| 环境宪法 公民权利 不服从 美国语文课文之《论公民的不服从》 【编者按】梭罗毕业于哈佛大学，终生在波士顿附近的康科德镇从事教书与写作，并在爱默森影响下加入超验主义者俱乐部，成为美国文化启蒙运动的重要代表。1845年，梭罗开始在康科德镇外的瓦尔登湖畔离群索居达两年之久，为的是“有目的地生活，仅仅面对生活的要素”。梭罗不仅是位崇尚自然、追求超灵理想的哲人，他还具有强烈的民主意识与个人独立精神。1846年一个夏日傍晚，他由林中小屋返回镇上取一双修补的皮靴，路遇警官，要他交纳三年未付的人头税。梭罗拒绝以税款援助正在进行的美墨战争及与其有关的蓄奴势力。他因此坐了一夜牢房（他的姨母赶来代交了税款，并阻止了他同政府的对抗）。出狱后，梭罗将自己的政治观点写成论文，先在康科德夜校向公众宣读，继而刊登在波士顿一家杂志上，题名《论公民的不服从》。未曾料及，该文绵延百年，传遍世界，影响了英国工党、印度独立斗争、丹麦反法西斯团体、美国的女权与黑人运动，甚至俄国的托尔斯泰伯爵。后者赞扬梭罗对公民权益的坚持推动了西方政治思想对异议的重视与宽容，因为梭罗“不仅相信自己的道理，还亲身加以实践”。 论公民的不服从亨利·大卫·梭罗著 张礼龙译 我真心接受这一名言——“最少管事的政府是最好的政府”；并希望它能更迅速更彻底地得到执行。执行之后，我也相信，它最终会变成：“一事不管的政府才是最好的政府”。只要人们对此有所期待，他们就会得到那样的政府。充其量政府只不过是一种权宜之计。但是大多数政府往往不得计，而所有的政府有时都会不得计。人们对常备军提出的意见很多，也很有份量，值得广泛宣传。但它最终也可能会用来反对常备政府。常备军只是政府的一个手臂。政府本身是由人民选择用来执行他们意志的一种模式。但是在人民能够通过它采取行动之前，它同样有可能被引入歧途，滥用职权。请看当前的墨西哥战争，这是相对少数人把常备政府当工具使用的例子。因为在一开始人民并不同意采取这种手段。目前的美国政府——它实际上是个传统形式。虽说人选是新的，它却努力使自己完整地传送到下一代，而每一刻又都在失去它的完整性。除此之外它又能是什么呢？它的朝气和力量抵不上一个活人；因为一个人也能按他的意志使之屈从。对人民自己来说，它是一种木枪。如果他们一本正经地把它当真家伙用来互相攻击，它肯定会崩裂。但它的必要性不会因此而减少，因为人民必须要有这样或那样的复杂机器，并亲耳聆听它发出运转噪音，以此来满足他们有关政府的概念。因此政府便能显示出人们会多么容易地置身于强制之下，甚至是自我的强制，目的是为了从中获益。我们都必须承认这是桩妙事；但政府除了极善于偏离自己职能之外，它可从来没有促进过任何事业。它没有使国家保持自由。它没有安定西部。它没有提供教育。所有已取得的成就都是靠美国人民固有的性格而获得的；而且，要不是政府经常从中阻挠，这成就或许会更大些。如果人们能通过政府这一权宜之计实现互不约束，他们将会非常高兴。正如刚才所说，被统治者最不受约束时，正是统治机构最得计之时。贸易与商业，若没有与印第安人磨擦所造成的刺激，根本不可能越过立法者们不断设置的障碍而得以发展。如果我们仅根据政府行动的后果，而不顾及其动机，我们真应当将这批人当作那些在铁轨上放置障碍物的淘气鬼一样加以惩罚。说实在的，作为一个公民，而不像那些自称为无政府的人，我并不要求立即废除政府，而是希望立即能有一个好一点的政府。让每一个人都说说什么样的政府能赢得他的尊敬，这将是建立那种政府的第一步。当权力一旦落入人民手中，大部分人被允许长久地治理国家的理由毕竟不仅仅是因为他们代表着真理，也不因为这看来对少数人最公正，而是因为他们在力量上最强大。然而，即使是一个在所有情况下都由多数人统治的政府也不可能基于正义，哪怕是人们通常理解的正义。假设在政府里不靠多数人，而用良知来判断是非，多数人只决定政府该管或不该管的问题，这样的政府难道不可能实现吗？难道一个公民永远应当在特定时刻，或在最低程度上迫使他的良心服从立法者吗？如果这样，人们要良心又有何用？我想，我们首先应该是人，其次才是臣民。仅仅为了公正而培养尊敬法律的习惯是不可取的。我有权承担的惟一义务就是在任何时候做我认为是正确的事。公司没有良心，但是由有良心的人们组成的公司是有良心的公司，这样的说法完全正确。法律丝毫没有使人变得更公正些；相反，由于尊重法律，甚至是好心人也在日益变成非正义的执行者。你可以看到一个由士兵、上校、上尉、下士、一等兵和军火搬运工组成的队伍，以令人羡慕的队列翻山越岭，奔赴战争；但是由于他们违背了自己的意志、常情和良心，他们的行军变得异常困难，人人都感到心惊肉跳；这就是过分尊重法律的一个普通而自然的结果。他们所卷入的是一场可恶的交易，对此他们深信不疑；他们都希望和平。现在他们成了什么？是人吗？还是些小型活动堡垒或弹药库，在为某些不择手段的掌权者效劳？请参观海军基地，目睹一个水兵，那就是美国政府所能造就的人，或者说这就是它能用巫术把一个人改变成的模样：他只是人类的一个影子和回忆，一个被安放在那里站岗的活人。正如人们所说，这位士兵带着陪葬物，埋在武器堆里……因此这些人并非作为人去为国效劳，而是作为肉体的机器。他们包括常备军、民兵、监狱看守、警察、地方民团等。在大部分情况下，他们自己的判断力和道德感没有发挥任何作用；他们视自己为木材、泥土和石块；要是能造出木头人来，也能达到同样的目的。这种人不会比稻草人或一堆土更能引起人们的尊敬。他们只具有与马和狗同等的价值。然而这样的人却被普遍视为好公民。其他人，诸如大多数立法者、政客、律师、牧师、官员等，主要用头脑来为国家服务。但是，由于他们很少辨别道德是非，而有可能不知不觉地像侍奉上帝一样为魔鬼服务。也有一些真正称得上是英雄、爱国者、殉道者或改革家的人，他们确实用良心为国家服务，因而往往会抵制国家的行径，结果他们通常被国家当作敌人看待。 一个人今天该怎样对待美国政府才合适呢？我说，他不可能与之相联而不失体面。我一刻也不能承认那个政治组织就是我的政府，因为它也是奴隶的政府。所有的人都承认革命的权利：那就是当人们无法容忍一个独裁或无能的政府时，拒绝效忠并抵抗它的权力。但是几乎所有的人都说现在不是那种情况。他们认为只有1775年大革命才属于那种非常时期。要是有人告诉我，这是个坏政府，因为它向进入它港口的外国商品征税，我完全可能不把这种指控当回事，因为我可以不要这些商品：所有机器都有磨擦，这有可能抵消罪恶。无论如何，要是从中进行煽动便是极大的罪恶。但是当这一磨擦开始毁坏机器，当镇压和抢劫已组织起来时，我说，让我们再也不要这样的机器了。换句话说，当一个承诺要保护自由的国家的六分之一人口是奴隶，当一个国家完全被外国军队非法地蹂躏、征服，并由军法管制的时候，我想，过不了多久，诚实的人便会起来造反和革命。使得这一责任更为紧迫的事实是：被蹂躏的国家不是我们自己的，而侵略军却是我们的。当然，一个人没有责任一定要致力于纠正某种谬误，哪怕是最不公正的谬误。他仍可以适当地从事其他事情。但他起码有责任同这谬误一刀两断。既然他不再拿它当回正事，他就应该基本上终止对它的支持。要是我致力于其他追求和思索，我首先至少得保证我没有骑在别人肩上。我必须先从他身上爬下来，好让他也能进行他自己的思索。请看这社会是多么地不和谐。我曾听到城里有些市民说：“我希望他们命令我前去镇压奴隶起义，或开赴墨西哥；——看我是否会去。”但正是这些人，他们每人都直接而忠诚地，起码是间接地通过出钱，提供了一个替身。拒绝参加一场非正义战争的士兵受到人们的赞美。可这些赞美者中的某些人并没有拒绝拥护那个发动这场战争的非正义政府。这些人的行为和权威正是士兵们所蔑视和不屑一顾的。在他们看来，似乎国家在犯罪时也有追悔之意，因而要专雇一人来鞭笞自己，但又没有后悔到要停止片刻犯罪的程度。因此在秩序和公民政府的名义下，我们最后都被迫对我们自己的卑劣行径表示敬意和支持。人们在犯罪的首次脸红之后学会了满不在乎。不道德似乎也变成了非道德。这种适应在我们的生活里并非完全没有必要。……如果你被邻居骗走一元钱，你不可能仅仅满足于知道自己受骗，或对别人说自己受骗，或要求他如数偿还。你会立即采取有力步骤获得全部退赔，并设法保证自己不再受骗。出于原则的行动，——出于正义感并加以履行的行动，——能够改变事物及其关系。这种行动基本上是革命的，它同以前任何事物截然不同。它不仅分离了政府与教会，也分离了家庭；是的，它还分离个人，将他身上的恶魔从神圣的部分中分离出去。非正义的法律的确存在。我们究竟是满足于服从它们，还是应当一边努力修改、一边服从它们直至我们成功，或者干脆超越它们？