Digging up Gov. Clinton

by Peter Lamborn Wilson

Recently waves of neo-conservative historical revisionism have been washing over us in New York, exalting as true patriots such Founding-Father figures as Alexander Hamilton, and his reactionary clique of bankers and would-be aristocrats. A conspicuous silence seems to have fallen over the real New York Revolutionaries, however. No fat new biographies and no big museum shows are being launched to puff the memory of genuine radicals like George Clinton.

Who?

George Clinton, Revolutionary hero and first Governor of New York (elected seven times between 1777 and 1800), bravely defended the Revolutionary Hudson Valley against the Brits and won General Washington’s undying admiration, gratitude, and friendship. Clinton hailed from Ulster County, and the Hudson Valley region never deserted him; he carried it in every one of his seven re-elections.

Governor Clinton was a genuine fire-snorting radical democrat. No “reluctant revolutionary,” he never gave up his adherence to the party of Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, Sam Adams, Tom Paine, and the Sons of Liberty.

Henry David Thoreau later summed up this American tradition by praising “that government which governs least”—or preferably “not at all”—over all forms of despotism and centralized power. The founding documents of this tradition were the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation. For its time the Articles of Confederation was undoubtedly the most radical constitution of any government in history. It seriously attempted to realize the goals of the Declaration—life, liberty, pursuit of happiness—as law. Each of the thirteen states remained independent. They federated together in a “league of friendship” (probably based in part on the Constitution of the Iroquois Six Nations) for defense and trade, but gave away no rights to the “continental” government: no right to tax or to keep a standing army, for example.

The reluctant revolutionaries, the rich, the self-proclaimed aristocrats such as Hamilton, Jay, Morris, and the big New York patrons and their ilk in other states all hated the Articles and accused it of leveling and anarchic tendencies, inefficiency, mob rule, and worst of all—flagrant “democracy.”

Richard Henry Lee of Virginia was probably the most distinguished radical president of the United States under the Articles. The presidents were limited to a one-year term, and no member of Congress was allowed to serve more than three years in six. Their salaries were paid by the states and they were “revocable delegates,” not “representatives” in the modern sense. In other words, this was not a republic, but a true democracy.

Radical democrats like Clinton realized that the Articles needed some amendment, and New York gladly sent delegates to the 1787 Convention called in Philadelphia to consider such changes. But when the New Yorkers arrived and discovered that the Convention intended to junk the Articles altogether and write a new Constitution, two of our delegates withdrew in disgust, claiming that the convention was “illegal.” And so it was. Technically speaking, the U.S. Constitution was to be a coup d’etat.

Right-wing conspirators like Alex Hamilton (the third NY delegate) now pre-empted the popular label “Federalist” for themselves, although in fact they despised real federation and wanted a “national” or powerful central government. These self-proclaimed “Federalists” had most of the money and controlled most of the press.

The democrats, the true federalists, became known paradoxically as “Anti-Federalists.” (In New York they called themselves Federal Republicans, but the name never caught on outside the state.) The Anti-Feds had little money or media access, but counted on mustering the poor, the mechanics and farmers, the honest revolutionaries—the People—to their just cause.

And in fact, in New York, the majority of voters were fiercely Anti-Federalist. While Clinton held office the aristo’s could do nothing except in New York City, which they partially controlled. Ulster County was the most Anti-Federalist of all counties, in part because it lacked big patronships and consisted mostly of small independent “yeoman” farms, the agrarian backbone of the radical revolution. And in part, of course, out of love and loyalty to George Clinton, local hero.

During the period of debate over the Constitution, the Federalists had all the advantages of wealth, education, ownership of the press, and superiority of eloquence. (In high school today we study the Federalist Papers, while the Anti-Federalist Papers are ignored and forgotten.) The true democrats were put on the defensive, out-maneuvered politically by the rightists, blamed for Shay’s Rebellion in Massachusetts, and depicted as dangerous rebels. Once in power the right passed the Alien and Sedition Act, the “homeland security bill” of its day, to censor and suppress their ideological enemies on the left.

The old standard biography of Clinton is called His Excellency George Clinton, Critic of the Constitution (E.W. Spaulding, 1938) because his opposition to that counter-revolutionary document was the high point of his career as revolutionary governor. The true democrats like Clinton, Sam Adams, and R.H. Lee are mostly suppressed and ignored by neo-conservative historians, or even slandered and libeled. Even in New York, Clinton is scarcely remembered as an ultra-radical. And yet, under the pen name “Cato” he attacked the Hamiltonian cabal as crypto monarchists. (Hamilton responded under the pen name “Caesar!”) Clinton as governor attempted to steer the state legislature along a path of militant resistance to centralism and authoritarianism—i.e., to the Constitution.

