James Fenimore Cooper is best known for his 1826 novel The Last of the Mohicans, which is part of the larger The Leatherstocking Tales series. These books tell the fictional life story of Nathaniel “Natty” Bumppo, a child of Englishmen raised in American by members of the Delaware tribe of Native Americans. As America’s first true novelist (and certainly the greatest American novelist of the 19th century bar none), Cooper’s books captured the spirit of the frontier and were the first great expression of the American identity as something uniquely a combination of the Old and New Worlds. For these reasons alone, Cooper has earned his place in the annals of literature, but to speak only of Cooper’s fiction is to do the man a grave disservice.
In addition to be a novelist who managed to give form to the American identity in his tales, Cooper also had a keen insight into America’s social and political culture. His writings on politics, culture, society, and government also magnificently captured the early American ideals of liberty, humanity, and freedom, preserving the wisdom and insight into these concepts that so many of us so desperately need today, but have lost. Below are quotes/excerpts that I have come across while reading Cooper’s political works. These are but a few of his insights that have stood out to me as being especially applicable to our day, but there are many more for those who sensibly choose to look into Copper’s political writings for themselves.
Excerpts from Cooper’s The American Democrat
Equality
On the subject of equality in society, Cooper writes:
If we would have civilization and the exertion indispensable to its success, we must have property; if we have property, we must have its rights; if we have the rights of property, we must take those consequences of the rights of property which are inseparable from the rights themselves.
The equality of rights in America, therefore, after allowing for the striking exception of domestic slavery, is only a greater extension of the principle than common, while there is no such thing as an equality of condition.
…Equality is no where laid down as a governing principle of the institutions of the United States, neither the word, nor any inference that can be fairly deduced from its meaning, occurring in the constitution. As respect the states, themselves, the professions of an equality of rights are more clear, and slavery excepted, the intention in all their governments is to maintain it, as far as practicable, though equality of condition is no where mentioned, all political economists knowing that it is unattainable, if, indeed, it be desirable. Desirable in practice, it can hardly be, since the result would be to force all down to the level of the lowest.
The American Democrat, pgs. 48-49
Over a century before the European, Asian, and American experiments with Socialism, and the horrific and unparalleled disasters accompanying these experiments, who but the blind ideologue could say that Cooper has not been proven correct? All efforts to create an equality of conditions, of outcomes, has produced nothing but overwhelming, crushing, and universal poverty. Equality of conditions is a disaster in every single way. Further, to a great extent economic inequality is an undeniable good. It is through wages that society signals which jobs are most needed by society and those which are most unnecessary and thereby gives people the motivation to serve the demands of society in order to become wealthy. Capitalism thereby motivates and rewards the individual choosing to serve the needs and wants of all of humanity. That all people have their rights equally respected and protected is our worthy goal. This frees people to be able to maximize their efforts to pursue their happiness and magnify their lives in the pursuit of serving others to mutual benefit. When this material inequality is destroyed by the exercise of state power it is not Zion that is accomplished, but Hell on Earth.
Liberty
Next, I quote Cooper on the nature of liberty:
The natural disposition of all men being to enjoy a perfect freedom of action, it is a common error to suppose that the nation which possesses the mildest laws, or laws that impose the least personal restraints, is the freest. This opinion is untenable, since the power that concedes this freedom of action, can recall it. Unless it is lodged in the body of the community itself, there is, therefore, no pledge for the continuance of such a liberty. A familiar, supposititious case will render this truth more obvious.
A slave holder in Virginia is the master of two slaves: to one he grants his liberty, with the means to go to a town in a free state. The other accompanies his old associate clandestinely. In this town, they engage their services voluntarily, to a common master, who assigns to them equal shares in the same labor, paying them the same wages. In time, the master learns their situation, but, being an indulgent man, he allows the slave to retain his present situation. In all material things, these brothers are equal; they labor together, receive the same wages, and eat of the same food. Yet one is bond, and the other free, since it is in the power of the master, or of his heir, or of his assignee, at any time, to reclaim the services of throne who was not legally manumitted, and reduce him again to the condition of slavery. One of these brothers is the master of his own acts, while the other, though temporarily enjoying the same privileges, holds them subject to the will of a superior.