在目前这种政府统治下的人们通常认为他们应该等待，直至他们说服了多数人来修改法律。他们认为，如果他们抵抗，这种纠正方法将比罪恶的现状更坏。但造成这种无可补救局面的责任应当归咎于政府本身。它使之越改越坏。它为什么不能事先预计到改革并为之提供方便？它为什么不爱护少数明智的人？它为何在还没有受到伤害时就嚎叫着抵抗？它为何不鼓励公民们及时指出它的错误，并让他们主动地干好事情？它为何总是把基督钉在十字架上，将哥白尼和路德革出教门，并宣判华盛顿和富兰克林为叛逆？有人会认为，政府对于那些故意而切实冒犯它权威的人往往是熟视无睹的。要不然，它怎么没有为此规定过明确、恰当和相应的惩罚？一个没有财产的人只要有一回拒绝向州政府交纳９个先令，他就会被送进监狱，关押他的时间不受我所知道的任何法律限制，仅仅由把他送进去的那伙人任意决定。但是，如果他从州里偷了９０倍于９先令的钱，他很快就能逍遥法外。如果这样的不公正是政府机器必要磨擦的一部分，那就让它去，让它去吧。可能它会自己磨掉这些不平——当然，这机器到时也会完蛋。如果这种非正义有它专用的弹簧，滑轮，绳子，或曲柄，你可能认为改造它并不一定就是坏事。但是如果它的本性就要求你对另一人施虐，那么我要说，请犯法吧。用你的生命来反磨擦，好让这机器停止运转。在任何情况下，我必须保证自己不参与我所谴责的罪过。至于说要执行州政府提出的消除罪恶的方法，我不知道有这种方法。它们费时太久，一个人的生命有限。我有其他事要做。我来到这世界的主要目的不是要将它建成生活的乐园，而是在此地生活，无论它好还是坏。一个人不必样样事都去做，而只需做一些事。正因为他不能样样事都做，他就不应该将一些事做错。假如州长或州议会没有义务向我请愿，我也没有义务向他们请愿。如果他们听不到我的请愿，我该怎么办？在目前情况下，州政府对此并没想出任何办法。真正的罪过在于它的宪法本身。这听来可能过于严厉、固执或不通情达理。但惟有这种精神才是我们对待宪治的态度，它含有最大程度的善意和最深刻的思考。这也是所有事物向好的方面转化的规律，就像人在同疾病的生死搏斗中会全身痉挛一样。我毫不犹豫地敬告那些自称为废奴论者的人，他们必须立即真正地收回无论在个人和财产方面对马萨诸塞州政府的支持，不要等到他们形成多数后再在他们中间执行正义。我认为，只要有上帝站在他们那一边就够了，不必等待其他。再说，任何比他邻居更勇敢的人都可以形成一个多数。我每年仅有一次机会通过收税官直接面对面地和美国政府，或它的代表——州政府打交道。这是像我这种处境的人必然和它打交道的惟一方式。这个政府十分清楚地要求我承认它。而我为了要在这种情况下应付它，并表达对它微乎其微的满意和爱戴，我的最简单、最有效、并在目前形势下最有必要的方式就是否认它。我的邻居，收税官，正是我要对付的人，——因为毕竟我并不跟羊皮纸文件，而是要跟人争论，——他已自愿当了政府的代理人……在一个不公道地关押人的政府的统治下，一个正义者的真正归宿也是监狱。今天，马萨诸塞提供给那些较自由和有点朝气的人的合适地方就是她的监狱，州政府按自己的法令将他们驱逐出去或监禁起来，因为这些人已经按照他们的原则把自己放逐出去了。在监狱里，在那些逃亡的奴隶、保释的墨西哥战俘和前来投诉种族迫害的印第安人中间，他们找到了归宿。在那个与世隔绝，但更自由、更诚实的场所，州政府关押的不是赞成它，而是反对它的人，——那是一个蓄奴州里的自由人可以问心无愧地生活的惟一地方。如果有人认为，自由人的影响在监狱里会消失，他们的声音再也不能刺痛官员们的耳朵，他们在大墙之内也不再是敌人，那就错了。他们不知道真理要比谬误强大许多倍，也不知道亲身经历过一些非正义的人能够多么雄辩而有效地同非正义作斗争。投上你的整个选票吧，不单单是一张小纸条，而是你的全部影响。少数服从多数则软弱无力；它甚至还算不上少数。但如果尽全力抵制，它将势不可挡。一旦让州政府来选择出路：要么把所有正义者都关进监狱，要么放弃战争和奴隶制，我想它是会毫不迟疑的。要是今年有一千人拒交税款，那还算不上是暴力流血的手段。我们若交了税，则使州政府有能力实行暴力，造成无辜流血。事实上这就是和平革命的定义，要是任何这种革命是可能的话。假如那位收税官或任何其他政府官员问我，正如有人已问过的：“那么我该怎么办呢？”我的回答是：“如果你真要干点事，就请辞职吧。”当臣民拒绝效忠，官员辞去职务，那么这场革命就成功了。就算这种作法可能会引起流血吧。当人们的良心受到创伤时，这难道不也是一种流血吗？由于这种创伤，一个人将失去他真正的勇气和不朽的气质。他会如此流血不止，直至精神上的死亡。现在我看到这种无形的血正在流淌。几年前，州政府曾以教会的名义要求我支付一笔钱以供养一个牧师，他的传道我父亲听过，而我从来未听过。“付钱吧，”它说，“要不然就进监狱。”我就是不付。但不幸的是另一个人觉得应该付。我不明白为什么教师要付税给牧师，而不是牧师付给教师。我不是州立学校的教师，但我靠自愿捐款为生。我不明白为什么学校就不能像教会那样，在州的支持下，提出自己的税单。然而，在当选议员们的要求下，我屈尊写下了这样的声明：“谨以此言为证，我，亨利·大卫·梭罗，不希望被认为是任何我没有加入的联合团体的一员。”我把这声明交给了镇公所的文书，他还保留着。虽然州政府当时说过，它必须坚持它原先的决定，但听说我不希望被认为是那个教堂的成员，打那以来，它一直没对我提出类似要求。我愿意一一签字，以表示与我从未签字认可的一切社会团体断绝关系。可惜我不知道这些团体的名称，也不知道该到何处去寻一份完整的名单。我有六年没交人头税了。就为这我曾进监狱住了一晚。当我在那里站着思考，面对那二三英尺厚的坚实石墙、一英尺厚的木铁门和透光的铁栅栏时，我禁不住强烈地感到这监狱把我仅当作一个血肉之躯关进来是何等愚蠢。我怀疑它最后是否会断定这就是它对付我的最好方法，而从没想到要以某种方式来叫我做点事。我在想，虽然我和我的街坊邻里们之间隔了一堵石墙，但他们要达到像我一样自由，还有一堵更难攀越、更难打破的墙。我一刻也没感到被监禁，那墙似乎是石块和泥灰的巨大浪费。我似乎感到，全体市民中，只有我一人付了税。他们完全不知该怎样对待我，他们的言行缺乏教养。无论他们对我进行威胁或赞扬，总是错看了我的本意。因为他们认为，我的主要愿望是站到石墙的另一边。看到他们在我沉思时如何勤奋地锁门，我只好付之一笑。我的思绪不必开门，不必设障，又跟他们出去了，而这才是真正的危险。因为他们已无法理解我，他们便决定惩罚我的肉体；就像一群顽童，当他们无法接近他们所痛恨的人时，便虐待他的狗。我感到州政府智能低下，它就像拿着银汤匙的孤独女人一样胆小。它敌友不分。我对它剩下的一点尊敬已经荡然无存，我真为它遗憾。由此看来，州政府从未有意识地正视过一个人的心灵，无论是从理智还是道义的角度。它只看到一个人的肉体和感官。它并不具备高级智能，也不见得诚实，只是在物质上强大罢了。我不是生来就受强制的人。我要按自己的方式呼吸空气。让我们看看谁最强大。民众有什么力量？他们只能强迫我，而我要服从比我更高的法规。他们强迫我成为像他们一样的人。我没听说有人应当服从多数人的强迫而以这种或那种方式生活。那样算是什么样的生活？当政府命令我说“交钱还是交命”时，我为什么要匆忙地把我的钱给它？它可能困难重重，不知如何是好；然而我怎么可能帮助它？它必须像我这样自己帮助自己。为此哭鼻子不值得。社会这部机器是否成功运转我不负责任，我不是工程师的儿子。我发现，当一粒橡子和一粒栗子并排落地后，没有哪个停下来谦让另一个。两者都按它们自己的规律，尽最大的能力去发芽、生长、变得茂盛。可能直至一个超越并毁灭另一个。一株植物如不能按自己本性生长则死亡；一个人也同样如此。我不想与任何人或国家争吵。我不想无故挑剔，找出细微差别，也不想标榜自己高邻居一等。可以说，我甚至是要寻找一个借口来遵守国家法令。遵守国家法令我是再高兴不过了。但在这一问题上，我确实有理由怀疑自己。每年当收税官到来时，我总要审查一下国家和州政府的法令和态度，以及人民的情绪，以便找到一个遵守的前提。我相信州政府很快就会使我放弃所有这些作法，然后，我将变成一个和我的同胞相似的爱国者。从放低了的角度看，宪法虽然有许多缺陷，它仍不失为一部很好的宪法。法律和法庭令人尊敬。甚至本州政府和美国政府在许多方面也是相当令人钦佩而又罕见的机构，令人感恩不尽，许多人对此已作出描述。但是从略高一点的角度看，它们正如我已描述过的那样。要是换成最高的角度，有谁说得出它们是什么，或它们还真值得一看或一想？然而政府与我没有多大关系，我将尽量不去想它。