diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/orig38808-h')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/orig38808-h/images/frontispiece.jpg | bin | 0 -> 65920 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/orig38808-h/images/theater.jpg | bin | 0 -> 60123 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/orig38808-h/images/titlepage.jpg | bin | 0 -> 63733 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/orig38808-h/main.htm | 20759 |
4 files changed, 20759 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/old/orig38808-h/images/frontispiece.jpg b/old/orig38808-h/images/frontispiece.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..4aac40f --- /dev/null +++ b/old/orig38808-h/images/frontispiece.jpg diff --git a/old/orig38808-h/images/theater.jpg b/old/orig38808-h/images/theater.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..22a69a0 --- /dev/null +++ b/old/orig38808-h/images/theater.jpg diff --git a/old/orig38808-h/images/titlepage.jpg b/old/orig38808-h/images/titlepage.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..6762eec --- /dev/null +++ b/old/orig38808-h/images/titlepage.jpg diff --git a/old/orig38808-h/main.htm b/old/orig38808-h/main.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..cb667e4 --- /dev/null +++ b/old/orig38808-h/main.htm @@ -0,0 +1,20759 @@ +<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" + "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> +<html lang="en" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en"> +<head> +<meta name="generator" content="HTML-Kit Tools HTML Tidy plugin" /> +<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content= +"text/html; charset=us-ascii" /> +<title>The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll, by Robert G. +Ingersoll</title> + +<style type="text/css"> +/*<![CDATA[*/ + <!-- + body { text-align:justify} + P { margin:15%; + margin-top: .75em; + margin-bottom: .75em; } + H1,H2,H3,H4,H5,H6 { text-align: center; margin-left: 15%; margin-right: 15%; } + hr { width: 50%; text-align: center;} + hr.full { width: 100%; } + .foot { margin-left: 20%; margin-right: 20%; text-align: justify; text-indent: -3em; font-size: 90%; } + .play { margin-left: 15%; margin-right: 15%; text-align: justify; font-size: 100%; } + img {border: 0;} + blockquote {font-size: 97%; margin-left: 20%; margin-right: 20%;} + .pagenum { /* uncomment the next line for invisible page numbers */ + /* visibility: hidden; */ + position: absolute; + left: 1%; + font-size: smaller; + text-align: left; + color: gray; + } /* page numbers */ + .figleft {float: left; margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 1%;} + .figright {float: right; margin-right: 10%; margin-left: 1%;} + .mynote {background-color: #DDE; color: #000; padding: .5em; + margin-left: 20%; margin-right: 20%; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 95%;} + .toc { margin-left: 35%; margin-bottom: .75em; font-size: 110%;} + .toc2 { margin-left: 5%;} + .indent {font-style: italic; font-size: 100%; margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%;} + CENTER { padding: 10px;} + PRE { font-family: Times; font-style: italic; font-size: 100%; margin-left: 25%;} + --> +/*]]>*/ +</style> +</head> +<body> +<div style="height: 8em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<a name="title" id="title"></a> +<h1>THE WORKS OF ROBERT G. INGERSOLL</h1> +<br /> +<h2>By Robert G. Ingersoll</h2> +<br /> +<center>"HAPPINESS IS THE ONLY GOOD, REASON THE ONLY<br /> +TORCH, JUSTICE THE ONLY WORSHIP, HUMANITY THE<br /> +ONLY RELIGION, AND LOVE THE ONLY PRIEST."<br /></center> +<br /> +<h3>IN TWELVE VOLUMES, VOLUME VIII.</h3> +<h3>INTERVIEWS</h3> +<h3>1900</h3> +<h3>Dresden Edition</h3> +<br /> +<center><img alt="titlepage (62K)" src="images/titlepage.jpg" +height="1068" width="698" /></center> +<br /> +<br /> +<center><img alt="frontispiece (64K)" src="images/frontispiece.jpg" +height="743" width="988" /></center> +<br /> +<center>"<i>With daughters' babes upon his knees, the white hair +mingling with the gold</i>."</center> +<br /> +<br /> +<hr /> +<br /> +<br /> +<h2>Contents</h2> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0001">INTERVIEWS</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0002">THE BIBLE AND A FUTURE +LIFE</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0003">MRS. VAN COTT, THE +REVIVALIST</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0004">EUROPEAN TRIP AND GREENBACK +QUESTION</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0005">THE PRE-MILLENNIAL +CONFERENCE.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0006">THE SOLID SOUTH AND +RESUMPTION.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0007">THE SUNDAY LAWS OF +PITTSBURG.*</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0008">POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0009">POLITICS AND GEN. GRANT</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0010">POLITICS, RELIGION AND THOMAS +PAINE.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0011">REPLY TO CHICAGO +CRITICS.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0012">THE REPUBLICAN VICTORY.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0013">INGERSOLL AND BEECHER.*</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0014">POLITICAL.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0015">RELIGION IN POLITICS.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0016">MIRACLES AND +IMMORTALITY.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0017">THE POLITICAL OUTLOOK.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0018">MR. BEECHER, MOSES AND THE +NEGRO.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0019">HADES, DELAWARE AND +FREETHOUGHT.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0020">A REPLY TO THE REV. MR. +LANSING.*</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0021">BEACONSFIELD, LENT AND +REVIVALS.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0022">ANSWERING THE NEW YORK +MINISTERS.*</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0023">GUITEAU AND HIS CRIME.*</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0024">DISTRICT SUFFRAGE.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0025">FUNERAL OF JOHN G. MILLS AND +IMMORTALITY.*</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0026">STAR ROUTE AND +POLITICS.*</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0027">THE INTERVIEWER.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0028">POLITICS AND +PROHIBITION.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0029">THE REPUBLICAN DEFEAT IN +OHIO.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0030">THE CIVIL RIGHTS BILL.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0031">JUSTICE HARLAN AND THE CIVIL +RIGHTS BILL.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0032">POLITICS AND THEOLOGY.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0033">MORALITY AND +IMMORTALITY.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0034">POLITICS, MORMONISM AND MR. +BEECHER</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0035">FREE TRADE AND +CHRISTIANITY.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0036">THE OATH QUESTION.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0037">WENDELL PHILLIPS, FITZ JOHN +PORTER AND BISMARCK.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0038">GENERAL SUBJECTS.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0039">REPLY TO KANSAS CITY +CLERGY.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0040">SWEARING AND AFFIRMING.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0041">REPLY TO A BUFFALO +CRITIC.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0042">BLASPHEMY.*</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0043">POLITICS AND BRITISH +COLUMBIA.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0044">INGERSOLL CATECHISED.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0045">BLAINE'S DEFEAT.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0046">BLAINE'S DEFEAT.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0047">PLAGIARISM AND POLITICS.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0048">RELIGIOUS PREJUDICE.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0049">CLEVELAND AND HIS +CABINET.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0050">RELIGION, PROHIBITION, AND GEN. +GRANT.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0051">HELL OR SHEOL AND OTHER +SUBJECTS.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0052">INTERVIEWING, POLITICS AND +SPIRITUALISM.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0053">MY BELIEF.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0054">SOME LIVE TOPICS.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0055">THE PRESIDENT AND +SENATE.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0056">ATHEISM AND CITIZENSHIP.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0057">THE LABOR QUESTION.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0058">RAILROADS AND POLITICS.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0059">PROHIBITION.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0060">HENRY GEORGE AND LABOR.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0061">LABOR QUESTION AND +SOCIALISM.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0062">HENRY GEORGE AND +SOCIALISM.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0063">REPLY TO THE REV. B. F. +MORSE.*</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0064">INGERSOLL ON McGLYNN.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0065">TRIAL OF THE CHICAGO +ANARCHISTS.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0066">THE STAGE AND THE +PULPIT.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0067">ROSCOE CONKLING.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0068">THE CHURCH AND THE +STAGE.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0069">PROTECTION AND FREE +TRADE.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0070">LABOR, AND TARIFF +REFORM.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0071">CLEVELAND AND THURMAN.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0072">THE REPUBLICAN PLATFORM OF +1888.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0073">JAMES G. BLAINE AND +POLITICS.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0074">THE MILLS BILL.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0075">SOCIETY AND ITS +CRIMINALS*</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0076">WOMAN'S RIGHT TO +DIVORCE.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0077">SECULARISM.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0078">SUMMER RECREATION—MR. +GLADSTONE.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0079">PROHIBITION.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0080">ROBERT ELSMERE.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0081">WORKING GIRLS.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0082">PROTECTION FOR AMERICAN +ACTORS.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0083">LIBERALS AND LIBERALISM.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0084">POPE LEO XIII.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0085">THE SACREDNESS OF THE +SABBATH.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0086">THE WEST AND SOUTH.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0087">THE WESTMINSTER CREED AND OTHER +SUBJECTS.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0088">SHAKESPEARE AND BACON.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0089">GROWING OLD GRACEFULLY, AND +PRESBYTERIANISM.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0090">CREEDS.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0091">THE TENDENCY OF MODERN +THOUGHT.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0092">WOMAN SUFFRAGE, HORSE RACING, +AND MONEY.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0093">MISSIONARIES.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0094">MY BELIEF AND UNBELIEF.*</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0095">MUST RELIGION GO?</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0096">WORD PAINTING AND COLLEGE +EDUCATION.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0097">PERSONAL MAGNETISM AND THE +SUNDAY QUESTION.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0098">AUTHORS.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0099">INEBRIETY.*</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0100">MIRACLES, THEOSOPHY AND +SPIRITUALISM.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0101">TOLSTOY AND LITERATURE.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0102">WOMAN IN POLITICS.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0103">SPIRITUALISM.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0104">PLAYS AND PLAYERS.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0105">WOMAN.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0106">STRIKES, EXPANSION AND OTHER +SUBJECTS.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0107">SUNDAY A DAY OF +PLEASURE.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0108">THE PARLIAMENT OF +RELIGIONS.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0109">CLEVELAND'S HAWAIIAN +POLICY.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0110">ORATORS AND ORATORY.*</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0111">CATHOLICISM AND PROTESTANTISM. +THE POPE, THE A. P. A., AGNOSTICISM</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0112">WOMAN AND HER DOMAIN.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0113">PROFESSOR SWING.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0114">SENATOR SHERMAN AND HIS +BOOK.*</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0115">REPLY TO THE CHRISTIAN +ENDEAVORERS.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0116">SPIRITUALISM.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0117">A LITTLE OF EVERYTHING.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0118">IS LIFE WORTH +LIVING—CHRISTIAN SCIENCE AND POLITICS.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0119">VIVISECTION.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0120">DIVORCE.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0121">MUSIC, NEWSPAPERS, LYNCHING AND +ARBITRATION.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0122">A VISIT TO SHAW'S +GARDEN.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0123">THE VENEZUELAN BOUNDARY +DISCUSSION AND THE WHIPPING-POST.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0124">COLONEL SHEPARD'S STAGE +HORSES.*</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0125">A REPLY TO THE REV. L. A. +BANKS.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0126">CUBA—ZOLA AND +THEOSOPHY.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0127">HOW TO BECOME AN ORATOR.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0128">JOHN RUSSELL YOUNG AND +EXPANSION.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0129">PSYCHICAL RESEARCH AND THE +BIBLE.*</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0130">THIS CENTURY'S GLORIES.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0131">CAPITAL PUNISHMENT AND THE +WHIPPING-POST.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0132">EXPANSION AND TRUSTS.*</a></p> +<br /> +<br /> +<hr /> +<br /> +<br /> +<a name="link0001" id="link0001"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>INTERVIEWS</h2> +<a name="link0002" id="link0002"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>THE BIBLE AND A FUTURE LIFE</h2> +<p><i>Question</i>. Colonel, are your views of religion based upon +the Bible?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I regard the Bible, especially the Old Testament, +the same as I do most other ancient books, in which there is some +truth, a great deal of error, considerable barbarism and a most +plentiful lack of good sense.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Have you found any other work, sacred or +profane, which you regard as more reliable?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I know of no book less so, in my judgment.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. You have studied the Bible attentively, have +you not?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I have read the Bible. I have heard it talked +about a good deal, and am sufficiently well acquainted with it to +justify my own mind in utterly rejecting all claims made for its +divine origin.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you base your views upon?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. On reason, observation, experience, upon the +discoveries in science, upon observed facts and the analogies +properly growing out of such facts. I have no confidence in +anything pretending to be outside, or independent of, or in any +manner above nature.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. According to your views, what disposition is +made of man after death?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Upon that subject I know nothing. It is no more +wonderful that man should live again than he now lives; upon that +question I know of no evidence. The doctrine of immortality rests +upon human affection. We love, therefore we wish to live.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Then you would not undertake to say what +becomes of man after death?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. If I told or pretended to know what becomes of +man after death, I would be as dogmatic as are theologians upon +this question. The difference between them and me is, I am honest. +I admit that I do not know.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Judging by your criticism of mankind, Colonel, +in your recent lecture, you have not found his condition very +satisfactory?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Nature, outside of man, so far as I know, is +neither cruel nor merciful. I am not satisfied with the present +condition of the human race, nor with the condition of man during +any period of which we have any knowledge. I believe, however, the +condition of man is improved, and this improvement is due to his +own exertions. I do not make nature a being. I do not ascribe to +nature intentions.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Is your theory, Colonel, the result of +investigation of the subject?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. No one can control his own opinion or his own +belief. My belief was forced upon me by my surroundings. I am the +product of all circumstances that have in any way touched me. I +believe in this world. I have no confidence in any religion +promising joys in another world at the expense of liberty and +happiness in this. At the same time, I wish to give others all the +rights I claim for myself.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. If I asked for proofs for your theory, what +would you furnish?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. The experience of every man who is honest with +himself, every fact that has been discovered in nature. In addition +to these, the utter and total failure of all religionists in all +countries to produce one particle of evidence showing the existence +of any supernatural power whatever, and the further fact that the +people are not satisfied with their religion. They are continually +asking for evidence. They are asking it in every imaginable way. +The sects are continually dividing. There is no real religious +serenity in the world. All religions are opponents of intellectual +liberty. I believe in absolute mental freedom. Real religion with +me is a thing not of the head, but of the heart; not a theory, not +a creed, but a life.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What punishment, then, is inflicted upon man +for his crimes and wrongs committed in this life?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. There is no such thing as intellectual crime. No +man can commit a mental crime. To become a crime it must go beyond +thought.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What punishment is there for physical +crime?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Such punishment as is necessary to protect +society and for the reformation of the criminal.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. If there is only punishment in this world, will +not some escape punishment?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I admit that all do not seem to be punished as +they deserve. I also admit that all do not seem to be rewarded as +they deserve; and there is in this world, apparently, as great +failures in matter of reward as in matter of punishment. If there +is another life, a man will be happier there for acting according +to his highest ideal in this. But I do not discern in nature any +effort to do justice.</p> +<p>—<i>The Post</i>, Washington, D. C., 1878.</p> +<a name="link0003" id="link0003"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>MRS. VAN COTT, THE REVIVALIST</h2> +<p><i>Question</i>. I see, Colonel, that in an interview published +this morning, Mrs. Van Cott (the revivalist), calls you "a poor +barking dog." Do you know her personally?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I have never met or seen her.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you know the reason she applied the +epithet?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I suppose it to be the natural result of what is +called vital piety; that is to say, universal love breeds +individual hatred.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you intend making any reply to what she +says?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I have written her a note of which this is a +copy:</p> +<pre> + <i>Buffalo, Feb. 24th, 1878.</i> +MRS. VAN COTT; +</pre> +<p>My dear Madam:—Were you constrained by the love of Christ +to call a man who has never injured you "a poor barking dog?" Did +you make this remark as a Christian, or as a lady? Did you say +these words to illustrate in some faint degree the refining +influence upon women of the religion you preach?</p> +<p>What would you think of me if I should retort, using your +language, changing only the sex of the last word?</p> +<p>I have the honor to remain,</p> +<p>Yours truly,</p> +<center>R. G. INGERSOLL</center> +<p><i>Question</i>. Well, what do you think of the religious +revival system generally?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. The fire that has to be blown all the time is a +poor thing to get warm by. I regard these revivals as essentially +barbaric. I think they do no good, but much harm, they make +innocent people think they are guilty, and very mean people think +they are good.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What is your opinion concerning women as +conductors of these revivals?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I suppose those engaged in them think they are +doing good. They are probably honest. I think, however, that +neither men nor women should be engaged in frightening people into +heaven. That is all I wish to say on the subject, as I do not think +it worth talking about.</p> +<p>—<i>The Express</i>, Buffalo, New York, Feb., 1878.</p> +<a name="link0004" id="link0004"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>EUROPEAN TRIP AND GREENBACK QUESTION</h2> +<h3><i>Question</i>. What did you do on your European trip, +Colonel?</h3> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I went with my family from New York to +Southampton, England, thence to London, and from London to +Edinburgh. In Scotland I visited every place where Burns had lived, +from the cottage where he was born to the room where he died. I +followed him from the cradle to the coffin. I went to +Stratford-upon-Avon for the purpose of seeing all that I could in +any way connected with Shakespeare; next to London, where we +visited again all the places of interest, and thence to Paris, +where we spent a couple of weeks in the Exposition.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. And what did you think of it?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. So far as machinery—so far as the practical +is concerned, it is not equal to ours in Philadelphia; in art it is +incomparably beyond it. I was very much gratified to find so much +evidence in favor of my theory that the golden age in art is in +front of us; that mankind has been advancing, that we did not come +from a perfect pair and immediately commence to degenerate. The +modern painters and sculptors are far better and grander than the +ancient. I think we excel in fine arts as much as we do in +agricultural implements. Nothing pleased me more than the painting +from Holland, because they idealized and rendered holy the ordinary +avocations of life. They paint cottages with sweet mothers and +children; they paint homes. They are not much on Ariadnes and +Venuses, but they paint good women.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What did you think of the American display?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Our part of the Exposition is good, but nothing +to what is should and might have been, but we bring home nearly as +many medals as we took things. We lead the world in machinery and +in ingenious inventions, and some of our paintings were +excellent.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Colonel, crossing the Atlantic back to America, +what do you think of the Greenback movement?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. In regard to the Greenback party, in the first +place, I am not a believer in miracles. I do not believe that +something can be made out of nothing. The Government, in my +judgment, cannot create money; the Government can give its note, +like an individual, and the prospect of its being paid determines +its value. We have already substantially resumed. Every piece of +property that has been shrinking has simply been resuming. We +expended during the war—not for the useful, but for the +useless, not to build up, but to destroy—at least one +thousand million dollars. The Government was an enormous purchaser; +when the war ceased the industries of the country lost their +greatest customer. As a consequence there was a surplus of +production, and consequently a surplus of labor. At last we have +gotten back, and the country since the war has produced over and +above the cost of production, something near the amount that was +lost during the war. Our exports are about two hundred million +dollars more than our imports, and this is a healthy sign. There +are, however, five or six hundred thousand men, probably, out of +employment; as prosperity increases this number will decrease. I am +in favor of the Government doing something to ameliorate the +condition of these men. I would like to see constructed the +Northern and Southern Pacific railroads; this would give employment +at once to many thousands, and homes after awhile to millions. All +the signs of the times to me are good. The wretched bankrupt law, +at last, is wiped from the statute books, and honest people in a +short time can get plenty of credit. This law should have been +repealed years before it was. It would have been far better to have +had all who have gone into bankruptcy during these frightful years +to have done so at once.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What will be the political effect of the +Greenback movement?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. The effect in Maine has been to defeat the +Republican party. I do not believe any party can permanently +succeed in the United States that does not believe in and advocate +actual money. I want to see the greenback equal with gold the world +round. A money below par keeps the people below par. No man can +possibly be proud of a country that is not willing to pay its +debts. Several of the States this fall may be carried by the +Greenback party, but if I have a correct understanding of their +views, that party cannot hold any State for any great length of +time. But all the men of wealth should remember that everybody in +the community has got, in some way, to be supported. I want to see +them so that they can support themselves by their own labor. In my +judgment real prosperity will begin with actual resumption, because +confidence will then return. If the workingmen of the United States +cannot make their living, cannot have the opportunity to labor, +they have got to be supported in some way, and in any event, I want +to see a liberal policy inaugurated by the Government. I believe in +improving rivers and harbors.</p> +<p>I do not believe the trans-continental commerce of this country +should depend on one railroad. I want new territories opened. I +want to see American steamships running to all the great ports of +the world. I want to see our flag flying on all the seas and in all +the harbors. We have the best country, and, in my judgment, the +best people in the world, and we ought to be the most prosperous +nation on the earth.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Then you only consider the Greenback movement a +temporary thing?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Yes; I do not believe that there is anything +permanent in anything that is not sound, that has not a perfectly +sound foundation, and I mean sound, sound in every sense of that +word. It must be wise and honest. We have plenty of money; the +trouble is to get it. If the Greenbackers will pass a law +furnishing all of us with collaterals, there certainly would be no +trouble about getting the money. Nothing can demonstrate more fully +the plentifulness of money than the fact that millions of four per +cent. bonds have been taken in the United States. The trouble is, +business is scarce.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. But do you not think the Greenback movement +will help the Democracy to success in 1880?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I think the Greenback movement will injure the +Republican party much more than the Democratic party. Whether that +injury will reach as far as 1880 depends simply upon one thing. If +resumption—in spite of all the resolutions to the +contrary— inaugurates an era of prosperity, as I believe and +hope it will, then it seems to me that the Republican party will be +as strong in the North as in its palmiest days. Of course I regard +most of the old issues as settled, and I make this statement simply +because I regard the financial issue as the only living one.</p> +<p>Of course, I have no idea who will be the Democratic candidate, +but I suppose the South will be solid for the Democratic nominee, +unless the financial question divides that section of the +country.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. With a solid South do you not think the +Democratic nominee will stand a good chance?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Certainly, he will stand the best chance if the +Democracy is right on the financial question; if it will cling to +its old idea of hard money, he will. If the Democrats will +recognize that the issues of the war are settled, then I think that +party has the best chance.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. But if it clings to soft money?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Then I think it will be beaten, if by soft money +it means the payment of one promise with another.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. You consider Greenbackers inflationists, do you +not?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I suppose the Greenbackers to be the party of +inflation. I am in favor of inflation produced by industry. I am in +favor of the country being inflated with corn, with wheat, good +houses, books, pictures, and plenty of labor for everybody. I am in +favor of being inflated with gold and silver, but I do not believe +in the inflation of promise, expectation and speculation. I +sympathize with every man who is willing to work and cannot get it, +and I sympathize to that degree that I would like to see the +fortunate and prosperous taxed to support his unfortunate brother +until labor could be found.</p> +<p>The Greenback party seems to think credit is just as good as +gold. While the credit lasts this is so; but the trouble is, +whenever it is ascertained that the gold is gone or cannot be +produced the credit takes wings. The bill of a perfectly solvent +bank may circulate for years. Now, because nobody demands the gold +on that bill it doesn't follow that the bill would be just as good +without any gold behind it. The idea that you can have the gold +whenever you present the bill gives it its value. To illustrate: A +poor man buys soup tickets. He is not hungry at the time of +purchase, and will not be for some hours. During those hours the +Greenback gentlemen argue that there is no use of keeping any soup +on hand with which to redeem these tickets, and from this they +further argue that if they can be good for a few hours without +soup, why not forever? And they would be, only the holder gets +hungry. Until he is hungry, of course, he does not care whether any +soup is on hand or not, but when he presents his ticket he wants +his soup, and the idea that he can have the soup when he does +present the ticket gives it its value. And so I regard bank notes, +without gold and silver, as of the same value as tickets without +soup.</p> +<p>—<i>The Post</i>, Washington, D. C., 1878.</p> +<a name="link0005" id="link0005"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>THE PRE-MILLENNIAL CONFERENCE.</h2> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think of the Pre-Millennial +Conference that was held in New York City recently?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Well, I think that all who attended it were +believers in the Bible, and any one who believes in prophecies and +looks to their fulfillment will go insane. A man that tries from +Daniel's ram with three horns and five tails and his deformed goats +to ascertain the date of the second immigration of Christ to this +world is already insane. It all shows that the moment we leave the +realm of fact and law we are adrift on the wide and shoreless sea +of theological speculation.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you think there will be a second coming?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. No, not as long as the church is in power. Christ +will never again visit this earth until the Freethinkers have +control. He will certainly never allow another church to get hold +of him. The very persons who met in New York to fix the date of his +coming would despise him and the feeling would probably be mutual. +In his day Christ was an Infidel, and made himself unpopular by +denouncing the church as it then existed. He called them liars, +hypocrites, thieves, vipers, whited sepulchres and fools. From the +description given of the church in that day, I am afraid that +should he come again, he would be provoked into using similar +language. Of course, I admit there are many good people in the +church, just as there were some good Pharisees who were opposed to +the crucifixion.</p> +<p>—<i>The Express</i>, Buffalo, New York, Nov. 4th, +1878.</p> +<a name="link0006" id="link0006"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>THE SOLID SOUTH AND RESUMPTION.</h2> +<p><i>Question</i>. Colonel, to start with, what do you think of +the solid South?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I think the South is naturally opposed to the +Republican party; more, I imagine, to the name, than to the +personnel of the organization. But the South has just as good +friends in the Republican party as in the Democratic party. I do +not think there are any Republicans who would not rejoice to see +the South prosperous and happy. I know of none, at least. They will +have to get over the prejudices born of isolation. We lack direct +and constant communication. I do not recollect having seen a +newspaper from the Gulf States for a long time. They, down there, +may imagine that the feeling in the North is the same as during the +war. But it certainly is not. The Northern people are anxious to be +friendly; and if they can be, without a violation of their +principles, they will be. Whether it be true or not, however, most +of the Republicans of the North believe that no Republican in the +South is heartily welcome in that section, whether he goes there +from the North, or is a Southern man. Personally, I do not care +anything about partisan politics. I want to see every man in the +United States guaranteed the right to express his choice at the +ballot-box, and I do not want social ostracism to follow a man, no +matter how he may vote. A solid South means a solid North. A +hundred thousand Democratic majority in South Carolina means fifty +thousand Republican majority in New York in 1880. I hope the +sections will never divide, simply as sections. But if the +Republican party is not allowed to live in the South, the +Democratic party certainly will not be allowed to succeed in the +North. I want to treat the people of the South precisely as though +the Rebellion had never occurred. I want all that wiped from the +slate of memory, and all I ask of the Southern people is to give +the same rights to the Republicans that we are willing to give to +them and have given to them.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. How do you account for the results of the +recent elections?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. The Republican party won the recent election +simply because it was for honest money, and it was in favor of +resumption. And if on the first of January next, we resume all +right, and maintain resumption, I see no reason why the Republican +party should not succeed in 1880. The Republican party came into +power at the commencement of the Rebellion, and necessarily +retained power until its close; and in my judgment, it will retain +power so long as in the horizon of credit there is a cloud of +repudiation as large as a man's hand.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you think resumption will work out all +right?