SUPPORTING BRIEF #5: SLAVERY, Page 3
Rights
*******************************************************************
Speaking on the subject of rights, Channing stated:
"The whole subject of Rights needs to be reconsidered. Speculations and reasonings about it have lately been given to the public, not only false, but dangerous to freedom, and there is a strong tendency to injurious views. Rights are made to depend on circumstances, so that pretenses may easily made or created for violating them successively, till none shall remain. Human rights have been represented as so modified and circumscribed by men's entrance into the social state, that only the shadows of them are left. They have been spoken of and absorbed in the public good; so that a man may be innocently enslaved, if the public good shall so require. To meet fully all these errors, for such I hold them, a larger work than the present is required." The Works of William E. Channing(American Unitarian Assoc., 1873: Boston), Vol. II, pg. 31.
Channing was indeed correct in his statement that human rights had suffered greatly under the claim that the "general good" was paramount to such rights. To affirm this, consider the following excerpt from Cotton is King and Pro-Slavery Arguments (Pritchard, Abbott, & Loomis; Augusta, Ga., 1860) found on pages 287-88:
"An inalienable right is a right coupled with a duty; a duty with which no other obligation can interfere. But, as we have seen, it is the duty, and consequently, the right, of society to make such laws as the general good demands.... Hence, if it be shown that the public good, and especially the good of the slave, demands such a law, then the question of slavery will be settled."
Channing believed these arguments to be wrong. He stated:
"I shall show, that man has rights from his very nature, not the gifts of society, but of God; that they are not surrendered on entering the social state; that they must not be taken away under the plea of public good; that the Individual is never to be sacrificed to the Community; that the idea of Rights is to prevail above all the interests of the state." Channings Works, Vol. II, pg. 32.
Indeed, did the framers place the "General Welfare" clause and the "Commerce" clause into the Constitution so that those exercising political power in the federal government could take away the rights of the people? Was it their intention to empower the federal government to make slaves out of freemen? Could they have ever, in their wildest dreams, imagined that future political forces would use the taxing powers to despoil the people of their labor? Was the Constitution framed by Pithom and Raamses!
One can only imagine being a member of the Constitutional Convention, and, seeing George Washington, the chairman of the Convention, rise to his feet and state:
FELLOW DELEGATES: IN THE GRAND TRADITION OF PITHOM, RAAMSES, ALEXANDER, CAESAR, AND ALL THE KINGS AND EMPERORS THROUGHOUT THE AGES, I PROPOSE THAT A PROVISION BE PLACED IN THE CONSTITUTION WHICH WILL ALLOW THE EXECUTIVE POWER TO CAST CHAINS UPON THE LABOR OF THE PEOPLE.
"Man's rights belong to him as a Moral Being, as capable of perceiving moral distinctions, as a subject of moral obligation. As soon as he becomes conscious of Duty, a kindred consciousness springs up, that he has a Right to do what his sense of duty enjoins, and that no foreign will or power can obstruct his moral action without crime." ibid., pg. 32.
Think of America today and reflect on these words. Do we not know that we must labor to support ourselves and our families? Does not the unlawful interference by government by using their taxing powers interfere with the ability to adequately provide for ourselves and our families? Does not our plain common sense tell us that the more government burdens our labor, the more that families will be torn apart, thereby destroying the basic building blocks of society? Are they not taxing the American Dream out of existence in their insane course of striving for social insurance and welfare? "The sense of duty is the fountain of human rights. In other words, the same inward principle, which teaches the former, bears witness to the latter. Duties and Rights must stand or fall together.... Accordingly there is no deeper principle in human nature, than the consciousness of rights. So profound, so ineradicable is this sentiment, that the oppressions of ages have no where wholly stifled it." ibid., pg. 33.
The Social Security Act only allowed the federal government to expand its excise taxing powers upon the employer/employee relationship. This meant that the federal government could tax the employer to whatever degree it desired based upon his payroll to his employees. While the tax on the employer is constitutional (see: Helvering v. Davis, 301 US 619), the tax on the employee has not, according to my research, been ruled upon. Just what is at issue regarding using the taxing powers to tax employees? LABOR! The federal government has absolutely no authority to tax labor, for this confers the power to impose slavery. As Channing so aptly put it, the oppressions of the ages have not stifled the people's awareness of their rights.
