Webster's Defense of Liberty

The War of 1812 was a brutal conflict between the infantile United States and the British Empire, and the culmination of years of unsettled dues from the Revolutionary War. The first real test of power since its independence, aside from the Barnaby Wars, the United States was faced with a dilemma; they lacked the proper ground troops to deal with such an impending crisis from the British Crown. Scrambling for solutions, then-president James Madison sought advice from his Secretary of State James Monroe who then pitched in his two cents -- instate a national draft of 40,000 men. It was this proposal that Senator Daniel Webster fiercely criticized on the House floor in his December address during the winter of 1815. His words are perhaps one of the most eloquent defenses I have read against conscription, against tyranny, and for liberty. Here's some food for thought:

"...Is this, Sir, consistent with the character of a free Government? Is this civil liberty? Is this the real character of our Constitution? No Sir, indeed it is not. The Constitution is libelled, foully libelled. The people of this country have not established for themselves such a fabric of despotism. They have not purchased at a vast expense of their own treasure and their own blood a Magna Carta to be slaves. Where is it written in the Constitution, in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents, & parents from their children, & compel them to fight the battles of any war, in which the folly or the wickedness of Government may engage it? Under what concealment has this power lain hidden, which now for the first time comes forth, with a tremendous & baleful aspect, to trample down & destroy the dearest rights of personal liberty? Who will show me any constitutional injunction, which makes it the duty of the American people to surrender everything valuable in life, & even life itself, not when the safety of their country & its liberties may demand the sacrifice, but whenever the purposes of an ambitious & mischievous Government may require it? Sir, I almost disdain to go to quotations & references to prove that such an abominable doctrine has no foundation in the Constitution of the country. It is enough to know that that instrument was intended as the basis of a free Government, & that the power contended for is incompatible with any notion of personal liberty. An attempt to maintain this doctrine upon the provisions of the Constitution is an exercise of perverse ingenuity to extract slavery from the substance of a free Government. It is an attempt to show, by proof & argument, that we ourselves are subjects of despotism, & that we have a right to chains & bondage, firmly secured to us & our children, by the provisions of our Government. It has been the labor of other men, at other times, to mitigate & reform the powers of Government by construction; to support the rights of personal security by every species of favorable & benign interpretation, & thus to infuse a free spirit into Governments, not friendly in their general structure & formation to public liberty."

He goes on to articulate the gruesome effects of the war on families and lives:

"...Sir, I invite the supporters of the measures before you to look to their actual operation. Let the men who have so often pledged their own fortunes & their own lives to the support of this war, look to the wanton sacrifice which they are about to make of their lives & fortunes. They may talk as they will about substitutes, & compensations, & exemptions. It must come to the draft at last. If the Government cannot hire men voluntarily to fight its battles, neither can individuals. If the war should continue, there will be no escape, & every man's fate, & every man's life will come to depend on the issue of the military draught. Who shall describe to you the horror which your orders of Conscription shall create in the once happy villages of this country? Who shall describe the distress & anguish which they will spread over those hills & valleys, where men have heretofore been accustomed to labor, & to rest in security & happiness. Anticipate the scene, Sir, when the class shall assemble to stand its draft, & to throw the dice for blood. What a group of wives & mothers, & sisters, of helpless age & helpless infancy, shall gather round the theatre of this horrible lottery, as if the stroke of death were to fall from heaven before their eyes, on a father, a brother, a son or an husband. And in a majority of cases, Sir, it will be the stroke of death. Under present prospects of the continuance of the war, not one half of them on whom your conscription shall fall will ever return to tell the tale of their sufferings. They will perish of disease & pestilence, or they will leave their bones to whiten in fields beyond the frontier. Does the lot fall on the father of a family? His children, already orphans, shall see his face no more. When they behold him for the last time, they shall see him lashed & fettered, & dragged away from his own threshold, like a felon & an outlaw. Does it fall on a son, the hope & the staff of aged parents. That hope shall fail them. On that staff they shall lean no longer. They shall not enjoy the happiness of dying before their children. They shall totter to their grave, bereft of their offspring, & unwept by any who inherit their blood. Does it fall on a husband? The eyes which watch his parting steps may swim in tears forever. She is a wife no longer. There is no relation so tender or so sacred, that, by these accursed measures, you do not propose to violate it. There is no happiness so perfect, that you do not propose to destroy it. Into the paradise of domestic life you enter, not indeed by temptations & sorceries, but by open force & violence."

