by Jamie O'Hara and Craig FitzGerald
The connotations of the word “nation” have been so
intertwined with the concept of a State that contemporary anarchists have
generally rejected the term as something intrinsically oppressive. The
globalization-era anarchist obsession with the eradication of all borders is
well-intentioned but harmfully misdirected. Arbitrary State borders are
meaningless symbols at best and justification for genocide at worst, but a
world without any boundaries at all is unrealistic. Even for individuals who
choose to live in communal tribes where everything is shared and privacy is
limited, not everyone on earth is truly equally “welcome.” Only like-minded
people are invited; this is the basis of all intentional communities and
collectives. Any infinitely open invitational rhetoric is based on the arrogant
assumption that people who don't agree with the tribe's beliefs will quickly
learn and adopt them. People with different values and goals can peacefully
co-exist and interact, but humans will always impose borders on their own
lives. Rather than rid the world of borders, it makes more sense to re-think
and re-apply them. Upon analysis, most individuals will find that they maintain
many different associations, each perhaps with its own set of boundaries. These
entities might include ethnic, family, trade, intellectual, artistic, fraternal
or political groups, or geographic areas, including existing states. Freedom of
association is a core anarchist principle, and it is up to individuals and
local communities whether they identify with a larger federation and/or
participate in a system of voluntary governance.
The United States of America was intended by many of its founders to be such a
voluntary arrangement.
In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson
relies on the social contract theory of government to justify the secession of
the colonies. He introduces the American list of grievances by speaking in very
general terms about the periodic need for political revolution. [1] He asserts
that “whenever any Form of Government becomes” oppressive, people should “alter
or...abolish it” [emphasis added]. Jefferson recognized that the situation
between the Americans and the British Crown was not a special case but merely
one instance “in the course of human events” when it is “necessary for one
people to dissolve...political bands...” The social contract theory holds that
relations between the government and the people are voluntary, and if one party
violates the terms of the agreement, it becomes null and void. In other words,
as soon as the government fails to protect the rights of the people, it
automatically abdicates its role.
Jefferson's emphasis on the social contract philosophy of
government rests on the premise of voluntary participation in the American
union. The confederation was composed of local states, which originally
self-defined as nations, and was established primarily for the purposes of
foreign diplomacy and regional amity. The 1781 Articles of Confederation
emphasizes that by freely associating, the states were strengthening without
sacrificing their autonomy. The document immediately proclaims that “Each state
retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power,
jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated
to the United States.” [2] The Articles of Confederation captures the raw early
spirit of an American identity that emphasized freedom and self-determination.
Although much of its philosophical background is European,
the Articles of Confederation was also influenced by indigenous American models
of association, in particular the Iroquois confederacy. The Iroquois League of
Peace and Power was a network of completely autonomous tribes. A Grand Council
united the various nations, but could not regulate them or enforce anything
through coercive means. As early as 1744, the Onondaga Chief Canasatego
recommended that the American colonies unite through a confederation similar to
that of the Iroquois League. [3] In 1751, Benjamin Franklin compared the
Iroquois system to the union he was attempting to create. [4] In 1778, John
Adams refers to the indigenous American [5] practice of separating branches of
power. [6] Three years later, the newly-liberated states publish the Articles
of Confederation, which presented a vision for a voluntary alliance that
closely resembled the Iroquois League, which has clear anarchist elements. [7]
From an anarchist perspective, the historical transition
from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution is disappointing. The
primary document of the United States shifted from a treaty among sovereign
locales to an incomplete governmental blueprint whose strategic ambiguity has
allowed for ridiculous abuses throughout the years. The Constitution solidified
coercive measures that completely contradict the American philosophy. It
establishes the powers to tax, criminalizes rebellion (the foundation of the
United States), codifies slavery, and reserves the “right” to suspend habeas
corpus. However, this development in the direction of concentrated statism does
not represent the revolutionary views of the majority of Americans. Despite
centralizing changes like the creation of an executive office and a federal
court system, American libertarian ideals were still reflected in the Bill of
Rights. The fledgling nation, in its attempts to confederate and cooperate, was
concerned with the potential for abuses of power and intently focused on the
necessity to curtail federal control. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments, intended
to protect individual and local sovereignty, are most reminiscent of the
earlier Articles of Confederation.
