Troikanomics: Austerity, Autonomy and

Existential Crisis in the European Union

1st ed. Edition Ray Kinsella
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/troikanomics-austerity-autonomy-and-existential-crisi
s-in-the-european-union-1st-ed-edition-ray-kinsella/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Feed-in tariffs in the European Union 1st ed. Edition

Béatrice Cointe

https://ebookmass.com/product/feed-in-tariffs-in-the-european-
union-1st-ed-edition-beatrice-cointe/

Private Health Insurance and the European Union 1st ed.

Edition Cyril Benoît

https://ebookmass.com/product/private-health-insurance-and-the-
european-union-1st-ed-edition-cyril-benoit/

India and the European Union in a Turbulent World 1st

ed. Edition Rajendra K. Jain

https://ebookmass.com/product/india-and-the-european-union-in-a-
turbulent-world-1st-ed-edition-rajendra-k-jain/

The European Ombudsman and Good Administration in the

European Union 1st Edition Nikos Vogiatzis (Auth.)

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-european-ombudsman-and-good-
administration-in-the-european-union-1st-edition-nikos-vogiatzis-
auth/
The European Union and the Northern Ireland Peace
Process 1st ed. Edition Giada Lagana

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-european-union-and-the-
northern-ireland-peace-process-1st-ed-edition-giada-lagana/

The French Parliament and the European Union:

Backbenchers Blues 1st ed. Edition Olivier Rozenberg

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-french-parliament-and-the-
european-union-backbenchers-blues-1st-ed-edition-olivier-
rozenberg/

The Contestation of Expertise in the European Union 1st

Edition Vigjilenca Abazi

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-contestation-of-expertise-in-
the-european-union-1st-edition-vigjilenca-abazi/

The Existential Crisis of Motherhood Claire Arnold-

Baker

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-existential-crisis-of-
motherhood-claire-arnold-baker/

Triangular Diplomacy among the United States, the

European Union, and the Russian Federation: Responses
to the Crisis in Ukraine 1st Edition Vicki L.
Birchfield
https://ebookmass.com/product/triangular-diplomacy-among-the-
united-states-the-european-union-and-the-russian-federation-
responses-to-the-crisis-in-ukraine-1st-edition-vicki-l-
 TROIKANOMICS
Austerity, Autonomy and Existential
Crisis in the European Union

Ray Kinsella and

Maurice Kinsella
Troikanomics
 Ray Kinsella • Maurice Kinsella

Troikanomics
Austerity, Autonomy and Existential
Crisis in the European Union
Ray Kinsella Maurice Kinsella
Michael Smurfit Graduate School of The Galilee House of Studies
Business (Formerly) Athy, Kildare, Ireland
Co Dublin, Ireland

ISBN 978-3-319-97069-1    ISBN 978-3-319-97070-7 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97070-7

Library of Congress Control Number: 2018954348

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2018

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of
illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and trans-
mission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or
dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or
the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Cover illustration: Getty Images/ altmodern

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
 Acknowledgements

To Carmel who brought us all together.

Our thanks to our family for always being there for us while we were
writing this book—and to Ita, Michael, and Thomas for their input.
Our colleagues, past and present, in University College Dublin includ-
ing the Michael Smurfit Graduate School of Business, the Galilee House
of Studies, the University of Ulster, and in the Central Bank of Ireland,
helped shape our ideas in Economics and Philosophy.
Special thanks to Dr Bruce Arnold, Michael Clarke, formerly of the
Department of Industry and Commerce, and Professor Antony Coughlan
of the University of Dublin Trinity College. Each of them have made
distinctive contributions to articulating themes explored in this book.
We are grateful to Palgrave Macmillan for providing us with the oppor-
tunity to make our ideas available to a wider audience. It is always about
individuals, of course, and the individuals that we would like to thank are
Clara Heathcock and Laura Pacey. They instantly saw the relevance of the
ideas we were putting forward to a Europe in crisis—they were always
positive and extremely accommodating.
The experience of working together has been hugely enriching. It has
reinforced the conviction with which each of us began this project.
Namely, that a perspective on political economy that is not informed by
philosophical critique is a poor and incomplete one.

v
 Contents

1 Foundations of the Argument  1

Part I Crisis and Catharsis in the Heartland of the European

Union   15

2 A Critical Inflection Point for the EU 17

3 The EU Experience: Confronting the Existential Realities

of the Crisis 35

Part II Development of the Crisis: Architecture, Agendas and

Austerity   57

4 European Monetary Union and the Challenge of Economic

Integration 59

5 The Troika and Austerity: A Destructive Dyad 83

vii
viii Contents

Part III Autonomy and the EU Experience 109

6 Autonomy Within the EU: A Relational Perspective111

7 Case Studies: Exploring the Lived Reality of Troikanomics133

Part IV Where from Here? Charting the Trajectory of the EU 171

8 The EU as a Communal Endeavour: Ideal and Reality173

9 Troikanomics: Legacy and Lessons197

Index215
 List of Figures

Fig. 7.1 Change pressures on Greece. Source: Authors’ own 152

Fig. 7.2 Greece: The anatomy of hegemony. Source: Authors’ own 160

ix
 1
Foundations of the Argument

An Inflection Point in the European Union

Troikanomics (from ‘Troika’, a triumvirate charged with the task of mitigat-
ing against the European Banking and Debt Crisis; and ‘nomics’ from the
Greek ‘nomos’, meaning ‘law of ’). This concept represents the extent to which,
in its structural and operational characteristics, the Troika was a ‘law-unto-­
itself ’. It existed outside of established European Union (EU) mandates and
was not accountable to the national governments over which it exercised con-
trol, nor to their citizens. It is indicative of a deeper undermining of national
autonomy within the EU that is iteratively expressing itself in numerous indi-
vidual existential crises.
The European Banking and Debt Crisis has been an existential mile-
stone in the history of the EU and the Eurozone. Not only has it threat-
ened to upend their obdurately protected status quo, but its consequences
have brought their longer-term survival into question. The Troika, and its
modus operandi ‘Troikanomics’, has scorched itself into the ongoing nar-
rative of this crisis. It was a rogue form of austerity which, in subjugating
member nations’ national autonomy, prefigured something deeper. It is
one among the most visible of multiple forms of existential crises that
have spread across different domains of the EU. The Troika was a trium-

© The Author(s) 2018 1

R. Kinsella, M. Kinsella, Troikanomics, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97070-7_1
2 R. Kinsella and M. Kinsella

virate established in 2010, from the capabilities of the European Central

Bank (ECB), the European Commission (EC), and the International
Monetary Fund (IMF). Its ­purpose was to provide a ‘firewall’ against
contagion in highly indebted EU peripheral countries by developing,
coordinating, and overseeing a programme of conditional funding to
them. Troikanomics expressed itself in the unprecedentedly severe fiscal
and structural adjustments that were allied with the provision of this
funding—imposed through an economic programme of austerity that
was deeply oppressive in its political oversight.1 This process exacerbated
the single greatest sociopolitical and economic dislocation in the EU’s
recent history by transposing the primary burden of adjustment onto
debtor countries, corroding their autonomous capacities and enfeebling
their national sovereignty.2
In 2018 the European Council formally decided to replace the Troika
with a new institutional mechanism, the European Monetary Fund—
crafted around the European Stability Mechanism.3 This has been
designed to provide mutual assistance to EU member nations which
have been impacted by external (often asymmetric) ‘shocks’ and are in
need of short-term financial assistance. It draws to a close the formal
activity of the mechanisms underpinning this highly contentious initia-
tive, but by no means concludes their deeper ramifications—including
negative social fallout. What makes this decision all the more substan-
tial is that it overlaps with the formal exit of Greece from its intermi-
nable Bailouts, albeit that it remains under ‘enhanced surveillance’ for
the foreseeable future.4 The demise of the Troika has in fact been evi-
dent since 2014, and was one of the key recommendations of the
European Parliament’s Report (2014) on its workings—in which they

