The Fable of the Bees Tells the Story of Society

The Fable of the Bees Tells the Story of Society

One of the major turning points in social and economic understanding emerged in the 1700s with the theory of social order without human design. Before the eighteenth century, most social theory presumed or took as a working assumption that human society had its origin and sustainability in the creation of social institutions through either “divine” intervention, or by human will and plan.
But in the 1700s, the idea of society as a spontaneous order that emerged out of the actions and interactions of multitudes of individuals, each pursuing their own self-interest, began to develop into a systematic and scientific theory of human association.

Economics Born from Spontaneous Order Insight
In addition, the theory of emergent spontaneous order demonstrated that though not created by intentional plan, the social order showed coordinating pattern, structure, and self-correcting potential that often was superior in its beneficial effects for promoting a betterment of the human condition than any purposeful creation or direction of social processes by government could have produced.
This, more than anything, can be said to be the beginning of the development of a science of economics – a systematic analysis of the processes of interpersonal coordination of multitudes of people’s actions within a market-based system of division of labor.
As Austrian economist, Friedrich A. Hayek, observed:

“It was through asking how things would have developed if no deliberate actions of legislation had ever interfered that successively all the problems of social and particularly economic theory emerged. There can be little question that the author to whom more than any other this [development] is due was Bernard Mandeville.”

Mandeville and The Fable of the Bees
Bernard Mandeville (1670-1733) was a Dutch medical doctor who at an early age settled in London, and spent the rest of his life in Great Britain. In 1705, he published a poem called The Grumbling Hive, or Knaves Turned Honest, which was then republished in 1714 under the title for which it is now famous in the history of social and economic ideas: The Fable of the Bees, or Private Vices, Public Benefits.

Neither the friendly qualities and kind affections that are natural to man, nor the real virtues he is capable of acquiring by reason and self-denial are the foundation of society.

In this work, Mandeville challenged some of the most time-honored and sacred ideas concerning social morality and religious ethics. Whether it is the ancient Greek philosophers, such as Plato and Aristotle, or the religious teachings of the Christian faith, one of the fundamental ethical postulates has been that self-interested conduct on the part of the individual is often morally wrong and potentially “sinful.”

The presumption has been that human conduct should relinquish self-interest, especially when it concerns material acquisitiveness and wealth, and instead focus on other-oriented sacrifice for one’s fellow men and the “glory of God.” Mandeville argued that it was precisely through men pursuing their material self-interest – including “greed” and human pleasure – that all improvements in society come about.

Pursuit of Self-Interest Generates Social Prosperity
In the poem, Mandeville imagines a hive of bees that copies in its every detail and activity everything seen in human society. Greed, selfishness, the pursuit of material profit and pleasure dominate everyone in their activities and in their conduct toward others.

No regard is shown for others in market conduct, with each one following their own defined self-interest for personal gain and enjoyment for the fulfillment of their earthly desires. Yet, out of these “vices” of materialistic self-interestedness comes industry, innovation, a mass of goods and services that generate a life of material and culture comfort and ease that benefit all, even though it was no one’s intention, design, or purpose.

Said Mandeville in The Fable of the Bees:

Vast Numbers thronged the fruitful Hive;
Yet those vast Numbers made 'em thrive;
Millions endeavouring to supply
Each other's Lust and Vanity; . . .
As Sharpers, Parasites, Pimps, Players,
Pick-Pockets, Coiners, Quacks, Sooth-Sayers,
And all those, that, in Enmity
With down-right Working, cunningly
Convert to their own Use the Labor
Of their good-natur'd heedless Neighbor:
These were called Knaves; but, bar the Name,
The grave Industrious were the Same.
All Trades and Places knew some Cheat,
No Calling was without Deceit . . .
Thus every Part was full of Vice,
Yet the whole Mass a Paradise;
Flatter'd in Peace, and fear'd in Wars
They were th'Esteem of Foreigners,
And lavish of their Wealth and Lives,
The Balance of all other Hives.
Such were the Blessings of that State;
Their Crimes conspired to make 'em Great;
And Virtue, who from Politicks
Had learn'd a Thousand cunning Tricks,
Was, by their happy Influence,
Made Friends with Vice: And ever since
The worst of all the Multitude
Did something for the common Good.
The Root of Evil Avarice,
That damn'd ill-natur'd baneful Vice,
Was Slave to Prodigality,
That Noble Sin; whilst Luxury.
Employ'd a Million of the Poor,
And odious Pride a Million more
Envy it self, and Vanity
Were Ministers of Industry;
Their darling Folly, Fickleness
In Diet, Furniture, and Dress,
That strange, ridic'lous Vice, was made.
The very Wheel, that turn'd the Trade,
Thus Vice nursed Ingenuity,
Which join'd with Time; and Industry
Had carry'd Life's Conveniences,
It's real Pleasures, Comforts, Ease
To such a Height, the Very Poor
Lived Better than the Rich before; . . .

Material Selflessness Brings About Stagnation and Decay
Then, overnight, all the “bees,” feeling their guilt in violating the moral code of selflessness and other-oriented behavior, renounce the pursuit of material pleasures. They start living simple, “moral” lives thinking nothing of themselves and their personal desires.
However, production stops, demand for goods fall, innovation and improvement disappear, and employments and work are gone. The society becomes stagnant, poor and culturally empty and backward. Explains Mandeville:

But all the Rogues cry’d brazenly,

Good Gods, Had we but Honesty! . . .
But Jove with Indignation mov’d,

At last in Anger swore, He’d rid

The bawling Hive of Fraud; and did.

The very Moment it departs,

And Honesty fills all their Hearts;

There shews ’em, like th’ Instructive Tree,
Those Crimes which they’re asham’d to see;
Which now in Silence they confess,

By blushing at their Ugliness . . .
But, Oh, ye Gods! What Consternation,
How vast and sudden was th’ Alteration!
In half an Hour, the Nation round,
Meat fell a Penny in the Pound.
The Mask Hypocrisy’s Flung Down
From the great Statesmen to the Clown; . . .
Now mind the glorious Hive, and see
How Honesty and Trade agree.
The Shew is gone, it thins apace;
And looks with quite another Face.
For ‘twas not only that They went,
But Multitudes that liv’d on them,
Were daily forced to do the same.
In vain to other Trades they’d lfy;
All were o’er-stock’d accordingly . . .
The building Trade is quite destroy’d
Artificers are not employ’d;
No Limner for his Art is fam’d
Stone-cutters, Carvers are not nam’d . . .
The haughty Chloe, to live Great,
Had made her Husband rob the State;
But now she sells her Furniture,
Which the Indies had been ransack’d for;
Contracts th’ expense Bill of Fare,
And wears her strong Suit a whole year.
The slight and fickle Age is past;
And Clothes, as well as Fashions, last . . .
As Pride and Luxury decrease,
So by degrees they leave the Seas.
Not Merchants now, but Companies
Remove whole Manufactories.
All Arts and Crafts neglected lie;
Content, the Bane of Industry,
Makes ‘em admire their homely Store,
And neither seek nor covet more.

Mandeville’s Moral: Self-Interest Creates Civilization
The “moral” that Mandeville drew from his tale was that prosperous, wealthy and great societies only arise from men’s self-interested desires, and that is what made for successful civilizations:

Then leave the Complaints; Fools only strive
To make a Great Honest Hive
T’enjoy the World’s conveniencies,
Be fam’d in War, yet live in Ease,
Without great Vices, is a vain
Utopia seated in the Brain.
Fraud, Luxury and Pride must live,
While we the benefits receive;
Hunger’s a dreadful plague, no doubt,
Yet who digest or thrives without?
Do we not owe the Growth of Wine
To the dry shabby crooked Vine?
Which, white its shoots neglected stood,
Chok’d other plants, and ran to wood;
But blest us with its noble Fruit,
As soon as it was tied and cut:
So Vice is beneficial found,
When it’s by Justice lopt and bound;
Nay, were the People would be great,
As necessary to the State,
As hunger is to make ‘em eat.
Bare Virtue can make Nations live
In splender; they, that would revive
A Golden Age. Must be as free,
For acorns, as for Honesty.

Bernard Mandeville’s poem was met with scathing criticism and ridicule. Critics were offended by his seeming rejection of a morality based on God’s word and the commonly shared beliefs among many members of society that self-sacrifice and renunciation of material improvement was the cornerstone of ethical conduct.