This is an all important distinction in the consideration of political liberty, since the circumstances of no two countries are precisely the same, and all municipal regulations ought to have direct reference to the actual condition of a community. It follows, that no country can properly be deemed free, unless the body of the nation possess, in the last resort, the legal power to frame its laws according to its wants. This power must also abide in the nation, or it becomes merely an historical fact, for he that was once free is not necessarily free always, any more than he that was once happy, is to consider himself happy in perpetuity.
This definition of liberty is new to the world, for a government founded on such principles is a novelty. Hitherto, a nation has been deemed free, whose people were possessed of a certain amount of franchises, without any reference to the general repository of power. Such a nation may not be absolutely enslaved, but it can scarcely be considered in possession of an affirmative political liberty, since it is not the master of its own fortunes.
The American Democrat, pgs. 50-51
Here Cooper reminds me of another great 19th century political theorist, Lysander Spooner, who wrote, “A man is none the less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years. Neither are a people any the less slaves because permitted periodically to choose new masters. What makes them slaves is the fact that they now are, and are always hereafter to be, in the hands of men whose power over them is, and always is to be, absolute and Irresponsible.” (Pg. 24)
Both Cooper and Spooner both realize that the difference between a slave and a free man is not what those in power allow him to do, but that which he can do of his own accord without answering to the approving or disapproving authority of anyone else. And in any society for it to remain free the people of the society must understand, value, and defend their liberty from all other encroaching powers. If any group has any capability to legislating what another can and cannot do in regards to his or her life, liberty, and property then you do not have a free society. You are not free merely because you have fetishized elections and voting. You merely have a benevolent dictator and will always fear the rise of one more iron in temperament.
The Dangers of the Media
Cooper well understood the dangerous power of the news media to corrupt society:
It is a misfortune that necessity has induced men to accord greater license to this formidable engine, in order to obtain liberty, than can be borne with loss important objects in view; for the press, like fire, is an excellent servant, but a terrible master.
…The governing principle connected with this interest, would seem to depend on a general law, which, under abuses, converts the most beneficial moral agents to be the greatest enemies of the race. The press is equally capable of being made the instrument of elevating man to the highest point of which his faculties admit, or of depressing him to the lowest.
…In struggling for liberty and emancipation from errors and prejudices, men have not always paused to reflect on the influence of the agents they have employed, when those agents, from contending with a powerful enemy, shall have become conquerors, and have begun to look about them for the fruits of victory. The press, so efficient as the opponent of tyrants, may become despotic itself; it may substitute new errors for those it has eradicated, and, like an individual spoiled by success, may generally abuse its advantages.
…The history of the press is every where the same. In its infancy it is timid, distrustful, and dependant on truth for success. As it acquires confidence with force, it propagates just opinions with energy; scattering errors and repelling falsehood, until it prevails; when abuses rush in, confounding principles, truths, and all else that is estimable, until it becomes a serious matter of doubt, whether a community derives most good or evil, from the institution.
The American Democrat, pgs. 125, 126
If that first quote sounds familiar it is because it has been incorrectly attributed to multiple early American leaders, most often President George Washington. He never actually said it, though the metaphor itself is older than both Cooper and Washington.
I can only imagine if Cooper saw our present day 24 hour, corporate news cycle, in bed as it is with the worst and most oppressive elements of the American state, he would be apoplectic. So much of our current media are just lickspittles for those in power, magnifying the message of the lying, cheating, manipulative, and oppressive politicians in power while deriding and destroying those who question the omnipotence and benevolence of their rulers. This is only made worse with social media as many of these sites are some of the most effective means of pushing out mass propaganda ever developed in all of history. Cooper understood the danger of the news media, the way that its first and greatest loyalty was to itself and the way this could destroy anyone it needed and tell any lie necessary to in order to ensure its continued influence, power, and wealth. In the process, society would be corrupted, confused, misled, and harmed by its lies told as truths and manipulations presented as facts.
The Basis of Good Government
Here, Cooper lays out the classic defense of limited government in a republican-democracy, but in doing so makes the augment for even greater forms of government than those:
We do not adopt the popular polity because it is perfect, but because it is less imperfect than any other. As man, by his nature, is liable to err, it is vain to expect an infallible whole that is composed of fallible parts. The government that emanates from a single will, supposing that will to be pure, enlightened, impartial, just and consistent, would be the best in the world, were it attainable for men. Such is the government of the universe, the result of which is perfect harmony. As no man is without spot in his justice, as no man has infinite wisdom, or infinite mercy, we are driven to take refuge in the opposite extreme, or in a government of many.