甚至在这个世界里，我在政府统治下生活的时刻不多。要是一个人思考自由，幻想自由，想象自由，不存在的事物从不会很久地被他看作是存在之物，那么，不明智的统治者和改革家的阻碍对他也起不了多大作用。我知道大多数人与我想的不一样。但是那些专门以研究这一类问题为职业的人也很少令我满意。由于政治家和立法者们完全处于这一机构之内，他们决不可能清楚而客观地观察它。他们常说要推进社会，但他们舍此就没有立足之处。他们可能有一定的经验和见识，毫无疑问，也可能想出了一些有独创性的甚至是有用的制度，对此我们诚挚地感谢他们。但他们所有的智慧和效用都很有限。他们经常会忘记这世界并不是由政策和权宜之计所统治。丹尼尔·韦伯斯特从未调查过政府，因此，他也无权谈论它。对那些不考虑彻底改革现行政府的议员们来说，他的话就是智慧。而在思想家，那些一直在参与立法的思想家眼里，他从未正视过这一问题。据我了解，有些人通过对这一问题的宁静和明智的思考，不久将会揭示，韦伯斯特的思考范围和坦荡胸怀都是有限的。但是与大多数改革者的平庸职业相比，与那些更为平庸而普通的政客的智慧与口才相比，韦伯斯特的话几乎是惟一有理智，有价值的话。我们为有他而感谢上帝。相比而言，他总是坚强有力，有独创性，尤其是讲究实际的。然而他的本质不是智慧，而是谨慎。律师的真理不是真理，只不过是协调，或协调的权宜之计。真理的自身永远是和谐的，它不是用来揭示那些可能与错误行为相一致的正义。韦伯斯特被称为“宪法的捍卫者”完全当之无愧。他对宪法只有捍卫，而从未真正攻击过。他不是领袖，而是随从。他的领袖是１７８７年起草宪法的人。“我从未作出努力，”他说，“从未建议作出努力，从未支持过努力，也从未打算支持那些企图打扰原定安排的努力。正是由于宪法的安排，各州组成了目前这个联邦。”在考虑宪法对奴隶制的默认问题时，他甚至说，“既然这是早先契约的一部分，——那就让它存在下去。”尽管他精明过人，才能超群，还是无法将一件事从它的纯政治关系中分离出来，把它看作是绝对要用才智来处理的事，——比如：在当今美国，就奴隶制这一问题，一个人到底应该干些什么。可是韦伯斯特只能或是被迫绝望地作出下列回答，同时还声明他是作为一个私下的朋友已把话说绝了，——他这么说话，还能有什么新的和个人的社会责任的准则可谈？“方法，”他说，“以及那些蓄奴州的政府应该按什么形式来调整这一制度，必须由他们自己考虑，他们必须对他们的选民，对有关适度、人性和正义的普遍常规及上帝本身负责。在其他地方形成，从某种人类感情中产生，或由其他原因组成的社团都与此毫不相干。他们从未得到过我的鼓励，将来也永远不会得到。”那些不知真理有更纯洁的源泉的人，那些不再沿真理的小溪往高处追寻的人，他们很聪明地守在圣经和宪法旁边，必恭必敬地掬水解渴。而那些看到水是从哪儿汇入这些湖泊的人们却再次整装出发，继续他们探寻真理源头的历程。在美国没有出现过立法天才。这种人在世界史上亦属罕见。演说家、政治家和雄辩者成千上万，但是有能力解决当前棘手问题的发言人却尚未开口说话。我们喜欢雄辩只是因为它是一门技术，而不太考虑它可能表达的真理或激起某种英雄主义。我们的立法者们尚未懂得自由贸易和自由、联盟、公正对一个国家所具有的相对价值。他们没有天资或才能解决诸如税收、金融、商业、生产和农业等世俗政务。要是我们完全听凭国会里废话连篇的立法者们的指导，而他们的指导又得不到人民及时与合理的纠正，要不了多久，美国在世界上的地位便会丧失。《新约全书》问世已有一千八百年，虽然我可能没有资格说下面的话，但是具有足够智慧和实际能力以《新约》精神来指导立法科学的人又在哪里？政府的权威，甚至是我愿顺从的权威，——因为我乐于服从那些懂得比我多、干得比我好的人，甚至在许多事情上服从那些懂得和干得都不如我的人，——仍然是不够纯洁的。严格说来，它必须得到被统治者的承认和同意。只要我没让步，它对我个人和财产就没有纯粹的权利。从绝对君主制到有限君主制，再从有限君主制到民主制的进程就是通向真正尊重个人的进程。我们所知道的民主制是否就是政府可能做的最后改进？难道就不能再迈进一步，承认并组织人权？州政府必须将个人作为一种更高和独立的力量而加以承认，并予以相应对待，因为政府所有的权力和权威都来自于这一力量。在此之前，决不会有真正自由和文明的州。我自鸣得意的是，我最后还是设想了一个州，这个州能公正对待所有的人，彬彬有礼地将个人视为邻居。即便有些人离群索居，只要他们不捣乱，也不听命于人，而是完成作为邻居和同胞的所有义务，州政府仍能处之泰然，任其自由。一个州如能结出这种果实，并忍耐到瓜熟蒂落的时刻，那将为我所设想的，另一个更完善、更壮丽的州铺平道路，尽管这个州至今任何地方都还看不到。 摘自《美国的历史文献》 赵一凡 编三联书店１９８９年版 ＊ 亨利·大卫·梭罗（１８１７—１８６２）：美国著名作家与思想家，美国文化启蒙运动的重要代表。 On the Duty of Civil DisobedienceI heartily accept the motto, “That governmentis best which governs least”; and I should like to see it acted up to morerapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which alsoI believe—”That government is best which governs not at all”; and when men areprepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, andall governments are sometimes, inexpedient. The objections which have been broughainst a standing army, and they are many and weighty, and deserve to prevail,may also at last be brought against a standing government. The standing army isonly an arm of the standing government. The government itself, which is onlythe mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liableto be abused and perverted before the people can act through it. Witness thepresent Mexican war, the work of comparatively a few individuals using thestanding government as their tool; for in the outset, the people would not haveconsented to this measure. This American government—what is it but atradition, though a recent one, endeavoring to transmit itself unimpaired toposterity, but each instant losing some of its integrity? It has not thevitality and force of a single living man; for a single man can bend it to hiswill. It is a sort of wooden gun to the people themselves. But it is not theless necessary for this; for the people must have some complicated machinery orother, and hear its din, to satisfy that idea of government which they have.Governments show thus how successfully men can be imposed