Desobedientzia zibila - 4

  basati edo natural bati aurre egiterakoan dagoen aldea honakoa da:
  lehenari aurre egiterik badudala hein handi batean, baina ezin dut
  espero, harri, zuhaitz eta piztien izaera aldatzea, Orfeok18 aldatzen
  zituen bezala.
  Ez dut inongo gizon edo naziorekin ika-mikatan ibili nahi. Ez dut
  txikikeriatan ibili nahi, bereizketa sotilak egiten edota neure burua
  auzoen gainetik jarri. Haatik, herrialdearen legeen menpean jartzeko
  aitzakia baten bila nabilela esan dezaket. Horien menpean jartzeko
  prestuegi ere banago. Are gehiago, hori dela eta neure burua susmagarritzat jotzeko arrazoirik badut; urtero, zerga-biltzailea hurbiltzen
  zaidanean, gobernu orokorra eta Estatuko gobernuaren ekintzak eta
  jarrera zein herriaren izpiritua berriz aztertzeko prest aurkitzen dut
  neure burua, men egiteko aitzakia bat aurkitzearren.
  Gurasoak adina maite behar dugu herria;
  eta, sekula ere, gure maitasun edo ekintzak
  hari ohore egitetik urruntzen baditugu,
  ondorioak onartu behar ditugu eta arimari irakatsi
  kontzientziaren eta erlijioaren ikasgaia,
  ez eta aginte edo etekin nahia19
  18 Greziako mitologian, poeten eta musikarien burua zen Orfeo. Musika eta kantuaren bidez,
  txoriak, arrainak eta basapiztiak lilura zitzakeen, zuhaitzak zein harkaitzak dantzan jarri eta ibaien
  ibilbidea aldatu.
  19 George Peele, ‘The Battle of Alcazar’ (1594).
  
  Estatuak aurki lan hori guztia eskuetatik kenduko didala uste dut,
  eta orduan ez naiz nire herrikideak baino abertzaleagoa izango.
  Ikuspuntu baxuago batetik ikusita, Konstituzioa, dituen akats guztiak
  izanda ere, oso ona da; legeak eta auzitegiak errespetagarriak ditugu
  oso; Estatu hau eta Ameriketako gobernu hau ere, hein handi batean,
  gauza miresgarri eta bitxiak ditugu oso; eskertzeko modukoak,
  askotxok deskribatu dituzten bezala. Baina ikuspuntu zertxobait
  garaiago batetik ikusita, nik deskribatu bezalakoak dira, eta ikuspuntu
  are garaiagotik, eta garaienetik, ikusita, nork esango luke zer diren,
  edota merezi ote duten aztertzea edo gogoan ibiltzea ere?
  Dena dela, ez nau gobernuak asko kezkatzen, eta ahal bezain gutxi ibiliko dut hura gogoan. Gobernuaren pean bizi ditudan uneak ez
  dira asko, mundu honetan ere. Gizon bat pentsaera askekoa, irudimen librekoa, bada, ez dena ez bazaio luzaroan badela iruditzen, ez
  dute inoiz gelditzerik izango agintari edo erreformatzaile okerrek.
  Badakit gizon gehienek nik ez bezala pentsatzen dutela; baina gai
  hau edo antzekoak aztertzea lanbide dutenek beste inork bezain gutxi
  konbentzitzen naute. Estatu-gizonei eta legegileei, erakundeen baitan
  erabat murgilduta egonik, ezinezkoa zaie hura argi eta garbi ikustea.
  Gizartea mugiarazteaz mintzo dira, baina handik at ez dute aterperik.
  Baliteke eskarmentu eta adimen handiko gizonak izatea, eta zalantzarik gabe sistema burutsuak eta erabilgarriak ere asmatu izan dituzte.
  Eskerrak ematen dizkiegu, bihotzez, horien guztiengatik. Baina gizon
  horien agudezia eta balioa oso zabalak ez diren mugen artean daude.
  Joera dute ahazteko mundua ez dutela politikak eta komenigarritasunak gobernatzen. Websterrek20 ez du sekula gobernuaren atzetik
  dagoena ikusi, eta hori dela-eta, ez du hartaz autoritatez mintzatzerik. Haren hitzak jakinduriaz beterikoak dira soilik dagoen gobernuan
  funtsezko aldaketa beharrik ikusten ez duten legegileentzat. Pentsalariarentzat, eta betiko legeak sortzen dituztenentzat, berriz, hark ez dio
  inoiz gaiaren funtsari heldu. Ezagutzen ditut gai hauei buruzko espekulazio bare eta argien bidez luze gabe Websterren adimenaren eta
  20 Daniel Webster (1782-1852), Massachusettsko Senatuko kidea. Esklabotza abolitzearen aldeko
  muturrekoen zein sezesionisten kontra mintzatu zen.
  
