Sunday, September 22, 2019

The Early Failures of Socialism by Hutton Webster


By Hutton Webster

Contemporary socialists unite in making the following demands. First, the State shall own and operate the instruments of production, that is, land and capital. Under this arrangement rent, interest and profits, as sources of personal income, would disappear, and private property, would consist simply of one's own clothing, household goods, money, and perhaps a house and a garden plot. Second, the leisure class shall be eliminated by requiring everybody to perform useful labor, either physical or mental. Third, the income of the State shall be distributed as wages and salaries among the workers, according to some fairer principle than obtains at present.

Socialism, thus explained, is not identical with public ownership of railroads, telegraphs, telephones, the postal service, and other utilities. There is still a leisure class and there are still personal incomes in those countries which have gone furthest in the direction of public ownership. Similarly, labor legislation is not properly described as socialistic, since it fails to abolish private property, the factory system, and rent, interest, and profits.

Socialism is, in part, an outcome of the Industrial Revolution, which completed the separation of capital and labor. The gulf between the capitalists and the landless, property-less, wage-earning proletariat became wider, the contrasts between rich and poor became sharper, than ever before. Vastly more wealth was now produced than in earlier ages, but it was still unequally distributed. The few had too much; the many had too little. Radical reformers, distressed by these inequalities and dissatisfied with the slow progress of the labor movement and government regulation of industry, began to proclaim the necessity of a wholesale reconstruction of society.

In Great Britain the most prominent of these early radicals was Robert Owen, a rich manufacturer and philanthropist, who met great success in improving the conditions of life for his employees. He did pioneer work as an advocate of trade unionism and labor legislation, at a time when neither had many influential friends. Owen's special remedy for social ills was the establishment of small cooperative communities, each one living by itself on a tract of land and producing in common everything needed for its support. He thought that this arrangement would retain the economic advantages of the great inventions without introducing the factory system. Owen's experiments in cooperation all failed, including the one which he established at New Harmony, Indiana, in 1825. Owen thus belongs in the class of Utopian socialists, men who dreamed of ideal social systems which were never realized.

Socialism is also, in part, an outcome of the French Revolution. That upheaval destroyed so many time-hallowed institutions and created so many new ones that it gave a great impetus to schemes for the regeneration of society. French radical thinkers soon set out to purge the world of capitalism as their fathers had purged it of feudalism. Their ideas began to become popular with workingmen after the factory system, with its attendant evils, gained an entrance into France.

The workers found a leader in Louis Blanc, a journalist and author of wide popularity. The revolution of 1789, he declared, had benefited the peasants and the bourgeoisie; that of 1830 the capitalists; the next must be for the benefit of the proletariat. Blanc believed that every man had an inalienable right to remunerative employment. To provide it, the State should set up national workshops managed by the workers in each particular industry. His ideas triumphed for a time in the revolution of 1848. The Second French Republic expressly recognized "the right to labor" and proceeded to set up the national workshops. They were so badly managed, however, that Blanc himself disapproved of them. Their speedy failure brought such discredit upon him and his followers that socialism became almost extinct in France. "To speak of it," said a writer of the time, "is to deliver its funeral oration."


Tuesday, September 3, 2019

10 Books on Liberty You Probably Haven't Read (But Should)


Every libertarian (or classical liberal) has a list of his or her ten greatest books. These volumes are canonical contributions that, above all others, have profoundly shaped that libertarian’s worldview. I’m no different. And I’m sure that if my list of such canonical books is compared with the list made by, say, Jeffrey Tucker or Sarah Skwire or Dan Mitchell, there would be significant overlap.
Such lists invariably feature works by scholars who are unambiguously in the libertarian pantheon. These are works by luminaries such as Adam Smith, Frédéric Bastiat, Ludwig von Mises, Henry Hazlitt, F.A. Hayek, and Milton Friedman.

The great variety of influential books that are not (yet) as widely known and read as they deserve to be testifies to the richness of libertarian scholarly tradition.


But what of books by writers who haven’t (yet) unambiguously joined these scholars in the libertarian pantheon? Books by these scholars aren’t (yet) canonical. And if you ask 20 libertarians each to present to you a list of his or her ten favorite non-canonical books, you might well wind up with a total of 200 different books.

This great variety of influential books testifies to the richness of the libertarian scholarly tradition. It’s filled with remarkable works of scholarship that are not (yet) as widely known and read as they deserve to be.

