How you can resist funding the government → a survey of tactics of historical tax resistance campaigns → renounce government privileges and titles → see also

From Tolstoy On Civil Disobedience and Non-Violence, New Society Publishers, Philadelphia (1987), pp. 187–205.

Note from the Translator: This letter was addressed to a Russian lady who wrote to Tolstoy asking his advice or assistance when the “Literature Committee,” Komitet Gramotnosti, in which she was actively engaged, was closed. The circumstances were as follows: A “Voluntary Economic Society” (founded in the reign of Catherine the Great) existed, and was allowed to debate economic problems within certain limits. Its existence was sanctioned by, and it was under the control of, the Ministry of the Interior. A branch of this society was formed called the “Literature Committee.” This branch aimed at spreading good and wholesome literature among the people and in the schools, by establishing libraries or in other ways. However, their views as to what books it is good for people to read did not tally with those of the government, and in 1896 it was decreed that the “Voluntary Economic Society” should be transferred from the supervision of the Ministry of the Interior to that of the Ministry of Education. This sounded harmless, but translated into unofficial language it meant that the activity of the Committee was to terminate, and the proceeding of the whole Society was to be reduced to a formality.

I should be very glad to join you and your associates — whose work I know and appreciate — in standing up for the rights of the “Literature Committee,” and in opposing the enemies of popular education. But in the sphere in which you are working, I see no way to resist them.

My only consolation is that I, too, am constantly engaged in struggling against the same enemies of enlightenment, though in another manner.

Concerning the special question with which you are preoccupied, I think that, in place of the “Literature Committee” which has been prohibited, a number of other “Literature Associations,” to pursue the same objects, should be formed without consulting the government, and without asking permission from any censor. Let government, if it likes, prosecute these “Literature Associations,” punish the members, banish them, etc. If government does that it will merely cause people to attach special importance to good books and to libraries, and it will strengthen the trend toward enlightenment.

It seems to me that it is now specially important to do what is right quietly and persistently, not only without asking permission from government, but consciously avoiding its participation. The strength of the government lies in the people’s ignorance, and government knows this, and will, therefore, always oppose true enlightenment. It is time we realized that fact. And it is most undesirable to let government, while it is diffusing darkness, pretend it is busy with the enlightenment of the people. It is doing this now, by means of all sorts of pseudo-educational establishments which it controls: schools, high schools, universities, academies, and all kinds of committees and congresses. But good is good, and enlightenment is enlightenment, only when it is quite good and quite enlightened, and not when it is toned down to meet the requirements of Delyanof’s or Durnovo’s circulars. And I am extremely sorry when I see valuable, disinterested, and self-sacrificing efforts spent unprofitably. Sometimes it seems to me quite comical to see good, wise people spending their strength in a struggle against government, to be maintained on the basis of laws which that very government itself makes just what it likes.

The matter is, it seems to me, this:—

There are people (we ourselves are such) who realize that our government is very bad, and who struggle against it. From before the days of Radishchef¹ and the Decembrists² there have been two ways of carrying on the struggle; one way is that of Stenka Razin³, Pugatchef⁴, the Decembrists, the Revolutionary party⁵ of the years sixty, the Terrorists⁶ of the thirteenth of March, and others.

The other way is that which is preached and practiced by you — the method of the “Gradualists,” which consists in carrying on the struggle without violence and within the limits of the law, conquering constitutional rights bit by bit.

Both these methods have been employed unceasingly within my memory for more than half a century, and yet the state of things grows worse and worse. Even such signs of improvement as do show themselves have come, not from either of these kinds of activity, but from causes of which I will speak later on, and in spite of the harm done by these two kinds of activity. Meanwhile, the power against which we struggle grows ever greater, stronger, and more insolent. The last rays of self-government — the zemstvos (local government boards), public trial, your Literature Committee, etc. — are all being done away with.

Now that both methods have been ineffectually tried for so long a time, we may, it seems to me, see clearly that neither the one nor the other will do — and why this is so. To me, at least, who have always disliked our government, but have never adopted either of the above methods of resisting it, the defects of both methods are apparent.

The first way is unsatisfactory because (even could an attempt to alter the existing regime by violent means succeed) there would be no guarantee that the new organization would be durable, and that the enemies of that new order would not, at some convenient opportunity, triumph by using violence such as has been used against them, as has happened over and over again in France and wherever else there have been revolutions. And so the new order of things, established by violence, would have continually to be supported by violence, i.e. by wrong-doing. And, consequently, it would inevitably and very quickly be vitiated like the order it replaced. And in case of failure, all the violence of the revolutionists only strengthens the order of things they strive against (as has always been the case, in our Russian experience, from Pugatchef’s rebellion to the attempt of the thirteenth of March), for it drives the whole crowd of undecided people, who stand wavering between the two parties, into the camp of the conservative and retrograde party. So I think that, guided by both reason and experience, we may boldly say that this means, besides being immoral, is also irrational and ineffective.

The other method is, in my opinion, even less effective or rational. It is ineffective and irrational because government, having in its hands the whole power (the army, the administration, the Church, the schools, and police), and framing what are called the laws, on the basis of which the Liberals wish to resist it — this government knows very well what is really dangerous to it, and will never let people who submit to it, and act under its guidance, do anything that will undermine its authority. For instance, take the case before us: a government such as ours (or any other), which rests on the ignorance of the people, will never consent to their being really enlightened. It will sanction all kinds of pseudo-educational organizations, controlled by itself: schools, high schools, universities, academies, and all kinds of committees and congresses and publications sanctioned by the censor — as long as those organizations and publications serve its purpose, i.e. stupefy people, or, at least do not hinder the stupefaction of people. But as soon as those organizations, or publications, attempt to cure that on which the power of government rests, i.e. the blindness of the people, the government will simply, and without rendering account to any one, or saying why it acts so and not otherwise, pronounce its “veto” and will rearrange, or close, the establishments and organizations and will forbid the publications. And therefore, as both reason and experience clearly show, such an illusory, gradual conquest of rights is a self-deception which suits the government admirably, and which it, therefore, is even ready to encourage.

Tolstoy’s writings on tax resistance fill a chapter of We Won’t Pay!: A Tax Resistance Reader.

But not only is this activity irrational and ineffectual, it is also harmful. It is harmful because enlightened, good, and honest people by entering the ranks of the government give it a moral authority which but for them it would not possess. If the government were made up entirely of that coarse element — the violators, self-seekers, and flatterers — who form its core, it could not continue to exist. The fact that honest and enlightened people are found who participate in the affairs of the government gives government whatever it possesses of moral prestige.

That is one evil resulting from the activity of Liberals who participate in the affairs of government, or who come to terms with it. Another evil of such activity is that, in order to secure opportunities to carry on their work, these highly enlightened and honest people have to begin to compromise, and so, little by little, come to consider that, for a good end, one may swerve somewhat from truth in word and deed. For instance, that one may, though not believing in the established Church, go through its ceremonies; may take oaths; and may, when necessary for the success of some affair, present petitions couched in language which is untrue and offensive to man’s natural dignity: may enter the army; may take part in a local government which has been stripped of all its powers; may serve as a master or a professor, teaching not what one considers necessary oneself, but what one is told to preach by government; and that one may even become a Zemsky Nachalnik⁷, submitting to governmental demands and instructions which violate one’s conscience; may edit newspapers and periodicals, remaining silent about what ought to be mentioned, and printing what one is ordered to print; and entering into these compromises — the limits of which cannot be foreseen — enlightened and honest people (who alone could form some barrier to the infringements of human liberty by the government, imperceptibly retreating ever farther and farther from the demands of conscience) fall at last into a position of complete dependency on government. They receive rewards and salaries from it, and, continuing to imagine they are forwarding liberal ideas, they become the humble servants and supporters of the very order against which they set out to fight.

It is true that there are also better, sincere people in the Liberal camp, whom the government cannot bribe, and who remain unbought and free from salaries and position. But even these people have been ensnared in the nets spread by government, beat their wings in their cages (as you are now doing with your Committee), unable to advance from the spot they are on. Or else, becoming enraged, they go over to the revolutionary camp; or they shoot themselves, or take to drink, or they abandon the whole struggle in despair, and, oftenest of all, retire into literary activity, in which, yielding to the demands of the censor, they say only what they are allowed to say, and — by that very silence about what is most important — convey to the public distorted views which just suit the government. But they continue to imagine that, they are serving society by the writings which give them the measure of subsistence.