Mandeville Saw Himself Shedding Light on the Human Condition
Yet, as far as Mandeville was concerned, he saw himself to be merely bringing out the reality of human nature, and the working of self-interest and incentives in society as the motivational basis for human association and the source of human progress and improvement.
As Mandeville said in one of his defenses of the poem:

“After this I flatter myself to have demonstrated that neither the friendly qualities and kind affections that are natural to man, nor the real virtues he is capable of acquiring by reason and self-denial are the foundation of society;
“But that what we call evil in this world, moral as well as natural, is the grand principle that makes us sociable creatures, the solid basis, the life and support of all trades and employments without exception;
That there we must look for the true origin of all arts and sciences, and that the moment evil ceases, the society must be spoiled if not totally dissolved.”

The language that Mandeville chose to use aroused the anger and indignation and shock of many who first read The Fable of the Bees. The conman, the huckster, and even the everyday crook, were all part of the prosperous society, with its hustle and bustle.
Men pursuing their personal pleasures; everyone devising ways to serve and satisfy the material desires and demands of their neighbors as the means of acquiring the wealth to advance their own wants and fancies; these were all essential factors and human forces fostering innovation, ingenuity and industry, the cumulative outcome of which was the great wealth and wonders of a thriving society.

No one planned this material wealth or its accompanying cultural wonders. It emerged as the unintended outcomes of men left free to advance their own individual interests and inclinations. If you wanted one – prosperity and industry – you could not relinquish or extinguish the other – self-interested conduct in the attempt to fulfill earthly wants and pleasures – Mandeville insisted.
Mandeville as the Entrée to a Science of Society

As Ludwig von Mises explained, in Theory and History (1957):

“Only in the Age of Enlightenment did some eminent philosophers . . .inaugurate a new social philosophy . . . They looked upon human events from the point of view of the ends aimed at by acting men, instead of from the point of view of the plans ascribed to God or nature . . .
“Bernard Mandeville in his Fable of the Bees tried to discredit this [latter] doctrine. He pointed out that self-interest and the desire for material well-being, commonly stigmatized as vices, are in fact the incentives whose operation makes for welfare, prosperity, and civilization.”

Certainly the wording Mandeville chose implied that “evil” and “vice” were the agents of human betterment, thus implying that immorality was essential to mankind’s progress. But nonetheless, as Joseph A. Schumpeter pointed out in Economic Doctrine and Method (1912), “Mandeville had given a grotesque form to a profound conception in his The Fable of the Bees, . . . In this form, however, is contained the best and most lucid presentation of the idea that selfish interest of the individual performs a social function in the economic sphere.”
Here, then, was the germ of an idea – self-interest and its beneficial though unplanned side effects – that would have profound influence and repercussions a few decades later in the hands of the Scottish Moral Philosophers.

Richard M. Ebeling

Richard M. Ebeling is BB&T Distinguished Professor of Ethics and Free Enterprise Leadership at The Citadel in Charleston, South Carolina. He was president of the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) from 2003 to 2008.

This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.

See The History and Mystery of Money & Economics-250 Books on DVDrom

When Blacks Owned Slaves by Calvin Dill Wilson 1905

Black Masters: A Side-light on Slavery by Calvin Dill Wilson 1905

See also Bible Defense of Slavery and other Southern books on CDrom - Join my Facebook Group - For a list of all of my digital books and books on disk click here

[Ed. Manumit means: release from slavery; set free]

THE most singular and dramatic aspect of slavery in the United States was the occasional ownership of bondsmen by free blacks. Historically, the facts are obscure, little known and difficult to trace; this phase is overlooked by historians, so far as I am aware, and is lost from the memories of most people of this generation; I have asked dozens of Southern people, of advanced years, about negroes owning slaves, and have been told that they “never heard of such a thing.” Psychologically, after all we have read and heard of the pathos and tragedy of negro slavery, it is of strange interest and unaccountable inconsistency that the negroes themselves should at times have had no apparent compunction in regard to buying their fellows at the block, continuing them in enforced and unremunerated toil, and at times treating them with cruelty and reducing them to the depths of humiliation and degradation. The mere lust of gain by the toil of others could not altogether account for this wrench of nature, since slave labor could be hired as well as bought, and hired workers would have served the ends of greed as well or better. It would commonly have been cheaper for a free black to hire the slaves of others than to risk his money in their ownership, and to provide lodgings, clothes and food for them. In many cases the free blacks did pursue this course. But there was a deeper passion than love of gain in this unnatural arrangement, and this was ambition; it was the cold and selfish desire to attain a real or an apparent superiority over other blacks; it was ambition to rise into the class of masters, and to stand, so far as possible, on the same level as white men.

But there were those who had far different motives. Free colored men sometimes owned their wives and children; and free colored women owned their families, and continued this ownership for reasons that were creditable to them. By this legal possession they kept the members of their families safe from the operation of local laws that were invidious to free blacks. Some of the States had laws that bore hard on free blacks; for certain periods there were laws that compelled a manumitted slave to leave his State; thus a negro who freed his family might have decreed their separation from himself. There were, also, free blacks who purchased others for the purpose of manumitting them; but this class is not of importance to us in discussing the actual ownership of slaves by free blacks.

It may be of interest to the reader to indicate something of the obscurity of this subject by a few statements. I know of no history of the United States, or history of slavery or history of a slave State that even hints at it, with the exception of one book which will presently be mentioned. My researches, while an effort has been made to be thorough, may have overlooked books that touch upon it. But the Librarian of Congress directed me to one volume only, and that but barely glances at the subject. From other librarians I have been able to get no assistance, save in another instance in which I was directed to the volume spoken of above. Mr. Booker T. Washington wrote: “My own personal recollections bring no cases to mind of free black men owning slaves, nor am I able to refer you to any books making reference to this phase of slavery, in case it did exist.” General Warren Keifer, who is particularly well versed in American history, wrote: “I have no data to which I could refer you on the subject of the ownership of negro slaves by free negroes.” Dr. George Archer, one of the best local historians in Maryland, could only say that he could not give me the desired information, though he recalled a single item from the local records of Harford County, Maryland, in which a free negro had owned and had freed one or more slaves, but after search he was unable to find this item. He gave, however, instances in which free negroes bought their wives and children from their masters and emancipated them; all so emancipated were, by an Act of Assembly in 1831, required to be sent out of the State, the Orphan's Court being empowered to allow them to remain if so minded. The same gentleman later wrote that he had made inquiries at the county seat, had put the question to all the prominent lawyers of the bar who often had reason to search the records on all manner of subjects; but none of them had ever seen or heard of a case of the kind. He next inquired of the County Clerk and the Register of Wills, who have held their respective positions for many years, and their answers were identical with those of the legal fraternity. He then got their directions as to where in the records he would be most likely to find such items, if existing, and made researches accordingly; but not a trace could he find. He then questioned several persons noted for their fondness for inquiries in local history; but the result was the same. He then searched the histories of Maryland, from Bozman to Scharf, but with like result. The Virginia State Librarian wrote that he was unable to obtain any information concerning slaves held by free blacks, though he believed such ownership had been practised in Virginia; but he stated that it was a very common thing in Louisiana. A prominent colored man of Mound Bayou, Mississippi, to whom I had been referred by Booker Washington, Isaiah T. Montgomery, stated: “I do not remember that I ever saw any free colored people prior to Emancipation, and believe there were few, if any, instances where they owned slaves in this State. I have, however, heard that this condition prevailed in some of the sugar districts of Louisiana, and your communication has been referred to a competent friend in that State.” He wrote me again stating that he had interviewed an aged colored man, whom he called “Father Johnson,” who was “one of our most highly respected ante-bellum citizens,” and belonged to “what was known as the favored class.” This aged man said, in regard to free colored people residing in the South prior to the war: “There was very little pleasure in their existence. Every year they were compelled to have fresh papers filed by some white guardian. They were not allowed to be visited by slaves or to have companionship with them. When attending church, walking the roads, in fact in all places, they were compelled to keep apart from slaves.”

