Stop Mass Hysteria

by Michael Savage

One can understand how the Patriots might have felt emboldened. After July 4, 1776, the colonists had declared themselves a separate country and believed that allegiance to the Crown was treason. The Loyalists, however, did not recognize the legitimacy of the newly declared country and considered the Patriots to be traitors. Leadership on the side of the Patriots was itself frequently in conflict. During the war, American general Israel Putnam came across members of the Sons of Liberty strapping Loyalists to sharp-edged rails, their legs hanging on either side, and parading around with them. This is where the phrase “riding the rails” apparently originated, since the victims were carried on the shoulders of the Sons of Liberty so that other Patriots could abuse them.15 The mob had no legal authority to carry out such sentences, and Putnam interceded. When Putnam’s commanding officer, George Washington, heard about his actions, he reprimanded the officer: “To discourage such proceedings was to injure the cause of liberty in which they were engaged, and that nobody would attempt it but an enemy of his country.”16

  Perhaps Washington understood what Putnam did not: These bold acts of aggression gave others the will and confidence to speak up. In abusing the Loyalists, Patriots effectively came out of the closet. Like fire, these pockets of conviction had a way of uniting and spreading into a form of mass hysteria. This is also what happened later, in France and Russia. People, once roused, are a terrible force. But there is a difference between these three examples and, say, ISIS or the far left of today. The cause must have a just core. Repressive sharia law or anarchists plunging nails into the flanks of police horses is not that. Enough people know it and, in time, the barbarians are crushed.

  While these extreme but somewhat understandable abuses were initially expressed by lawless mob actions, some were eventually codified into statute while others were tacitly approved by authorities. State by state, the colonies enacted a series of anti-Tory laws that demanded Loyalists sign “test oaths”—statements in which the signer rejected English rule, swore not to provide aid to enemies, and pledged loyalty to the Patriots. The punishments for refusing to sign these oaths varied, but they ranged from depriving men from holding office, to fines and additional taxation, to losing the right to keep weapons, to being jailed. In a few cases, Loyalists lost legal protections, such as the right to sue or collect debts.17 After the war, many Tories had their estates confiscated.

  The morality of these statutes is immaterial: once they were put into place, they were the law of the land. The question is whether they legitimized mob actions, whether economic or physical. And they did. In this case, the hysterical reactions against the Loyalists were the result of both fear of subversive activity and anger about opposing viewpoints—even if those viewpoints did not come with any threat to our budding nation. While I certainly agree the cause of independence from Great Britain was just, it could have been achieved without the injustice, born of mass hysteria, done to the Loyalists. Depriving anyone of liberty and due process does not reflect the ideal values of America… and as we will see, hysteria does not contribute to America at its best.

  In theory, the Treaty of Paris, which officially ended the Revolutionary War in 1783, should have ended hostility toward the Loyalists. Instead, property seizure continued without much interference from the federal government or the courts. Loyalist landowners were considered lucky if they were permitted to sell their holdings at bargain prices. Somewhere between 15 and 20 percent of the Tories—around 70,000–75,000 people—gave up trying to establish lives in the new country and emigrated to Canada, Great Britain, or the British colonies in the Caribbean.18

  The Loyalists’ flight created economic vacuums that were soon filled by Patriots—for example, in shipping. England was not as loyal to the Tories as the Tories were to the motherland; Britain was happy to be able to sell goods to the former colonies once more. The departure of Loyalists also enabled working-class Patriots to move into the upper class—but their rise was seen as the result of their efforts as opposed to their birthright, strangling the last vestiges of the British class system. American capitalism was born.

  Lost in the loud din of anarchy perpetrated by the progressives in particular and the left in general is the idea that this nation was built on two ideas: that this nation was founded by immigrants; and that many of those immigrants, and those who came after, made the journey to better their lives through freedom—of speech and religion primarily, but also to own property, to start businesses, to begin anew.

  Laws and processes were established to make that possible, in the Constitution and then the Bill of Rights to start, and via the legislative and executive branches of government after that. As the Israelites in the desert understood during the time of Moses, without the law there can be no freedom.

  In September 2011, the Occupy protesters pitched their tents in Zuccotti Park in lower Manhattan. Make no mistake: These people were socialists who did not want to compete within the American system of hard work resulting in financial gain. They had contempt for finance, period. And they expressed that by wearing a mask of Guy Fawkes—the man who tried to blow up the British Parliament—based on a design from the movie V for Vendetta, which was based on the comic book of the same name. We’ve come a long way in the wrong direction from the comic-style illustration by Benjamin Franklin that became a symbol of the Revolution: the dismembered snake under the legend Join or Die. But the Guy Fawkes allusion they made with the mask was accurate, at least. These savages did not want to modify a system, they wanted to destroy the bedrock of the American way.