1
The European Parliament (2014) notes that the Troika ‘originated in the decision of 25 March
2010 by euro area Heads of State and Government to establish a joint programme and to provide
conditional bilateral loans to Greece, thereby also building on recommendations from the Ecofin
Council’.
2
See, for example, Hall (2012) for a discussion on the onerous adjustment requirements imposed
on these countries.
3
See Berschens (2017).
4
Greece’s experiences of the Debt Crisis, and its subsequent dealings with the Troika, are discussed
in greater detail in Chap. 7.
 Foundations of the Argument 3

identified multiple failings in the manner in which it had engaged with

Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Cyprus, and Spain.5
The rapid proliferation of the crisis across the Eurozone increasingly
threatened to manifest itself in political contagion (which has largely been
pejoratively dismissed as ‘Populism’—belying its deeper existential
legitimacy).6 This threat, coupled with inadequacies in the architecture of
the Eurozone (e.g. a lack of institutional or regulatory fail-safes), meant
that the EU’s response to the crisis was primarily ad hoc—with the Troika
being a demonstrable example. At the heart of the matter, therefore, is
the reality that, like the institutional structure of the Eurozone itself, the
substance and mode of the Troika’s engagement with ‘debtor’ countries
was not adequately thought through.
The need for emergency financial assistance to support the rebalanc-
ing and stabilisation of highly indebted countries became increasingly
evident as the crisis unfolded. So too did the aligned need to apply some
form of conditionality to financing arrangements—a well-established
characteristic of IMF Programmes. Consequently, the real issue was not
the principle of conditional funding per se, but rather the manner in
which it was implemented. Namely, the scale and scope of this condi-
tionality subverted domestic political governance and catalysed nihilistic
economic repression—all the while challenging the democratic legiti-
macy of both individual member nations and the EU itself. This process,
including the imposition of macroeconomic adjustment and ‘reforms’,
impelled these countries into a decisive inflection point in their histo-
ries by deeply subverting their national autonomy. These events contra-
vened the community-rooted principles of solidarity and subsidiarity
that the EU continued to proffer as being indispensable aspirations.
The mind-set and motivations that the EU exemplified in its attempts
to resolve the crisis reflected a profound failure to recognise national
autonomy’s status as both intrinsic and relational: a capacity possessed by
member nations prior to their accession to the EU (expressed in the
­principle of subsidiarity) and fostered through healthy transnational rela-
5
All of these countries, except for Greece, subsequently exited the Bailout arrangements with the
Troika: Ireland in December 2013, Spain in January 2014, Portugal in May 2014, and Cyprus in
March 2016.
6
For further discussion, see Kinsella (2012).
4 R. Kinsella and M. Kinsella

tionships within the EU (expressed in the principle of solidarity). This is

in particular the case within a community such as the EU, where m­ embers
are bound together in reciprocal relationships through a number of mul-
tilateral mechanisms, such as the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU).
What the EU was meant to be became increasingly opaque—cast into
darkness by the shadow of what it had become. Troikanomics continues to
demonstrate the costs, at multiple levels and in multiple arenas, of this
discrepancy and the consequences of the EU’s default into a hegemonis-
tic and technocratic orthodoxy.
There have been extensive discussions on what structural and func-
tional form that the Troika’s replacement should take, over and above its
foundations in the European Stability Mechanism. More important
than the mechanisms through which it operates is the mind-set that it
possesses in attempting to carve out a new paradigm for the EU’s intra-­
community relationships. With the EU now facing into a period of
transformational changes (by design, e.g. the 2019 European Elections,
and by circumstance, e.g. policy responses to the ongoing Migration
Crisis), these kinds of issues, and their deeper existential corollaries,
require reflecting upon. The lessons we can glean from the burden of
Troikanomics, and the wider existential crisis within which it was
embedded, can help to inform us in deciding on the content and char-
acter of the path that the EU chooses to adopt as it faces into a new
political and administrative regime—a new European Commission—
beyond the 2019 European Parliamentary elections. In this regard, the
path ahead should use this existential crisis as an opportunity for honest
and reflective critique so as to reaffirm its foundational vision and val-
ues, and the role it hopes to play within wider geopolitical narratives.

Navigating the Narrative of the Crisis

Reflecting on the ever-proliferating books, reports, and academic studies
on the European Banking and Debt Crisis, it is easy to become both
fatigued and frustrated. Fatigued at the sheer volume of expert perspec-
tives that have produced compelling analyses on this existential epoch
and the legacy it has left both on countries and on individual lives.
 Foundations of the Argument 5

Frustrated at the difficulties that they have faced in bridging the divide
between theoretical inquiry and practical outputs in the political econ-
omy. There is no mandate to apply their insights in praxis—either because
the EU is unwilling to cast its net for critique, or because it is structurally
and functionally ill-equipped to make good on the insights that critiques
on this crisis have to offer.
Institutional and descriptive narratives and, of course, political per-
spectives (read: agendas) all constitute an indispensable corpus of litera-
ture for existing and future policy learning, as well as for historical
inquiry. However, even here, there is no workable consensus on the
dimensions of reform—except that their final form will ultimately revert
to the will of the Franco-German centre. To take one example, in 2017,
two radically different blueprints for change were published: one which
envisages no less than five different possible footpaths (including a return
to a basic trading zone), while another makes inroads towards a more
fully federalised EU.7 These considerations are shaped by shifting elec-
toral pressures regarding what is an acceptable trajectory to propel the
EU forward. The lack of clarity or coherence in mapping a path forward
is one example of the deeper existential crisis that the EU is currently
confronted with. A core problem is that the capacity of the EU establish-
ment to learn from this and aligned crises, and adopt an authentic route
towards recovery and reform, is mediated through the ‘Conventional
Wisdom’ rather than through a truly responsive critique.
Importantly, many analyses on the crisis have, understandably, grap-
pled with this issue from a purely economic stance. But there is much
more to these events than economics, and efforts to fully engage with it
through a ‘lone lens’ critique may turn out to be inadequate—in particu-
lar with respect to conveying the profound existential significance it has
had for people and nations. Indeed, each distinct dimension of the EU’s
architecture—whether they be economic, political, or social—throws
cross hairs across the others and provides their own contributions to the
character of the EU.8 For example, the EU has been weighed down in

