I’ve finished transcribing Eliphalet Kimball’s 1867 Thoughts on Natural Principles, which is about a defense of anarchism, in articles that originally appeared in The Boston Investigator. The rest is frequently inspired medical and culinary crankery, which should be read carefully for the analogies presented between it and the political thought. Analogy was, after all, all the rage in the 19th century, even, apparently, if you were a radical New England doctor. I’m now working on transcribing a couple of additional essays and some responses, so I can reissue the book in expanded form this spring.
Contr'un
Eliphalet Kimball for President! in 1852
Eliphalet Kimball remains one of my favorite figures in the American anarchist tradition, in part because he remains so unknown, popping up here and there in the 19th century radical press to make the most […]
Uncategorized
Josiah Warren: The People’s Sunday Meeting (2/28/1849)
“The People’s Sunday Meeting,” Boston Investigator, 18, 43 (February 28, 1849), 3. The People’ Sunday Meeting, FOR FREE DISCUSSION, This Institution holds a public meeting every SUNDAY AFTERNOON, at Hancock Hall, 330 Washington street, commencing […]
Featured articles
Eliphalet Kimball, “Thoughts on Natural Principles” (1867)
It is only by anarchy and violence that a great accumulation of social wrongs can be removed. Anarchy is a good word. It means, “without a head.” Violence is the healing power of Nature applied to society. The violence which would follow from the abolishment of law, would be proportion to the number and magnitude of the wrongs that needed removal. There ought always to be anarchy, but there would be no violence where there were no wrongs.
Comments are closed.
Analogy was, after all, all the rage in the 19th century
Well, sure. After all, we have to establish the Analogical Relationship between NUMBER, as the General Domain of the Abstract Mathematics, and THE UNIVERSE AT LARGE, in respect to those Primary Metaphysical Discriminations which are — within this less definite Domain — equally fundamental, but — apparently — less exact than the corresponding Elemental Distributions of Number itself.