So I here present a list—in alphabetical order according to the authors’ last names—of what are today my ten favorite non-canonical books. Each has influenced me deeply and lastingly.
This book is both a popular history of property rights and a marvelous guide to the many, and often surprising, advantages of secure property rights.
The writing style is beautiful in its simplicity; the sweep of the material covered is enormous. Its main thesis is that careful and prudent thought — “rationality” — is a scarce good that each of us exercises only to the extent that it pays us to do so.

A key implication (which Caplan develops from Geoffrey Brennan and Loren Lomasky’s pioneering 1993 book, Democracy & Decision) is this: Because in nearly all political elections every voter understands that his or her vote will have no impact on the outcome of the election, when voting each of us is free to behave carelessly and imprudently. The same individual who is a model of judiciousness and rationality when making private decisions is likely to behave recklessly while forming political opinions and expressing these in voting booths. One of many takeaways from Caplan’s book is that the greater is the scope of government action, the more we are governed irrationally.
It has long been fashionable among both conservatives and progressives to declare that free markets promote mass, bland, soul-stultifying cultural products at the expense of (in the case of conservatives) glorious high-culture products or (in the case of progressives) provocative, edgy cultural products.

Cowen’s book — smoothly blending the economic way of thinking with informed discussions of all manner of art — reveals this fashionable declaration about free markets to be bunk. Reading this book makes clear that markets not only excel at delivering consumer goods, but are also essential for the development, spread, and maintenance of almost all of the artistic products that you — no matter who you are — treasure.
 
 
Growth of the state is fueled by crises, real and imaginary. Higgs details how this(il)logic of the growth of government played out in the United States. Along the way, Higgs anticipates some of the ideas found in Caplan’s book.
 
Volume 1 celebrates the bourgeois virtues and shows these to be subtler and richer than most of us realize. Volume two explains why purely materialistic or mechanical explanations of the industrial revolution fail — often of their own internal contradictions, and always because they ignore the role of popular attitudes toward commerce and economic growth. Volume three ties it all together into a whole that is much greater than the sum of its parts. The series is grounded solidly in history and sound economic theory, and no stronger case for commercial freedom and the market order has ever been penned.
 
Some will scoff at my inclusion of this book in this list. They will assert that this book is no serious work but, rather, a rollicking string of humorous observations and cynical criticisms of popular government. But they will be mistaken. While conveyed in ways that are indeed humorous—and while Mencken’s understanding of the state was certainly not romantic—his insights are unique, penetrating, revealing, and timeless.
 
Postrel demonstrates vividly, in an impressively wide range of contexts, the contest between “dynamism” and “stasis.” If the dynamists succeed, so too does humanity. If the champions of stasis succeed—whether because of widespread fear, ignorance, or greed—humanity suffers greatly.
 
Told as a story featuring the ghost of David Ricardo, this book is unmatched in the crucial task of revealing to skeptics of free trade the unseen benefits of such trade—and the unseen costs of protectionism.
 
Had Julian Simon done nothing more in his too short life other than demonstrate that the ultimate resource is the human mind, he would have deserved the Nobel Prize that he, sadly, was never awarded. Yet while Simon’s contributions are many, this one tops them all.
This thick book is chock-full of accessible data and straightforward prose that make clear that all the many worries that people have about population growth, immigration, resource depletion, and environmental degradation are either completely unwarranted or fantastically overblown. And the reason why people should quit these worries is that, in markets that are reasonably free, human creativity has a long and brilliant record not only of solving problems but also of improving humanity’s lot.
 
By all means, study the classics in the libertarian library. But read and study many more books than these. Our library contains more than enough important books to keep you occupied for a lifetime.
Donald J. Boudreaux
Donald J. Boudreaux
Donald J. Boudreaux is a senior fellow with the F.A. Hayek Program for Advanced Study in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, a Mercatus Center Board Member, and a professor of economics and former economics-department chair at George Mason University.
This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.

Wednesday, August 21, 2019

WE, by Yevgeny Zamyatin


This day in history: Yevgeny Zamyatin died on this day in 1937. He wrote a book which foreshadowed Ayn Rand's Anthem and George Orwell's 1984, about a world in which the State, animated by a collectivist ideology attempts to eradicate individuality. Yevgeny Zamyatin’s "We" was first published in English in 1924 (he wrote it in Russian, but it was suppressed in the USSR). In "We", the mathematician D-503 records his thoughts in a world in which individuals are reduced to mere numbers. The slogan of the OneState is “Long live OneState! Long live the numbers! Long live the Benefactor!”