The Clerk of Talbot County, Maryland, wrote that “no such condition existed in this county, and there are no records of such a condition”; the like officer of Queen Anne County made a similar reply. As the court-house of Frederick County was burned a number of years ago, there is no means of ascertaining conditions there; Worcester County has no such records. The Clerk of Princess Anne Court-house wrote that “such a thing as a negro owning another of his race was not known in this county.” The Rev. Dr. A. M. Green, of the General Conference of the A. M. E. Church, wrote from New Orleans:

“There is any quantity of traditionary information, but you know that it is not worth much in a search after truth. I have heard a great deal along the line of this inquiry, but very little that could be vouched for. Among the official Board and Quarterly Conference proceedings of St. James's Chapel, A. M. E., I have read of three cases being tried for owning slaves; in each of these cases it was made apparent to the satisfaction of the church that the owners of slaves thus charged had purchased them for the sole purpose of emancipating them. These cases occurred between 1849 and 1856; when, where or how the emancipation took place, if ever, does not appear among the records of St. James's. These trials were for violation of the Discipline and Rules of our church. I suppose there are but few persons now living who know anything of the events of that period in our church. There are many things along this line of great interest to me, and to others if they could be so brought out as to attract the attention of the New Negro as well as the New White youth of our country North and South.”

This letter gives us the additional information that the owning of slaves by free negroes was contrary to the Discipline of the A. M. E. Church; by inference, the practice could not have been uncommon, or there would have been no reason for ecclesiastical rulings. Dr. Hodges, of the Cincinnati Public Library, informed me that some years ago there was pointed out to him in Statesburg, South Carolina, a house, with iron-barred windows, in which he was told a negro blacksmith, who had been noted for cruelty to his slaves, had been used to confine his blacks. Mr. Alexander Hill, one of the best-informed men on books in Cincinnati, was unable to give any clue to information upon this matter, except to direct me to correspond with the editor of “The Antiquary,” at Norfolk, Virginia. On correspondence with Mr. Edward W. James, at the Virginia Club, Norfolk, I learned that “The Antiquary" contains a few references to negroes owning slaves.

Mr. Florien Giaugus, of Glendale, Ohio, suggested that I write to Mr. Charles W. Elam, a prominent lawyer at Mansfield, Louisiana, who was able to say only, “I have been unable to find any witnesses in this parish of the ownership of negroes by free blacks"; but he gave me references to gentlemen who might afford me information. The Hon. B. F. Jonas, of New Orleans, replied:

“A great many slaves were owned by free blacks before the war, not only in this State, but throughout the South. In this State, there were quite a large number of colored slave-owners, most of whom were of the class known as “quadroons,’ but some of them were mulattoes and full-blood negroes, who, as a rule, inherited property and afterward added to it, probably by purchase. Free colored people had a right to the ownership and possession of slave property, as well as movable property and other real estate, slave property having been considered real estate under our laws at that period. I have never heard of a case where a free black owner of slaves voluntarily manumitted his slaves. On the contrary, they were as a rule considered hard taskmasters, who got out of their slave property all that they could. I suppose that proof of this and the names of slave-owners could be obtained from an examination of the assessment rolls of the City of New Orleans and the parishes, previous to the war; but this is so long ago that the information could probably not be obtained without a great deal of labor and investigation.”

The Hon. Phanor Breazeale, of Natchitoches, Louisiana, to whom Mr. Elam also referred me, wrote:

“This, Natchitoches, my own town, is the oldest town of the Louisiana Purchase, and the legal records date back to 1708. The Parish, synonymous with County, is one of the largest in territory and population in the State, and of recent years has been known as a black county, that is to say, the negro population was a little in excess of the white population. Assuming that the records of the Parish are a fair criterion by which to judge the other old parishes of the State, it was not an uncommon feature of slavery to find that free blacks owned slaves; but, on the contrary, there were, prior to the war, quite a number of “free colored people,’ as they were called, who were owners of slaves; some of these free colored people in this Parish were quite wealthy. I have in mind a lawsuit I brought a few years ago for the ownership of a piece of land in this Parish; and, in the course of litigation, I traced back the title about eighty years, and found that there was a French nobleman settled here who reared a family of negroes, living in concubinage with a ‘free colored woman’; they had several children; of course he never married the woman and his children were illegitimate, but free as being the issue of a white man and free colored woman. He left a will giving his property one-half to the mother of his children and the remainder in equal portions to the children. The inventory in this succession was appraised at some one hundred and three thousand dollars, including lands and slaves. This will was contested by a brother who lived in France, and resulted in a compromise whereby the children were given a large plantation with ten slaves, the mother getting the usufruct of this property. This is an instance of the conditions existing at that time. The records here disclose sales to, and from, free colored people of slaves. I do not recall any instance, in examining the records, of having found a case where a free black owner voluntarily manumitted his slaves. It is very probable that a careful investigation of the records would disclose instances where some particular slave was manumitted by his free black owner from motives of attachment, by reason of loyal and faithful service to the owner; but I do not believe the records will disclose any case of manumission of all the slaves owned by free black persons. This latter, as you know, has very frequently been done by white owners; for instance, my great-grandfather, a lawyer of prominence, owned many slaves both in Mississippi and in Louisiana, and by will manumitted all his slaves and provided for their transportation to Africa. As a matter of interest in studying this phase of slavery, I have found by inquiry from old people that free black owners were as a usual thing much more severe on their slaves than the white owners. Personally, I know nothing of these facts, as I was born too late; yet I feel that the above criticism is correct, not only because it can be reconciled with phases of human nature, but because of the fact that now in this Parish the colony of “free colored people’ have preserved in the forty years since the war absolutely intact their status, and have positively refused to come in contact with the freed slaves, either socially or otherwise. These “free colored people’ were a distinct type, as you no doubt know; they were either quadroons or octoroons, and not manumitted slaves. If a negro ever became owner of slaves after his manumission, it is not known, so far as the records show or I have been able to learn by inquiry.”

That the free negroes had not always conscience or sentiment against slavery is indicated by the fact that James Clark, a free negro, enlisted in Company K, Twenty-eighth Georgia Regiment (Captain Wilcox), as a fifer, and went through the Civil War; he is now 104 years old, and has applied for a pension from the State of Georgia for service in the Confederate army. We may presume that he knew that the success of his cause would, in all probability, have continued slavery. Mr. E. W. James comments thus on "Betsy Fuller, Free Black, and her husband":

“The wife owned the husband. It was not an uncommon thing in the Southern States for enterprising negro women to own their husbands. At the outbreak of the War of Secession, an industrious negress, a huckstress in the Norfolk market, owned her husband. He was an ardent Secessionist, and was in full sympathy with the firing on and the fall of Fort Sumter. After Norfolk was evacuated and was occupied by the Federal forces, he was loud in his expression of Southern views, and was at one time in the chain gang, with an iron ball attached to one of his feet, because of expression of opinions obnoxious to the military. No slave-trader was ever more fully convinced that the negroes were made for slavery.”

Our present views of slavery had not universally penetrated the minds of the colored people themselves in ante-bellum days!

Father Johnson, already referred to, wrote:

“A white man named Fitzgerald, a planter, owned a plantation and slaves in the vicinity of Natchez, Adams County, Mississippi, and he had as a wife a very dark colored woman; they had two sons, George and James Fitzgerald. At the death of the father, the plantation and slaves were inherited by the children under a will. The slaves and plantation were held by the heirs until freed by the War. Both of the Fitzgerald boys selected slave women, belonging to a Colonel Wood, as wives, and sought to purchase them. Colonel Wood declined to sell, but consented to what was known as "blanket marriages.” The younger son, James, afterward gave up his wife, although several children had been born to them, and finally left the country, declaring that he did not want a slave woman for a wife. The elder brother, George, remained and continued to consort with his slave wife, up to his death after the War. He grieved himself to death over the results of the War, by which he lost his slaves. Colonel Wood filed papers regularly every year as George Fitzgerald's guardian, according to the law which required that free negroes should annually file papers proving their right to freedom. The mother of these men, old Mrs. Fitzgerald, was somewhat careful of her slaves; when it rained, she would have them come in from the garden.”

Mr. D. C. Scarborough, of Natchitoches, Louisiana, wrote:

“There are many data to be had by examining the old records of this Parish on the subject of the purchase, ownership and sale of slaves by free blacks. The truth of the matter is that free blacks owned, bought and sold slaves as did the whites. The succession of C. N. Roques in this Parish is a case in which a free black owned some hundred or so slaves, all of whom were freed by the Proclamation of Emancipation. We do not recollect any special legislation authorizing the ownership of negroes by free blacks. When a slave became free he bought and sold fully under the law, just as any other citizen did; there was no longer any distinction. In many of the old deeds it is recited that A. B., “being a free person of color, etc. History will show that the free blacks who owned slaves rarely if ever emancipated them. Slaves who were emancipated were, as a rule, emancipated by white owners; and this emancipation by white owners is the manner in which free blacks came into existence. There was a very large number of these in this Parish, some of the richest people in the Parish being free persons of color. On tracing back the history of these families, it is generally found that they were emancipated by former white owners. There are four or five such families that married and intermarried until they were all related. In some instances, there were to be found as many as one hundred and fifty voters in one ward of these free persons of color: their descendants live here yet. As a rule, these families took the name of their former master who freed them. A large percent of those in this parish are named Metoyer, one of the old rich Metoyers having freed some of his slaves. The same is true of the Dupré family and of the Rachal family; there being as many free colored Rachals as there were white at the close of the war. This general outline can be very generally verified by copies of old records here.”