  ahalmenaren mugak agerian utziko lituzketenak. Halere, erreformatzaile gehienen jardun merkeekin parekatuz gero, eta, oro har, politikarien jakintasun eta hitz-jario are merkeagoekin, Websterrenak ditugu
  hitz zuhur eta baliotsu bakarrak, eta eskerrak ematen dizkiogu Zeruari
  harengatik. Alderatuz gero, hura beti da indartsua, originala eta, batez
  ere, praktikoa. Halere, haren bereizgarria ez da jakintasuna, zuhurtzia baizik. Legegilearen egia ez da Egia, baizik eta koherentzia, edota
  komenientzia koherentea. Egia beti dator bat bere buruarekin, eta ez
  da nagusiki kezkatzen argitzeaz zer justizia izan daitekeen koherente
  oker jokatzearekin. Konstituzioaren Defendatzaile izena ongi merezi
  du hark, eta hala esan diote. Ukabilkadarik jotzen badu, defentsarako
  izango da. Ez da aitzindaria, jarraitzailea baizik. Haren aitzindariak
  87ko gizonak21 dira. “Ez naiz sekula saiatu”, dio, “ezta saiatuko ere,
  ez dut inoiz saiorik babestu, ezta babestuko ere, Estatuak Batasunera
  ekarri zituen jatorrizko akordioa nahasteko”. Konstituzioak esklabotza legeztatzen duela gogoan duelarik, zera dio: “Jatorrizko itunaren
  atal bat denez, gorde dezagun”. Zorroztasun eta gaitasun berezia izan
  arren, ez da gai datu bat bere testuinguru politikotik ateratzeko eta
  adimenaren aurrean biluzik datzala aztertzeko: esaterako, egungo
  Amerika honetan gizon bati nola dagokion jokatzea, esklabotza dela
  eta. Hori egin beharrean, absolutuki eta gizabanako gisa mintzo dela
  adierazten badu ere, funsgabeko erantzuna ematera ausartzen da, edo
  horretara bultzatzen dute –eta, horretatik, zer nolako betebehar kode
  berria atera daiteke gizarterako? “Esklabotza nola arautu behar den”,
  dio, “hura ametitzen duten Estatuetako Gobernuen kontua da, boto-emaileen aurrean, jabegoaren, gizatasunaren eta zuzentasunaren
  lege orokorren aurrean eta Jainkoaren aitzinean erantzule direlarik.
  Gizatasun sentipenak edota beste edozein arrazoik bultzatuta beste
  inon sorturiko elkarteek ez dute horretan zeresanik. Niregandik ez
  dute inongo sostengurik jaso, ezta jasoko ere”.
  Egiaren iturbegi garbiagorik ezagutzen ez duten horiek, haren isuria gorago bilatu ez dutenek, alegia, Biblia eta Konstituzioan gelditu
  21 Ameriketako Estatu Batuetako Konstituzioa idazteko Konbentzioa 1787. urtean egin zuten, Philadelphian
  
