Having just posted some early college exams in political economy from courses taught by Francis Lieber, I thought it would be useful to add this complementary post to provide some biographical content. This is probably as good as any place to add key sections from his inaugural lectures at South Carolina College (1835) and Columbia College (1858) that addressed the topic of political economy.
“Fun” fact: as an enlisted boy-soldier in the Prussian army, Lieber was wounded at the Battle of Waterloo.
____________________________
Principal Biographical Works
Thomas Sergeant Perry, editor. The Life and Letters of Francis Lieber (Boston, 1882)
Lewis R. Harley, Francis Lieber: His Life and Political Philosophy (New York, 1899).
Chester Squire Phinney, Francis Lieber’s Influence on American Thought and Some of His Unpublished Letters (Philadelphia, 1918). [Ph.D. Thesis, University of Pennsylvania]
“Lieber. (1800-1872.) Reception of the Lieber Manuscripts” in Daniel Coit Gilman, Bluntschli, Lieber and Laboulaye. Commemorating acquisition of Bluntschli and Lieber collections by the Library of the Johns Hopkins University, pp. 13-26.
Frank Dreidel, Francis Lieber: Nineteenth-Century Liberal. (Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press, 1948).
____________________________
An Appreciative South Carolina wrote in 1859…
Francis Lieber was born March 18, 1800, in Berlin, Prussia. He went first to a private Grammar School in Berlin, and then to one of the old gymnasia in that city, called the Gray Convent. When but a lad, he left the school-house for the tented field, and had the good fortune to bear a part in some of the most renowned battles in modern times. I need only mention the names of Ligny, Waterloo and Namur. Upon his return from his campaign, he set to work to prepare himself for the University of Berlin, to which, in a short time, he was admitted, and where he was first matriculated. Subsequently he became connected with the University of Jena, a Saxon University, where, to secure himself against the interference of the Prussian Government, he was obliged to acquire the right of academic citizenship, by procuring the title of Doctor of Philosophy. From the University of Jena, he went to the University of Halle, and thence to Dresden, to pursue his studies privately. The oppressions of Greece now touched his heart, and he could not resist her appeals for help. He joined the Philhellenes, and repaired to that country to fight her battles. He next made his way to Rome in spite of the vigilance of the police, and was cordially received by the great historian Niebuhr, then the Prussian embassador, and made an inmate of his family. From Rome he went to his native city Berlin, and from Berlin he fled to England. He had now left his native country, and before I accompany him on his voyage to the New World, which, was to be his future home, let me mark some of the more interesting events of his past life. He belonged to the party of Liberals, and this party was persecuted throughout Germany. When a student at Berlin, he was charged with being a Revolutionist, and committed to prison. Upon his return to Berlin from Rome, he was a second time thrown into prison, and released by the influence of Niebuhr. Being threatened with a third arrest for the publication of certain poems written while in confinement, he fled the country as the only means of escape. Before leaving Germany, he published the Journal of his sojourn in Greece, which he wrote in Niebuhr’s house in Rome, and which has the distinction of being the first book which he gave to the public. This work was well received, and translated into several languages. In England certain tracts and contributions to German periodicals embraced pretty much his published labors. He arrived at New York in 1827, and took the preliminary steps at once to become a citizen of the United States. He made up his mind to fix his residence at Boston. He was a stranger, poor and friendless, and knew not what to do. But he could not remain idle. The consciousness of being in a land of liberty, where there were no restraints upon free inquiry, where the press was not muzzled, and where there were no dungeons for the expression of honest opinion, gave him courage. He conceived the bold idea of writing an American Encyclopedia. I have conversed with him about this period of his life, and as it was the beginning of a brilliant career of author ship in this country, a word of private history may not be without interest. One afternoon in Boston, when a dark cloud was resting upon his mind, he threw himself upon his bed, and indulged in profound reflection. “What shall I do?” was the overwhelming question. He felt that his brain was the only thing which he could draw upon for support. But how was that brain to be used? In what channel were his labors to be directed? In reading the lives of eminent scholars, how often do we find that at the outset they have been borne down, and for a period made miserable by this burdensome and heart-rending thought! Many a genius, under similar circumstances, has sunk never to rise again. A volume of the Conversationes-Lexicon happened to lie on a table in his room. As his eye rested upon it, he exclaimed. aloud, “That’s the thing; I’ll write an Encyclopedia.” He wrote out a plan at once, carried it to some of the leading men of Boston, and they gave it a hearty approval. He left immediately for Philadelphia, contracted with the publishing house of Carey and Lea, and sat down at once to the performance of his herculean task. The Encyclopedia was begun in 1828, and finished in 1831. From Boston he went to New York, where he resided for upwards of a year. He was not idle, but published none of his leading works during that period. His next residence was at Philadelphia, and there it was his fortune to become acquainted with the Hon. Mr. Drayton, formerly of Charleston, South Carolina, and to enjoy the respect and regards of that distinguished gentleman. The close of the year 1834, as has been previously stated, was marked by an almost desperate condition of the South Carolina College, and a thorough re-organization became a matter of necessity. A temporary arrangement was made to carry on the College for the first half of the year 1835, and Dr. Lieber, urged by his friend, Col. Drayton, left for Charleston with letters to Governors Hamilton and Hayne, who at once became his ardent supporters, and procured his consent to have himself put in nomination for a place in the new Faculty. June 5, 1835, he was unanimously elected Professor of History and Political Economy. At a subsequent period Political Philosophy was added to his department. Most of his principal works were written when he held a Professorship in the South Carolina College. Among these may be mentioned his Manual of Political Ethics, his Legal and Political Hermeneutics, or Principles of Interpretation and Construction in Law and Politics, his Essays on Property and Labor, and his Civil Liberty and Self-Government.