We are to remember, in connection with the conditions in Louisiana, that a general trait of French and Spanish colonists in all countries has been that they have commonly recognized and provided for the wives taken from among native women, negro, Indian, or any other nationality, and that they have acknowledged and provided for their children; while the Anglo-Saxon, as a rule, leaves these women and children to shift for themselves.

But in Maryland still other phases of this matter are to be studied. In Maryland, pure blacks who had themselves been slaves and had been manumitted were frequently slave-owners. In that State, also, we are able to find instances of a kind asserted by some of our Louisiana correspondents to have been unknown in their own, of voluntary manumissions by these black masters of their slaves; and not only the emancipation of their slave wives and children, but of all those whom they held in bondage, thus indicating a change of heart in the matter. For this latter condition there were several contributing causes; one of these was that in Maryland, in the latter part of the eighteenth century, Emancipation Societies were active, manumission by white owners was common, and the influence of this conduct spread to the free colored people who held other colored people in bondage.

It will be of interest to consider briefly some of the general conditions of the free negro and of the emancipation spirit in Maryland. On this subject, much valuable information can be gotten from “The Negro in Maryland, A Study of Slavery,” by Jeffrey R. Brackett, the volume indicated to me by the Librarian of Congress as the only book he knew which bore upon my immediate inquiry about free negroes who owned slaves and manumitted them; upon this particular point, however, the volume contains very little. About the year 1785, several Abolition Societies arose in Maryland and began uninterrupted work toward emancipation. Petitions were presented by them to the Legislature tending toward gradual abolition. In 1752, manumission in any way, during the last illness of the master, had been forbidden; but these Societies induced the Legislature to remove all restrictions from the voluntary emancipation of slaves. During the last decade of the eighteenth century there was a large increase in the number of slaves manumitted.

Many of these manumissions were accompanied by grants of land from the masters. In 1747, a citizen of Queen Anne County freed several slaves by his will, and also gave to them and their heirs a tract of land. A certain citizen by will freed nineteen slaves and gave them a great part of his real and personal estate; a niece of the testator attempted to break the will, but after several years of contest the will was established. A law was enacted that all slaves unable to support themselves should be supported by their masters, “in fitting food and clothing,” and kept from begging. This legislation was caused by the fact that some masters had used their slaves as long as they were profitable and had then turned them adrift to burden the community. Under the new ruling, slaves to be manumitted must be sound in mind and body, capable of labor and not over fifty years of age. It was enacted that all manumissions must be in writing, under hand and seal of two witnesses; the papers to be acknowledged and endorsed by a justice, and then recorded within six months in the clerk's office of the county. The cost for recording a deed of manumission was the ordinary trivial fee for record; and a certified copy of a deed was deemed good evidence of freedom.

The number of free colored persons in Maryland was small, and there was little mention of them until the close of the eighteenth century. Griffith's “Annals of Baltimore ” states that the population of Baltimore County, including the later Harford County, in 1752 included one hundred and sixteen mulatto slaves, one hundred and ninety-six free mulattoes, four thousand and twenty-seven negro slaves and eight free negroes. “The distinction between negroes and mulattoes is interesting,” says Mr. Brackett; and this distinction is to be kept in mind in noting the manumissions in Maryland. When a “free negro” manumits, it means that this is done by a negro, not by a mulatto. The census of 1790 gives about eight thousand free colored persons in the State; some of these, or their ancestors, had come as free men, most had been manumitted. By the Convention of 1776, the right of suffrage was given to all freemen who held a certain amount of property; and it is certain that some free negroes voted in the early years of the State. In 1782, the Assembly of Virginia passed an Act permitting the manumission of slaves; Judge Tucker of Virginia estimated that, from 1782 to 1791, ten thousand slaves were liberated in Virginia by their masters.

There were many free negroes in Maryland who owned small houses and pieces of land.

“The acts of incorporation of some savings-banks limited depositors to white persons; others could receive from any persons. In Annapolis, for instance, several free blacks were depositors, and one at least owned shares of the bank stock.

“From the earliest history of Maryland, free negroes have been allowed to sue in the courts, as well as to hold both real and personal property. The education of free negroes and of slaves was not forbidden by law in Maryland; but the black was indebted for what he got to the interest of individuals or of such societies as the Society of Friends.”

Mr. Brackett says:

“Free negroes not infrequently owned as slaves their wives and children, whom they feared, perhaps, to manumit, lest the right to residence be questioned. It would seem also that other free negroes owned and hired slaves, as did their white neighbors. We hear of one free black, of Dorchester County, receiving payment for a slave whom he had bought for a term of years, and who was sold out of the State for crime by the court. In 1827 a member for the same county had introduced a bill to forbid any one who owned slaves for life, or for a term of years, from hiring such to a free negro there. Kent and Somerset were added to Dorchester and, later, Worcester and Anne Arundel were added and Kent struck out; and the Committee on Grievances, ordered to inquire into the expediency of preventing free blacks from purchasing slaves under any circumstances, reported that any legislation on the subject was inexpedient.”

Mr. Brackett wrote during a visit to England:

“I regret that I am unable to help you, as my book was written a good while ago, and my odd notes of information not given in the book have not been kept. The position of free negroes in Maryland in the last years of the eighteenth century was interesting; a few of them voted, and were full-fledged citizens.”

An aged man, William W. Davis, eighty-eight years of age, who lives at Cambridge, Maryland, wrote concerning one Draper Thompson, free negro, who in 1824 bought and sold a negro man at public auction out of an estate for three hundred dollars. The record of this purchase is in the Dorchester County records (E. R., No. 9, folios 179 and 180). Mr. Davis says he knew Thompson well in his own boyhood, that at one time he lived on a large farm, the Cremona Tract; he did not allow his slaves to associate with his own family, but made them eat and sleep in a separate house; if a slave had occasion to enter his dwelling, he had to doff his hat and carry it under his arm while doing so. He sent his sons to Baltimore for an education. Mr. Davis adds: “Make a slave an overseer over his fellow slaves, as sometimes happened, and he would be three times as tyrannical as a white man.”

Philip Roberts, a respectable colored man of Glendale, Ohio, who was a slave in Kentucky, told me that he knew “Old Free Isaac,” in Trimble County, Kentucky, who owned several negroes; he said this same negro sold his own son and daughter South, one for $1,000, the other for $1,200.

Mr. Stevenson Archer, of Mississippi, states that he knew a pure-blooded negro, born free, by name Nori (a corruption of Le Noir), who had before the Civil War a large plantation in Mississippi, and owned about one hundred negroes. He was exacting, but not cruel, and he took excellent care of his slaves.

Mr. Charles Michael, of Harford County, Maryland, remembers the case of a negro who sold his children in order to purchase his wife. There were many instances in which negroes, who had purchased their own freedom and secured the ownership of their families, sold their children for life or for a term of years.

We give below citations from Maryland county records in which free negroes manumitted their slaves. The first instances are those of the freeing of wives and children:

“Know all men, by these presents, that I, Robert, lately a slave to Archibald Pattison, deceased, and sold by Peter Gordon, Administrator of said Archibald Pattison, to John Griffith, by whom I was manumitted according to law, do hereby, in consideration of the natural affection I bear to Rachel, whom I have taken as my wife, and whom I purchased of John Le Compte, deceased, manumit, enfranchise and set at liberty the said Rachel from me, my heirs, Exor's & Admrs, from the date of these presents, in as perfect a manner as if she had been born so.’” (March 9th, 1796. Record H. D., No. 9, fol. 162, Dorchester Co.) 

“Manumission by Cato, negro, of Dorchester County, Maryland— Being possessed of a wife and children who are by law my slaves, and being desirous to set them free, etc., wife Lucy, children, Leah, Milly, Mary, Horatio, Ephraim and Abraham.’” (April 30th, 1798. Record H. D., No. 12, fol. 633, Dorchester Co.) 