  dira, zuhurki gelditu ere, eta errespetuz zein apaltasunez, handik edaten dute; baina ur xirripa aintzira honetara edo putzu hartara nondik
  heltzen den ikusten dutenek, kemena bildu eta erromesaldia jarraitzen dute iturbegirantz.
  Ameriketan ez da legegintzarako jeinuz jantziriko gizonik agertu.
  Urri dira munduaren historian. Badira milaka hizlari, politikari eta
  hitz ederreko gizon; baina gaur egungo arazo gatazkatsuak konpontzeko gai den mintzalari batek ere ez du oraindik ahoa zabaldu. Elokuentzia elokuentziarengatik maite dugu eta ez, adieraz dezakeen
  egiagatik edota susta dezakeen heroitasunagatik. Gure legegileek ez
  dute oraindik ikasi librekanbioa eta askatasuna, batasuna eta zuzentasuna zein baliotsuak diren nazio batentzat. Ez dute jeinu edota talenturik konparazioz apalak diren gaientzako: zerga eta Änantzarako,
  merkataritzarako, industria eta nekazaritzarako. Kongresuko legegileen mintzatzeko trebetasuna izango balitz gure gidaritza bakarra, eta
  herriaren eskarmentu egokiaren eta kexu eraginkorrek zuzenduko ez
  balute, Amerikak ez lioke luzaroan eutsiko nazioen artean duen postuari. Orain dela mila eta zortziehun urte idatzi zuten Testamendu
  Berria, beharbada esateko eskubiderik ez badut ere; non da, ordea,
  legegintzaren zientziarako isurtzen duen argiaz baliatzeko behar adinako jakituria eta trebetasun praktikoa duen legegilea?
  Neure burua Gobernuaren autoritatearen menpean jartzeko irrikan naiz, nik baino gehiago dakiten eta trebeago diren horiek gogotsu obedituko baititut, eta, gauza askotan, hainbeste ez dakiten edo
  horren iaio ez diren beste horiek ere bai. Autoritate hori, ordea, ez
  da garbia oraindik: guztiz zuzena izateko, gobernatuen baimena eta
  onarpena behar du. Nire pertsona eta ondasunen gain ezin du hark
  inongo eskubiderik izan, nik emandakoaz aparte. Monarkia absolututik mugatura dagoen aurrerapena, eta monarkia mugatutik demokraziara, gizabanakoarekiko zinezko errespeturantz eginiko aurrerapena
  da. Filosofo txinatarra ere behar bezain jakintsua izan zen gizabanakoa inperioaren oinarritzat hartzeko. Demokrazia al da, ezagutzen
  dugun moduko demokrazia, alegia, gobernugintzan egin daitekeen
  azken hobekuntza? Ezin al da giza eskubideen ezagupen zein antolaketarantz beste aurrerapausorik egin? Estatu zinez aske eta ilustraturik
  ez da izango harik eta Estatuak gizabanakoa indar garaiagotzat eta
  independentetzat onartzen eta gizabanakoarengandik indar eta autoritate oro datozkiola ametitzen eta horren arabera tratatzen duen
  arte. Plazer hartzen dut irudikatzen azkenean gizon guztiekiko zuzen
  izaten lortuko lukeen Estatua, gizabanakoa auzo gisa, begirunez, tratatuko duena; bere lasaitasunaren kontrakotzat hartuko ez lukeena
  gizon bakan batzuk harengandik aparte, harekin nahastu gabe, haren
  baitatik at bizitzea, betiere, auzoen eta hurkoen betebehar guztiak
  konplituko zituzketen gizonak. Halako fruiturik eman eta heldu ahala
  erortzen utziko zukeen Estatuak bidea prestatuko zion Estatu are perfektuago eta bikainago bati. Azken hau ere imajinatu dut, baina ez
  dut inon ikusi oraindik.
  
  Desobedientzia Zibila
  haurrei azalduta
  
  Donald B. Johnsonen marrazkiak
  Thoreauren inguruan
  
  D.
  
  B. Johnson ilustratzaile estatubatuarra Thoreauren idazkiekin liluratuta dabil gaztetatik.
  Pentsalariaren bizitzako hainbat pasarte
  haurrentzako liburu bihurtu ditu, eta horiekin arrakasta
  handia izan du AEBetan. Tartean dago Heny mendira
  igotzen da (Henry Climbs a Mountain), Thoreauren kartzelaldia kontatzen duena.
  Lan horretarako egin zituen hainbat zirriborro berreskuratu ditu, liburu honetan argitaratzeko.
  Istorioa osorik irakurri edo egileaz gehiago jakin nahi
  duenarentzat:
  
  
  Henry mendira igotzen da
  
  Henry zapatariarengana zihoan,
  baina Max zerga-biltzaileak gelditu egin zuen:
  “Henry -esan zion- ez dituzu zergak ordaindu”.
  “Nekazariei esklaboak izaten uzten dien estatu
  bati ordaintzea? Bai zera!”, esan zuen Henryk.
  