upon, even impose onthemselves, for their own advane. It is excellent, we must all allow. Yetthis government never of itself furthered any enterprise, but by the alacritywith which it got out of its way. It does not keep the country free. It doesnot settle the West. It does not educate. The character inherent in theAmerican people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have donesomewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way. Forgovernment is an expedient, by which men would fain succeed in letting oneanother alone; and, as has been said, when it is most expedient, the governedare most let alone by it. Trade and commerce, if they were not made ofindia-rubber, would never manage to bounce over obstacles which legislators arecontinually putting in their way; and if one were to judge these men wholly bythe effects of their actions and not partly by their intentions, they woulddeserve to be classed and punished with those mischievous persons who putobstructions on the railroads. But, to speak practically and as a citizen,unlike those who call themselves no-government men, I ask for, not at once nogovernment, but at once a better government. Let every man make known what kindof government would command his respect, and that will be one step towardobtaining it. After all, the practical reason why, when thepower is once in the hands of the people, a majority are permitted, and for along period continue, to rule is not because they are most likely to be in theright, nor because this seems fairest to the minority, but because they arephysically the strongest. But a government in which the majority rule in allcases can not be based on justice, even as far as men understand it. Can therenot be a government in which the majorities do not virtually decide right andwrong, but conscience?—in which majorities decide only those questions to whichthe rule of expediency is applicable? Must the citizen ever for a moment, or inthe least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man aconscience then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward.It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for theright. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any timewhat I think right. It is truly enough said that a corporation has noconscience; but a corporation on conscientious men is a corporation with aconscience. Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respectfor it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents on injustice. A commonand natural result of an undue respect for the law is, that you may see a fileof soldiers, colonel, captain, corporal, privates, powder-monkeys, and all,marching in admirable order over hill and dale to the wars, against theirwills, ay, against their common sense and consciences, which makes it verysteep marching indeed, and produces a palpitation of the heart. They have nodoubt that it is a damnable business in which they are concerned; they are allpeaceably inclined. Now, what are they? Men at all? or small movable forts andmagazines, at the service of some unscrupulous man in power? Visit the NavyYard, and behold a marine, such a man as an American government can make, orsuch as it can make a man with its black arts—a mere shadow and reminiscence ofhumanity, a man laid out alive and standing, and already, as one may say,buried under arms with funeral accompaniment, though it may be, Not a drum was heard, not a funeral note, As his corpse to the rampart we hurried; Not a soldier discharged his farewell shot, O’er the grave