“Manumission by Adam, negro, of Dorchester County, State of Mary1and, of negro Phillis—‘Having purchased my wife Phillis, and being desirous to secure her her liberty, etc., do therefore set free the said Phillis immediately.’” (Aug. 17th, 1797. Record H. D., No. 12, fol. 255, Dorchester Co.) 

“Manumission by Oliver Cromwell, negro, of Dorchester County, State of Maryland, to Shadrach Cromwell—“Do release from slavery, etc., my son Shadrach Cromwell, acknowledging the said negro slave discharged, etc.’” (Feb. 5th, 1818. Record E. R., No. 15, folio 16.) 

“Manumission by John Chapman, negro, of Dorchester County, State of Maryland, of Mary Chapman, negro–“Being 37 years of age and able to work and gain a sufficient livelihood, etc., do set free, etc.’” (March 14th, 1818. Record E. R., No. 5, folio 40.)"

The further citations are those of cases in which there was manumission by free negroes of slaves not related to them:

“Manumission by Henry Hughes, negro, of Dorchester County, State of Maryland, of negro, Ruth—“Being possessed of a negro woman— Ruth, and desirous to give her her legal manumission, etc.’” (Dec. 14th, 1816. Record E. R., No. 4, folio 297.)

“Manumission by John Driver, negro, of Dorchester County, State of Maryland, to sundry negroes—“Do set free and hereby release from slavery, 6 in number.’” (May 28th, 1825. Record E. R., No. 9, folio 614.)

The three records that follow form a connected story; first the negro is himself set free by his white master:

“Deed of manumission from William Meeds Satterfield, of Caroline County, to “my negro man, Jem,’ dated 10 June, 1790; acknowledged before Dr. Zabdiel Potter, of the commission of the peace for Caroline County, 10 June 1790; recorded in Liber W. R., No. C., fol. 118, on the 17th of June, A.D. 1790, by William Richardson, Clerk.

“‘State of Maryland, Caroline County, to wit:
“‘Whereas, a certain Black man, by the name of James Satterfield, heretofore, to wit: on the 10th day of June, 1790, was manumitted by a certain William Meeds Satterfield, to be free from the date thereof; and whereas the said Black man, James Satterfield, hath made application to me for a certificate of his freedom, agreeable to an Act of Assembly: Upon the oath of Elijah Satterfield that the said Black man, called James Satterfield, is the identical person who was manumitted as aforesaid, I do hereby certify that the said Black man, called James Satterfield, is five feet three inches high, has small scar on his left hand made by the bite of a hog, and from the age expressed in the aforesaid manumission is about fifty-five years of age, was raised in Queen Anne County, in Tulley's Neck, and was removed to this county about the age of twenty-four years, and no other notable marks that I can discover (sic). In testimony whereof I have set my hand and affixed the public seal of my office this tenth day of May, in the year of Our Lord 1808. Tho: Richardson, Clk. Caroline Co.: Ct.’” (Recorded in Liber T. R., Certificates of Freedom, fol. 23.)"

Now James has taken to slave-holding himself, but resolves to provide for the freedom of his slaves at his death:

“Caroline County, to wit: “Be it remembered, That on the 19th day of October, in the year of our Lord 1802, came James Satterfield, free negro, and brought a manumission, with one endorsement thereon, and prayed to have the same enrolled amongst the Records of Caroline County; and on the same 19th day of Oct., in the year 1802, afsd., the same manumission and endorsement were enrolled as follows, to wit: 

“'I, James Satterfield, free negro, of Caroline County and State of Maryland, do hereby set free from bondage, after my decease, one negro girl named Rachel, and one by the name of Hannah, which two girls I purchased of Elijah Satterfield, executor or administrator of William Fountain, late of the county afsd., deceased, and do for myself, my heirs, executors and administrators, or assigns, release unto the afsd. Rachel and Hannah, after my decease, all my right, and all my claim whatsoever, to be absolutely free from me or from my heirs, executors, administrators or assigns, or from any other person or persons whatsoever, thereby claiming any right or title whatsoever by, from or under me, or them. 
“‘In witness hereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal, this 19th day of the tenth month, 1802. “‘James Satterfield X his mark. (Seal.)” 
“Signed sealed and delivered in the presence of James Dixon, Seth Hill Evitts. “Recorded in Liber T. R., No. H., folio 228, a Land Record for Caroline County, Md. Tho: Richardson, Clerk.”

But, some years later, James decides to give these girls their freedom before his death. So we read:

“Deed of manumission by James Satterfield, negro, dated the 29th day of October, 1823— I, James Satterfield, negro, of Caroline County in the State of Maryland, for divers good causes and considerations me thereunto moving, do hereby declare free, manumit and enfranchise the negroes following, to wit: Hannah, about thirty-four years of age, on the first day of May last past; Kitty, about fifteen years of age, the second day of April last past; Rachel, about twelve years of age the fifteenth day of January last past; James, about nine years of age the seventh day of January last past; and Matthew, about five years of age the fifth day of May last past. Which said last-mentioned four negroes, viz.: Kitty, Rachel, James and Matthew, are the children of Hannah, also above mentioned. Rachel, about thirty-two years of age the first day of May last past, and her child, a negro boy called James, about six years of age in September last.”

“Recorded in Liber J. R., No. O., fol. 208, on the 29th day of October, 1823. Joseph Richardson, Clerk.”

The following is the will of a free negro, named Ricksum Webb. It appears from memories of him that still survive that he was a rather superior man. He left several hundreds of acres of land, a large personal estate, and his descendants are now among the representative negroes in Caroline County. The name of Webb is a synonym for industry, thrift and intelligence in that county and is borne by many negroes. A like reputation is sustained by the Friends, mainly descended from Gabriel Friend, who was freed in the thirties by a white master. Ricksum Webb's son, James, owned one or more slaves up to the time of the Emancipation.

“Last will and Testament of Ricksum Webb, (negro), recorded in Will Record W. A. F., No. A., fol. 357, et sq. Directs that my servant Jerry shall serve my son James for the period of ten years after death of testator, and then to be free; to be given $50 a year during this service, and suitable clothing. Should Jerry abscond from service and be taken, to be sold for life to the highest bidder. In lieu of this service, to be sold to a resident of Maryland for not less than $400 for a period of ten years and then to be free. Said Jerry to have choice of purchasers. Servant Luke willed to son-in-law, Eben Hughes. Servant Asbury to be free at age of 35 years. Girl servant Ann to be free at age of 25. James Turner, of Queen Anne's, executor. Will dated 10 May, 1845. Proven, 27th March, 1846, before William A. Ford, Register of Wills for Caroline County.”

Thus these dark faces look out upon us from the past, and the records and names from musty folios in old Maryland courthouses tell of a singular aspect of slavery. CALVIN DILL WILSON.

The Broken Window

The Broken Window

Have you ever witnessed the anger of the good shopkeeper, James B., when his careless son happened to break a square of glass? If you have been present at such a scene, you will most assuredly bear witness to the fact, that every one of the spectators, were there even thirty of them, by common consent apparently, offered the unfortunate owner this invariable consolation—“It is an ill wind that blows nobody good. Everybody must live, and what would become of the glaziers if panes of glass were never broken?”

Now, this form of condolence contains an entire theory, which it will be well to show up in this simple case, seeing that it is precisely the same as that which, unhappily, regulates the greater part of our economical institutions.

It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another.


Suppose it cost six francs to repair the damage, and you say that the accident brings six francs to the glazier’s trade—that it encourages that trade to the amount of six francs—I grant it; I have not a word to say against it; you reason justly. The glazier comes, performs his task, receives his six francs, rubs his hands, and, in his heart, blesses the careless child. All this is that which is seen.
But if, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion, as is too often the case, that it is a good thing to break windows, that it causes money to circulate, and that the encouragement of industry in general will be the result of it, you will oblige me to call out, “Stop there! your theory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not seen.”

It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way, which this accident has prevented.

Let us take a view of industry in general, as affected by this circumstance. The window being broken, the glazier’s trade is encouraged to the amount of six francs; this is that which is seen. If the window had not been broken, the shoemaker’s trade (or some other) would have been encouraged to the amount of six francs; this is that which is not seen.