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I do. I think that on the first of January the +greenback will shake hands with gold on an equality, and in a few +days thereafter will be worth just a little bit more. Everything +has resumed, except the Government. All the property has resumed, +all the lands, bonds and mortgages and stocks. All these things +resumed long ago—that is to say, they have touched the +bottom. Now, there is no doubt that the party that insists on the +Government paying all its debts will hold control, and no one will +get his hand on the wheel who advocates repudiation in any form. +There is one thing we must do, though. We have got to put more +silver in our dollars. I do not think you can blame the New York +banks—any bank —for refusing to take eighty-eight cents +for a dollar. Neither can you blame any depositor who puts gold in +the bank for demanding gold in return. Yes, we must have in the +silver dollar a dollar's worth of silver.</p> +<p>—<i>The Commercial</i>, Cincinnati, Ohio, November, +1878.</p> +<a name="link0007" id="link0007"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>THE SUNDAY LAWS OF PITTSBURG.*</h2> +<p><i>Question</i>. Colonel, what do you think of the course the +Mayor has pursued toward you in attempting to stop your +lecture?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I know very little except what I have seen in the +morning paper. As a general rule, laws should be enforced or +repealed; and so far as I am personally concerned, I shall not so +much complain of the enforcing of the law against Sabbath breaking +as of the fact that such a law exists. We have fallen heir to these +laws. They were passed by superstition, and the enlightened people +of to-day should repeal them. Ministers should not expect to fill +their churches by shutting up other places. They can only increase +their congregations by improving their sermons. They will have more +hearers when they say more worth hearing. I have no idea that the +Mayor has any prejudice against me personally and if he only +enforces the law, I shall have none against him. If my lectures +were free the ministers might have the right to object, but as I +charge one dollar admission and they nothing, they ought certainly +be able to compete with me.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Don't you think it is the duty of the Mayor, as +chief executive of the city laws, to enforce the ordinances and pay +no attention to what the statutes say?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I suppose it to be the duty of the Mayor to +enforce the ordinance of the city and if the ordinance of the city +covers the same ground as the law of the State, a conviction under +the ordinance would be a bar to prosecution under the State +law.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. If the ordinance exempts scientific, literary +and historical lectures, as it is said it does, will not that +exempt you?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Yes, all my lectures are historical; that is, I +speak of many things that have happened. They are scientific +because they are filled with facts, and they are literary of +course. I can conceive of no address that is neither historical nor +scientific, except sermons. They fail to be historical because they +treat of things that never happened and they are certainly not +scientific, as they contain no facts.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Suppose they arrest you what will you do?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I will examine the law and if convicted will pay +the fine, unless I think I can reverse the case by appeal. Of +course I would like to see all these foolish laws wiped from the +statute books. I want the law so that everybody can do just as he +pleases on Sunday, provided he does not interfere with the rights +of others. I want the Christian, the Jew, the Deist and the Atheist +to be exactly equal before the law. I would fight for the right of +the Christian to worship God in his own way just as quick as I +would for the Atheist to enjoy music, flowers and fields. I hope to +see the time when even the poor people can hear the music of the +finest operas on Sunday. One grand opera with all its thrilling +tones, will do more good in touching and elevating the world than +ten thousand sermons on the agonies of hell.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Have you ever been interfered with before in +delivering Sunday lectures?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. No, I postponed a lecture in Baltimore at the +request of the owners of a theatre because they were afraid some +action might be taken. That is the only case. I have delivered +lectures on Sunday in the principal cities of the United States, in +New York, Boston, Buffalo, Chicago, San Francisco, Cincinnati and +many other places. I lectured here last winter; it was on Sunday +and I heard nothing of its being contrary to law. I always supposed +my lectures were good enough to be delivered on the most sacred +days.</p> +<p>—<i>The Leader</i>, Pittsburg, Pa., October 27, 1879.</p> +<pre> + [* The manager of the theatre, where Col. Ingersoll + lectured, was fined fifty dollars which Col. Ingersoll + paid.] +</pre> +<a name="link0008" id="link0008"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS.</h2> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think about the recent election, +and what will be its effect upon political matters and the issues +and candidates of 1880?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I think the Republicans have met with this almost +universal success on account, first, of the position taken by the +Democracy on the currency question; that is to say, that party was +divided, and was willing to go in partnership with anybody, +whatever their doctrines might be, for the sake of success in that +particular locality. The Republican party felt it of paramount +importance not only to pay the debt, but to pay it in that which +the world regards as money. The next reason for the victory is the +position assumed by the Democracy in Congress during the called +session. The threats they then made of what they would do in the +event that the executive did not comply with their demands, showed +that the spirit of the party had not been chastened to any +considerable extent by the late war. The people of this country +will not, in my judgment, allow the South to take charge of this +country until they show their ability to protect the rights of +citizens in their respective States.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Then, as you regard the victories, they are +largely due to a firm adherence to principle, and the failure of +the Democratic party is due to their abandonment of principle, and +their desire to unite with anybody and everything, at the sacrifice +of principle, to attain success?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Yes. The Democratic party is a general desire for +office without organization. Most people are Democrats because they +hate something, most people are Republicans because they love +something.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you think the election has brought about any +particular change in the issues that will be involved in the +campaign of 1880?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I think the only issue is who shall rule the +country.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you think, then, the question of State +Rights, hard or soft money and other questions that have been +prominent in the campaign are practically settled, and so regarded +by the people?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I think the money question is, absolutely. I +think the question of State Rights is dead, except that it can +still be used to defeat the Democracy. It is what might be called a +convenient political corpse.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Now, to leave the political field and go to the +religious at one jump—since your last visit here much has +been said and written and published to the effect that a great +change, or a considerable change at least, had taken place in your +religious, or irreligious views. I would like to know if that is +so?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. The only change that has occurred in my religious +views is the result of finding more and more arguments in favor of +my position, and, as a consequence, if there is any difference, I +am stronger in my convictions than ever before.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. I would like to know something of the history +of your religious views?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I may say right here that the Christian idea that +any God can make me his friend by killing mine is about a great +mistake as could be made. They seem to have the idea that just as +soon as God kills all the people that a person loves, he will then +begin to love the Lord. What drew my attention first to these +questions was the doctrine of eternal punishment. This was so +abhorrent to my mind that I began to hate the book in which it was +taught. Then, in reading law, going back to find the origin of +laws, I found one had to go but a little way before the legislator +and priest united. This led me to a study of a good many of the +religions of the world. At first I was greatly astonished to find +most of them better than ours. I then studied our own system to the +best of my ability, and found that people were palming off upon +children and upon one another as the inspired word of God a book +that upheld slavery, polygamy and almost every other crime. Whether +I am right or wrong, I became convinced that the Bible is not an +inspired book; and then the only question for me to settle was as +to whether I should say what I believed or not. This really was not +the question in my mind, because, before even thinking of such a +question, I expressed my belief, and I simply claim that right and +expect to exercise it as long as I live. I may be damned for it in +the next world, but it is a great source of pleasure to me in +this.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. It is reported that you are the son of a +Presbyterian minister?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Yes, I am the son of a New School Presbyterian +minister.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. About what age were you when you began this +investigation which led to your present convictions?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I cannot remember when I believed the Bible +doctrine of eternal punishment. I have a dim recollection of hating +Jehovah when I was exceedingly small.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Then your present convictions began to form +themselves while you were listening to the teachings of religion as +taught by your father?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Yes, they did.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Did you discuss the matter with him?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I did for many years, and before he died he +utterly gave up the idea that this life is a period of probation. +He utterly gave up the idea of eternal punishment, and before he +died he had the happiness of believing that God was almost as good +and generous as he was himself.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. I suppose this gossip about a change in your +religious views arose or was created by the expression used at your +brother's funeral, "In the night of death hope sees a star and +listening love can hear the rustle of a wing"?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I never willingly will destroy a solitary human +hope. I have always said that I did not know whether man was or was +not immortal, but years before my brother died, in a lecture +entitled "The Ghosts," which has since been published, I used the +following words: "The idea of immortality, that like a sea has +ebbed and flowed in the human heart, with its countless waves of +hope and fear, beating against the shores and rocks of time and +fate, was not born of any book, nor of any creed, nor of any +religion. It was born of human affection, and it will continue to +ebb and flow beneath the mists and clouds of doubt and darkness as +long as love kisses the lips of death. It is the +rainbow—Hope, shining upon the tears of grief."</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. The great objection to your teaching urged by +your enemies is that you constantly tear down, and never build +up?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I have just published a little book entitled, +"Some Mistakes of Moses," in which I have endeavored to give most +of the arguments I have urged against the Pentateuch in a lecture I +delivered under that title. The motto on the title page is, "A +destroyer of weeds, thistles and thorns is a benefactor, whether he +soweth grain or not." I cannot for my life see why one should be +charged with tearing down and not rebuilding simply because he +exposes a sham, or detects a lie. I do not feel under any +obligation to build something in the place of a detected falsehood. +All I think I am under obligation to put in the place of a detected +lie is the detection. Most religionists talk as if mistakes were +valuable things and they did not wish to part with them without a +consideration. Just how much they regard lies worth a dozen I do +not know. If the price is reasonable I am perfectly willing to give +it, rather than to see them live and give their lives to the +defence of delusions. I am firmly convinced that to be happy here +will not in the least detract from our happiness in another world +should we be so fortunate as to reach another world; and I cannot +see the value of any philosophy that reaches beyond the intelligent +happiness of the present. There may be a God who will make us happy +in another world. If he does, it will be more than he has +accomplished in this. I suppose that he will never have more than +infinite power and never have less than infinite wisdom, and why +people should expect that he should do better in another world than +he has in this is something that I have never been able to explain. +A being who has the power to prevent it and yet who allows +thousands and millions of his children to starve; who devours them +with earthquakes; who allows whole nations to be enslaved, cannot +in my judgment be implicitly be depended upon to do justice in +another world.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. How do the clergy generally treat you?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Well, of course there are the same distinctions +among clergymen as among other people. Some of them are quite +respectable gentlemen, especially those with whom I am not +acquainted. I think that since the loss of my brother nothing could +exceed the heartlessness of the remarks made by the average +clergyman. There have been some noble exceptions, to whom I feel +not only thankful but grateful; but a very large majority have +taken this occasion to say most unfeeling and brutal things. I do +not ask the clergy to forgive me, but I do request that they will +so act that I will not have to forgive them. I have always insisted +that those who love their enemies should at least tell the truth +about their friends, but I suppose, after all, that religion must +be supported by the same means as those by which it was founded. Of +course, there are thousands of good ministers, men who are +endeavoring to make the world better, and whose failure is no +particular fault of their own. I have always been in doubt as to +whether the clergy were a necessary or an unnecessary evil.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. I would like to have a positive expression of +your views as to a future state?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Somebody asked Confucius about another world, and +his reply was: "How should I know anything about another world when +I know so little of this?" For my part, I know nothing of any other +state of existence, either before or after this, and I have never +become personally acquainted with anybody that did. There may be +another life, and if there is, the best way to prepare for it is by +making somebody happy in this. God certainly cannot afford to put a +man in hell who has made a little heaven in this world. I propose +simply to take my chances with the rest of the folks, and prepare +to go where the people I am best acquainted with will probably +settle. I cannot afford to leave the great ship and sneak off to +shore in some orthodox canoe. I hope there is another life, for I +would like to see how things come out in the world when I am dead. +There are some people I would like to see again, and hope there are +some who would not object to seeing me; but if there is no other +life I shall never know it. I do not remember a time when I did not +exist; and if, when I die, that is the end, I shall not know it, +because the last thing I shall know is that I am alive, and if +nothing is left, nothing will be left to know that I am dead; so +that so far as I am concerned I am immortal; that is to say, I +cannot recollect when I did not exist, and there never will be a +time when I shall remember that I do not exist. I would like to +have several millions of dollars, and I may say that I have a +lively hope that some day I may be rich, but to tell you the truth +I have very little evidence of it. Our hope of immortality does not +come from any religion, but nearly all religions come from that +hope. The Old Testament, instead of telling us that we are +immortal, tells us how we lost immortality. You will recollect that +if Adam and Eve could have gotten to the Tree of Life, they would +have eaten of its fruit and would have lived forever; but for the +purpose of preventing immortality God turned them out of the Garden +of Eden, and put certain angels with swords or sabres at the gate +to keep them from getting back. The Old Testament proves, if it +proves anything—which I do not think it does—that there +is no life after this; and the New Testament is not very specific +on the subject. There were a great many opportunities for the +Saviour and his apostles to tell us about another world, but they +did not improve them to any great extent; and the only evidence, so +far as I know, about another life is, first, that we have no +evidence; and, secondly, that we are rather sorry that we have not, +and wish we had. That is about my position.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. According to your observation of men, and your +reading in relation to the men and women of the world and of the +church, if there is another world divided according to orthodox +principles between the orthodox and heterodox, which of the two +that are known as heaven and hell would contain, in your judgment, +the most good society?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Since hanging has got to be a means of grace, I +would prefer hell. I had a thousand times rather associate with the +Pagan philosophers than with the inquisitors of the Middle Ages. I +certainly should prefer the worst man in Greek or Roman history to +John Calvin; and I can imagine no man in the world that I would not +rather sit on the same bench with than the Puritan fathers and the +founders of orthodox churches. I would trade off my harp any minute +for a seat in the other country. All the poets will be in +perdition, and the greatest thinkers, and, I should think, most of +the women whose society would tend to increase the happiness of +man; nearly all the painters, nearly all the sculptors, nearly all +the writers of plays, nearly all the great actors, most of the best +musicians, and nearly all the good fellows—the persons who +know stories, who can sing songs, or who will loan a friend a +dollar. They will mostly all be in that country, and if I did not +live there permanently, I certainly would want it so I could spend +my winter months there. But, after all, what I really want to do is +to destroy the idea of eternal punishment. That doctrine subverts +all ideas of justice. That doctrine fills hell with honest men, and +heaven with intellectual and moral paupers. That doctrine allows +people to sin on credit. That doctrine allows the basest to be +eternally happy and the most honorable to suffer eternal pain. I +think of all doctrines it is the most infinitely infamous, and +would disgrace the lowest savage; and any man who believes it, and +has imagination enough to understand it, has the heart of a serpent +and the conscience of a hyena.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Your objective point is to destroy the doctrine +of hell, is it?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Yes, because the destruction of that doctrine +will do away with all cant and all pretence. It will do away with +all religious bigotry and persecution. It will allow every man to +think and to express his thought. It will do away with bigotry in +all its slimy and offensive forms.</p> +<p>—<i>Chicago Tribune</i>, November 14, 1879.</p> +<a name="link0009" id="link0009"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>POLITICS AND GEN. GRANT</h2> +<p><i>Question</i>. Some people have made comparisons between the +late Senators O. P. Morton and Zach. Chandler. What did you think +of them, Colonel?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I think Morton had the best intellectual grasp of +a question of any man I ever saw. There was an infinite difference +between the two men. Morton's strength lay in proving a thing; +Chandler's in asserting it. But Chandler was a strong man and no +hypocrite.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Have you any objection to being interviewed as +to your ideas of Grant, and his position before the people?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I have no reason for withholding my views on that +or any other subject that is under public discussion. My idea is +that Grant can afford to regard the presidency as a broken toy. It +would add nothing to his fame if he were again elected, and would +add nothing to the debt of gratitude which the people feel they owe +him. I do not think he will be a candidate. I do not think he wants +it. There are men who are pushing him on their own account. Grant +was a great soldier. He won the respect of the civilized world. He +commanded the largest army that ever fought for freedom, and to +make him President would not add a solitary leaf to the wreath of +fame already on his brow; and should he be elected, the only thing +he could do would be to keep the old wreath from fading.</p> +<p>I do not think his reputation can ever be as great in any +direction as in the direction of war. He has made his reputation +and has lived his great life. I regard him, confessedly, as the +best soldier the Anglo-Saxon blood has produced. I do not know that +it necessarily follows because he is a great soldier he is great in +other directions. Probably some of the greatest statesmen in the +world would have been the worst soldiers.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you regard him as more popular now than ever +before?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I think that his reputation is certainly greater +and higher than when he left the presidency, and mainly because he +has represented this country with so much discretion and with such +quiet, poised dignity all around the world. He has measured himself +with kings, and was able to look over the heads of every one of +them. They were not quite as tall as he was, even adding the crown +to their original height. I think he represented us abroad with +wonderful success. One thing that touched me very much was, that at +a reception given him by the workingmen of Birmingham, after he had +been received by royalty, he had the courage to say that that +reception gave him more pleasure than any other. He has been +throughout perfectly true to the genius of our institutions, and +has not upon any occasion exhibited the slightest toadyism. Grant +is a man who is not greatly affected by either flattery or +abuse.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you believe to be his position in +regard to the presidency?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. My own judgment is that he does not care. I do +not think he has any enemies to punish, and I think that while he +was President he certainly rewarded most of his friends.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What are your views as to a third term?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I have no objection to a third term on principle, +but so many men want the presidency that it seems almost cruel to +give a third term to anyone.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Then, if there is no objection to a third term, +what about a fourth?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I do not know that that could be objected to, +either. We have to admit, after all, that the American people, or +at least a majority of them, have a right to elect one man as often +as they please. Personally, I think it should not be done unless in +the case of a man who is prominent above the rest of his +fellow-citizens, and whose election appears absolutely necessary. +But I frankly confess I cannot conceive of any political situation +where one man is a necessity. I do not believe in the +one-man-on-horseback idea, because I believe in all the people +being on horseback.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What will be the effect of the enthusiastic +receptions that are being given to General Grant?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I think these ovations show that the people are +resolved not to lose the results of the great victories of the war, +and that they make known this determination by their attention to +General Grant. I think that if he goes through the principal cities +of this country the old spirit will be revived everywhere, and +whether it makes him President or not the result will be to make +the election go Republican. The revival of the memories of the war +will bring the people of the North together as closely as at any +time since that great conflict closed, not in the spirit of hatred, +or malice or envy, but in generous emulation to preserve that which +was fairly won. I do not think there is any hatred about it, but we +are beginning to see that we must save the South ourselves, and +that that is the only way we can save the nation.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. But suppose they give the same receptions in +the South?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. So much the better.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Is there any split in the solid South?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Some of the very best people in the South are +apparently disgusted with following the Democracy any longer, and +would hail with delight any opportunity they could reasonably take +advantage of to leave the organization, if they could do so without +making it appear that they were going back on Southern interests, +and this opportunity will come when the South becomes enlightened, +and sees that it has no interests except in common with the whole +country. That I think they are beginning to see.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. How do you like the administration of President +Hayes?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I think its attitude has greatly improved of +late. There are certain games of cards—pedro, for instance, +where you can not only fail to make something, but be set back. I +think that Hayes's veto messages very nearly got him back to the +commencement of the game—that he is now almost ready to +commence counting, and make some points. His position before the +country has greatly improved, but he will not develop into a dark +horse. My preference is, of course, still for Blaine.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Where do you think it is necessary the +Republican candidate should come from to insure success?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Somewhere out of Ohio. I think it will go to +Maine, and for this reason: First of all, Blaine is certainly a +competent man of affairs, a man who knows what to do at the time; +and then he has acted in such a chivalric way ever since the +convention at Cincinnati, that those who opposed him most bitterly, +now have for him nothing but admiration. I think John Sherman is a +man of decided ability, but I do not believe the American people +would make one brother President, while the other is General of the +Army. It would be giving too much power to one family.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What are your conclusions as to the future of +the Democratic party?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I think the Democratic party ought to disband. I +think they would be a great deal stronger disbanded, because they +would get rid of their reputation without decreasing.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. But if they will not disband?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Then the next campaign depends undoubtedly upon +New York and Indiana. I do not see how they can very well help +nominating a man from Indiana, and by that I mean Hendricks. You +see the South has one hundred and thirty-eight votes, all supposed +to be Democratic; with the thirty-five from New York and fifteen +from Indiana they would have just three to spare. Now, I take it, +that the fifteen from Indiana are just about as essential as the +thirty- five from New York. To lack fifteen votes is nearly as bad +as being thirty-five short, and so far as drawing salary is +concerned it is quite as bad. Mr. Hendricks ought to know that he +holds the key to Indiana, and that there cannot be any possibility +of carrying this State for Democracy without him. He has tried +running for the vice-presidency, which is not much of a place +anyhow—I would about as soon be vice-mother-in-law—and +my judgment is that he knows exactly the value of his geographical +position. New York is divided to that degree that it would be +unsafe to take a candidate from that State; and besides, New York +has become famous for furnishing defeated candidates for the +Democracy. I think the man must come from Indiana.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Would the Democracy of New York unite on +Seymour?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. You recollect what Lincoln said about the powder +that had been shot off once. I do not remember any man who has once +made a race for the presidency and been defeated ever being again +nominated.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What about Bayard and Hancock as +candidates?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I do not see how Bayard could possibly carry +Indiana, while his own State is too small and too solidly +Democratic. My idea of Bayard is that he has not been good enough +to be popular, and not bad enough to be famous. The American people +will never elect a President from a State with a whipping-post. As +to General Hancock, you may set it down as certain that the South +will never lend their aid to elect a man who helped to put down the +Rebellion. It would be just the same as the effort to elect +Greeley. It cannot be done. I see, by the way, that I am reported +as having said that David Davis, as the Democratic candidate, could +carry Illinois. I did say that in 1876, he could have carried it +against Hayes; but whether he could carry Illinois in 1880 would +depend altogether upon who runs against him. The condition of +things has changed greatly in our favor since 1876.</p> +<p>—<i>The Journal</i>, Indianapolis, Ind., November, +1879.</p> +<a name="link0010" id="link0010"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>POLITICS, RELIGION AND THOMAS PAINE.</h2> +<p><i>Question</i>. You have traveled about this State more or +less, lately, and have, of course, observed political affairs here. +Do you think that Senator Logan will be able to deliver this State +to the Grant movement according to the understood plan?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. If the State is really for Grant, he will, and if +it is not, he will not. Illinois is as little "owned" as any State +in this Union. Illinois would naturally be for Grant, other things +being equal, because he is regarded as a citizen of this State, and +it is very hard for a State to give up the patronage naturally +growing out of the fact that the President comes from that +State.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Will the instructions given to delegates be +final?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I do not think they will be considered final at +all; neither do I think they will be considered of any force. It +was decided at the last convention, in Cincinnati, that the +delegates had a right to vote as they pleased; that each delegate +represented the district of the State that sent him. The idea that +a State convention can instruct them as against the wishes of their +constituents smacks a little too much of State sovereignty. The +President should be nominated by the districts of the whole +country, and not by massing the votes by a little chicanery at a +State convention, and every delegate ought to vote what he really +believes to be the sentiment of his constituents, irrespective of +what the State convention may order him to do. He is not +responsible to the State convention, and it is none of the State +convention's business. This does not apply, it may be, to the +delegates at large, but to all the others it certainly must apply. +It was so decided at the Cincinnati convention, and decided on a +question arising about this same Pennsylvania delegation.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Can you guess as to what the platform in going +to contain?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I suppose it will be a substantial copy of the +old one. I am satisfied with the old one with one addition. I want +a plank to the effect that no man shall be deprived of any civil or +political right on account of his religious or irreligious +opinions. The Republican party having been foremost in freeing the +body ought to do just a little something now for the mind. After +having wasted rivers of blood and treasure uncounted, and almost +uncountable, to free the cage, I propose that something ought to be +done for the bird. Every decent man in the United States would +support that plank. People should have a right to testify in +courts, whatever their opinions may be, on any subject. Justice +should not shut any door leading to truth, and as long as just +views neither affect a man's eyesight or his memory, he should be +allowed to tell his story. And there are two sides to this +question, too. The man is not only deprived of his testimony, but +the commonwealth is deprived of it. There should be no religious +test in this country for office; and if Jehovah cannot support his +religion without going into partnership with a State Legislature, I +think he ought to give it up.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Is there anything new about religion since you +were last here?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Since I was here I have spoken in a great many +cities, and to-morrow I am going to do some missionary work at +Milwaukee. Many who have come to scoff have remained to pray, and I +think that my labors are being greatly blessed, and all attacks on +me so far have been overruled for good. I happened to come in +contact with a revival of religion, and I believe what they call an +"outpouring" at Detroit, under the leadership of a gentleman by the +name of Pentecost. He denounced me as God's greatest enemy. I had +always supposed that the Devil occupied that exalted position, but +it seems that I have, in some way, fallen heir to his shoes. Mr. +Pentecost also denounced all business men who would allow any +advertisements or lithographs of mine to hang in their places of +business, and several of these gentlemen thus appealed to took the +advertisements away. The result of all this was that I had the +largest house that ever attended a lecture in Detroit. Feeling that +ingratitude is a crime, I publicly returned thanks to the clergy +for the pains they had taken to give me an audience. And I may say, +in this connection, that if the ministers do God as little good as +they do me harm, they had better let both of us alone. I regard +them as very good, but exceedingly mistaken men. They do not come +much in contact with the world, and get most of their views by +talking with the women and children of their congregations. They +are not permitted to mingle freely with society. They cannot attend +plays nor hear operas. I believe some of them have ventured to +minstrel shows and menageries, where they confine themselves +strictly to the animal part of the entertainment. But, as a rule, +they have very few opportunities of ascertaining what the real +public opinion is. They read religious papers, edited by gentlemen +who know as little about the world as themselves, and the result of +all this is that they are rather behind the times. They are good +men, and would like to do right if they only knew it, but they are +a little behind the times. There is an old story told of a fellow +who had a post-office in a small town in North Carolina, and he +being the only man in the town who could read, a few people used to +gather in the post-office on Sunday, and he would read to them a +weekly paper that was published in Washington. He commenced always +at the top of the first column and read right straight through, +articles, advertisements, and all, and whenever they got a little +tired of reading he would make a mark of red ochre and commence at +that place the next Sunday. The result was that the papers came a +great deal faster than he read them, and it was about 1817 when +they struck the war of 1812. The moment they got to that, every one +of them jumped up and offered to volunteer. All of which shows that +they were patriotic people, but a little show, and somewhat behind +the times.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. How were you pleased with the Paine meeting +here, and its results?