where our hero was buried. The mass of men serve the state thus, not asmen mainly, but as machines, with their bodies. They are the standing army, andthe militia, jailers, constables, posse comitatus, etc. In most cases there isno free exercise whatever of the judgement or of the moral sense; but they putthemselves on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden men canperhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well. Such command nomore respect than men of straw or a lump of dirt. They have the same sort ofworth only as horses and dogs. Yet such as these even are commonly esteemedgood citizens. Others—as most legislators, politicians, lawyers, ministers, andoffice-holders—serve the state chiefly with their heads; and, as they rarelymake any moral distinctions, they are as likely to serve the devil, withoutintending it, as God. A very few—as heroes, patriots, martyrs, reformers in thegreat sense, and men—serve the state with their consciences also, and sonecessarily resist it for the most part; and they are commonly treated asenemies by it. A wise man will only be useful as a man, and will not submit tobe “clay,” and “stop a hole to keep the wind away,” but leave that office tohis dust at least: I am too high born to be propertied, To be a second at control, Or useful serving-man and instrument To any sovereign state throughout the world. He who gives himself entirely to his fellow menappears to them useless and selfish; but he who gives himself partially to themis pronounced a benefactor and philanthropist. How does it become a man to behave toward theAmerican government today? I answer, that he cannot without disgrace beassociated with it. I cannot for an instant recognize that politicalorganization as my government which is the slave’s government also. All men recognize the right of revolution; thatis, the right to refuse allegiance to, and to resist, the government, when itstyranny or its inefficiency are great and unendurable. But almost all say thatsuch is not the case now. But such was the case, they think, in the Revolutionof ‘75. If one were to tell me that this was a bad government because it taxedcertain foreign commodities brought to its ports, it is most probable that Ishould not make an ado about it, for I can do without them. All machines havetheir friction; and possibly this does enough good to counter-balance the evil.At any rate, it is a great evil to make a stir about it. But when the frictioncomes to have its machine, and oppression and robbery are organized, I say, letus not have such a machine any longer. In other words, when a sixth of thepopulation of a nation which has undertaken to be the refuge of liberty areslaves, and a whole country is unjustly overrun and conquered by a foreignarmy, and subjected to military law, I think that it is not too soon for honestmen to rebel and revolutionize. What makes this duty the more urgent is thatfact that the country so overrun is not our own, but ours is the invading army. Paley, a common authority with many on moralquestions, in his chapter on the “Duty of Submission to Civil Government,”resolves all civil obligation into expediency; and he proceeds to say that “solong as the interest of the whole society requires it, that is, so long as theestablished government cannot be resisted or changed without publicinconvenience, it is the will of God. . .that the established government beobeyed—and no longer. This principle being admitted, the justice of everyparticular case of resistance is reduced to a computation of the