And if that which is not seen is taken into consideration, because it is a negative fact, as well as that which is seen, because it is a positive fact, it will be understood that neither industry in general, nor the sum total of national labour, is affected, whether windows are broken or not.

Now let us consider James B. himself. In the former supposition, that of the window being broken, he spends six francs, and has neither more nor less than he had before, the enjoyment of a window.
In the second, where we suppose the window not to have been broken, he would have spent six francs on shoes, and would have had at the same time the enjoyment of a pair of shoes and of a window.
Now, as James B. forms a part of society, we must come to the conclusion, that, taking it altogether, and making an estimate of its enjoyments and its labours, it has lost the value of the broken window.
When we arrive at this unexpected conclusion: “Society loses the value of things which are uselessly destroyed;” and we must assent to a maxim which will make the hair of protectionists stand on end—To break, to spoil, to waste, is not to encourage national labour; or, more briefly, “destruction is not profit.”

Remember that there are not two persons only, but three concerned in the little scene which I have submitted.


What will you say, Monsieur Industriel—what will you say, disciples of good M. F. Chamans, who has calculated with so much precision how much trade would gain by the burning of Paris, from the number of houses it would be necessary to rebuild?

I am sorry to disturb these ingenious calculations, as far as their spirit has been introduced into our legislation; but I beg him to begin them again, by taking into the account that which is not seen, and placing it alongside of that which is seen. The reader must take care to remember that there are not two persons only, but three concerned in the little scene which I have submitted to his attention. One of them, James B., represents the consumer, reduced, by an act of destruction, to one enjoyment instead of two. Another under the title of the glazier, shows us the producer, whose trade is encouraged by the accident. The third is the shoemaker (or some other tradesman), whose labour suffers proportionally by the same cause. It is this third person who is always kept in the shade, and who, personating that which is not seen, is a necessary element of the problem. It is he who shows us how absurd it is to think we see a profit in an act of destruction. It is he who will soon teach us that it is not less absurd to see a profit in a restriction, which is, after all, nothing else than a partial destruction. Therefore, if you will only go to the root of all the arguments which are adduced in its favour, all you will find will be the paraphrase of this vulgar saying—What would become of the glaziers, if nobody ever broke windows?

Frederic Bastiat

Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850 ) was the great French liberal economist, philosopher, polemicists, and journalist.

This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.

The Right To Be Rich By Wallace D. Wattles 1910

Download this book for a limited time here

The Right To Be Rich By W. D. Wattles 1910

See also The History & Mystery of Money & Economics-250 Books on DVDrom

WHATEVER may be said in praise of poverty, the fact remains that it is not possible to live a really complete or successful life unless one is rich. No man can rise to his greatest possible height in talent or soul development unless he has plenty of money; for to unfold the soul and to develop talent he must have many things to use, and he cannot have these things unless he has money to buy them with.*

Man develops in mind, soul, and body by making use of things, and society is so organized that man must have money in order to become the possessor of things; therefore, the basis of all advancement for man must be the science of getting rich.

The object of all life is development; and everything that lives has an inalienable right to all the development it is capable of attaining.

Man's right to life means his right to have the free and unrestricted use of all the things which may be necessary to his fullest mental, spiritual, and physical unfoldment; or, in other words, his right to be rich.

I shall not speak of riches in a figurative way; to be really rich does not mean to be satisfied or contented with a little. No man ought to be satisfied with a little if he is capable of using and enjoying more. The purpose of Nature is the advancement and unfoldment of life; and every man should have all that can contribute to the power, elegance, beauty, and richness of life; to be content with less is sinful.

The man who owns all he wants for the living of all the life he is capable of living is rich; and no man who has not plenty of money can have all he wants. Life has advanced so far, and become so complex, that even the most ordinary man or woman requires a great amount of wealth in order to live in a manner that even approaches completeness. Every person naturally wants to become all that he is capable of becoming; this desire to realize innate possibilities is inherent in human nature; we cannot help wanting to be all that we can be. Success in life is becoming what you want to be; you can become what you want to be only by making use of things, and you can have the free use of things only as you become rich enough to buy them. To understand the science of getting rich is therefore the most essential of all knowledge.

There is nothing wrong in wanting to get rich. The desire for riches is really the desire for a richer, fuller, and more abundant life; and that desire is praiseworthy. The man who does not
desire to live more abundantly is abnormal, and so the man who does not desire to have money enough to buy all he wants is abnormal.

There are three motives for which we live; we live for the body, we live for the mind, and we live for the soul. No one of these is better or holier than the other; all are alike desirable, and no one of the three--body, mind, or soul--can live fully if either of the others is cut short of full life and expression. It is not right or noble to live only for the soul and deny mind or body; and it is wrong to live for the intellect and deny body and soul.

We are all acquainted with the loathsome consequences of living for the body and denying both mind and soul; and we see that real life means the complete expression of all that man can give forth through body, mind, and soul. Whatever he may say, no man can be really happy or satisfied unless his body is living fully in every function, and unless the same is true of his mind and his soul. Wherever there is unexpressed possibility, or function not performed, there is unsatisfied desire. Desire is possibility seeking expression, or function seeking performance.

Man cannot live fully in body without good food, comfortable clothing, and warm shelter; and without freedom from excessive toil. Rest and recreation are also necessary to his physical life.

He cannot live fully in mind without books and time to study them, without opportunity for travel and observation, or without intellectual companionship.

To live fully in mind he must have intellectual recreations, and must surround himself with all the objects of art and beauty he is capable of using and appreciating.

To live fully in soul, man must have love; and love is denied expression by poverty.

Man's highest happiness is found in the bestowal of benefits on those he loves; love finds its most natural and spontaneous expression in giving. The man who has nothing to give cannot fill his place as a husband or father, as a citizen, or as a man. It is in the use of material things that man finds full life for his body, develops his mind, and unfolds his soul. It is therefore of supreme importance to him that he should be rich.

It is perfectly right that you should desire to be rich; if you are a normal man or woman you cannot help doing so. It is perfectly right that you should give your best attention to the Science of Getting Rich, for it is the noblest and most necessary of all studies. If you neglect this study, you are derelict in your duty to yourself, to God, and to humanity; for you can render God and humanity no greater service than to make the most of yourself.

*[Ed. "No food, one problem. Much food, many problems." Anonymous]

For a list of all of my digital books click here

4 Quotes on Free Trade from Classical Economists

4 Quotes on Free Trade from Classical Economists

David Hume

Nothing is more usual, among states which have made some advances in commerce, than to look on the progress of their neighbours with a suspicious eye, to consider all trading states as their rivals, and to suppose that it is impossible for any of them to flourish, but at their expence.  In opposition to this narrow and malignant opinion, I will venture to assert, that the encrease of riches and commerce in any one nation, instead of hurting, commonly promotes the riches and commerce of all its neighbours; and that a state can scarcely carry its trade and industry very far, where all the surrounding states are buried in ignorance, sloth, and barbarism.
It is obvious, that the domestic industry of a people cannot be hurt by the greatest prosperity of their neighbours; and as this branch of commerce is undoubtedly the most important in any extensive kingdom, we are so far removed from all reason of jealousy.  But I go farther, and observe, that where an open communication is preserved among nations, it is impossible but the domestic industry of every one must receive an encrease from the improvements of the others. 

Frédéric Bastiat

The one thing that people overlook is that the sort of dependence that results from exchange, i.e., from commercial transactions, is a reciprocal dependence.  We cannot be dependent upon a foreigner without his being dependent upon us.  Now, this is what constitutes the very essence of society. To sever natural interrelations is not to make oneself independent, but to isolate oneself completely.

David Ricardo

Under a system of perfectly free commerce, each country naturally devotes its capital and labour to such employments as are most beneficial to each.  This pursuit of individual advantage is admirably connected with the universal good of the whole.  By stimulating industry, by rewarding ingenuity, and by using most efficaciously the peculiar powers bestowed by nature, it distributes labour most effectively and most economically: while, by increasing the general mass of productions, it diffuses general benefit, and binds together by one common tie of interest and intercourse, the universal society of nations throughout the civilized world.

Adam Smith

The balance of produce and consumption may be constantly in favour of a nation, though what is called the balance of trade be generally against it. A nation may import to a greater value than it exports for half a century, perhaps, together; the gold and silver which comes into it during an this time may be all immediately sent out of it; its circulating coin may gradually decay, different sorts of paper money being substituted in its place, and even the debts, too, which it contracts in the principal nations with whom it deals, may be gradually increasing; and yet its real wealth, the exchangeable value of the annual produce of its lands and labour, may, during the same period, have been increasing in a much greater proportion. The state of our North American colonies, and of the trade which they carried on with Great Britain, before the commencement of the present disturbances, may serve as a proof that this is by no means an impossible supposition.