  The short-lived movement began, so the organizers said, to call attention to global economic inequality. For two months, in the park and around the world, angry kids, graying hippies, a few movie and TV stars who thrive on attention, and the complicit news media all pretended that the illegal squatting in public places was somehow legal and somehow noble. In New York, a world center of media, reporters gained personal attention, the newspapers gained circulation, and the networks gained ratings with coverage that portrayed the barbarians as activists, the underdogs as heroes. A good friend of mine lives around the corner from Zuccotti Park. What he witnessed in and around the tent city that arose in the 33,000-square-foot public space—from which, by the way, the bulk of the public was barred from entering due to police barricades that separated taxpaying citizens from unemployed, out-of-town, and troublemaking Occupiers—was a far cry from what most Americans saw on the nightly news:

  • Rapes and drug use were real and reported, but not widely reported. Members of TV crews did, however, ask Occupiers with guitars to play folk songs, with others gathering around, so they could broadcast heartwarming—if manufactured—greeting card moments.

  • Condoms were tossed at Catholic schoolgirls on their way to class.

  • More than three thousand dollars in intentional damage was done to the lavatory of a restaurant adjoining the park because the Occupiers were not permitted to line up inside, without making a purchase, and use the restroom.

  • The owner of a nearby framing shop was assaulted by Occupiers for politely declining to put up one of their “We Support the 99%” posters, a reference to the alleged 1 percent who control all the wealth in America. Different Occupiers then came by and offered to protect his shop—for a price. He told them, “You know who else does that? The Mafia.” It was this assault, reported by a responsible journalist for the New York Post, that finally drove then-mayor Michael Bloomberg to oust the rabble, ending the media outpost and effectively stopping the movement.19

  The point of this is not to take a swipe at Occupy, though they deserve it. It’s to point out the difference between a worthy movement and an unworthy one. The former—the establishing of the United States of America and its system of merit-based capitalism—took root quickly and firmly because no American was barred from participating. Over the years, inequalities in the original system were addressed within the system as women and blacks became participants in the process. Not always at the speed the
y desired, but it happened. Working in unison, peaceful protest, articulate voices, genuinely concerned politicians, and a fair press triumphed. The American system was firm but flexible enough to accommodate these shifts.

  We’ve been “instructed” by the know-it-all progressives that corporations aren’t people, that they don’t have inalienable rights. Let’s grant that, but add that they are a form of artificial intelligence. Businesses and governments both have the instinct and/or charters to adjust and change. Were that not the case there would be no mergers, no maternity leave, no compensation “packages” instead of just wages, and the minimum wage would still be about a dollar, as it was when I was a kid. What that process requires from the public is for all participants, all citizens, to follow the rules lest the system topple on everyone; and it requires patience to climb a ladder or build a franchise business; and/or it needs a good idea, like an Apple Computer.

  The American Revolution lasted seven years. That’s about the time it takes for someone to get a PhD today. That is more time than it takes for a legal immigrant to become a permanent resident and then a United States citizen. What is implicit in those three examples are two qualities: diligence and some patience. They are precisely the attributes that progressives lack. And it is exactly the reason why rabid liberals have failed, continue to fail, and will always fail. It is why all tyrants fail.

  Whether it’s burning witches or tarring and feathering Tories, the ephemeral nature of mass hysteria cannot sustain. The foundation is not weight bearing, as we will see.

  Without an external enemy, American mass hysteria turned to internal antagonists. Catholic, Jewish, and Chinese immigrants felt the wrath of the economically downtrodden. Mormonism, a homegrown religion, faced not only persecution but full-out military attacks from the U.S. government. The agricultural South expressed its discontent with the industrial North using rebellion—and while war fever did not sweep the North, hate did. The hate for the Confederate flag continues to this day. Is the South to blame or has the country always fallen prey to hysterical factionalism?

  7.

  FROM WAR TO PEACE

  The Enemy Without Becomes the Enemy Within

  Financial panics have a great deal in common with mass hysteria. Runs on the bank and stock sell-offs are definitely “mass” and they are certainly “panic.” But there are two big differences. The first is that the precipitating event of a financial crisis tends to be one thing, such as the failure of a financial institution or the collapse of a stock. That may be the result of a slow-building financial bubble, but it’s still a singular, memorable occurrence that ends up having a day named “Black” after it. Hatred and paranoia tend to build more slowly. The other significant distinction is in their aims. Mass hysteria operates under the illusion that the mob is working for the public good. Financial panic is not a collective act about the collective. It’s a collective act about thousands or tens of thousands of individuals looking out for their own self-interest.

  There was just one exception.

  The first financial crisis we suffered in America, as Americans, was the Panic of 1785.1 It lasted roughly four years and came about because businesses took on too much debt after the Revolution, overexpanding without considering using better, and often cheaper goods coming from England; and a lack of trade between the states, which was caused in part by currency that varied from region to region. The panic itself was triggered in the financial institutions and among the well-to-do by imminent defaults on debts. The end result was that states and institutions realized we needed a stronger federal government and got together to make that happen. It was done for the good of these states and institutions, of course, but had the added benefit of serving the young nation.