7
These are, respectively, its ‘White Paper on the Future of Europe: Reflections and scenarios for the
EU27 by 2025’ (European Commission 2017a) and its ‘Reflection Paper on the Deepening of the
Economic and Monetary Union’ (European Commission 2017b).
8
For a further discussion on the range of crises currently assailing the EU, see Schwab (2012).
6 R. Kinsella and M. Kinsella

certain countries by deep social pathologies exemplified in compromised

health status, homelessness, and unemployment—which have ­proliferated
in tandem with the unfolding consequences of austerity-based policy
responses to the economic crisis.9
Thus, analysis may benefit from being filtered and refracted through
another lens—one that is less willing to casually accept institutional ‘giv-
ens’ and, instead, emphasises the importance of rigorous and reflective
critique. To take some examples, vague aspirations relating to ‘unity’,
‘equality’, and ‘diversity’ make little sense in an environment where these
concepts are susceptible to distortion, denial, and the debilitating effects
of political agendas. The reality is that the EU is fractured and unequal—
Greece is demonstrably less ‘equal’ than Germany at every level. The giv-
ens that underpin the sociopolitical and economic legitimacy of the EU
are in need of excavation, and the normative principles underpinning its
responsibilities towards its members (for example, in the principles of
solidarity and subsidiarity) are in need of reanimation.
With this in mind, we seek in this book to engage with a set of the
fundamental issues besetting the EU today in a manner that integrates a
philosophical dimension—reflecting on issues such as austerity, auton-
omy, and its broader ‘existential crisis’. These issues are distilled through
the concept of Troikanomics. The overriding aim is to imbue the more
explicitly sociopolitical and economic arguments with greater conceptual
and normative weight. One could hardly overstate the importance of this
quest for Europe at this point in time. Europe’s Debt Crisis remains
unresolved, even as the EU seeks to move beyond ‘the great recession’.
The expectation that this would lead to the restoration of political stabil-
ity across the EU has not materialised. Indeed, the Migration Crisis has
exacerbated anti-EU sentiment contributing to tectonic political shifts in
EU member nations, including Germany, France, and Italy. The EU’s
Brexit-related travails reflect the prevailing political dissonance. At the

9
To take just one metric, as of Q4 2017, Greece had an unemployment rate (age 15–74) of 21.2%
and Spain a rate of 16.6%. All of these are above the EU average of 7.3%, in particular Germany
at 3.5% (Eurostat 2018a). What is even more telling is that in Greece, long-term unemployment
(12 months or more) accounts for 71.8% of unemployment—again far above the EU average of
44.5% (Eurostat 2018b). For further insights on the relationship between austerity and health
status, see Karanikolos et al. (2013).
 Foundations of the Argument 7

same time, Europe is moving towards a change of leadership in the

Commission, the ECB, and the European Parliament: the core institu-
tions that were, in effect, the transmission belt shaping Troikanomics and
the Debt Crisis. It is not clear what, if any, lessons have been learnt, the
extent to which they have been critiqued, or how far they will be reflected
in post-2019 Europe. These are themes which we critique in this book.

Constructing an Economic–Philosophical
Critique
While initially they may appear to be disjunctive, economic and philo-
sophical critiques can in fact be mutually reinforcing. Economic prin-
ciples are laden with ethical norms concerning issues such as justice
(e.g. allocation of resources), rights (e.g. the provision of social wel-
fare), and duties (e.g. the payment of taxes). Alongside this, economic
policies and practices have real and measurable consequences on peo-
ple’s welfare—depending on the form that they take and the function
that they aim to perform within society. Philosophical critique can, in
this instance, contribute to our understanding of the methodological,
conceptual, and theoretical foundations of economic principles and
practices—and our ability to discern their strengths and weaknesses.10
Such critique demands conceptual clarity—a return to ‘first principles’,
enabling economic matters to be problematised in a new and novel
way.
This form of inquiry is inherently interdisciplinary in its attempt to
identify, examine, and resolve social pathologies, such as the Troika’s
austerity measures. For example, in the context of our present analysis,
it can provide insights that inform policy makers on precisely why they
should understand the concept of autonomy as integrally bound up in
the sustainability of the European Project, and how they may ensure

10
It should, of course, be highlighted that there are mainstream economists whose analysis is per-
meated by a strong ethical perspective. Joseph Stiglitz is a notable example who has written elo-
quently of the nihilistic underbelly of austerity—and with the authority of someone who has
designed and participated in missions for the World Bank. He is, however, a rare exception that
proves the rule.
8 R. Kinsella and M. Kinsella

that the EU is equipped to uphold these principles. In this regard,

philosophical critique can help to bring about actionable responses to
sociopolitical and economic concerns.11
What we are speaking of here is a reflective evidence-based model for
correcting imbalances—in this instance between ‘core’ and ‘peripheral’
economies—informed by a robust political economy which reanimates
Social Europe and philosophical critique of ‘Europe’. This interdisciplin-
ary approach enables existing empirical analysis—all of those petabytes of
data—to be supported by interpretive insights that can inform our
understanding of the flawed nature of the Troika’s principles, policies,
and practices.12 Philosophical argumentation places itself at this juncture
in its attempts to elevate our appreciation for the ethical significance of
the economy. Specifically, our approach uses the framework of existential
philosophy (and, as a corollary, existential psychology) through which to
reflect on the chronology of events, the nature and modes of interven-
tions in the lives of countries and people, and the not-yet-fully-­realised
outcomes of these events.
How has the EU descended so far down its current path? One
­perspective relates to a neo-liberal ideology that permeated the EU and its
institutions from the mid-late 1980s, paving the way for an emerging
supranationalism and subjugating national autonomy as obsolete in an
era of globalisation. J. K. Galbraith’s (1958) deconstruction and applica-
tion on the concept of the ‘Conventional Wisdom’ offers a prophetic
response to such questions. He criticises the various ‘Conventional
Wisdoms’ that permeate social thought across the economy and society
(such as within large firms), and how this leads to economic analysis
that possesses no substantive social utility. This concept conveys how
there are sets of beliefs that are ‘owned’ by particular groups/societies/
cultures that are ‘beyond reproach’ (a convention that is an obstacle to the
acceptance of new modes of thought). This can breed intellectual
inertia—an unwillingness/inability to provide new perspectives,
instead fueling an obdurate adherence to convention.

11
For a further discussion on this point, see Christman (2009a, 2009b).
12
Economists such as Amartya Sen attest to the mutually beneficial nature of aligning philosophical
and economic critique.
 Foundations of the Argument 9

There is a strong sense that the cultural shift at the heart of

Troikanomics was symptomatic of a prevailing orthodoxy that froze
out new, challenging modes of thinking—fearful of any opposition to its
dominance and actively shunning reflective critique. The Conventional
Wisdom is a strategic ally of political orthodoxies that are intent on per-
petuating established power dynamics: zealously reiterating conventions,
which become ‘normalised’ regardless of whether or not they hold merit.
Galbraith (1973) has argued that the emancipation of belief is required
in order to challenge hegemony of accepted beliefs which prevent a full
appreciation for how the economy works.13 His objective was therefore to
increase openness to alternative ideas about practical economics and the
policy agendas required once people have an understanding of the econ-
omy’s true nature and purpose. The current model is long past the point
of needing systematic deconstruction—an imperative that has been con-
spicuously absent from most official critiques. It is here that the experi-
ence of existential crisis can have a vital role to play—impelling, as it
does, discourse beyond intellectual stasis.
Troikanomics is a perfect example: the establishment, fixated on
defending their own agenda (the Eurozone above everything else), had
the political power to enforce it. The Bailout countries had little or no
countervailing power to resist the Conventional Wisdom being imposed
on them. However, it is notable that the larger Bailout countries, includ-
ing Spain, did have significantly more clout in their negotiations with the
Troika than did smaller member countries—notably Greece and Ireland.
The EU had become transfixed by the idea that if concessions were made
in the name of, for example, ‘social justice’ to one country, they would
necessarily be demanded by all countries, regardless of circumstance. This
prevented reflection on and rethinking of issues such as accession and
exit. This is a mind-­set that obsesses over preventing sovereign countries
exiting, while at the same time refusing to engage in the question as to
why members might feel impelled to exit in the first place.
The Conventional Wisdom on austerity led the EU into an intellec-
tual and ethical quagmire where, we believe, the only discernible road