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I was gratified to see so many people willing at +last to do justice to a great and a maligned man. Of course I do +not claim that Paine was perfect. All I claim is that he was a +patriot and a political philosopher; that he was a revolutionist +and an agitator; that he was infinitely full of suggestive thought, +and that he did more than any man to convince the people of +American not only that they ought to separate from Great Britain, +but that they ought to found a representative government. He has +been despised simply because he did not believe the Bible. I wish +to do what I can to rescue his name from theological defamation. I +think the day has come when Thomas Paine will be remembered with +Washington, Franklin and Jefferson, and that the American people +will wonder that their fathers could have been guilty of such base +ingratitude.</p> +<p>—<i>Chicago Times</i>, February 8, 1880.</p> +<a name="link0011" id="link0011"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>REPLY TO CHICAGO CRITICS.</h2> +<p><i>Question</i>. Have you read the replies of the clergy to your +recent lecture in this city on "What Must we do to be Saved?" and +if so what do you think of them?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I think they dodge the point. The real point is +this: If salvation by faith is the real doctrine of Christianity, I +asked on Sunday before last, and I still ask, why didn't Matthew +tell it? I still insist that Mark should have remembered it, and I +shall always believe that Luke ought, at least, to have noticed it. +I was endeavoring to show that modern Christianity has for its +basis an interpolation. I think I showed it. The only gospel on the +orthodox side is that of John, and that was certainly not written, +or did not appear in its present form, until long after the others +were written.</p> +<p>I know very well that the Catholic Church claimed during the +Dark Ages, and still claims, that references had been made to the +gospels by persons living in the first, second, and third +centuries; but I believe such manuscripts were manufactured by the +Catholic Church. For many years in Europe there was not one person +in twenty thousand who could read and write. During that time the +church had in its keeping the literature of our world. They +interpolated as they pleased. They created. They destroyed. In +other words, they did whatever in their opinion was necessary to +substantiate the faith.</p> +<p>The gentlemen who saw fit to reply did not answer the question, +and I again call upon the clergy to explain to the people why, if +salvation depends upon belief on the Lord Jesus Christ, Matthew +didn't mention it. Some one has said that Christ didn't make known +this doctrine of salvation by belief or faith until after his +resurrection. Certainly none of the gospels were written until +after his resurrection; and if he made that doctrine known after +his resurrection, and before his ascension, it should have been in +Matthew, Mark, and Luke, as well as in John.</p> +<p>The replies of the clergy show that they have not investigated +the subject; that they are not well acquainted with the New +Testament. In other words, they have not read it except with the +regulation theological bias.</p> +<p>There is one thing I wish to correct here. In an editorial in +the <i>Tribune</i> it was stated that I had admitted that Christ +was beyond and above Buddha, Zoroaster, Confucius, and others. I +did not say so. Another point was made against me, and those who +made it seemed to think it was a good one. In my lecture I asked +why it was that the disciples of Christ wrote in Greek, whereas, if +fact, they understood only Hebrew. It is now claimed that Greek was +the language of Jerusalem at that time; that Hebrew had fallen into +disuse; that no one understood it except the literati and the +highly educated. If I fell into an error upon this point it was +because I relied upon the New Testament. I find in the twenty-first +chapter of the Acts an account of Paul having been mobbed in the +city of Jerusalem; that he was protected by a chief captain and +some soldiers; that, while upon the stairs of the castle to which +he was being taken for protection, he obtained leave from the +captain to speak unto the people. In the fortieth verse of that +chapter I find the following:</p> +<p>"And when he had given him license, Paul stood on the stairs and +beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a +great silence, he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue, +saying,"</p> +<p>And then follows the speech of Paul, wherein he gives an account +of his conversion. It seems a little curious to me that Paul, for +the purpose of quieting a mob, would speak to that mob in an +unknown language. If I were mobbed in the city of Chicago, and +wished to defend myself with an explanation, I certainly would not +make that explanation in Choctaw, even if I understood that tongue. +My present opinion is that I would speak in English; and the reason +I would speak in English is because that language is generally +understood in this city, and so I conclude from the account in the +twenty-first chapter of the Acts that Hebrew was the language of +Jerusalem at that time, or Paul would not have addressed the mob in +that tongue.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Did you read Mr. Courtney's answer?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I read what Mr. Courtney read from others, and +think some of his quotations very good; and have no doubt that the +authors will feel complimented by being quoted. There certainly is +no need of my answering Dr. Courtney; sometime I may answer the +French gentlemen from whom he quoted.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. But what about there being "belief" in +Matthew?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Mr. Courtney says that certain people were cured +of diseases on account of faith. Admitting that mumps, measles, and +whooping-cough could be cured in that way, there is not even a +suggestion that salvation depended upon a like faith. I think he +can hardly afford to rely upon the miracles of the New Testament to +prove his doctrine. There is one instance in which a miracle was +performed by Christ without his knowledge; and I hardly think that +even Mr. Courtney would insist that any faith could have been great +enough for that. The fact is, I believe that all these miracles +were ascribed to Christ long after his death, and that Christ +never, at any time or place, pretended to have any supernatural +power whatever. Neither do I believe that he claimed any +supernatural origin. He claimed simply to be a man; no less, no +more. I do not believe Mr. Courtney is satisfied with his own +reply.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. And now as to Prof. Swing?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Mr. Swing has been out of the orthodox church so +long that he seems to have forgotten the reasons for which he left +it. I do not believe there is an orthodox minister in the city of +Chicago who will agree with Mr. Swing that salvation by faith is no +longer preached. Prof. Swing seems to think it of no importance who +wrote the gospel of Matthew. In this I agree with him. Judging from +what he said there is hardly difference enough of opinion between +us to justify a reply on his part. He, however, makes one mistake. +I did not in the lecture say one word about tearing down churches. +I have no objection to people building all the churches they wish. +While I admit it is a pretty sight to see children on a morning in +June going through the fields to the country church, I still insist +that the beauty of that sight does not answer the question how it +is that Matthew forgot to say anything about salvation through +Christ. Prof. Swing is a man of poetic temperament, but this is not +a poetic question.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. How did the card of Dr. Thomas strike you?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I think the reply of Dr. Thomas is in the best +possible spirit. I regard him to-day as the best intellect in the +Methodist denomination. He seems to have what is generally +understood as a Christian spirit. He has always treated me with +perfect fairness, and I should have said long ago many grateful +things, had I not feared I might hurt him with his own people. He +seems to be by nature a perfectly fair man; and I know of no man in +the United States for whom I have a profounder respect. Of course, +I don't agree with Dr. Thomas. I think in many things he is +mistaken. But I believe him to be perfectly sincere. There is one +trouble about him—he is growing; and this fact will no doubt +give great trouble to many of his brethren. Certain Methodist +hazel-brush feel a little uneasy in the shadow of this oak. To see +the difference between him and some others, all that is necessary +is to read his reply, and then read the remarks made at the +Methodist ministers' meeting on the Monday following. Compared with +Dr. Thomas, they are as puddles by the sea. There is the same +difference that there is between sewers and rivers, cesspools and +springs.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What have you to say to the remarks of the Rev. +Dr. Jewett before the Methodist ministers' meeting?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I think Dr. Jewett is extremely foolish. I did +not say that I would commence suit against a minister for libel. I +can hardly conceive of a proceeding that would be less liable to +produce a dividend. The fact about it is, that the Rev. Mr. Jewett +seems to think anything true that he hears against me. Mr. Jewett +is probably ashamed of what he said by this time. He must have +known it to be entirely false. It seems to me by this time even the +most bigoted should lose their confidence in falsehood. Of course +there are times when a falsehood well told bridges over quite a +difficulty, but in the long run you had better tell the truth, even +if you swim the creek. I am astonished that these ministers were +willing to exhibit their wounds to the world. I supposed of course +I would hit some, but I had no idea of wounding so many.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Mr. Crafts stated that you were in the habit of +swearing in company and before your family?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I often swear. In other words, I take the name of +God in vain; that is to say, I take it without any practical thing +resulting from it, and in that sense I think most ministers are +guilty of the same thing. I heard an old story of a clergyman who +rebuked a neighbor for swearing, to whom the neighbor replied, "You +pray and I swear, but as a matter of fact neither of us means +anything by it." As to the charge that I am in the habit of using +indecent language in my family, no reply is needed. I am willing to +leave that question to the people who know us both. Mr. Crafts says +he was told this by a lady. This cannot by any possibility be true, +for no lady will tell a falsehood. Besides, if this woman of whom +he speaks was a lady, how did she happen to stay where obscene +language was being used? No lady ever told Mr. Crafts any such +thing. It may be that a lady did tell him that I used profane +language. I admit that I have not always spoken of the Devil in a +respectful way; that I have sometimes referred to his residence +when it was not a necessary part of the conversation, and that a +divers times I have used a good deal of the terminology of the +theologian when the exact words of the scientist might have done as +well. But if by swearing is meant the use of God's name in vain, +there are very few preachers who do not swear more than I do, if by +"in vain" is meant without any practical result. I leave Mr. Crafts +to cultivate the acquaintance of the unknown lady, knowing as I do, +that after they have talked this matter over again they will find +that both have been mistaken.</p> +<p>I sincerely regret that clergymen who really believe that an +infinite God is on their side think it necessary to resort to such +things to defeat one man. According to their idea, God is against +me, and they ought to have confidence in this infinite wisdom and +strength to suppose that he could dispose of one man, even if they +failed to say a word against me. Had you not asked me I should have +said nothing to you on these topics. Such charges cannot hurt me. I +do not believe it possible for such men to injure me. No one +believes what they say, and the testimony of such clergymen against +an Infidel is no longer considered of value. I believe it was +Goethe who said, "I always know that I am traveling when I hear the +dogs bark."</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Are you going to make a formal reply to their +sermons?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Not unless something better is done than has +been. Of course, I don't know what another Sabbath may bring forth. +I am waiting. But of one thing I feel perfectly assured; that no +man in the United States, or in the world, can account for the +fact, if we are to be saved only by faith in Christ, that Matthew +forgot it, that Luke said nothing about it, and that Mark never +mentioned it except in two passages written by <i>another</i> +person. Until that is answered, as one grave-digger says to the +other in "Hamlet," I shall say, "Ay, tell me that and unyoke." In +the meantime I wish to keep on the best terms with all parties +concerned. I cannot see why my forgiving spirit fails to gain their +sincere praise.</p> +<p>—<i>Chicago Tribune</i>, September 30, 1880.</p> +<a name="link0012" id="link0012"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>THE REPUBLICAN VICTORY.</h2> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you really think, Colonel, that the country +has just passed through a crisis?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Yes; there was a crisis and a great one. The +question was whether a Northern or Southern idea of the powers and +duties of the Federal Government was to prevail. The great victory +of yesterday means that the Rebellion was not put down on the field +of war alone, but that we have conquered in the realm of thought. +The bayonet has been justified by argument. No party can ever +succeed in this country that even whispers "State Sovereignty." +That doctrine has become odious. The sovereignty of the State means +a Government without power, and citizens without protection.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Can you see any further significance in the +present Republican victory other than that the people do not wish +to change the general policy of the present administration?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Yes; the people have concluded that the lips of +America shall be free. There never was free speech at the South, +and there never will be until the people of that section admit that +the Nation is superior to the State, and that all citizens have +equal rights. I know of hundreds who voted the Republican ticket +because they regarded the South as hostile to free speech. The +people were satisfied with the financial policy of the Republicans, +and they feared a change. The North wants honest money—gold +and silver. The people are in favor of honest votes, and they +feared the practices of the Democratic party. The tissue ballot and +shotgun policy made them hesitate to put power in the hands of the +South. Besides, the tariff question made thousands and thousands of +votes. As long as Europe has slave labor, and wherever kings and +priests rule, the laborer will be substantially a slave. We must +protect ourselves. If the world were free, trade would be free, and +the seas would be the free highways of the world. The great objects +of the Republican party are to preserve all the liberty we have, +protect American labor, and to make it the undisputed duty of the +Government to protect every citizen at home and abroad.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think was the main cause of the +Republican sweep?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. The wisdom of the Republicans and the mistakes of +the Democrats. The Democratic party has for twenty years underrated +the intelligence, the patriotism and the honesty of the American +people. That party has always looked upon politics as a trade, and +success as the last act of a cunning trick. It has had no +principles, fixed or otherwise. It has always been willing to +abandon everything but its prejudices. It generally commences where +it left off and then goes backward. In this campaign English was a +mistake, Hancock was another. Nothing could have been more +incongruous than yoking a Federal soldier with a peace-at-any-price +Democrat. Neither could praise the other without slandering +himself, and the blindest partisan could not like them both. But, +after all, I regard the military record of English as fully equal +to the views of General Hancock on the tariff. The greatest mistake +that the Democratic party made was to suppose that a campaign could +be fought and won by slander. The American people like fair play +and they abhor ignorant and absurd vituperation. The continent knew +that General Garfield was an honest man; that he was in the +grandest sense a gentleman; that he was patriotic, profound and +learned; that his private life was pure; that his home life was +good and kind and true, and all the charges made and howled and +screeched and printed and sworn to harmed only those who did the +making and the howling, the screeching and the swearing. I never +knew a man in whose perfect integrity I had more perfect +confidence, and in less than one year even the men who have +slandered him will agree with me.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. How about that "personal and confidential +letter"? (The Morey letter.)</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. It was as stupid, as devilish, as basely born as +godfathered. It is an exploded forgery, and the explosion leaves +dead and torn upon the field the author and his witnesses.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Is there anything in the charge that the +Republican party seeks to change our form of government by gradual +centralization?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Nothing whatever. We want power enough in the +Government to protect, not to destroy, the liberties of the people. +The history of the world shows that burglars have always opposed an +increase of the police.</p> +<p>—<i>New York Herald</i>, November 5, 1880.</p> +<a name="link0013" id="link0013"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>INGERSOLL AND BEECHER.*</h2> +<pre> + [* The sensation created by the speech of the Rev. Henry + Ward Beecher at the Academy of Music, in Brooklyn, when he + uttered a brilliant eulogy of Col. Robert Ingersoll and + publicly shook hands with him has not yet subsided. A + portion of the religious world is thoroughly stirred up at + what it considers a gross breach of orthodox propriety. + This feeling is especially strong among the class of + positivists who believe that + + "An Atheist's laugh's a poor exchange For Deity offended." + + Many believe that Mr. Beecher is at heart in full sympathy + and accord with Ingersoll's teachings, but has not courage + enough to say so at the sacrifice of his pastoral position. + The fact that these two men are the very head and front of + their respective schools of thought makes the matter an + important one. The denouncement of the doctrine of eternal + punishment, followed by the scene at the Academy, has about + it an aroma of suggestiveness that might work much harm + without an explanation. Since Colonel Ingersoll's recent + attack upon the <i>personnel</i> of the clergy through the + "Shorter Catechism" the pulpit has been remarkably silent + regarding the great atheist. "Is the keen logic and broad + humanity of Ingersoll converting the brain and heart of + Christendom?" was recently asked. Did the hand that was + stretched out to him on the stage of the Academy reach + across the chasm which separates orthodoxy from infidelity? + + Desiring to answer the last question if possible, a <i>Herald</i> + reporter visited Mr. Beecher and Colonel Ingersoll to learn + their opinion of each other. Neither of the gentlemen was + aware that the other was being interviewed.] +</pre> +<p><i>Question</i>. What is your opinion of Mr. Beecher?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I regard him as the greatest man in any pulpit of +the world. He treated me with a generosity that nothing can exceed. +He rose grandly above the prejudices supposed to belong to his +class, and acted as only a man could act without a chain upon his +brain and only kindness in his heart.</p> +<p>I told him that night that I congratulated the world that it had +a minister with an intellectual horizon broad enough and a mental +sky studded with stars of genius enough to hold all creeds in scorn +that shocked the heart of man. I think that Mr. Beecher has +liberalized the English-speaking people of the world.</p> +<p>I do not think he agrees with me. He holds to many things that I +most passionately deny. But in common, we believe in the liberty of +thought.</p> +<p>My principal objections to orthodox religion are +two—slavery here and hell hereafter. I do not believe that +Mr. Beecher on these points can disagree with me. The real +difference between us is— he says God, I say Nature. The real +agreement between us is—we both say—Liberty.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What is his forte?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. He is of a wonderfully poetic temperament. In +pursuing any course of thought his mind is like a stream flowing +through the scenery of fairyland. The stream murmurs and laughs +while the banks grow green and the vines blossom.</p> +<p>His brain is controlled by his heart. He thinks in pictures. +With him logic means mental melody. The discordant is the +absurd.</p> +<p>For years he has endeavored to hide the dungeon of orthodoxy +with the ivy of imagination. Now and then he pulls for a moment the +leafy curtain aside and is horrified to see the lizards, snakes, +basilisks and abnormal monsters of the orthodox age, and then he +utters a great cry, the protest of a loving, throbbing heart.</p> +<p>He is a great thinker, a marvelous orator, and, in my judgment, +greater and grander than any creed of any church.</p> +<p>Besides all this, he treated me like a king. Manhood is his +forte, and I expect to live and die his friend.</p> +<center>BEECHER ON INGERSOLL.</center> +<p><i>Question</i>. What is your opinion of Colonel Ingersoll?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I do not think there should be any misconception +as to my motive for indorsing Mr. Ingersoll. I never saw him before +that night, when I clasped his hand in the presence of an +assemblage of citizens. Yet I regard him as one of the greatest men +of this age.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Is his influence upon the world good or +otherwise?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I am an ordained clergyman and believe in +revealed religion. I am, therefore, bound to regard all persons who +do not believe in revealed religion as in error. But on the broad +platform of human liberty and progress I was bound to give him the +right hand of fellowship. I would do it a thousand times over. I do +not know Colonel Ingersoll's religious views precisely, but I have +a general knowledge of them. He has the same right to free thought +and free speech that I have. I am not that kind of a coward who has +to kick a man before he shakes hands with him. If I did so I would +have to kick the Methodists, Roman Catholics and all other creeds. +I will not pitch into any man's religion as an excuse for giving +him my hand. I admire Ingersoll because he is not afraid to speak +what he honestly thinks, and I am only sorry that he does not think +as I do. I never heard so much brilliancy and pith put into a two +hour speech as I did on that night. I wish my whole congregation +had been there to hear it. I regret that there are not more men +like Ingersoll interested in the affairs of the nation. I do not +wish to be understood as indorsing skepticism in any form.</p> +<p>—<i>New York Herald</i>, November 7, 1880.</p> +<a name="link0014" id="link0014"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>POLITICAL.</h2> +<p><i>Question</i>. Is it true, as rumored, that you intend to +leave Washington and reside in New York?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. No, I expect to remain here for years to come, so +far as I can now see. My present intention is certainly to stay +here during the coming winter.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Is this because you regard Washington as the +pleasantest and most advantageous city for a residence?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Well, in the first place, I dislike to move. In +the next place, the climate is good. In the third place, the +political atmosphere has been growing better of late, and when you +consider that I avoid one dislike and reap the benefits of two +likes, you can see why I remain.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you think that the moral atmosphere will +improve with the political atmosphere?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I would hate to say that this city is capable of +any improvement in the way of morality. We have a great many +churches, a great many ministers, and, I believe, some retired +chaplains, so I take it that the moral tone of the place could +hardly be bettered. One majority in the Senate might help it. +Seriously, however, I think that Washington has as high a standard +of morality as any city in the Union. And it is one of the best +towns in which to loan money without collateral in the world.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you know this from experience?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. This I have been told [was the solemn +answer.]</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you think that the political features of the +incoming administration will differ from the present?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Of course, I have no right to speak for General +Garfield. I believe his administration will be Republican, at the +same time perfectly kind, manly, and generous. He is a man to +harbor no resentment. He knows that it is the duty of statesmanship +to remove causes of irritation rather then punish the +irritated.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do I understand you to imply that there will be +a neutral policy, as it were, towards the South?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. No, I think that there will be nothing neutral +about it. I think that the next administration will be +one-sided—that is, it will be on the right side. I know of no +better definition for a compromise than to say it is a proceeding +in which hypocrites deceive each other. I do not believe that the +incoming administration will be neutral in anything. The American +people do not like neutrality. They would rather a man were on the +wrong side than on neither. And, in my judgment, there is no paper +so utterly unfair, malicious and devilish, as one that claims to be +neutral. No politician is as bitter as a neutral politician. +Neutrality is generally used as a mask to hide unusual bitterness. +Sometimes it hides what it is—nothing. It always stands for +hollowness of head or bitterness of heart, sometimes for both. My +idea is—and that is the only reason I have the right to +express it—that General Garfield believes in the platform +adopted by the Republican party. He believes in free speech, in +honest money, in divorce of church and state, and he believes in +the protection of American citizens by the Federal Government +wherever the flag flies. He believes that the Federal Government is +as much bound to protect the citizen at home as abroad. I believe +he will do the very best he can to carry these great ideas into +execution and make them living realities in the United States. +Personally, I have no hatred toward the Southern people. I have no +hatred toward any class. I hate tyranny, no matter whether it is +South or North; I hate hypocrisy, and I hate above all things, the +spirit of caste. If the Southern people could only see that they +gained as great a victory in the Rebellion as the North did, and +some day they will see it, the whole question would be settled. The +South has reaped a far greater benefit from being defeated than the +North has from being successful, and I believe some day the South +will be great enough to appreciate that fact. I have always +insisted that to be beaten by the right is to be a victor. The +Southern people must get over the idea that they are insulted +simply because they are out-voted, and they ought by this time to +know that the Republicans of the North, not only do not wish them +harm, but really wish them the utmost success.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. But has the Republican party all the good and +the Democratic all the bad?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. No, I do not think that the Republican party has +all the good, nor do I pretend that the Democratic party has all +the bad; though I may say that each party comes pretty near it. I +admit that there are thousands of really good fellows in the +Democratic party, and there are some pretty bad people in the +Republican party. But I honestly believe that within the latter are +most of the progressive men of this country. That party has in it +the elements of growth. It is full of hope. It anticipates. The +Democratic party remembers. It is always talking about the past. It +is the possessor of a vast amount of political rubbish, and I +really believe it has outlived its usefulness. I firmly believe +that your editor, Mr. Hutchings, could start a better organization, +if he would only turn his attention to it. Just think for a moment +of the number you could get rid of by starting a new party. A +hundred names will probably suggest themselves to any intelligent +Democrat, the loss of which would almost insure success. Some one +has said that a tailor in Boston made a fortune by advertising that +he did not cut the breeches of Webster's statue. A new party by +advertising that certain men would not belong to it, would have an +advantage in the next race.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What, in your opinion, were the causes which +led to the Democratic defeat?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I think the nomination of English was exceedingly +unfortunate. Indiana, being an October State, the best man in that +State should have been nominated either for President or Vice- +President. Personally, I know nothing of Mr. English, but I have +the right to say that he was exceedingly unpopular. That was +mistake number one. Mistake number two was putting a plank in the +platform insisting upon a tariff for revenue only. That little word +"only" was one of the most frightful mistakes ever made by a +political party. That little word "only" was a millstone around the +neck of the entire campaign. The third mistake was Hancock's +definition of the tariff. It was exceedingly unfortunate, +exceedingly laughable, and came just in the nick of time. The +fourth mistake was the speech of Wade Hampton, I mean the speech +that the Republican papers claim he made. Of course I do not know, +personally, whether it was made or not. If made, it was a great +mistake. Mistake number five was made in Alabama, where they +refused to allow a Greenbacker to express his opinion. That lost +the Democrats enough Greenbackers to turn the scale in Maine, and +enough in Indiana to change that election. Mistake number six was +in the charges made against General Garfield. They were insisted +upon, magnified and multiplied until at last the whole thing +assumed the proportions of a malicious libel. This was a great +mistake, for the reason that a number of Democrats in the United +States had most heartily and cordially indorsed General Garfield as +a man of integrity and great ability. Such indorsements had been +made by the leading Democrats of the North and South, among them +Governor Hendricks and many others I might name. Jere Black had +also certified to the integrity and intellectual grandeur of +General Garfield, and when afterward he certified to the exact +contrary, the people believed that it was a persecution. The next +mistake, number seven, was the Chinese letter. While it lost +Garfield California, Nevada, and probably New Jersey, it did him +good in New York. This letter was the greatest mistake made, +because a crime is greater than a mistake. These, in my judgment, +are the principal mistakes made by the Democratic party in the +campaign. Had McDonald been on the ticket the result might have +been different, or had the party united on some man in New York, +satisfactory to the factions, it might have succeeded. The truth, +however, is that the North to-day is Republican, and it may be that +had the Democratic party made no mistakes whatever the result would +have been the same. But that mistakes were made is now perfectly +evident to the blindest partisan. If the ticket originally +suggested, Seymour and McDonald, had been nominated on an +unobjectionable platform, the result might have been different. One +of the happiest days in my life was the day on which the Cincinnati +convention did not nominate Seymour and did nominate English. I +regard General Hancock as a good soldier, but not particularly +qualified to act as President. He has neither the intellectual +training nor the experience to qualify him for that place.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. You have doubtless heard of a new party, +Colonel. What is your idea in regard to it?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I have heard two or three speak of a new party to +be called the National party, or National Union party, but whether +there is anything in such a movement I have no means of knowing. +Any party in opposition to the Republican, no matter what it may be +called, must win on a new issue, and that new issue will determine +the new party. Parties cannot be made to order. They must grow. +They are the natural offspring of national events. They must embody +certain hopes, they must gratify, or promise to gratify, the +feelings of a vast number of people. No man can make a party, and +if a new party springs into existence it will not be brought forth +to gratify the wishes of a few, but the wants of the many. It has +seemed to me for years that the Democratic party carried too great +a load in the shape of record; that its autobiography was nearly +killing it all the time, and that if it could die just long enough +to assume another form at the resurrection, just long enough to +leave a grave stone to mark the end of its history, to get a +cemetery back of it, that it might hope for something like success. +In other words, that there must be a funeral before there can be +victory. Most of its leaders are worn out. They have become so +accustomed to defeat that they take it as a matter of course; they +expect it in the beginning and seem unconsciously to work for it. +There must be some new ideas, and this only can happen when the +party as such has been gathered to its fathers. I do not think that +the advice of Senator Hill will be followed. He is willing to kill +the Democratic party in the South if we will kill the Republican +party in the North. This puts me in mind of what the rooster said +to the horse: "Let us agree not to step on each other's feet."</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Your views of the country's future and +prospects must naturally be rose colored?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Of course, I look at things through Republican +eyes and may be prejudiced without knowing it. But it really seems +to me that the future is full of great promise. The South, after +all, is growing more prosperous. It is producing more and more +every year, until in time it will become wealthy. The West is +growing almost beyond the imagination of a speculator, and the +Eastern and Middle States are much more than holding their own. We +have now fifty millions of people and in a few years will have a +hundred. That we are a Nation I think is now settled. Our growth +will be unparalleled. I myself expect to live to see as many ships +on the Pacific as on the Atlantic. In a few years there will +probably be ten millions of people living along the Rocky and +Sierra Mountains. It will not be long until Illinois will find her +market west of her. In fifty years this will be the greatest nation +on the earth, and the most populous in the civilized world. China +is slowly awakening from the lethargy of centuries. It will soon +have the wants of Europe, and America will supply those wants. This +is a nation of inventors and there is more mechanical ingenuity in +the United States than on the rest of the globe. In my judgment +this country will in a short time add to its customers hundreds of +millions of the people of the Celestial Empire. So you see, to me, +the future is exceedingly bright. And besides all this, I must not +forget the thing that is always nearest my heart. There is more +intellectual liberty in the United States to-day than ever before. +The people are beginning to see that every citizen ought to have +the right to express himself freely upon every possible subject. In +a little while, all the barbarous laws that now disgrace the +statute books of the States by discriminating against a man simply +because he is honest, will be repealed, and there will be one +country where all citizens will have and enjoy not only equal +rights, but all rights. Nothing gratifies me so much as the growth +of intellectual liberty. After all, the true civilization is where +every man gives to every other, every right that he claims for +himself.</p> +<p>—<i>The Post</i>, Washington, D. C., November 14, +1880.