It was a losing battle, however. Hamilton pulled off a brilliant coup in the NY legislature. As state after state ratified the new Constitution, by 1789 the NY democrats were faced with the choice of capitulation or open revolt. New York tried to insist on amendments and attempted to reserve the right of secession.

It’s a little-known but curious fact that New York, along with Virginia and Rhode Island, actually did reserve the right to secede. These claims were made in the Ordinances to the Acts by which they ratified the Constitution and acceded to the new United States of America. New York declared that “the powers of government and may be reassumed by the people whenever it shall become necessary to their happiness.” These ordinances have never been rescinded, not even after the Civil War, and are presumably still valid.

But the Clintonians were finally defeated. The Revolution was truly ended now, and the Declaration of Independence reduced to a shibboleth. The Bill of Rights restored some measure of democracy. It was largely the work of R.H. Lee, not of Thomas Jefferson, who was off swanning around Paris at the time.

Most Clintonians now became radical Jeffersonians and pro-French Revolutionists. Clinton’s daughter married Citizen Genet. But Clinton distrusted Jefferson as a flighty aristocrat. In effect, Clinton was a better Jeffersonian than Jefferson.

Clinton’s enthusiasm began to wane. He was getting old. He served again as Governor and finally for two terms as Vice President of the United States. But bit by bit, he gave up the militant fight for the principles of 1776. Nearly dead, he roused himself for one last gesture, and used his VP’s deciding vote as president of the Senate to defeat the National Bank. (Unfortunately, the Bank eventually won this war, but that’s another story.) Shortly afterwards, in 1812, Clinton died in office and was buried in D.C.

Clinton was no plaster saint. He not only drank a lot, he also speculated in land—like absolutely everyone with any money in 18th century America, including T. Jefferson and even T. Paine. In a sense, bereft of its ideals, the Revolution sometimes looks to the historian like a gigantic real estate scam.

Clinton hated Ethan Allen, sad to say, and tried to prevent Vermont from breaking off from New York in 1777. He wasn’t very popular with the Iroquois, either—although Joseph Brant, the Mohawk Freemason, liked and trusted him. Clinton’s brave but amateurish defense of the Hudson Valley during the Revolution was so inept it almost failed completely. But it didn’t. He was no great intellectual, and the seven Cato Letters are not well written. But for his era Clinton was a towering figure of revolutionary purity.

Would it be too silly to call him a prophet as well? In fact the U.S. government under the Constitution turned out to be just what he and the other democratic rads predicted. Americans nowadays have good reason to know it. The patriotic rhetoric of the obscenely rich and powerful has never sounded so hollow as now. A regime founded in 1789 on counter-revolutionary reaction has finally reduced the word “democracy” to a synonym for the “Free Market Values” of greed and U.S. hegemony. America has lost its old reputation as “land of the free.”

The recent disintegration of the USSR, Yugoslavia, and the “United Kingdom” (Scotland and a part of Ireland independent, Wales on the road to devolution) has inspired many Americans with the idea of secession from the American Empire. In the next few years they foresee depression, ruin, neo-fascist tyranny, militarism, and convulsive break-up overtaking our unfortunate land. But the dissipation of the USSR was attained without much violence. Scotland freed itself without bloodshed. It could happen here.

If “Cato” Clinton were alive today there’s no doubt where his sympathies would be engaged. He’d be Populist-Progressive, intensely Green, mildly socialist, anti-Globalist, and extremely disgusted with the Money Interests and would-be aristocrats and imperialists of Washington D.C. He’d be FOR SECESSION. And he’d make a splendidly charismatic figurehead for such a movement.

Maybe we should dig him up—again. (See photo and caption.)

Despite its “conservative” reputation, the State of New York has produced some of the most revolutionary upheavals in U.S. history: the Anti-Rent War of 1845. (The latter was considered significant enough to rate a footnote to the Communist Manifesto of Marx and Engels in 1848.)

Today’s New York radicals and secessionists might at least consider a pilgrimage to the tomb of George Clinton (in Kingston’s Old Dutch Graveyard)—to meditate on our “lost history” of freedom.

Forced Sterilization in the US

from Al-Jazeera
June 24, 2012
Watch the video here

Tens of thousands were forcibly sterilised throughout the 20th century across the US as they were deemed "feeble minded" and "inappropriate candidates" for reproduction.