  “Ordaindu beharko duzu, edo kartzelara joan”,
  esan zuen Samek.
  “Eraman nazazu bada kartzelara”, esan zuen
  Henryk.
  Eta Samek espetxera eraman zuen.
  
  Danba! itxi zen atea. Henry ohean etzan zen eta horma zuriei zein sabai zuriari begiratu zien.
  Zapatarik gabeko oina hormaren aurka jarri zuen. “Beste oinetakoa izan nahiko nuke”, pentsatu
  zuen.
  
  Arkatzak atera zituen poltsikotik eta txoriak
  zein zuhaitzak marrazten hasi zen.
  
  Zuhaitzaren azpian, bide bat marraztu zuen;
  erreka gurutzatzen eta mendira igotzen zuen
  bidexka. Marrazturiko botak busti zituen Henryk.
  
  Orduan atea ireki egin zen. Sam zen.
  
  “Norbaitek zure zerga ordaindu du”, esan zuen
  Samek. “Zer moduzkoa da aske izatea?”
  
  Henryk irribarre egin zuen. “Mendi oso garai
  baten tontorrean egotea bezalakoa da!”
  
  Eta zapatariarengana joan zen, zapata pare
  berria erostera.
  
  Civil
  Disobedience
  Henry David Thoreau
  
  I
  
  heartily accept the motto, “That
  government is best which governs
  least”; and I should like to see it acted
  up to more rapidly and systematically.
  Carried out, it Ànally amounts to this,
  which also I believe--”That government is
  best which governs not at all”; and when
  men are prepared for it, that will be the
  kind of government which the will have.
  Government is at best but an expedient;
  but most governments are usually, and all
  governments are sometimes, inexpedient.
  The objections which have been brought
  against a standing army, and they are many
  and weighty, and deserve to prevail, may
  also at last be brought against a standing
  government. The standing army is only
  an arm of the standing government. The
  government itself, which is only the mode
  which the people have chosen to execute
  their will, is equally liable to be abused and
  perverted before the people can act through
  it. Witness the present Mexican war, the
  work of comparatively a few individuals
  using the standing government as their tool;
  
  for in the outset, the people would not have
  consented to this measure.
  This American government--what is it but a
  tradition, though a recent one, endeavoring
  to transmit itself unimpaired to posterity,
  but each instant losing some of its integrity?
  It has not the vitality and force of a single
  living man; for a single man can bend it to
  his will. It is a sort of wooden gun to the
  people themselves. But it is not the less
  necessary for this; for the people must
  have some complicated machinery or other,
  and hear its din, to satisfy that idea of
  government which they have. Governments
  show thus how successfully men can be
  imposed upon, even impose on themselves,
  for their own advantage. It is excellent, we
  must all allow. Yet this government never
  of itself furthered any enterprise, but by the
  alacrity with which it got out of its way. It
  does not keep the country free. It does not
  settle the West. It does not educate. The
  character inherent in the American people
  has done all that has been accomplished;
  and it would have done somewhat more, if
  the government had not sometimes got in
  its way. For government is an expedient,
  