Thus, both reflection and experience alike show me that both the means of combating government, heretofore believed in, are not only ineffectual, but actually tend to strengthen the power and the irresponsibility of government.

What is to be done? Evidently not what for seventy years past has proved fruitless, and has only produced inverse result. What is to be done? Just what those have done, thanks to whose activity is due that progress toward light and good which has been achieved since the world began, and is sill being achieved today. That is what must be done. And what is it?

Merely the simple, quiet, truthful carrying on of what you consider good and needful, quite independently of government, and of whether it likes it or not. In other words: standing up for your rights, not as a member of the Literature Committee, not as a deputy, not as a landowner, not as a merchant, not even as a member of Parliament; but standing up for your rights as a rational and free man, and defending them, not as the rights of local boards or committees are defended, with concessions and compromises, but without any concessions and compromises, in the only way in which moral and human dignity can be defended.

Successfully to defend a fortress one has to burn all the houses in the suburbs, and to leave only what is strong and what we intend not to surrender on any account. Only from the basis of this firm stronghold can we conquer all we require. True, the rights of a member of Parliament, or even of a member of a local board, are greater than the rights of a plain man; and it seems as if we could do much by using those rights. But the hitch is that in order to obtain the rights of a member of Parliament, or of a committeeman, one has to abandon part of one’s rights as a man. And having abandoned part of one’s rights as a man, there is no longer any fixed point of leverage, and one can no longer either conquer or maintain any real right. In order to lift others out of a quagmire one must stand on firm ground oneself, and if, hoping the better to assist others, you go into the quagmire, you will not pull others out, but will yourself sink in.

It may be very desirable and useful to get an eight-hour day legalized by Parliament, or to get a liberal program for school libraries sanctioned by your Committee; but if, as a means to this end, a member of Parliament must publicly lift up his hand and lie, lie when taking an oath, by expressing in words respect for what he does not respect; or (in our own case) if, in order to pass most liberal programs, it is necessary to take part in public worship, to be sworn, to wear a uniform, to write mendacious and flattering petitions, and to make speeches of a similar character, etc. — then by doing these things and forgoing our dignity as men, we lose much more than we gain, and by trying to reach one definite aim (which very often is not reached) we deprive ourselves of the possibility of reaching other aims which are of supreme importance. Only people who have something which they will on no account and under no circumstances yield can resist a government and curb it. To have power to resist you must stand on firm ground.

And the government knows this very well, and is concerned, above all else, to worm out of men that which will not yield, in other words, the dignity of man. When this wormed out of them, government calmly proceeds to do what it likes, knowing that it will no longer meet any real resistance. A man who consents publicly to swear, pronouncing the degrading and mendacious words of the oath; or submissively to wait several hours, dressed up in a uniform, at a ministry reception; or to inscribe himself as a special constable for the coronation; or to fast and receive communion for respectability’s sake; or to ask of the head censor whether he may or may not, express such and such thoughts, etc. — such a man is no longer feared by government.

Alexander Ⅱ said he did not fear the Liberals because he knew they could all be bought, if not with money, then with honors.

People who take part in government, or work under its direction, may deceive themselves or their sympathizers by making a show of struggling; but those against whom they struggle — the government — know quite well, by the strength of the resistance experienced, that these people are not really pulling, but are only pretending to. And our government knows this with respect to the Liberals, and constantly tests the quality of the opposition, and finding that genuine resistance is practically non-existent, it continues its course in full assurance that it can do what it likes with such opponents.

The government of Alexander Ⅲ knew this very well, and, knowing it, deliberately destroyed all that the Liberals thought that they had achieved and were so proud of. It altered and limited trial by jury; it abolished the “Judges of the Peace”; it canceled the rights of the universities; it perverted the whole system of instruction in the high schools; it reestablished the cadet corps, and even the state’s sale of intoxicants; it established the Zemsky Nachalniks; it legalized flogging; it almost abolished the local government boards (emstvos); it gave uncontrolled power to the governors of provinces; it encouraged the quartering of troops (eksekutsia) on the peasants in punishment; it increased the practice of “administrative”⁸ banishment and imprisonment, and the capital punishment of political offenders; it renewed religious persecutions; it brought to a climax the use of barbarous superstitions; it legalized murder in duels; under the name of a “state of siege”⁹ it established lawlessness with capital punishment, as a normal condition of things — and in all this it met with no protest except for one honorable woman¹⁰ who boldly told the government the truth as she saw it.

The Liberals whispered among themselves that these things displeased them, but they continued to take part in legal proceedings, and in the local governments, and in the universities, and in government service, and in the press. In the press they hinted at what they were allowed to hint at, and kept silence on matters they had to be silent about, but they printed whatever they were told to print. So that every reader (who was not privy to the whisperings of the editorial rooms), on receiving a liberal paper or magazine, read the announcement of the most cruel and irrational measure unaccompanied by comment or sign of disapproval, sycophantic and flattering addresses to those guilty of enacting these measures, and frequently even praise of the measures themselves. Thus all the dismal activity of the government of Alexander Ⅲ — destroying whatever good had begun to take root in the days of Alexander Ⅱ, and striving to turn Russia back to the barbarity of the commencement of this century — all this dismal activity of gallows, rods, persecutions, and stupefaction of the people has become (even in the liberal papers and magazines) the basis of an insane laudation of Alexander Ⅲ and of his acclamation as a great man and a model of human dignity.

This same thing is being continued in the new reign. The young man who succeeded the late Tsar, having no understanding of life, was assured, by the men in power to who it was profitable to say so, that the best way to rule a hundred million people is to do as his father did, i.e. not to ask advice from any one but just to do what comes into one’s head, or what the first flatterer about him advises. And, fancying that unlimited autocracy is a sacred life-principle of the Russian people, the young man begins to reign; and, instead of asking the representatives of the Russian people to help him with their advice in the task of ruling (about which he, educated in a cavalry regiment, knows nothing, and can know nothing), he rudely and insolently shouts at those representatives of the Russian people who visit him with congratulations, and he calls the desire, timidly expressed by some of them¹¹, to be allowed to inform the authorities of their needs, “nonsensical fancies.”

And what followed? Was Russian society shocked? Did enlightened and honest people — the Liberals — express their indignation and repulsion? Did they at least refrain from laudation of this government and from participating in it and encouraging it? Not at all. From that time a specially intense competition in adulation commenced, both of the father and of the son who imitated him. And not a protesting voice was heard, except in one anonymous letter, cautiously expressing disapproval of the young Tsar’s conduct. And, from all sides, fulsome and flattering addresses were brought to the Tsar, as well as (for some reason or other) ikons¹², which nobody wanted and which served merely as objects of idolatry to benighted people. An insane expenditure of money, the coronation, amazing in its absurdity, was arranged; the arrogance of the rulers and their contempt of the people caused thousands to perish in a fearful calamity, which was regarded as a slight eclipse of the festivities, which should not terminate on that account¹³. An exhibition was organized, which no one wanted except those who organized it, and which cost millions of rubles. In the Chancery of the Holy Synod, with unparalleled effrontery, a new and supremely stupid means of mystifying people was devised, viz., the enshrinement of the incorruptible body of a saint whom nobody knew anything about. The stringency of the censor was increased. Religious persecution was made more severe. The “state of siege,” i.e. the legalization of lawlessness, was continued, and the state of things is still becoming worse and worse.

And I think that all this would not have happened if those enlightened, honest people, who are now occupied in Liberal activity on the basis of legality, in local governments, in the committees, in censor-ruled literature, etc., had not devoted their energies to the task, of circumventing the government, and, without abandoning the forms it has itself arranged, of finding ways to make it act so as to harm and injure itself¹⁴; but, abstaining from taking any part in government or in a business bound up with government, had merely claimed their rights as men.

“You wish, instead of ‘Judges of the Peace,’ to institute Zemsky Nachalniks with birch rods; that is your business, but we will not go to law before your Zemsky Nachalniks, and will not ourselves accept appointment to such an office: you wish to make trial by jury a mere formality; that is your business, but we will not serve as judges, or as advocates, or jurymen: you wish under the name of a ‘state of siege,’ to establish despotism; that is your business, but we will not participate in it, and will plainly call the ‘state of siege’ despotism, and capital punishment inflicted without trial, murder: you wish to organize cadet corps, or classical high schools, in which military exercises and the Orthodox faith are taught; that is your affair, but we will not teach in such schools, or send our children to them, but will educate our children as seems to us right: you decide to reduce the local government boards (zemstvos) to impotence; we will not take part in it: you prohibit the publication of literature that displeases you; you may seize books and punish the printers, but you cannot prevent our speaking and writing, and we shall continue to do so: you demand an oath of allegiance to the Tsar; we will not accede to what is so stupid, false, and degrading: you order us to serve in the army; we will not do so, because wholesale murder is as opposed to our conscience as individual murder, and above all, because the promise to murder whomsoever a commander may tell us to murder is the meanest act a man can commit: you profess a religion which is a thousand years behind the times, with an ‘Iberian Mother of God’¹⁵, relics, and coronations; that is your affair, but we do not acknowledge idolatry and superstition to be religion but call them idolatry and superstition, and we try to free people from them.”