In 1844 and 1848, by permission of the Board of Trustees, he visited Europe, and while in Germany, published certain essays, which attracted attention. I have mentioned only the chief works of Lieber; those upon which his fame as an author is to rest. Beside these he published various tracts and essays on different subjects; all of them are valuable, and several are regarded as of high merit. I think that his reputation as a thinker and author, must finally rest, however, upon his Ethics, his Hermeneutics, his Labor and Property, and his Civil Liberty and Self-Government. I would not have the reader suppose that I attach but little value to his Encyclopedia. This is truly a great work of its kind. It met a pressing want. Something of the sort was much needed, and it accomplished the entire purpose for which it was designed. Perhaps a more acceptable service could not have been rendered. The great end was to diffuse knowledge in a country whose happiness is founded on liberty, and whose liberty is only to be preserved by widely spread information. Though the German work was adopted as the basis, it was the leading idea to make it an American Encyclopedia, by embodying in it all the valuable information relating to America, and I believe that this purpose was thoroughly accomplished. If he had left nothing else, this would be sufficient to secure for him an enviable reputation. Perhaps no book published in this country ever met with greater favor from the public. The necessities of the author compelled him to part with the copy-right, and others have received the pecuniary reward for his labors. But he had a higher compensation. His name soon became known to the people of this vast confederacy, and he was proud in the consciousness that whatever might be done in the future in this department of literature, he had led the way, and could not be forgotten. But the work was an Encyclopedia, and the world is apt to believe that an Encyclopedia is nothing more than an alphabetic digest, and arrangement of present science and knowledge. They regard it only as a monument of industry, and are reluctant to accord to the author the honors of original contribution. Though a book to make him remembered, it was not a book to give him reputation as a thinker, and his highest fame, therefore, must rest upon his other publications. Let not my remarks be construed into a disparagement of this truly valuable work. It soon became in truth the American Encyclopedia, and there is, perhaps, little risk in saying, that it has contributed more to the diffusion of general knowledge among us, than any book which was ever issued from the American press. It is not my design to give a notice of his many works. The greatest minds of our country have passed judgment upon them, and he would be truly a bold man who would now question their rank and position. The Manual of Political Ethics, the Essay on Property and Labor, the Hermeneutics, the Treatise on Civil Liberty and Self-Government, have received the highest praise from Story, Kent, Greenleaf, Prescott, Bancroft, and others in this country, and many of the best minds of Europe have added their warmest commendations. His works have been translated into several of the languages of Europe, and adopted as text-books in many of the highest Colleges and Universities. Perhaps no living author is more frequently referred to on all the great questions which he has discussed. Having written so much, and written so well, and in all exhibited the spirit of the true philosophical thinker, there are few subjects in any department of inquiry which cannot be illustrated by an appeal to his works. His service in this respect cannot be more strikingly set forth than by mentioning the fact, that in the discussion of the Elder question in the Presbyterian Review, a clergyman of the Presbyterian denomination, who in genius and learning is surpassed by no Divine in our country, refers to him in language of highest compliment. Can it be doubted that he is one of the great writers of the 19th century! Surely not when the United States, England, France and Germany, all unite in his praises, and have bestowed upon him the honors which are reserved only for the most successful authorship. It is to be remarked, that he has grappled with the most abstract and complex problems, and that he has earned his rewards, therefore, in the fields of highest thought and reflection. He has kept company with master minds, and vindicated his title to fellowship with them. The nature and philosophy of government, the application of the principles of ethics to the science of politics, the principles of interpretation as applicable to the duties of the law-giver, and the science of jurisprudence, the subjects of liberty, labor and property, these are the mighty themes to which he has consecrated his talents and his learning, and on which he has ventured to teach and enlighten his age. In such a field no common mind, no common learning could have achieved any measure of success. Known as he is throughout this country, he is one of a few American citizens who have an enviable European reputation. The estimate in which he is held is exhibited in the many honors and distinctions which have been conferred upon him by various learned Societies and Universities. I will only say here, that Harvard conferred upon him the degree of LL.D., that the French Institute elected him and Archbishop Whately on the same day, corresponding members to fill two vacancies, and that the King of Prussia offered him a Chair in the University of Berlin. He is enrolled among that select number described by Carlyle, “whose works belong not wholly to any age or nation, but who, having instructed their own con temporaries, are claimed as instructors by the great family of mankind, and set apart for many centuries from the common oblivion which soon overtakes the mass of authors, as it does the mass of other men.”