</p> +<a name="link0015" id="link0015"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>RELIGION IN POLITICS.</h2> +<h3><i>Question</i>. How do you regard the present political +situation?</h3> +<p><i>Answer</i>. My opinion is that the ideas the North fought for +upon the field have at last triumphed at the ballot-box. For +several years after the Rebellion was put down the Southern ideas +traveled North. We lost West Virginia, New Jersey, Connecticut, New +York and a great many congressional districts in other States. We +lost both houses of Congress and every Southern State. The Southern +ideas reached their climax in 1876. In my judgment the tide has +turned, and hereafter the Northern idea is going South. The young +men are on the Republican side. The old Democrats are dying. The +cradle is beating the coffin. It is a case of life and death, and +life is ahead. The heirs outnumber the administrators.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What kind of a President will Garfield +make?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. My opinion is that he will make as good a +President as this nation ever had. He is fully equipped. He is a +trained statesman. He has discussed all the great questions that +have arisen for the last eighteen years, and with great ability. He +is a thorough scholar, a conscientious student, and takes an +exceedingly comprehensive survey of all questions. He is genial, +generous and candid, and has all the necessary qualities of heart +and brain to make a great President. He has no prejudices. +Prejudice is the child and flatterer of ignorance. He is firm, but +not obstinate. The obstinate man wants his own way; the firm man +stands by the right. Andrew Johnson was obstinate—Lincoln was +firm.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. How do you think he will treat the South?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Just the same as the North. He will be the +President of the whole country. He will not execute the laws by the +compass, but according to the Constitution. I do not speak for +General Garfield, nor by any authority from his friends. No one +wishes to injure the South. The Republican party feels in honor +bound to protect all citizens, white and black. It must do this in +order to keep its self-respect. It must throw the shield of the +Nation over the weakest, the humblest and the blackest citizen. Any +other course is suicide. No thoughtful Southern man can object to +this, and a Northern Democrat knows that it is right.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Is there a probability that Mr. Sherman will be +retained in the Cabinet?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I have no knowledge upon that question, and +consequently have nothing to say. My opinion about the Cabinet is, +that General Garfield is well enough acquainted with public men to +choose a Cabinet that will suit him and the country. I have never +regarded it as the proper thing to try and force a Cabinet upon a +President. He has the right to be surrounded by his friends, by men +in whose judgment and in whose friendship he has the utmost +confidence, and I would no more think of trying to put some man in +the Cabinet that I would think of signing a petition that a man +should marry a certain woman. General Garfield will, I believe, +select his own constitutional advisers, and he will take the best +he knows.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What, in your opinion, is the condition of the +Democratic party at present?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. It must get a new set of principles, and throw +away its prejudices. It must demonstrate its capacity to govern the +country by governing the States where it is in power. In the +presence of rebellion it gave up the ship. The South must become +Republican before the North will willingly give it power; that is, +the great ideas of nationality are greater than parties, and if our +flag is not large enough to protect every citizen, we must add a +few more stars and stripes. Personally I have no hatreds in this +matter. The present is not only the child of the past, but the +necessary child. A statesman must deal with things as they are. He +must not be like Gladstone, who divides his time between foreign +wars and amendments to the English Book of Common Prayer.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. How do you regard the religious question in +politics?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Religion is a personal matter—a matter that +each individual soul should be allowed to settle for itself. No man +shod in the brogans of impudence should walk into the temple of +another man's soul. While every man should be governed by the +highest possible considerations of the public weal, no one has the +right to ask for legal assistance in the support of his particular +sect. If Catholics oppose the public schools I would not oppose +them because they are Catholics, but because I am in favor of the +schools. I regard the public school as the intellectual bread of +life. Personally I have no confidence in any religion that can be +demonstrated only to children. I suspect all creeds that rely +implicitly on mothers and nurses. That religion is the best that +commends itself the strongest to men and women of education and +genius. After all, the prejudices of infancy and the ignorance of +the aged are a poor foundation for any system of morals or faith. I +respect every honest man, and I think more of a liberal Catholic +than of an illiberal Infidel. The religious question should be left +out of politics. You might as well decide questions of art and +music by a ward caucus as to govern the longings and dreams of the +soul by law. I believe in letting the sun shine whether the weeds +grow or not. I can never side with Protestants if they try to put +Catholics down by law, and I expect to oppose both of these until +religious intolerance is regarded as a crime.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Is the religious movement of which you are the +chief exponent spreading?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. There are ten times as many Freethinkers this +year as there were last. Civilization is the child of free thought. +The new world has drifted away from the rotting wharf of +superstition. The politics of this country are being settled by the +new ideas of individual liberty; and parties and churches that +cannot accept the new truths must perish. I want it perfectly +understood that I am not a politician. I believe in liberty and I +want to see the time when every man, woman and child will enjoy +every human right.</p> +<p>The election is over, the passions aroused by the campaign will +soon subside, the sober judgment of the people will, in my opinion, +indorse the result, and time will indorse the indorsement.</p> +<p>—<i>The Evening Express</i>, New York City, November 19, +1880.</p> +<a name="link0016" id="link0016"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>MIRACLES AND IMMORTALITY.</h2> +<p><i>Question</i>. You have seen some accounts of the recent +sermon of Dr. Tyng on "Miracles," I presume, and if so, what is +your opinion of the sermon, and also what is your opinion of +miracles?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. From an orthodox standpoint, I think the Rev. Dr. +Tyng is right. If miracles were necessary eighteen hundred years +ago, before scientific facts enough were known to overthrow +hundreds and thousands of passages in the Bible, certainly they are +necessary now. Dr. Tyng sees clearly that the old miracles are +nearly worn out, and that some new ones are absolutely essential. +He takes for granted that, if God would do a miracle to found his +gospel, he certainly would do some more to preserve it, and that it +is in need of preservation about now is evident. I am amazed that +the religious world should laugh at him for believing in miracles. +It seems to me just as reasonable that the deaf, dumb, blind and +lame, should be cured at Lourdes as at Palestine. It certainly is +no more wonderful that the law of nature should be broken now than +that it was broken several thousand years ago. Dr. Tyng also has +this advantage. The witnesses by whom he proves these miracles are +alive. An unbeliever can have the opportunity of cross- +examination. Whereas, the miracles in the New Testament are +substantiated only by the dead. It is just as reasonable to me that +blind people receive their sight in France as that devils were made +to vacate human bodies in the holy land.</p> +<p>For one I am exceedingly glad that Dr. Tyng has taken this +position. It shows that he is a believer in a personal God, in a +God who is attending a little to the affairs of this world, and in +a God who did not exhaust his supplies in the apostolic age. It is +refreshing to me to find in this scientific age a gentleman who +still believes in miracles. My opinion is that all thorough +religionists will have to take the ground and admit that a +supernatural religion must be supernaturally preserved.</p> +<p>I have been asking for a miracle for several years, and have in +a very mild, gentle and loving way, taunted the church for not +producing a little one. I have had the impudence to ask any number +of them to join in a prayer asking anything they desire for the +purpose of testing the efficiency of what is known as supplication. +They answer me by calling my attention to the miracles recorded in +the New Testament. I insist, however, on a new miracle, and, +personally, I would like to see one now. Certainly, the Infinite +has not lost his power, and certainly the Infinite knows that +thousands and hundreds of thousands, if the Bible is true, are now +pouring over the precipice of unbelief into the gulf of hell. One +little miracle would save thousands. One little miracle in +Pittsburg, well authenticated, would do more good than all the +preaching ever heard in this sooty town. The Rev. Dr. Tyng clearly +sees this, and he has been driven to the conclusion, first, that +God can do miracles; second, that he ought to, third, that he has. +In this he is perfectly logical. After a man believes the Bible, +after he believes in the flood and in the story of Jonah, certainly +he ought not to hesitate at a miracle of to-day. When I say I want +a miracle, I mean by that, I want a good one. All the miracles +recorded in the New Testament could have been simulated. A fellow +could have pretended to be dead, or blind, or dumb, or deaf. I want +to see a good miracle. I want to see a man with one leg, and then I +want to see the other leg grow out.</p> +<p>I would like to see a miracle like that performed in North +Carolina. Two men were disputing about the relative merits of the +salve they had for sale. One of the men, in order to demonstrate +that his salve was better than any other, cut off a dog's tail and +applied a little of the salve to the stump, and, in the presence of +the spectators, a new tail grew out. But the other man, who also +had salve for sale, took up the piece of tail that had been cast +away, put a little salve at the end of that, and a new dog grew +out, and the last heard of those parties they were quarrelling as +to who owned the second dog. Something like that is what I call a +miracle.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you believe about the immortality of +the soul? Do you believe that the spirit lives as an individual +after the body is dead?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I have said a great many times that it is no more +wonderful that we should live again than that we do live. Sometimes +I have thought it not quite so wonderful for the reason that we +have a start. But upon that subject I have not the slightest +information. Whether man lives again or not I cannot pretend to +say. There may be another world and there may not be. If there is +another world we ought to make the best of it after arriving there. +If there is not another world, or if there is another world, we +ought to make the best of this. And since nobody knows, all should +be permitted to have their opinions, and my opinion is that nobody +knows.</p> +<p>If we take the Old Testament for authority, man is not immortal. +The Old Testament shows man how he lost immortality. According to +Genesis, God prevented man from putting forth his hand and eating +of the Tree of Life. It is there stated, had he succeeded, man +would have lived forever. God drove him from the garden, preventing +him eating of this tree, and in consequence man became mortal; so +that if we go by the Old Testament we are compelled to give up +immortality. The New Testament has but little on the subject. In +one place we are told to seek for immortality. If we are already +immortal, it is hard to see why we should go on seeking for it. In +another place we are told that they who are worthy to obtain that +world and the resurrection of the dead, are not given in marriage. +From this one would infer there would be some unworthy to be raised +from the dead. Upon the question of immortality, the Old Testament +throws but little satisfactory light. I do not deny immortality, +nor would I endeavor to shake the belief of anybody in another +life. What I am endeavoring to do is to put out the fires of hell. +If we cannot have heaven without hell, I am in favor of abolishing +heaven. I do not want to go to heaven if one soul is doomed to +agony. I would rather be annihilated.</p> +<p>My opinion of immortality is this:</p> +<p>First.—I live, and that of itself is infinitely +wonderful.</p> +<p>Second.—There was a time when I was not, and after I was +not, I was. Third.—Now that I am, I may be again; and it is +no more wonderful that I may be again, if I have been, than that I +am, having once been nothing. If the churches advocated +immortality, if they advocated eternal justice, if they said that +man would be rewarded and punished according to deeds; if they +admitted that some time in eternity there would be an opportunity +given to lift up souls, and that throughout all the ages the angels +of progress and virtue would beckon the fallen upward; and that +some time, and no matter how far away they might put off the time, +all the children of men would be reasonably happy, I never would +say a solitary word against the church, but just as long as they +preach that the majority of mankind will suffer eternal pain, just +so long I shall oppose them; that is to say, as long as I live.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you believe in a God; and, if so, what kind +of a God?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Let me, in the first place, lay a foundation for +an answer.</p> +<p>First.—Man gets all food for thought through the medium of +the senses. The effect of nature upon the senses, and through the +senses upon the brain, must be natural. All food for thought, then, +is natural. As a consequence of this, there can be no supernatural +idea in the human brain. Whatever idea there is must have been a +natural product. If, then, there is no supernatural idea in the +human brain, then there cannot be in the human brain an idea of the +supernatural. If we can have no idea of the supernatural, and if +the God of whom you spoke is admitted to be supernatural, then, of +course, I can have no idea of him, and I certainly can have no very +fixed belief on any subject about which I have no idea.</p> +<p>There may be a God for all I know. There may be thousands of +them. But the idea of an infinite Being outside and independent of +nature is inconceivable. I do not know of any word that would +explain my doctrine or my views upon the subject. I suppose +Pantheism is as near as I could go. I believe in the eternity of +matter and in the eternity of intelligence, but I do not believe in +any Being outside of nature. I do not believe in any personal +Deity. I do not believe in any aristocracy of the air. I know +nothing about origin or destiny. Between these two horizons I live, +whether I wish to or not, and must be satisfied with what I find +between these two horizons. I have never heard any God described +that I believe in. I have never heard any religion explained that I +accept. To make something out of nothing cannot be more absurd than +that an infinite intelligence made this world, and proceeded to +fill it with crime and want and agony, and then, not satisfied with +the evil he had wrought, made a hell in which to consummate the +great mistake.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you believe that the world, and all that is +in it came by chance?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I do not believe anything comes by chance. I +regard the present as the necessary child of a necessary past. I +believe matter is eternal; that it has eternally existed and +eternally will exist. I believe that in all matter, in some way, +there is what we call force; that one of the forms of force is +intelligence. I believe that whatever is in the universe has +existed from eternity and will forever exist.</p> +<p>Secondly.—I exclude from my philosophy all ideas of +chance. Matter changes eternally its form, never its essence. You +cannot conceive of anything being created. No one can conceive of +anything existing without a cause or with a cause. Let me explain; +a thing is not a cause until an effect has been produced; so that, +after all, cause and effect are twins coming into life at precisely +the same instant, born of the womb of an unknown mother. The +Universe in the only fact, and everything that ever has happened, +is happening, or will happen, are but the different aspects of the +one eternal fact.</p> +<p>—<i>The Dispatch</i>, Pittsburg, Pa., December 11, +1880.</p> +<a name="link0017" id="link0017"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>THE POLITICAL OUTLOOK.</h2> +<p><i>Question</i>. What phases will the Southern question assume +in the next four years?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. The next Congress should promptly unseat every +member of Congress in whose district there was not a fair and +honest election. That is the first hard work to be done. Let +notice, in this way, be given to the whole country, that fraud +cannot succeed. No man should be allowed to hold a seat by force or +fraud. Just as soon as it is understood that fraud is useless it +will be abandoned. In that way the honest voters of the whole +country can be protected.</p> +<p>An honest vote settles the Southern question, and Congress has +the power to compel an honest vote, or to leave the dishonest +districts without representation. I want this policy adopted, not +only in the South, but in the North. No man touched or stained with +fraud should be allowed to hold his seat. Send such men home, and +let them stay there until sent back by honest votes. The Southern +question is a Northern question, and the Republican party must +settle it for all time. We must have honest elections, or the +Republic must fall. Illegal voting must be considered and punished +as a crime.</p> +<p>Taking one hundred and seventy thousand as the basis of +representation, the South, through her astounding increase of +colored population, gains three electoral votes, while the North +and East lose three. Garfield was elected by the thirty thousand +colored votes cast in New York.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Will the negro continue to be the balance of +power, and if so, will it inure to his benefit?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. The more political power the colored man has the +better he will be treated, and if he ever holds the balance of +power he will be treated as well as the balance of our citizens. My +idea is that the colored man should stand on an equality with the +white before the law; that he should honestly be protected in all +his rights; that he should be allowed to vote, and that his vote +should be counted. It is a simple question of honesty. The colored +people are doing well; they are industrious; they are trying to get +an education, and, on the whole, I think they are behaving fully as +well as the whites. They are the most forgiving people in the +world, and about the only real Christians in our country. They have +suffered enough, and for one I am on their side. I think more of +honest black people than of dishonest whites, to say the least of +it.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you apprehend any trouble from the Southern +leaders in this closing session of Congress, in attempts to force +pernicious legislation?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I do not. The Southern leaders know that the +doctrine of State Sovereignty is dead. They know that they cannot +depend upon the Northern Democrat, and they know that the best +interests of the South can only be preserved by admitting that the +war settled the questions and ideas fought for and against. They +know that this country is a Nation, and that no party can possibly +succeed that advocates anything contrary to that. My own opinion is +that most of the Southern leaders are heartily ashamed of the +course pursued by their Northern friends, and will take the first +opportunity to say so.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. In what light do you regard the Chinaman?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I am opposed to compulsory immigration, or cooley +or slave immigration. If Chinamen are sent to this country by +corporations or companies under contracts that amount to slavery or +anything like it or near it, then I am opposed to it. But I am not +prepared to say that I would be opposed to voluntary immigration. I +see by the papers that a new treaty has been agreed upon that will +probably be ratified and be satisfactory to all parties. We ought +to treat China with the utmost fairness. If our treaty is wrong, +amend it, but do so according to the recognized usage of nations. +After what has been said and done in this country I think there is +very little danger of any Chinaman voluntarily coming here. By this +time China must have an exceedingly exalted opinion of our +religion, and of the justice and hospitality born of our most holy +faith.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What is your opinion of making ex-Presidents +Senators for life?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I am opposed to it. I am against any man holding +office for life. And I see no more reason for making ex-Presidents +Senators, than for making ex-Senators Presidents. To me the idea is +preposterous. Why should ex-Presidents be taken care of? In this +country labor is not disgraceful, and after a man has been +President he has still the right to be useful. I am personally +acquainted with several men who will agree, in consideration of +being elected to the presidency, not to ask for another office +during their natural lives. The people of this country should never +allow a great man to suffer. The hand, not of charity, but of +justice and generosity, should be forever open to those who have +performed great public service.</p> +<p>But the ex-Presidents of the future may not all be great and +good men, and bad ex-Presidents will not make good Senators. If the +nation does anything, let it give a reasonable pension to ex- +Presidents. No man feels like giving pension, power, or place to +General Grant simply because he was once President, but because he +was a great soldier, and led the armies of the nation to victory. +Make him a General, and retire him with the highest military title. +Let him grandly wear the laurels he so nobly won, and should the +sky at any time be darkened with a cloud of foreign war, this +country will again hand him the sword. Such a course honors the +nation and the man.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Are we not entering upon the era of our +greatest prosperity?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. We are just beginning to be prosperous. The +Northern Pacific Railroad is to be completed. Forty millions of +dollars have just been raised by that company, and new States will +soon be born in the great Northwest. The Texas Pacific will be +pushed to San Diego, and in a few years we will ride in a Pullman +car from Chicago to the City of Mexico. The gold and silver mines +are yielding more and more, and within the last ten years more than +forty million acres of land have been changed from wilderness to +farms. This country is beginning to grow. We have just fairly +entered upon what I believe will be the grandest period of national +development and prosperity. With the Republican party in power; +with good money; with unlimited credit; with the best land in the +world; with ninety thousand miles of railway; with mountains of +gold and silver; with hundreds of thousands of square miles of coal +fields; with iron enough for the whole world; with the best system +of common schools; with telegraph wires reaching every city and +town, so that no two citizens are an hour apart; with the +telephone, that makes everybody in the city live next door, and +with the best folks in the world, how can we help prospering until +the continent is covered with happy homes?</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think of civil service reform?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I am in favor of it. I want such civil service +reform that all the offices will be filled with good and competent +Republicans. The majority should rule, and the men who are in favor +of the views of the majority should hold the offices. I am utterly +opposed to the idea that a party should show its liberality at the +expense of its principles. Men holding office can afford to take +their chances with the rest of us. If they are Democrats, they +should not expect to succeed when their party is defeated. I +believe that there are enough good and honest Republicans in this +country to fill all the offices, and I am opposed to taking any +Democrats until the Republican supply is exhausted.</p> +<p>Men should not join the Republican party to get office. Such men +are contemptible to the last degree. Neither should a Republican +administration compel a man to leave the party to get a Federal +appointment. After a great battle has been fought I do not believe +that the victorious general should reward the officers of the +conquered army. My doctrine is, rewards for friends.</p> +<p>—<i>The Commercial</i>, Cincinnati, Ohio, December 6, +1880.</p> +<a name="link0018" id="link0018"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>MR. BEECHER, MOSES AND THE NEGRO.</h2> +<h3><i>Question</i>. Mr. Beecher is here. Have you seen him?</h3> +<p><i>Answer</i>. No, I did not meet Mr. Beecher. Neither did I +hear him lecture. The fact is, that long ago I made up my mind that +under no circumstances would I attend any lecture or other +entertainment given at Lincoln Hall. First, because the hall has +been denied me, and secondly, because I regard it as extremely +unsafe. The hall is up several stories from the ground, and in case +of the slightest panic, in my judgment, many lives would be lost. +Had it not been for this, and for the fact that the persons owning +it imagined that because they had control, the brick and mortar had +some kind of holy and sacred quality, and that this holiness is of +such a wonderful character that it would not be proper for a man in +that hall to tell his honest thoughts, I would have heard him.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Then I assume that you and Mr. Beecher have +made up?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. There is nothing to be made up for so far as I +know. Mr. Beecher has treated me very well, and, I believe, a +little too well for his own peace of mind. I have been informed +that some members of Plymouth Church felt exceedingly hurt that +their pastor should so far forget himself as to extend the right +hand of fellowship to one who differs from him upon what they +consider very essential points in theology. You see I have denied +with all my might, a great many times, the infamous doctrine of +eternal punishment. I have also had the temerity to suggest that I +did not believe that a being of infinite justice and mercy was the +author of all that I find in the Old Testament. As, for instance, I +have insisted that God never commanded anybody to butcher women or +to cut the throats of prattling babes. These orthodox gentlemen +have rushed to the rescue of Jehovah by insisting that he did all +these horrible things. I have also maintained that God never +sanctioned or upheld human slavery; that he never would make one +child to own and beat another.</p> +<p>I have also expressed some doubts as to whether this same God +ever established the institution of polygamy. I have insisted that +the institution is simply infamous; that it destroys the idea of +home; that it turns to ashes the most sacred words in our language, +and leaves the world a kind of den in which crawl the serpents of +selfishness and lust. I have been informed that after Mr. Beecher +had treated me kindly a few members of his congregation objected, +and really felt ashamed that he had so forgotten himself. After +that, Mr. Beecher saw fit to give his ideas of the position I had +taken. In this he was not exceedingly kind, nor was his justice +very conspicuous. But I cared nothing about that, not the least. As +I have said before, whenever Mr. Beecher says a good thing I give +him credit. Whenever he does an unfair or unjust thing I charge it +to the account of his religion. I have insisted, and I still +insist, that Mr. Beecher is far better than his creed. I do not +believe that he believes in the doctrine of eternal punishment. +Neither do I believe that he believes in the literal truth of the +Scriptures. And, after all, if the Bible is not true, it is hardly +worth while to insist upon its inspiration. An inspired lie is not +better than an uninspired one. If the Bible is true it does not +need to be inspired. If it is not true, inspiration does not help +it. So that after all it is simply a question of fact. Is it true? +I believe Mr. Beecher stated that one of my grievous faults was +that I picked out the bad things in the Bible. How an infinitely +good and wise God came to put bad things in his book Mr. Beecher +does not explain. I have insisted that the Bible is not inspired, +and, in order to prove that, have pointed out such passages as I +deemed unworthy to have been written even by a civilized man or a +savage. I certainly would not endeavor to prove that the Bible is +uninspired by picking out its best passages. I admit that there are +many good things in the Bible. The fact that there are good things +in it does not prove its inspiration, because there are thousands +of other books containing good things, and yet no one claims they +are inspired. Shakespeare's works contain a thousand times more +good things than the Bible, but no one claims he was an inspired +man. It is also true that there are many bad things in +Shakespeare—many passages which I wish he had never written. +But I can excuse Shakespeare, because he did not rise absolutely +above his time. That is to say, he was a man; that is to say, he +was imperfect. If anybody claimed now that Shakespeare was actually +inspired, that claim would be answered by pointing to certain weak +or bad or vulgar passages in his works. But every Christian will +say that it is a certain kind of blasphemy to impute vulgarity or +weakness to God, as they are all obliged to defend the weak, the +bad and the vulgar, so long as they insist upon the inspiration of +the Bible. Now, I pursued the same course with the Bible that Mr. +Beecher has pursued with me. Why did he want to pick out my bad +things? Is it possible that he is a kind of vulture that sees only +the carrion of another? After all, has he not pursued the same +method with me that he blames me for pursuing in regard to the +Bible? Of course he must pursue that method. He could not object to +me and then point out passages that were not objectionable. If he +found fault he had to find faults in order to sustain his ground. +That is exactly what I have done with Scriptures—nothing more +and nothing less. The reason I have thrown away the Bible is that +in many places it is harsh, cruel, unjust, coarse, vulgar, +atrocious, infamous. At the same time, I admit that it contains +many passages of an excellent and splendid character —many +good things, wise sayings, and many excellent and just laws.</p> +<p>But I would like to ask this: Suppose there were no passages in +the Bible except those upholding slavery, polygamy and wars of +extermination; would anybody then claim that it was the word of +God? I would like to ask if there is a Christian in the world who +would not be overjoyed to find that every one of these passages was +an interpolation? I would also like to ask Mr. Beecher if he would +not be greatly gratified to find that after God had written the +Bible the Devil had got hold of it, and interpolated all these +passages about slavery, polygamy, the slaughter of women and babes +and the doctrine of eternal punishment? Suppose, as a matter of +fact, the Devil did get hold of it; what part of the Bible would +Mr. Beecher pick out as having been written by the Devil? And if he +picks out these passages could not the Devil answer him by saying, +"You, Mr. Beecher, are like a vulture, a kind of buzzard, flying +through the tainted air of inspiration, and pouncing down upon the +carrion. Why do you not fly like a dove, and why do you not have +the innocent ignorance of the dove, so that you could light upon a +carcass and imagine that you were surrounded by the perfume of +violets?" The fact is that good things in a book do not prove that +it is inspired, but the presence of bad things does prove that it +is not.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What was the real difficulty between you and +Moses, Colonel, a man who has been dead for thousands of years?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. We never had any difficulty. I have always taken +pains to say that Moses had nothing to do with the Pentateuch. +Those books, in my judgment, were written several centuries after +Moses had become dust in his unknown sepulchre. No doubt Moses was +quite a man in his day, if he ever existed at all. Some people say +that Moses is exactly the same as "law-giver;" that is to say, as +Legislature, that is to say as Congress. Imagine somebody in the +future as regarding the Congress of the United States as one +person! And then imagine that somebody endeavoring to prove that +Congress was always consistent. But, whether Moses lived or not +makes but little difference to me. I presume he filled the place +and did the work that he was compelled to do, and although +according to the account God had much to say to him with regard to +the making of altars, tongs, snuffers and candlesticks, there is +much left for nature still to tell. Thinking of Moses as a man, +admitting that he was above his fellows, that he was in his day and +generation a leader, and, in a certain narrow sense, a patriot, +that he was the founder of the Jewish people; that he found them +barbarians and endeavored to control them by thunder and lightning, +and found it necessary to pretend that he was in partnership with +the power governing the universe; that he took advantage of their +ignorance and fear, just as politicians do now, and as theologians +always will, still, I see no evidence that the man Moses was any +nearer to God than his descendants, who are still warring against +the Philistines in every civilized part of the globe. Moses was a +believer in slavery, in polygamy, in wars of extermination, in +religious persecution and intolerance and in almost everything that +is now regarded with loathing, contempt and scorn. The Jehovah of +whom he speaks violated, or commands the violation of at least nine +of the Ten Commandments he gave. There is one thing, however, that +can be said of Moses that cannot be said of any person who now +insists that he was inspired, and that is, he was in advance of his +time.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think of the Buckner Bill for the +colonization of the negroes in Mexico?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Where does Mr. Buckner propose to colonize the +white people, and what right has he to propose the colonization of +six millions of people? Should we not have other bills to colonize +the Germans, the Swedes, the Irish, and then, may be, another bill +to drive the Chinese into the sea? Where do we get the right to say +that the negroes must emigrate?</p> +<p>All such schemes will, in my judgment, prove utterly futile. +Perhaps the history of the world does not give an instance of the +emigration of six millions of people. Notwithstanding the treatment +that Ireland has received from England, which may be designated as +a crime of three hundred years, the Irish still love Ireland. All +the despotism in the world will never crush out of the Irish heart +the love of home—the adoration of the old sod. The negroes of +the South have certainly suffered enough to drive them into other +countries; but after all, they prefer to stay where they were born. +They prefer to live where their ancestors were slaves, where +fathers and mothers were sold and whipped; and I don't believe it +will be possible to induce a majority of them to leave that land. +Of course, thousands may leave, and in process of time millions may +go, but I don't believe emigration will ever equal their natural +increase. As the whites of the South become civilized the reason +for going will be less and less.</p> +<p>I see no reason why the white and black men cannot live together +in the same land, under the same flag. The beauty of liberty is you +cannot have it unless you give it away, and the more you give away +the more you have. I know that my liberty is secure only because +others are free.