And what can government do against such activity? It can banish or imprison a man for preparing a bomb, or even for printing a proclamation to working-men; it can transfer our “Literature Committee” from one ministry to another, or close a Parliament — but what can a government do, with a man who is not willing publicly to lie with uplifted hand, or who is not willing to send his children to an establishment which he considers bad, or who is not willing to learn to kill people, or is not willing to take part in idolatry, or is not willing to take part in coronations, deputations, an addresses, or who says and writes what he thinks and feels? By prosecuting such a man, government secures for him general sympathy, making him a martyr, and it undermines the foundations on which it is itself built, for in so acting, instead of protecting human rights, it itself infringes them.

And it is only necessary for all those good, enlightened, and honest people, whose strength is now wasted in revolutionary, socialistic, or liberal activity, harmful to themselves and to their cause, to begin to act thus, and a nucleus of honest, enlightened, and moral people would form around them, united in the same thoughts and the same feelings; and to this nucleus the ever wavering crowd of average people would at once gravitate, and public opinion — the only power which subdues governments — would become evident, demanding freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, justice, and humanity. And as soon as public opinion was formulated, not only would it be impossible to close the “Literature Committee,” but all those inhuman organizations — the “state of siege,” the secret police, the censor, Schlusselburg¹⁶, the Holy Synod, and the rest — against which the revolutionists and the liberals are now struggling would disappear of themselves.

So that two methods of opposing the government have been tried, both unsuccessfully, and it now remains to try a third and a last method, one not yet tried, but one which, I think, cannot but be successful. Briefly, that means this: that all enlightened and honest people should try to be as good as they can, and not even good in all respects, but only in one; namely, in observing one of the most elementary virtues — to be honest, and not to lie, but to act and speak so that your motives should be intelligible to an affectionate seven-year old-boy; to act so that your boy should not say, “But why, papa, did you say so-and-so, and now you do and say something quite different?” This method seems very weak, and yet I am convinced that it is this method, and this method only, that has moved humanity since the race began. Only because there were straight men, truthful and courageous, who made no concessions that infringed their dignity as men, have all those beneficent revolutions been accomplished of which mankind now have the advantage, from the abolition of torture and slavery up to liberty of speech and of conscience. Nor can this be otherwise, for what conscience (the highest forefeeling man possesses of the truth accessible to him) demands, is always, and in all respects, the activity most fruitful and most necessary for humanity at the given time. Only a man who lives according to his conscience can have influence on people, and only activity that accords with one’s conscience can be useful.

But I must explain my meaning. To say that the most effectual means of achieving the ends toward which revolutionists and liberals are striving, is by activity in accord with their consciences, does not mean that people can begin to live conscientiously in order to achieve those ends. To begin to live conscientiously on purpose to achieve any external ends is impossible.

To live according to one’s conscience is possible only as a result of firm and clear religious convictions; the beneficent result of these in our external life will inevitably follow. Therefore the gist of what I wished to say to you is this: that it is unprofitable for good, sincere people to spend their powers of mind and soul in gaining small practical ends; e.g. in the various struggles of nationalities, or parties, or in Liberal wire-pulling, while they have not reached a clear and firm religious perception, i.e. a consciousness of the meaning and purpose of their life. I think that all the powers of soul and of mind of good people, who wish to be of service to men, should be directed to that end. When that is accomplished, all else will be accomplished too.

Forgive me for sending you so long a letter, which perhaps you did not at all need, but I have long wished to express my views on this question. I even began a long article about it, but I shall hardly have time to finish it before death comes, and therefore I wished to get at least part of it said. Forgive me if I am in error about anything.

So you may have heard that the Supreme Court ruled that Congress is within its rights to tell universities that if they accept any federal government money they have to let the military come on to campus to try to recruit their students — even if this conflicts with nondiscrimination policies the university enforces against all other corporate recruiters.

The solution to this is as obvious as it is unlikely — wean yourselves from the Capitol teat, universities! Extreme, yes, but not without precedent.

Ultimately, it’s just as vital that we stop accepting stolen money from the government as it is that we stop letting them steal our money.

When the government gives money or privilege, the recipients in return help to empower that government — whether they want to or not. The government, by selectively rewarding some and withholding rewards from others not only rewards compliant behavior directly, but also gives additional power and prestige to those who behave as the government wants and to those who by their actions provide a role model for submissive behavior. The privilege or money granted is only the government’s to give because the government denies it to or steals it from someone else.

It might seem that taking money or license from the government is a good thing, or at worst a neutral thing, but because it has these side effects it’s the kind of gift horse that needs a full dental check-up.

When Gandhi was commander-in-chief of the Indian independence movement, his campaign of non-cooperation included tax resistance and other forms of civil disobedience, but he not only instructed his nonviolent army to resist taxes, wear untaxed domestic cloth, break the British salt monopoly by harvesting salt, and so forth — he also told them to resign their government posts, renounce any government-awarded titles or authority, take their children out of government schools, not ask for protection from the government’s law or courts, and stop voting or running for office. He explained why:

This is the way of non-co-operation, or peaceful severing of relations. That is, that we should neither seek help from the Government nor offer it any help. How can we part company with it? First we should renounce titles. For us now to hold titles is a sin. Next we should give up the courts. The dispensing of justice should lie in our own hands. The courts strengthen the roots of the Government. Lawyers should give up their practice. If it is possible for them they should, after giving up legal practice, serve the country. Even if they cannot serve the country the giving up of legal practice would be by itself sufficient service. They should take up other trades. Parents should withdraw their children from schools and universities. Boys who have reached the age of 16 should be treated as friends and advised to withdraw. They should be told not to continue their studies in these institutions. They should be told to go to school at institutions where they can remain free. We should not go for education to a place where the Government’s flag flies.

The Congress has also said that we should not go into the Councils. The election to the Councils will take place on the 30^th. It is the day when we shall be tested. First we should persuade the candidates to withdraw. If they do not give in, it will be the duty of voters to remain at home and not to cast their votes. We should go on pleading with the candidates till the night of the 29^th. We should fall at their feet and beseech them not to stand for the Councils. If they do not come round but persist in going into the Councils it will be your duty to refuse all help and do no work for them. Again, soldiering is a sin. You should not get recruited as soldiers, but it is your duty to become soldiers of freedom.

…With great humility I ask you: What have you done? Have you withdrawn your boys from schools and colleges? If your boy is grown up have you made him aware of his duty? Have you given him your blessing in this matter? If you have not done this, why are you gathered here? It is the duty of boys to leave schools and to convince their elders. Have you decided not to vote? Have you taken the swadeshi vow? These questions concern everyone. Government recruitment should stop. We should take our litigation to our elders and seek justice. This will put an end to the “prestige” of the Government. The Government will at the same time realize that its hundred thousand whites can no longer rule over three hundred million people. So long the Government has carried on its rule over us by making us quarrel among ourselves, by offering us enticements and by giving and taking help.…

—26 November 1920

Yesterday was all about the pre-revolutionary tax resistance against Great Britain practiced by rebellion-minded American colonists in an organized swadeshi-like campaign against the use of taxed imports.

When the American Revolution became a hot war this raised tax resistance issues of a different sort: from the pacifist Christian sects, particularly the Quakers, who were a major presence in the colonies, and who had to resist considerable pressure to support the patriot cause.

Pacifist opposition to funding the American Revolution is covered in the book We Won’t Pay!: A Tax Resistance Reader.

Not only were war taxes demanded in areas held by the revolutionary army, but the rebel Congress’s fiat currency was wildly inflationary and itself represented a war tax. As one Quaker group put it:

A concern having often arisen in this committee and [being] livingly reviewed at this time, that Friends might exert themselves in laboring to have their brethren convinced of the pernicious consequences of continuing to circulate the Continental currency, so called, it being calculated to promote measures repugnant to the peaceable principles we profess to be led by, and having [as we believe] greatly increased our sufferings, and brought dimness over many, by continuing in the use thereof; it is therefore agreed to mention it to the Quarterly Meeting for consideration.