I have now made an allusion to the literary labors of Dr. Lieber. The character of his mind is well displayed in his works. The feature which perhaps would first strike the reader, is the fullness of his information, the amount of his laborious research. All that is known of his subject seems to have been stored away in his capacious brain, and he deals it out with a generous prodigality that looks like waste and extravagance. The whole encyclopedia of knowledge seems to be at his command, and he scatters it like one who feels that his treasures are exhaustless. His memory then is of the largest capacity. And will any of my readers give utterance here to the notion, that this great memory is proof that he possesses no extraordinary strength and vigor of understanding, and that he is wanting in high original powers? It is a popular idea, but I have ever regarded it as the refuge of ignorance and indolence. It is true that Lieber has mastered the thoughts of others; that in the particular department of inquiry to which he has devoted himself, he has gathered all that is valuable. But is this to be matter for reproach? He has not been content, however, with it: he is an earnest and bold thinker, and the knowledge and the speculations of others are not unfrequently used by him as stepping-stones to conduct him to still greater heights. I know that I am not mistaken when I say that he is no servile copyist, no mere follower in the footsteps of other men. On the contrary, he is remarkable for independence of thought, whether in conversation or in writing, and is prone to give utterance to his opinions now and then, with what might be called offensive dogmatism. I think that an examination of any one of his leading works will exhibit very prominently this feature in his mental constitution. He hesitates not to assail the opinions of any author, however renowned, and is ever ready to make battle with the most formidable antagonist. In this he displays a high courage, and a perfect self-confidence. I have sometimes suspected that he carries this too far; that in his eagerness for battle, he may fall short of full justice to his adversary. In all his writings he shows an independence and a love of liberty, which might be called Miltonic. Oppression, despotism in all its forms, whether of the mind or body, is abhorrent to his nature. There is no greater lover of law and of order, and he gives his love to Anglican, American liberty, or, to use his own phrase, to Institutional liberty. Feeling the foot of the oppressor when but a youth, immured in a dungeon because of his liberal principles, it may be said that his life has been one continued struggle for the cause of freedom. Nothing could be more congenial to his tastes, his habits of thought and his principles, than the Institutions of the United States, and feeling all the protection of a well-regulated government, here was opened for him a wide field, where he could labor unrestrained for the great cause to which he had consecrated himself with such devotion. He was the same man; he had changed his home, but not his principles. Even in his adopted country, the victory was not complete. He found the despotism of a fettered commerce, of an exorbitantly taxed industry, and a consequent odious discrimination by government. Could he take any other side than the side of Free Trade! He soon became one of the distinguished champions of the cause, and had the high honor of being styled by Robert J. Walker, the able Secretary of the Treasury, “the philosophic head of the Free Traders of the United States.” But this is not all. Our infant country is rapidly progressive. From causes easily understood, and which it is not necessary to enumerate, we are exposed to peculiar danger from the rise of every possible opinion on every variety of subject, the rapidity with which they are propagated, the facility with which organizations are effected, and the great power which they acquire, and bring to bear in the issues of the country. Some of these are indigenous, while the seeds of others are imported from foreign lands, and find here a genial soil, which soon stimulates them to germination. We have our Masonic and Anti-Masonic parties, our Seers and Prophets, our Socialists, Communists, Agrarians, Free Love Societies, Mormonists, Women’s Rights Parties, Polygamists, Know Nothings, and a long list of societies and associations, in too many instances based upon principles utterly subversive of right and order, and which, if not checked, would soon bring about anarchy and ruin. That man knows but little of the nature and philosophy of the human mind, and of the history of popular delusions, who is not prepared to concede that the grossest errors and superstitions, the wildest and most dangerous hypotheses, may take root and rally to their support a host of zealous and devoted advocates. Of this whole class of reckless innovators and insane enthusiasts, this motlied crew whose sole principle of cohesion is to war upon law and order, and to unsettle the great truths which have been sanctified by the experience of ages, Lieber indulges a feeling of abhorrence, and looks upon them as enemies of progress and the human race. The tone of his works cannot be too much commended. The spirit of justice, of morality and of liberty, breathes though them all. But the effects of his teachings are not limited to America. The press has borne them to the despotisms of the Old World, and wherever there is a struggle for the rights of man, he may be said to be present and bearing his part.