Speaking further on the subject of rights, Channing stated: "Volumes could not do justice to them; and yet, perhaps they may be comprehended in one sentence. They may be all comprised in the right, which belongs to every rational being, to exercise his powers for the promotion of his own and other's Happiness and Virtue. These are the great purposes of his existence. For these powers were given, and to these he is bound to devote them. He is bound to make himself and others better and happier, according to his ability. His ability for his work is a sacred trust from God, the greatest of all trusts." ibid., pg. 34.
Immediately after his re-election as President, Abraham Lincoln stated:
"The strife of the election is but human nature practically applied to the facts of the case. What has occurred in this case must recur in similar cases. Human nature will not change. In any future great National trial, compared with the men of this, we shall have as weak as the strong, as silly as wise, as bad and as good." The Complete works of Abraham Lincoln (N.Y.; The Tandy-Thomas Co., 1905.), Vol. II, pg. v.
"Having considered the great fundamental right of human nature, particular rights may easily be deduced. Every man has a right to exercise and invigorate his intellect or the power of knowledge, for knowledge is the essential condition of successful effort for every good; and whoever obstructs or quenches the intellectual life in another, inflicts a grievous and irreparable wrong. Every man has a right to inquire into his duty, and to conform himself to what he learns of it. Every man has a right to use the means, given by God and sanctioned by virtue, for bettering his condition. He has a right to be respected according to his moral worth; a right to be regarded as a member of the community to which he belongs, and to be protected by impartial laws; and a right to be exempted from coercion, stripes, and punishment, as long as he respects the rights of others. He has a right to an equivalent for his labor. He has a right to sustain domestic relations, to discharge their duties, and to enjoy the happiness which flows from fidelity in those and other domestic relations. Such are a few of human rights; and if so, what a grievous wrong is slavery!" Channing's Works, pg. 35. (emphasis added)
One of the oldest arguments that there is that justifies despotic power is the argument for the "good of the whole", the "general welfare", and today the newest one is the regulation of "commerce". Indeed, as long as human governments rule over mankind, there will always be an excuse for the exercise of despotic powers.
"It is commonly said, that men part with a portion of these by becoming a community, a body politic; that government consists of powers surrendered by the individual; and it is said, 'If certain rights and powers may be surrendered, why not others? why not all? what limit is to be set? The good of the community, to which a part is given up, may demand the whole; and in this good, all private rights are merged.' This is the logic of despotism. We are grieved that it finds its way into republics, and that it sets down the great principles of freedom as abstractions and metaphysical theories, good enough for the cloister, but too refined for practical and real life.
"Human rights, however, are not to be so reasoned away. They belong, as we have seen, to man as a moral being, and nothing can divest him of them but the destruction of his nature. They are not to be given up to society as prey. On the contrary, the great end of civil society is to secure them. The great end of government is to repress all wrong. Its highest function is to protect the weak against the powerful, so that the obscurest human being may enjoy his rights in peace. Strange that an institution, built on the idea of Rights, should be used to unsettle this idea, to confuse our moral perceptions, to sanctify wrongs as means of general good!
"It is said, that, in forming civil society, the individual surrenders part of his rights. It would be more proper to say, that he adopts new modes of securing them. He consents, for example, to desist from self-defense, that he and all be more defended by public force. He consents to submit his cause to an umpire or tribunal, that justice may be more impartially awarded, and that he and all may more certainly receive their due. He consents to part with a portion of his property in taxation, that his own and other's property may be the more secure. He submits to certain restraints, that he and others may enjoy more enduring freedom. He expects an equivalent for what he relinquishes, and insists on it as his right. He is wronged by partial laws, which compel him to contribute to the state beyond his proportion, his ability, and the measure of benefits which he receives. How absurd is it to suppose, that, by consenting to be protected by the state, and by yielding it the means, he surrenders the very rights which were the objects of his accession to the social compact!" ibid., pp. 35-37. Such are the workings of despotism.
It is a great wrong for any government to exploit one class for the benefit of another. To exploit the laboring class to benefit the other classes to whom social insurance and welfare is promised will only tear at the very fabric of our nation. It will eventually rip all of our rights to shreds.