quantity ofthe danger and grievance on the one side, and of the probability and expense ofredressing it on the other.” Of this, he says, every man shall judge forhimself. But Paley appears never to have contemplated those cases to which therule of expediency does not apply, in which a people, as well and anindividual, must do justice, cost what it may. If I have unjustly wrested aplank from a drowning man, I must restore it to him though I drown myself.This, according to Paley, would be inconvenient. But he that would save hislife, in such a case, shall lose it. This people must cease to hold slaves, andto make war on Mexico, though it cost them their existence as a people. In their practice, nations agree with Paley;but does anyone think that Massachusetts does exactly what is right at thepresent crisis? A drab of stat, a cloth-o’-silver slut, To have her train borne up, and her soul trailin the dirt. Practically speaking, the opponents to a reformin Massachusetts are not a hundred thousand politicians at the South, but ahundred thousand merchants and farmers here, who are more interested incommerce and agriculture than they are in humanity, and are not prepared to dojustice to the slave and to Mexico, cost what it may. I quarrel not with far-offfoes, but with those who, neat at home, co-operate with, and do the bidding of,those far away, and without whom the latter would be harmless. We areaccustomed to say, that the mass of men are unprepared; but improvement isslow, because the few are not as materially wiser or better than the many. Itis not so important that many should be good as you, as that there be someabsolute goodness somewhere; for that will leaven the whole lump. There arethousands who are in opinion opposed to slavery and to the war, who yet ineffect do nothing to put an end to them; who, esteeming themselves children ofWashington and Franklin, sit down with their hands in their pockets, and saythat they know not what to do, and do nothing; who even postpone the questionof freedom to the question of free trade, and quietly read the prices-currentalong with the latest advices from Mexico, after dinner, and, it may be, fallasleep over them both. What is the price-current of an honest man and patriottoday? They hesitate, and they regret, and sometimes they petition; but they donothing in earnest and with effect. They will wait, well disposed, for other toremedy the evil, that they may no longer have it to regret. At most, they giveup only a cheap vote, and a feeble countenance and Godspeed, to the right, asit goes by them. There are nine hundred and ninety-nine patrons of virtue toone virtuous man. But it is easier to deal with the real possessor of a thingthan with the temporary guardian of it. All voting is a sort of gaming, like checkersor backgammon, with a slight moral tinge to it, a playing with right and wrong,with moral questions; and betting naturally accompanies it. The character ofthe voters is not staked. I cast my vote, perchance, as I think right; but I amnot vitally concerned that that right should prevail. I am willing to leave itto the majority. Its obligation, therefore, never exceeds that of expediency.Even voting for the right is doing nothing for it. It is only expressing to menfeebly your desire that it should prevail. A wise man will not leave the rightto the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of themajority. There is but little virtue in the action of masses of men. When themajority shall at length vote for the abolition of slavery, it will be becausethey are