Ezra Michener adds, using language that reminds me very much of that used by modern critics of American fiat money:

Friends had strong reasons for objecting to the use of this Continental money.

The creation by law of a circulating medium of fictitious value, for the purpose of a gradual depreciation, cannot be reconciled with truth and justice, however necessity may seem to require it. To say to the people you shall pass this paper for a certain nominal value to-day, but only at a less value tomorrow, and still less the day following, till it becomes entirely valueless, is a repudiation of a contract, — a refusal to pay a debt by the Government. As a substitute for taxation, its operation is extremely unequal, and therefore to the same degree unjust. Viewed in this light, it was strictly a requisition for carrying on the war, which Friends could not consistently pay.

Some Quakers refused to use the Continentals, which was an extremely dangerous form of tax resistance. It was seen by the rebel authorities as a variety of treason, and could be punished by death. (One Quaker was nearly hanged for refusing to accept Continentals in return for supplies the rebel army had forcibly requisitioned, when in fact his principles would not have allowed him to accept remuneration of any kind under the circumstances.)

Job Scott wrote of what he believed to be his duty under the circumstances:

Much close exercise of mind I had for a considerable length of time, on account of some particular scruples, which from time to time revived with weight, and so pressingly accompanied me, that I could not get rid of them. It being a time of war, and preparations for war between Great Britain and America; and the rulers of America having made a paper currency professedly for the special purpose of promoting or maintaining the war; and it being expected that Friends would be tried by requisitions for taxes, principally for the support of war; I was greatly exercised in spirit, both on the account of taking and passing that money, and in regard to the payment of such taxes; neither of which felt easy to my mind.

I believed a time would come, when Christians would not so far contribute to the encouragement and support of war and fightings as voluntarily to pay taxes that were mainly, or even in considerable proportion, for defraying the expenses thereof; and it was also impressed upon my mind, that if I took and passed the money that I knew was made on purpose to uphold war, I should not bear a testimony against war that for me, as an individual, would be a faithful one. I knew the people’s minds were in a rage against such as, from any motive whatever, said or acted any thing tending to discountenance the war: I was sensible that refusing to pay the taxes, or to take the currency, would immediately be construed as a pointed opposition to the present war in particular; as even our refusing to bear arms was, notwithstanding our long and well-known testimony against it; and I had abundant reason to expect great censure and some suffering in consequence of my faithfulness, if I should stand faithful in these things; though I knew that my scruples were unconnected with any party considerations, and uninfluenced by any motives but such as respect the propriety of a truly Christian conduct, in regard to war at large.

I had no desire to promote the opposition to Great Britain; neither had I any desire on the other hand to promote the measures or success of Great Britain. I believed it my business not to meddle with any thing from such views; but to let the potsherds of the earth alone in their smiting one against another; I wished to be clear in the sight of God, and to do all that he might require of me, towards the more full introduction and coming of his peaceable kingdom and government on earth. I found many well-concerned brethren, who seemed to have little or nothing of these scruples; and some others who were like-minded with me herein.

Under all these considerations the times looked somewhat gloomy; and at seasons great discouragement came over my mind. But after some strugglings, and a length of close exercise, attended with much inward looking to the Lord for direction and support, I was enabled to cast my care upon him, and to risk myself and my all in his service, come whatever might come, or suffer whatever I might suffer, in consequence thereof. I was well aware of many arguments and objections against attending to such scruples; and some seemingly very plausible ones from several passages of scripture, especially respecting taxes; but I believed I saw them all to arise from a want of clear understanding respecting the true meaning of those passages; and I knew I had no worldly interest, ease, or honour, to promote, by an honest attention to what I believed were the reproofs and convictions of divine instruction. I well knew, not only by reading, but experimentally, that “He that doubteth is damned (condemned) if he eat;” and that which is contrary to faith and conviction is sin: therefore I chose rather to suffer in this world, than incur the displeasure of him from whom come all my consolation and blessings.

Things turned out just fine:

Having for nearly a year declined taking the paper currency, agreeably to the secret persuasion which I had of my duty therein, as before mentioned, I have now the satisfaction of comparing the different rewards of obedience and disobedience. For though, from the very first circulation of this money, I felt uneasy in taking it; yet fears and reasonings of one kind or another prevailed on me to take it for a season; and then it became harder to refuse it than it would probably have been at first; but growing more uneasy and distressed about it, at length I refused it altogether, since which I have felt great peace and satisfaction of mind therein; which has, in a very confirming manner, been increasing from time to time, the longer I have refused it: and although I get almost no money of any kind, little other being in circulation, yet I had much rather live and depend on divine Providence for a daily supply, than to increase in the mammon of this world’s goods, by any ways or means inconsistent with the holy will of my heavenly Father: and the prayer of my soul to him is, that I and all his children may be preserved faithful to him in all his requirings; and out of that love of things here below, which alienates from the true love of and communion with him.

In general, he found tax resistance to be less daunting than he had anticipated it to be:

About the latter end of the Sixth month this year, an old acquaintance of mine, being now collector of rates, came and demanded one of me. I asked him what it was for. He said, to sink the paper money. I told him, as that money was made expressly for the purpose of carrying on war, I had refused to take it; and, for the same reason, could, not pay a tax to sink it, believing it my duty to bear testimony against war and fighting. I informed him, that for divers years past, even divers years before the war began, and when I had no expectation of ever being tried in this way, it had been a settled belief with me, that it was not right to pay such taxes; at least not right for me, nor, in my apprehension, right in itself; though many sincere brethren may not at present see its repugnancy to the pure and peaceable spirit of the gospel. I let him know I did not wish to put him to any trouble, but would be glad to pay it if I could consistently with my persuasion. He appeared moderate, thoughtful, and rather tender; and, after a time of free and pretty full conversation upon the subject, went away in a pleasant disposition of mind, I being truly glad to see him so. Divers such demands were made of me in those troublesome times for divers years: I ever found it best to be very calm and candid; and to open, as I was from time to time enabled, the genuine grounds of my refusal; and that, if possible, so as to reach the understandings of those who made the demand.

The tough nut to crack, as it often seemed to be for Quakers, was taxes “in the mixture” — that is, taxes that were paid into a general fund that the government used for a variety of activities, including war. Quakers typically felt that they couldn’t pay war taxes, but also felt that they were required to pay ordinary taxes without complaint. At what point does a tax cross the line from being a benign “mixed” tax to being a war-tax? How little does the government have to disguise the use of a tax that’s meant to support war before a Quaker must stop being concerned about the morality of paying it?

Job Scott again:

At our Yearly Meeting this year, 1779, the subject of Friends paying taxes for war, came under solid consideration. Friends were unanimous, that the testimony of truth, and of our Society, was clearly against our paying such taxes as were wholly for war; and many solid Friends manifested a lively testimony against the payment of those in the mixture; which testimony appeared evidently to me to be on substantial grounds, arising and spreading in the authority of truth.…

Joseph Walton relates the case of Eli Yarnall, who was drafted to be a tax collector (something that seems to have been done to Quakers out of spite from time to time by a revolutionary administration that interpreted their pacifism as Toryism):

In the beginning of the year 1779, when he was about twenty-six years of age, and while the various exercises which were preparing him for the work of the ministry were heavy upon him, he received notice of an appointment from the commissioners of Chester County as collector of the taxes in the district he resided in. Besides the taxes at that time assessed — most of which must go to the support of war — there were to be collected fines for not taking the test oath or affirmation. Of course Eli Yarnall could not conscientiously do aught under the commission, which had, no doubt, been conferred upon him with an evil intent.

On considering the subject, it seemed to him best, in refusing to act, to furnish the commissioners with his reasons for so doing, and he accordingly addressed a letter to them. In this letter he says: “Ye may read, that it was said of old, by way of comparison, ‘The fig-tree said unto them, Should I forsake my sweetness and my good fruit, and go to be promoted over the trees?’ In like manner, I say unto you, shall I forsake that spirit of calmness, tenderness, and humility that breathes peace on earth and good-will toward all men, with which I am, through mercy, measurably favored, and accept of that power offered by you, and exercise the same by tyrannizing over the consciences of my brethren, violently distressing and spoiling their goods? Nay, surely, I dare not do it, let my sufferings in consequence thereof be never so great. I make no doubt but ye have been informed, that we cannot, consistently with our religious principles, have any hand in setting up or pulling down governments. Part of this, that is called a tax, is a fine for not taking a test of fidelity to one government and abjuration of the other, which would immediately make us parties.”