  by which men would fain succeed in letting
  one another alone; and, as has been said,
  when it is most expedient, the governed are
  most let alone by it. Trade and commerce, if
  they were not made of india-rubber, would
  never manage to bounce over obstacles
  which legislators are continually putting in
  their way; and if one were to judge these
  men wholly by the effects of their actions
  and not partly by their intentions, they
  would deserve to be classed and punished
  with those mischievious persons who put
  obstructions on the railroads.
  But, to speak practically and as a citizen,
  unlike those who call themselves nogovernment men, I ask for, not at one
  no government, but at once a better
  government. Let every man make known
  what kind of government would command
  his respect, and that will be one step toward
  obtaining it.
  After all, the practical reason why, when the
  power is once in the hands of the people, a
  majority are permitted, and for a long period
  continue, to rule is not because they are
  most likely to be in the right, nor because
  this seems fairest to the minority, but
  because they are physically the strongest.
  But a government in which the majority
  rule in all cases can not be based on justice,
  even as far as men understand it. Can there
  not be a government in which the majorities
  do not virtually decide right and wrong, but
  conscience?--in which majorities decide
  only those questions to which the rule of
  expediency is applicable? Must the citizen
  ever for a moment, or in the least degree,
  resign his conscience to the legislator? Why
  has every man a conscience then? I think
  that we should be men Àrst, and subjects
  afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a
  respect for the law, so much as for the right.
  
  The only obligation which I have a right to
  assume is to do at any time what I think right.
  It is truly enough said that a corporation
  has no conscience; but a corporation on
  conscientious men is a corporation with a
  conscience. Law never made men a whit
  more just; and, by means of their respect for
  it, even the well-disposed are daily made
  the agents on injustice. A common and
  natural result of an undue respect for the
  law is, that you may see a Àle of soldiers,
  colonel, captain, corporal, privates, powdermonkeys, and all, marching in admirable
  order over hill and dale to the wars, against
  their wills, ay, against their common sense
  and consciences, which makes it very steep
  marching indeed, and produces a palpitation
  of the heart. They have no doubt that it is
  a damnable business in which they are
  concerned; they are all peaceably inclined.
  Now, what are they? Men at all? or small
  movable forts and magazines, at the service
  of some unscrupulous man in power? Visit
  the Navy Yard, and behold a marine, such a
  man as an American government can make,
  or such as it can make a man with its black
  arts--a mere shadow and reminiscence of
  humanity, a man laid out alive and standing,
  and already, as one may say, buried under
  arms with funeral accompaniment, though
  it may be,
  “Not a drum was heard, not a funeral note,
  As his corse to the rampart we hurried;
  Not a soldier discharged his farewell shot
  O’er the grave where out hero was buried.”
  The mass of men serve the state thus, not
  as men mainly, but as machines, with their
  bodies. They are the standing army, and the
  militia, jailers, constables, posse comitatus,
  etc. In most cases there is no free exercise
  whatever of the judgement or of the moral
  sense; but they put themselves on a level
  
  with wood and earth and stones; and wooden
  men can perhaps be manufactured that will
  serve the purpose as well. Such command
  no more respect than men of straw or a lump
  of dirt. They have the same sort of worth
  only as horses and dogs. Yet such as these
  even are commonly esteemed good citizens.
  Others--as most legislators, politicians,
  lawyers, ministers, and ofÀce-holders-serve the state chieÁy with their heads; and,
  as the rarely make any moral distinctions,
  they are as likely to serve the devil, without
  intending it, as God. A very few--as heroes,
  patriots, martyrs, reformers in the great
  sense, and men--serve the state with their
  consciences also, and so necessarily resist
  it for the most part; and they are commonly
  treated as enemies by it. A wise man will
  only be useful as a man, and will not submit
  to be “clay,” and “stop a hole to keep the
  wind away,” but leave that ofÀce to his dust
  at least:
  “I am too high born to be propertied,
  To be a second at control,
  Or useful serving-man and instrument
  To any sovereign state throughout the
  world.”
  He who gives himself entirely to his
  fellow men appears to them useless and
  selÀsh; but he who gives himself partially
  to them in pronounced a benefactor and
  philanthropist.
  How does it become a man to behave toward
  the American government today? I answer,
  that he cannot without disgrace be associated
  with it. I cannot for an instant recognize that
  political organization as my government
  which is the slave’s government also.
  All men recognize the right of revolution;
  that is, the right to refuse allegiance to, and
  to resist, the government, when its tyranny
  or its inefÀciency are great and unendurable.
  