Republished from Cafe Hayek (Bastiat, Ricardo, Smith, Hume)

Donald J. Boudreaux

Donald 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, a professor of economics and former economics-department chair at George Mason University, and a former FEE president.

This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.

See also The History & Mystery of Money & Economics-250 Books on DVDrom

The Greatness of the American Republic by Archbishop Ireland 1897

The Greatness of the American Republic by Archbishop Ireland 1897

Join my Facebook Group - For a list of all of my digital books and books on disk click here

See also American History & Mysteries, Over 200 PDF Books on DVDrom

Archbishop Ireland on the Republic.

The eloquent Catholic prelate, Archbishop Ireland, responded to the toast, "The American Republic," at a banquet of the Marquette club in connection with the autumn festival. His stirring words are so fine that we give space for copious selections:

"The American republic! We salute her in exulting pride; we proffer to her the pledge of undying love and loyalty; God of nations, we pray to thee that she endure and prosper.

"The American republic! Liberty's own creation; temple of human right and of human dignity; symbol and guardian of Justice of freedom; inspiration of hope to all peoples of earth; she deserves limitless admiration and limitless devotion.

"The American republic! The prize of valor and of self-sacrifice to our revolutionary sires; the idol of the hearts of generations of Americans; the embodiment of our own highest civil and political concepts; she is ours to cherish and to defend, our to transmit to distant future ages undiminished in power and grandeur.

"The American republic! May Americans never fall to know the fulness of her beauty and of her greatness; may they never fail to serve her with the fealty and the energy which her merits demand.

"The American republic is the best form of organized democracy revealed in humanity's history. As such she claims homage from her own citizens; as such she draws to herself the attention of the world. Her democracy and her organization of her democracy--behold the glory of the American republic!

"There has been in America no deterioration of character, no lowering of the standard in public or private life, as the result of her democracy. I fear not to proclaim that the general tone of American life makes for honor and honesty, for truth and for cleanliness; that public opinion invariably condemns wrong doing, public and private, and metes out unstinted approval to high moral ideas and virtuous conduct; that the typical American home is the guardian of purity and of peace.

"And, surely, there has been in America no lowering of the highest standard of patriotism. Where is the country, at whose call for heroes, citizens with such speed, with such forgetfulness of self, and in such numbers rally round her flag? Defeat Is unknown in America; defeat is impossible in America.

"It matters little to me what the difficulties are that are said to confront us, be they political, social, or industrial—-I have no fear. I trust the great good sense of the people; I trust the power of American public opinion; I trust the freedom of the republic, which allows healthful discussion; I trust American justice and American respect for human rights, born of American democracy, to solve in due time every problem and remove every peril. I fear only the effect of momentary passion and the rashness it occasions. Hence the motto of Americans should be patience and prudence, and meanwhile energetic and unselfish work for country and for humanity, for righteousness and for God.

"The American republic! She lives and liberty lives with her. The flag of the American republic means liberty wherever it goes. Liberty goes with it. With anxious eye and throbbing heart we watch today the Journeying of the flag of America toward distant isles; we pray for its safety and its honor; we proclaim that in Asia as in America it means liberty and all the blessings that go with liberty.

"The American republic! She will live, and with her liberty will live."

For a list of all of my digital books and books on disk click here

Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville

Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville (in a nutshell)

Join my Facebook Group

See also American History & Mysteries, Over 200 PDF Books on DVDrom

Alexis de Tocqueville, being commissioned at the age of twenty-six to investigate and report on American prisons, made use of his residence in the United States to gain a thorough insight into the political institutions and social conditions of the great Republic. The results of his observations and reflections were given to the world in 1835, in the two famous volumes De la Démocratie en Amérique, which were followed in 1840 by a third and fourth volume under the same title. As an analysis of American political institutions De Tocqueville's work has been superseded by Mr. Bryce's admirable study of the same subject; but as one of the great classics of political philosophy it can never be superseded, and has rarely been rivalled. With all a Frenchman's simplicity and lucidity he traces the manifold results of the democratic spirit; though sometimes an excessive ingenuity, which is also French, leads him to over-speculative conclusions. The work was received with universal applause.

For a list of all of my digital books and books on disk click here

I.—Equality

The most striking impression which I received during my residence in the United States was that of the equality which reigns there. This equality gives a peculiar character to public opinion and to the laws of that country, and influences the entire structure of society in the most profound degree. Realising that equality, or democracy, was rapidly advancing in the Old World also, I determined to make a thorough study of democratic principles and of their consequences, as they are revealed in the western continent.

We have only to review the history of European countries from the days of feudalism, to understand that the development of equality is one of the great designs of Providence; inasmuch as it is universal, inevitable, and lasting, and that every event and every individual contributes to its advancement.

It is impossible to believe that a social movement which has proceeded so far as this movement towards equality has done, can be arrested by human efforts, or that the democracy which has bearded kings and barons can be successfully resisted by a wealthy bourgeoisie. We know not whither we are moving; we only know that greater equality is found to-day among Christian populations than has been known before in any age or in any country.

I confess to a kind of religious terror in the presence of this irresistible revolution, which has defied every obstacle for the last ten centuries. A new political science is awaited by a world which is wholly new; but the most immediate duties of the statesman are to instruct the democracy, if possible to revive its beliefs, to purify its morals, to enlighten its inexperience by some knowledge of political principles, and to substitute for the blind instincts which sway it, the consciousness of its true interests.

In the Old World, and in France especially, the more powerful, intelligent, and moralised classes have held themselves apart from democracy, and the latter has, therefore, been abandoned to its own savage instincts. The democratic revolution has permeated the whole substance of society, without those concomitant changes in laws, ideas, habits, and manners which ought to have embodied and clothed it. So it is that we indeed have democracy, but without those features which should have mitigated its vices and liberated its advantages. The prestige of royal power is gone, without being replaced by the majesty of law, and our people despise authority as much as they fear it. Our poor have the prejudices of their fathers without their beliefs, their ignorance, without their virtues; they have taken self-interest for a principle without knowing what their interests are. Our society is tranquil, not in the consciousness of strength and of well-being, but a sense of decrepitude and despair. That is why I have studied America, in order that we may ourselves profit by her example. I have no intention of writing a panegyric on the United States. I have seen more in America than America herself; I have sought a revelation of Democracy, with all its characters and tendencies, its prejudices and its passions.

II.—Religion and Liberty

Our first consideration is of great importance, and must never be lost sight of. The Anglo-American civilisation which we find in the United States is the product of two perfectly distinct elements, which elsewhere are often at war with one another, but have here been merged and combined in the most wonderful way; I mean the spirit of religion and the spirit of liberty. The founders of New England were at the same time ardent secretaries and enthusiastic radicals; they were bound by the narrowest religious beliefs, but were free from all political prejudice.
Thus arose two tendencies which we may trace everywhere in American manners, as well as in their lives. All political principles, laws, and human institutions seem to have become plastic in the hands of the early colonists. The bonds which fettered the society in which they had been born fell from their limbs; ancient opinions which had dominated the world for ages simply disappeared; a new career opened for the human race; a world without horizons was before them, and they exulted in liberty. But outside the limits of the political world, they made no ventures of this kind. They abjured doubt, renounced their desire for innovation, left untouched the veil of the sanctuary, and knelt with awe before the truths of religion.

So, in their world of morals, everything was already classed, arranged, foreseen, and determined; but in their world of politics, everything was agitated, debated, and uncertain. In the former they were ruled by a voluntary obedience, but in all political affairs they were inspired by independence, contempt for experience, and jealous of every authority.

Far from impeding one another, these two tendencies, which appear so radically opposed, actually harmonise and seem even to support each other. Religion sees in civil liberty a noble field for the exercise of human faculties. Free and powerful in her own sphere, and satisfied with the part reserved for her, she knows that her sovereignty is all the more securely established when she depends only on her own strength and is founded in the hearts of men. And liberty, on the other hand, recognises in religion the comrade of its struggles and triumphs, the cradle of its rights. It knows that religion is the safeguard of morals, and that morals are the safeguard of the laws, and the judge of the continuance of liberty itself.