The First Amendment to the Constitution protects the right
of personal belief and free association. The five enumerated
essentials—religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition—are all
manifestations of individualism and nationhood. In other words, participation
in the American nation secures one's participation in many other
associations—spiritual, political, artistic, regional, ethnic, etc. This is an
assurance that has made the United States unique, and it depends on the full
engagement of all Americans down to the most local level. To safeguard the
rights of free expression and association, the establishment of grassroots
community defense groups is a necessary endeavor. The Second Amendment is clear
in its assertion that individual self-defense and local militias are
requirements for the protection of liberty.
In 1791, the same year that the Bill of Rights was passed,
Thomas Paine authored Rights of Man, which also captures the early American
spirit of self-regulation over coercive statism. “The more perfect civilization
is,” Paine writes: “the less occasion has it for government, because the more
does it regulate its own affairs, and govern itself.” [8] In addition to the
recognition that man should determine the course of his own life, Paine
addresses the tendency for the State to actually harm society: “Excess of
government only tends to incite...and create crimes which...had never existed.”
[9] The masses' desire for safety and security fails to justify the
establishment and perpetuation of an institution that not only strips
individuals of their creativity and agency, but also introduces new and
unnecessary societal and international problems.
Unfortunately not all early Americans were as anarchistic as
Paine, and the decision to ratify the Constitution introduced a stream of
federal power abuses. However, elements of resistance persisted even within the
new political framework. Despite his inconsistencies and imperfections,
Jefferson continued to defend decentralism after the Constitution solidified a
central State. The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 and 1799
illustrate this perspective. Direct responses to the Alien and Sedition Acts,
the Resolutions assert the right of localities to nullify unconstitutional
legislation. The documents rest heavily on the social contract theory of
government — the relationship between individuals, communities, counties,
states and the federal government is a voluntary one, and all parties are
accountable to the mutual agreement. Jefferson attempts to clarify a common
misconception about federalism to an Englishman: “With respect to our State and
federal governments, I do not think their relations correctly understood by
foreigners. They generally suppose the former subordinate to the latter. But
this is not the case. They are co-ordinate departments of one simple and
integral whole. [...] The one is the domestic, the other the foreign branch of
the same government; neither having control over the other, but within its own
department.” [10]
Jefferson's nineteenth century letters advocate localism as
a necessary aspect of voluntary confederation. He acknowledged the
impossibility of monolithic governance for all of the states and saw the
importance of regional autonomy: “Our country is too large to have all its
affairs directed by a single government,” he wrote in 1800. [11] Jefferson
recommended the division of territory into smaller and smaller jurisdictions,
each level operating under self-government. In 1816, he suggests the division
of “counties into wards of such size as that every citizen can attend, when
called on, and act in person.” [12] Each ward should create its own autonomous
social structures, institutions, and culture, and individuals should be
inextricably connected to their local communities. “Making every citizen an
acting member of the government, and in the offices nearest and most
interesting to him, will attach him by his strongest feelings to the
independence of his country, and its republican constitution.” [13] Jefferson
saw a direct correlation between the citizen's participation in national politics
and his participation in the most local of social structures. The republic as a
whole was a macrocosm of the local municipalities: “Each ward would thus be a
small republic within itself, and every man in the State would thus become an
acting member of the common government...” [14]
Voluntary, active participation in the self-regulation of a
community is often complemented by similar financial models. Jefferson was a
fervent opponent of centralized banking institutions and condemned the
Hamiltonian plan for a national bank as unconstitutional. [15] He was not alone
in his defense of freedom from economic oppression. Free market economic
incentives have always been a central aspect of American history, and smuggling
and tax evasion were common. Black markets were widespread because of the
distance between the “new world” colonies and their “old world” masters, and
the consequential difficulty of enforcing mercantilist economic policies. This
fostered a culture of American economic liberty whose pragmatism paralleled its
philosophical spirit. Traditional populist American economics cultivated a
vibrant agora.