  But almost all say that such is not the case
  now. But such was the case, they think, in
  the Revolution of ‘75. If one were to tell me
  that this was a bad government because it
  taxed certain foreign commodities brought
  to its ports, it is most probable that I should
  not make an ado about it, for I can do without
  them. All machines have their friction; and
  possibly this does enough good to counterbalance the evil. At any rate, it is a great evil
  to make a stir about it. But when the friction
  comes to have its machine, and oppression
  and robbery are organized, I say, let us not
  have such a machine any longer. In other
  words, when a sixth of the population of
  a nation which has undertaken to be the
  refuge of liberty are slaves, and a whole
  country is unjustly overrun and conquered
  by a foreign army, and subjected to military
  law, I think that it is not too soon for honest
  men to rebel and revolutionize. What makes
  this duty the more urgent is that fact that the
  country so overrun is not our own, but ours
  is the invading army.
  Paley, a common authority with many
  on moral questions, in his chapter on the
  “Duty of Submission to Civil Government,”
  resolves all civil obligation into expediency;
  and he proceeds to say that “so long as the
  interest of the whole society requires it, that
  it, so long as the established government
  cannot be resisted or changed without public
  inconveniencey, it is the will of God. . .that
  the established government be obeyed--and
  no longer. This principle being admitted, the
  justice of every particular case of resistance
  is reduced to a computation of the quantity
  of the danger and grievance on the one
  side, and of the probability and expense
  of redressing it on the other.” Of this, he
  says, every man shall judge for himself. But
  Paley appears never to have contemplated
  
  those cases to which the rule of expediency
  does not apply, in which a people, as well
  and an individual, must do justice, cost what
  it may. If I have unjustly wrested a plank
  from a drowning man, I must restore it to
  him though I drown myself. This, according
  to Paley, would be inconvenient. But he that
  would save his life, in such a case, shall lose
  it. This people must cease to hold slaves,
  and to make war on Mexico, though it cost
  them their existence as a people.
  In their practice, nations agree with Paley;
  but does anyone think that Massachusetts
  does exactly what is right at the present
  crisis?
  “A drab of stat,
  a cloth-o’-silver slut,
  To have her train borne up,
  and her soul trail in the dirt.”
  Practically speaking, the opponents to a
  reform in Massachusetts are not a hundred
  thousand politicians at the South, but a
  hundred thousand merchants and farmers
  here, who are more interested in commerce
  and agriculture than they are in humanity,
  and are not prepared to do justice to the slave
  and to Mexico, cost what it may. I quarrel not
  with far-off foes, but with those who, neat at
  home, co-operate with, and do the bidding
  of, those far away, and without whom the
  latter would be harmless. We are accustomed
  to say, that the mass of men are unprepared;
  but improvement is slow, because the few
  are not as materially wiser or better than
  the many. It is not so important that many
  should be good as you, as that there be some
  absolute goodness somewhere; for that will
  leaven the whole lump. There are thousands
  who are in opinion opposed to slavery and to
  the war, who yet in effect do nothing to put
  an end to them; who, esteeming themselves
  children of Washington and Franklin, sit
  
  down with their hands in their pockets, and
  say that they know not what to do, and do
  nothing; who even postpone the question of
  freedom to the question of free trade, and
  quietly read the prices-current along with
  the latest advices from Mexico, after dinner,
  and, it may be, fall asleep over them both.
  What is the price-current of an honest man
  and patriot today? They hesitate, and they
  regret, and sometimes they petition; but
  they do nothing in earnest and with effect.
  They will wait, well disposed, for other to
  remedy the evil, that they may no longer
  have it to regret. At most, they give up only
  a cheap vote, and a feeble countenance and
  Godspeed, to the right, as it goes by them.
  There are nine hundred and ninety-nine
  patrons of virtue to one virtuous man. But
  it is easier to deal with the real possessor
  of a thing than with the temporary guardian
  of it.
  All voting is a sort of gaming, like checkers
  or backgammon, with a slight moral tinge
  to it, a playing with right and wrong, with
  moral questions; and betting naturally
  accompanies it. The character of the voters
  is not staked. I cast my vote, perchance, as
  I think right; but I am not vitally concerned
  that that right should prevail. I am willing
  to leave it to the majority. Its obligation,
  therefore, never exceeds that of expediency.
  Even voting for the right is doing nothing
  for it. It is only expressing to men feebly
  your desire that it should prevail. A wise
  man will not leave the right to the mercy of
  chance, nor wish it to prevail through the
  power of the majority. There is but little
  virtue in the action of masses of men. When
  the majority shall at length vote for the
  abolition of slavery, it will be because they
  are indifferent to slavery, or because there is
  