13
For a detailed analysis on the economic contributions of Galbraith, see Dunn and Pressman
(2005).
10 R. Kinsella and M. Kinsella

f­ orward is (paradoxically) through a revisiting of the foundational values

that catalysed the European Project in the first place. The nomenclature
of the ECB and the EC simply do not engage with this process. To take
an example, when the Troika require a ‘resolution’ of non-performing
mortgage assets, it means encouraging banks and other institutions to
repossess homes—with no engagement with the question of the social
costs that this visits on families. This, of course, is not normatively defen-
sible—private sector institutions get their legitimacy from the commu-
nity, whose interests are sacrificed by prioritising ‘the resolution of balance
sheets’ at the expense of sequestering homes. An economic orthodoxy
that seeks to vindicate Troikanomics, not just as an abstract construct but
as a policy template which is imposed on the welfare and governance of
countries, should be willing to engage with the ethical repercussions that
are inferred from its convictions.
Five years after Ireland ‘exited’ the Troika’s austerity programme, and
notwithstanding strong economic growth in recent years, there are issues
that are yet to be resolved, such as the scarring imposed by debt repayments
whose legitimacy is problematic and by related casualties in the social
­economy, notably in housing and homelessness. The same issue arises to an
even more marked extent in Greece. Two generations will never be free of
such debt—almost €250 billion—and may never own their own homes.
Those who manage and profit—exceedingly—from all of this, including
‘Vulture Funds’, will have acquired and sold on these homes. The economic
austerity visited upon Greece—the epicentre of Western philosophy—is a
metaphor for the failure of mainstream analysis in understanding the com-
plementarity of economic and philosophical models. Austerity has been
driven by philosophically anaemic and ad hoc responses that have con-
vulsed the EU and traumatised the lives of millions of its inhabitants.
Philosophy broadly, and ethical enquiry specifically, has much to say on
these issues. But its practitioners are seldom on the same plane, or stay in
the same hotels, as those who are in a position to instigate change. Those
who are vested with the power to implement change simply operate in a
different world, one removed from deeper normative and social conse-
quences of their policies.
 Foundations of the Argument 11

Above the Parapet: The Necessity of Critique

Ongoing events within the EU and across the broader geopolitical land-
scape have cast a long and deeply troubling shadow over its status as an
institution that is still connected to, and capable of making good on, its
foundational commitments. Alongside the Banking and Debt Crisis,
other such events have included Europe’s biggest Migration Crisis since
World War II, Brexit, military adventurism, a rise in ‘Populism’, and
increasingly asymmetric relationships. While each of these constitutes a
crisis in their own right, collectively they illustrate the deeper existential
malaise that is exacerbating the EU’s loss of identity and direction.
Whether or not the EU is capable of providing answers to the questions
that these events are posing depends largely on whether the ‘reforms’ it
endeavours to implement offer decisive change, or perpetuate the fallacy
that a little more of what has not worked will resolve all of the
contradictions.
The EU is conflicted, with a trajectory of ‘reform’ revolving around the
Franco-German duopoly. Troikanomics has been a catalyst in calling into
question the mind-set underpinning the modus operandi of the EU elite.
What is clear is that something far more reflective is required, such as a
form of governance that respects and values—rather than grudgingly
­tolerates—the autonomy of its member nations. Something more sub-
stantial than a few more institutions and a few more vice presidents—a
critique of ethics as well as economics that moves beyond the ‘conver-
gence criteria’ mentality.
Egalitarian intra-community relations are found within an environ-
ment that makes room within its Public Square for dissenting voices. The
EU, however, does not easily accommodate to ‘dissenting voices’. It does
not countenance the integrity of propositions that are willing to ask dif-
ficult questions, operate counter to the status quo, and propose reflective
solutions. While simply asking a question is not automatically advocating
a particular course of action, it does raise core problems which a thou-
sand official reports evade: casting into sharp relief the deeper philosophy
espoused by the EU. The Eurozone will continue as a suboptimal set of
arrangements for as long as it suits the purpose of Germany, France, and
12 R. Kinsella and M. Kinsella