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, one of the most important and
influential anarchist thinkers, held economic theories that resembled
Jeffersonian ideas and early American market styles. He suggested a system of
mutualist banking and established a voluntary Bank of the People. His writings,
along with those of Jefferson, Paine, and other early Americans, influenced the
anarchist movement in the United States, including people like Josiah Warren,
Lysander Spooner, and Benjamin Tucker.
For the American anarchists, there was complete consistency
between Jeffersonian federal republicanism and the Proudhonian concept of
federalism. Proudhon's federalism was a voluntary association of equal parties,
just like the original relationship among the several American states. Proudhon
writes: “a confederation is not exactly a state; it is a group of sovereign and
independent states, associated by a pact of mutual guarantees.” [16] This
echoes the concept of governance by consent which was so important to people
like Jefferson. Both philosophers eschewed centralization and emphasized the
importance of local autonomy, which is the only way to ensure that the
federation remains voluntary.
The American tradition of decentralization produced a
“republic of republics,” or a nation of nations, with a libertarian and
individualist spirit. This voluntary mode of organizing laid the groundwork for
Anarchist theory and practice to develop in the United States. Pragmatic
aspects of American history also overlap with anarchist tendencies. The
historic assertion of squatters' rights by early American pioneers is one such
example. Frontier settlers relied on what they identified as the “ancient
cultivation law” to defend their claims of adverse possession [17]. This idea
is identical to Proudhon's argument about occupancy being ownership, and it is
engrained in American history, which consists of a series of groups settling in
a new place and hoping to live the way they choose. American history tells
countless stories of Puritans, Quakers, Hutterites, Amish, Shakers, Mormons,
Seventh Day Adventists, and others seeking religious freedom and establishing
intentional communities. These smaller, independent societies (spiritual or
otherwise) represent the core of America's original values.
Josiah Warren was intimately familiar with the process of
establishing intentional communities based on values. Warren was involved with
several different intentional communities, including New Harmony, Indiana;
Utopia, Ohio; and Modern Times, New York. Some were more successful than
others. New Harmony was actually started by Robert Owen, whose vision was much
more collectivist than anarchist. As a direct result of his experience in New
Harmony, Warren began to champion individual sovereignty [18]. In Utopia,
Warren established a free market economy that relied on voluntary cooperation
[19]. He wanted to live in a place where people could cohabit in a way that was
unified but not coercive. While Utopia was still active, Warren decided to
leave Ohio and purchase land in Long Island, New York. Starting from scratch
(as opposed to reviving a disintegrating village as he did in Utopia), Warren
sought to alleviate social problems like poverty and homelessness by
facilitating efficient communal building projects [20]. In all of his tangible
community enterprises, Warren conveyed a do-it-yourself anarchist initiative.
He was concerned with practical tasks like working the land effectively,
building homes for new residents, printing newspapers, and other concrete
actions [21]. His approach is a crucial counterpart to the theoretical element
of anarchism.
Warren's practical American anarchism was not unique.
Lysander Spooner, Warren's contemporary, focused on direct action by
challenging the federal government's monopoly on postal services with an
independent competitor, the American Letter Mail Company. [22] But Spooner was
also an extremely intellectual anarchist. Rather than completely reject
everything about the United States, Spooner used the Constitution and other
founding documents to prove legal arguments about the despotic, hypocritical
crimes of the U.S. government.
