was restored to France
during the reigns of Louis XVIII and Charles X, but Louis Philippe, was
the king of the barricades; and the present republic finds its basis,
not in divine authority, but in the might of the people. We have
condescended to speak of the right of the kings as divine: but we
consider it to have been—and to be now, where it bears sway—not divine,
but infernal. But be that as it may, men do not believe that the present
governments of England, France and the United States are invested with
divine authority, and therefore they do not feel themselves bound in
conscience to obey laws emanating from them.
When men threw off their prejudices in favor of the divine authority of
thrones, dominions, and powers, and recognised clearly that actual
governments are founded, not on divine right, but on prevailing might,
they said among themselves, “Why should we shed each other’s blood? Let
us rather establish universal suffrage; and by the actual counting of
votes, discover on which side the balance of might lies; and thus,
without violence, without inflicting pain and suffering on innocent
persons, without laying whole provinces in ashes, we shall become
enabled to place the government in the hands of the strongest party.
Moreover, by the policy of frequent elections, we shall be able to ward
off violence in the future; for by such policy we may cause the
government to change hands according as the balance of power changes.”
Is a man justified, therefore, in resisting the government by force of
arms? By no means. If a man is in a minority, and appeals to arms, he
will be beaten, and will be found to have shed his own blood, and that
of others, uselessly: if he is in a majority, and appeals to arms, then
he is cruel and wanton—for why should he resort to violence when he can
have his own way peacefully? The higher law, the law written on the
heart, says that the right of insurrection is abrogated wherever the
ballot box may be substituted for the cartridge box. The revolutions in
England, France, and America were justifiable—why? Because the people
fought for the right of electing their own magistrates, and of making
their own laws.
What is universal suffrage? It is the revolution rendered chronic and
permanent; it is insurrection organized. What the emperors of Russia and
Austria consider anarchy, what they consider the most active agent of
dissolution, is precisely what we have taken for the corner-stone of our
political system. Every one of our elections is a revolution, but a
bloodless one. What the kings and despots consider anarchy, is found to
be the highest principle of order which has ever yet been applied to
systems of government.
When I vote for a representative in the State Legislature, or in
congress, I assist in clothing the government with power: but I do
nothing to invest either the government, or that representative, with
moral authority. I do not bind myself to obey all the laws which shall
be made. When the legislature makes a law, and says that I shall not
lend money at more than six per cent interest, I obey the law so far as
my moral sense tells me that it is just, or so far as the government can
force me to obey—no further. If a neighbor comes to me and says, “Lend
me $100, that I may go into a certain business, and I will pay you ten
per cent interest for it,” I answer, “I cannot lend you money on such
terms, for the law forbids;” if he continues and says, “my business is
very hazardous, and you ought to have ten per cent to pay you for the
risk of losing the whole” I answer, “my friend, I will enter into
partnership with you, so arranging the terms of the agreement that I
shall receive the profits of the business in the same proportion that I
should if I loaned you the money at ten per cent interest.”—I thus evade
the law: but I dare not so evade a law of God, that is a law emanating
from a divine authority. Who is there who would dare play such pranks
with the law revealed in his heart, as the lawyers play every day with
the law of the land? I will not offer forcible resistance, for that
would be wicked: not wicked because of the law of the land, but wicked
because the higher law says, “Thou shalt not kill.” I will not evade the
law of the land when it coincides with the law of God, for I am morally
bound to obey the law of God: but I will evade the law of the land, when
it is in opposition to the laws of God, I can do it without resort to
violence. The serfs of Russia are justified in resorting to violence in
opposing an unjust law; but with me the case is different, for, if I can
effect a revolution at all, I can do it peaceably, and what I can do
peaceably I have no moral right to do violently. That tyrants, and the
advocates of tyranny, should dislike this doctrine, is not
inconceivable; but that a democrat should find it essentially
objectionable, is what I, at least, do not believe.
But perhaps it will be said, “God rules over all, and every thing comes
to pass according to his determinative will; if therefore he permits a
government to enact a wicked law, that fact is enough for us: it
convinces us that the law is according to his will—for how could the law
have passed against the will of God? This is the sophistry which has
always been used to convince men that it is good to submit to tyranny;
the sophistry which has always been used to demonstrate the divine right
of kings; the sophistry which found a place a few days ago in the mouth
of one of the judges of our courts. I answer, “If I find that I have the
heart of a thief, a liar, and adulterer, shall I say—God has permitted
me to go on in a course of crime until my heart has become as hard as
the nether millstones, and I will therefore behave as badly as I can,
because it is God’s will that I should do so, seeing that he has allowed
me to obtain the character and disposition I have? God forbid!” The
existing fact is no proof of God’s will; and the less we say about God’s
will the better, as our ignorance on that head is great. If any body
knows what god’s will is, I am ready to listen to him; for my part, the
Divine Mind transcends the reach of my observation, and I recognize no
fountain of political law except the will of the people—which is
something quite different. I know what RIGHT is and what WRONG is, my
individual conscience and understanding tell me that: I can appreciate
general principles: but the decrees of God, as relating to particular
political measures, and to particular laws answering to certain
temporary exigencies, I leave to be proclaimed by those who have power
to work miracles as a testimony to the truth of their mission.
Am I a bad citizen because I hold these doctrines? I hope not. I obey
such laws as commend themselves to my sense of right, and such laws also
as I consider wrong but cannot violate without declaring war on the
constituted authorities. I believe that I am a good citizen, and that I
should remain such even if all the laws in the statute book should be
repealed to-morrow: I believe the majority of the people are good
citizens, and that all the talk about the danger of anarchy is sheer
humbug. Suppose the President of the United State, the Vice President,
the Chairmen of the House of Representatives, the Governors of all the
States, the Judges, the Selectmen of the towns, &c., &c., &c., should
all die to-night, would anarchy prevail to-morrow? By no means. The
people of the twos would elect new Select-men, or other appropriate
functionaries who would take the matter into immediate consideration,
and a new government would be extemporised—here in Massachusetts at
least—within a week. It would be easier now to form a new government
that it was fifty years ago, for the people have more experience in the
art of self-government. The art of organising anarchy is now pretty well
understood. The majority is unquestionably the strongest: who shall
resist it?
These are my views; if they are incorrect, I desire to be set right. I
am ready to discard my opinions whenever I can replace them by better. I
confess that the civil government is clothed with power, and can command
respect; but, with my present light, I must deny to civil government, as
such, all moral authority whatever.
Yours truly,
OMEGA.