The letter is throughout well written, and sets forth the blessed, peaceable nature of the Christian religion, and the contradiction manifested by its professed believers in their oppressing tender consciences and spoiling the goods of their brethren, whose only fault lay in their endeavors to be faithful to what they deemed the commands of their God. Soon after, Eli Yarnall was called on to exhibit Christian patience in suffering. For his refusal to collect these taxes, he was fined by the commissioners, and on the 7^th of Seventh month, 1779, a valuable horse was taken from him to satisfy that fine. This was but the beginning of this kind of trial, for he had afterward to witness various parts of his property seized, because he could not muster as a militia man, and because he was as much opposed in conscience to paying another to fight for him as to fighting himself.

James Mott went so far as to stop corresponding by mail when Congress added a war tax to the price of postage:

Must our correspondence by mail be at end, in consequence of the extra postage? or shall we pay it, and thereby contribute a mite to the support of measures calculated to destroy men’s lives and property? Perhaps I may be alone in refusing to pay postage on letters. Only a few cents — what can this do, it may be said, towards enabling government to prosecute the war? Very little, I own: but the great sum required is made up of littles; and if all those littles are withheld, the effusion of human blood may be at an end. To have much or little company in doing what we believe to be wrong, in itself is of no avail. I have endeavoured carefully to weigh and examine the consistency of paying taxes and imposts that are expressly for carrying on war (which the present increased ones, doubtless are) not only with our principles and belief as a society, but with the precepts and example of him who is or ought to be our guide and judge; and I cannot, consistently with my idea of either, believe it best for me to pay the present demand of additional postage, little as it is, and alone as I may stand.

After the patriots won independence, Congress tried to pay off its war debts by increasing import duties, and so the old revolutionary tactic of eschewing imports became a tool of the careful pacifist tax resister. Joshua Evans related:

About the year 1791, I understood a law was made for raising money to defray the expenses of war, by means of a duty laid on imported articles of almost every kind. This duty, I believed, was instead of taxing the inhabitants, as had been done some time before. I had felt myself restrained, for thirty or forty years, from paying such taxes; the proceeds whereof were applied, in great measure, to defray expenses relating to war: and, as herein before-mentioned, my refusal was from a tender conscientious care to keep clear in my testimony against all warlike proceedings. When the matter was brought under my weighty consideration, I could see no material difference between paying the expenses relating to war, in taxes, or in duties.

Although for several years past, I had made very little use of goods imported from foreign countries, because of the corruption attending the trade in these things; yet, on hearing of this duty, and considering the cause of its being laid on imported goods, my mind was much exercised. I saw clearly that the blessed Truth stood opposed to all wars and blood-shedding; teaching us to do unto all as we would have them do unto us. Though I had much refrained from using imported goods, in general; yet, as I was frequently engaged in travelling in the service of Truth, I saw great difficulty, as I thought, in refraining from the use of salt; as people generally used it in almost every kind of food.

On this subject my mind was again led into deep exercise; but as I endeavoured to apply, as at the footstool of my heavenly Father, for counsel and preservation upon the right foundation, I was made sensible, that it would be better for me to live on bread and water, than to balk my testimony. I likewise believed he would not lead me forward, though in an uncommon path, without giving me strength to maintain my ground, as I humbly put my trust in him. I therefore thought it right for me to make a full stand against the use of all things upon which duties of that kind were laid. Since which, I have to acknowledge, my way has been made much easier than I looked for.…

From the 19 October 1903 edition of the San Francisco Chronicle comes this short bit that demonstrates some of the creative tactics of nonconformist tax resisters in Great Britain a century and change ago:

The passive resistance of the nonconformists to the tax levied under the new education law is growing throughout England and Wales, where it applies. Those refusing to pay the tax are allowing their property to be seized by the taxgatherers and sold at auction to the highest bidder. In some districts the cases are reported to be multiplying by the hundreds. In Lincolnshire, the sitting magistrate recently refused to try cases of resistance, and left the bench. Difficulty is experienced everywhere in getting auctioneers to sell the property confiscated. In Leominster, a ram and some ewe lambs, the property of a resistant named Charles Grundy, were seized and put up at auction, as follows: Ram, Joe Chamberlain; ewes, Lady Balfour, Mrs. Bishop, Lady Cecil, Mrs. Canterbury and so on through the list of those who made themselves conspicuous in forcing the bill through Parliament. The auctioneer was entitled to a fee under the law of 10 shillings and 6 pence, which he promptly turned over to Mr. Grundy, having during the sale expressed the strongest sympathy for the tax-resisters. Most of the auction sales are converted into political meetings in which the tax and those responsible for it are roundly denounced. The upshot of the opposition to the obnoxious sectarian law will be an assault on Parliament at the next session to repeal it, which will probably be done.

Today, some dispatches concerning a mass tax strike in the south of France in 1907:

Marcellin Albert

French Wine Growers’ Plan

General Refusal to Pay Taxes If Relief Is Not Soon Granted

Copyright, 1907, by The New York Times Co.

Paris, June 1.— Marcélin Albert, the leader of the winegrowers’ agitation in Southern France, does not place much reliance in the Governmental promises of relief.

He continues to organize his forces with a view to a general refusal to pay taxes after June 10, if the promises are not put in action by that date.

In 1922, the residents of Guntur jumped the gun, and, disregarding Gandhi’s pleas to wait, launched a tax resistance campaign on their own.

Gandhi Urged Calm Should He Be Seized

Ghose Asserts Civil Mass Disobedience Has Begun — Natives Not Paying Taxes.

Bombay, March 10 (Associated Press).— While at Ahmedabad, Mohandas K. Gandhi, writing in the newspaper New India, said that if he were arrested the people should remain unmoved. He asked that they fulfill the whole constructive program framed at Bardoli “with clockwork regularity and speed like the Punjab express.”

An appeal to the public to remain calm, “as we shall show no regard for Gandhi either by observing a hartal or going mad,” was issued today by the Congress committee. The committee requests that the natives refrain from invoking a hartal and maintain “a peaceful, cordial attitude toward all.”

Special to The New York Times

Washington, March 11.— Sailendra N. Ghose, director of the American Commission to Promote Self-Government in India, said today that reports he had received from India showed that although Gandhi, the non-co-operation leader, who had just been arrested, had deferred civil mass disobedience, the Nationalists in several districts had refused to pay taxes, and in others individual land owners had taken the same course.

Mr. Ghose gave to the press, as typical of the prevailing conditions, the following report from the Secretary of the All-India Congress Committee for the District of Guntur:

“The nonpayment of taxes is very encouraging. The revenue collected from Bapatla Taluk (taluk means a district somewhat similar to a township in this country) is 1,400 rupees against 200,000 (normal) in the first remittance; in Narsaravupet Taluk, 1,100 against 150,000; in Sattenapalli Taluk, 1,500 against 150,000; in Rapallo Taluk, 2,000 against 200,000; in Tenali Taluk, 6,000 against 200,000.

“Other taluks are not lagging behind.

“Village officers’ resignations are briskly proceeding. Meetings are prohibited through Tenali Taluk. Workers are disobeying in batches. Developments are expected.”

In the rural sections of India, Mr. Ghose explained, taxes are imposed by the Government, not on individuals, but on communities, the annual levy averaging between 30 and 45 per cent. of the average gross production of the district over thirty-year periods. The head man of the village is held accountable for the tax by the Government, and he is supposed to recover from the villagers.

“The figures for Guntur district are cited as typical of what is going on in many parts of India,” Mr. Ghose said.

“Although Gandhi has deferred orders for mass civil disobedience, he has encouraged individual action. In many of the communities, however, mass action has been taken and in none of those districts has the tax collected this year exceeded 10 per cent. of normal, and in some cases, as is shown by the figures for Guntur, the ratio has been less than 2 per cent.

“To counteract this, the Government in some provinces has refused to allow village officers to resign, dismissing those who refuse to carry out their duties and thus depriving their heirs of their hereditary rights as village chiefs. The Madras Government has moved to amend the law to shorten the time necessary to carry out the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act so that land or movable property may be brought to sale immediately on failure of tax payments. Trouble is certain where the police attempt to carry out the provisions for wholesale seizures of property.

A disclaimer paragraph follows that notes that Ghose “has been an active propagandist in Washington” who “announced early in January, basing his statements on cable advices which he said he had received, that on Jan. 1 the Nationalist leaders in India had proclaimed a republic which had a mobilized force of 1,400,000 men. This information proved to be incorrect. Subsequently Mr. Ghose announced that the Indian congress had declared against the Gandhi method of ‘civil disturbance’ and was about to begin active revolution. This also proved to be an error.”