But I am to speak of him as a Professor in the South Carolina College. He was connected with it for upwards of twenty years, and closed his labors in December, 1856. From what has already been said, there can be no doubt that he had all the fullness of learning which could be demanded. With the details of history, with the speculations and systems of philosophy connected with the departments of which he had charge, it is hard to conceive of greater familiarity. To his classes he poured out his learning in one continued stream; and sometimes it confounded from its very profusion. Full of enthusiasm in the pursuit of knowledge, elevating it almost to the rank of a Divinity, he always exhibited the greatest earnestness of purpose. Of the amount of his labors in the College it is not easy to form a correct estimate. His whole time, with but little relaxation, was devoted to the severest toil. From his study to his class room, from his class room to his study — this was his life; and yet, with all this labor, his spirit was fresh, and his ardor unabated. Never have I known a more insatiable appetite, and he was ever in search of food for its gratification. But, not to indulge in metaphor, I have never met a more inquiring mind. He was always in quest of knowledge, and drew it from every source. Like Franklin, he would extract it even from the ignorant and unthinking, and thus he levied his contributions upon all. All know how suggestive a fact may be to a thoughtful mind, and what beautiful superstructures of knowledge have been reared from the humblest beginnings. Overflowing with information on such a variety of subjects, he had it in his power to render a particular service to the young men of the College, which I have always regarded of immense value. In the many public exercises which they are required to perform, such as speeches at the Exhibition, at Commencement, before the Societies, and Prize Essays, nothing was more common than to seek a conversation with Lieber, who would suggest the plan of discussion, and point to the best sources of information. His lectures and his published works, too, furnished a mine of thought and knowledge, from which the richest treasures were drawn. I must call attention for a moment to the arrangements in his lecture room. One would expect to find maps, and charts and globes, in the room of a Historical Professor, as these are the indispensable tools with which he has to work. There is nothing in this, then, to distinguish the room in which Lieber met his classes. But there is something besides which rivets the attention, and appeals to the noblest affections. The walls are graced with busts of the immortal men of ancient and modern times, and thus is brought to bear something of the power of a real presence. Here in mute but expressive silence stand Homer, Demosthenes, Socrates, Cicero, Shakspeare, Milton, Kant, Goethe, Luther, Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Humboldt and William Penn. Here, too, are to be seen the illustrious trio, Webster, Calhoun and Clay, and two of the favorite public servants of Carolina, Preston and McDuffie. I need not insist that these are not to be regarded in the light of mere ornament; that they speak to the souls of all who look upon them, and tend to arouse into activity all that is noble, refining and elevating.
Dr. Lieber’s resignation was accepted by the Board of Trustees December, 1856, and the following proceedings were had on the occasion:
Whereas, The resignation of Dr. Lieber has been accepted by this Board:
Resolved, That the Board of Trustees have a full appreciation of the eminent learning and just reputation of Dr. Lieber.
Resolved, That the Board tender to Dr. Lieber their hearty and sincere good wishes for his future welfare and prosperity.
It is worthy of note, that at a meeting of the alumni of the College, resolutions of a most complimentary character were adopted, and two massive silver vessels presented to him in token of their regard and admiration. I have now brought to a close my very imperfect notice of Lieber as a Professor in the South Carolina College. I have but a single additional remark to make. He must take his place as a star of the first magnitude. In all future time the State will regard his name as one of the brightest and most illustrious on the roll of her Faculty. That he honored her cherished Institution, that he spread her fame to distant lands, and contributed in largest measure to her exaltation and glory, none will question. He will live forever in her history, and never, never, will it be forgotten that her chosen temples of learning were adorned by his ministrations, and that he devoted the best portion of his life to her service and honor.
I shall now dismiss him as an author and a Professor, but I must be permitted to say a word of him as a man. Associated with him for thirteen years as his colleague in the Faculty, and sustaining towards him relations of confidence throughout that period, I think that I have had ample opportunities for forming a right estimate, and that my judgment is entitled to some measure of value. He knows his strength, and never distrustful of his powers, always exhibits a spirit of bold self-reliance. In the ardor of discussion he may become too dogmatic and peremptory, and act like one who never shows mercy, or “gives quarters.” This may create the impression that his character is cast in too stern a mould to allow of the existence of the tender and sympathetic affections. But this is a mistake. His heart is as large as his brain, and endued with a tender sensibility. He can carry out the lesson of the poet:
—— — — — — “to feel another’s woe,
To hide the fault I see.”