the smaller ‘core’ countries. The externalities will continue to be imposed

on the ‘the others’, including those countries that exist on the margins.
This is also why we advocate for a critique that takes account of eco-
nomic’s normative dimension and also sets a place at the table for ethi-
cists where these issues are debated. Prior to the emergence of the Banking
and Debt Crisis, criticism of the Eurozone was regarded as largely unwar-
ranted. It was deemed to be unsubstantiated naysaying that failed to
appreciate the communal ethic at the heart of the EU. This ignored the
reality that there were earlier misgivings on the part of some economists
about the feasibility of a common currency in Europe—sound and
grounded economic critique that questioned the nature of convergence
criteria and its disassociation from the intricacy of the European Project;
such perspectives have since come to be acknowledged as a form of
­reasoned responsiveness.14 Troikanomics brought them into the open—
and they still remain unresolved, as is clearly reflected in the 2018
­stand-off between the anti-Austerity Italian government and the EU
Commission.
The dearth in rigorous, uncompromising critique has not only sty-
mied the EU’s efforts to resolve its existential crisis, but prevents it from
taking the necessary steps in mitigating against the crisis’ continued
development. The nature of the EU, encompassing its identity and pur-
pose, is an ongoing construction, navigated amidst the constraints and
opportunities that ‘community’ offers. Precisely because it is a process, it
requires continuing critical reflection, that is, a willingness to contextu-
alise the present in light of past experiences and future aspirations.15 The
irony is that questions are often only granted their legitimacy within the
sociopolitical consciousness once their concerns have come to pass—at
which point the mission becomes battling the flames rather than pre-
venting the initial spark. This is, in part, the tragedy of the EU—not-
withstanding its extraordinary achievements.
The events that continue to unfold within the EU have, however, given
critique a raison d’être. It is on this platform that we reflect on some of the
14
For example, prominent economists have argued that the Eurozone failed to meet ‘Optimum
Currency Area’ requirements—see Krugman (2012), Pisani-Ferry (2013), and Gibson et al.
(2014). Dow (2016) also discusses issues centering on design flaws within the EMU—including
its presumption of convergence.
15
See Lapavitsas’ Preface to Lapavitsas et al. (2012) for a similar perspective.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
for fear to make an enemy. But, on the other hand, it was
complained that he was bitter and harsh, that his zeal burned with
too hot a flame. It is so difficult, in evil times, to escape this charge!
for the faithful preacher most of all. It was his merit, like Luther, Knox
and Latimer, and John Baptist, to speak tart truth, when that was
peremptory and when there were few to say it. But his sympathy for
goodness was not less energetic. One fault he had, he
overestimated his friends,—I may well say it,—and sometimes vexed
them with the importunity of his good opinion, whilst they knew better
the ebb which follows unfounded praise. He was capable, it must be
said, of the most unmeasured eulogies on those he esteemed,
especially if he had any jealousy that they did not stand with the
Boston public as highly as they ought. His commanding merit as a
reformer is this, that he insisted beyond all men in pulpits—I cannot
think of one rival—that the essence of Christianity is its practical
morals; it is there for use, or it is nothing; and if you combine it with
sharp trading, or with ordinary city ambitions to gloze over municipal
corruptions, or private intemperance, or successful fraud, or immoral
politics, or unjust wars, or the cheating of Indians, or the robbery of
frontier nations, or leaving your principles at home to follow on the
high seas or in Europe a supple complaisance to tyrants,—it is a
hypocrisy, and the truth is not in you; and no love of religious music
or of dreams of Swedenborg, or praise of John Wesley, or of Jeremy
Taylor, can save you from the Satan which you are.
His ministry fell on a political crisis also; on the years when
Southern slavery broke over its old banks, made new and vast
pretensions, and wrung from the weakness or treachery of Northern
people fatal concessions in the Fugitive Slave Bill and the repeal of
the Missouri Compromise. Two days, bitter in the memory of Boston,
the days of the rendition of Sims and of Burns, made the occasion of
his most remarkable discourses. He kept nothing back. In terrible
earnest he denounced the public crime, and meted out to every
official, high and low, his due portion.[159] By the incessant power of
his statement, he made and held a party. It was his great service to
freedom. He took away the reproach of silent consent that would
otherwise have lain against the indignant minority, by uttering in the
hour and place wherein these outrages were done, the stern protest.
But whilst I praise this frank speaker, I have no wish to accuse the
silence of others. There are men of good powers who have so much
sympathy that they must be silent when they are not in sympathy. If
you don’t agree with them, they know they only injure the truth by
speaking. Their faculties will not play them true, and they do not wish
to squeak and gibber, and so they shut their mouths. I can readily
forgive this, only not the other, the false tongue which makes the
worse appear the better cause. There were, of course, multitudes to
censure and defame this truth-speaker. But the brave know the
brave. Fops, whether in hotels or churches, will utter the fop’s
opinion, and faintly hope for the salvation of his soul; but his manly
enemies, who despised the fops, honored him; and it is well known
that his great hospitable heart was the sanctuary to which every soul
conscious of an earnest opinion came for sympathy—alike the brave
slave-holder and the brave slave-rescuer. These met in the house of
this honest man—for every sound heart loves a responsible person,
one who does not in generous company say generous things, and in
mean company base things, but says one thing, now cheerfully, now
indignantly, but always because he must, and because he sees that,
whether he speak or refrain from speech, this is said over him; and
history, nature and all souls testify to the same.
Ah, my brave brother! it seems as if, in a frivolous age, our loss
were immense, and your place cannot be supplied. But you will
already be consoled in the transfer of your genius, knowing well that
the nature of the world will affirm to all men, in all times, that which
for twenty-five years you valiantly spoke; that the winds of Italy
murmur the same truth over your grave; the winds of America over
these bereaved streets; that the sea which bore your mourners
home affirms it, the stars in their courses, and the inspirations of
youth; whilst the polished and pleasant traitors to human rights, with
perverted learning and disgraced graces, rot and are forgotten with
their double tongue saying all that is sordid for the corruption of man.
The sudden and singular eminence of Mr. Parker, the importance
of his name and influence, are the verdict of his country to his
virtues. We have few such men to lose; amiable and blameless at
home, feared abroad as the standard-bearer of liberty, taking all the
duties he could grasp, and more, refusing to spare himself, he has
gone down in early glory to his grave, to be a living and enlarging
power, wherever learning, wit, honest valor and independence are
honored.[160]
 XIII
AMERICAN CIVILIZATION

To the mizzen, the main, and the fore

Up with it once more!—
The old tri-color,
The ribbon of power,
The white, blue and red which the nations adore!
It was down at half-mast
For a grief—that is past!
To the emblem of glory no sorrow can last!