indifferent to slavery, or because there is but little slavery left tobe abolished by their vote. They will then be the only slaves. Only his votecan hasten the abolition of slavery who asserts his own freedom by his vote. I hear of a convention to be held at Baltimore,or elsewhere, for the selection of a candidate for the Presidency, made upchiefly of editors, and men who are politicians by profession; but I think,what is it to any independent, intelligent, and respectable man what decisionthey may come to? Shall we not have the advane of this wisdom and honesty,nevertheless? Can we not count upon some independent votes? Are there not manyindividuals in the country who do not attend conventions? But no: I find thatthe respectable man, so called, has immediately drifted from his position, anddespairs of his country, when his country has more reasons to despair of him.He forthwith adopts one of the candidates thus selected as the only availableone, thus proving that he is himself available for any purposes of thedemagogue. His vote is of no more worth than that of any unprincipled foreigneror hireling native, who may have been bought. O for a man who is a man, and,and my neighbor says, has a bone in his back which you cannot pass your handthrough! Our statistics are at fault: the population has been returned toolarge. How many men are there to a square thousand miles in the country? Hardlyone. Does not America offer any inducement for men to settle here? The Americanhas dwindled into an Odd Fellow—one who may be known by the development of hisorgan of gregariousness, and a manifest lack of intellect and cheerfulself-reliance; whose first and chief concern, on coming into the world, is tosee that the almshouses are in good repair; and, before yet he has lawfullydonned the virile garb, to collect a fund to the support of the widows andorphans that may be; who, in short, ventures to live only by the aid of theMutual Insurance company, which has promised to bury him decently. It is not a man’s duty, as a matter of course,to devote himself to the eradication of any, even to most enormous, wrong; hemay still properly have other concerns to engage him; but it is his duty, atleast, to wash his hands of it, and, if he gives it no thought longer, not togive it practically his support. If I devote myself to other pursuits andcontemplations, I must first see, at least, that I do not pursue them sittingupon another man’s shoulders. I must get off him first, that he may pursue hiscontemplations too. See what gross inconsistency is tolerated. I have heardsome of my townsmen say, “I should like to have them order me out to help putdown an insurrection of the slaves, or to march to Mexico—see if I would go”;and yet these very men have each, directly by their allegiance, and soindirectly, at least, by their money, furnished a substitute. The soldier isapplauded who refuses to serve in an unjust war by those who do not refuse tosustain the unjust government which makes the war; is applauded by those whoseown act and authority he disregards and sets at naught; as if the state werepenitent to that degree that it hired one to scourge it while it sinned, butnot to that degree that it left off sinning for a moment. Thus, under the nameof Order and Civil Government, we are all made at last to pay homage to andsupport our own meanness. After the first blush of sin comes its indifference;and from immoral it becomes, as it were, unmoral, and not quite unnecessary tothat life which we have made. The broadest and most prevalent error