The following account of a pacifist crisis of conscience over military commutation fines during the American Civil War comes from the Autobiography of Adin Ballou.

A Case of Conscription

At this point I must put on record one special exploit of the high-pretending warpower of the United States government which we were counseled to summon to our aid in seeking the overthrow of slavery. In August, 1863, under a law authorizing the conscription of soldiers for replenishing the depleted ranks of the army, one of the loyal members of our Community, John Lowell Heywood, was drawn for the required service. As he could not conscientiously respond in person to the demand made upon him nor employ a substitute to fill his place, it was deemed advisable, after considerable hesitancy and discussion, that the prescribed commutation equivalent of three hundred dollars should be paid by him and such of his friends as might be moved to assist him in the crisis, rather than that he should be made to suffer the penal infliction provided for those who, under such circumstances, refused to join the forces then in the field. This was accordingly done. I have since feared that we acted wrongfully in the matter, feeling that it would have been more consistent with our principles and a more effective testimony against the wicked exactions of the government to have allowed the law to have taken its proper course and dealt with our unresisting brother to the full extent of its despotic and inexorable requirements. I do not recommend a repetition of our course in future cases of a similar sort, although in the unprecedented pressure of events I advised the payment of the money. It was done, however, under public protest formally presented to the military authorities at the time, a copy of which, prepared by myself and approved by the Community, I take the liberty to submit to my readers and to coming generations as follows:

To the governmental authorities of the United States and their constituents, the undersigned, John Lowell Heywood of Hopedale, in the town of Milford, in the eighth congressional district of Massachusetts, respectfully maketh solemn declaration, remonstrance, and protest, to wit:

That he has been enrolled, drafted, and notified to appear as a soldier of the United States, pursuant to an Act of Congress approved March 3, 1863, commonly called the Conscription Law.

That he holds in utter abhorrence the rebellion which the said law was designed to aid in suppressing and would devotedly fight unto death against it if he could conscientiously resort to deadly weapons in any case whatsoever.

But that he has been for nearly nine years a member in good and regular standing of a Christian Community whose religious confession of faith and practice pledges its members “never to kill, injure, or harm any human being, even their worst enemy.”

That in accordance with his highest convictions of duty and his sacred pledge as a member of said Community, he has scrupulously and uniformly abstained from participating in the state and national governments under which he has lived — not only foregoing the franchises, preferments, emoluments, and advantages of a constituent co-governing citizen, but also the privilege of righting his wrongs by commencing suits at law, and of calling on government for protection against threatened violence — in order thereby to avoid making himself morally responsible for their constitutional dernier resorts to war, capital punishment, and other kindred acts, and also to commend to mankind by a consistent example those divine principles which prepare the way for a higher order of society and government on earth.

That, nevertheless, it is one of the cardinal Christian principles to respect existing human government, however imperfect, as a natural outgrowth and necessity of society for the time being, subordinate to the providential overrulings of the supreme divine government, and therefore to be an orderly, submissive, peaceable, tribute-paying subject thereof; to be no detriment or hindrance to any good thereby subserved; to countenance no rebellion, sedition, riot, or other disorderly demonstration against its authorities; to oppose its greatest abuses and wrongs only by truthful testimony and firm, moral remonstrance; and in the last resort, when obliged for conscience’ sake to non-comply with its requirements, to submit meekly to whatever penalties it may impose.

That with such principles, scruples, and views of duty, he can not conscientiously comply with the demands of this Conscription Law, either by serving as a soldier or by procuring a substitute. Nor can he pay the three hundred dollars of commutation money which the law declaratively appropriates to the hiring of a substitute, except under explicit remonstrance and protest that the same is virtually taken from him by compulsion lor a purpose and use to which he could never voluntarily contribute it, and for which he holds himself in no wise morally responsible.

And he hereby earnestly protests, not only for himself but also in behalf of his Christian associates and all other orderly, peaceable, tax-paying, non-juring subjects of the government of whatever denomination or class, that their conscientious scruples against war and human life-taking, ought, in justice and honor, to be respected by the legislators and administrators of a professedly republican government; and that, aside from general taxation for the support thereof, no person of harmless and exemplary life who is conscientiously opposed to war and deadly force between human beings, and especially no person who for conscience sake foregoes the franchises, preferments, privileges, and advantages of a constituent citizen, ought ever to be conscripted as a soldier, either in person or property.

Now, therefore, I, the said John Lowell Heywood, do pay the three hundred dollars commutation money to the government of the United States, under military constraint in respectful submission to the powers that be, but solemnly protesting against the exaction as an infraction of my natural and indefeasible rights as a conscientious, peaceable subject. And for the final vindication of my canse, motives, and intentions, I appeal to the moral sense of all just men, and above all to the inerrable judgment of the Supreme Father and Ruler of the universe.

Subscribed with my hand at Hopedale, Milford, Mass., this 18^th day of August, A.D., 1863.

John Lowell Heywood.

That excerpt comes from Ballou’s Autobiography (1896 edition, pages 449–452). Ballou also includes the letter in his History of the Hopedale Community, prefacing it with the following (1897 edition, pages 317–8):

Case of Conscription

In the summer of 1863 one of our faithful and worthy members, J. Lowell Heywood, was drafted into the military service of the United (?) States under the Conscription Act of March 3 in the same year. This was a sore trial and a cause of much anxiety to himself and family, and scarcely less so to all the rest of us. That he could not enter the army and serve as a soldier there, was a foregone conclusion. The only question was whether he should pay the prescribed $300.00 commutation money, as the law allowed him to do, or submit to such military penalties as might be pronounced against him, however severe they might be. Public opinion among us was divided upon that question. A strong feeling prevailed that absolute consistency required that he should suffer a heroic personal martyrdom, and thus bear the most effective testimony to his religious principles; but it was also thought that the commutation money might be paid by himself and friends in good conscience and without blame, if it were done under protest, thus saving him from indefinite incarceration in fortress or prison, or from possible death, should military infatuation or madness, as might be the case, carry the matter to such an extreme. My personal sympathies for his family in their distress overruled my sterner convictions, and I gave my adhesion to the latter view, drawing up a paper in remonstrance for presentation at martial headquarters, which, at the time, I persuaded myself met the moral demands of the case. This course was finally approved by a majority of our members and carried into effect. As a further token of our position at that great crisis of our national history, and of our adherence to our standard of faith under perplexing circumstances, the document is herewith submitted:

…and suffixing it with the following (pages 320–1):

Upon more deliberate and dispassionate examination of this whole matter, I had serious misgivings as to the rightfulness of the course that was pursued. The Protest, though inherently just and good, was too weak to meet the moral exigency of the case and produce salutary results. The spirit of conscienceless domination which tramples on such sacred scruples and rights as the document enumerates, seems to require a more stringent moral resistance in order to be made to feel its culpability and be brought to repentance — in order to be regenerated. It is sheer extortion and persecution; an outrage unwarranted, save in the ethics of brutal despotism, to conscript a man of such principles, character, and life as our victimized associate. And when committed, it should be met with unflinching moral heroism and personal martyrdom, even unto death, if need be, in order to arouse public attention to the enormity of the offence and induce a radical and most necessary reform in the practical administration, not alone of military affairs but of the concerns of states and nations. At least this is my present persuasion.

I’m about half-way through Virginia Woolf’s Three Guineas. It’s a book I haven’t decided yet whether I want to finish (it’s getting a little monotonous) but it did have a passage I thought was worth sharing here.

She’s been thinking over the question of how women, as they begin to escape from patriarchal domination and to compete on the same playing field as men, can avoid the vices that playing on this field seems to impart to men. She says that a woman ought to vow that “in the practice of your profession you refuse to be separated from poverty, chastity, derision, and freedom from unreal loyalties,” things which, in the past, have been the crucial informal education of women who have been denied formal education.

Here is how she defines these things:

By poverty is meant enough money to live upon. That is, you must earn enough to be independent of any other human being and to buy that modicum of health, leisure, knowledge, and so on that is needed for the full development of body and mind. But no more. Not a penny more.

By chastity is mean that when you have made enough to live on by your profession you must refuse to sell your brain for the sake of money. That is you must cease to practise your profession, or practise it for the sake of research and experiment; or, if you are an artist, for the sake of the art; or give the knowledge acquired professionally to those who need it for nothing. But directly the mulberry tree begins to make you circle, break off. Pelt the tree with laughter.

