 Title page of No. 1. | |
| Author | Lysander Spooner |
|---|---|
| Language | English |
| Genre | Anarchism |
| Publisher | Self-published |
Publication date | 1867–1870 |
| Publication place | United States |
| Text | No Treason at Wikisource |
No Treason is a composition of three essays by Lysander Spooner, an American individualist anarchist, all written in 1867: No. 1, No. 2: "The Constitution", and No. 6: "The Constitution of No Authority". No essays between No. 2 and No. 6 were ever published under the authorship of Spooner.
A lawyer by training, a strong abolitionist, radical thinker, and individualist anarchist, Spooner wrote these specific pamphlets to express his discontent with the state and its legitimizing documents in the United States, the U.S. Constitution. He strongly believed in the idea of natural law, which he also described as "the science of justice" and called "the science of all human rights; of all man's rights of person and property; of all his rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". [1]
As Spooner saw it, natural law was to be part of everyone's life, including the rights given at birth: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Framers of the U.S. government also saw natural law as a sound basis for creating the Constitution. Its preamble implies that the powers of the U.S. government come from "the People". Spooner believed that "if there be such a principle as justice, or natural law, it is the principle, or law, that tells us what rights were given to every human being at his birth". [2] This means that Spooner believed that everyone has the same rights from birth, regardless of color or sex or state decree.
Being against the American Civil War as being about conquest when it should have been about slavery in the United States and witnessing the hardships brought along by the Reconstruction Era, Spooner felt the Constitution completely violated natural law, and thus was voided. By allowing for the institution of slavery to take place, the United States was taking away the fundamental rights of the many enslaved people who were born on American soil. According to Spooner, an enslaved person's rights were to be the same as everyone else's due to their birth qualifications. As an outspoken abolitionist, Spooner did not believe that any American should be treated differently under the natural law.
In the years before writing No Treason, Lysander Spooner had already expressed his disapproval of slavery in his essay The Unconstitutionality of Slavery (1845, 1860), considered by many American abolitionists of his time a "comprehensive, libertarian theory of constitutional interpretation". [3] His main argument fell under the idea that the Constitution did not mention slavery. He wrote:
"The constitution itself contains no designation, description, or necessary admission of the existence of such a thing as slavery, servitude, or the right of property in man. We are obliged to go out of the instrument and grope among the records of oppression, lawlessness and crime –records unmentioned, and of course unsanctioned by the constitution –to find the thing, to which it is said that the words of the constitution apply. And when we have found this thing, which the constitution dare not name, we find that the constitution has sanctioned it (if at all) only by enigmatical words, by unnecessary implication and inference, by innuendo and double entendre, and under a name that entirely fails of describing the thing."
While each of Spooner's three essays claims voidance of the Constitution, each focuses on specific aspects.
"The question of treason is distinct from that of slavery; and is the same that it would have been, if free States, instead of slave States, had seceded. On the part of the North, the war was carried on, not to liberate the slaves, but by a government that had always perverted and violated the Constitution, to keep the slaves in bondage; and was still willing to do so, if the slaveholders could thereby [be] induced to stay in the Union. The principle, on which the war was waged by the North, was simply this: That men may rightfully be compelled to submit to, and support, a government that they do not want; and that resistance, on their part, makes them traitors and criminals." [4]
Spooner's first pamphlet starts by questioning the reasons for the Civil War, as it was justified under the idea of unity among the citizens of the United States; however, he believed slavery was more critical and found it outrageous that the North allowed the institution of slavery by not finding ways of ending it in the South. He makes comments on the funding of the Civil War by the North and questions the idea of consent directly stated under the Constitution. He finds problems with the Constitution indicating that it has been created under everyone's consent, "the people's" consent. Spooner acknowledges that total consent is impossible in a democratic government and mentions the separation of majorities and minorities. Additionally, Spooner questions how majority influence may have had more impact on the creation of the nation instead of everyone, asking once more about the idea of consent and what makes a nation under consent.
Written in 1867 as the shortest of the three essays, No Treason No.1 introduces Spooner's idea of the non-validity of the U.S. Constitution. He begins this work with a brief introduction about the relationship between slavery and the Civil War as viewed by the North. First, Spooner argues that the North was involved with slavery by simply allowing for its institution to take place in the South for the Southern states to remain part of the Union. He then quickly moves to discuss the actual war and how many Americans were not in agreement with the decisions of the U.S. government or its ideals, which triggered a desire for secession. Spooner mentioned that those who were non-accepting of the government of the United States faced a type of slavery. While not going under physical slavery, these men had to abide by the rules of the land which denied them "ownership of themselves and the products of their labor". [5]
If those who are against the state were to do something about it, they could be deemed traitors, which Spooner does not feel to be a fair response from the government. The fact that many Americans disagreed with the U.S. government questions the idea of unanimous consent. Because of this belief that not everyone will always be in absolute agreement with government decisions, Spooner argues "the Constitution itself should be at once overthrown", [6] and proceeds to support his claim.