Anthem: The Graphic Novel (Episode 1)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlH1T3djMCM

Anthem: The Graphic Novel (Episode 2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l06-VCahjLw

Anthem: The Graphic Novel (Episode 3)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXNMCjqBamk

Anthem: The Graphic Novel (Episode 4)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keovkt7KQkI

Anthem Audiobook by Ayn Rand
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTnUFwheYGk

1984 by George Orwell | Full Audiobook
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzX-ebD9Axw

Sunday, August 4, 2019

Ayn Rand: Sovietologist


Whatever one thinks of Ayn Rand as a novelist, it is fair to say that her books, especially Atlas Shrugged, contain a great deal of sophisticated political and economic thinking. Atlas Shrugged may well be the most economically literate novel ever written. Although Rand does not couch her points in the language of economic theory, there is much in Atlas Shrugged that is consistent with sound economics.  This should not be surprising given that her favorite economist was Ludwig von Mises. Moreover, her chapter “Aristocracy of Pull” is chock full of excellent political economy that fits well with Public Choice economics as well as the long history of classical liberalism dating back at least to Adam Smith. The famous “Love of Money” speech by Francisco D’Anconia contains many astute observations about the nature of money and its role in a market economy.

Less noted in this regard is Rand’s first novel, We the Living. This is a semiautobiographical story set in Russia just after the revolution of 1917. The particulars of the plot are not as interesting in this context as the level of detail Rand provides about life in the Soviet Union in the early years of communist rule. I recently reread it for the first time in 20 or 25 years and was struck by the sophistication of Rand’s analysis of the Soviet economy in practice. Unlike most contemporary western observers, she had first-hand knowledge of the terrible conditions and the reality of Soviet power.

Three Insights
Three insights in We the Living illustrate Rand’s superior understanding of Soviet socialism. First she recognized what has since been called “the myth of the plan.” If Mises, F. A. Hayek, and the other Austrians are right, it’s impossible to plan a complex economy, yet many referred to the Soviet Union as having a “planned economy” right up to its demise in 1991. A variety of plot details and sidelights in Rand’s novel illustrates that the economy was anything but planned, with the two most obvious being how Party insiders had differential access to goods and the thriving black market. Those “in charge” of the economy are accurately portrayed as clueless about how to get things done, while the black marketeers at least get goods moving. Although she never says so explicitly, it’s clear that the “planners” suffer from the exact knowledge problem the Austrians raised.

Second, the novel makes clear that in the absence of any rationality to the plan, those with the power to implement it will use that power to divert resources to themselves. More specifically, Rand understood how a system in which discretionary power is up for grabs will attract those with a comparative advantage in acquiring and using that power. Much of her portrayal of party members revolves around their competition with one another in climbing the ladder — no one hesitating to stab his comrades in the back. Those who are good at such maneuverings are able to gain power and control resources. In the end, much like in Animal Farm, things didn’t change that much: The revolution ended the exploitation of man by man and replaced it with . . . the exploitation of man by man.

Declining Living Standards
Finally, Rand vividly documents the decline in living standards for the average Russian. There are countless descriptions of the impoverishment of the citizenry, from their shrinking living space, to their dwindling food supplies, to their increasingly shabby clothing, to their growing inability to heat their homes. The party elite, of course, lives well, but the average person suffers. Rand’s depiction is important here because so many observers from the 1930s right up through the 1980s argued that the Soviet economy was an economic powerhouse that would overtake America’s. Paul Samuelson’s widely used introductory economics textbook for years had a graph showing just that. Pundits and experts both left and right believed the “official” Soviet statistics, with the left wanting to believe that socialism worked and the right wanting to justify larger military budgets. But just as in the United States during World War II, aggregates such as GDP, which in the Soviet case were not accurate anyway, mostly reflected “conspicuous production” that had little relationship to the well-being of the typical person.

We the Living makes this abundantly clear.
Rand’s novels may or may not be excellent literature, but they are excellent both at deploying good political economy and, in the case of We the Living, getting economic history right in a way most everyone else did not.
Steven Horwitz
Steven Horwitz
Steven Horwitz is the Distinguished Professor of Free Enterprise in the Department of Economics at Ball State University, where he also is a Fellow at the Institute for Entrepreneurship and Free Enterprise. He is the author of Hayek’s Modern Family: Classical Liberalism and the Evolution of Social Institutions.
This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.