</p> +<p>I am perfectly willing to live in a country with such men as +Frederick Douglass and Senator Bruce. I have always preferred a +good, clever black man to a mean white man, and I am of the opinion +that I shall continue in that preference. Now, if we could only +have a colonization bill that would get rid of all the rowdies, all +the rascals and hypocrites, I would like to see it carried out, +thought some people might insist that it would amount to a +repudiation of the national debt and that hardly enough would be +left to pay the interest. No, talk as we will, the colored people +helped to save this Nation. They have been at all times and in all +places the friends of our flag; a flag that never really protected +them. And for my part, I am willing that they should stand forever +beneath that flag, the equal in rights of all other people. +Politically, if any black men are to be sent away, I want it +understood that each one is to be accompanied by a Democrat, so +that the balance of power, especially in New York, will not be +disturbed.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. I notice that leading Republican newspapers are +advising General Garfield to cut loose from the machine in +politics; what do you regard as the machine?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. All defeated candidates regard the persons who +defeated them as constituting a machine, and always imagine that +there is some wicked conspiracy at the bottom of the machine. Some +of the recent reformers regard the people who take part in the +early stages of a political campaign—who attend caucuses and +primaries, who speak of politics to their neighbors, as members and +parts of the machine, and regard only those as good and reliable +American citizens who take no part whatever, simply reserving the +right to grumble after the work has been done by others. Not much +can be accomplished in politics without an organization, and the +moment an organization is formed, and, you might say, just a little +before, leading spirits will be developed. Certain men will take +the lead, and the weaker men will in a short time, unless they get +all the loaves and fishes, denounce the whole thing as a machine, +and, to show how thoroughly and honestly they detest the machine in +politics, will endeavor to organize a little machine themselves. +General Garfield has been in politics for many years. He knows the +principal men in both parties. He knows the men who have not only +done something, but who are capable of doing something, and such +men will not, in my opinion, be neglected. I do not believe that +General Garfield will do any act calculated to divide the +Republican party. No thoroughly great man carries personal +prejudice into the administration of public affairs. Of course, +thousands of people will be prophesying that this man is to be +snubbed and another to be paid; but, in my judgment, after the 4th +of March most people will say that General Garfield has used his +power wisely and that he has neither sought nor shunned men simply +because he wished to pay debts—either of love or hatred.</p> +<p>—Washington correspondent, <i>Brooklyn Eagle</i>, January +31, 1881.</p> +<a name="link0019" id="link0019"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>HADES, DELAWARE AND FREETHOUGHT.</h2> +<p><i>Question</i>. Now that a lull has come in politics, I thought +I would come and see what is going on in the religious world?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Well, from what little I learn, there has not +been much going on during the last year. There are five hundred and +twenty- six Congregational Churches in Massachusetts, and two +hundred of these churches have not received a new member for an +entire year, and the others have scarcely held their own. In +Illinois there are four hundred and eighty-three Presbyterian +Churches, and they have now fewer members than they had in 1879, +and of the four hundred and eighty-three, one hundred and +eighty-three have not received a single new member for twelve +months. A report has been made, under the auspices of the +Pan-Presbyterian Council, to the effect that there are in the whole +world about three millions of Presbyterians. This is about +one-fifth of one per cent. of the inhabitants of the world. The +probability is that of the three million nominal Presbyterians, not +more than two or three hundred thousand actually believe the +doctrine, and of the two or three hundred thousand, not more than +five or six hundred have any true conception of what the doctrine +is. As the Presbyterian Church has only been able to induce +one-fifth of one per cent. of the people to even call themselves +Presbyterians, about how long will it take, at this rate, to +convert mankind? The fact is, there seems to be a general lull +along the entire line, and just at present very little is being +done by the orthodox people to keep their fellow-citizens out of +hell.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you really think that the orthodox people +now believe in the old doctrine of eternal punishment, and that +they really think there is a kind of hell that our ancestors so +carefully described?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I am afraid that the old idea is dying out, and +that many Christians are slowly giving up the consolations +naturally springing from the old belief. Another terrible blow to +the old infamy is the fact that in the revised New Testament the +word Hades has been substituted. As nobody knows exactly what Hades +means, it will not be quite so easy to frighten people at revivals +by threatening them with something that they don't clearly +understand. After this, when the impassioned orator cries out that +all the unconverted will be sent to Hades, the poor sinners, +instead of getting frightened, will begin to ask each other what +and where that is. It will take many years of preaching to clothe +that word in all the terrors and horrors, pains, and penalties and +pangs of hell. Hades is a compromise. It is a concession to the +philosophy of our day. It is a graceful acknowledgment to the +growing spirit of investigation, that hell, after all, is a +barbaric mistake. Hades is the death of revivals. It cannot be used +in song. It won't rhyme with anything with the same force that hell +does. It is altogether more shadowy than hot. It is not associated +with brimstone and flame. It sounds somewhat indistinct, somewhat +lonesome, a little desolate, but not altogether uncomfortable. For +revival purposes, Hades is simply useless, and few conversions will +be made in the old way under the revised Testament.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you really think that the church is losing +ground?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I am not, as you probably know, connected with +any orthodox organization, and consequently have to rely upon them +for my information. If they can be believed, the church is +certainly in an extremely bad condition. I find that the Rev. Dr. +Cuyler, only a few days ago, speaking of the religious condition of +Brooklyn —and Brooklyn, you know, has been called the City of +Churches— states that the great mass of that Christian city +was out of Christ, and that more professing Christians went to the +theatre than to the prayer meeting. This, certainly, from their +standpoint, is a most terrible declaration. Brooklyn, you know, is +one of the great religious centres of the world—a city in +which nearly all the people are engaged either in delivering or in +hearing sermons; a city filled with the editors of religious +periodicals; a city of prayer and praise; and yet, while prayer +meetings are free, the theatres, with the free list entirely +suspended, catch more Christians than the churches; and this +happens while all the pulpits thunder against the stage, and the +stage remains silent as to the pulpit. At the same meeting in which +the Rev. Dr. Cuyler made his astounding statements the Rev. Mr. +Pentecost was the bearer of the happy news that four out of five +persons living in the city of Brooklyn were going down to hell with +no God and with no hope. If he had read the revised Testament he +would have said "Hades," and the effect of the statement would have +been entirely lost. If four-fifths of the people of that great city +are destined to eternal pain, certainly we cannot depend upon +churches for the salvation of the world. At the meeting of the +Brooklyn pastors they were in doubt as to whether they should +depend upon further meetings, or upon a day of fasting and prayer +for the purpose of converting the city.</p> +<p>In my judgment, it would be much better to devise ways and means +to keep a good many people from fasting in Brooklyn. If they had +more meat, they could get along with less meeting. If fasting would +save a city, there are always plenty of hungry folks even in that +Christian town. The real trouble with the church of to-day is, that +it is behind the intelligence of the people. Its doctrines no +longer satisfy the brains of the nineteenth century; and if the +church proposes to hold its power, it must lose its superstitions. +The day of revivals is gone. Only the ignorant and unthinking can +hereafter be impressed by hearing the orthodox creed. Fear has in +it no reformatory power, and the more intelligent the world grows +the more despicable and contemptible the doctrine of eternal misery +will become. The tendency of the age is toward intellectual +liberty, toward personal investigation. Authority is no longer +taken for truth. People are beginning to find that all the great +and good are not dead—that some good people are alive, and +that the demonstrations of to-day are fully equal to the mistaken +theories of the past.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. How are you getting along with Delaware?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. First rate. You know I have been wondering where +Comegys came from, and at last I have made the discovery. I was +told the other day by a gentleman from Delaware that many years ago +Colonel Hazelitt died; that Colonel Hazelitt was an old +Revolutionary officer, and that when they were digging his grave +they dug up Comegys. Back of that no one knows anything of his +history. The only thing they know about him certainly, is, that he +has never changed one of his views since he was found, and that he +never will. I am inclined to think, however, that he lives in a +community congenial to him. For instance, I saw in a paper the +other day that within a radius of thirty miles around Georgetown, +Delaware, there are about two hundred orphan and friendless +children. These children, it seems, were indentured to Delaware +farmers by the managers of orphan asylums and other public +institutions in and about Philadelphia. It is stated in the paper, +that:</p> +<p>"Many of these farmers are rough task-masters, and if a boy +fails to perform the work of an adult, he is almost certain to be +cruelly treated, half starved, and in the coldest weather +wretchedly clad. If he does the work, his life is not likely to be +much happier, for as a rule he will receive more kicks than candy. +The result in either case is almost certain to be wrecked +constitutions, dwarfed bodies, rounded shoulders, and limbs +crippled or rendered useless by frost or rheumatism. The principal +diet of these boys is corn pone. A few days ago, Constable W. H. +Johnston went to the house of Reuben Taylor, and on entering the +sitting room his attention was attracted by the moans of its only +occupant, a little colored boy, who was lying on the hearth in +front of the fireplace. The boy's head was covered with ashes from +the fire, and he did not pay the slightest attention to the +visitor, until Johnston asked what made him cry. Then the little +fellow sat up and drawing on old rag off his foot said, 'Look +there.' The sight that met Johnston's eye was horrible beyond +description. The poor boy's feet were so horribly frozen that the +flesh had dropped off the toes until the bones protruded. The flesh +on the sides, bottoms, and tops of his feet was swollen until the +skin cracked in many places, and the inflamed flesh was sloughing +off in great flakes. The frost-bitten flesh extended to his knees, +the joints of which were terribly inflamed. The right one had +already begun suppurating. This poor little black boy, covered with +nothing but a cotton shirt, drilling pants, a pair of nearly worn +out brogans and a battered old hat, on the morning of December +30th, the coldest day of the season, when the mercury was seventeen +degrees below zero, in the face of a driving snow storm, was sent +half a mile from home to protect his master's unshucked corn from +the depredations of marauding cows and crows. He remained standing +around in the snow until four o'clock, then he drove the cows home, +received a piece of cold corn pone, and was sent out in the snow +again to chop stove wood till dark. Having no bed, he slept that +night in front of the fireplace, with his frozen feet buried in the +ashes. Dr. C. H. Richards found it necessary to cut off the boy's +feet as far back as the ankle and the instep."</p> +<p>This was but one case in several. Personally, I have no doubt +that Mr. Reuben Taylor entirely agrees with Chief Justice Comegys +on the great question of blasphemy, and probably nothing would so +gratify Mr. Reuben Taylor as to see some man in a Delaware jail for +the crime of having expressed an honest thought. No wonder that in +the State of Delaware the Christ of intellectual liberty has been +crucified between the pillory and the whipping-post. Of course I +know that there are thousands of most excellent people in that +State—people who believe in intellectual liberty, and who +only need a little help—and I am doing what I can in that +direction —to repeal the laws that now disgrace the statute +book of that little commonwealth. I have seen many people from that +State lately who really wish that Colonel Hazelitt had never +died.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What has the press generally said with regard +to the action of Judge Comegys? Do they, so far as you know, +justify his charge?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. A great many papers having articles upon the +subject have been sent to me. A few of the religious papers seem to +think that the Judge did the best he knew, and there is one secular +paper called the <i>Evening News</i>, published at Chester, Pa., +that thinks "that the rebuke from so high a source of authority +will have a most excellent effect, and will check religious +blasphemers from parading their immoral creeds before the people." +The editor of this paper should at once emigrate to the State of +Delaware, where he properly belongs. He is either a native of +Delaware, or most of his subscribers are citizens of that country; +or, it may be that he is a lineal descendant of some Hessian, who +deserted during the Revolutionary war. Most of the newspapers in +the United States are advocates of mental freedom. Probably nothing +on earth has been so potent for good as an untrammeled, fearless +press. Among the papers of importance there is not a solitary +exception. No leading journal in the United States can be found +upon the side of intellectual slavery. Of course, a few rural +sheets edited by gentlemen, as Mr. Greeley would say, "whom God in +his inscrutable wisdom had allowed to exist," may be found upon the +other side, and may be small enough, weak enough and mean enough to +pander to the lowest and basest prejudices of their most ignorant +subscribers. These editors disgrace their profession and exert +about the same influence upon the heads as upon the pockets of +their subscribers —that is to say, they get little and give +less.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you not think after all, the people who are +in favor of having you arrested for blasphemy, are acting in +accordance with the real spirit of the Old and New Testaments?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Of course, they act in exact accordance with many +of the commands in the Old Testament, and in accordance with +several passages in the New. At the same time, it may be said that +they violate passages in both. If the Old Testament is true, and if +it is the inspired word of God, of course, an Infidel ought not be +allowed to live; and if the New Testament is true, an unbeliever +should not be permitted to speak. There are many passages, though, +in the New Testament, that should protect even an Infidel. Among +them is this: "Do unto others as ye would that others should do +unto you." But that is a passage that has probably had as little +effect upon the church as any other in the Bible. So far as I am +concerned, I am willing to adopt that passage, and I am willing to +extend to every other human being every right that I claim for +myself. If the churches would act upon this principle, if they +would say—every soul, every mind, may think and investigate +for itself; and around all, and over all, shall be thrown the +sacred shield of liberty, I should be on their side.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. How do you stand with the clergymen, and what +is their opinion of you and of your views?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Most of them envy me; envy my independence; envy +my success; think that I ought to starve; that the people should +not hear me; say that I do what I do for money, for popularity; +that I am actuated by hatred of all that is good and tender and +holy in human nature; think that I wish to tear down the churches, +destroy all morality and goodness, and usher in the reign of crime +and chaos. They know that shepherds are unnecessary in the absence +of wolves, and it is to their interest to convince their sheep that +they, the sheep, need protection. This they are willing to give +them for half the wool. No doubt, most of these minsters are +honest, and are doing what they consider their duty. Be this as it +may, they feel the power slipping from their hands. They know that +the idea is slowly growing that they are not absolutely necessary +for the protection of society. They know that the intellectual +world cares little for what they say, and that the great tide of +human progress flows on careless of their help or hindrance. So +long as they insist upon the inspiration of the Bible, they are +compelled to take the ground that slavery was once a divine +institution; they are forced to defend cruelties that would shock +the heart of a savage, and besides, they are bound to teach the +eternal horror of everlasting punishment.</p> +<p>They poison the minds of children; they deform the brain and +pollute the imagination by teaching the frightful and infamous +dogma of endless misery. Even the laws of Delaware shock the +enlightened public of to-day. In that State they simply fine and +imprison a man for expressing his honest thoughts; and yet, if the +churches are right, God will damn a man forever for the same +offence. The brain and heart of our time cannot be satisfied with +the ancient creeds. The Bible must be revised again. Most of the +creeds must be blotted out. Humanity must take the place of +theology. Intellectual liberty must stand in every pulpit. There +must be freedom in all the pews, and every human soul must have the +right to express its honest thought.</p> +<p>—Washington correspondent, <i>Brooklyn Eagle</i>, March +19, 1881.</p> +<a name="link0020" id="link0020"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>A REPLY TO THE REV. MR. LANSING.*</h2> +<pre> + [* Rev. Isaac J. Lansing of Meriden, Conn., recently + denounced Col. Robert G. Ingersoll from the pulpit of the + Meriden Methodist Church, and had the Opera House closed + against him. This led a <i>Union</i> reporter to show Colonel + Ingersoll what Mr. Lansing had said and to interrogate him + with the following result.] +</pre> +<p><i>Question</i>. Did you favor the sending of obscene matter +through the mails as alleged by the Rev. Mr. Lansing?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Of course not, and no honest man ever thought +that I did. This charge is too malicious and silly to be answered. +Mr. Lansing knows better. He has made this charge many times and he +will make it again.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Is it a fact that there are thousands of +clergymen in the country whom you would fear to meet in fair +debate?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. No; the fact is I would like to meet them all in +one. The pulpit is not burdened with genius. There a few great men +engaged in preaching, but they are not orthodox. I cannot conceive +that a Freethinker has anything to fear from the pulpit, except +misrepresentation. Of course, there are thousands of ministers too +small to discuss with—ministers who stand for nothing in the +church—and with such clergymen I cannot afford to discuss +anything. If the Presbyterians, or the Congregationalists, or the +Methodists would select some man, and endorse him as their +champion, I would like to meet him in debate. Such a man I will pay +to discuss with me. I will give him most excellent wages, and pay +all the expenses at the discussion besides. There is but one safe +course for the ministers—they must assert. They must declare. +They must swear to it and stick to it, but they must not try to +reason.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. You have never seen Rev. Mr. Lansing. To the +people of Meriden and thereabouts he is well-known. Judging from +what has been told you of his utterances and actions, what kind of +a man would you take him to be?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I would take him to be a Christian. He talks like +one, and he acts like one. If Christianity is right, Lansing is +right. If salvation depends upon belief, and if unbelievers are to +be eternally damned, then an Infidel has no right to speak. He +should not be allowed to murder the souls of his fellow-men. +Lansing does the best he knows how. He thinks that God hates an +unbeliever, and he tries to act like God. Lansing knows that he +must have the right to slander a man whom God is to eternally +damn.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Mr. Lansing speaks of you as a wolf coming with +fangs sharpened by three hundred dollars a night to tear the lambs +of his flock. What do you say to that?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. All I have to say is, that I often get three +times that amount, and sometimes much more. I guess his lambs can +take care of themselves. I am not very fond of mutton anyway. Such +talk Mr. Lansing ought to be ashamed of. The idea that he is a +shepherd —that he is on guard—is simply preposterous. +He has few sheep in his congregation that know as little on the +wolf question as he does. He ought to know that his sheep support +him—his sheep protect him; and without the sheep poor Lansing +would be devoured by the wolves himself.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Shall you sue the Opera House management for +breach of contract?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I guess not; but I may pay Lansing something for +advertising my lecture. I suppose Mr. Wilcox (who controls the +Opera House) did what he thought was right. I hear he is a good +man. He probably got a little frightened and began to think about +the day of judgment. He could not help it, and I cannot help +laughing at him.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Those in Meriden who most strongly oppose you +are radical Republicans. Is it not a fact that you possess the +confidence and friendship of some of the most respected leaders of +that party?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I think that all the respectable ones are friends +of mine. I am a Republican because I believe in the liberty of the +body, and I am an Infidel because I believe in the liberty of the +mind. There is no need of freeing cages. Let us free the birds. If +Mr. Lansing knew me, he would be a great friend. He would probably +annoy me by the frequency and length of his visits.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. During the recent presidential campaign did any +clergymen denounce you for your teachings, that you are aware +of?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Some did, but they would not if they had been +running for office on the Republican ticket.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What is most needed in our public men?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Hearts and brains.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Would people be any more moral solely because +of a disbelief in orthodox teaching and in the Bible as an inspired +book, in your opinion?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Yes; if a man really believes that God once +upheld slavery; that he commanded soldiers to kill women and babes; +that he believed in polygamy; that he persecuted for opinion's +sake; that he will punish forever, and that he hates an unbeliever, +the effect in my judgment will be bad. It always has been bad. This +belief built the dungeons of the Inquisition. This belief made the +Puritan murder the Quaker, and this belief has raised the devil +with Mr. Lansing.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you believe there will ever be a millennium, +and if so how will it come about?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. It will probably start in Meriden, as I have been +informed that Lansing is going to leave.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Is there anything else bearing upon the +question at issue or that would make good reading, that I have +forgotten, that you would like to say?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Yes. Good-bye.</p> +<p>—<i>The Sunday Union</i>, New Haven, Conn., April 10, +1881.</p> +<a name="link0021" id="link0021"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>BEACONSFIELD, LENT AND REVIVALS.</h2> +<p><i>Question</i>. What have you to say about the attack of Dr. +Buckley on you, and your lecture?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I never heard of Dr. Buckley until after I had +lectured in Brooklyn. He seems to think that it was extremely ill +bred in me to deliver a lecture on the "Liberty of Man, Woman and +Child," during Lent. Lent is just as good as any other part of the +year, and no part can be too good to do good. It was not a part of +my object to hurt the feelings of the Episcopalians and Catholics. +If they think that there is some subtle relation between hunger and +heaven, or that faith depends upon, or is strengthened by famine, +or that veal, during Lent, is the enemy of virtue, or that beef +breeds blasphemy, while fish feeds faith—of course, all this +is nothing to me. They have a right to say that vice depends upon +victuals, sanctity on soup, religion on rice and chastity on +cheese, but they have no right to say that a lecture on liberty is +an insult to them because they are hungry. I suppose that Lent was +instituted in memory of the Savior's fast. At one time it was +supposed that only a divine being could live forty days without +food. This supposition has been overthrown.</p> +<p>It has been demonstrated by Dr. Tanner to be utterly without +foundation. What possible good did it do the world for Christ to go +without food for forty days? Why should we follow such an example? +As a rule, hungry people are cross, contrary, obstinate, peevish +and unpleasant. A good dinner puts a man at peace with all the +world—makes him generous, good natured and happy. He feels +like kissing his wife and children. The future looks bright. He +wants to help the needy. The good in him predominates, and he +wonders that any man was ever stingy or cruel. Your good cook is a +civilizer, and without good food, well prepared, intellectual +progress is simply impossible. Most of the orthodox creeds were +born of bad cooking. Bad food produced dyspepsia, and dyspepsia +produced Calvinism, and Calvinism is the cancer of Christianity. +Oatmeal is responsible for the worst features of Scotch +Presbyterianism. Half cooked beans account for the religion of the +Puritans. Fried bacon and saleratus biscuit underlie the doctrine +of State Rights. Lent is a mistake, fasting is a blunder, and bad +cooking is a crime.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. It is stated that you went to Brooklyn while +Beecher and Talmage were holding revivals, and that you did so for +the purpose of breaking them up. How is this?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I had not the slightest idea of interfering with +the revivals. They amounted to nothing. They were not alive enough +to be killed. Surely one lecture could not destroy two revivals. +Still, I think that if all the persons engaged in the revivals had +spent the same length of time in cleaning the streets, the good +result would have been more apparent. The truth is, that the old +way of converting people will have to be abandoned. The Americans +are getting hard to scare, and a revival without the "scare" is +scarcely worth holding. Such maniacs as Hammond and the "Boy +Preacher" fill asylums and terrify children. After saying what he +has about hell, Mr. Beecher ought to know that he is not the man to +conduct a revival. A revival sermon with hell left out—with +the brimstone gone—with the worm that never dies, dead, and +the Devil absent—is the broadest farce. Mr. Talmage believes +in the ancient way. With him hell is a burning reality. He can hear +the shrieks and groans. He is of that order of mind that rejoices +in these things. If he could only convince others, he would be a +great revivalist. He cannot terrify, he astonishes. He is the clown +of the horrible—one of Jehovah's jesters. I am not +responsible for the revival failure in Brooklyn. I wish I were. I +would have the happiness of knowing that I had been instrumental in +preserving the sanity of my fellow-men.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. How do you account for these attacks?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. It was not so much what I said that excited the +wrath of the reverend gentlemen as the fact that I had a great +house. They contrasted their failure with my success. The fact is, +the people are getting tired of the old ideas. They are beginning +to think for themselves. Eternal punishment seems to them like +eternal revenge. They see that Christ could not atone for the sins +of others; that belief ought not to be rewarded and honest doubt +punished forever; that good deeds are better than bad creeds, and +that liberty is the rightful heritage of every soul.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Were you an admirer of Lord Beaconsfield?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. In some respects. He was on our side during the +war, and gave it as his opinion that the Union would be preserved. +Mr. Gladstone congratulated Jefferson Davis on having founded a new +nation. I shall never forget Beaconsfield for his kindness, nor +Gladstone for his malice. Beaconsfield was an intellectual gymnast, +a political athlete, one of the most adroit men in the world. He +had the persistence of his race. In spite of the prejudices of +eighteen hundred years, he rose to the highest position that can be +occupied by a citizen. During his administration England again +became a Continental power and played her game of European chess. I +have never regarded Beaconsfield as a man controlled by principle, +or by his heart. He was strictly a politician. He always acted as +though he thought the clubs were looking at him. He knew all the +arts belonging to his trade. He would have succeeded anywhere, if +by "succeeding" is meant the attainment of position and power. But +after all, such men are splendid failures. They give themselves and +others a great deal of trouble—they wear the tinsel crown of +temporary success and then fade from public view. They astonish the +pit, they gain the applause of the galleries, but when the curtain +falls there is nothing left to benefit mankind. Beaconsfield held +convictions somewhat in contempt. He had the imagination of the +East united with the ambition of an Englishman. With him, to +succeed was to have done right.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think of him as an author?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Most of his characters are like +himself—puppets moved by the string of self-interest. The men +are adroit, the women mostly heartless. They catch each other with +false bait. They have great worldly wisdom. Their virtue and vice +are mechanical. They have hearts like clocks—filled with +wheels and springs. The author winds them up. In his novels +Disræli allows us to enter the greenroom of his heart. We see +the ropes, the pulleys and the old masks. In all things, in +politics and in literature, he was cold, cunning, accurate, able +and successful. His books will, in a little while, follow their +author to their grave. After all, the good will live longest.</p> +<p>—Washington correspondent, <i>Brooklyn Eagle</i>, April +24, 1881.</p> +<a name="link0022" id="link0022"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>ANSWERING THE NEW YORK MINISTERS.*</h2> +<pre> + [* Ever since Colonel Ingersoll began the delivery of his + lecture called <i>The Great Infidels</i>, the ministers of the + country have made him the subject of special attack. One + week ago last Sunday the majority of the leading ministers + in New York made replies to Ingersoll's latest lecture. + What he has to say to these replies will be found in a + report of an interview with Colonel Ingersoll. + + No man is harder to pin down for a long talk than the + Colonel. He is so beset with visitors and eager office + seekers anxious for help, that he can hardly find five + minutes unoccupied during an entire day. Through the shelter + of a private room and the guardianship of a stout colored + servant, the Colonel was able to escape the crowd of seekers + after his personal charity long enough to give some time to + answer some of the ministerial arguments advanced against + him in New York.] +</pre> +<p><i>Question</i>. Have you seen the attacks made upon you by +certain ministers of New York, published in the <i>Herald</i> last +Sunday?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Yes, I read, or heard read, what was in Monday's +<i>Herald</i>. I do not know that you could hardly call them +attacks. They are substantially a repetition of what the pulpit has +been saying for a great many hundred years, and what the pulpit +will say just so long as men are paid for suppressing truth and for +defending superstition. One of these gentlemen tells the lambs of +his flock that three thousand men and a few women—probably +with quite an emphasis on the word "Few"—gave one dollar each +to hear their Maker cursed and their Savior ridiculed. Probably +nothing is so hard for the average preacher to bear as the fact +that people are not only willing to hear the other side, but +absolutely anxious to pay for it. The dollar that these people paid +hurt their feelings vastly more than what was said after they were +in. Of course, it is a frightful commentary on the average +intellect of the pulpit that a minister cannot get so large an +audience when he preaches for nothing, as an Infidel can draw at a +dollar a head. If I depended upon a contribution box, or upon +passing a saucer that would come back to the stage enriched with a +few five cent pieces, eight or ten dimes, and a lonesome quarter, +these gentlemen would, in all probability, imagine Infidelity was +not to be feared.</p> +<p>The churches were all open on that Sunday, and all could go who +desired. Yet they were not full, and the pews were nearly as empty +of people as the pulpit of ideas. The truth is, the story is +growing old, the ideas somewhat moss-covered, and everything has a +wrinkled and withered appearance. This gentleman says that these +people went to hear their Maker cursed and their Savior ridiculed. +Is it possible that in a city where so many steeples pierce the +air, and hundreds of sermons are preached every Sunday, there are +three thousand men, and a few women, so anxious to hear "their +Maker cursed and their Savior ridiculed" that they are willing to +pay a dollar each? The gentleman knew that nobody cursed anybody's +Maker. He knew that the statement was utterly false and without the +slightest foundation. He also knew that nobody had ridiculed the +Savior of anybody, but, on the contrary, that I had paid a greater +tribute to the character of Jesus Christ than any minister in New +York has the capacity to do. Certainly it is not cursing the Maker +of anybody to say that the God described in the Old Testament is +not the real God. Certainly it is not cursing God to declare that +the real God never sanctioned slavery or polygamy, or commanded +wars of extermination, or told a husband to separate from his wife +if she differed with him in religion. The people who say these +things of God—if there is any God at all—do what little +there is in their power, unwittingly of course, to destroy his +reputation. But I have done something to rescue the reputation of +the Deity from the slanders of the pulpit. If there is any God, I +expect to find myself credited on the heavenly books for my defence +of him. I did say that our civilization is due not to piety, but to +Infidelity. I did say that every great reformer had been denounced +as an Infidel in his day and generation. I did say that Christ was +an Infidel, and that he was treated in his day very much as the +orthodox preachers treat an honest man now. I did say that he was +tried for blasphemy and crucified by bigots. I did say that he +hated and despised the church of his time, and that he denounced +the most pious people of Jerusalem as thieves and vipers. And I +suggested that should he come again he might have occasion to +repeat the remarks that he then made. At the same time I admitted +that there are thousands and thousands of Christians who are +exceedingly good people. I never did pretend that the fact that a +man was a Christian even tended to show that he was a bad man. +Neither have I ever insisted that the fact that a man is an Infidel +even tends to show what, in other respects, his character is. But I +always have said, and I always expect to say, that a Christian who +does not believe in absolute intellectual liberty is a curse to +mankind, and that an Infidel who does believe in absolute +intellectual liberty is a blessing to this world. We cannot expect +all Infidels to be good, nor all Christians to be bad, and we might +make some mistakes even if we selected these people ourselves. It +is admitted by the Christians that Christ made a great mistake when +he selected Judas. This was a mistake of over eight per cent.