AMERICAN CIVILIZATION
Use, labor of each for all, is the health and virtue of all beings. Ich
dien, I serve, is a truly royal motto. And it is the mark of nobleness to
volunteer the lowest service, the greatest spirit only attaining to
humility. Nay, God is God because he is the servant of all. Well, now
here comes this conspiracy of slavery,—they call it an institution, I
call it a destitution,—this stealing of men and setting them to work,
stealing their labor, and the thief sitting idle himself; and for two or
three ages it has lasted, and has yielded a certain quantity of rice,
cotton and sugar. And, standing on this doleful experience, these
people have endeavored to reverse the natural sentiments of
mankind, and to pronounce labor disgraceful, and the well-being of a
man to consist in eating the fruit of other men’s labor. Labor: a man
coins himself into his labor; turns his day, his strength, his thought,
his affection into some product which remains as the visible sign of
his power; and to protect that, to secure that to him, to secure his
past self to his future self, is the object of all government. There is no
interest in any country so imperative as that of labor; it covers all,
and constitutions and governments exist for that,—to protect and
insure it to the laborer. All honest men are daily striving to earn their
bread by their industry. And who is this who tosses his empty head
at this blessing in disguise, the constitution of human nature, and
calls labor vile, and insults the faithful workman at his daily toil? I see
for such madness no hellebore,—for such calamity no solution but
servile war and the Africanization of the country that permits it.
At this moment in America the aspects of political society absorb
attention. In every house, from Canada to the Gulf, the children ask
the serious father,—“What is the news of the war to-day, and when
will there be better times?” The boys have no new clothes, no gifts,
no journeys; the girls must go without new bonnets; boys and girls
find their education, this year, less liberal and complete.[161] All the
little hopes that heretofore made the year pleasant are deferred. The
state of the country fills us with anxiety and stern duties. We have
attempted to hold together two states of civilization: a higher state,
where labor and the tenure of land and the right of suffrage are
democratical; and a lower state, in which the old military tenure of
prisoners or slaves, and of power and land in a few hands, makes an
oligarchy: we have attempted to hold these two states of society
under one law. But the rude and early state of society does not work
well with the later, nay, works badly, and has poisoned politics, public
morals and social intercourse in the Republic, now for many years.
The times put this question, Why cannot the best civilization be
extended over the whole country, since the disorder of the less-
civilized portion menaces the existence of the country? Is this
secular progress we have described, this evolution of man to the
highest powers, only to give him sensibility, and not to bring duties
with it? Is he not to make his knowledge practical? to stand and to
withstand? Is not civilization heroic also? Is it not for action? has it
not a will? “There are periods,” said Niebuhr, “when something much
better than happiness and security of life is attainable.” We live in a
new and exceptionable age. America is another word for
Opportunity. Our whole history appears like a last effort of the Divine
Providence in behalf of the human race; and a literal, slavish
following of precedents, as by a justice of the peace, is not for those
who at this hour lead the destinies of this people. The evil you
contend with has taken alarming proportions, and you still content
yourself with parrying the blows it aims, but, as if enchanted, abstain
from striking at the cause.[162]
If the American people hesitate, it is not for want of warning or
advices. The telegraph has been swift enough to announce our
disasters. The journals have not suppressed the extent of the
calamity. Neither was there any want of argument or of experience. If
the war brought any surprise to the North, it was not the fault of
sentinels on the watch-tower, who had furnished full details of the
designs, the muster and the means of the enemy. Neither was
anything concealed of the theory or practice of slavery. To what
purpose make more big books of these statistics? There are already
mountains of facts, if any one wants them. But people do not want
them. They bring their opinion into the world. If they have a
comatose tendency in the brain, they are pro-slavery while they live;
if of a nervous sanguineous temperament, they are abolitionists.
Then interests were never persuaded. Can you convince the shoe
interest, or the iron interest, or the cotton interest, by reading
passages from Milton or Montesquieu? You wish to satisfy people
that slavery is bad economy. Why, the Edinburgh Review pounded
on that string, and made out its case, forty years ago. A democratic
statesman said to me, long since, that, if he owned the state of
Kentucky, he would manumit all the slaves, and be a gainer by the
transaction. Is this new? No, everybody knows it. As a general
economy it is admitted. But there is no one owner of the state, but a
good many small owners. One man owns land and slaves; another
owns slaves only. Here is a woman who has no other property,—like
a lady in Charleston I knew of, who owned fifteen sweeps and rode
in her carriage. It is clearly a vast inconvenience to each of these to
make any change, and they are fretful and talkative, and all their
friends are; and those less interested are inert, and, from want of
thought, averse to innovation. It is like free trade, certainly the
interest of nations, but by no means the interest of certain towns and
districts, which tariff feeds fat; and the eager interest of the few
overpowers the apathetic general conviction of the many. Banknotes
rob the public, but are such a daily convenience that we silence our
scruples and make believe they are gold. So imposts are the cheap
and right taxation; but, by the dislike of people to pay out a direct tax,
governments are forced to render life costly by making them pay
twice as much, hidden in the price of tea and sugar.
In this national crisis, it is not argument that we want, but that rare
courage which dares commit itself to a principle, believing that
Nature is its ally, and will create the instruments it requires, and more
than make good any petty and injurious profit which it may disturb.
There never was such a combination as this of ours, and the rules to
meet it are not set down in any history. We want men of original
perception and original action, who can open their eyes wider than to
a nationality, namely, to considerations of benefit to the human race,
can act in the interest of civilization. Government must not be a
parish clerk, a justice of the peace. It has, of necessity, in any crisis
of the state, the absolute powers of a dictator. The existing
administration is entitled to the utmost candor. It is to be thanked for
its angelic virtue, compared with any executive experiences with
which we have been familiar. But the times will not allow us to
indulge in compliment. I wish I saw in the people that inspiration
which, if government would not obey the same, would leave the
government behind and create on the moment the means and
executors it wanted. Better the war should more dangerously
threaten us,—should threaten fracture in what is still whole, and
punish us with burned capitals and slaughtered regiments, and so
exasperate the people to energy, exasperate our nationality. There
are Scriptures written invisibly on men’s hearts, whose letters do not
come out until they are enraged. They can be read by war-fires, and
by eyes in the last peril.
We cannot but remember that there have been days in American
history, when, if the free states had done their duty, slavery had been
blocked by an immovable barrier, and our recent calamities forever
precluded. The free states yielded, and every compromise was
surrender and invited new demands. Here again is a new occasion
which heaven offers to sense and virtue. It looks as if we held the
fate of the fairest possession of mankind in our hands, to be saved
by our firmness or to be lost by hesitation.
The one power that has legs long enough and strong enough to
wade across the Potomac offers itself at this hour; the one strong
enough to bring all the civility up to the height of that which is best,
prays now at the door of Congress for leave to move. Emancipation
is the demand of civilization. That is a principle; everything else is an
intrigue. This is a progressive policy, puts the whole people in
healthy, productive, amiable position, puts every man in the South in
just and natural relations with every man in the North, laborer with
laborer.
I shall not attempt to unfold the details of the project of
emancipation. It has been stated with great ability by several of its
leading advocates. I will only advert to some leading points of the
argument, at the risk of repeating the reasons of others. The war is
welcome to the Southerner; a chivalrous sport to him, like hunting,
and suits his semi-civilized condition. On the climbing scale of
progress, he is just up to war, and has never appeared to such
advantage as in the last twelvemonth. It does not suit us. We are
advanced some ages on the war-state,—to trade, art and general
cultivation. His laborer works for him at home, so that he loses no
labor by the war. All our soldiers are laborers; so that the South, with
its inferior numbers, is almost on a footing in effective war-population
with the North. Again, as long as we fight without any affirmative step
taken by the government, any word intimating forfeiture in the rebel
states of their old privileges under the law, they and we fight on the
same side, for slavery. Again, if we conquer the enemy,—what then?
We shall still have to keep him under, and it will cost as much to hold
him down as it did to get him down. Then comes the summer, and
the fever will drive the soldiers home; next winter we must begin at
the beginning, and conquer him over again. What use then to take a
fort, or a privateer, or get possession of an inlet, or to capture a
regiment of rebels?
But one weapon we hold which is sure. Congress can, by edict, as
a part of the military defence which it is the duty of Congress to
provide, abolish slavery, and pay for such slaves as we ought to pay
for. Then the slaves near our armies will come to us; those in the
interior will know in a week what their rights are, and will, where
opportunity offers, prepare to take them. Instantly, the armies that
now confront you must run home to protect their estates, and must
stay there, and your enemies will disappear.
There can be no safety until this step is taken. We fancy that the
endless debate, emphasized by the crime and by the cannons of this
war, has brought the free states to some conviction that it can never
go well with us whilst this mischief of slavery remains in our politics,
and that by concert or by might we must put an end to it. But we
have too much experience of the futility of an easy reliance on the
momentary good dispositions of the public. There does exist,
perhaps, a popular will that the Union shall not be broken,—that our
trade, and therefore our laws, must have the whole breadth of the
continent, and from Canada to the Gulf. But since this is the rooted
belief and will of the people, so much the more are they in danger,
when impatient of defeats, or impatient of taxes, to go with a rush for
some peace; and what kind of peace shall at that moment be easiest
attained, they will make concessions for it,—will give up the slaves,
and the whole torment of the past half-century will come back to be
endured anew.
Neither do I doubt, if such a composition should take place, that
the Southerners will come back quietly and politely, leaving their
haughty dictation. It will be an era of good feelings. There will be a
lull after so loud a storm; and, no doubt, there will be discreet men
from that section who will earnestly strive to inaugurate more
moderate and fair administration of the government, and the North
will for a time have its full share and more, in place and counsel. But
this will not last;—not for want of sincere good will in sensible
Southerners, but because Slavery will again speak through them its
harsh necessity. It cannot live but by injustice, and it will be unjust
and violent to the end of the world.[163]
The power of Emancipation is this, that it alters the atomic social
constitution of the Southern people. Now, their interest is in keeping
out white labor; then, when they must pay wages, their interest will
be to let it in, to get the best labor, and, if they fear their blacks, to
invite Irish, German and American laborers. Thus, whilst Slavery
makes and keeps disunion, Emancipation removes the whole
objection to union. Emancipation at one stroke elevates the poor-
white of the South, and identifies his interest with that of the Northern
laborer.
Now, in the name of all that is simple and generous, why should
not this great right be done? Why should not America be capable of
a second stroke for the well-being of the human race, as eighty or
ninety years ago she was for the first,—of an affirmative step in the
interests of human civility, urged on her, too, not by any romance of
sentiment, but by her own extreme perils? It is very certain that the
statesman who shall break through the cobwebs of doubt, fear and
petty cavil that lie in the way, will be greeted by the unanimous
thanks of mankind. Men reconcile themselves very fast to a bold and
good measure when once it is taken, though they condemned it in
advance. A week before the two captive commissioners were
surrendered to England, every one thought it could not be done: it
would divide the North. It was done, and in two days all agreed it
was the right action.[164] And this action, which costs so little (the
parties injured by it being such a handful that they can very easily be
indemnified), rids the world, at one stroke, of this degrading
nuisance, the cause of war and ruin to nations. This measure at
once puts all parties right. This is borrowing, as I said, the
omnipotence of a principle. What is so foolish as the terror lest the
blacks should be made furious by freedom and wages? It is denying
these that is the outrage, and makes the danger from the blacks. But
justice satisfies everybody,—white man, red man, yellow man and
black man. All like wages, and the appetite grows by feeding.
But this measure, to be effectual, must come speedily. The
weapon is slipping out of our hands. “Time,” say the Indian
Scriptures, “drinketh up the essence of every great and noble action
which ought to be performed, and which is delayed in the
execution.”[165]
 I hope it is not a fatal objection to this policy that it is simple and
beneficent thoroughly, which is the tribute of a moral action. An
unprecedented material prosperity has not tended to make us Stoics
or Christians. But the laws by which the universe is organized
reappear at every point, and will rule it. The end of all political
struggle is to establish morality as the basis of all legislation. It is not
free institutions, it is not a republic, it is not a democracy, that is the
end,—no, but only the means. Morality is the object of government.
[166] We want a state of things in which crime shall not pay. This is
the consolation on which we rest in the darkness of the future and
the afflictions of to-day, that the government of the world is moral,
and does forever destroy what is not. It is the maxim of natural
philosophers that the natural forces wear out in time all obstacles,
and take place: and it is the maxim of history that victory always falls
at last where it ought to fall; or, there is perpetual march and
progress to ideas. But in either case, no link of the chain can drop
out. Nature works through her appointed elements; and ideas must
work through the brains and the arms of good and brave men, or
they are no better than dreams.