"The idea of Rights should be fundamental and supreme in civil institutions. Government becomes a nuisance and scourge, in proportion as its sacrifices these to the many or the few. Government, I repeat it, is equally bound with the individual to the Moral Law.... Government, far from originating them, owes them its strength. Right is older that human law. Law ought to be its voice. It should be built on, and should correspond to, the principle of justice in the human breast, and its weakness is owing to nothing more than to its clashing with our indestructible moral convictions." ibid. pg. 38.
The South had a representative government, and ironically, the only ones ushered into office in elections were the slaveholders!
"There is no legislation except for the benefit of the slaveholders. As a general rule, poor white persons are regarded with less esteem and attention than negroes, and though the condition of the latter is wretched beyond description, vast numbers of the former are infinitely worse off. A cunningly devised mockery of freedom is guarantied to them, and that is all. To all intents and purposes they are disfranchised, and outlawed, and the only privilege extended to them, is a shallow and circumscribed participation in the political movements that usher slaveholders into office." Impending Crisis of the South: How to Meet It (A.B. Burdick; N.Y., 1860), page 42.
"A representative government may be as despotic as an absolute monarchy. In as far as it tramples on the rights, whether of many or one, it is a despotism. The sovereign power, whether wielded by a single hand or several hands, by a king or a congress, which spoils one human being of the immunities and privileges bestowed on him by God, is so far a tyranny. The great argument in favor of representative institutions is, that a people's rights are the safest in their own hands, and should never be surrendered to an irresponsible power. Rights, Rights, lie at the foundation of a popular government; and when this betrays them, the wrong is more aggravated than when they are crushed by despotism.
"Still the question will be asked, 'Is not the General Good the supreme law of the state? Are not all restraints on the individual just, which this demands? When the rights of the individual clash with this, must they not yield? Do they not, indeed, cease to be rights? Must everything give place to the 'General Good?' I have started this question in various forms, because I deem it worthy of particular examination. Public and private morality, the freedom and safety of our national institutions, are greatly concerned in settling the claims of the 'General Good.' In monarchies, the Divine Right of Kings swallowed up all others. In republics, the General Good threatens the same evil. It is a shelter for the abuses and usurpations of government, for the profligacies of statesmen, for the vices of parties, for the wrongs of slavery. In considering this subject, I take the hazard of repeating principles already laid down; but this will be justified by the importance of reaching and determining the truth. Is the General Good, then, the supreme law, to which everything must bow?" Channing's Works, pp. 38-39.
The greatest crimes throughout the ages have not been the crimes of men like Jack the Ripper, Charles Manson, or Al Capone; but have, much more so, been the crimes of Caesar, of Napoleon, of Hitler, of Mussolini, and all the other tyrants throughout history. The most heinous crimes are the ones enforced by political authority, for they are sanctioned by the force of law.
"No greater calamity can befall a people than to prosper by crime. No success can be compensation for the wound inflicted on a nation's mind by renouncing Right as its Supreme Law.... Let a people exalt Prosperity above Rectitude, and a more dangerous end cannot be proposed. Public Prosperity, General Good, regarded by itself, or apart from the moral law, is something vague, unsettled, and uncertain, and will infallibly be so construed by the selfish and grasping as to secure their own aggrandizement. It may be made to wear a thousand forms, according to men's interests and passions. This is illustrated by every day's history. Not a party springs up, which does not sanctify all its projects for monopolizing power by the plea of General Good." ibid., pg. 41.
Today, according to these same principles, the labor of the people is taxed. If tomorrow, the state mandated that all labor will be taxed at the rate of, say, 60%, would you oppose it? Would you object to having the tax rate imposed upon your labor doubled all at once? No doubt, multitudes would be outraged! The next election would see many politicians, if not all of them, voted out of office. However, if the rate were increased gradually over a long period of time, then the effects of such higher taxation would be borne by our children and grandchildren. Sadly, if we continue to strive for social goals and look to government for our security, then this scenario will indeed occur. When it gets to the point that the people no longer have enough of their labor left after taxation to sustain themselves and their families,- that is, if there is any semblance of a family unit left,- then the state will gain mastery over them, for they will command the labor of the masses. Have we lost sight of what slavery means? If be it confirmed that the General Good demands 30% of my labor, then may not the General Good demand 40%, 50%, or 100%. Shall we confer such enormous powers in the hands of imperfect human beings?