Going “’round the mulberry tree” is a metaphor she’s been using to describe professional people who are running a treadmill because of the apotheosis of private property and the warfare state.

By derision — a bad word, but once again the English language is much in need of new words — is meant that you must refuse all methods of advertising merit, and hold that ridicule, obscurity, and censure are preferable, for psychological reasons, to fame and praise. Directly badges, orders, or degrees are offered you, fling them back in the giver’s face.

By freedom from unreal loyalties is meant that you must rid yourself of pride of nationality in the first place; also of religious pride, college pride, school pride, family pride, sex pride, and those unreal loyalties that spring from them. Directly the seducers come with their seductions to bribe you into captivity, tear up the parchments; refuse to fill up the forms.

Throughout the book Woolf relies heavily on irony, so it is not clear to me (at least yet) to what extent she is endorsing this advice or perhaps offering it as the logical outcome of some point of view she doesn’t endorse. But from this she slides quickly into an earnest discussion of Sophocles’s Antigone, so I lean toward thinking she means this to be taken at least somewhat seriously:

You want to know which are the unreal loyalties which we must despise, which the real loyalties which we must honour? Consider Antigone’s distinction between the laws and the Law. That is a far more profound statement of the duties of the individual to society than any our sociologists can offer us. Lame as the English rendering is, Antigone’s five words are worth all the sermons of all the archbishops.^*

---

^* The five words of Antigone are: Οὓτοι συνέχθειν ἀλλά συμωιλεῖν ἕωυν. ’Tis not my nature to join in hating, but in loving (Antigone, line 523 (Jebb).) To which Creon replied: “Pass, then, to the world of the dead, and, if thou must needs love, love them. While I live, no woman shall rule me.”

Around this date in 1929, a flurry of articles began to appear in the English-language press about the possibility of a tax resistance campaign in India in service of the nationalist independence campaign there. Here are some examples.

From the 28 December 1929 Devon and Exeter Gazette:

Indian Boycott.

Passive Resistance Projected.

The All-India Congress Council, following the failure of the talk between the Viceroy and Congress leaders, has drafted a resolution declaring that Swaraj, in the Congress creed, shall mean complete independence. As a preliminary step towards organising the campaign for independence, the resolution declares a complete boycott of the Central and Provincial Legislatures, and calls upon Congressmen to abstain from participating, directly or indirectly, in future elections, and upon present members of the Legislature to tender their resignations. It also authorises the All-India Congress Committee, whenever it deems fit, to launch a programme of civil disobedience, including non-payment of taxes.

The resolution will come immediately before the Congress for consideration.

The Bardoli tax strike had taken place the previous year and had proven the power of the tactic for wresting concessions from the government. Lord Irwin, Viceroy of India under the British imperial government, had been negotiating with the Indian National Congress, but those negotiations collapsed on 23 December.

Here’s another report, from the 28 December 1929 Hartlepool Northern Daily Mail:

The outlook in India has taken a turn for the worse. The Working Committee of the All-India National Congress has drafted an extreme resolution rejecting the round table conference proposed by the Viceroy. The resolution advocates complete independence and the Dominion status scheme is dropped. The Committee proposes to boycott the Central and Provincial Legislatures from which Congressmen will be asked to resign. The Congress Committee seeks power to launch at any moment a programme of passive resistance including the non-payment of taxes. Possibly the majority of Congress do not accept these views but the general feeling in India appears to be that the rank and file will drop into line with the leaders.

And here’s how the Albuquerque Journal reported the news (via a United Press wire report):

Revolt Talk in India Growing; 80,000 Gather to Take Action

Sunday May See, at Lahore, Declaration of Independence From the Rule of Great Britain

Refuse to Pay Tax; Passive Resistance

That Is Suggestion of Mahatma Ghandi [sic]; But Hot Heads Want to Proclaim Open Warfare

Lahore, India, Dec. 28 (UP) — Eighty thousand Indians, about to proclaim their country free and independent of Great Britain, jostled and fought their way to the meeting place of the Indian national congress Saturday. The declaration of independence, which will be followed by refusal to pay taxes, participate in the legislative assembly under British rule, and by a general policy of passive resistance, probably will be introduced at the first plenary session Sunday.

The weather was bitterly cold, but the delegates, inspired by their religious beliefs, suffered willingly. Many delegates from the Punjab were observed to had [sic] added a warm coat — obviously made in England — to their turbans and wide trousers. However, many from the south, thinly clad, suffered intensely, in compliance with the boycott against foreign cloth ordered by Mahatma Gandhi.

The ascetic and spiritual leader of the hopes and aspirations of millions of Indians added merely a strip of cloth across the shoulders to his loin cloth.

Talk of Revolt

While Gandhi is opposed to violence and has consistently urged an attitude of merely passive resistance, hot heads in the convention muttered of revolt.

At Saturday’s session of the subjects committee, N.C. Kelkar of Bombay led the opposition to Gandhi’s resolution proclaiming the policy of the congress. Kelkar moved an amendment urging the president of the congress, Jawaharlal Nehru, to call another convention of all parties, similar to the one which framed the famous Nehru report, before finally changing the creed of the congress.

The first open rupture came Saturday, when Subhas Chandra Bose, of Bengal, resigned from the working committee and walked out with [24?] followers. His action was in protest against a ruling [made?] by Motilal Nehru (the elder) in the Bengal election dispute, which took control of the party in Bengal from Bose.

From the 1 January 1930 Devon and Exeter Gazette:

Indian Trouble Launched.

Congress Adopts Gandhi Resolution.

Passive Resistance.

Lahore, Tuesday. Mr. Gandhi’s resolution was adopted by the All-India Congress to-day by an overwhelming majority.

The resolution expresses appreciation of the efforts of the Viceroy towards a peaceful settlement of the National movement; declares that no good purpose would be served by attending a round-table conference; declares that Congress shall in future mean complete independence; calls for a complete boycott of the Central and Provincial Legislatures; calls for present members to tender their resignations; and authorises the All-India Congress Committee to launch a programme of civil disobedience, including non-payment of taxes. — Reuter

The 14 January 1930 edition of the paper suggested that the campaign hadn’t gotten off to a very good start:

Indian Passive Resisters.

A Poor Start.

Calcutta, Monday. The non-tax movement started in Bandabila has practically collapsed. Its leader has been further charged with attempted murder in connexion with an assault on a collecting agent. — Reuter

The following report, from the 25 January 1930 Western Morning News and Mercury concerns an action that predated the Congress resolution and was a spontaneous, grassroots satyagraha that gained Gandhi’s support after it was launched. It seems to have been about local grievances rather than about the independence struggle:

Farmers Satisfied

End of Forced Labour Dispute in India

Bombay, Friday. Following the settlement of the dispute at Khakharechi, a village in Kathiawar, those taking part in the “civil disobedience” campaign have resolved to cease further activities with regard to the dispute.

The leader of the local farmers, who was arrested for his part in the resistance to the system of “forced labour” and certain taxes which were thought to be unjust, has now been released, and declares that the farmers are quite satisfied with the settlement.

When the passive resistance campaign began Mr. Gandhi expressed his approval of it. — Reuter.

The cherry on top of this campaign would be Gandhi’s famous salt march. The following report, from the 14 February 1930 Yorkshire Post, touches on the salt tax angle for the first time:

Civil Disobedience in India.

Mr. Gandhi Plans Along Two Lines.

Defiance of Salt Tax.

Ahmedabad, Thursday. Mr. Gandhi’s concrete proposals for the campaign of passive resistance with the Government have been tentatively formulated, and will be informally explained to the members of the Congress Working Committee, which meets to-morrow.

Mr. Gandhi’s one object has been to evolve a plan of action which should not run the risk of being interrupted by a repetition of the tragedy at Chauri Chaura, which led to the suspension of his non-co-operation movement, and it is stated that he has arrived at a suitable formula.

His proposal seems to be that Congress should not directly control or lead a campaign of civil disobedience, but should agree to give moral support to the Council of War which should conduct the operations in selected areas in the country. It is learned that Mr. Gandhi is prepared to meet the contingency which may arise if Congress refuses to play a merely passive part. His move then will be to start a campaign without the authority of Congress.

Alternative Methods.

Mr. Gandhi seems to be inclined to favour alternative methods, to be adopted according as best suits the area selected. A no-tax campaign on the lines of Bardoli may be adopted where the atmosphere has been prepared, while concerted defiance of the Government salt monopoly may be decided in other places. Later a proposal will be carried out along two lines; firstly the production of salt by the people wherever natural facilities offer; secondly the organisation of the dock-workers at Calcutta and other ports, with a view to securing their united refusal to handle imported foreign salt. — Reuter.