</p> +<p>Chaplain Newman takes pains to compare some great Christians +with some great Infidels. He compares Washington with Julian, and +insists, I suppose, that Washington was a great Christian. +Certainly he is not very familiar with the history of Washington, +or he never would claim that he was particularly distinguished in +his day for what is generally known as vital piety. That he went +through the ordinary forms of Christianity nobody disputes. That he +listened to sermons without paying any particular attention to +them, no one will deny. Julian, of course, was somewhat prejudiced +against Christianity, but that he was one of the greatest men of +antiquity no one acquainted with the history of Rome can honestly +dispute. When he was made emperor he found at the palace hundreds +of gentlemen who acted as barbers, hair-combers, and brushers for +the emperor. He dismissed them all, remarking that he was able to +wash himself. These dismissed office-holders started the story that +he was dirty in his habits, and a minister of the nineteenth +century was found silly enough to believe the story. Another thing +that probably got him into disrepute in that day, he had no private +chaplains. As a matter of fact, Julian was forced to pretend that +he was a Christian in order to save his life. The Christians of +that day were of such a loving nature that any man who differed +with them was forced to either fall a victim to their ferocity or +seek safety in subterfuge. The real crime that Julian committed, +and the only one that has burned itself into the very heart and +conscience of the Christian world, is, that he transferred the +revenues of the Christian churches to heathen priests. Whoever +stands between a priest and his salary will find that he has +committed the unpardonable sin commonly known as the sin against +the Holy Ghost.</p> +<p>This gentleman also compares Luther with Voltaire. If he will +read the life of Luther by Lord Brougham, he will find that in his +ordinary conversation he was exceedingly low and vulgar, and that +no respectable English publisher could be found who would soil +paper with the translation. If he will take the pains to read an +essay by Macaulay, he will find that twenty years after the death +of Luther there were more Catholics than when he was born. And that +twenty years after the death of Voltaire there were millions less +than when he was born. If he will take just a few moments to think, +he will find that the last victory of Protestantism was in Holland; +that there has never been one since, and will never be another. If +he would really like to think, and enjoy for a few moments the +luxury of having an idea, let him ponder for a little while over +the instructive fact that languages having their root in the Latin +have generally been spoken in Catholic countries, and that those +languages having their root in the ancient German are now mostly +spoken by people of Protestant proclivities. It may occur to him, +after thinking of this a while, that there is something deeper in +the question than he has as yet perceived. Luther's last victory, +as I said before, was in Holland; but the victory of Voltaire goes +on from day to day. Protestantism is not holding its own with +Catholicism, even in the United States. I saw the other day the +statistics, I believe, of the city of Chicago, showing that, while +the city had increased two or three hundred per cent., +Protestantism had lagged behind at the rate of twelve per cent. I +am willing for one, to have the whole question depend upon a +comparison of the worth and work of Voltaire and Luther. It may be, +too, that the gentleman forgot to tell us that Luther himself gave +consent to a person high in office to have two wives, but prudently +suggested to him that he had better keep it as still as possible. +Luther was, also, a believer in a personal Devil. He thought that +deformed children had been begotten by an evil spirit. On one +occasion he told a mother that, in his judgment, she had better +drown her child; that he had no doubt that the Devil was its +father. This same Luther made this observation: "Universal +toleration is universal error, and universal error is universal +hell." From this you will see that he was an exceedingly good man, +but mistaken upon many questions. So, too, he laughed at the +Copernican system, and wanted to know if those fool astronomers +could undo the work of God. He probably knew as little about +science as the reverend gentleman does about history.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Does he compare any other Infidels with +Christians?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Oh, yes; he compares Lord Bacon with Diderot. I +have never claimed that Diderot was a saint. I have simply insisted +that he was a great man; that he was grand enough to say that +"incredulity is the beginning of philosophy;" that he had sense +enough to know that the God described by the Catholics and +Protestants of his day was simply an impossible monster; and that +he also had the brain to see that the little selfish heaven +occupied by a few monks and nuns and idiots they had fleeced, was +hardly worth going to; in other words, that he was a man of common +sense, greatly in advance of his time, and that he did what he +could to increase the sum of human enjoyment to the end that there +might be more happiness in this world.</p> +<p>The gentleman compares him with Lord Bacon, and yet, if he will +read the trials of that day—I think in the year 1620—he +will find that the Christian Lord Bacon, the pious Lord Bacon, was +charged with receiving pay for his opinions, and, in some +instances, pay from both sides; that the Christian Lord Bacon, at +first upon his honor as a Christian lord, denied the whole +business; that afterward the Christian Lord Bacon, upon his honor +as a Christian lord, admitted the truth of the whole business, and +that, therefore, the Christian Lord Bacon was convicted and +sentenced to pay a fine of forty thousand pounds, and rendered +infamous and incapable of holding any office. Now, understand me, I +do not think Bacon took bribes because he was a Christian, because +there have been many Christian judges perfectly honest; but, if the +statement of the reverend gentlemen of New York is true, his being +a Christian did not prevent his taking bribes. And right here allow +me to thank the gentleman with all my heart for having spoken of +Lord Bacon in this connection. I have always admired the genius of +Bacon, and have always thought of his fall with an aching heart, +and would not now have spoken of his crime had not his character +been flung in my face by a gentleman who asks his God to kill me +for having expressed my honest thought.</p> +<p>The same gentleman compares Newton with Spinoza. In the first +place, there is no ground of parallel. Newton was a very great man +and a very justly celebrated mathematician. As a matter of fact, he +is not celebrated for having discovered the law of gravitation. +That was known for thousands of years before he was born; and if +the reverend gentleman would read a little more he would find that +Newton's discovery was not that there is such a law as gravitation, +but that bodies attract each other "with a force proportional +directly to the quantity of matter they contain, and inversely to +the squares of their distances." I do not think he made the +discoveries on account of his Christianity. Laplace was certainly +in many respects as great a mathematician and astronomer, but he +was not a Christian.</p> +<p>Descartes was certainly not much inferior to Newton as a +mathematician, and thousands insist that he was his superior; yet +he was not a Christian. Euclid, if I remember right, was not a +Christian, and yet he had quite a turn for mathematics. As a matter +of fact, Christianity got its idea of algebra from the Mohammedans, +and, without algebra, astronomical knowledge of to-day would have +been impossible. Christianity did not even invent figures. We got +those from the Arabs. The very word "algebra" is Arabic. The +decimal system, I believe, however, was due to a German, but +whether he was a Christian or not, I do not know.</p> +<p>We find that the Chinese calculated eclipses long before Christ +was born; and, exactness being the rule at that time, there is an +account of two astronomers having been beheaded for failing to tell +the coming of an eclipse to the minute; yet they were not +Christians. There is another fact connected with Newton, and that +is that he wrote a commentary on the Book of Revelation. The +probability is that a sillier commentary was never written. It was +so perfectly absurd and laughable that some one—I believe it +was Voltaire—said that while Newton had excited the envy of +the intellectual world by his mathematical accomplishments, it had +gotten even with him the moment his commentaries were published. +Spinoza was not a mathematician, particularly. He was a +metaphysician, an honest thinker, whose influence is felt, and will +be felt so long as these great questions have the slightest +interest for the human brain.</p> +<p>He also compares Chalmers with Hume. Chalmers gained his +notoriety from preaching what are known as the astronomical +sermons, and, I suppose, was quite a preacher in his day.</p> +<p>But Hume was a thinker, and his works will live for ages after +Mr. Chalmers' sermons will have been forgotten. Mr. Chalmers has +never been prominent enough to have been well known by many people. +He may have been an exceedingly good man, and derived, during his +life, great consolation from a belief in the damnation of +infants.</p> +<p>Mr. Newman also compares Wesley with Thomas Paine. When Thomas +Paine was in favor of human liberty, Wesley was against it. Thomas +Paine wrote a pamphlet called "Common Sense," urging the colonies +to separate themselves from Great Britain. Wesley wrote a treatise +on the other side. He was the enemy of human liberty; and if his +advice could have been followed we would have been the colonies of +Great Britain still. We never would have had a President in need of +a private chaplain. Mr. Wesley had not a scientific mind. He +preached a sermon once on the cause and cure of earthquakes, taking +the ground that earthquakes were caused by sins, and that the only +way to stop them was to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. He also +laid down some excellent rules for rearing children, that is, from +a Methodist standpoint. His rules amounted to about this:</p> +<pre> + <i>First</i>. Never give them what they want. + <i>Second</i>. Never give them what you intend to give them, at the time + they want it. + <i>Third</i>. Break their wills at the earliest possible moment. +</pre> +<p>Mr. Wesley made every family an inquisition, every father and +mother inquisitors, and all the children helpless victims. One of +his homes would give an exceedingly vivid idea of hell. At the same +time, Mr. Wesley was a believer in witches and wizards, and knew +all about the Devil. At his request God performed many miracles. On +several occasions he cured his horse of lameness. On others, +dissipated Mr. Wesley's headaches. Now and then he put off rain on +account of a camp meeting, and at other times stopped the wind +blowing at the special request of Mr. Wesley. I have no doubt that +Mr. Wesley was honest in all this,—just as honest as he was +mistaken. And I also admit that he was the founder of a church that +does extremely well in new countries, and that thousands of +Methodists have been exceedingly good men. But I deny that he ever +did anything for human liberty. While Mr. Wesley was fighting the +Devil and giving his experience with witches and wizards, Thomas +Paine helped to found a free nation, helped to enrich the air with +another flag. Wesley was right on one thing, though. He was opposed +to slavery, and, I believe, called it the sum of all villainies. I +have always been obliged to him for that. I do not think he said it +because he was a Methodist; but Methodism, as he understood it, did +not prevent his saying it, and Methodism as others understood it, +did not prevent men from being slaveholders, did not prevent them +from selling babes from mothers, and in the name of God beating the +naked back of toil. I think, on the whole, Paine did more for the +world than Mr. Wesley. The difference between an average Methodist +and an average Episcopalian is not worth quarreling about. But the +difference between a man who believes in despotism and one who +believes in liberty is almost infinite. Wesley changed +Episcopalians into Methodists; Paine turned lickspittles into men. +Let it be understood, once for all, that I have never claimed that +Paine was perfect. I was very glad that the reverend gentleman +admitted that he was a patriot and the foe of tyrants; that he +sympathized with the oppressed, and befriended the helpless; that +he favored religious toleration, and that he weakened the power of +the Catholic Church. I am glad that he made these admissions. +Whenever it can be truthfully said of a man that he loved his +country, hated tyranny, sympathized with the oppressed, and +befriended the helpless, nothing more is necessary. If God can +afford to damn such a man, such a man can afford to be damned. +While Paine was the foe of tyrants, Christians were the tyrants. +When he sympathized with the oppressed, the oppressed were the +victims of Christians. When he befriended the helpless, the +helpless were the victims of Christians. Paine never founded an +inquisition; never tortured a human being; never hoped that +anybody's tongue would be paralyzed, and was always opposed to +private chaplains.</p> +<p>It might be well for the reverend gentleman to continue his +comparisons, and find eminent Christians to put, for instance, +along with Humboldt, the Shakespeare of science; somebody by the +side of Darwin, as a naturalist; some gentleman in England to stand +with Tyndall, or Huxley; some Christian German to stand with +Haeckel and Helmholtz. May be he knows some Christian statesman +that he would compare with Gambetta. I would advise him to continue +his parallels.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What have you to say of the Rev. Dr. +Fulton?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. The Rev. Dr. Fulton is a great friend of mine. I +am extremely sorry to find that he still believes in a personal +Devil, and I greatly regret that he imagines that this Devil has so +much power that he can take possession of a human being and deprive +God of their services. It is in sorrow and not in anger, that I +find that he still believes in this ancient superstition. I also +regret that he imagines that I am leading young men to eternal +ruin. It occurs to me that if there is an infinite God, he ought +not to allow anybody to lead young men to eternal ruin. If anything +I have said, or am going to say, has a tendency to lead young men +to eternal ruin, I hope that if there is a God with the power to +prevent me, that he will use it. Dr. Fulton admits that in politics +I am on the right side. I presume he makes this concession because +he is a Republican. I am in favor of universal education, of +absolute intellectual liberty. I am in favor, also, of equal rights +to all. As I have said before we have spent millions and millions +of dollars and rivers of blood to free the bodies of men; in other +words, we have been freeing the cages. My proposition now is to +give a little liberty to the birds. I am not willing to stop where +a man can simply reap the fruit of his hand. I wish him, also, to +enjoy the liberty of his brain. I am not against any truth in the +New Testament. I did say that I objected to religion because it +made enemies and not friends. The Rev. Dr. says that is one reason +why he likes religion. Dr. Fulton tells me that the Bible is the +gift of God to man. He also tells me that the Bible is true, and +that God is its author. If the Bible is true and God is its author, +then God was in favor of slavery four thousand years ago. He was +also in favor of polygamy and religious intolerance. In other +words, four thousand years ago he occupied the exact position the +Devil is supposed to occupy now. If the Bible teaches anything it +teaches man to enslave his brother, that is to say, if his brother +is a heathen. The God of the Bible always hated heathens. Dr. +Fulton also says that the Bible is the basis of all law. Yet, if +the Legislature of New York would re-enact next winter the Mosaic +code, the members might consider themselves lucky if they were not +hung upon their return home. Probably Dr. Fulton thinks that had it +not been for the Ten Commandments, nobody would ever have thought +that stealing was wrong. I have always had an idea that men +objected to stealing because the industrious did not wish to +support the idle; and I have a notion that there has always been a +law against murder, because a large majority of people have always +objected to being murdered. If he will read his Old Testament with +care, he will find that God violated most of his own +commandments—all except that "Thou shalt worship no other God +before me," and, may be, the commandment against work on the +Sabbath day. With these two exceptions I am satisfied that God +himself violated all the rest. He told his chosen people to rob the +Gentiles; that violated the commandment against stealing. He said +himself that he had sent out lying spirits; that certainly was a +violation of another commandment. He ordered soldiers to kill men, +women and babes; that was a violation of another. He also told them +to divide the maidens among the soldiers; that was a substantial +violation of another. One of the commandments was that you should +not covet your neighbor's property. In that commandment you will +find that a man's wife is put on an equality with his ox. Yet his +chosen people were allowed not only to covet the property of the +Gentiles, but to take it. If Dr. Fulton will read a little more, he +will find that all the good laws in the Decalogue had been in force +in Egypt a century before Moses was born. He will find that like +laws and many better ones were in force in India and China, long +before Moses knew what a bulrush was. If he will think a little +while, he will find that one of the Ten Commandments, the one on +the subject of graven images, was bad. The result of that was that +Palestine never produced a painter, or a sculptor, and that no Jew +became famous in art until long after the destruction of Jerusalem. +A commandment that robs a people of painting and statuary is not a +good one. The idea of the Bible being the basis of law is almost +too silly to be seriously refuted. I admit that I did say that +Shakespeare was the greatest man who ever lived; and Dr. Fulton +says in regard to this statement, "What foolishness!" He then +proceeds to insult his audience by telling them that while many of +them have copies of Shakespeare's works in their houses, they have +not read twenty pages of them. This fact may account for their +attending his church and being satisfied with that sermon. I do not +believe to-day that Shakespeare is more influential than the Bible, +but what influence Shakespeare has, is for good. No man can read it +without having his intellectual wealth increased. When you read it, +it is not necessary to throw away your reason. Neither will you be +damned if you do not understand it. It is a book that appeals to +everything in the human brain. In that book can be found the wisdom +of all ages. Long after the Bible has passed out of existence, the +name of Shakespeare will lead the intellectual roster of the world. +Dr. Fulton says there is not one work in the Bible that teaches +that slavery or polygamy is right. He also states that I know it. +If language has meaning—if words have sense, or the power to +convey thought,—what did God mean when he told the Israelites +to buy of the heathen round about, and that the heathen should be +their bondmen and bondmaids forever?</p> +<p>What did God mean when he said, If a man strike his servant so +he dies, he should not be punished, because his servant was his +money? Passages like these can be quoted beyond the space that any +paper is willing to give. Yet the Rev. Dr. Fulton denies that the +Old Testament upholds slavery. I would like to ask him if the Old +Testament is in favor of religious toleration? If God wrote the Old +Testament and afterward came upon the earth as Jesus Christ, and +taught a new religion, and the Jews crucified him, was this not in +accordance with his own law, and was he not, after all, the victim +of himself?</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What about the other ministers?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Well, I see in the <i>Herald</i> that some ten +have said that they would reply to me. I have selected the two, +simply because they came first. I think they are about as poor as +any; and you know it is natural to attack those who are the easiest +answered. All these ministers are now acting as my agents, and are +doing me all the good they can by saying all the bad things about +me they can think of. They imagine that their congregations have +not grown, and they talk to them as though they were living in the +seventeenth instead of the nineteenth century. The truth is, the +pews are beyond the pulpit, and the modern sheep are now protecting +the shepherds.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Have you noticed a great change in public +sentiment in the last three or four years?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Yes, I think there are ten times as many Infidels +to- day as there were ten years ago. I am amazed at the great +change that has taken place in public opinion. The churches are not +getting along well. There are hundreds and hundreds who have not +had a new member in a year. The young men are not satisfied with +the old ideas. They find that the church, after all, is opposed to +learning; that it is the enemy of progress; that it says to every +young man, "Go slow. Don't allow your knowledge to puff you up. +Recollect that reason is a dangerous thing. You had better be a +little ignorant here for the sake of being an angel hereafter, than +quite a smart young man and get damned at last." The church warns +them against Humboldt and Darwin, and tells them how much nobler it +is to come from mud than from monkeys; that they were made from +mud. Every college professor is afraid to tell what he thinks, and +every student detects the cowardice. The result is that the young +men have lost confidence in the creeds of the day and propose to do +a little thinking for themselves. They still have a kind of tender +pity for the old folks, and pretend to believe some things they do +not, rather than hurt grandmother's feelings. In the presence of +the preachers they talk about the weather or other harmless +subjects, for fear of bruising the spirit of their pastor. Every +minister likes to consider himself as a brave shepherd leading the +lambs through the green pastures and defending them at night from +Infidel wolves. All this he does for a certain share of the wool. +Others regard the church as a kind of social organization, as a +good way to get into society. They wish to attend sociables, drink +tea, and contribute for the conversion of the heathen. It is always +so pleasant to think that there is somebody worse than you are, +whose reformation you can help pay for. I find, too, that the young +women are getting tired of the old doctrines, and that everywhere, +all over this country, the power of the pulpit wanes and weakens. I +find in my lectures that the applause is just in proportion to the +radicalism of the thought expressed. Our war was a great educator, +when the whole people of the North rose up grandly in favor of +human liberty. For many years the great question of human rights +was discussed from every stump. Every paper was filled with +splendid sentiments. An application of those +doctrines—doctrines born in war—will forever do away +with the bondage of superstition. When man has been free in body +for a little time, he will become free in mind, and the man who +says, "I have a equal right with other men to work and reap the +reward of my labor," will say, "I have, also, an equal right to +think and reap the reward of my thought."</p> +<p>In old times there was a great difference between a clergyman +and a layman. The clergyman was educated; the peasant was ignorant. +The tables have been turned. The thought of the world is with the +laymen. They are the intellectual pioneers, the mental leaders, and +the ministers are following on behind, predicting failure and +disaster, sighing for the good old times when their word ended +discussion. There is another good thing, and that is the revision +of the Bible. Hundreds of passages have been found to be +interpolations, and future revisers will find hundreds more. The +foundation crumbles. That book, called the basis of all law and +civilization, has to be civilized itself. We have outgrown it. Our +laws are better; our institutions grander; our objects and aims +nobler and higher.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do many people write to you upon this subject; +and what spirit do they manifest?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Yes, I get a great many anonymous +letters—some letters in which God is asked to strike me dead, +others of an exceedingly insulting character, others almost +idiotic, others exceedingly malicious, and others insane, others +written in an exceedingly good spirit, winding up with the +information that I must certainly be damned. Others express wonder +that God allowed me to live at all, and that, having made the +mistake, he does not instantly correct it by killing me. Others +prophesy that I will yet be a minister of the gospel; but, as there +has never been any softening of the brain in our family, I imagine +that the prophecy will never by fulfilled. Lately, on opening a +letter and seeing that it is upon this subject, and without a +signature, I throw it aside without reading. I have so often found +them to be so grossly ignorant, insulting and malicious, that as a +rule I read them no more.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Of the hundreds of people who call upon you +nearly every day to ask your help, do any of them ever discriminate +against you on account of your Infidelity?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. No one who has asked a favor of me objects to my +religion, or, rather, to my lack of it. A great many people do come +to me for assistance of one kind or another. But I have never yet +asked a man or woman whether they were religious or not, to what +church they belonged, or any questions upon the subject. I think I +have done favors for persons of most denominations. It never occurs +to me whether they are Christians or Infidels. I do not care. Of +course, I do not expect that Christians will treat me the same as +though I belonged to their church. I have never expected it. In +some instances I have been disappointed. I have some excellent +friends who disagree with me entirely upon the subject of religion. +My real opinion is that secretly they like me because I am not a +Christian, and those who do not like me envy the liberty I +enjoy.</p> +<p>—New York correspondent, <i>Chicago Times</i>, May 29, +1881.</p> +<a name="link0023" id="link0023"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>GUITEAU AND HIS CRIME.*</h2> +<pre> + [* Our "Royal Bob" was found by <i>The Gazette</i>, in the + gloaming of a delicious evening, during the past week, + within the open portals of his friendly residence, dedicated + by the gracious presence within to a simple and cordial + hospitality, to the charms of friendship and the freedom of + an abounding comradeship. With intellectual and untrammeled + life, a generous, wise and genial host, whoever enters finds + a welcome, seasoned with kindly wit and Attic humor, a + poetic insight and a delicious frankness which renders an + evening there a veritable symposium. The wayfarer who + passes is charmed, and he who comes frequently, goes always + away with delighted memories. + + What matters it that we differ? such as he and his make our + common life the sweeter. An hour or two spent in the + attractive parlors of the Ingersoll homestead, amid that + rare group, lends a newer meaning to the idea of home and a + more secure beauty to the fact of family life. During the + past exciting three weeks Colonel Ingersoll has been a busy + man. He holds no office. No position could lend him an + additional crown and even recognition is no longer + necessary. But it has been well that amid the first fierce + fury of anger and excitement, and the subsequent more bitter + if not as noble outpouring of faction's suspicions and + innuendoes, that so manly a man, so sagacious a counsellor, + has been enabled to hold so positive a balance. Cabinet + officers, legal functionaries, detectives, citizens—all + have felt the wise, humane instincts, and the capacious + brain of this marked man affecting and influencing for this + fair equipoise and calmer judgment. + + Conversing freely on the evening of this visit, Colonel + Ingersoll, in the abundance of his pleasure at the White + House news, submitted to be interviewed, and with the + following result.] +</pre> +<p><i>Question</i>. By-the-way, Colonel, you knew Guiteau slightly, +we believe. Are you aware that it has been attempted to show that +some money loaned or given him by yourself was really what he +purchased the pistol with?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I knew Guiteau slightly; I saw him for the first +time a few days after the inauguration. He wanted a consulate, and +asked me to give him a letter to Secretary Blaine. I refused, on +the ground that I didn't know him. Afterwards he wanted me to lend +him twenty-five dollars, and I declined. I never loaned him a +dollar in the world. If I had, I should not feel that I was guilty +of trying to kill the President. On the principle that one would +hold the man guilty who had innocently loaned the money with which +he bought the pistol, you might convict the tailor who made his +clothes. If he had had no clothes he would not have gone to the +depot naked, and the crime would not have been committed. It is +hard enough for the man who did lend him the money to lose that, +without losing his reputation besides. Nothing can exceed the utter +absurdity of what has been said upon this subject.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. How did Guiteau impress you and what have you +remembered, Colonel, of his efforts to reply to your lectures?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I do not know that Guiteau impressed me in any +way. He appeared like most other folks in search of a place or +employment. I suppose he was in need. He talked about the same as +other people, and claimed that I ought to help him because he was +from Chicago. The second time he came to see me he said that he +hoped I had no prejudice against him on account of what he had said +about me. I told him that I never knew he had said anything against +me. I suppose now that he referred to what he had said in his +lectures. He went about the country replying to me. I have seen one +or two of his lectures. He used about the same arguments that Mr. +Black uses in his reply to my article in the <i>North American +Review</i>, and denounced me in about the same terms. He is +undoubtedly a man who firmly believes in the Old Testament, and has +no doubt concerning the New. I understand that he puts in most of +his time now reading the Bible and rebuking people who use profane +language in his presence.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. You most certainly do not see any foundation +for the accusations of preachers like Sunderland, Newman and Power, +<i>et al</i>, that the teaching of a secular liberalism has had +anything to do with the shaping of Guiteau's character or the +actions of his vagabond life or the inciting to his murderous +deeds?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I do not think that the sermon of Mr. Power was +in good taste. It is utterly foolish to charge the "Stalwarts" with +committing or inciting the crime against the life of the President. +Ministers, though, as a rule, know but little of public affairs, +and they always account for the actions of people they do not like +or agree with, by attributing to them the lowest and basest +motives. This is the fault of the pulpit—always has been, and +probably always will be. The Rev. Dr. Newman of New York, tells us +that the crime of Guiteau shows three things: First, that ignorant +men should not be allowed to vote; second, that foreigners should +not be allowed to vote; and third, that there should not be so much +religious liberty.</p> +<p>It turns out, first, the Guiteau is not an ignorant man; second, +that he is not a foreigner; and third, that he is a Christian. Now, +because an intelligent American Christian tries to murder the +President, this person says we ought to do something with ignorant +foreigners and Infidels. This is about the average pulpit logic. Of +course, all the ministers hate to admit the Guiteau was a +Christian; that he belonged to the Young Men's Christian +Association, or at least was generally found in their rooms; that +he was a follower of Moody and Sankey, and probably instrumental in +the salvation of a great many souls. I do not blame them for +wishing to get rid of this record. What I blame them for is that +they are impudent enough to charge the crime of Guiteau upon +Infidelity. Infidels and Atheists have often killed tyrants. They +have often committed crimes to increase the liberty of mankind; but +the history of the world will not show an instance where an Infidel +or an Atheist has assassinated any man in the interest of human +slavery. Of course, I am exceedingly glad that Guiteau is not an +Infidel. I am glad that he believes the Bible, glad that he has +delivered lectures against what he calls Infidelity, and glad that +he has been working for years with the missionaries and evangelists +of the United States. He is a man of small brain, badly balanced. +He believes the Bible to be the word of God. He believes in the +reality of heaven and hell. He believes in the miraculous. He is +surrounded by the supernatural, and when a man throws away his +reason, of course no one can tell what he will do. He is liable to +become a devotee or an assassin, a saint or a murderer; he may die +in a monastery or in a penitentiary.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. According to your view, then, the species of +fanaticism taught in sectarian Christianity, by which Guiteau was +led to assert that Garfield dead would be better off then +living—being in Paradise —is more responsible than +office seeking or political factionalism for his deed?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Guiteau seemed to think that the killing of the +President would only open the gates of Paradise to him, and that, +after all, under such circumstances, murder was hardly a crime. +This same kind of reasoning is resorted to in the pulpit to account +for death. If Guiteau had succeeded in killing the President, +hundreds of ministers would have said, "After all, it may be that +the President has lost nothing; it may be that our loss is his +eternal gain; and although it seems cruel that Providence should +allow a man like him to be murdered, still, it may have been the +very kindest thing that could have been done for him." Guiteau +reasoned in this way, and probably convinced himself, judging from +his own life, that this world was, after all, of very little worth. +We are apt to measure others by ourselves. Of course, I do not +think Christianity is responsible for this crime. Superstition may +have been, in part —probably was. But no man believes in +Christianity because he thinks it sanctions murder. At the same +time, an absolute belief in the Bible sometimes produces the worst +form of murder. Take that of Mr. Freeman, of Poeasset, who stabbed +his little daughter to the heart in accordance with what he +believed to be the command of God. This poor man imitated Abraham; +and, for that matter, Jehovah himself. There have been in the +history of Christianity thousands and thousands of such instances, +and there will probably be many thousands more that have been and +will be produced by throwing away our own reason and taking the +word of some one else —often a word that we do not +understand.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What is your opinion as to the effect of +praying for the recovery of the President, and have you any +confidence that prayers are answered?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. My opinion as to the value of prayer is well +known. I take it that every one who prays for the President shows +at least his sympathy and good will. Personally, I have no +objection to anybody's praying. Those who think their prayers are +answered should pray. For all who honestly believe this, and who +honestly implore their Deity to watch over, protect, and save the +life of the President, I have only the kindliest feelings.</p> +<p>It may be that a few will pray to be seen of men; but I suppose +that most people on a subject like this are honest. Personally, I +have not the slightest idea of the existence of the supernatural. +Prayer may affect the person who prays. It may put him in such a +frame of mind that he can better bear disappointment than if he had +not prayed; but I cannot believe that there is any being who hears +and answers prayer.