"It is time that the low maxims of policy, which have ruled for ages, should fall. It is time that public interest should no longer hallow injustice, and fortify government in making the weak their prey.
"In this discussion, I have used the phrase, Public or General Good, in its common acceptation, as signifying the safety and prosperity of a state. Why can it not be used in a larger sense? Why can it not be made to comprehend inward and moral, as well as outward good? And why cannot the former be understood to be incomparably the most important element of the public weal? Then, indeed, I should assent to the proposition, that the General Good is the Supreme Law. So construed, it would support the great truths which I have maintained. It would condemn the infliction on the humblest individual, as a national calamity. It would plead with us to extend to every individual the means of improving his character and lot." ibid., pg. 42.
Today, as already mentioned, the "General Good" has given way, for the most part, to the regulation of "Commerce". OSHA enforces its codes upon workers under the Commerce clause, federal gun laws are enforced under the Commerce clause, federal drug laws are enforced under the Commerce clause. Virtually everything is now claimed to have an effect on interstate Commerce and, therefore, can be regulated. Let us now consider the logic of the arguments which allows the federal government to regulate virtually every activity under the Commerce clause. All an object has to do is cross state lines once and it can be regulated indefinitely, for it has effected interstate Commerce. But what objects which make their way to market do not, in the vast majority of cases, cross state lines? If some objects can be regulated, then why not all other objects? Shall we say that the carpenter can be regulated because the lumber he uses, the hammer he drives nails with, the nail he drives in with the hammer, and all his other tools were at one time part of interstate Commerce? Shall we say that the high school boy who mows his neighbor's yard for a price can be regulated because the lawn mower he uses, the clothes he wears, the shoes on his feet, were all at one time a part of interstate Commerce? Shall we say that the high school girl who cleans her neighbor's house for a price can be regulated because the cleaning rags she uses, the cleaning fluids she uses, the clothes and shoes she wears, were at one time a part of interstate Commerce? Shall we say that the newborn child can be regulated because the diapers it wears, the formula it drinks, were at one time part of interstate Commerce? If regulations can be imposed on certain objects and those who contact those objects because such objects were at one time part of interstate Commerce, then why not others? Where will it stop? Is not the labor of a human being today regulated and taxed like an article of Commerce! Such is the logic of despotism.
"In all ages the Individual has, in one form or another, been trodden to the dust." ibid., pg. 43.
Our independence over 200 years ago was a great epoch in the cause for freedom and liberty.
"It was the glory of the American people, that, in their Declaration of Independence, they took the ground of the indestructible rights of every human being. They declared all men to be essentially equal, and each born to be free. They did not, like the Greek or Roman, assert for themselves a liberty, which they burned to wrest from other states. They spoke in the name of humanity, as the representatives of the rights of the feeblest, as well as the mightiest of their race. They published universal, everlasting principles, which are to work out the deliverance of every human being. Such was their glory. Let not the idea of Rights be erased from their children's minds by false ideas of public good. Let not the sacredness of the Individual Man be forgotten in the feverish pursuit of property. It is more important that the Individual should respect himself, and be respected by others, than that the wealth of both worlds should be accumulated on our shores. National wealth is not the end of society. It mat exist where large classes are depressed and wronged. It may undermine a nation's spirit, institutions, and independence. It can have no value and no sure foundation, until the supremacy of the Rights of the Individual is the first article of a nation's faith, and until reverence for them becomes the spirit of public men." ibid., pg. 44.
When great fundamental Rights which, by the Constitution, are denied recognition by government, we are under the political rule of a despotism. Denying the individual the equivalent for his labor is one of the oldest components of despotic power. Perhaps, it may be said, that the very cornerstone of despotism is state control of labor. When political forces of this kind gain control of government they "will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reigns of government; destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion." The Life of Washington, Vol. V, pg. 291.