  After the economy stabilized in 1788, we ran right into the Copper Panic of 1789,2 so called because the counterfeiting of copper coins literally caused a halt to commerce until paper currency could be introduced. That overlapped the Panic of 1792, which was caused—again, and not for the last time—by banks extending too much credit and having to be saved by the federal government. The Panic of 1796–97 wasn’t even our fault: the Bank of England faced a solvency crisis due to the chaos across the Channel during the French Revolution. That impacted American banks, and it was primarily the sound financial footing of the southern states that kept the nation afloat. I have not heard this fact mentioned in any of the protests against the Confederacy. It is by no means a justification for slavery, but it is nonetheless a critical moment in our nation’s history that cannot be ignored.

  There were other ebbs and flows in the American economy, including the Recession of 1802–1804, the Depression of 1807, the Recession of 1812… and then a big one.

  If the previous financial crises were the expected ups and downs of a new nation, the Panic of 1819 was an unexpected tailspin.3 In short, the country’s economy crashed. As with any war or financial setback, the collapse was a result of several converging events.4

  The United States had barely recovered from the Revolution before it was thrust into the War of 1812 with England. As a result of the Napoleonic Wars that engulfed Europe, Britain established a naval blockade to prevent trade with the French. That dramatically affected the American economy and, along with the impressment of American sailors into British service, triggered a three-year conflict. The war made a hero of future-president Andrew Jackson, then a general; made a legend of First Lady Dolley Madison, who saved White House art when the mansion was burned; and gave us “The Star-Spangled Banner” as Francis Scott Key witnessed the bombardment of Fort McHenry in Baltimore Harbor.

  The four years between the end of the war and economic disaster was marked by banks once again being obligated to support speculation in business, farming, and land. Obviously, their solvency depended on the cash coming in being more than the cash going out. The nation did as it often does to fuel the financial engine: It printed money. A lot of it. But when people demanded metal money, considered true tender, the banks could not oblige. By 1818 the economy began to fail from west to east. American farmers, especially those who had already pushed west of the Appalachians, saw a dramatic drop in exports as the European economy—liberated from war for nearly three years, and of having to feed soldiers—was free to turn to agriculture. As struggling banks called in loans, the farmers could not meet the demands. Farms and banks both failed. The shock waves rippled through the nation as farm suppliers and then shippers struggled for survival, banks stopped lending money, and unemployment rose.

  For the first time in American history, there was a nationwide panic as every citizen saw how a weakness in one or two areas could drag everything down. When “what-ifs” start to grip a population, no rabble-rouser, no Cotton Mather is required to spread mass hysteria. In 1819, people of all classes, in all professions, panicked over what they read in the newspapers and saw in their own towns. There was widespread doubt in our very system of capitalism. On the state and federal level, politicians went to the people with a wide variety of ideas—none of which had been tested and all of which spurred local debate and hostility, feeding the panic.

  It took two years for Congress and our fifth president, James Monroe, to put solutions into place—again, all previously untried for a new kind of capitalism.

  The three major acts were ones that modern politicians continue to resurrect in one form or another: debt forgiveness, bank regulation—they had to keep a minimum amount of capital on hand at all times—and protective tariffs. In that last were planted seeds for the Civil War: the South vigorously objected to these taxes since their economy was driven by exports.

  Each of these actions met with varying degrees of success, but they all succeeded in doing one thing. They killed the hysteria. Sometimes all an agitated population requires for calm to be restored is to see their government taking action. However much different regions were negatively impacted by some polices, they were helped by others. People in New England griped that debt forgiveness on land purch
ased from the government helped the expansionists in the West more than it did merchants in Boston. However much cotton growers protested tariffs, manufacturers in New York and Pennsylvania liked the fact that it was cheaper for our citizens to “buy American” than to purchase European goods.

  This single issue led to the Nullification Crisis of 1832, during the administration of President Jackson, when South Carolina refused to respect the tariff laws imposed by Washington.5 A negotiated settlement was released, but as Jackson presciently wrote in 1833, “the tariff was only a pretext, and disunion and southern confederacy the real object. The next pretext will be the negro, or slavery question.”6

  Still, back then, with the Revolution in memory yet green, American citizens understood that when the nation as a whole prospers, the individual prospers. Yes, a necessary federal bureaucracy rose to help those who fell through the cracks. But we were still a country composed largely of men and women who believed that if they worked hard, the existing system would allow them to succeed.

  Before we leave this era, Andrew Jackson is the heroic and visionary leader that the unchallenged voices of diversity want to chase from our twenty-dollar bill. Abolitionist and U.S. military spy Harriet Tubman was heroic and absolutely deserves a place of institutional recognition. But an African American woman should not be used to “beat up” an old white man simply so one party can claim a political victory. When Trump administration Treasury secretary Steven Mnuchin said that the change was far from a priority, petulant children on the left began writing Tubman’s name across Jackson’s face on our currency and using that as profile pictures on social media7… as if that mini-hysteria were going to win allies rather than alienate moderates. A new denomination should be created in her honor rather than an old institution supplanted to appease the SJWs. There is room for all, as the survivors of the Panic of 1819 understood. When we carelessly, appeasingly swap one for another, that’s when we fall.