</p> +<p>When we remember the earthquakes that have devoured, the +pestilences that have covered the earth with corpses, and all the +crimes and agonies that have been inflicted upon the good and weak +by the bad and strong, it does not seem possible that anything can +be accomplished by prayer. I do not wish to hurt the feelings of +anyone, but I imagine that I have a right to my own opinion. If the +President gets well it will be because the bullet did not strike an +absolutely vital part; it will be because he has been well cared +for; because he has had about him intelligent and skillful +physicians, men who understood their profession. No doubt he has +received great support from the universal expression of sympathy +and kindness. The knowledge that fifty millions of people are his +friends has given him nerve and hope. Some of the ministers, I see, +think that God was actually present and deflected the ball. Another +minister tells us that the President would have been assassinated +in a church, but that God determined not to allow so frightful a +crime to be committed in so sacred an edifice. All this sounds to +me like perfect absurdity—simple noise. Yet, I presume that +those who talk in this way are good people and believe what they +say. Of course, they can give no reason why God did not deflect the +ball when Lincoln was assassinated. The truth is, the pulpit first +endeavors to find out the facts, and then to make a theory to fit +them. Whoever believes in a special providence must, of necessity, +by illogical and absurd; because it is impossible to make any +theological theory that some facts will not contradict.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Won't you give us, then, Colonel, your analysis +of this act, and the motives leading to it?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I think Guiteau wanted an office and was refused. +He became importunate. He was, substantially, put out of the White +House. He became malicious. He made up his mind to be revenged. +This, in my judgment, is the diagnosis of his case. Since he has +been in jail he has never said one word about having been put out +of the White House; he is lawyer enough to know he must not furnish +any ground for malice. He is a miserable, malicious and worthless +wretch, infinitely egotistical, imagines that he did a great deal +toward the election of Garfield, and upon being refused the house a +serpent of malice coiled in his heart, and he determined to be +revenged. That is all!</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you, in any way, see any reason or +foundation for the severe and bitter criticisms made against the +Stalwart leaders in connection with this crime? As you are well +known to be a friend of the administration, while not unfriendly to +Mr. Conkling and those acting with him, would you mind giving the +public your opinion on this point?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Of course, I do not hold Arthur, Conkling and +Platt responsible for Guiteau's action. In the first excitement a +thousand unreasonable things were said; and when passion has +possession of the brain, suspicion is a welcome visitor.</p> +<p>I do not think that any friend of the administration really +believes Conkling, Platt and Arthur responsible in the slightest +degree. Conkling wished to prevent the appointment of Robertson. +The President stood by his friend. One thing brought on another, +Mr. Conkling petulantly resigned, and made the mistake of his life. +There was a good deal of feeling, but, of course, no one dreamed +that the wretch, Guiteau, was lying in wait for the President's +life. In the first place, Guiteau was on the President's side, and +was bitterly opposed to Conkling. Guiteau did what he did from +malice and personal spite. I think the sermon preached last Sunday +in the Campbellite Church was unwise, ill advised, and calculated +to make enemies instead of friends. Mr. Conkling has been beaten. +He has paid for the mistake he made. If he can stand it, I can; and +why should there be any malice on the subject? Exceedingly good men +have made mistakes, and afterward corrected them.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Is it not true, Colonel Ingersoll, that the +lesson of this deed is to point the real and overwhelming need of +re-knitting and harmonizing the factions?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. There is hardly enough faction left for +"knitting." The party is in harmony now. All that is necessary is +to stop talking. The people of this country care very little as to +who holds any particular office. They wish to have the Government +administered in accordance with certain great principles, and they +leave the fields, the shops, and the stores once in four years, for +the purpose of attending to that business. In the meantime, +politicians quarrel about offices. The people go on. They plow +fields, they build homes, they open mines, they enrich the world, +they cover our country with prosperity, and enjoy the aforesaid +quarrels. But when the time comes, these gentlemen are +forgotten.</p> +<p>Principles take the place of politicians, and the people settle +these questions for themselves.</p> +<p>—<i>Sunday Gazette</i>, Washington, D. C., July 24, +1881.</p> +<a name="link0024" id="link0024"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>DISTRICT SUFFRAGE.</h2> +<p><i>Question</i>. You have heretofore incidentally expressed +yourself on the matter of local suffrage in the District of +Columbia. Have you any objections to giving your present views of +the question?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I am still in favor of suffrage in the District. +The real trouble is, that before any substantial relief can be +reached, there must be a change in the Constitution of the United +States. The mere right to elect aldermen and mayors and policemen +is of no great importance. It is a mistake to take all political +power from the citizens of the District. Americans want to help +rule the country. The District ought to have at least one +Representative in Congress, and should elect one presidential +elector. The people here should have a voice. They should feel that +they are a part of this country. They should have the right to sue +in all Federal courts, precisely as though they were citizens of a +State. This city ought to have half a million of inhabitants. +Thousands would come here every year from every part of the Union, +were it not for the fact that they do not wish to become political +nothings. They think that citizenship is worth something, and they +preserve it by staying away from Washington. This city is a "flag +of truce" where wounded and dead politicians congregate; the Mecca +of failures, the perdition of claimants, the purgatory of seekers +after place, and the heaven only of those who neither want nor do +anything. Nothing is manufactured, no solid business is done in +this city, and there never will be until energetic, thrifty people +wish to make it their home, and they will not wish that until the +people of the District have something like the rights and political +prospects of other citizens. It is hard to see why the right to +representation should be taken from citizens living in the Capital +of the Nation. The believers in free government should believe in a +free capital.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Are there any valid reasons why the +constitutional limitations to the elective franchise in the +District of Columbia should not be removed by an amendment to that +instrument?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I cannot imagine one. If our Government is +founded upon a correct principle there can be no objection urged +against suffrage in the District that cannot, with equal force, be +urged against every part of the country. If freedom is dangerous +here, it is safe nowhere. If a man cannot be trusted in the +District, he is dangerous in the State. We do not trust the place +where the man happens to be; we trust the man. The people of this +District cannot remain in their present condition without becoming +dishonored. The idea of allowing themselves to be governed by +commissioners, in whose selection they have no part, is monstrous. +The people here beg, implore, request, ask, pray, beseech, +intercede, crave, urge, entreat, supplicate, memorialize and most +humbly petition, but they neither vote nor demand. They are not +allowed to enter the Temple of Liberty; they stay in the lobby or +sit on the steps.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. They say Paris is France, because her electors +or citizens control that municipality. Do you foresee any danger of +centralization in the full enfranchisement of the citizens of +Washington?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. There was a time when the intelligence of France +was in Paris. The country was besotted, ignorant, Catholic; Paris +was alive, educated, Infidel, full of new theories, of passion and +heroism. For two hundred years Paris was an athlete chained to a +corpse. The corpse was the rest of France. It is different now, and +the whole country is at last filling with light. Besides, Paris has +two millions of people. It is filled with factories. It is not only +the intellectual center, but the center of money and business as +well. Let the <i>Corps Legislatif</i> meet anywhere, and Paris will +continue to be in a certain splendid sense—France. Nothing +like that can ever happen here unless you expect Washington to +outstrip New York, Philadelphia and Chicago. If allowing the people +of the District of Columbia to vote was the only danger to the +Republic, I should be politically the happiest of men. I think it +somewhat dangerous to deprive even one American citizen of the +right to govern himself.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Would you have Government clerks and officials +appointed to office here given the franchise in the District? and +should this, if given, include the women clerks?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Citizenship should be determined here as in the +States. Clerks should not be allowed to vote unless their intention +is to make the District their home. When I make a government I +shall give one vote to each family. The unmarried should not be +represented except by parents. Let the family be the unit of +representation. Give each hearthstone a vote.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. How do you regard the opposition of the local +clergy and of the Bourbon Democracy to enfranchising the citizens +of the District?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I did not know that the clergy did oppose it. If, +as you say, they do oppose it because they fear it will extend the +liquor traffic, I think their reason exceedingly stupid. You cannot +make men temperate by shutting up a few of the saloons and leaving +others wide open. Intemperance must be met with other weapons. The +church ought not to appeal to force. What would the clergy of +Washington think should the miracle of Cana be repeated in their +day? Had they been in that country, with their present ideas, what +would they have said? After all there is a great deal of philosophy +in the following: "Better have the whole world voluntarily drunk +then sober on compulsion." Of course the Bourbons object. Objecting +is the business of a Bourbon. He always objects. If he does not +understand the question he objects because he does not, and if he +does understand he objects because he does. With him the reason for +objecting is the fact that he does.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What effect, if any, would the complete +franchise to our citizens have upon real estate and business in +Washington?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. If the people here had representation according +to numbers—if the avenues to political preferment were +open—if men here could take part in the real government of +the country, if they could bring with them all their rights, this +would be a great and splendid Capital. We ought to have here a +University, the best in the world, a library second to none, and +here should be gathered the treasures of American art. The Federal +Government has been infinitely economical in the direction of +information. I hope the time will come when our Government will +give as much to educate two men as to kill one.</p> +<p>—<i>The Capital</i>, Washington, D. C., December 18, +1881.</p> +<a name="link0025" id="link0025"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>FUNERAL OF JOHN G. MILLS AND IMMORTALITY.*</h2> +<pre> + [* Robert G. Ingersoll rarely takes the trouble to answer + critics. His recent address over the dead body of his friend + John G. Mills has called forth a storm of denunciation from + nearly every pulpit in the country. The writer called at + the Colonel's office in New York Avenue yesterday and asked + him to reply to some of the points made against him. + Reluctantly he assented.] +</pre> +<p><i>Question</i>. Have you seen the recent clerical strictures +upon your doctrines?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. There are always people kind enough to send me +anything they have the slightest reason to think I do not care to +read. They seem to be animated by a missionary spirit, and +apparently want to be in a position when they see me in hell to +exclaim: "You can't blame me. I sent you all the impudent articles +I saw, and if you died unconverted it was no fault of mine."</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Did you notice that a Washington clergyman said +that the very fact that you were allowed to speak at the funeral +was in itself a sacrilege, and that you ought to have been +stopped?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Yes, I saw some such story. Of course, the clergy +regard marriages and funerals as the perquisites of the pulpit, and +they resent any interference on the part of the pews. They look at +these matters from a business point of view. They made the same cry +against civil marriages. They denied that marriage was a contract, +and insisted that it was a sacrament, and that it was hardly +binding unless a priest had blessed it. They used to bury in +consecrated ground, and had marks upon the graves, so that Gabriel +might know the ones to waken. The clergy wish to make themselves +essential. They must christen the babe—this gives them +possession of the cradle. They must perform the ceremony of +marriage —this gives them possession of the family. They must +pronounce the funeral discourse—this gives them possession of +the dead. Formerly they denied baptism to the children of the +unbeliever, marriage to him who denied the dogmas of the church, +and burial to honest men. The church wishes to control the world, +and wishes to sacrifice this world for the next. Of course I am in +favor of the utmost liberty upon all these questions. When a +Presbyterian dies, let a follower of John Calvin console the living +by setting forth the "Five Points." When a Catholic becomes clay, +let a priest perform such ceremonies as his creed demands, and let +him picture the delights of purgatory for the gratification of the +living. And when one dies who does not believe in any religion, +having expressed a wish that somebody say a few words above his +remains, I see no reason why such a proceeding should be stopped, +and, for my part, I see no sacrilege in it. Why should the +reputations of the dead, and the feelings of those who live, be +placed at the mercy of the ministers? A man dies not having been a +Christian, and who, according to the Christian doctrine, is doomed +to eternal fire. How would an honest Christian minister console the +widow and the fatherless children? How would he dare to tell what +he claims to be truth in the presence of the living? The truth is, +the Christian minister in the presence of death abandons his +Christianity. He dare not say above the coffin, "the soul that once +inhabited this body is now in hell." He would be denounced as a +brutal savage. Now and then a minister at a funeral has been brave +enough and unmannerly enough to express his doctrine in all its +hideousness of hate. I was told that in Chicago, many years ago, a +young man, member of a volunteer fire company, was killed by the +falling of a wall, and at the very moment the wall struck him he +was uttering a curse. He was a brave and splendid man. An orthodox +minister said above his coffin, in the presence of his mother and +mourning friends, that he saw no hope for the soul of that young +man. The mother, who was also orthodox, refused to have her boy +buried with such a sermon—stopped the funeral, took the +corpse home, engaged a Universalist preacher, and, on the next day +having heard this man say that there was no place in the wide +universe of God without hope, and that her son would finally stand +among the redeemed, this mother laid her son away, put flowers upon +his grave, and was satisfied.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What have you to say to the charge that you are +preaching the doctrine of despair and hopelessness, when they have +the comforting assurances of the Christian religion to offer?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. All I have to say is this: If the Christian +religion is true, as commonly preached—and when I speak of +Christianity, I speak of the orthodox Christianity of the +day—if that be true, those whom I have loved the best are now +in torment. Those to whom I am most deeply indebted are now +suffering the vengeance of God. If this religion be true, the +future is of no value to me. I care nothing about heaven, unless +the ones I love and have loved are there. I know nothing about the +angels. I might not like them, and they might not like me. I would +rather meet there the ones who have loved me here—the ones +who would have died for me, and for whom I would have died; and if +we are to be eternally divided —not because we differed in +our views of justice, not because we differed about friendship or +love or candor, or the nobility of human action, but because we +differed in belief about the atonement or baptism or the +inspiration of the Scriptures—and if some of us are to be in +heaven, and some in hell, then, for my part, I prefer eternal +sleep. To me the doctrine of annihilation is infinitely more +consoling, than the probable separation preached by the orthodox +clergy of our time. Of course, even if there be a God, I like +persons that I know, better than I can like him—we have more +in common—I know more about them; and how is it possible for +me to love the infinite and unknown better than the ones I know? +Why not have the courage to say that if there be a God, all I know +about him I know by knowing myself and my friends—by knowing +others? And, after all, is not a noble man, is not a pure woman, +the finest revelation we have of God—if there be one? Of what +use is it to be false to ourselves? What moral quality is there in +theological pretence? Why should a man say that he loves God better +than he does his wife or his children or his brother or his sister +or his warm, true friend? Several ministers have objected to what I +said about my friend Mr. Mills, on the ground that it was not +calculated to console the living. Mr. Mills was not a Christian. He +denied the inspiration of the Scriptures. He believed that +restitution was the best repentance, and that, after all, sin is a +mistake. He was not a believer in total depravity, or in the +atonement. He denied these things. He was an unbeliever. Now, let +me ask, what consolation could a Christian minister have given to +his family? He could have said to the widow and the orphans, to the +brother and sister: "Your husband, your father, your brother, is +now in hell; dry your tears; weep not for him, but try and save +yourselves. He has been damned as a warning to you, care no more +for him, why should you weep over the grave of a man whom God +thinks fit only to be eternally tormented? Why should you love the +memory of one whom God hates?" The minister could have said: "He +had an opportunity—he did not take it. The life-boat was +lowered—he would not get in—he has been drowned, and +the waves of God's wrath will sweep over him forever." This is the +consolation of Christianity and the only honest consolation that +Christianity can have for the widow and orphans of an unbeliever. +Suppose, however, that the Christian minister has too tender a +heart to tell what he believes to be the truth—then he can +say to the sorrowing friends: "Perhaps the man repented before he +died; perhaps he is not in hell, perhaps you may meet him in +heaven;" and this "perhaps" is a consolation not growing out of +Christianity, but out of the politeness of the preacher—out +of paganism.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you not think that the Bible has consolation +for those who have lost their friends?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. There is about the Old Testament this strange +fact—I find in it no burial service. There is in it, I +believe, from the first mistake in Genesis to the last curse in +Malachi, not one word said over the dead as to their place and +state. When Abraham died, nobody said: "He is still alive—he +is in another world." When the prophets passed away, not one word +was said as to the heaven to which they had gone. In the Old +Testament, Saul inquired of the witch, and Samuel rose. Samuel did +not pretend that he had been living, or that he was alive, but +asked: "Why hast thou disquieted me?" He did not pretend to have +come from another world. And when David speaks of his son, saying +that he could not come back to him, but that he, David, could go to +his son, that is but saying that he, too, must die. There is not in +the Old Testament one hope of immortality. It is expressly asserted +that there is no difference between the man and beast—that as +the one dieth so dieth the other. There is one little passage in +Job which commentators have endeavored to twist into a hope of +immortality. Here is a book of hundreds and hundreds of pages, and +hundreds and hundreds of chapters—a revelation from +God—and in it one little passage, which, by a mistranslation, +is tortured into saying something about another life. And this is +the Old Testament. I have sometimes thought that the Jews, when +slaves in Egypt, were mostly occupied in building tombs for +mummies, and that they became so utterly disgusted with that kind +of work, that the moment they founded a nation for themselves they +went out of the tomb business. The Egyptians were believers in +immortality, and spent almost their entire substance upon the dead. +The living were impoverished to enrich the dead. The grave absorbed +the wealth of Egypt. The industry of a nation was buried. Certainly +the Old Testament has nothing clearly in favor of immortality. In +the New Testament we are told about the "kingdom of +heaven,"—that it is at hand—and about who shall be +worthy, but it is hard to tell what is meant by the kingdom of +heaven. The kingdom of heaven was apparently to be in this world, +and it was about to commence. The Devil was to be chained for a +thousand years, the wicked were to be burned up, and Christ and his +followers were to enjoy the earth. This certainly was the doctrine +of Paul when he says: "Behold, I show you a mystery; We shall not +all <i>sleep</i>, but we shall all be <i>changed</i>. In a moment, +in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump; for the trumpet +shall sound, and the <i>dead</i> shall be <i>raised</i> +incorruptible, and <i>we</i> shall be <i>changed</i>. For this +corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on +immortality." According to this doctrine, those who were alive were +to be changed, and those who had died were to be raised from the +dead. Paul certainly did not refer to any other world beyond this. +All these things were to happen here. The New Testament is made up +of the fragments of many religions. It is utterly inconsistent with +itself; and there is not a particle of evidence of the resurrection +and ascension of Christ—neither in the nature of things could +there be. It is a thousand times more probable that people were +mistaken than that such things occurred. If Christ really rose from +the dead, he should have shown himself, not simply to his +disciples, but to the very men who crucified him—to Herod, to +the high priest, to Pilate. He should have made a triumphal entry +into Jerusalem after his resurrection, instead of before. He should +have shown himself to the Sadducees,—to those who denied the +existence of spirit. Take from the New Testament its doctrine of +eternal pain—the idea that we can please God by acts of +self-denial that can do no good to others—take away all its +miracles, and I have no objection to all the good things in +it—no objection to the hope of a future life, if such a hope +is expressed—not the slightest. And I would not for the world +say anything to take from any mind a hope in which dwells the least +comfort, but a doctrine that dooms a large majority of mankind to +eternal flames ought not to be called a consolation. What I say is, +that the writers of the New Testament knew no more about the future +state than I do, and no less. The horizon of life has never been +pierced. The veil between time and what is called eternity, has +never been raised, so far as I know; and I say of the dead what all +others must say if they say only what they know. There is no +particular consolation in a guess. Not knowing what the future has +in store for the human race, it is far better to prophesy good than +evil. It is better to hope that the night has a dawn, that the sky +has a star, than to build a heaven for the few, and a hell for the +many. It is better to leave your dead in doubt than in +fire—better that they should sleep in shadow than in the +lurid flames of perdition. And so I say, and always have said, let +us hope for the best. The minister asks: "What right have you to +hope? It is sacrilegious in you!" But, whether the clergy like it +or not, I shall always express my real opinion, and shall always be +glad to say to those who mourn: "There is in death, as I believe, +nothing worse than sleep. Hope for as much better as you can. Under +the seven-hued arch let the dead rest." Throw away the Bible, and +you throw away the fear of hell, but the hope of another life +remains, because the hope does not depend upon a book—it +depends upon the heart—upon human affection. The fear, so far +as this generation is concerned, is born of the book, and that part +of the book was born of savagery. Whatever of hope is in the book +is born, as I said before, of human affection, and the higher our +civilization the greater the affection. I had rather rest my hope +of something beyond the grave upon the human heart, than upon what +they call the Scriptures, because there I find mingled with the +hope of something good the threat of infinite evil. Among the +thistles, thorns and briers of the Bible is one pale and sickly +flower of hope. Among all its wild beasts and fowls, only one bird +flies heavenward. I prefer the hope without the thorns, without the +briers, thistles, hyenas, and serpents.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you not know that it is claimed that +immortality was brought to light in the New Testament, that that, +in fact, was the principal mission of Christ?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I know that Christians claim that the doctrine of +immortality was first taught in the New Testament. They also claim +that the highest morality was found there. Both these claims are +utterly without foundation. Thousands of years before Christ was +born—thousands of years before Moses saw the light—the +doctrine of immortality was preached by the priests of Osiris and +Isis. Funeral discourses were pronounced over the dead, ages before +Abraham existed. When a man died in Egypt, before he was taken +across the sacred lake, he had a trial. Witnesses appeared, and if +he had done anything wrong, for which he had not done restitution, +he was not taken across the lake. The living friends, in disgrace, +carried the body back, and it was buried outside of what might be +called consecrated ground, while the ghost was supposed to wander +for a hundred years. Often the children of the dead would endeavor +to redeem the poor ghost by acts of love and kindness. When he came +to the spirit world there was the god Anubis, who weighed his heart +in the scales of eternal justice, and if the good deed +preponderated he entered the gates of Paradise; if the evil, he had +to go back to the world, and be born in the bodies of animals for +the purpose of final purification. At last, the good deeds would +outweigh the evil, and, according to the religion of Egypt, the +latch-string of heaven would never be drawn in until the last +wanderer got home. Immortality was also taught in India, and, in +fact, in all the countries of antiquity. Wherever men have loved, +wherever they have dreamed, wherever hope has spread its wings, the +idea of immortality has existed. But nothing could be worse than +the immortality promised in the New Testament—admitting that +it is so promised—eternal joy side by side with eternal pain. +Think of living forever, knowing that countless millions are +suffering eternal pain! How much better it would be for God to +commit suicide and let all life and motion cease! Christianity has +no consolation except for the Christian, and if a Christian +minister endeavors to console the widow of an unbeliever he must +resort, not to his religion, but to his sympathy—to the +natural promptings of the heart. He is compelled to say: "After +all, may be God is not so bad as we think," or, "May be your +husband was better than he appeared; perhaps somehow, in some way, +the dear man has squeezed in; he was a good husband, he was a kind +father, and even if he is in hell, may be he is in the temperate +zone, where they have occasional showers, and where, if the days +are hot, the nights are reasonably cool." All I ask of Christian +ministers is to tell what they believe to be the truth—not to +borrow ideas from the pagans—not to preach the mercy born of +unregenerate sympathy. Let them tell their real doctrines. If they +will do that, they will not have much influence. If orthodox +Christianity is true, a large majority of the man who have made +this world fit to live in are now in perdition. A majority of the +Revolutionary soldiers have been damned. A majority of the man who +fought for the integrity of this Union—a majority who were +starved at Libby and Andersonville are now in hell.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you deny the immortality of the soul?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I have never denied the immortality of the soul. +I have simply been honest. I have said: "I do not know." Long ago, +in my lecture on "The Ghosts," I used the following language: "The +idea of immortality, that like a sea has ebbed and flowed in the +human heart, with its countless waves of hope and fear beating +against the shores and rocks of time and fate, was not born of any +book, nor of any creed, nor of any religion. It was born of human +affection, and it will continue to ebb and flow beneath the mists +and clouds of doubt and darkness as long as love kisses the lips of +death. It is the rainbow Hope, shining upon the tears of +grief."</p> +<p>—<i>The Post</i>, Washington, D. C., April 30, 1883.</p> +<a name="link0026" id="link0026"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>STAR ROUTE AND POLITICS.*</h2> +<pre> + [* Col. Ingersoll entertains very pronounced ideas + concerning President Arthur, Attorney-General Brewster and + divers other people, which will be found presented herewith + in characteristically piquant style. With his family, the + eloquent advocate has a cottage here, and finds brain and + body rest and refreshment in the tumbling waves. This noon, + in the height of a tremendous thunder storm, I bumped + against his burly figure in the roaring crest, and, after + the first shock had passed, determined to utilize the + providential coincidence. The water was warm, our clothes + were in the bathing houses, and comfort was more certain + where we were than anywhere else. The Colonel is an expert + swimmer and as a floater he cannot be beaten. He was + floating when we bumped. Spouting a pint of salt water from + his mouth, he nearly choked with laughter as in answer to my + question he said:] +</pre> +<p>No, I do not believe there will be any more Star Route trials. +There is so much talk about the last one, there will not be time +for another.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Did you anticipate a verdict?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I did anticipate a verdict, and one of acquittal. +I knew that the defendants were entitled to such a verdict. I knew +that the Government had signally failed to prove a case. There was +nothing but suspicion, from which malice was inferred. The direct +proof was utterly unworthy of belief. The direct witness was caught +with letters he had forged. This one fact was enough to cover the +prosecution with confusion. The fact that Rerdell sat with the +other defendants and reported to the Government from day to day +satisfied the jury as to the value of his testimony, and the animus +of the Department of Justice. Besides, Rerdell had offered to +challenge such jurors as the Government might select. He handed +counsel for defendants a list of four names that he wanted +challenged. At that time it was supposed that each defendant would +be allowed to challenge four jurors. Afterward the Court decided +that all the defendants must be considered as one party and had the +right to challenge four and no more. Of the four names on Rerdell's +list the Government challenged three and Rerdell tried to challenge +the other. This was what is called a coincidence. Another thing had +great influence with the jury—the evidence of the defendants +was upon all material points so candid and so natural, so devoid of +all coloring, that the jury could not help believing. If the people +knew the evidence they would agree with the jury. When we remember +that there were over ten thousand star routes, it is not to be +wondered at that some mistakes were made—that in some +instances too much was paid and in others too little.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What has been the attitude of President +Arthur?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. We asked nothing from the President. We wanted no +help from him. We expected that he would take no part—that he +would simply allow the matter to be settled by the court in the +usual way. I think that he made one very serious mistake. He +removed officers on false charges without giving them a hearing. He +deposed Marshal Henry because somebody said that he was the friend +of the defendants. Henry was a good officer and an honest man. The +President removed Ainger for the same reason. This was a mistake. +Ainger should have been heard. There is always time to do justice. +No day is too short for justice, and eternity is not long enough to +commit a wrong. It was thought that the community could be +terrorized:—</p> +<p><i>First</i>. The President dismissed Henry and Ainger.</p> +<p><i>Second</i>. The Attorney-General wrote a letter denouncing +the defendants as thieves and robbers.</p> +<p><i>Third</i>. Other letters from Bliss and MacVeagh were +published.</p> +<p><i>Fourth</i>. Dixon, the foreman of the first jury, was +indicted.</p> +<p><i>Fifth</i>. Members of the first jury voting "guilty" were in +various ways rewarded.</p> +<p><i>Sixth</i>. Bargains were made with Boone and Rerdell. The +cases against Boone were to be dismissed and Rerdell was promised +immunity. Under these circumstances the second trial commenced. But +of all the people in this country the citizens of Washington care +least for Presidents and members of the Cabinets. They know what +these officers are made of. They know that they are simply +folks—that they do not hold office forever—that the +Jupiters of to-day are often the pygmies of to-morrow. They have +seen too many people come in with trumpets and flags and go out +with hisses and rags to be overawed by the deities of a day. They +have seen Lincoln and they are not to be frightened by his +successors. Arthur took part to the extent of turning out men +suspected of being friendly to the defence. Arthur was in a +difficult place. He was understood to be the friend of Dorsey and, +of course, had to do something. Nothing is more dangerous than a +friend in power. He is obliged to show that he is impartial, and it +always takes a good deal of injustice to establish a reputation for +fairness.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Was there any ground to expect aid or any +different action on Arthur's part?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. All we expected was that Arthur would do as the +soldier wanted the Lord to do at New Orleans—"Just take +neither side."</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Why did not Brewster speak?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. The Court would not allow two closings. The +Attorney- General did not care to speak in the "middle." He wished +to close, and as he could not do that without putting Mr. Merrick +out, he concluded to remain silent. The defendants had no objection +to his speaking, but they objected to two closing arguments for the +Government, and the Court decided they were right. Of course, I +understand nothing about the way in which the attorneys for the +prosecution arranged their difficulties. That was nothing to me; +neither do I care what money they received—all that is for +the next Congress. It is not for me to speak of those +questions.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Will there be other trials?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I think not. It does not seem likely that other +attorneys will want to try, and the old ones have. My opinion is +that we have had the last of the Star Route trials. It was claimed +that the one tried was the strongest. If this is so the rest had +better be dismissed. I think the people are tired of the whole +business. It now seems probable that all the time for the next few +years will be taken up in telling about the case that was tried. I +see that Cook is telling about MacVeagh and James and Brewster and +Bliss; Walsh is giving his opinion of Kellogg and Foster; Bliss is +saying a few words about Cook and Gibson; Brewster is telling what +Bliss told him; Gibson will have his say about Garfield and +MacVeagh, and it now seems probable that we shall get the bottom +facts about the other jury—the actions of Messrs. Hoover, +Bowen, Brewster Cameron and others. Personally I have no interest +in the business.