"Slavery strips man of the fundamental right to inquire into, consult, and seek his own happiness. His powers belong to another, and for another they must be used. He must form no plans, engage in no enterprises, for bettering his condition. Whatever be his capacities, however equal to great improvements of his lot, he is chained for life, by another's will, to the same unvaried toil." Channing's Works, Vol. II, pg. 46.
In Channing's day, the slave was chained to his labors on the southern plantations. In the 1930's, the German people were chained under nationalized dictator controlled labor, where no individual right to labor was recognized. The German people, under the National Socialists, were subjected to a cunning political slavery. There were the slaves of the working class, who, under the rule of despotism, were chained to their place, and their subsistence was solely at the discretion of the state. Then there were the venal slaves of the state. These were the SS and the Gestapo; whose labors were bought and controlled by the state so that the iron hand of tyranny would crush all opposition to the system. Of all forms of slavery, political slavery, imposed by a central government, is the worst.
Are the working people of America today not chained to their place? Does not the taxing power mandate that around four months out each year we are to labor for the state? Does not the state, by doing this, have the power to control our prosperity by determining our level of subsistence? If the courts uphold the exercise of this power, have they not established in law that we are the political slaves of the state? Is not the labor of those who wield this power over the people's labor, bought to enforce this very despotism? And then we claim that we have freedom and liberty! Throughout the ages, the individual who labors has, indeed, been the prey of despotism. Channing stated that a slave cannot "seek redress from the laws of his country." ibid., pg. 47.
To use the force of law to despoil a human being of the fruits of their labor is, other than murder, the greatest crime that a government can commit.
"The slave virtually suffers the wrong of robbery, though with utter unconsciousness on the part of those who inflict it. It may, indeed, be generally thought, that, as he is suffered to own nothing, he cannot fall, at least, under this kind of violence. But it is not true that he owns nothing. Whatever may be denied by man, he holds from nature the most valuable property, and that from which all other is derived, I mean his strength. His labor is his own, by the gift of God, who nerved his arm, and gave him intelligence and conscience to direct the use of it to his own and other's happiness. No possession is so precious as a man's force of body and mind. The exertion of his labor is the great foundation and source of property in outward things. The worth of articles of traffic is measured by the labor expended in their production. To the great mass of men, in all countries, their strength or labor is their whole fortune. To seize on this would be to rob them of their all. In truth, no robbery is so great, as to that to which the slave is habitually subjected. To take by force a man's whole estate, the fruit of years of toil, would, by universal consent, be denounced as a great wrong; but what is this, compared with seizing the man himself, and appropriating to our use the limbs, faculties, strength, and labor, by which all property is won and held fast? The right of property in outward things is as nothing, compared with the right to ourselves.... Suppose another to wrest from us a valued possession, and to pay us his own price. Should we not think ourselves robbed? Would not the laws pronounce the invader a robber? Is it consistent with the right of property, that a man should determine the equivalent for what he takes from his neighbor? Especially is it to be hoped, that the equivalent due to the laborer will be scrupulously weighed, when he himself is held as property, and all his earnings are declared to be his masters. So great an infraction of human right is slavery!" ibid., pp. 48-49.
Let us now consider the importance of the 13th Amendment. The amendment not only prohibits slavery, but also involuntary servitude. Slavery, in its greatest rankness is, of course, bondage. Slavery, in its milder forms is involuntary servitude. In other words, taxing labor at 100% would reduce us to bondage. But would not conferring a taxing power over our labor at the rate of 30% confer the power to reduce us to bondage? All forms of slavery, throughout the ages, have been sanctioned by the force of law and upheld by judicial decisions. What the prohibition against involuntary servitude does is deny government any power to tax our labor. In other words, they are prohibited from gaining any kind of footing which could lead us to bondage. Thank God that men of integrity over 100 years ago placed this important provision in the Constitution. However, this provision of the Constitution will never have a chance of being recognized if we don't bring the issue forward. There is nothing wrong about coming to the realization that you are a slave. Political forces throughout the ages have engaged in cunning and devious designs to gain power over the labor of the people.
The 13th Amendment states:
"Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
We may re-word this to also say the same thing, in substance, as follows:
"Section 1. The people of the United States shall be guaranteed a free labor market. Such right to a free labor market shall be infringed only for punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted. The right to a free labor market shall exist in all the States of this Union and all Territory subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."