The American Democrat, pg. 53
Could any libertarian, anarchist, or voluntaryist give a better argument for the dissolution of the State and in promotion of a completely consensual government?
No man or woman is perfect and any and all systems of government will have limitations, imperfections, and failures stemming from the natural imperfections of men. Therefore, the best form of government is that which minimizes the damage done by man’s fallibility as much as possible in a government of the many. And what greater government of the many is there than the one where people own themselves and make their own decisions, freely forming societies (political, economical, social, etc.) as they choose to obtain their own ends? What greater democracy, what greater republic, is there than anarchy, voluntaryism, and libertarianism? None. Therefore, the logic that drives us to conclude that democracies and republics are better than monarchies and aristocracies also drive us to conclude that there is no reason to stop at being a democracy or a republics when better forms of organization exist beyond them.
On Identity Politics
About those who use political power to enforce their social opinions, Cooper warns,
The law of God is the only rule of conduct, in this, as in other matters. Each man should do as he would be done by. Were the question put to the greatest advocate of indiscriminate association, whether he would submit to have his company and habits dictated to him, he would be one of the first to resist the tyranny; for they, who are the most rigid in maintaining their own claims, in such matters, are usually the loudest in decrying those whom they fancy to be better off than themselves.
… All that democracy means, is as equal a participation in rights as is practicable; and to pretend that social equality is a condition of popular institutions, is to assume that the latter are destructive of civilization, for, as nothing is more self-evident than the impossibility of raising all men to the highest standard of tastes and refinement, the alternative would be to reduce the entire community to the lowest. The whole embarrassment on this point exists in the difficulty of making men comprehend qualities they do not themselves possess. We can all perceive the difference between ourselves and our inferiors, but when it comes to a question of the difference between us and our superiors, we fail to appreciate merits of which we have no proper conceptions. In face of this obvious difficulty, there is the safe and just governing rule, already mentioned, or that of permitting every one to be the undisturbed judge of his own habits and associations, so long as they are innocent, and do not impair the rights of others to be equally judges for themselves. It follows, that social intercourse must regulate itself, independently of institutions, with the exception that the latter, while they withhold no natural, bestow no factitious advantages beyond those which are inseparable from the rights of property, and general civilization.
The American Democrat, pgs. 95-96
Though Cooper is writing about social divisions in his own time, this applies well to those today who want to force their ideas on religion, medicine, gender, sex, race, and culture on the masses. These hypocrites, whether it is the identity politics of the genderqueer political Left or the identity politics of the political Right, are really just lying, self-obsessed thugs who want to crush those who disagree with them. They would make a man an offender for a word and destroy lives based merely on the perceived infraction of their social mores, but when the tools of anger and violence they have weaponized are turned against them they decry it as persecution and evil. They hate anyone who they think has it better off than they and want to infect all of society with their vitriol.
Neither side even understands democracy. Democracy is not a society where the majority rules over the minority, where those in power force their will on others because the elected hold some sort of mystical popular mandate. A democracy is a society where the rights of the individual are respected and protected against the arbitrary use of power by those elected to office. And the only way to go about obtaining social change in a democracy is by allowing people of all opinions, even those you find detestable, to live free of social and political terror. Only then will the best ideas rise to the top while the worst fade into oblivion, thereby improving society.
American Nationalism
On the subject of what the phrase, “We the People…” means in the United States Constitution, Cooper explains:
The term “people,” like most other substantives, has its general and its specific significations. In its general signification, the people of a country, means the population of a country; as the population of a country includes the women and children, nothing can be clearer than that the “people,” in this signification, did not form the American constitution. The specific significations of this word are numerous, as rich, poor, wise, silly, good and bad people. In a political sense, the people means those who are vested with political rights, and, in this particular instance, the people vested with political rights, were the constituencies of the several states, under their various laws, modifications and constitutions, which is but another name for the governments of the states themselves. ” We the people,” as used in the preamble of the constitution, means merely, ” We the constituencies of the several states.”