Since the above pages were written, President Lincoln has

proposed to Congress that the government shall coöperate with any
state that shall enact a gradual abolishment of slavery. In the recent
series of national successes, this message is the best. It marks the
happiest day in the political year. The American Executive ranges
itself for the first time on the side of freedom. If Congress has been
backward, the President has advanced. This state-paper is the more
interesting that it appears to be the President’s individual act, done
under a strong sense of duty. He speaks his own thought in his own
style. All thanks and honor to the Head of the State! The message
has been received throughout the country with praise, and, we doubt
not, with more pleasure than has been spoken. If Congress accords
with the President, it is not yet too late to begin the emancipation; but
we think it will always be too late to make it gradual. All experience
agrees that it should be immediate.[167] More and better than the
President has spoken shall, perhaps, the effect of this message be,
—but, we are sure, not more or better than he hoped in his heart,
when, thoughtful of all the complexities of his position, he penned
these cautious words.
 XIV
THE EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION

AN ADDRESS DELIVERED IN BOSTON IN

SEPTEMBER, 1862

To-day unbind the captive,

So only are ye unbound;
Lift up a people from the dust,
Trump of their rescue, sound!

Pay ransom to the owner

And fill the bag to the brim.
Who is the owner? The slave is owner,
And ever was. Pay him.

O North! give him beauty for rags,

And honor, O South! for his shame;
Nevada! coin thy golden crags
With freedom’s image and name.

Up! and the dusky race

That sat in darkness long,—
Be swift their feet as antelopes,
And as behemoth strong.

Come, East and West and North,

By races, as snow-flakes,
And carry my purpose forth,
Which neither halts nor shakes.

My will fulfilled shall be,

For in daylight or in dark,
My thunderbolt has eyes to see
His way home to the mark.

THE EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION

In so many arid forms which states encrust themselves with, once
in a century, if so often, a poetic act and record occur. These are the
jets of thought into affairs, when, roused by danger or inspired by
genius, the political leaders of the day break the else insurmountable
routine of class and local legislation, and take a step forward in the
direction of catholic and universal interests. Every step in the history
of political liberty is a sally of the human mind into the untried Future,
and has the interest of genius, and is fruitful in heroic anecdotes.
Liberty is a slow fruit. It comes, like religion, for short periods, and in
rare conditions, as if awaiting a culture of the race which shall make
it organic and permanent. Such moments of expansion in modern
history were the Confession of Augsburg, the plantation of America,
the English Commonwealth of 1648, the Declaration of American
Independence in 1776, the British emancipation of slaves in the
West Indies, the passage of the Reform Bill, the repeal of the Corn-
Laws, the Magnetic Ocean Telegraph, though yet imperfect, the
passage of the Homestead Bill in the last Congress, and now,
eminently, President Lincoln’s Proclamation on the twenty-second of
September. These are acts of great scope, working on a long future
and on permanent interests, and honoring alike those who initiate
and those who receive them. These measures provoke no noisy joy,
but are received into a sympathy so deep as to apprise us that
mankind are greater and better than we know.[168] At such times it
appears as if a new public were created to greet the new event. It is
as when an orator, having ended the compliments and pleasantries
with which he conciliated attention, and having run over the
superficial fitness and commodities of the measure he urges,
suddenly, lending himself to some happy inspiration, announces with
vibrating voice the grand human principles involved;—the bravos
and wits who greeted him loudly thus far are surprised and
overawed; a new audience is found in the heart of the assembly,—
an audience hitherto passive and unconcerned, now at last so
searched and kindled that they come forward, every one a
representative of mankind, standing for all nationalities.
The extreme moderation with which the President advanced to his
design,—his long-avowed expectant policy, as if he chose to be
strictly the executive of the best public sentiment of the country,
waiting only till it should be unmistakably pronounced,—so fair a
mind that none ever listened so patiently to such extreme varieties of
opinion,—so reticent that his decision has taken all parties by
surprise, whilst yet it is just the sequel of his prior acts,—the firm
tone in which he announces it, without inflation or surplusage,—all
these have bespoken such favor to the act that, great as the
popularity of the President has been, we are beginning to think that
we have underestimated the capacity and virtue which the Divine
Providence has made an instrument of benefit so vast. He has been
permitted to do more for America than any other American man. He
is well entitled to the most indulgent construction. Forget all that we
thought shortcomings, every mistake, every delay. In the extreme
embarrassments of his part, call these endurance, wisdom,
magnanimity; illuminated, as they now are, by this dazzling success.
When we consider the immense opposition that has been
neutralized or converted by the progress of the war (for it is not long
since the President anticipated the resignation of a large number of
officers in the army, and the secession of three states, on the
promulgation of this policy),—when we see how the great stake
which foreign nations hold in our affairs has recently brought every
European power as a client into this court, and it became every day
more apparent what gigantic and what remote interests were to be
affected by the decision of the President,—one can hardly say the
deliberation was too long. Against all timorous counsels he had the
courage to seize the moment; and such was his position, and such
the felicity attending the action, that he has replaced government in
the good graces of mankind. “Better is virtue in the sovereign than
plenty in the season,” say the Chinese. ’Tis wonderful what power is,
and how ill it is used, and how its ill use makes life mean, and the
sunshine dark. Life in America had lost much of its attraction in the
later years. The virtues of a good magistrate undo a world of
mischief, and, because Nature works with rectitude, seem vastly
more potent than the acts of bad governors, which are ever
tempered by the good nature in the people, and the incessant
resistance which fraud and violence encounter. The acts of good
governors work a geometrical ratio, as one midsummer day seems
to repair the damage of a year of war.
A day which most of us dared not hope to see, an event worth the
dreadful war, worth its costs and uncertainties, seems now to be
close before us. October, November, December will have passed
over beating hearts and plotting brains: then the hour will strike, and
all men of African descent who have faculty enough to find their way
to our lines are assured of the protection of American law.
It is by no means necessary that this measure should be suddenly
marked by any signal results on the negroes or on the rebel masters.
The force of the act is that it commits the country to this justice,—
that it compels the innumerable officers, civil, military, naval, of the
Republic to range themselves on the line of this equity. It draws the
fashion to this side. It is not a measure that admits of being taken
back. Done, it cannot be undone by a new administration. For
slavery overpowers the disgust of the moral sentiment only through
immemorial usage. It cannot be introduced as an improvement of the
nineteenth century. This act makes that the lives of our heroes have
not been sacrificed in vain. It makes a victory of our defeats. Our
hurts are healed; the health of the nation is repaired. With a victory
like this, we can stand many disasters. It does not promise the
redemption of the black race; that lies not with us: but it relieves it of
our opposition. The President by this act has paroled all the slaves in
America; they will no more fight against us: and it relieves our race
once for all of its crime and false position. The first condition of
success is secured in putting ourselves right. We have recovered
ourselves from our false position, and planted ourselves on a law of
Nature:—
 “If that fail,
The pillared firmament is rottenness,
And earth’s base built on stubble.”[169]