"More than 30 states who had laws like this and did sterilise people ... only seven of them have stepped up and even recognised that they did it, made some kind of apology or at least said that what they did was wrong."   - Paul Lombardo, a bioethics and legal scholar

In 1927, the Supreme Court upheld state statutes permitting compulsory sterilisation in the Buck versus Bell decision.

The Supreme Court ruling, which Nazis at the Nuremberg trials cited in their defence, has never been expressly overturned.

In it, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, "It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind .... Three generations of imbeciles are enough."

The so-called science of eugenics first emerged in Britain in the mid-19th century, as an offshoot of Darwinism.

It was embraced in the US, and by the beginning of the 20th century, many of the nation's prominent figures were avowed eugenicists.
"By 1960's ... it was a sham ... this [forced sterlisation] was going on in case after case and social workers were bullying these people into these operations and it's a monster hiding in plain sight .... They are sterlising the very story, this programme, they're telling people we are saving these people from 'parenthood'.... nobody knew just how aggressive the social workers were."   - John Railey, co-author of Against Their Will - a special investigative report into North Carolina's sterlisation programme

Their stated goal was to improve the health of the country by increasing births and immigration amongst what they called the "fit" and decreasing births and immigration amongst the "unfit".

Eugenic principles were widely included in academic work, and in federal, state and local laws. And research into eugenics was conducted in America, long before it was undertaken in Nazi Germany.

These enquiries were funded by some of America's wealthiest families, the Carnegies, the Harrimans, the Kelloggs and the Rockefellars.

Most US states abanonded the practice after World War II, amidst revulsion at the Nazi programme of eugenics.

North Carolina, however, ramped up its use of forced sterilisation, where more than 7,500 were sterilised.

However, the state did halt its program in 1974. And last year, it finally began taking steps to compensate those targeted. But on Thursday, the state's senate rejected the plan, arguing it was too expensive.

Elaine Riddick was one of those forcibly sterilised in North Carolina, when she was a young girl. Both she and her attorney, Willie Gary say they are disappointed with the senate's decision, but vow to continue the fight for reparation.

"I was a victim of rape, and as a result of the rape I became pregnant, had my son, went into the hospital and I was sterlisied. They sterilised me without my knowledge or consent," said Riddick. "My grandmother was coerced into signing for me to become sterlised but she didn't understand what sterlisation was at that time. All she knew, I believe is that her food supplements were being threatened ... if she did not consent."

So what were the origins of forced sterilisation and how widespread was its use across the United States?

To discuss this, joining Inside Story Americas, with presenter Shihab Rattansi, are guests: Steven Selden, the author of Inheriting Shame: The Story of Eugenics and Racism in America; Paul Lombardo, a bioethics and legal scholar; and John Railey, co-author of an investigative series titled Against Their Will - a special investigative report into North Carolina's sterilisation program.

"We all agree with the fact that an apology is certainly appropriate. But I don't think that makes us any more sorry because we attach a dollar figure to it."   -Chris Carney, Republican state senator, after North Carolina's senate blocked the measure to compensate victims of forced sterilisation

------------------

Support NATA-NY and get the EUGENICS = GENOCIDE design seen above at SEEDSnAMMO

A Common Dispute with Left Anarchists

from The Daily Anarchist Wendy McElroy
June 5, 2012

One of the most common disputes I have with left anarchists is whether 19th century individualist anarchists were really socialists. On the surface, it is not absurd to argue that such proto-libertarians as Benjamin Tucker are best classified within the socialist tradition rather than the libertarian one. They generally accepted the labor theory of value and, so, rejected stock trappings of capitalism. For example, Tucker, William Greene, Ezra Heywood and Josiah Warren considered the charging of interest on money to be an act of usury or theft.

Moreover, the individualist anarchists sometimes referred to themselves as “socialists” and flirted with organizations such as the International Working People’s Association (IWPA). In 1881, when a moribund IWPA revived in London, Tucker enthused, “To this momentous event, which marks an epoch in the progress of the great labor movement…, in the present issue, devotes a large portion of her space.” (Published by Tucker, (1881-1908)was the most influential libertarian periodical of its day.)

I maintain that the identification of individualist anarchists as socialists rests on a confusion regarding the definition and use of the terms “socialist” and “libertarian.”