I know that he is kindly-natured, free to forgive, and incapable of malice. His personal morality is without reproach, and he illustrates in his life the doctrines so impressively inculcated in his published works. He is fond of the beautiful, and is arrested in admiration whenever it is presented. Is it beneath the dignity of my subject to say that he will almost steal a flower, that he may send it with a complimentary note to a young lady! He loves to look out upon a May-day when the earth teems with buds and blossoms, and how responsive is his heart with its hopes and its joys! Shall I add that he has a youthful fondness for the society of girls, and that no young gallant can surpass him on such occasions in light and airy conversation. But I must not forget his sympathy with little children; “those flowers that make the hovel’s earthen floor delightful as the glades of paradise.” He will play with them by the hour, and leading the way, forget his manhood, and become as one of them. Does not this speak volumes for his heart? Shall I say more? He has left the South Carolina College, but his affections still linger around it. He loves the trees under whose shades he walked for twenty years, the lecture room where he so long labored in the cause of knowledge; and the ivy which he planted, and which now spreads itself in rich luxuriance over the house which he occupied, has fastened its tendrils upon his heart, and is entwined in everlasting embrace around it.
But I have concluded what I had to say. Dr. Lieber is residing at present in New York, and fills the Professorship of History and Political Science in the School of Jurisprudence of the Columbia University, to which he was unanimously elected May 18, 1857. Here is a wide field congenial to his tastes and attainments. He is in the vigor of life, and to human eye many years of labor are yet before him. Long may he live to instruct the youth of America, and to scatter over the world the fruits of his genius and learning!…
Source: M. LaBorde, History of the South Carolina College (Columbia, S.C.: Peter B. Glass, 1859), Chapter XVI. Pp. 395 -410.
____________________________
From Lieber’s Inaugural Lecture at South Carolina College (1835)
…Civil history, the main subject of instruction in history in the college, will necessarily lead to inquiries into the various subjects of politics. It is not only my intention to treat of them while I am proceeding in history, but also to teach them, if time can be found, in separate lectures. On the other hand I shall always endeavor to exhibit the whole state of civilization of a country or period under discussion, and try to give a rapid sketch of the literature, the state of sciences, the arts, its commerce and agriculture, which will lead to touch upon subjects more properly belonging to the other science for which you have appointed me. As I shall have frequent occasion to speak on the subject of politics, so will the introduction of history often lead me to topics of political economy, and in the same way shall I make them the subject of separate instruction.
Political Economy, treated as a scientific whole, is of comparatively late origin, though various subjects, belonging to its province, have at different times been treated even in remote periods. There are still many persons, who “do not believe in political economy,” and will of course not allow it the rank of a science, as a few years ago, when Werner broke a new path for mineralogy, many people, and most distinguished ones among them, smiled at the idea of calUng mineralogy a science, or believing in the possibility of systematically and scientifically treating what they called “the stones.”* Nay, there are still persons who deny that geology be a science. Whether political economy be a science or not, it is not here the place to discuss, though it is difficult to see why the difference of opinion and contradictory results at which some, though few, political economists have arrived, should any more deprive their study of the character of a science, than natural philosophy, metaphysics, medicine or theology; nor is it required that any one should believe in political economy. The simple question is whether the subjects it considers as peculiarly belonging to its forum, are susceptible of scientific inquiry, and whether they are of sufficient importance to require investigations of this kind and to be taught in our college.
* See among others some of the letters written by Herder to Goethe, who, it is well known, was an ardent mineralogist and geologist to the end of his life.
I believe it is easy to show that the same relation, which physiology of the human body bears to anthropology and philosophy in general, subsists between political economy and the higher branches of politics — or, political economy has precisely all the importance with regard to society, which the material life bears throughout to the moral and intellectual world. Political economy might be defined by being the science which occupies itself essentially with the material life of society — with production, exchange and consumption; and no one can possibly have thrown a single glance at these subjects, and deny that theystand in the most intimate connection with the moral and intellectual interests of a nation.
If subjects of such universal influence and so extensively affecting the existence of human beings, as labor, wages, capital, interests, commerce, loans, banks, &c. are not matter of sufficient interest for inquiry, then few things are; if they do not depend upon general causes cognizable by the reason of man, then every thing around us is chance, and what is very striking, most regular chance, for it would be strange indeed that in the United States, for instance, many millions of people agree, without exchange of opinions, to pay throughout an immense territory about seventy-five cents for a day‘s work of a common laborer, and that in another immense country, at the north of Europe, many millions of people receive for the same work a few kopecks only, with a uniformity which is perfectly perplexing if the same general cause does not produce respectively this uniform effect. No believer in chance has ever dreamt that the regularity in form, process of growth and ripening of a species of plant be the results of mere chance. Though he might believe that the first cause was chance, he would always allow that by the original mixture of atoms or elements, certain laws were produced according to which nature now effects all the processes which strike us by their regularity; but in our own case, when we speak of human society, we shall at once change the test, and not believe that general, uniform and regular efiects must depend upon fixed causes!