The American Democrat, pg. 21
This is important in understanding the nature and purpose of the United States. Since the Civil War it has been argued that the U.S. Constitution is a nationalist document created by the People of the Nation acting as One to forge a new Nation and that this country could only dissemble by a similar act of the People acting as One organic and whole Body. Beyond the base silliness of this argument (no such people or country has or ever will exist as the People are merely a mute and dumb mass with no will, intelligence, or independence – only individuals think or act), Cooper makes it clear here that the text of the U.S. Constitution never meant to even imply such an idea.
The United States of America was formed by the individual state governments and these states, not the new federal government, were the final authority on the powers and function of the federal government. This was a blessing as it is far easier for the people of each state to control their state governments than it is to control the national government. It has been one of the greatest safeguards of liberty in the USA. In most countries the cantons, provinces, departments, etc. of the country is a mere appendage of the national government with, at least functionally speaking, freedom being a gift granted to the people from those in power. In the USA, the states formed the national government and all its authority and power comes from the people, who are the ultimate arbiters of what can and cannot be done. The perversion of this formula, such that now the national government holds the majority of power by claiming an elective mandate from the “People,” is what has allowed the national government (and the politicians thereof) to get away with the most heinous of crimes – even the slaughter of children and murder of American citizens.
Recognizing Political Corruption
Finally, in discussing the powers of Congress and how a citizen may recognize if a Congressman is exceeding his authority or not, Cooper gives a good litmus test by which to judge all government action:
In estimating the powers of congress, there is a rule that may be safely confided in, and which has been already hinted at. The powers of congress are express and limited. That body therefore, can have no right to pass resolutions other than those which affect their own police, or, in a moral sense, even to make speeches, except on subjects on which they have a right to pass laws. The instant they exceed these limits, they exceed the bounds of their delegated authority. By applying this simple test to their proceedings, any citizen may, in ordinary cases, ascertain how far the representatives of the nation abuse their trusts.
The American Democrat, pgs. 33-34
Whether you’re talking about Congress, the President, of the Judges of the Courts, you should ask yourself whether they have the authority to even discuss what they’re talking about. If there is no specific constitutional grant of authority on the subject to that specific branch of government then no one in it even has the authority to converse on it, much less pass an actual law on the subject.
For those of us who have seen the wisdom of consensual governments this is a fine principle to follow. In our societies there will be private institutions, collectives, and groups of individuals acting to better fill the roles now delegated to governments. Even in a universal democracy where all members have a right to be heard and no actions may be taken which violate the rights of ourselves or others, there is still the need to prevent those with influence and sway from corrupting the system and forming the very kinds of statist (“state-ist”) systems we wish to see abolished. How do we prevent this from occurring? One way we do so is preventing anyone with any position of social influence from even suggesting ideas or actions that would violate the rights of others. If they cannot even propose or discuss such actions then they cannot use the apparatus of the community to institute oppressive structures, they cannot reinstitute the State. Do not listen to them, do not entertain them, do not follow them, do not obey them. Let their blathering insanity die on their lips and fall to the ground like the garbage that it is and everyone will be better off.
Final Thoughts
As quoted before, the only way for a society to remains free is for the masses of society to understand the nature of freedom and to jealously guard it against all encroachments. A free society doesn’t need to act violently against those who would diminish its liberty through law. A free society would recognize that for all their blandishments, those who present themselves as the most zealous ideologues are often the worst hypocrites, willing to force their ideas on others but are stunned when their own mechanisms of oppression are turned against them.
Instead of trusting politicians and the politically connected elites to be the protectors of liberty, a free society recognizes that the more diffuse the power the better and the less serious attention given to the fools who would replace liberty with their own schemes the wiser and better off the people will be. Schemes of equality only end is universal misery and oppression. Instead, freedom is the basis for a successful society and the foundation for civilization. And the creation of inequality in a free society is a boon, not a curse because it incentivizes people voluntarily doing the things society needs while de-incentivizing people from wasting their lives making what we don’t want or need.
These are all truths that James Fenimore Cooper understood clearly in 1838 when The American Democrat was first published. They’re truths we need to reclaim for our own age if we ever hope to achieve that great status of general liberty that is humanity’s birthright. We can either keep amassing power into the hands of the few and trying to force our concepts of Utopia on society, while reaping the consequent poverty, tyranny, and discord that are the natural outcomes of such efforts, or we can be a society of liberty, prosperity, and peace. We cannot do both.