GERRIT SMITH ON LAND REFORM, AND WILLIAM LOYD GARRISON ON NO-GOVERNMENT.
Within the last week, we have received the _Land Reformer_, an agrarian
paper, just started in New York, in which we are sure we recognize the
pen of Gerrit Smith, the leader of the New York abolitionists; and also
a No. of the Liberator, in which Mr. Garrison, the leader of the New
England abolitionists, defines his No-Government doctrines.
In calling attention, North and South, to opinions openly and actively
promulgated by such distinguished men, which opinions are at war with
all existing institutions, we are rendering equal service to all
sections of our common country.
Mr. Smith says:
"Why should not this monopoly be broken up? Because, says the
objector, vested rights forbid it. But there can be no vested
rights against original and natural rights. No claim of a part of
the human family to the while earth can be valid against the claim
of the whole human family to it. No passing of papers or
parchments in former generations can foreclose the rights of the
present generation. No bargains and no conventional titles can
avail in justice against the great title-deeds, by which Nature
grants and conveys herself to each generation, as it comes upon
the earth; and by which she makes the living (simply because they
are the living, and not at all because of their relation to the
dead) the equal owners of her soil and seas, her light and air. No
arrangements, by which the six thousand, who have monopolized the
lands of Ireland, should be allowed to overcome the title of the
six millions to it. If the natural and inherent right of the whole
is not paramount to that, which the fractions claim to have
acquired, then are _the six millions born into the world
trespassers_; and then is the Creator chargeable with a lack of
wisdom and goodness. If it is right that the mass of men should
hold their standing-place on the earth by mere sufferance, or upon
terms dictated by their fellows, then is it not true that God is
an Impartial Father--for then it is not true that he has given the
earth to all his children, but only to a select."
We, too, think Free Society a very bad thing, and a decided failure, but
not half so bad as Mr. Smith paints it. There is a poor-house system in
Ireland, which, to some extent, recognizes the doctrine that all men are
entitled to live on the earth, and be supported from it. In practice,
the system does not always work well; yet we are confident it works much
better for all parties, than would Mr. Smith's plan of agrarianism.
But slavery does, in practice as well as in theory, acknowledge and
enforce the right of all to be comfortably supported from the soil.
There was, we repeat, no pauperism in Europe till feudal slavery was
abolished.
It will be strange, indeed, if the voters in New York, a majority of
whom own no land, do not take Mr. Smith at his word, and assert their
superior claim, under his Higher Law and "Fundamental Principles," to
all the land. 'Tis a concise and ingenious syllogism, to this effect:
"The earth belongs equally to all mankind, under the Higher Law, or Law
of God, which is superior to all human laws; therefore, the lackland
majority have a better right to the soil than the present proprietors,
whose title is derived from mere human law."
It never did occur to us, that the paupers had the best right to all the
farms, until we saw this new application of the Higher Law. But 'tis
clear as noon-day, if you grant the Higher Law, as expounded by Mr.
Seward; and we expect soon to hear that they are bringing their titles
into court. Anti-rentism looked this way, and anti-rentism chose its own
Governor and Judges.
But Mr. Garrison outbids Mr. Smith all hollow for the pauper vote. He
promises not only to every one his "vine and fig-tree," but a vine and
fig-tree that will bear fruit without culture. He is going to get up a
terrestrial paradise, in which there will be no jails, no taxes, no
labor, no want, no sickness, no pain, no government--in fact, no
anything. But he shall speak for himself. We find the following in the
_Liberator_ of 1st August:
"Indeed, properly speaking, there is but one government, and that
is not human, but divine; there is but one law, and that is 'the
Higher Law;' there is but one ruler, and that one is God, 'in whom
we live and move, and have our being.' What is called human
government is usurpation, imposture, demagoguism, peculation,
swindling, and tyranny, more or less, according to circumstances,
and to the intellectual and moral condition of the people.
Unquestionably, every existing government on earth is to be
overthrown by the growth of mind and moral regeneration of the
masses. Absolutism, limited monarchy, democracy--all are sustained
by the sword; all are based upon the doctrine, that 'Might makes
right;' all are intrinsically inhuman, selfish, clannish, and
opposed to a recognition of the brotherhood of man. They are to
liberty, what whiskey, brandy and gin are to temperance. They
belong to the 'Kingdoms of this World,' and in due time are to be
destroyed by the Brightness of the coming of Him, 'whose right it
is to reign;' and by the erection of a Kingdom which cannot be
shaken. They are not for the people, but make the people their
prey; they are hostile to all progress; they resist to the utmost
all radical changes. All history shows that Liberty, Humanity,
Justice and Right have ever been in conflict with existing
governments, no matter what their theory or form."
Mr. Greely's Phalansteries, Mr. Andrews' Free Love, Mr. Goodell's
Millenium, and Mr. Smith's Agrarianism, all pale before this Kingdom of
Mr. Garrison's. He is King of the Abolitionists, Great Anarch of the
North.
We cannot reconcile this millennial doctrine of Mr. Garrison's with
another doctrine, which we have seen imputed to him in the _Richmond
Examiner_, to wit, that there is no God, because no beneficent Creator
would have so constituted mankind as to have made slavery almost
universal. Now, assume, as he does, that slavery is a cruel, sinful and
wicked institution, destructive alike of human happiness and well-being,
and his conclusion is irresistible. To be consistent, all anti-slavery
men should be atheists. Ere long, we suspect, their consistency will
equal their folly and profanity.
With us, who think slavery a benevolent institution, equally necessary
to protect the weak, and to govern the wicked and the ignorant, its
prevalence is part of that order and adaptation of the universe that
"lifts the soul from Nature up to Nature's God."