The umbrella term “socialism” covers several different approaches to the core belief in a social ownership of the means of production and a co-operative management of society. A strong dividing line between the various types of socialism is how they view the role of the state in achieving those goals. The socialism with which individualist anarchists identified held no role whatsoever for the state. What drew many of them was the idea of social co-operation. Josiah Warren – arguably the world’s first individualist anarchist – was deeply involved in voluntary and socialistic utopian communities such as New Harmony because he believed in the social principle of co-operation. Warren became disillusioned, however, by New Harmony’s demand for the relinquishment of individualism; for example, in the demand for communal meals and disdain for privacy. In response, Warren evolved a principle known as “The Sovereignty of the Individual” or self-ownership that he believed had to underlie all social co-operation.

As late 19th century socialism in America became increasingly statist, individual anarchists increasingly put distance between themselves and it. In a speech that subsequently became his most famous essay “State Socialism and Anarchism: How Far They Agree, and Wherein They Differ,” Tucker stated, “The two principles…are AUTHORITY and LIBERTY, and the names of the two schools of Socialistic thought…are, respectively, State Socialism and Anarchism.” (Capitalization in the original.)

Other individualist anarchists rejected the term “socialist” altogether with some occasionally applying the label “libertarian” to themselves. Why the outright rejection? In his book, William B. Greene commented, “In socialism, there is but one master, which is the state; but the state is not a living person, capable of suffering and happiness. Socialism benefits none but demagogues, and is, emphatically, the organization of universal misery…socialism gives us but one class, a class of slaves.”

Here, then, is the first basic schism between socialism and individualist anarchism. The former increasingly embraced the state while the latter continued to repudiate it. Individualists also began to reject the surrender of sovereignty that seemed to be demanded even by non-statist socialism.

Another key and irresolvable difference: the individuals advocated private property and believed social co-operation had to be based upon its recognition. The towering figure Moses Harman, for example, answered whether he was a Communist with the words, “We have never advocated the abolition of private property. We have always maintained that the development of the highest and truest individualism in human character requires the possession and therefore the existence of personal property.” Confusingly, in the same quote Harman speaks well of “Mutualism” and “Co-operative Communism” – terms that were used differently in the 19th century than now.

In short, the individualist anarchists rejected the state, demanded respect for individual rights and advocated private property. The thread of ideology that bound them to socialists was their belief in the labor theory of value. This economic theory conditions the value of a good or service upon the labor used to produce it. The rightful owner of that value or property is seen to be the laborer who produced it.

And, so, it is necessary to analyze the individualist-anarchist approach to issues involving the labor theory of value.

Most 19 century American individualist anarchists rejected profit from capital, particularly in three forms: interest on money, the charging of rent, and profit in exchange. All of these were called “usury.” If their main political goal can be stated as “the abolition of the state,” then it is no exaggeration to say that their main economic goal was “the abolition of the money monopoly.” And by this term — “money monopoly” — they referred to three different but interrelated forms of monopoly: banking, interest, and the issuance of currency.

Focusing on the one issue of currency provides a fair sense of how most individualist anarchists approached “usury” in general. They believed that the solution to currency usury was the free market; they believed that the right to issue private currency would destroy the money monopoly and this alone could bring about the destruction of the state. The money monopoly was considered to be the means by which the banks sustained themselves and robbed the average man of economic opportunities. Through the act of incorporating, bankers became immune from personal obligations: they acquired the legal advantage of being able to contract while avoiding the responsibility for doing so. This was not only a money-raking scam that bankers ran on the public, it also denied credit to the working people by setting up prohibitive interest rates or criteria for acquiring credit.

Again, the remedy for this form of state-capitalism was the free market and privatization of currency.

The key question at this point becomes, “what if the issuer of private currency decides to charge interest on its use?” What if a private issuer engaged in usury? Would that practice be forcibly prohibited?

The answer to this question is what separated advocates of the labor theory of value who were socialists from those who were libertarian. The socialists would have banned such a practice. By contrast, the individualist anarchists answered, “If a lender can find someone foolish enough to voluntarily enter into such a contract, then the contracting parties must be left to their folly.” The right of contract — “society by contract” — was the higher law. The only remedies individualist anarchists would have pursued against those who charged or paid interest were education, peaceful protest and the establishment of parallel currencies that offered what they thought was a better deal. Individualist anarchists gave primacy to the free market and the right of contract — this is what made them libertarians rather than socialists.

As long as the default position of individualist anarchism was the primacy of contracts — and it always was — then the free market would have inexorably established the practice of charging interest as it has through history, with or without the state.

Were individualist anarchists actually socialists? The answer is most definitely “no.”