The historical context of the Civil War contributed greatly
to Spooner's anarchist perspective. Spooner was highly critical of the United
States government for having betrayed the original Jeffersonian principles of
the Declaration of Independence. Despite his strong disagreement with and
activism against slavery, he fully supported the Confederate states' right to
secede. He criticizes the Civil War in No Treason: “Notwithstanding all the
proclamations we have made to mankind...that our government rests on consent,
and that [consent] was the rightful basis on which any government could rest,
the late war has practically demonstrated that our government rests upon force
— as much so as any government that ever existed.” [23] Spooner's discussion of
consent as the essence of republican confederation conveys the same idea as
Jefferson's earlier emphasis on the social contract in the Declaration of
Independence.
Reflecting the earlier spirit of the American Revolution,
Spooner devotes an entire chapter to the Declaration in his book The
Unconstitutionality of Slavery. [24] He argues that the document is the legal
foundation of American constitutionalism, and that it ensures the inherent
freedom of all individuals (including slaves) by establishing “life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness” as the core tenets of the nation. He emphasized
the importance of the Second Amendment right to bear arms and connected it
directly to a human being's freedom. This was an essential element of his
argument in defense of slaves owning or using weapons for their emancipation.
Spooner wrote from the angle of a radical abolitionist, but he used the
American political tradition to support his position.
Benjamin Tucker, under influence from Warren and Spooner (as well as Proudhon
and Bakunin), represented American anarchism into the twentieth century. Like
his predecessors, Tucker used American philosophical traditions to bolster his
arguments for autonomy and independence. In an edition of his publication
Liberty, he speculates that if Jefferson would be an anarchist if he were
alive, [25] and in his book State Socialism and Anarchism he refers to
anarchists as “unterrified Jeffersonian Democrats.” [26] Like Spooner, he bases
his analysis on the social contract premise of American constitutionalism. The
Declaration of Independence “declares that 'governments derive their just
powers from the consent of the governed.' it therefore follows that, when any
individual is governed by a government without his or her consent, that
government is exercising unjust powers, and is a usurpation.” [27]
Similarly to Jefferson, Tucker was a vehement opponent of
centralized banking. He saw the financial monopoly of currency and banking by
the state and large corporations as a form of usury. [28] He advocated the
creation of Proudhonian peoples banks as a commonsense solution to the “money
monopoly,” putting an end to exploitative practices without the use of force or
state legislation. He also railed against the monopoly on land, arguing that
occupancy and use constitute the only rightful titles to earth. [29] This echos
the Proudhonian sentiment of occupancy as ownership as well as the early
American “ancient cultivation law.”
Tucker understood the importance of voluntary defense
organizations for the preservation of “self-liberty.” [30] He explains that
such groups are the most successful method of providing actual protection for
the people while dismantling the State's monopoly on violence. [31] The best
anarchist action is one that injures the State and simultaneously provides the
people with an alternative. Tucker's vision of private defense organizations
differs slightly from the communitarian militia model of the second amendment.
However, the two systems are compatible because of the decentralized and
voluntary nature of both. The right of constitutional militias to abstain from
national conflicts places them outside of the state's monopoly on violence,
just like Tucker's private self defense associations.
Tucker, Spooner, and Warren understood that the American
libertarian tradition was a source of both inspiration and potential support
from the public. They did not become zealous reactionaries who vilified
everything American, as some anarchists do today. Rather, they were more open
in their perspectives and more fluid in their analyses. Nineteenth century
American anarchists recognized that the true meaning of American nationalism
was congruous with their anti-statist views.
This essay is in no way intended to suggest that any amount
of government is necessary. However, voluntary systems of governance are
instances of free association, and therefore not antithetical to anarchism.
Voluntary free association can never be antithetical to anarchism, no matter
how regulated or hierarchical the association may be. Local anarchist communities
can sign treaties and participate in larger confederations without compromising
the values of freedom and autonomy.
However, not everyone shares the values of freedom, autonomy, and the
accompanying responsibility, and anarchists need to accept this. It is
preposterous that anarchists would perceive the internal affairs of divergent
tribes as any of their business. In a truly decentralized society, communities
will not be identical, and some may be based on values that anarchists abhor.