  but little slavery left to be abolished by their
  vote. They will then be the only slaves. Only
  his vote can hasten the abolition of slavery
  who asserts his own freedom by his vote.
  I hear of a convention to be held at
  Baltimore, or elsewhere, for the selection
  of a candidate for the Presidency, made
  up chieÁy of editors, and men who are
  politicians by profession; but I think, what
  is it to any independent, intelligent, and
  respectable man what decision they may
  come to? Shall we not have the advantage
  of this wisdom and honesty, nevertheless?
  Can we not count upon some independent
  votes? Are there not many individuals in the
  country who do not attend conventions? But
  no: I Ànd that the respectable man, so called,
  has immediately drifted from his position,
  and despairs of his country, when his
  country has more reasons to despair of him.
  He forthwith adopts one of the candidates
  thus selected as the only available one, thus
  proving that he is himself available for any
  purposes of the demagogue. His vote is of
  no more worth than that of any unprincipled
  foreigner or hireling native, who may have
  been bought. O for a man who is a man, and,
  and my neighbor says, has a bone is his back
  which you cannot pass your hand through!
  Our statistics are at fault: the population has
  been returned too large. How many men
  are there to a square thousand miles in the
  country? Hardly one. Does not America
  offer any inducement for men to settle
  here? The American has dwindled into an
  Odd Fellow--one who may be known by the
  development of his organ of gregariousness,
  and a manifest lack of intellect and cheerful
  self-reliance; whose Àrst and chief concern,
  on coming into the world, is to see that
  the almshouses are in good repair; and,
  before yet he has lawfully donned the virile
  
  garb, to collect a fund to the support of the
  widows and orphans that may be; who, in
  short, ventures to live only by the aid of
  the Mutual Insurance company, which has
  promised to bury him decently.
  It is not a man’s duty, as a matter of course,
  to devote himself to the eradication of any,
  even to most enormous, wrong; he may still
  properly have other concerns to engage
  him; but it is his duty, at least, to wash his
  hands of it, and, if he gives it no thought
  longer, not to give it practically his support.
  If I devote myself to other pursuits and
  contemplations, I must Àrst see, at least, that
  I do not pursue them sitting upon another
  man’s shoulders. I must get off him Àrst, that
  he may pursue his contemplations too. See
  what gross inconsistency is tolerated. I have
  heard some of my townsmen say, “I should
  like to have them order me out to help put
  down an insurrection of the slaves, or to
  march to Mexico--see if I would go”; and
  yet these very men have each, directly by
  their allegiance, and so indirectly, at least,
  by their money, furnished a substitute. The
  soldier is applauded who refuses to serve in
  an unjust war by those who do not refuse to
  sustain the unjust government which makes
  the war; is applauded by those whose own
  act and authority he disregards and sets at
  naught; as if the state were penitent to that
  degree that it hired one to scourge it while
  it sinned, but not to that degree that it left
  off sinning for a moment. Thus, under the
  name of Order and Civil Government, we
  are all made at last to pay homage to and
  support our own meanness. After the Àrst
  blush of sin comes its indifference; and from
  immoral it becomes, as it were, unmoral,
  and not quite unnecessary to that life which
  we have made.
  
  The broadest and most prevalent error
  requires the most disinterested virtue to
  sustain it. The slight reproach to which the
  virtue of patriotism is commonly liable, the
  noble are most likely to incur. Those who,
  while they disapprove of the character and
  measures of a government, yield to it their
  allegiance and support are undoubtedly
  its most conscientious supporters, and so
  frequently the most serious obstacles to
  reform. Some are petitioning the State
  to dissolve the Union, to disregard the
  requisitions of the President. Why do
  they not dissolve it themselves--the union
  between themselves and the State--and
  refuse to pay their quota into its treasury?
  Do not they stand in same relation to the
  State that the State does to the Union? And
  have not the same reasons prevented the
  State from resisting the Union which have