If these causes can be discovered, and what earthly reason is there that they should not? then it is the duty of man to discover them. Having found them, he will be able to subject them to the same processes of reasoning which he applies to every mass of homogeneous facts. Judicious combination and cautious induction will enable him to reason from them and conclude upon new results. If, however, these inquiries are of general interest and importance, they are certainly so to a citizen, who takes an active and direct part in the making of the laws which govern his own society, for they touch upon matters which most frequently become the subject of legislation. It is necessary then that the youths be instructed in this science.
Political economy has not appeared under the most favorable train of circumstances. It is not its lot quietly to investigate a given subject, but it has to combat a series of systematized prejudices, which have extended their roots far and wide into all directions and deep into every class of society, for many centuries past — prejudices which are intimately connected with the interest of powerful classes.
Strange, that man should have seriously to debate about free trade any more than about free breathing, free choice of color of dress, free sleeping, free cookery, and should be obliged to listen to arguments, which, if true, would also prove that the cutting, clipping and shaving of trees, fashionable in the times of Louis XIV, produced most noble, healthful oaks. Still, so ancient is the prejudice, that even Strabo mentions the fact that the Cumæans did not levy any duties on merchandize, imported into their harbor, as a proof of their enormous stupidity. The transition is not easy from so deep-rooted a prejudice and whole systems of laws built upon it, to the natural, simple and uncorrupted state of things, in which man is allowed to apply his means as best he thinks, without fettering and cramping care from above, which is like the caresses of the animal in the fable — stifling.
Two different directions of scientific inquiry seem to be characteristic of our age — minute, extensive and bold inquiry into nature and her laws and life, and equally bold and shrewd examination of the elements and laws of human society, and all that is connected with its physical or moral welfare. Hence we see at once the human mind following two apparently opposite directions with equal ardor — history and political economy. No age has pursued with so much zeal the collection of every remnant and vestige, which may contribute to disclose to us the real state of former generations; and in no age have the principles upon which the success of the human species depends, been investigated with less reserve. Your Board of Trustees has appointed me for these two important sciences, and I feel gratified thus to be placed in a situation, in which I am able to contribute largely to the diffusion of two sciences, which are cultivaied with such intense activity by the age in which my lot has been cast.
Source: On history and political economy, as necessary branches of superior education in free states. An inaugural address, delivered in South Carolina college, before the governor and the legislature of the state, on Commencement day the 7th of December, 1835. By Francis Lieber, LL.D. Printed by order of the Board of trustees. Pp. 23-26
____________________________
From Lieder’s Inaugural Lecture at Columbia College (1858)
…A wise study of the past teaches us social analysis, and to separate the permanent and essential from the accidental and superficial, so that it becomes one of the keys by which we learn to understand better the present. History, indeed, is an admirable training in the great duty of attention and the art of observation, as in turn an earnest observation of the present is an indispensable aid to the historian. A practical life is a key with which we unlock the vaults containing the riches of the past. Many of the greatest historians in antiquity and modern times have been statesmen; and Niebuhr said that with his learning, and it was prodigious, he could not have understood Roman history, had he not been for many years a practical officer in the financial and other departments of the administration, while we all remember Gibbon’s statement of himself, that the captain of the Hampshire militia was of service to the historian of Rome. This is the reason why free nations produce practical, penetrating and unravelling historians, for in them every observing citizen partakes, in a manner, of statesmanship. Free countries furnish us with daily lessons in the anatomy of states and society; they make us comprehend the reality of history. But we have dwelled sufficiently long on this branch.
As Helicon, where Clio dwelt, looked down in all its grandeur on the busy gulf and on the chaffering traffic of Corinth, so let us leave the summit and walk down to Crissa, and cross the isthmus and enter the noisy mart where the productions of men are exchanged. Sudden as the change may be, it only symbolizes reality and human life. What else is the main portion of history but a true and wise account of the high events and ruling facts which have resulted from the combined action of the elements of human life? Who does not know that national life consists in the gathered sheaves of the thousand activities of men, and that production and exchange are at all times among the elements of these activities?
Man is always an exchanging being. Exchange is one of those characteristics without which we never find man, though they may be observable only in their lowest incipiency, and with which we never find the animal, though its sagacity may have reached the highest point. As, from the hideous tattooing of the savage to our dainty adornment of the sea-cleaving prow or the creations of a Crawford, men always manifest that there is the affection of the beautiful in them — that they are æsthetical beings; or as they always show that they are religious beings, whether they prostrate themselves before a fetish or bend their knee before their true and unseen God, and the animal never, so we find man, whether Caffre, Phoenician or American, always a producing and exchanging being; and we observe that this, as all other attributes, steadily increases in intensity with advancing civilization.