But harmony in this arrangement can be attained with the essential components
of voluntarism, the non-aggression principle, and the right of
non-participation. Just as individuals and tribes are entitled to associate
with whomever they choose, individuals and tribes who do not wish to
confederate have an equal right to abstain from such intercommunity relations.
That being said, a wide range of decentralists, including
various anarchists, minarchists, secessionists, and others, could benefit far
more from working with each other than they could from completely isolating or
only associating with those who are exactly like them. Conflicts among the
diverse proponents of local autonomy and individual autarchy (especially
arguments that involve denouncing one another as “statist”) are a ridiculous
way to waste time and accomplish nothing. The anarchism vs. minarchism debate
is merely a question of degree. If minarchists are “statists,” then at what
point do autonomous, voluntary community organization projects become “the state”?
The state is not just any kind of organized social structure; it is a coercive
monopoly on power.
Rather than focusing on disagreements, people with similar
beliefs could be cooperating on projects that reflect their agreements. This is
the nature of coalition building. It's not about finding carbon copies of one's
group; it's about collaborating with groups that are noticeably different but
share some kind of common ground, no matter how small. By focusing on specific
issues and endeavors rather than idealistic wishes for the entire world,
diverse activist organizations can accomplish tangible goals even if society as
a whole remains tainted. Anarchists should be pragmatic; a slow chipping away
at the State is sometimes necessary and can often be more effective than
drastic or violent revolutionary upheaval.
Action oriented contemporary anarchists, if they choose to
look outside their dogmatic boxes, will find natural allies in the modern
American patriot movement, which is quite averse to government encroachment on
individual, family, and community rights. American patriots' proclivity towards
rugged individualism, self-sufficiency, and community self-defense, [32]
combined with a populist anti-banking sentiment, are all very anarchistic
elements as well. Local sovereignty and self-determination are crucial to both
movements; it is only blatantly obvious that they should collaborate.
The nation is not the State; the people are the nation. Ward
Churchill precisely conveys the misconceptions anarchists have about
nationalism: “a...lot of anarchists...[think] they’re anti-nationalist,
that...nationalism in all forms is...some sort of an evil to be combated... You
may have nations that are also states, but you’ve got most nations rejecting
statism. So...the assertion of sovereignty...is an explicitly anti-statist
ideal, and the basis of commonality with...anarchists.” [33] From Churchill's
indigenous perspective, nationalism is in direct opposition to statism.
Consistent with Churchill's view, the meaning of true
American nationalism includes grassroots independence, libertarianism,
individualism, populism, autarchy, agorism, and anti-imperialism. It allows for
personal and collective freedom, and holds sacred the founding of intentional
communities. It is Jefferson's idea of a “republic of republics,” a
decentralized nation of nations down to the most local levels. This is the very
essence of American National-Anarchism. The United States was once a diverse
confederation of regions with distinct identities—regional, ethnic, religious,
etc. The states participated in the confederation voluntarily, and the broader
umbrella of “American” did not negate their sentiments of local nationhood.
Rather, choosing to call oneself an American added a rich ideological dimension
to one's existing identity.
The American identity is not based on war and dominance; it
is not globalization, whose pervasive monoculture has been falsely termed
“Americanization.” The global anti-culture propagates materialism, consumerism,
and detachment from the earth. This is not the foundation of America. True
American culture means complete decentralization, which results in rich
heterogeneity and diversity. Towns and states in this country used to have
unique character. Americans are just as negatively impacted by McDonaldization
as the rest of the world. Despite this context, America's philosophical and
practical traditions can continue to provide the people with inspiration to
resist the empire. Anarchists and patriots share this goal, even if they differ
in opinion or lifestyle. Because of similar principles and aims,
anarchist-patriot cooperation makes sense. The creation of an American
National-Anarchist alliance would be a living example of a decentralized,
independent grassroots society.