Powerfully speaking, he once again affirms the principles of a free society:

"...In my opinion, Sir, the sentiments of the free population of this country are greatly mistaken here. The nation is not yet in a temper to submit to conscription. The people have too fresh & strong a feeling of the blessings of civil liberty to be willing thus to surrender it. You may talk to them as much as you please, of the victory & glory to be obtained in the Enemy's Provinces; they will hold those objects in light estimation, if the means be a forced military service. You may sing to them the song of Canada Conquests in all its variety, but they will not be charmed out of the remembrance of their substantial interests, & true happiness. Similar pretences, they know, are the graves in which the liberties of other nations have been buried, & they will take warning. Laws, Sir, of this nature can create nothing but opposition. If you scatter them abroad, like the fabled serpents' teeth, they will spring up into armed men. A military force cannot be raised, in this manner, but by the means of a military force. If the administration has found that it cannot form an army without conscription, it will find, if it ventures on these experiments, that it can not enforce conscription without an army. The Government was not constituted for such purposes. Framed in the spirit of liberty, & in the love of peace, it has no powers which render it able to enforce such laws. The attempt, if we rashly make it, will fail; & having already thrown away our peace, we may thereby throw away our Government."

Part of the Great Triumvirate of the Senate, Daniel Webster could not have used his talent of speaking more masterfully -- his speech is still very much relevant. Hopefully I am not being too chauvinistic, but let me say this; even in today's technocratic society, even in today's late industrial age, the principles Webster espouses is still very much alive, or at least something we should still hold dear. 

The 18th Century Radical

In the 18th century Europe underwent a cultural and intellectual; sometimes rather violent; revolution that took it to a new form of consciousness and populist fervor. The Enlightenment was a pivotal step in human development, which freed it from the shackles of superstitions and divine titles of power. In Immanuel Kant's essay "Answering the Question: What is Enlightenment," he calls it;

Mankind's final coming of age, the emancipation of the human consciousness from an immature state of ignorance and error.

It is from this ideology, and its logical conclusions, the radical was born. Radicalism in the 18th century was much more than a realization that man's mind is his greatest tool; it involved being skeptical of the entire system and the very existence of entitlement, aristocracy, and power. And moreover, it was was the realization that liberty is seldom a vice.

Oftentimes, radicalism would violently clash with the forces they were working against; The French Revolution was a climactic bloodbath after centuries of feudal and royal rule - a rebellion against the divinely sanctioned institutions that was oppressing the commoner. It was the first truly violent overthrow of old order based on Enlightenment principles (the American Revolution was arguably not quite as great of an social upheaval), and ushered in the principles of inalienable natural rights, equality of peoples, and 'universal' citizenship. It was also perhaps the first time in Europe that the labouring class was successively mass-mobilized against aristocracy and oppression in regiments called the Sans-culottes; which favored revolutionary proto-Marxist ideas such as socio-economic equality, anti-free market ideologies, direct democracy, and availability of affordable necessities. Radical even by today's imagination.

Sadly many of these egalitarian Enlightenment attitudes evaporated in the aftermath of the Reign of Terror that ensued after the French Revolution, led by Maximilien "The Incorruptible" Robespierre, albeit some were kept alive in the United States in the years following the American Revolution. The Declaration of the Rights of Man however, the most beautiful creation during the French Revolution, seemingly lived on; standing as the ultimate testament to Enlightenment idealism inspired by the works of Jean-Jacques Roussaeu, Baron de Montesquieu, John Locke, and the American Revolution. It espoused in Article I, eloquently;

Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good.

Although improperly put in practice, it served as an ideal and a reason for struggle for the French in years that followed, especially in the Revolution of 1848.