Section 1 mentions the justification given by the North for its participation in the Civil War: to maintain the union of the country, both North and South. Because the people consented to separate from the power of England, and the same concept is part of the foundations for the Constitution, the North could participate in the Civil War while affecting the lives of thousands and spending millions of dollars. Spooner is outraged that the state claims to act in the name of liberty and a free government and questions the idea of consent to it himself.
Section 2 then poses the question: "What, then, is implied in a government's resting on consent?" [7] In this section, Spooner expands on his questioning of consent and whether it truly exists. He earlier challenged this idea with the Civil War since it is not "consistent for the North to wage war for government based on consent to make the South live under the rule of a government it does not want"; [8] however, the war's outcome introduces the idea of a majority containing consent over everyone. This poses a problem, as the Constitution states that its creation was based on everyone's consent, therefore everyone should have a say in what goes on with the state. With that in mind, Spooner expresses his argument against consent to the majority in seven points that act as closing arguments for this specific section:
Section 3 questions how a nation comes into existence and what is the justification of why the United States remains a nation. Spooner wonders: "By what right, then, did we become 'a nation?' By what right do we continue to be 'a nation?' And by why right do either the strongest, or the most numerous, party, now existing within the territorial limits, called 'The United States,' claim that there really is such 'a nation' as the United States?" [9] The idea of a majority vote and the influence of the majority is engraved in this section, as well as that of consent. Spooner mentions how consent resides within each person and that numbers should not dictate who starts entities such as political groups. Therefore, for a government to work, consent must be obtained from the people.
Section 4 then restates the question, "What is implied in a government resting on consent?" [10] Spooner looks at the direct role of consent in decision-making in government and how members of a government who live under consent do so by participating in voting, taxation, or any personal service. The problem with equating consent with any participation for the state, Spooner argues, cannot be fully achieved because not everyone necessarily agrees with the ways of showing consent or even with the ideas provided by the government. The pamphlet asks: what happens to the people who are not in agreement with the forms of showing consent? What happens to the people who do not believe in the ideals that established the United States? According to the law, it means treason. Spooner explains: "Clearly this individual consent is indispensable to the idea of treason; for if a man has never consented or agreed to support a government, he breaks no faith in refusing to support it. And if he makes war upon it, he does so as an open enemy, and not as a traitor that is, as a betrayer, or treacherous friend." [11] Spooner's concern with treason is that the act of not accepting the ideas of the government should not allow for that person to be considered a traitor.
His most significant example is that of the American Revolution against Britain. Just like many Americans were not fond of the British Crown, many newly established Americans disagreed with the doctrine of the newly formed American government; however, when the men and women who lived under the rule of the British Crown decided to express their thoughts and act as individuals, their consent was present by not allowing the rule of Britain to take over their lives and proceeding to revolt against the British Empire. Spooner writes: "It was, therefore, as individuals, and only as individuals, each acting for himself alone, that they declared that their consent that is, their individual consent for each one could consent only for himself—was necessary to the creation or perpetuity of any government that they could rightfully be called to support." [12] Spooner shows that individualism is paramount, as it allows new ideas to emerge that can actually help the government; at the same time, the problem with individualism is that it can also isolate membership from the government, which the United States does not desire. Still, Spooner does not believe that treason should be alleged when one is open about their opinion. In closing the section, Spooner examines the idea of voluntary belonging to political parties and groups. He argues that it is a natural right to belong where one desires and that this right allows for direct, indirect, or no government involvement. As long as there is no imminent danger because of one's beliefs against the government, everyone's voice should be respected.