Notes:
[1] Jefferson wrote to William Stephens Smith in 1787: “God forbid we should ever be twenty years without...a rebellion. [...] What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. [...] The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants.”
[2] Articles of Confederation, Article II.
[3] Quoted in Van Doren, Carl. Indian Treaties Printed by Benjamin Franklin 1736-1762. Philadelphia: Historical Society of Philadelphia, 1938.
[4] Franklin, Benjamin. Letter to James Parker, 1751.
[5] He does not specify whether he means Iroquois.
[6] Adams, John. Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America. Philadelphia: Budd and Bartram, 1797.
[7] Arthur, Stephen. “'Where License Reigns With All Impunity:' An AnarchistStudy of the Rotinonshón:ni Polity.”
[8] Paine, Thomas. The Rights of Man. 1792.
[9] Quoted in Van der Weyde, William M. “Thomas Paine's Anarchism.” Mother Earth, 1910.
[10] Jefferson, Thomas. Letter to John Cartwright, 1824.
[11] Jefferson, Thomas. Letter to Gideon Granger, 1800.
[12] Jefferson, Thomas. Letter to Samuel Kerchival, 1816.
[13] Jefferson, Thomas. Letter to Samuel Kerchival, 1816.
[14] Jefferson, Thomas. Letter to John Cartwright, 1824.
[15] Simons, Algie Martin. Social Forces in American History. New York: Macmillan Co., 1911.
[16] Proudhon, Pierre-Joseph. The Principle of Federation. 1863.
[17] Faragher, John Mack. Daniel Boone: The Life and Legend of an American Pioneer. New York: Henry Holt and Company, LLC., 1992.
[18] Josiah Warren, “From the March of Mind,” New Harmony Gazette 2, No. 46, September 10, 1828.
[19] Sartwell, Crispin, ed. The Practical Anarchist: Writings of Josiah Warren. New York: Fordham University Press, 2011.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Ibid.
[22] Spooner, Lysander. The Unconstitutionality of the Laws of Congress, Prohibiting Private Mails. New York: Tribune Printing Establishment, 1844.
[23] Spooner, Lysander. No Treason #1. 1867.
[24] Spooner, Lysander. The Unconstitutionality of Slavery. Boston: Bela Marsh, 1880.
[25] Tucker, Benjamin. Liberty Vol. II—No. 5. Boston, MA. December 9, 1882. Whole No. 31. Interestingly, Mexican revolutionary Enrique Flores Magon also said that Jefferson was an “anarchist of his time” (Wehling, Jason. AnarchistInfluences on the Mexican Revolution.)
[26] Tucker, Benjamin. State Socialism and Anarchism: How Far They Agree, and Wherein They Differ. 1888.
[27] Tucker, Benjamin. Liberty Vol. II—No. 5. Boston, MA. December 9, 1882. Whole No. 31.
[28] Tucker said "Liberty, therefore, must defend the right of individuals to make contracts involving usury...and many other things which it believes to be wrong in principle and opposed to human well-being. […] In defending the right to take usury, we do not defend the right of usury” (Liberty Vol. I, No. 12 January 7, 1882.)
[29] Tucker, Benjamin. “Economic Rent.” Individual Liberty: Selections From the Writings of Benjamin R. Tucker. Vanguard Press: New York, 1926.
[30] Tucker, Benjamin. Liberty Vol. XI—No. 13. New York, NY. November 2, 1895. Whole No. 325.
[31] Tucker, Benjamin. Liberty Vol. IV—No. 26. Boston, Mass. July 30, 1887. Whole No. 104.
[32] Defense associations and community militias have been organized by anarchists in other countries, from the volunteer militias of the Spanish revolution to the Zapatista National Liberation Army (EZLN), which is one of the best examples of a movement that combines anarchism and decentralized nationalism.
[33] Interview with Ward Churchill. Upping the Anti.