The 4 March 1930 Western Morning News and Mercury brought us up to date as the Salt March was about to begin:

India No-Tax Campaign

Lack of Success in Some Districts

Mr. Gandhi’s March Propaganda

Ahmedabad, Monday. It is understood that Mr. Gandhi contemplates leading the first batch of volunteers from the Sabaramathi Ashram (seminary) on foot so soon as the period of notice given to the Viceroy expires. This procedure is regarded by Mr. Gandhi and his followers as calculated greatly to help on his propaganda.

The Congress Committee of the Tamilnadu district, north of Madras, meeting at Vellore to-day, says a Madras message, passed a resolution welcoming the Congress Working Committee’s decision authorizing Mr. Gandhi to initiate civil disobedience, calling upon the Tamilnadu people to give every assistance and co-operation to the campaign, and authorizing Mr. Raja Gopala Chari, one of Gandhi’s lieutenants, to determine when and in what manner the campaign shall be started in this province. — Reuter.

Mr. Benn Questioned

Commons Statement on Tax Resistance

Replying to Mr. Wardlaw Milne (Con., Kidderminster), in the House of Commons yesterday, Mr. Wedgewood Benn, Secretary for India, said that in certain districts in Bengal attempts had been in progress for some weeks to organize resistance to the payment of the Union Board Tax with the assistance, or at the instigation of, the local Congress Party.

According to his latest information, except in the one district of Bandabilia, they had met with no success. At Bandabilia the movement began as long ago as November last, but the tax was now being collected with less difficulty in certain villages in Burmah.

There had been a recrudescence of the resistance to the capitation tax, but this had now collapsed. He had no information as to any instances in connection with the salt tax.

Finally, the march began, and an Associated Press was there to file this report, which I take from the Reading [Pennsylvania] Times of 12 March 1930:

Gandhi Starts on Rebel March

150,000 See India Mystic Leave ‘College’ with 70 Followers

Ahmadabad, India, March 12 (Wednesday) (AP) — Mahatma Gandhi, Indian leader and mystic, led his pioneer band of volunteers out of his quarters here at 6:30 a.m. today and started his march to the Gulf of Cambay, opening his campaign of civil disobedience to the Indian government.

As Gandhi, with a firm step despite his 61 years, emerged from his “Ashram,” or college of devotees, at the head of his volunteers a great shiver of excitement ran through the throng. Almost the whole population of Ahmadabad, nearly 150,000 normally and swollen by visitors that have been flocking here for days to see Gandhi depart, was present.

Gandhi will address the villagers at Asali, through which he will pass at about 2 p.m..

Refuse to Pay Tax; Demand Independence

The departure of Mahatma Gandhi and his 70 volunteers on their 20-day march to Jalalpur, not only opens their civil disobedience campaign against the Indian government, but begins in earnest the latest struggle of Indian Nationalists for emancipation from British rule.

The history of their demands shows a constant increase in the measure of emancipation sought. Until this year they had asked first, for home rule, then for Dominion status within the British empire, and finally for complete independence. It is now the last that they are fighting for.

“Civil disobedience” embraces the non-payment of taxes and similar resistance to the government.

The Taunton Courier of 16 April 1930 told the story this way:

India Peril.

500,000 Demonstrate at Bombay.

Salt Tax Effigy Thrown Into Sea.

Rebel Leaders Sent to Jail.

Crowds, estimated at 500,000, including thousands of women and children, thronged into Bombay on Sunday to take part in the demonstration announced by Mahatura [sic] Gandhi to be the last day of the so-called National Week, when the salt tax was formally “killed and buried.”

From sunrise the dense throngs trailed out to Chaupatti sands, carrying pots to take sea-water home, and the streets resounded with patriotic songs, and catch-phrases as “The salt law has been broken.”

The proceedings culminated towards sunset, when crowds went out to the beach, and an effigy of the Salt Act was thrown into the sea.

Obviously actuated though the crowds were by some sort of mysterious enthusiasm, their behaviour was orderly, and the day was not marked by any untoward incident.

Gandhi’s volunteers observed the day as a partial fast, eating once only in 36 hours, and they refrained from collecting or disposing of salt.

Gandhi appealed to a large crowd of men and women who had gathered in a dry creek under a blazing sun, “to pass through the heat of misery,” and not to throw stones at Government officials.

Meanwhile, there came a report from Bombay that two bomb outrages had occurred in connection with the Great Indian Peninsula railway strike.

Extremist Leaders Imprisoned.

Police Rounding Up Salt Law Breakers.

Events moved swiftly in India on Monday with the imprisonment of two extremist leaders.

Pundit Jawaharlal Nehru, president of the All-India Congress, was arrested at Allahbad on a charge of infringing the Salt Law.

He was seized at the railway station on the point of leaving for Raipur, and taken to gaol.

News of his arrest spread through Bombay like wildfire, and within a few minutes the cotton, bullion, seeds, and share markets had suspended business. Members of the Bombay Congress Committee immediately decided to observe a “hartal” (day of mourning).

Later the pundit was brought up at Naini and sentenced to six months’ simple imprisonment. There was a demonstration in front of the gaol, where a large number of people gathered waving national flags.

Meanwhile, at Calcutta, Mr. Sen Gupta, the Mayor, and five students, were sentenced to six months’ rigorous imprisonment for sedition, conspiracy, and obstructing the police.

The Swarajist Mayor was arrested while reading proscribed literature to a meeting of students.

Sixteen persons were also arrested at Lucknow on Monday and five in Bombay for offences against the Salt Law.

Gandhi’s Sons Arrested.

Mr. Gandhi’s son, Ram Das, who was arrested for breach of the salt laws at Bhimrad, has been sentenced to six months’ rigorous imprisonment. Mr. Jarunalal Bajaj and two other volunteers have each been sentence to two years’ rigorous imprisonment and fines of £20. They were accused of inciting a crowd to lawbreaking.

While his father was looking in vain for a policeman who would lock him up on Wednesday, another of Mr. Gandhi’s sons, Davi Das Gandhi, and Mr. Shanker Lal, president of the district congress, were arrested for making salt at Salumpur. Altogether 25 volunteers were arrested and 13 of them were detained in custody.

Gandhi himself was arrested in the wee hours of 5 May and would be held without trial until early the following year.

Another article on the same page said that “untouchables” in India were going to start their own passive resistance campaign to interfere with Gandhi’s march by blockading it as a way of highlighting their own struggle. This is the first I’d heard of this.

Finally, this comes from the 30 October 1930 Mason City, Iowa Globe-Gazette, also via Associated Press:

Refuse to Pay Tax to British

“No Swarage, No Revenue,” Say 50,000 Indian Peasants.

Bombay, Oct. 30. (AP) — Non-payment of taxes, one of the planks of the civil disobedience campaign platform, appears to be gaining ground in some sections of India.

All-India national congress reports say that 50,000 peasants of the Bardoli region have left their homes, resolved not to pay land taxes until Swaraj, or home-rule is established. Many left their household goods, chattels, crops behind, the government confiscating and auctioning them off.

The peasants are said to have for their slogan, “No Swaraj, No Revenue.” The leaders of the movement declare the peasants will not pay until Mahatma Gandhi is released from jail and has ordered them to pay.

The Bardoli district has an area of about 222 square miles containing 123 villages with a total population of 88,000 of whom 82,000 are rural. The annual land revenue exceeds $133,000.

Some bits and pieces from here and there:

• At Riversong HouseWright, war tax resister Robert Riversong recalls the Randy Kehler / Betsy Corner house seizure of 1989–1994 in the context of Gandhi’s “constructive programme” theory. He also shares many photos from the protests that accompanied the seizure, and from the cooperative home-building project that grew out of it.
• The surge in the number of Americans renouncing their citizenship seems to have slowed after having accelerated for several years.
• The recent Republican tax rate cuts were offset by a growing economy such that while corporate taxes have fallen so far this year, individual income taxes have risen enough to more than make up for it.
• The Kenya Motorists Association has called on drivers to park their vehicles in the middle of thoroughfares during morning commute times to protest a tax hike on motor vehicle fuel.
• Rebel neighbors in McKillop, Sasketchewan, have organized to refuse to pay property taxes after they were nearly doubled by their Rural Municipality council. “None of us really cared before,” one of the resisters said. “We just shut up and paid our taxes. But something like this is bringing us together.”