The Constitution of No Authority by Spooner, a lawyer, starts by examining its potential validity as a binding contract, observing that the U.S. Constitution could have no inherent, lasting authority except as a contract between men and that it only claims to be one between the people existing when it was written. Quoting the famous preamble of the Constitution, Spooner then says that though it cites "posterity", it does not claim any power to bind that posterity. [13] He then compares the Constitution's authority to a corporation: the corporation can exist past the lifespan of its original owners but only by people taking ownership of it voluntarily over time, not by some forced ownership by descendants. Additionally, he observes that even if voting counts as voluntarily taking ownership, only about one-sixth of Americans (at that time, when slavery had just ended and women could not vote) had historically been allowed to vote. Even then, only those who voted for an American politician could be said to have consented to the Constitution, not those who voted against, and only for the period he voted for (every two years, for example). [14]
Spooner argues that even voting is not consensual because each potential voter is faced with the choice of either voting, which makes him a master of others, or abstaining, which makes him a slave of those who do vote. Those whose supported candidate loses can't really be considered to have bindingly supported the Constitution, as they lost, and anyway, some may vote specifically with the intent of undermining the Constitution. He then tallies all people who might claim to support the Constitution, making a case for why each general grouping does not actually support it or have the capacity for informed consent. For example, those who would use it for legal plunder and those who do not really understand it, or else they would not support it. Spooner states that taxes cannot be claimed as proof of consent because they are compulsory and, therefore, not consensual. He says that an honest robber does not claim to be protecting you or impose his will upon you after receipt of your money. He describes the government as a group of dishonest robbers who will not rob you directly but will secretly appoint one of their members to come and rob you in their name, going on to describe a typical protection racket. He then describes a scenario in which people who resist subjugation might be killed, even by the hundreds of thousands. Written in 1867, this reflects the United States's reconquest of the Confederate States of America. Spooner was an outspoken abolitionist (writing The Unconstitutionality of Slavery in 1845) and advocate of universal freedom and natural rights. Still, he had been horrified by the brutality of the war and the lack of a legitimate constitutional basis for violently conquering people who wanted to leave a federation that had been consensually joined only by their ancestors. [15]
The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States. It superseded the Articles of Confederation, the nation's first constitution, on March 4, 1789. Originally including seven articles, the Constitution delineates the frame of the federal government. The Constitution's first three articles embody the doctrine of the separation of powers, in which the federal government is divided into three branches: the legislative, consisting of the bicameral Congress ; the executive, consisting of the president and subordinate officers ; and the judicial, consisting of the Supreme Court and other federal courts. Article IV, Article V, and Article VI embody concepts of federalism, describing the rights and responsibilities of state governments, the states in relationship to the federal government, and the shared process of constitutional amendment. Article VII establishes the procedure subsequently used by the 13 states to ratify it. The Constitution of the United States is the oldest and longest-standing written and codified national constitution in force in the world.
Lysander Spooner was an American abolitionist, entrepreneur, lawyer, essayist, natural rights legal theorist, pamphletist, political philosopher, and writer often associated with the Boston anarchist tradition.
Libertarian theories of law build upon classical liberal and individualist doctrines.
Popular sovereignty is the principle that the leaders of a state and its government are created and sustained by the consent of its people, who are the source of all political legitimacy. Popular sovereignty, being a principle, does not imply any particular political implementation. Benjamin Franklin expressed the concept when he wrote that "In free governments, the rulers are the servants and the people their superiors and sovereigns".
The Connecticut Compromise, also known as the Great Compromise of 1787 or Sherman Compromise, was an agreement reached during the Constitutional Convention of 1787 that in part defined the legislative structure and representation each state would have under the United States Constitution. It retained the bicameral legislature as proposed by Roger Sherman, along with proportional representation of the states in the lower house or House of Representatives, and it required the upper house or Senate to be weighted equally among the states; each state would have two members in the Senate.
The history of the United States from 1849 to 1865 was dominated by the tensions that led to the American Civil War between North and South, and the bloody fighting in 1861–1865 that produced Northern victory in the war and ended slavery. At the same time industrialization and the transportation revolution changed the economics of the Northern United States and the Western United States. Heavy immigration from Western Europe shifted the center of population further to the North.
In political philosophy, the phrase consent of the governed refers to the idea that a government's legitimacy and moral right to use state power is justified and lawful only when consented to by the people or society over which that political power is exercised. This theory of consent is starkly contrasted with the divine right of kings and has often been invoked against the legitimacy of colonialism. Article 21 of the United Nations' 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government". Consensus democracy is the application of consensus decision-making and supermajority to democracy.
The Crittenden Compromise was an unsuccessful proposal to permanently enshrine slavery in the United States Constitution, and thereby make it unconstitutional for future congresses to end slavery. It was introduced by United States Senator John J. Crittenden on December 18, 1860. It aimed to resolve the secession crisis of 1860–1861 that eventually led to the American Civil War by addressing the fears and grievances of Southern pro-slavery factions, and by quashing anti-slavery activities. The Crittenden Compromise is not to be confused with the Crittenden Resolution, which provided that the Union would take no actions against slavery.
Resistance to Civil Government, also called On the Duty of Civil Disobedience or Civil Disobedience for short, is an essay by American transcendentalist Henry David Thoreau that was first published in 1849. In it, Thoreau argues that individuals should not permit governments to overrule or atrophy their consciences, and that they have a duty to avoid allowing such acquiescence to enable the government to make them the agents of injustice. Thoreau was motivated in part by his repulsion of slavery and the Mexican–American War (1846–1848).