Sunday, July 28, 2019

To Be Governed Is To Be Watched


To be governed, is to be watched, inspected, spied, directed, law-ridden, regulated, penned up, indoctrinated, preached at, checked, appraised, seized, censured, commanded, by beings who have neither title nor knowledge nor virtue. To be governed is to have every operation, every transaction, every movement noted, registered, counted, rated, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, refused, authorized, indorsed, admonished, prevented, reformed, redressed, corrected. To be governed is, under pretext of public utility and in the name of the general interest, to be laid under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, exhausted, hoaxed and robbed; then, upon the slightest resistance, at the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, annoyed, hunted down, pulled about, beaten, disarmed, bound, imprisoned, shot, mitrailleused, judged, condemned, banished, sacrificed, sold, betrayed, and, to crown all, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored.—Proudhon

Sunday, July 21, 2019

Socialism and Competition, 1910 Article


Socialism and Competition, article in Watson's Jeffersonian Magazine 1910

As to eliminating competition, we might as well speak of stopping the movement of the waves upon the ocean, of the clouds in the sky. How would strength be developed, were there no rivalry, no competition? If you are strong, it is because you have had to do battle with circumstance and competitors. If I am strong, it is because I have been a fighter, from my youth up. As long as the contest is a fair one, nobody is wronged. The loser pays— that's all. Over the whole universe is written by the hand of Jehovah the stern old Roman adage vae victis—woe to vanquished. Good heavens! How bat-like these Socialists are! They ignore the simplest facts that lie right before their eyes. On the earth, in the sea, in the air, is the fiercest competition, going on by night and by day. The race is to the swift, the battle to the strong. Nature has no pity, no hate, no love. She smites all who violate her laws, whether we know what those laws are, or not. You violate some unwritten rule as to health, and down you go, no matter how good and useful your life may be. The Pestilence does not spare the righteous: Famine takes no account of your faith: Misfortune never separates sheep from goats. "Obey my laws, or perish", is the inexorable command of Nature. The man who fails to see this is either hopelessly stupid, or the victim of hereditary superstition. Be honest with yourself, Reader. See things as they are. Be as hopeful as you can; work, like fighting fire, to make the world better; but don't enwrap yourself in delusions.

Competition is the law of life, and the survival is to the fittest. Ever and ever, Nature works to get rid of the feeble. Ever and ever, she labors to evolve the perfect. The wisdom of the sages has been devoted to the fixing of the rules which govern competition; and so long as those rules are followed, competition is as natural and as harmless as the flow of the sap and the birth of the flowers.

Work! Without haste and without rest. WORK! All nature cries it. The constellations on high proclaim it. The restless tides of the seas, bear witness to it. The bounding blood in our veins, the crowding thoughts in our minds, the eager longing in our souls are ever present, never failing reminders that the Hymn of Life sounds the order for the battle and the march. The muffled drums within us beat the everlasting Reveille; and with the sun of each day, begins the fight anew.

Abolish all this? How could we? The stream cannot rise higher than its source, and humanity cannot escape its own limitations.

Co-operation on a small scale is a perfect success. Why? Because it competes. It brings the power of unionized effort to bear against individual enterprise. But no Socialist experiment ever succeeded. It has been tried, over and over again, both in America and in Europe, in ancient as well as modern times. Wayland himself chose a nice lot of human angels, and tried his fad at Ruskin, Tennessee. He discovered that his cherubs were just human bipeds, and Ruskin failed to become a Paradise. Instead, there was a lovely row among the Elect, and the colony was torn to pieces by factions. Scores of times, carefully selected men and women, who imagined themselves congenially altruistic, have turned their self-complacent backs upon us common clod-hoppers, and gone off to themselves to make a Garden of Eden. But never have they succeeded in making one. The serpent invariably enters; and it is the old story of Paradise Lost.

If the selected colonies fail to make a success of Socialism, how could the miscellaneous mass do it? If elemental human traits bring dismal failure to the chosen, congenial, altruistic groups, how can a person gifted with ordinary common-sense bring himself to believe that a similar experiment would succeed, when made with all the wicked people taken into the venture? If Socialism meets with invariable failure, when tried by the best people, could you reasonably expect better results from it, when the worst people are included in the venture?

Thursday, July 4, 2019

The First Fourth of July


Mr. Woods is a free-lance editor and author of numerous books and magazine articles.

It seems safe but it is hardly pleasing to say that few of the millions who jam the highways, beaches, lakes, amusement parks, picnic grounds, baseball diamonds, golf links, restaurants, and theaters this Fourth of July will give a thought to that which we celebrate and those whom we honor: that is, the Declaration of Independence, the courageous men who signed it, and the brave men and women of the first thirteen states who accepted, supported, and fought for its principles.