[1] Jefferson wrote to William Stephens Smith in 1787: “God forbid we should ever be twenty years without...a rebellion. [...] What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. [...] The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants.”
[2] Articles of Confederation, Article II.
[3] Quoted in Van Doren, Carl. Indian Treaties Printed by Benjamin Franklin 1736-1762. Philadelphia: Historical Society of Philadelphia, 1938.
[4] Franklin, Benjamin. Letter to James Parker, 1751.
[5] He does not specify whether he means Iroquois.
[6] Adams, John. Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America. Philadelphia: Budd and Bartram, 1797.
[7] Arthur, Stephen. “'Where License Reigns With All Impunity:' An AnarchistStudy of the Rotinonshón:ni Polity.”
[8] Paine, Thomas. The Rights of Man. 1792.
[9] Quoted in Van der Weyde, William M. “Thomas Paine's Anarchism.” Mother Earth, 1910.
[10] Jefferson, Thomas. Letter to John Cartwright, 1824.
[11] Jefferson, Thomas. Letter to Gideon Granger, 1800.
[12] Jefferson, Thomas. Letter to Samuel Kerchival, 1816.
[13] Jefferson, Thomas. Letter to Samuel Kerchival, 1816.
[14] Jefferson, Thomas. Letter to John Cartwright, 1824.
[15] Simons, Algie Martin. Social Forces in American History. New York: Macmillan Co., 1911.
[16] Proudhon, Pierre-Joseph. The Principle of Federation. 1863.
[17] Faragher, John Mack. Daniel Boone: The Life and Legend of an American Pioneer. New York: Henry Holt and Company, LLC., 1992.
[18] Josiah Warren, “From the March of Mind,” New Harmony Gazette 2, No. 46, September 10, 1828.
[19] Sartwell, Crispin, ed. The Practical Anarchist: Writings of Josiah Warren. New York: Fordham University Press, 2011.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Ibid.
[22] Spooner, Lysander. The Unconstitutionality of the Laws of Congress, Prohibiting Private Mails. New York: Tribune Printing Establishment, 1844.
[23] Spooner, Lysander. No Treason #1. 1867.
[24] Spooner, Lysander. The Unconstitutionality of Slavery. Boston: Bela Marsh, 1880.
[25] Tucker, Benjamin. Liberty Vol. II—No. 5. Boston, MA. December 9, 1882. Whole No. 31. Interestingly, Mexican revolutionary Enrique Flores Magon also said that Jefferson was an “anarchist of his time” (Wehling, Jason. AnarchistInfluences on the Mexican Revolution.)
[26] Tucker, Benjamin. State Socialism and Anarchism: How Far They Agree, and Wherein They Differ. 1888.
[27] Tucker, Benjamin. Liberty Vol. II—No. 5. Boston, MA. December 9, 1882. Whole No. 31.
[28] Tucker said "Liberty, therefore, must defend the right of individuals to make contracts involving usury...and many other things which it believes to be wrong in principle and opposed to human well-being. […] In defending the right to take usury, we do not defend the right of usury” (Liberty Vol. I, No. 12 January 7, 1882.)
[29] Tucker, Benjamin. “Economic Rent.” Individual Liberty: Selections From the Writings of Benjamin R. Tucker. Vanguard Press: New York, 1926.
[30] Tucker, Benjamin. Liberty Vol. XI—No. 13. New York, NY. November 2, 1895. Whole No. 325.
[31] Tucker, Benjamin. Liberty Vol. IV—No. 26. Boston, Mass. July 30, 1887. Whole No. 104.
[32] Defense associations and community militias have been organized by anarchists in other countries, from the volunteer militias of the Spanish revolution to the Zapatista National Liberation Army (EZLN), which is one of the best examples of a movement that combines anarchism and decentralized nationalism.
[33] Interview with Ward Churchill. Upping the Anti.
-----------------------------------------------
* Facebook: National-AnarchistMovement (N-AM)