The Constitutional Convention took place in Philadelphia from May 25 to September 17, 1787. Although the convention was intended to revise the league of states and first system of government under the Articles of Confederation, the intention from the outset of many of its proponents, chief among them James Madison of Virginia and Alexander Hamilton of New York, was to create a new frame of government rather than fix the existing one. The delegates elected George Washington of Virginia, former commanding general of the Continental Army in the late American Revolutionary War (1775–1783) and proponent of a stronger national government, to become President of the convention. The result of the convention was the creation of the Constitution of the United States, placing the Convention among the most significant events in American history.
Voluntary taxation is a theory that states that taxation should be a voluntary act. Under the theory, people should have the option to pay taxes instead of being forced to pay taxes by their government. Under this theory, the people would control how much they pay and where they spend it. The theory is a part of Objectivist politics and many libertarian ideologies. Proponents of some studies assert that individuals will give to government, paying voluntary taxes to support specific functions.
George Washington Woodbey was an influential African-American minister, author and Socialist. He wrote several influential papers about Socialism and African Americans, ministered in churches in the Midwestern United States and California, and served as the sole Black delegate to the Socialist Party of America conventions in 1904 and 1908.
In the context of the United States, secession primarily refers to the voluntary withdrawal of one or more states from the Union that constitutes the United States; but may loosely refer to leaving a state or territory to form a separate territory or new state, or to the severing of an area from a city or county within a state. Advocates for secession are called disunionists by their contemporaries in various historical documents.
The position that taxation is theft, and therefore immoral, is found in a number of political philosophies. Its popularization marks a significant departure from conservatism and classical liberalism, and has been considered radical by many as a result. The position is often held by anarcho-capitalists, objectivists, most minarchists, right-wing libertarians, and voluntaryists, as well as left-anarchists, libertarian socialists and some anarcho-communists.
Popular sovereignty is the principle that the leaders of a state and its government are created and sustained by the consent of its people, who are the source of all political legitimacy. Citizens may unite and offer to delegate a portion of their sovereign powers and duties to those who wish to serve as officers of the state, contingent on the officers agreeing to serve according to the will of the people. In the United States, the term has been used to express this concept in constitutional law. It was also used during the 19th century in reference to a proposed solution to the debate over the expansion of slavery in the United States. The proposal would have given the power to determine the legality of slavery to the inhabitants of the territory seeking statehood, rather than to Congress.
The Unconstitutionality of Slavery (1845) was a book by American abolitionist Lysander Spooner arguing that the United States Constitution prohibited slavery. This view was contrary to that of William Lloyd Garrison who opposed the Constitution on the grounds that it was pro-slavery. In the book, Spooner shows that none of the state governments of the slave states specifically authorized slavery, that the U.S. Constitution contains several clauses that are inconsistent with slavery, that slavery was a violation of natural law, and that the intentions of the Constitutional Convention have no legal bearing on the document they created. Thus, Spooner's position is one that employs original meaning-styled textualism and rejects original intent-styled originalism.
The Liberty Party was an abolitionist political party in the United States before the American Civil War. The party experienced its greatest activity during the 1840s, while remnants persisted as late as 1860. It supported James G. Birney in the presidential elections of 1840 and 1844. Others who attained prominence as leaders of the Liberty Party included Gerrit Smith, Salmon P. Chase, Henry Highland Garnet, Henry Bibb, and William Goodell. They attempted to work within the federal system created by the United States Constitution to diminish the political influence of the Slave Power and advance the cause of universal emancipation and an integrated, egalitarian society.
The Virginia Secession Convention of 1861 was called in the state capital of Richmond to determine whether Virginia would secede from the United States, govern the state during a state of emergency, and write a new Constitution for Virginia, which was subsequently voted down in a referendum under the Confederate Government.
Our Enemy, the State is the best-known book by libertarian author Albert Jay Nock, serving as a fundamental influence for the modern libertarian and American conservatism movements. Initially presented as a series of lectures at Bard College, it was published in 1935 and attempts to analyze the origins of American freedom and question the nature and legitimacy of authoritarian government. Nock differentiates between that, which he refers to as "the State" and "legitimate" government, including governing oneself or consensual delegation of decision-making to leaders one selects.
Cal 3 was a proposal to split the U.S. state of California into three states. It was launched in August 2017 by Silicon Valley venture capitalist Tim Draper, who led the effort to have it originally qualify on the November 2018 state ballot as Proposition 9, officially the Division of California into Three States initiative. Proponents of the proposal argued that dividing California into three states would provide fairer and more responsive governance for large regions outside of California’s major cities. In July 2018, the Supreme Court of California pulled it from the ballot for further state constitutional review. Draper officially stopped pushing for the measure soon after. On 12 September 2018, the court permanently removed the measure from all future ballots.