"The Day of Deliverance," John Adams called it in a letter to his wife, Abigail. "I am apt to be­lieve," he wrote, "that it will be celebrated by succeeding genera­tions as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemor­ated . . . by solemn acts of devo­tion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and pa­rade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illumina­tions, from one end of this contin­ent to the other, from this time forward forevermore."

Although it is easy to understand and share Adams‘ enthusi­asm, it should not be supposed that the drafting, endorsement, and signing of the Declaration was a gay and reckless proceeding.

Jefferson‘s great document owes its genesis to the revolu­tionary assembly of Virginia when, thirteen months after Con­cord and Lexington, it instructed its delegates to the Continental Congress to propose independence. Richard Henry Lee of Virginia presented the resolution on June 7, but Congress postponed deci­sion to July 1.

As General Howe’s fleet was being sighted off New York Har­bor, the Second Continental Con­gress, meeting in the State House (later Independence Hall) in Philadelphia, began its momen­tous debate on Lee’s resolution and the supporting Declaration Thom­as Jefferson had been requested to write. Jefferson’s great document was cut and amended in the course of a four-day debate by some forty-odd men of position and property from the thirteen colonies, while Washington’s rag, tag, and bob­tail and outnumbered army in New York was being further en­dangered by additional redcoats from the newly anchored British fleet. Consequently, the natural tenseness of the drama being en­acted in Philadelphia was heightened repeatedly by the ar­rival of couriers with messages from distressed colonial assem­blies, and by unfailingly calm but desperate pleas from General Washington for more men and supplies.

When the delegates assembled on the morning of July 3, an anonymous note was found on the Speaker’s table: "Take care. A plot is framed for your destruc­tion and all of you shall be des­troyed." Several nervous delegates thought the cellars of the State House should be searched, espe­cially since there were many loyal­ist sympathizers in Philadelphia. But most of the delegates agreed with Joseph Hewes of North Caro­lina when he urged the note be ignored, adding, "I’d as soon be blown to bits as proclaim to the world I was scared by a silly note."

The sense of urgency in the Congress became so great by the afternoon of July 4 that a final vote was taken—resulting in unanimous agreement that "we hold these truths to be self-evi­dent" and that "with a firm re­liance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our For­tunes, and our sacred Honor." Delegate after delegate stood up and declared himself. (Four dele­gates, obliged to abstain from vot­ing because they lacked instruc­tions from their home assemblies, later in the month signed the document; four others refused to sign and resigned from Con­gress.)

When everyone had openly de­clared himself, each man signed the Declaration with full aware­ness that this step into a new dawn also placed him in the shadow of the gallows for treason to the British Crown. They knew, too, that their signatures could be brands that burned their homes, warrants that confiscated their farms, whips that lashed their wives and children into exile. But sign they did; some quietly, others boldly, a few with a jest, none with a whine or whimper.

White-haired Stephen Hopkins from Rhode Island, whose hands trem­bled from a sickness, said as he scrawled his signature, "My hand may tremble but my heart does not!" Fifty-five members of the Con­tinental Congress ultimately signed the Declaration as en­grossed on parchment on August 2, 1776; later, seven who were absent signed, followed by the signature of six who became mem­bers of the Congress shortly after July 4.

Congress had resolved "to prevent traitors and spies from worming themselves amongst us, no person shall have a seat in Con­gress until he shall have signed the Declaration." The Declaration appeared for the first time in a newspaper, the Pennsylvania, Evening Post of Philadelphia, on Saturday, July 6, but created little or no excitement.

John Dunlap, printer to Congress, had been ordered to print as quickly as possible carefully-proofed copies of the Declaration. Couriers were held in readiness to gallop over the roads with cop­ies for the new independent states. Congress had resolved that the Declaration should be read to pub­lic assemblies, citizens commit­tees, councils, militia, and that copies be delivered "to the minis­ters of each parish, of every de­nomination, to be read as soon as divine service is ended, on the first Lord’s Day after they shall have received it," and that the clergymen should then give their copies to the clerk of the town council who was "required to re­cord the same."

The first public celebration of the Declaration began in Philadel­phia early on Monday, July 8, when a man was instructed to climb the State House tower to ring the bell—the Liberty Bell. The bells of other churches in the town quickly joined in, and all continued to ring the rest of that day and night. By noon, the yard back of the State House was packed with people come to hear the news.