The government has assured itself of the best constituency in the

world: every spark of intellect, every virtuous feeling, every religious
heart, every man of honor, every poet, every philosopher, the
generosity of the cities, the health of the country, the strong arms of
the mechanic, the endurance of farmers, the passionate conscience
of women, the sympathy of distant nations,—all rally to its support.
Of course, we are assuming the firmness of the policy thus
declared. It must not be a paper proclamation. We confide that Mr.
Lincoln is in earnest, and as he has been slow in making up his
mind, has resisted the importunacy of parties and of events to the
latest moment, he will be as absolute in his adhesion. Not only will
he repeat and follow up his stroke, but the nation will add its
irresistible strength. If the ruler has duties, so has the citizen. In
times like these, when the nation is imperilled, what man can,
without shame, receive good news from day to day without giving
good news of himself? What right has any one to read in the journals
tidings of victories, if he has not bought them by his own valor,
treasure, personal sacrifice, or by service as good in his own
department? With this blot removed from our national honor, this
heavy load lifted off the national heart, we shall not fear
henceforward to show our faces among mankind. We shall cease to
be hypocrites and pretenders, but what we have styled our free
institutions will be such.[170]
In the light of this event the public distress begins to be removed.
What if the brokers’ quotations show our stocks discredited, and the
gold dollar costs one hundred and twenty-seven cents? These tables
are fallacious. Every acre in the free states gained substantial value
on the twenty-second of September. The cause of disunion and war
has been reached and begun to be removed. Every man’s house-lot
and garden are relieved of the malaria which the purest winds and
strongest sunshine could not penetrate and purge. The territory of
the Union shines to-day with a lustre which every European emigrant
can discern from far; a sign of inmost security and permanence. Is it
feared that taxes will check immigration? That depends on what the
taxes are spent for. If they go to fill up this yawning Dismal Swamp,
which engulfed armies and populations, and created plague, and
neutralized hitherto all the vast capabilities of this continent,—then
this taxation, which makes the land wholesome and habitable, and
will draw all men unto it, is the best investment in which property-
holder ever lodged his earnings.
Whilst we have pointed out the opportuneness of the
Proclamation, it remains to be said that the President had no choice.
He might look wistfully for what variety of courses lay open to him;
every line but one was closed up with fire. This one, too, bristled with
danger, but through it was the sole safety. The measure he has
adopted was imperative. It is wonderful to see the unseasonable
senility of what is called the Peace Party, through all its masks,
blinding their eyes to the main feature of the war, namely, its
inevitableness. The war existed long before the cannonade of
Sumter, and could not be postponed. It might have begun otherwise
or elsewhere, but war was in the minds and bones of the
combatants, it was written on the iron leaf, and you might as easily
dodge gravitation. If we had consented to a peaceable secession of
the rebels, the divided sentiment of the border states made
peaceable secession impossible, the insatiable temper of the South
made it impossible, and the slaves on the border, wherever the
border might be, were an incessant fuel to rekindle the fire. Give the
Confederacy New Orleans, Charleston, and Richmond, and they
would have demanded St. Louis and Baltimore. Give them these,
and they would have insisted on Washington. Give them
Washington, and they would have assumed the army and navy, and,
through these, Philadelphia, New York, and Boston. It looks as if the
battle-field would have been at least as large in that event as it is
now. The war was formidable, but could not be avoided. The war
was and is an immense mischief, but brought with it the immense
benefit of drawing a line and rallying the free states to fix it
impassably,—preventing the whole force of Southern connection and
influence throughout the North from distracting every city with
endless confusion, detaching that force and reducing it to handfuls,
and, in the progress of hostilities, disinfecting us of our habitual
proclivity, through the affection of trade and the traditions of the
Democratic party, to follow Southern leading.[171]
These necessities which have dictated the conduct of the federal
government are overlooked especially by our foreign critics. The
popular statement of the opponents of the war abroad is the
impossibility of our success. “If you could add,” say they, “to your
strength the whole army of England, of France and of Austria, you
could not coerce eight millions of people to come under this
government against their will.” This is an odd thing for an
Englishman, a Frenchman or an Austrian to say, who remembers
Europe of the last seventy years,—the condition of Italy, until 1859,
—of Poland, since 1793,—of France, of French Algiers,—of British
Ireland, and British India. But granting the truth, rightly read, of the
historical aphorism, that “the people always conquer,” it is to be
noted that, in the Southern States, the tenure of land and the local
laws, with slavery, give the social system not a democratic but an
aristocratic complexion; and those states have shown every year a
more hostile and aggressive temper, until the instinct of self-
preservation forced us into the war. And the aim of the war on our
part is indicated by the aim of the President’s Proclamation, namely,
to break up the false combination of Southern society, to destroy the
piratic feature in it which makes it our enemy only as it is the enemy
of the human race, and so allow its reconstruction on a just and
healthful basis. Then new affinities will act, the old repulsion will
cease, and, the cause of war being removed, Nature and trade may
be trusted to establish a lasting peace.
We think we cannot overstate the wisdom and benefit of this act of
the government. The malignant cry of the Secession press within the
free states, and the recent action of the Confederate Congress, are
decisive as to its efficiency and correctness of aim. Not less so is the
silent joy which has greeted it in all generous hearts, and the new
hope it has breathed into the world. It was well to delay the steamers
at the wharves until this edict could be put on board. It will be an
insurance to the ship as it goes plunging through the sea with glad
tidings to all people. Happy are the young, who find the pestilence
cleansed out of the earth, leaving open to them an honest career.
Happy the old, who see Nature purified before they depart. Do not let
the dying die: hold them back to this world, until you have charged
their ear and heart with this message to other spiritual societies,
announcing the melioration of our planet:—

“Incertainties now crown themselves assured,

And Peace proclaims olives of endless age.”[172]

Meantime that ill-fated, much-injured race which the Proclamation

respects will lose somewhat of the dejection sculptured for ages in
their bronzed countenance, uttered in the wailing of their plaintive
music,—a race naturally benevolent, docile, industrious, and whose
very miseries sprang from their great talent for usefulness, which, in
a more moral age, will not only defend their independence, but will
give them a rank among nations.[173]