III.—Omnipotence of the Majority

The greatest danger to liberty in America lies in the omnipotence of the majority. A democratic power is never likely to perish for lack of strength or of resources, but it may very well fall because of the misdirection of its strength and the abuse of its resources. If ever liberty is lost in America, it will be due to an oppression of minorities which may drive them to an appeal to arms. The anarchy which must then result will be due only to despotism.

This danger has not escaped the notice of American statesmen. Thus, President James Madison said, "It is of great importance to republics, not only that society should be defended from the oppression of those who govern it, but also that one section of society should be protected against the injustice of another section; for justice is the end towards which all government must be directed." Again, Jefferson said that "The tyranny of legislators is at present, and will be for many years, our most formidable danger. The tyranny of the executive will arise in its turn, but at a more distant period." Jefferson's words are of great importance, for I consider him to have been the most powerful apostle that democracy has ever had.

But there are certain factors in the United States which moderate this tyranny of the majority. Chief among these is the absence of any administrative centralisation; so that the majority, which has often the tastes and instincts of a despot, lacks the instruments and the means of tyranny. The local administrative bodies constitute so many reefs and breakwaters to retard or divide the stream of the popular will.

Not less important, as a counterpoise to the danger of democracy, is the strong legal spirit which pervades the United States. Lawyers have great influence and authority in matters of government. But lawyers are strongly imbued with the tasks and habits of mind which are most characteristic of aristocracy; they have an instinctive liking for forms and for order, a native distaste for the will of the multitude, and a secret contempt for popular government. Of course, their own personal interest may and often does over-ride this professional bias. But lawyers will always be, on the whole, friends of order and of precedent, and enemies of change. And in America, where there are neither nobles nor able political writers, and where the people are suspicious of the wealthy, the lawyers do, in fact, form the most powerful order in politics, and the most intellectual class of society. They therefore stand to lose by any innovation, and their conservative tendency is reinforced by their interests as a class.

A third safeguard against the tyranny of the majority is to be found in the institution of a jury. Almost everyone is called at one time or another to sit on a jury, and thus learns at least something of the judicial spirit. The civil jury has saved English freedom in past times, and may be expected to maintain American liberties also. It is true that there are many cases, and those often the most important, in which the American judge pronounces sentence without a jury. Under those circumstances, his position is similar to that of a French judge, but his moral power is far greater; for the memory and the influence of juries are all about him, and he speaks with the authority of one who habitually rests upon the jury system. In no other countries are the judges so powerful as in those where the people are called in to share judicial privileges and responsibilities.

IV.—Equality of Men and Women

Inasmuch as democracy destroys or modifies the various inequalities which social traditions have made, it is natural to ask whether it has had any effect on that great inequality between men and women which is elsewhere so conspicuous. We are driven to the conclusion that the social movement which places son and father, servant and master, and in general, the inferior and superior, more nearly on the same level, must raise woman more and more to an equality with man.

Let us guard, however, against misconceptions. There are people in Europe who confuse the natural qualities of the two sexes, and desire that men and women should be, not only equal, but also similar to one another. That would give them both the same functions, the same duties and the same rights, and would have them mingle in everything, in work, in pleasures, and in business. But the attempt to secure this kind of equality between the two sexes, only degrades them both, and must result in unmanly men, and unwomanly women.

The Americans have not thus mistaken the kind of democratic equality which ought to hold between man and woman. They know that progress does not consist in forcing these dissimilar temperaments and faculties into the same mould, but in securing that each shall fulfil his or her task in the best possible way. They have most carefully separated the functions of man and woman, in order that the great work of social life may be most prosperously carried on.

In America, far more than elsewhere, the lines of action of the two sexes have been clearly divided. You do not find American women directing the external affairs of the family, or entering into business or into politics; but neither do you find them obliged to undertake the rough labours of the field, or any other work requiring physical strength. There are no families so poor as to form an exception to this rule.

So it is that American women often unite a masculine intelligence and a virile energy with an appearance of great refinement and altogether womanly manners.

One has often noticed in Europe a certain tinge of contempt even in the flatteries which men lavish on women; and although the European often makes himself a slave of a woman, it is easy to see that he never really regards her as his equal. But in the United States men rarely praise women, though they show their esteem for them every day.

Americans show, in fact, a full confidence in woman's reason, and a profound respect for her liberty. They realise that her mind is just as capable as that of man to discover truth, and that her heart is just as courageous in following it; and they have never tried to shelter or to guide her by means of prejudice, ignorance, or fear.

For my part I do not hesitate to say that the singular prosperity and the evergrowing power of the American people is due to the superiority of American women.

V.—The Perfectibility of Man

Equality suggests many ideas which would never have arisen without it, and among others the notion that humanity can reach perfection—a theory which has practical consequences of great interest.
In countries where the population is classed according to rank, profession, and birth, and everyone has to follow the career to which he happens to be born, each is conscious of limits to his power, and does not attempt to struggle against an inevitable destiny. Aristocratic peoples do not deny that man may be improved, but they think of this as an amelioration of the individual, and not as a change in social circumstances, and while they admit that humanity has made great progress, they believe in certain limits which it cannot pass. They do not think, for instance, that we shall arrive at sovereign good or at absolute truth.

But in proportion as caste and class-distinction disappear, the vision of an ideal perfection arises before the human mind. Continual changes are ever taking place, some of them to his disadvantage, but the majority to his advantage, and the democrat concludes that man in general is capable of arriving at perfection. His reverses teach him that no one has yet discovered absolute good, and his frequent successes excite him to pursue it. Always seeking, falling, and rising again, often deceived, but never discouraged, he hastens towards an immense grandeur which he dimly conceives as the goal of humanity. This theory of perfectibility exercises prodigious influence even on those who have never thought of it. For instance, I ask an American sailor why the ships of his country are built to last only a few years; and he tells me without hesitation that the art of shipbuilding makes such rapid progress every day, that the finest ship constructed to-day must be useless after a very short time. From these words, spoken at random by an uneducated man, I can perceive the general and systematic idea which guides this great people in every matter.

VI.—American Vanity

All free people are proud of themselves, but national pride takes different forms. The Americans, in their relations with strangers, are impatient of the least criticism, and absolutely insatiable for praise. The slightest congratulation pleases them, but the most extravagant eulogium is not enough to satisfy them; they are all the time touting for your praise, and if you are slow to give it they begin praising themselves. It is as if they were doubtful of their own merit. Their vanity is not only hungry, but anxious and envious. It gives nothing, and asks insistently. It is both supplicant and pugnacious. If I tell an American that his country is a fine one, he replies, "It is the finest in the world." If I admire the liberty which it enjoys, he answers, "There are few people worthy of such liberty." I remark on the purity of manners in the United States, and he says, "Yes, a stranger who knows the corruption of other nations must indeed be astonished at us." At length I leave him to the contemplation of his country and of himself, but he presently runs after me, and will not go away until I have repeated it all over again. It is a kind of patriotism that worries even those who honour it.

The Englishman, on the contrary, tranquilly enjoys the real or imaginary advantages which his country affords. He cares nothing for the blame nor for the praise of strangers. His attitude towards the whole world is one of disdainful and ignorant reserve. His pride seeks no nourishment; it lives on itself. It is very remarkable that the two people who have arisen from the same stock should differ so radically in their way of feeling and speaking.

In aristocratic countries, great families possess enormous privileges, on which their pride rests. They consider these privileges as a natural right inherent in their person, and their feeling of superiority is therefore a peaceful one. They have no reason to boast of the prerogatives which everyone concedes to them without question. So, when public affairs are directed by an aristocracy, the national pride tends to take this reserved, haughty, and independent form.

Under democratic conditions, on the contrary, the least advantage which anyone gains has great importance in his eyes; for everyone is surrounded by millions very nearly his equal. His pride therefore becomes anxious and insatiable; he founds it on miserable trifles and defends it obstinately. Again, most Americans have recently acquired the advantages which they possess, and therefore have inordinate pleasure in contemplating these advantages, and in showing them to others; and as these advantages may escape at any moment, they are always uneasy about them, and look at them again and again to see that they still have them. Men who live in democracies love their country as they love themselves, and model their national vanity upon their private vanity. The close dependence of this anxious and insatiable vanity of democratic peoples upon the equality and fragility of their conditions is seen from the fact that the members of the proudest nobility show exactly the same passionate jealousy for the most trifling circumstances of their life when these become unstable or are contested.

For a list of all of my digital books and books on disk click here