requiresthe most disinterested virtue to sustain it. The slight reproach to which thevirtue of patriotism is commonly liable, the noble are most likely to incur.Those who, while they disapprove of the character and measures of a government,yield to it their allegiance and support are undoubtedly its most conscientioussupporters, and so frequently the most serious obstacles to reform. Some arepetitioning the State to dissolve the Union, to disregard the requisitions ofthe President. Why do they not dissolve it themselves—the union betweenthemselves and the State—and refuse to pay their quota into its treasury? Donot they stand in same relation to the State that the State does to the Union?And have not the same reasons prevented the State from resisting the Unionwhich have prevented them from resisting the State? How can a man be satisfied to entertain anopinion merely, and enjoy it? Is there any enjoyment in it, if his opinion isthat he is aggrieved? If you are cheated out of a single dollar by yourneighbor, you do not rest satisfied with knowing you are cheated, or withsaying that you are cheated, or even with petitioning him to pay you your due;but you take effectual steps at once to obtain the full amount, and see to itthat you are never cheated again. Action from principle, the perception and theperformance of right, changes things and relations; it is essentiallyrevolutionary, and does not consist wholly with anything which was. It not onlydivided States and churches, it divides families; ay, it divides theindividual, separating the diabolical in him from the divine. Unjust laws exist: shall we be content to obeythem, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we havesucceeded, or shall we transgress them at once? Men, generally, under such agovernment as this, think that they ought to wait until they have persuaded themajority to alter them. They think that, if they should resist, the remedywould be worse than the evil. But it is the fault of the government itself thatthe remedy is worse than the evil. It makes it worse. Why is it not more apt toanticipate and provide for reform? Why does it not cherish its wise minority?Why does it cry and resist before it is hurt? Why does it not encourage itscitizens to put out its faults, and do better than it would have them? Why doesit always crucify Christ and excommunicate Copernicus and Luther, and pronounceWashington and Franklin rebels? One would think, that a deliberate andpractical denial of its authority was the only offense never contemplated byits government; else, why has it not assigned its definite, its suitable andproportionate penalty? If a man who has no property refuses but once to earnnine shillings for the State, he is put in prison for a period unlimited by anylaw that I know, and determined only by the discretion of those who put himthere; but if he should steal ninety times nine shillings from the State, he issoon permitted to go at large again. If the injustice is part of the necessaryfriction of the machine of government, let it go, let it go: perchance it willwear smooth—certainly the machine will wear out. If the injustice has a spring,or a pulley, or a rope, or a crank, exclusively for itself, then perhaps youmay consider whether the remedy will not be worse than the evil; but if it isof such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another,then I say, break the law. Let your life be a counter-friction to stop themachine. What I have to do is to see, at any rate, that I do not lend myself tothe wrong which I condemn. |
