That the General Assembly doth also express its deep regret, that a spirit has in sundry instances, been manifested by the federal government, to enlarge its powers by forced constructions of the constitutional charter which defines them; and that indications have appeared of a design to expound certain general phrases ... so as to destroy the meaning and effect, of the particular enumeration which necessarily explains and limits the general phrases; and so as to consolidate the States by degrees, into one sovereignty, the obvious tendency and inevitable consequences of which would be, to transform the present republican system of the United States, into an absolute, or at best a mixed monarchy.
James Madison The Virginia Resolutions of 1798 [emphasis added]
Enjoying, as we do, the blessings of a free Government, there is no man who has an American heart that would not rejoice to see these blessings extended to all other nations. We can not witness the struggle between the oppressed and his oppressor anywhere without the deepest sympathy for the former and the most anxious desire for his triumph. Nevertheless, is it prudent or is it wise to involve ourselves in these foreign wars?
Is it indeed true that we have heretofore refrained from doing so merely from the degrading motive of a conscious weakness? For the honor of the patriots who have gone before us, I can not admit it. Men of the Revolution, who drew the sword against the oppressions of the mother country and pledged to Heaven "their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor" to maintain their freedom, could never have been actuated by so unworthy a motive. They knew no weakness or fear where right or duty pointed the way, and it is a libel upon their fair fame for us, while we enjoy the blessings for which they so nobly fought and bled, to insinuate it.
The truth is that the course which they pursued was dictated by a stern sense of international justice, by a statesmanlike prudence and a far-seeing wisdom, looking not merely to the present necessities but to the permanent safety and interest of the country. They knew that the world is governed less by sympathy than by reason and force; that it was not possible for this nation to become a "propagandist" of free principles without arraying against it the combined powers of Europe, and that the result was more likely to be the overthrow of republican liberty here than its establishment there. History has been written in vain for those who can doubt this. France had no sooner established a republican form of government than she manifested a desire to force its blessings on all the world. Her own historian informs us that, hearing of some petty acts of tyranny in a neighboring principality, "the National Convention declared that she would afford succor and fraternity to all nations who wished to recover their liberty, and she gave it in charge to the executive power to give orders to the generals of the French armies to aid all citizens who might have been or should be oppressed in the cause of liberty." Here was the false step which led to her subsequent misfortunes. She soon found herself involved in war with all the rest of Europe. In less than ten years her Government was changed from a republic to an empire, and finally, after shedding rivers of blood, foreign powers restored her exiled dynasty and exhausted Europe sought peace and repose in the unquestioned ascendency of monarchical principles. Let us learn wisdom from her example.
Let us remember that revolutions do not always establish freedom. Our own free institutions were not the offspring of our Revolution. They existed before. They were planted in the free charters of self-government under which the English colonies grew up, and our Revolution only freed us from the dominion of a foreign power whose government was at variance with those institutions. But European nations have had no such training for self-government, and every effort to establish it by bloody revolutions has been, and must without that preparation continue to be, a failure. Liberty unregulated by law degenerates into anarchy, which soon becomes the most horrid of all despotisms. Our policy is wisely to govern ourselves, and thereby to set such an example of national justice, prosperity, and true glory as shall teach to all nations the blessings of self-government and the unparalleled enterprise and success of a free people.
President Millard Fillmore State of the Union message to Congress 6 Dec 1852
More prudence. Let us set an example in Liberty, in free institutions once again, and the rule of law, really.
Without Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as publick Liberty, without Freedom of Speech: Which is the Right of every Man, as far as by it he does not hurt and controul the Right of another; and this is the only Check which it ought to suffer, the only Bounds which it ought to know.
This sacred Privilege is so essential to free Government, that the Security of Property; and the Freedom of Speech, always go together; and in those wretched Countries where a Man cannot call his Tongue his own, he can scarce call any Thing else his own. Whoever would overthrow the Liberty of the Nation, must begin by subduing the Freedom of Speech; a Thing terrible to publick Traytors...
Freedom of Speech is the great Bulwark of Liberty; they prosper and die together: And it is the Terror of Traytors and Oppressors, and a Barrier against them. It produces excellent Writers, and encourages Men of fine Genius. Tacitus tells us, that the Roman Commonwealth bred great and numerous Authors, who writ with equal Boldness and Eloquence: But when it was enslaved, those great Wits were no more... Tyranny had usurped the Place of Equality, which is the Soul of liberty, and destroyed publick Courage. The Minds of Men, terrified by unjust Power, degenerated into all the Vilenes[s] and Methods of Servitude: Abject Sycophancy and blind Submission grew the only means of Preferment, and indeed of Safety; Men durst not open their Mouths, but to flatter...
All Ministers, therefore, who were Oppressors, or intended to be Oppressors, have been loud in their Complaints against Freedom of Speech, and the Licence of the Press; and always restrained, or endeavoured to restrain, both. In consequence of this, they have brow-beaten Writers, punished them violently, and against Law, and burnt their Works. By all which they shewed how much truth alarmed them, and how much they were at Enmity with Truth.
Two thoughts come to mind reading this passage again.
First, I hope the reader appreciates the value of the 14th Amendment. Before the American civil war, free speech was not protected by the laws of some southern states. The 14th Amendment extended the federal prohibition on laws violating natural rights to the states, including the right to free speech. Before, there was little hope that slavery would be outlawed by the states through the political process since people could be prosecuted for distributing literature that argued for emancipation, as I understand it. See Michael Kent Curtis's excellent book, Free Speech, "The People's Darling Privilege".
Second, I believe we need to reconsider libel law. In my experience, it is the weak who dare not speak out against the strong, and the strong who speak out against the weak with impunity. The poor are already used to hearing character assassination and girding themselves with integrity. Best let the marketplace of integrity to sort out spoken and written accusations. Sometimes the most effective non-violent weapon a weak person has is mere witness shared. Recently cases of libel tourism bring this issue to the fore, making this an issue of federal security. How is one to wage a civilized campaign of truth-seeking if libel law exists? Perhaps we could live with laws against fraud, say by prohibiting people from accusing others by falsely dragging in non-existent public records or non-existent accusations of others and leave it at that. What do you think? Update (Nov 20, 2007): More on libel tourism in this video and article about Rachel Ehrenfeld at Reason's Rough Cut video blog. I have a copy of her book Funding Evil despite the United Kingdom and Khalid bin Mahfouz. Thankfully we had a revolution in 1776.
According to an added screen at the end of the documentary,
On November 15th, 2007, a New York court heard oral argument on whether it has jurisdiction over Mahfouz in Dr. Ehrenfeld's case.
Back in the day, Great Britain had valiant juries that judged the law when it conflicted with basic human rights, as in the case of William Penn. We too had our own decent juries in the time of John Peter Zenger and his famous libel trial in 1735. May the spirit of these struggles for free speech return.
Another valuable book which fireman Mahfouz has thrown on the Fahrenheit 451 burning pile is Alms for Jihad, a copy of which I have seen, but don't tell anyone.
