Approaching a Political State of Nature

In 1774, in September, on the second morning of the first meeting of the Congress of the British states in America, Patrick Henry shocked his colleagues with an observation. He stated that the colonial societies represented in that Congress had returned to a state of nature.

In political theory then, as now, a state of nature did not refer to living harmoniously with the ecosystem. It meant that the bonds of government, and even of society, were dissolved. It meant anarchy, as was most notably examined by English philosopher Thomas Hobbes. It was generally regarded as a bad thing. What good people were supposed to do when they found themselves in a state of nature was create a new social order including a government to their liking. Thomas Hobbes liked monarchs, but English society favored a republican form of government with a limited role for the monarch.

Patrick Henry was an interesting guy. He is best known to American's for crying, "give me liberty or give me death!" He owned a bunch of slaves at the time, so "me" should be emphasized. He did not want freedom for all. He wanted the liberty to own slaves, in which he felt he would be hampered by the Somerset Decision of the English court. However, he was consistent about keeping government close to, and controlled by, the (white male) people. He did not want to replace a tyranny based in London by one based in some American national capital.

What was probably most shocking about his statement that the colonies were already in a state of nature, was that it was not really true. The colonies were not in a state of anarchy. They were not exactly in a state of rebellion. The leaders of the colonies did not like taxes and they did not like their own power being limited by the British government. But life went on in 1774 in a manner little different than it had in 1770.

Henry was opening the door to a more subtle argument. He was giving a philosophical ground for the idea of a change of governments. He did not believe that you should have to pass through a state of anarchy to get to a new, improved government.

Anarchy and anarchism have the same language root and are often confused in the public mind. Anarchy is the absence of government. Anarchism is the political theory that society can be well organized without a government. In other words, anarchists believe that the "state of nature" can be transformed into a cooperative, peaceful society. In fact, they argue that government, even in its republican form, tends to become organized crime. Anarchists believe that governments do not prevent violence, they cause it. Most anarchists a peace-lovers.

I want to raise the question in your mind: are we in, or moving into, a state of nature in the United States? I thought we might be moving rapidly in that direction during the economic crisis of 2007-2008. Now it looks like the government and economy will muddle through, for the time being. But even the muddling through has greatly increased popular discontent. Why were bankers saved, and automobile executives and workers, while other businessmen and workers were given no help at all? Why spend so much on useless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan when the money is needed in the United States? Why help spendthrifts who bought McMansions, but not those who saved up 20% down payments to buy modest houses?

If Barack Obama's campaign did nothing else, it raised popular expectations. He promised everything to everyone. If he even delivers on the minimal promises, by the end of the first year of the Obama administration the national debt will have risen by over 2 trillion dollars from where it stood before the election campaign season began. Nothing is planned to stem the growth of the population of the United States or the world; global warming will continue; the fish in the sea that have not been caught, will be caught soon enough.

I believe we are, for all practical purposes in a state of nature. We have the right to set up a society and maybe even a government that suits us. California, in particular, needs a whole new government, including the complete destruction of the Democratic and Republican parties. We need to annul many of the stupid, in fact reckless, policies that have been forced on us from Washington, D.C.

If Obama and the new Congress do the right things, then anarchy and global ecological collapse might still be avoided. I'll believe it if I see it.

Somerset, Somersett, or Sommersett: Slavery is the Root of U.S. Law

The most central judicial decision for American politics, history and law took place in Great Britain on the eve of the American Revolution. Few citizens of the United States have heard of the case. It is not covered by law schools. It is not to be found in the history curriculum of American high schools, or even in colleges. It is not even mentioned in leftist tomes such as A People's History of the United States.

I came across the case by accident, while browsing an old law book in a used book store in New York City. Its significance struck me at once. I have mentioned it repeatedly over the decades, hoping to bring it to light. But even the publishing of an entire book on the subject by a distinguished professor of law in 2005 has failed to raise the veil, so far.

Imagine my surprise when I found the case mentioned in The Outline of History by H. G. Wells. This was once a widely read book in England, the United States of America, and indeed around the world. It is a wonderful, if now forgotten, book. Allow me to quote Mr. Wells (from page 852 of my Third Revised Edition):

"Throughout the middle part of the eighteenth century there was an active agitation against negro slavery in Great Britain a well as in the States. It was estimated that in 1770 there were fifteen thousand slaves in Britain, mostly brought over by their owners from the West Indies and Virginia. In 1771 the issue came to a conclusive test in Britain before Lord Mansfield. A negro named James Somersett had been brought to England from Virginia by his owner. He ran away, was captured, and violently taken on a ship to be returned to Virginia. From the ship he was extracted by a writ of habeas corpus. Lord Mansfield declared that slavery was a condition unknown to English law, an "odious" condition, and Somersett walked out of the court a free man."

Before going on I should note that spelling was irregular in the 1700's, and while Mr. Wells and others give the name as Somersett, in the book Slave Nation the spelling Somerset is used, and it was published as the Sommersett case in a law journal. Also the ruling was given in 1772, though the case probably started in 1771. Mr. Well's highlights the case because it is a significant turning point in world history, not just English or American history.

There is a bit of an underground current of knowledge of the Somerset case in "radical" literature in the U.S., notably among Abolitionists and early 20th century civil rights activists. If you want to know more about details of the case and how it caused an elite group of slaveholders and their lawyers to initiate the American Revolution, I suggest you read Slave Nation. Here I will outline the implications of the violent rejection of the court's decision by Jefferson, Washington, and crew. In later articles I hope to enlarge upon these themes.

In America it was decided that men (male and female) could be property. This was part of a larger agenda, the agenda of greed, of wanting more. Property was more important than people. A man was only as important as the property he possessed. This theory of law was enshrined in the common laws of the U.S., in state constitutions, and then in the U.S. Constitution. In effect the men who held the pens did not write the laws; they were a mere instrument of the properties that co-possessed them. Men talk about the Rule of Law, but in the United States the Law is a front for Property. Owning a substantial amount of property used to be required before a person could register to vote.

We see this again in the Dred Scott Decision. Then the Republican Party reversed Dred Scott in the aftermath of the Civil War. Then we were subjected to the weird and cruel law given in Santa Clara that property (corporations) has rights that some people do not have. Though since the Thirteenth Amendment people have not been slaves or property, only a few decades later, in Plessy versus Ferguson, it was affirmed that race could be a basis for discrimination under the rule of law.

The status of people, and of classes of people (women, "negros", children), has fluctuated throughout the last century. What has stayed supreme has been the prioritization of property. In our legal system humanity is seldom favored when weighed against property concerns.

We need to educate American citizens about the Somerset case, starting in our public schools. We need to see the American Revolution on a factual basis, rather than wrapped in false glory. We need to see our military, commercial, cultural and legal history in a clear light. Then we can begin to understand and change our current reality so that people are not subservient to property.

We need a rule of justice. Then the Rule of Law might be worth something.

More data:

Somerset v. Stewart pretty complete site with links

Sommersett case, photo of summary published in a British law journal, 1775

Want to learn more? Try my Politics page.