There are three laws on which man’s material well being and, in a very great measure, his civilization are founded. Man is placed on this earth apparently more destitute and helpless than any other animal. Man is no finding animal — he must produce. He must produce his food, his raiment, his shelter and his comfort. He must produce his arrow and his trap, his canoe and his field, his road and his lamp.
Men are so constituted that they have far more wants, and can enjoy the satisfying of them more intensely, than other animals; and while these many wants are of a peculiar uniformity among all men, the fitness of the earth to provide for them is greatly diversified and locally restricted, so that men must produce, each more than he wants for himself, and exchange their products. All human palates are pleasantly affected by saccharine salts, so much so that the word sweet has been carried over, in all languages, into different and higher spheres, where it has ceased to be a trope and now designates the dearest and even the holiest affections. All men understand what is meant by sweet music and sweet wife, because the material pleasure whence the term is derived is universal. All men of all ages relish sugar, but those regions which produce it are readily numbered. This applies to the far greater part of all materials in constant demand among men, and it applies to the narrowest circles as to the widest. The inhabitant of the populous city does not cease to relish and stand in need of farinaceous substances though his crowded streets cannot produce grain, and the farmer who provides him with grain does not cease to stand in need of iron or oil which the town may procure for him from a distance. With what remarkable avidity the tribes of Negroland, that had never been touched even by the last points of the creeping fibres of civilization, longed for the articles lately carried thither by Barth and his companions! The brute animal has no dormant desires of this kind, and finds around itself what it stands in need of. This apparent cruelty, although a real blessing to man, deserves to be made a prominent topic in natural theology.
Lastly, the wants of men I speak of their material and cultural wants, the latter of which are as urgent and fully as legitimate as the former infinitely increase and are by Providence decreed to increase with advancing civilization; so that his progress necessitates intenser production and quickened exchange.
The branch which treats of the necessity, nature, and effects, the promotion and the hindrances of production, whether it be based almost exclusively on appropriation, as the fishery; or on coercing nature to furnish us with better and more abundant fruit than she is willing spontaneously to yield, as agriculture; or in fashioning, separating and combining substances which other branches of industry obtain and collect, as manufacture; or on carrying the products from the spot of production to the place of consumption; and the character which all these products acquire by exchange, as values, with the labor and services for which again products are given in exchange, this division of knowledge is called political economy — an unfit name; but it is the name, and we use it. Political economy, like every other of the new sciences, was obliged to fight its way to a fair acknowledgment, against all manners of prejudices. The introductory lecture which archbishop Whately delivered some thirty years ago, when he commenced his course on political economy in the university of Oxford, consists almost wholly of a defense of his science and an encounter with the objections then made to it on religious, moral, and almost on every ground that could be made by ingenuity, or was suggested by the misconception of its aims. Political economy fared, in this respect, like vaccination, like the taking of a nation’s census, like the discontinuance of witch trials.
The economist stands now on clearer ground. Opponents have acknowledged their errors, and the economists themselves fall no longer into the faults of the utilitarian. The economist indeed sees that the material interests of men are of the greatest importance, and that modern civilization, in all its aspects, requires an immense amount of wealth, and consequently increasing exertion and production, but he acknowledges that “what men can do the least without is not their highest need.”* He knows that we are bid to pray for our daily bread, but not for bread alone, and I am glad that those who bade me teach Political Economy, assigned to me also Political Philosophy and History. They teach that the periods of national dignity and highest endeavors have sometimes been periods of want and poverty. They teach abundantly that riches and enfeebling comforts, that the flow of wine or costly tapestry, do not lead to the development of humanity, nor are its tokens; that no barbarism is coarser than the substitution of gross expensiveness for what is beautiful and graceful; that it is manly character, and womanly soulfulness, not gilded upholstery or fretful fashion — that it is the love of truth and justice, directness and tenacity of purpose, a love of right, of fairness and freedom, a self-sacrificing public spirit and religious sincerity, that lead nations to noble places in history; not surfeiting feasts or conventional refinement. The Babylonians have tried that road before us.
* Professor Lushington in his Inaugural Lecture, in Glasgow, quoted in Morell’s Hist. and Crit. View of Specul. Phil. London, 1846.
But political economy, far from teaching the hoarding of riches, shows the laws of accumulation and distribution of wealth; it shows the important truth that mankind at large can become and have become wealthier, and must steadily increase their wealth with expanding culture.
It is, nevertheless, true that here, in the most active market of our whole hemisphere, I have met, more frequently than in any other place, with an objection to political economy, on the part of those who claim for themselves the name of men of business. They often say that they alone can know anything about it, and as often ask what is Political Economy good for? The soldier, though he may have fought in the thickest of the fight, is not on that account the best judge of the disposition, the aim, the movements, the faults or the great conceptions of a battle, nor can we call the infliction of a deep wound a profound lesson in anatomy.