In the United States, many American radicals were in solidarity with the French struggle for equality, but were somewhat saddened by the widespread violence. Thomas Jefferson, a radical of the Enlightenment and father of the American republic, wrote very favorably of the French in principle, and was captivated by their vigor and passion, but could not ignore the bloodshed and killings of the 'counter-revolutionaries.' He writes in a private letter to American ambassador William Short;

The liberty of the whole earth was depending on the issue of the contest, and was ever such a prize won with so little innocent blood? My own affections have been deeply wounded by some of the martyrs to this cause, but rather than it should have failed, I would have seen half the earth desolated. Were there but an Adam and an Eve left in every country, and left free, it would be better than as it now is. I have expressed to you my sentiments, because they are really those of 99 in an hundred of our citizens. The universal feasts, and rejoicings which have lately been had on account of the successes of the French shewed the genuine effusions of their hearts. You have been wounded by the sufferings of your friends, and have by this circumstance been hurried into a temper of mind which would be extremely disrelished if known to your countrymen [1793].

Despite the violence, Jefferson remained optimistic of the ultimate end of despotism and tyranny. He writes in great hope and admiration commenting on the ongoing struggle in the French Republic and the Batavian Republic of Holland in a letter to Tench Coxe;

This ball of liberty, I believe most piously, is now so well in motion that it will roll round the globe, at least the enlightened part of it, for light & liberty go together. It is our glory that we first put it into motion [1795].

This Jeffersonian idealism 'lives on', or rather should, in principle and in policy. The intellectual triumphs of the American and French Revolutions should not be forgotten nor ignored; and the principles written in John Locke's Second Treatise on Civil Government, on which Enlightenment social precepts were founded on and which Jefferson revered, will always stand true;

The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but to have only the law of nature for his rule.

It is on this basis that a free democratic society is formed and it is likewise why natural rights should never be forgone - no matter how noble the end result.

The Invaluable Right of Freedom of Speech

It is certain that in the west, secularism has prevailed; Well, at least in Europe, replacing religious ethics with cultural hedonism that is paradoxically more restrictive than religion ever was. Hedonism, rather then being the construct of a divine text, is directly derived from the individual. This creates something of a more limiting environment. The west has embraced this pleasure-seeking ideal, but not without a few strings attached. The west's hedonistic culture has in itself created artificial walls of conduct that has proved to be more restraining than dogma at times, because it is a product of something much more fundamental; one's own mind; and we must cherish this right and not let it be dwarfed in the name of "protection from offense." This is where I fear most of all that the west, especially Europe, might relinquish their Voltairean principle of free speech.

In January of 2012, France passed the 'Armenian Genocide Bill' which criminalized the denial of it happening. Although noble in writing and true in its intent, this type of legislation is particularly dangerous. Why are we constructing a society free of offending? The real purpose of free speech, as espoused in the age of Enlightenment, is for the protection of unpopular speech; popular speech has little to be protected from. It is this dilemma from which I fear the subtle censorship that is present in European society, which is done in the name of protection from offense. As Christopher Hitchens, the prominent journalist, eloquently put it in this video; "don't take refuge in the false security of consensus" simply because you are in majority. If one person disagrees, and says so, then there should be special protection bestowed to that individual because what that person has to say is intrinsically more important. Now, this is not because that person has something more of substance to say; it is because what that person has to say is vital to reverifying truths that may be taken for granted. It refreshes the principles of the majority, in this case the recognition of the Armenian genocide. And moreover, if your opinion is truly the correct one you should not fear the dissenting opinion of one mere individual to the point where you have to resort to censorship.

Furthermore, who is going to protect you from the offensive language? When you empower the state to censor your society, to decide who is the harmful speaker, you have relinquished your right to dissent; and pity you when you need that right of speech, if you ever do.

The largest threat to limiting our fundamental right of speech, it seems, is those claiming to be protecting in the name of religion. Islam, especially, in European society feels it is entitled to special protection under the law. In the case of the Danish cartoon controversy of 2005, where pictures of Muhammad were drawn and printed in a newspaper, they were said to be "offensive" by some Muslims in the community. They protested the cartoon, and there was a global movement where they called for the Danish government to bring it down. Self-censorship ensued. Is this the society we've grown into, where it's forbidden to offend and exercise one's right to say what he or she wishes? Retrospectively this is offensive to us, those who follow the Enlightenment, to have to see our rights of speech slandered for the religious. No creed deserves to special protection under the law, for then it becomes tyranny to all those not under the that umbrella of "tolerance."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hitchens on the Danish riots.