Jefferson, Franklin, and Hancock were among those on the platform when the Sheriff of Philadelphia became the first one publicly to proclaim the Declara­tion. The King’s banners and arms were torn from all public places and dumped on the Com­mons for a bonfire. Later in the day, the Declaration was again read at the same spot, followed by volleys from the militia, cheers, speeches, toasts, fireworks, and il­lumination.

Samuel Adams, in his room at Philadelphia that day, picked up hundreds of letters written to him by patriots over the years—letters that would in­criminate many of his friends if they fell into enemy hands—and he tore the letters into shreds and tossed the confetti into the street to add to the festivities.

Meanwhile, couriers on horse­back were speeding copies of the Declaration to all the new states, some communities of which did not get the news until a month later. An express rider on his way to General Washington’s headquarters in New York, stopped at New Brunswick, New Jersey, early Tuesday morning. He was sent on his way with a fresh horse when he showed a copy of the Dec­laration.

The town council decided to read the document in front of the White Hall Tavern that same day "to overawe any disaffected Tories," and in the evening the document was proclaimed to the College of New Jersey, which was followed by volleys of musket fire and general celebration.

Bridge­ton, Perth Amboy, and Dover, New Jersey, soon followed with their own celebrations—volleys, feasting, parades, and bonfires. At 6 p.m. on Tuesday, July 9, a hollow square was formed by a brigade of Washington‘s soldiers in New York. Washington sat on his horse within the square as an aide read the Declaration to the troops, within sight of the great British fleet in the harbor. At its conclusion soldiers and citizens proceeded to the Bowling Green and demolished a gilt equestrian statue of George III. The four thousand pounds of lead in it would make musket balls.

Wherever and whenever the news arrived, there were formal proclamations of the Declaration, usually followed by volleys of mus­ket or cannon—thirteen was the magic number—then by parades, and often by thirteen toasts in rum or wine. Town and village of­ficials were expected to swear to uphold the rights of the new na­tion, and all signs and symbols of the British crown were removed and destroyed. A Connecticut inn­keeper was jailed for opposing the Declaration, and some of the new­ly born were named Independence, Washington, Adams, or Hancock. Yale University‘s future presi­dent, Ezra Stiles, noted in his diary that "the whole continent is all alive."

Militant Boston re­ceived the stirring news July 18 and had elaborate ceremonies and celebrations. Worcester had joy­ously erupted four days earlier. One week after Boston‘s festivi­ties, Williamsburg, Virginia, pro­claimed the Declaration with read­ings in front of the Capitol, the Court House, and the Palace in the presence of such notables as George Mason, Patrick Henry, and Richard Henry Lee. Many toasts were drunk that evening in the famous Raleigh Tavern. The document was read to excited crowds at Halifax, North Caro­lina. Charleston, South Carolina, made the occasion both solemn and gay, helped by people from all parts of the state who had come to town for the event. Savannah had a solemn funeral procession which was ended with the burial of George III in effigy, a minister "committing his existence to the ground."

Many towns had Liberty Trees or Liberty Poles at which ceremonies were conducted. In Huntington, Long Island, they made an effigy of George III, lined it with gunpowder, wrapped it in the now repudiated flag, hung it on the Liberty Pole, ig­nited it, and howled with glee when George exploded with a bang.

One year later, Private Elijah Fisher, a member of George Wash­ington’s guard when the Comman­der-in-Chief was with his army at New Brunswick, New Jersey, re­corded in his diary: "We Sele­brated the Independence of Amer­ica, the howl army parraded….the artillery Discharged thirteen Can­non. we gave three Chears. At Night his excelency and the gen­tlemen and Ladys had a Bawl at Head Quarters with grate Pompe." Fifty years later, on July 4, 1826, only three signers of the Declaration of Independence sur­vived: Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Charles Carroll of Carrollton. And at the close of that day only Carroll survived.

Jefferson died shortly after noon at his home at Monticello, Vir­ginia, at the age of eighty-three. Adams died later that day at his farmhouse outside Braintree, Massachusetts, at the age of ninety-one, saying at the end, "Jefferson still survives." That morning when Adams was told it was the Fourth of July, he said, "It’s a great day—a good day."

EDITOR’S NOTE: For further reference to the men, the events, and the spirit of 1776, see the review by Edmund Opitz on page 63.
***Liberty 1776 We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain un­alienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Govern­ment becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Ralph L. Woods
This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.