What is Political Economy good for? It is like every other branch truthfully pursued, good for leading gradually nearer and nearer to the truth; for making men, in its own sphere, that is the vast sphere of exchange, what Cicero calls mansueti, and for clearing more and more away what may be termed the impeding and sometimes savage superstitions of trade and intercourse; it is, like every other pursuit of political science of which it is but a branch, good for sending some light, through the means of those that cultivate it as their own science, to the most distant corners, and to those who have perhaps not even heard of its name.
Let me give you two simple facts one of commanding and historic magnitude; the other of apparent insignificance, but typical of an entire state of things, incalculably important.
Down to Adam Smith, the greatest statesmanship had always been sought for in the depression of neighboring nations. Even a Bacon considered it self-evident that the enriching of one people implies the impoverishing of another. This maxim runs through all history, Asiatic and European, down to the latter part of the last century. Then came a Scottish professor who dared to teach, in his dingy lecture-room at Edinburgh, contrary to the opinion of the whole world, that every man, even were it but for egotistic reasons, is interested in the prosperity of his neighbors; that his wealth, if it be the result of production and exchange, is not a withdrawal of money from others, and that, as with single men so with entire nations the more prosperous the one so much the better for the other. And his teaching, like that of another professor before him the immortal Grotius went forth, and rose above men and nations, and statesmen and kings; it ruled their councils and led the history of our race into new channels; it bade men adopt the angels’ greeting: “Peace on earth and good will towards men,” as a maxim of high statesmanship and political shrewdness. Thus rules the mind; thus sways science. There is now no intercourse between civilized nations which is not tinctured by Smith and Grotius. And what I am, what you are, what every man of our race is in the middle of the nineteenth century, he owes it in part to Adam Smith, as well as to Grotius, and Aristotle, and Shakespeare, and every other leader of humanity. Let us count the years since that Scottish professor, with his common name, Smith, proclaimed his swaying truth, very simple when once pronounced; very fearful as long as unacknowledged; a very blessing when in action; and then let us answer, What has Political Economy done for man? We habitually dilate on the effect of physical sciences, and especially on their application to the useful arts in modern times. All honor to this characteristic feature of our age the wedlock of knowledge and labor; but it is, nevertheless, true that none of the new sciences have so deeply affected the course of human events as political economy. I am speaking as an historian and wish to assert facts. What I say is not meant as rhetorical fringe.
The other fact alluded to, is one of those historical pulsations which indicate to the touch of the inquirer, the condition of an entire living organism. When a few weeks ago the widely spread misery in the manufacturing districts of England was spoken of in the British house of lords, one that has been at the helm,** concluded his speech with an avowal that the suffering laborers who could find but half days’, nay, quarter days’ employment, with unreduced wants of their families, nevertheless had resorted to no violence, but on the contrary universally acknowledged that they knew full well, that a factory can not be kept working unless the master can work to a profit.
** Lord Derby, then in the opposition, and since made premier again.
This too is very simple, almost trivial, when stated. But those who know the chronicles of the medieval cities, and of modern times down to a period which most of us recollect, know also that in all former days the distressed laborer would first of all have resorted to a still greater increase of distress, by violence and destruction. The first feeling of uninstructed man, produced by suffering, is vengeance, and that vengeance is wreaked on the nearest object or person; as animals bite, when in pain, what is nearest within reach. What has wrought this change? Who, or what has restrained our own sorely distressed population from blind violence, even though unwise words were officially addressed to them, when under similar circumstances in the times of free Florence or Cologne there would have been a sanguinary rising of the “wool weavers,” if it is not a sounder knowledge and a correcter feeling regarding the relations of wealth, of capital and labor, which in spite of the absurdities of communism has penetrated in some degree all layers of society? And which is the source whence this tempering knowledge has welled forth, if not Political Economy?
True indeed, we are told that economists do not agree; some are for protection, some for free trade. But are physicians agreed? And is there no science and art of medicine? Are theologians agreed? Are the cultivators of any branch of knowledge fully agreed, and are all the beneficial effects of the sciences debarred by this disagreement of their followers? But, however important at certain periods the difference between protectionists and free traders may be, it touches, after all, but a small portion of the bulk of truth taught by Political Economy, and I believe that there is a greater uniformity of opinion, and a more essential agreement among the prominent scholars of this science, than among those of others excepting, as a matter of course, the mathematics….
Source: Francis Lieber, “History and Political Science, Necessary Studies in Free Countries” — an Inaugural Address delivered on the Seventeenth of February, 1858. New York: 1858. Pages 25-36.
Image Source: Portrait photograph of Professor Francis Lieber from the Brady-Handy photograph collection at the Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division. Colorized by Economics in the Rear-View Mirror.