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. How does the next campaign look?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. The Republicans are making all the mistakes they +can, and the only question now is, Can the Democrats make more? The +tariff will be one of the great questions, and may be the only one +except success. The Democrats are on both sides of the question. +They hate to give up the word "only." Only for that word they might +have succeeded in 1880. If they can let "only" alone, and say they +want "a tariff for revenue" they will do better. The fact is the +people are not in favor of free trade, neither do they want a +tariff high enough to crush a class, but they do want a tariff to +raise a revenue and to protect our industries. I am for protection +because it diversifies industries and develops brain—allows +us to utilize all the muscle and brain we have. A party attacking +the manufacturing interests of this country will fail. There are +too many millions of dollars invested and too many millions of +people interested. The country is becoming alike interested in this +question. We are no longer divided, as in slavery times, into +manufacturing and agricultural districts or sections. Georgia, +Alabama, Tennessee, Louisiana and Texas have manufacturing +interests. And the Western States believe in the protection of +their industries. The American people have a genius for +manufacturing, a genius for invention. We are not the greatest +painters or sculptors or scientists, but we are without doubt the +greatest inventors. If we were all engaged in one business we would +become stupid. Agricultural countries produce great wealth, but are +never rich. To get rich it is necessary to mix thought with labor. +To raise the raw material is a question of strength; to +manufacture, to put it in useful and beautiful forms, is a question +of mind. There is a vast difference between the value of, say, a +milestone and a statue, and yet the labor expended in getting the +raw material is about the same. The point, after all, is this: +First, we must have revenue; second, shall we get this by direct +taxation or shall we tax imports and at the same time protect +American labor? The party that advocates reasonable protection will +succeed.*</p> +<pre> + [* At this point, with far away peals of thunder, the storm + ceased, the sun reappeared and a vault of heavenly blue + swung overhead. "Let us get out," said Colonel Ingersoll. + Suiting the action to the word, the Colonel struck out + lustily for the beach, on which, hard as a rock and firm as + flint, he soon planted his sturdy form. And as he lumbered + across the sand to the side door of his comfortable cottage, + some three hundred feet from the surf, the necessarily + suggested contrast between Ingersoll in court and Ingersoll + in soaked flannels was illustrated with forcible comicality. + Half an hour later he was found in the cozy library puffing + a high flavored Havana, and listening to home-made music of + delicious quality. Ingersoll at home is pleasant to + contemplate. His sense of personal freedom is there aptly + pictured. Loving wife and affectionate daughters form, with + happy-faced and genial-hearted father, a model circle into + which friends deem it a privilege to enter and a pleasure to + remain. + + Continuing the conversation, ] +</pre> +<p><i>Question</i>. In view of all this, where do you think the +presidential candidate will come from?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. From the West.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Why so?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. The South and East must compromise. Both can +trust the West. The West represents the whole country. There is no +provincialism in the West. The West is not old enough to have the +prejudice of section; it is too prosperous to have hatred, too +great to feel envy.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. You do not seem to think that Arthur has a +chance?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. No Vice-President was ever made President by the +people. It is natural to resent the accident that gave the +Vice-President the place. They regard the Vice-President as +children do a stepmother. He is looked upon as temporary—a +device to save the election—a something to stop a gap—a +lighter—a political raft. He holds the horse until another +rider is found. People do not wish death to suggest nominees for +the presidency. I do not believe it will be possible for Mr. +Arthur, no matter how well he acts, to overcome this feeling. The +people like a new man. There is some excitement in the campaign, +and besides they can have the luxury of believing that the new man +is a great man.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you not think Arthur has grown and is a +greater man than when he was elected?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Arthur was placed in very trying circumstances, +and, I think, behaved with great discretion. But he was +Vice-President, and that is a vice that people will not pardon.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. How do you regard the situation in Ohio?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I hear that the Republicans are attacking Hoadly, +saying that he is an Infidel. I know nothing about Mr. Hoadly's +theological sentiments, but he certainly has the right to have and +express his own views. If the Republicans of Ohio have made up +their minds to disfranchise the Liberals, the sooner they are +beaten the better. Why should the Republican party be so particular +about religious belief? Was Lincoln an orthodox Christian? Were the +founders of the party—the men who gave it heart and +brain—conspicuous for piety? Were the abolitionists all +believers in the inspiration of the Bible? Is Judge Hoadly to be +attacked because he exercises the liberty that he gives to others? +Has not the Republican party trouble enough with the spirituous to +let the spiritual alone? If the religious issue is made, I hope +that the party making it will be defeated. I know nothing about the +effect of the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Ohio. It is a +very curious decision and seems to avoid the Constitution with +neatness and despatch. The decision seems to rest on the difference +between the words tax and license—<i>I. e.</i>, between +allowing a man to sell whiskey for a tax of one hundred dollars or +giving him a license to sell whiskey and charging him one hundred +dollars. In this, the difference is in the law instead of the +money. So far all the prohibitory legislation on the liquor +question has been a failure. Beer is victorious, and Gambrinus now +has Olympus all to himself. On his side is the "bail"—</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. But who will win?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. The present indications are favorable to Judge +Hoadly. It is an off year. The Ohio leaders on one side are not in +perfect harmony. The Germans are afraid, and they generally vote +the Democratic ticket when in doubt. The effort to enforce the +Sunday law, to close the gardens, to make one day in the week +desolate and doleful, will give the Republicans a great deal of +hard work.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. How about Illinois?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Republican always. The Supreme Court of Illinois +has just made a good decision. That Court decided that a contract +made on Sunday can be enforced. In other words, that Sunday is not +holy enough to sanctify fraud. You can rely on a State with a Court +like that. There is very little rivalry in Illinois. I think that +General Oglesby will be the next Governor. He is one of the best +men in that State or any other.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What about Indiana?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. In that State I think General Gresham is the +coming man. He was a brave soldier, an able, honest judge, and he +will fill with honor any position he may be placed in. He is an +excellent lawyer, and has as much will as was ever put in one man. +McDonald is the most available man for the Democrats. He is safe +and in every respect reliable. He is without doubt the most popular +man in his party.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Well, Colonel, what are you up to?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Nothing. I am surrounded by sand, sea and sky. I +listen to music, bathe in the surf and enjoy myself. I am wondering +why people take interest in politics; why anybody cares about +anything; why everybody is not contented; why people want to climb +the greased pole of office and then dodge the brickbats of enemies +and rivals; why any man wishes to be President, or a member of +Congress, or in the Cabinet, or do anything except to live with the +ones he loves, and enjoy twenty-four hours every day. I wonder why +all New York does not come to Long Beach and hear Schreiner's Band +play the music of Wagner, the greatest of all composers. Finally, +in the language of Walt Whitman, "I loaf and invite my soul."</p> +<p>—<i>The Herald</i>, New York, July 1, 1883.</p> +<a name="link0027" id="link0027"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>THE INTERVIEWER.</h2> +<h3><i>Question</i>. What do you think of newspaper +interviewing?</h3> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I believe that James Redpath claims to have +invented the "interview." This system opens all doors, does away +with political pretence, batters down the fortifications of dignity +and official importance, pulls masks from solemn faces, compels +everybody to show his hand. The interviewer seems to be +omnipresent. He is the next man after the accident. If a man should +be blown up he would likely fall on an interviewer. He is the +universal interrogation point. He asks questions for a living. If +the interviewer is fair and honest he is useful, if the other way, +he is still interesting. On the whole, I regard the interviewer as +an exceedingly important person. But whether he is good or bad, he +has come to stay. He will interview us until we die, and then ask +the "friends" a few questions just to round the subject off.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think of the tendency of newspapers +is at present?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. The papers of the future, I think, will be "news" +papers. The editorial is getting shorter and shorter. The +paragraphist is taking the place of the heavy man. People rather +form their own opinions from the facts. Of course good articles +will always find readers, but the dreary, doleful, philosophical +dissertation has had its day. The magazines will fall heir to such +articles; then religious weeklies will take them up, and then they +will cease altogether.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you think the people lead the newspapers, or +do the newspapers lead them?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. The papers lead and are led. Most papers have for +sale what people want to buy. As a rule the people who buy +determine the character of the thing sold. The reading public grow +more discriminating every year, and, as a result, are less and less +"led." Violent papers—those that most freely attack private +character—are becoming less hurtful, because they are losing +their own reputations. Evil tends to correct itself. People do not +believe all they read, and there is a growing tendency to wait and +hear from the other side.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do newspapers to-day exercise as much influence +as they did twenty-five years ago?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. More, by the facts published, and less, by +editorials. As we become more civilized we are governed less by +persons and more by principles—less by faith and more by +fact. The best of all leaders is the man who teaches people to lead +themselves.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What would you define public opinion to be?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. First, in the widest sense, the opinion of the +majority, including all kinds of people. Second, in a narrower +sense, the opinion of the majority of the intellectual. Third, in +actual practice, the opinion of those who make the most noise. +Fourth, public opinion is generally a mistake, which history +records and posterity repeats.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you regard as the result of your +lectures?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. In the last fifteen years I have delivered +several hundred lectures. The world is growing more and more +liberal every day. The man who is now considered orthodox, a few +years ago would have been denounced as an Infidel. People are +thinking more and believing less. The pulpit is losing influence. +In the light of modern discovery the creeds are growing laughable. +A theologian is an intellectual mummy, and excites attention only +as a curiosity. Supernatural religion has outlived its usefulness. +The miracles and wonders of the ancients will soon occupy the same +tent. Jonah and Jack the Giant Killer, Joshua and Red Riding Hood, +Noah and Neptune, will all go into the collection of the famous +Mother Hubbard.</p> +<p>—<i>The Morning Journal</i>, New York, July 3, 1883.</p> +<a name="link0028" id="link0028"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>POLITICS AND PROHIBITION.</h2> +<h3><i>Question</i>. What do you think of the result in Ohio?</h3> +<p><i>Answer</i>. In Ohio prohibition did more harm to the +Republican chances than anything else. The Germans hold the +Republicans responsible. The German people believe in personal +liberty. They came to America to get it, and they regard any +interference in the manner or quantity of their food and drink as +an invasion of personal rights. They claim they are not questions +to be regulated by law, and I agree with them. I believe that +people will finally learn to use spirits temperately and without +abuse, but teetotalism is intemperance in itself, which breeds +resistance, and without destroying the rivulet of the appetite only +dams it and makes it liable to break out at any moment. You can +prevent a man from stealing by tying his hands behind him, but you +cannot make him honest. Prohibition breeds too many spies and +informers, and makes neighbors afraid of each other. It kills +hospitality. Again, the Republican party in Ohio is endeavoring to +have Sunday sanctified by the Legislature. The working people want +freedom on Sunday. They wish to enjoy themselves, and all laws now +making to prevent innocent amusement, beget a spirit of resentment +among the common people. I feel like resenting all such laws, and +unless the Republican party reforms in that particular, it ought to +be defeated. I regard those two things as the principal causes of +the Republican party's defeat in Ohio.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you believe that the Democratic success was +due to the possession of reverse principles?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I do not think that the Democratic party is in +favor of liberty of thought and action in these two regards, from +principle, but rather from policy. Finding the course pursued by +the Republicans unpopular, they adopted the opposite mode, and +their success is a proof of the truth of what I contend. One great +trouble in the Republican party is bigotry. The pulpit is always +trying to take charge. The same thing exists in the Democratic +party to a less degree. The great trouble here is that its worst +element—Catholicism —is endeavoring to get control.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What causes operated for the Republican success +in Iowa?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Iowa is a prohibition State and almost any law on +earth as against anything to drink, can be carried there. There are +no large cities in the State and it is much easier to govern, but +even there the prohibition law is bound to be a failure. It will +breed deceit and hypocrisy, and in the long run the influence will +be bad.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Will these two considerations cut any figure in +the presidential campaign of 1884?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. The party, as a party, will have nothing to do +with these questions. These matters are local. Whether the +Republicans are successful will depend more upon the country's +prosperity. If things should be generally in pretty good shape in +1884, the people will allow the party to remain in power. Changes +of administration depend a great deal on the feeling of the +country. If crops are bad and money is tight, the people blame the +administration, whether it is responsible or not. If a ship going +down the river strikes a snag, or encounters a storm, a cry goes up +against the captain. It may not have been his fault, but he is +blamed, all the same, and the passengers at once clamor for another +captain. So it is in politics.</p> +<p>If nothing interferes between this and 1884, the Republican +party will continue. Otherwise it will be otherwise. But the +principle of prosperity as applied to administrative change is +strong. If the panic of 1873 had occurred in 1876 there would have +been no occasion for a commission to sit on Tilden. If it had +struck us in 1880, Hancock would have been elected. Neither result +would have its occasion in the superiority of the Democratic party, +but in the belief that the Republican party was in some vague way +blamable for the condition of things, and there should be a change. +The Republican party is not as strong as it used to be. The old +leaders have dropped out and no persons have yet taken their +places. Blaine has dropped out, and is now writing a book. Conkling +dropped out and is now practicing law, and so I might go on +enumerating leaders who have severed their connection with the +party and are no longer identified with it.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What is your opinion regarding the Republican +nomination for President?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. My belief is that the Republicans will have to +nominate some man who has not been conspicuous in any faction, and +upon whom all can unite. As a consequence he must be a new man. The +Democrats must do the same. They must nominate a new man. The old +ones have been defeated so often that they start handicapped with +their own histories, and failure in the past is very poor raw +material out of which to manufacture faith for the future. My own +judgment is that for the Democrats, McDonald is as strong a man as +they can get. He is a man of most excellent sense and would be +regarded as a safe man. Tilden? He is dead, and he occupies no +stronger place in the general heart than a graven image. With no +magnetism, he has nothing save his smartness to recommend him.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What are your views, generally expressed, on +the tariff?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. There are a great many Democrats for protection +and a great many for so-called free trade. I think the large +majority of American people favor a reasonable tariff for raising +our revenue and protecting our manufactures. I do not believe in +tariff for revenue only, but for revenue and protection. The +Democrats would have carried the country had they combined revenue +and incidental protection.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Are they rectifying the error now?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I believe they are, already. They will do it next +fall. If they do not put it in their platform they will embody it +in their speeches. I do not regard the tariff as a local, but a +national issue, notwithstanding Hancock inclined to the belief that +it was the former.</p> +<p>—<i>The Times</i>, Chicago, Illinois, October 13, +1883.</p> +<a name="link0029" id="link0029"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>THE REPUBLICAN DEFEAT IN OHIO.</h2> +<p><i>Question</i>. What is your explanation of the Republican +disaster last Tuesday?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Too much praying and not enough paying, is my +explanation of the Republican defeat.</p> +<p><i>First</i>. I think the attempt to pass the Prohibition +Amendment lost thousands of votes. The people of this country, no +matter how much they may deplore the evils of intemperance, are not +yet willing to set on foot a system of spying into each other's +affairs. They know that prohibition would need thousands of +officers—that it would breed informers and spies and peekers +and skulkers by the hundred in every county. They know that laws do +not of themselves make good people. Good people make good laws. +Americans do not wish to be temperate upon compulsion. The spirit +that resents interference in these matters is the same spirit that +made and keeps this a free country. All this crusade and +prayer-meeting business will not do in politics. We must depend +upon the countless influences of civilization, upon science, art, +music—upon the softening influences of kindness and argument. +As life becomes valuable people will take care of it. Temperance +upon compulsion destroys something more valuable than +itself—liberty. I am for the largest liberty in all +things.</p> +<p><i>Second</i>. The Prohibitionists, in my opinion, traded with +Democrats. The Democrats were smart enough to know that prohibition +could not carry, and that they could safely trade. The +Prohibitionists were insane enough to vote for their worst enemies, +just for the sake of polling a large vote for prohibition, and were +fooled as usual.</p> +<p><i>Thirdly</i>. Certain personal hatreds of certain Republican +politicians. These were the causes which led to Republican defeat +in Ohio.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Will it necessitate the nomination of an Ohio +Republican next year?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I do not think so. Defeat is apt to breed +dissension, and on account of that dissension the party will have +to take a man from some other State. One politician will say to +another, "You did it," and another will reply, "You are the man who +ruined the party." I think we have given Ohio her share; certainly +she has given us ours.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Will this reverse seriously affect Republican +chances next year?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. If the country is prosperous next year, if the +crops are good, if prices are fair, if Pittsburg is covered with +smoke, if the song of the spindle is heard in Lowell, if stocks are +healthy, the Republicans will again succeed. If the reverse as to +crops and forges and spindles, then the Democrats will win. It is a +question of "chich-bugs," and floods and drouths.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Who, in your judgment, would be the strongest +man the Republicans could put up?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Last year I thought General Sherman, but he has +gone to Missouri, and now I am looking around. The first day I find +out I will telegraph you.</p> +<p>—<i>The Democrat</i>, Dayton, Ohio, October 15, 1883.</p> +<a name="link0030" id="link0030"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>THE CIVIL RIGHTS BILL.</h2> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think of the recent opinion of the +Supreme Court touching the rights of the colored man?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I think it is all wrong. The intention of the +framers of the amendment, by virtue of which the law was passed, +was that no distinction should be made in inns, in hotels, cars, or +in theatres; in short, in public places, on account of color, race, +or previous condition. The object of the men who framed that +amendment to the Constitution was perfectly clear, perfectly well +known, perfectly understood. They intended to secure, by an +amendment to the fundamental law, what had been fought for by +hundreds of thousands of men. They knew that the institution of +slavery had cost rebellion; the also knew that the spirit of caste +was only slavery in another form. They intended to kill that +spirit. Their object was that the law, like the sun, should shine +upon all, and that no man keeping a hotel, no corporation running +cars, no person managing a theatre should make any distinction on +account of race or color. This amendment is above all praise. It +was the result of a moral exaltation, such as the world never +before had seen. There were years during the war, and after, when +the American people were simply sublime; when their generosity was +boundless; when they were willing to endure any hardship to make +this an absolutely free country.</p> +<p>This decision of the Supreme Court puts the best people of the +colored race at the mercy of the meanest portion of the white race. +It allows a contemptible white man to trample upon a good colored +man. I believe in drawing a line between good and bad, between +clean and unclean, but I do not believe in drawing a color line +which is as cruel as the lash of slavery.</p> +<p>I am willing to be on an equality in all hotels, in all cars, in +all theatres, with colored people. I make no distinction of race. +Those make the distinction who cannot afford not to. If nature has +made no distinction between me and some others, I do not ask the +aid of the Legislature. I am willing to associate with all good, +clean persons, irrespective of complexion.</p> +<p>This decision virtually gives away one of the great principles +for which the war was fought. It carries the doctrine of "State +Rights" to the Democratic extreme, and renders necessary either +another amendment or a new court.</p> +<p>I agree with Justice Harlan. He has taken a noble and patriotic +stand. Kentucky rebukes Massachusetts! I am waiting with some +impatience—impatient because I anticipate a +pleasure—for his dissenting opinion. Only a little while ago +Justice Harlan took a very noble stand on the Virginia Coupon +cases, in which was involved the right of a State to repudiate its +debts. Now he has taken a stand in favor of the civil rights of the +colored man; and in both instances I think he is right.</p> +<p>This decision may, after all, help the Republican party. A +decision of the Supreme Court aroused the indignation of the entire +North, and I hope the present decision will have a like effect. The +good people of this country will not be satisfied until every man +beneath the flag, without the slightest respect to his complexion, +stands on a perfect equality before the law with every other. Any +government that makes a distinction on account of color, is a +disgrace to the age in which we live. The idea that a man like +Frederick Douglass can be denied entrance to a car, that the doors +of a hotel can be shut in his face; that he may be prevented from +entering a theatre; the idea that there shall be some ignominious +corner into which such a man can be thrown simply by a decision of +the Supreme Court! This idea is simply absurd.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What remains to be done now, and who is going +to do it?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. For a good while people have been saying that the +Republican party has outlived its usefulness; that there is very +little difference now between the parties; that there is hardly +enough left to talk about. This decision opens the whole question. +This decision says to the Republican party, "Your mission is not +yet ended. This is not a free country. Our flag does not protect +the rights of a human being." This decision is the tap of a drum. +The old veterans will fall into line. This decision gives the issue +for the next campaign, and it may be that the Supreme Court has +builded wiser than it knew. This is a greater question than the +tariff or free trade. It is a question of freedom, of human rights, +of the sacredness of humanity.</p> +<p>The real Americans, the real believers in Liberty, will give +three cheers for Judge Harlan.</p> +<p>One word more. The Government is bound to protect its citizens, +not only when they are away from home, but when they are under the +flag. In time of war the Government has a right to draft any +citizen; to put that citizen in the line of battle, and compel him +to fight for the nation. If the Government when imperiled has the +right to compel a citizen, whether white or black, to defend with +his blood the flag, that citizen, when imperiled, has the right to +demand protection from the Nation. The Nation cannot then say, "You +must appeal to your State." If the citizen must appeal to the State +for redress, then the citizen should defend the State and not the +General Government, and the doctrine of State Rights then becomes +complete.</p> +<p>—<i>The National Republican</i>, Washington, D. C., +October 17, 1883.</p> +<a name="link0031" id="link0031"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>JUSTICE HARLAN AND THE CIVIL RIGHTS BILL.</h2> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think of Justice Harlan's +dissenting opinion in the Civil Rights case?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I have just read it and think it admirable in +every respect. It is unanswerable. He has given to words their +natural meaning. He has recognized the intention of the framers of +the recent amendments. There is nothing in this opinion that is +strained, insincere, or artificial. It is frank and manly. It is +solid masonry, without crack or flaw. He does not resort to legal +paint or putty, or to verbal varnish or veneer. He states the +position of his brethren of the bench with perfect fairness, and +overturns it with perfect ease. He has drawn an instructive +parallel between the decisions of the olden time, upholding the +power of Congress to deal with individuals in the interests of +slavery, and the power conferred on Congress by the recent +amendments. He has shown by the old decisions, that when a duty is +enjoined upon Congress, ability to perform it is given; that when a +certain end is required, all necessary means are granted. He also +shows that the Fugitive Slave Acts of 1793 and of 1850, rested +entirely upon the implied power of Congress to enforce a master's +rights; and that power was once implied in favor of slavery against +human rights, and implied from language shadowy, feeble and +uncertain when compared with the language of the recent amendments. +He has shown, too, that Congress exercised the utmost ingenuity in +devising laws to enforce the master's claim. Implication was held +ample to deprive a human being of his liberty, but to secure +freedom, the doctrine of implication is abandoned. As a foundation +for wrong, implication was their rock. As a foundation for right, +it is now sand. Implied power then was sufficient to enslave, while +power expressly given is now impotent to protect.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think of the use he has made of the +Dred Scott decision?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Well, I think he has shown conclusively that the +present decision, under the present circumstances, is far worse +than the Dred Scott decision was under the then circumstances. The +Dred Scott decision was a libel upon the best men of the +Revolutionary period. That decision asserted broadly that our +forefathers regarded the negroes as having no rights which white +men were bound to respect; that the negroes were merely +merchandise, and that that opinion was fixed and universal in the +civilized portion of the white race, and that no one thought of +disputing it. Yet Franklin contended that slavery might be +abolished under the preamble of the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson +said that if the slave should rise to cut the throat of his master, +God had no attribute that would side against the slave. Thomas +Paine attacked the institution with all the intensity and passion +of his nature. John Adams regarded the institution with horror. So +did every civilized man, South and North.</p> +<p>Justice Harlan shows conclusively that the Thirteenth Amendment +was adopted in the light of the Dred Scott decision; that it +overturned and destroyed, not simply the decision, but the +reasoning upon which it was based; that it proceeded upon the +ground that the colored people had rights that white men were bound +to respect, not only, but that the Nation was bound to protect. He +takes the ground that the amendment was suggested by the condition +of that race, which had been declared by the Supreme Court of the +United States to have no rights which white men were bound to +respect; that it was made to protect people whose rights had been +invaded, and whose strong arms had assisted in the overthrow of the +Rebellion; that it was made for the purpose of putting these men +upon a legal authority with white citizens.</p> +<p>Justice Harland also shows that while legislation of Congress to +enforce a master's right was upheld by implication, the rights of +the negro do not depend upon that doctrine; that the Thirteenth +Amendment does not rest upon implication, or upon inference; that +by its terms it places the power in Congress beyond the possibility +of a doubt—conferring the power to enforce the amendment by +appropriate legislation in express terms; and he also shows that +the Supreme Court has admitted that legislation for that purpose +may be direct and primary. Had not the power been given in express +terms, Justice Harlan contends that the sweeping declaration that +neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist would by +implication confer the power. He also shows conclusively that, +under the Thirteenth Amendment, Congress has the right by +appropriate legislation to protect the colored people against the +deprivation of any right on account of their race, and that +Congress is not necessarily restricted, under the Thirteenth +Amendment, to legislation against slavery as an institution, but +that power may be exerted to the extent of protecting the race from +discrimination in respect to such rights as belong to freemen, +where such discrimination is based on race or color.</p> +<p>If Justice Harlan is wrong the amendments are left without force +and Congress without power. No purpose can be assigned for their +adoption. No object can be guessed that was to be accomplished. +They become words, so arranged that they sound like sense, but when +examined fall meaninglessly apart. Under the decision of the +Supreme Court they are Quaker cannon—cloud +forts—"property" for political stage scenery—coats of +mail made of bronzed paper— shields of gilded +pasteboard—swords of lath.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you wish to say anything as to the reasoning +of Justice Harlan on the rights of colored people on railways, in +inns and theatres?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Yes, I do. That part of the opinion is especially +strong. He shows conclusively that a common carrier is in the +exercise of a sort of public office and has public duties to +perform, and that he cannot exonerate himself from the performance +of these duties without the consent of the parties concerned. He +also shows that railroads are public highways, and that the railway +company is the agent of the State, and that a railway, although +built by private capital, is just as public in its nature as though +constructed by the State itself. He shows that the railway is +devoted to public use, and subject to be controlled by the State +for the public benefit, and that for these reasons the colored man +has the same rights upon the railway that he has upon the public +highway.</p> +<p>Justice Harlan shows that the same law is applicable to inns +that is applicable to railways; that an inn-keeper is bound to take +all travelers if he can accommodate them; that he is not to select +his guests; that he has not right to say to one "you may come in," +and to another "you shall not;" that every one who conducts himself +in a proper manner has a right to be received. He shows +conclusively that an inn-keeper is a sort of public servant; that +he is in the exercise of a <i>quasi</i> public employment, that he +is given special privileges, and charged with duties of a public +character.</p> +<p>As to theatres, I think his argument most happy. It is this: +Theatres are licensed by law. The authority to maintain them comes +from the public. The colored race being a part of the public, +representing the power granting the license, why should the colored +people license a manager to open his doors to the white man and +shut them in the face of the black man? Why should they be +compelled to license that which they are not permitted to enjoy? +Justice Harlan shows that Congress has the power to prevent +discrimination on account of race or color on railways, at inns, +and in places of public amusements, and has this power under the +Thirteenth Amendment.</p> +<p>In discussing the Fourteenth Amendment, Justice Harlan points +out that a prohibition upon a State is not a power in Congress or +the National Government, but is simply a denial of power to the +State; that such was the Constitution before the Fourteenth +Amendment. He shows, however, that the Fourteenth Amendment +presents the first instance in our history of the investiture of +Congress with affirmative power by legislation to enforce an +express prohibition upon the States. This is an important point. It +is stated with great clearness, and defended with great force. He +shows that the first clause of the first section of the Fourteenth +Amendment is of a distinctly affirmative character, and that +Congress would have had the power to legislate directly as to that +section simply by implication, but that as to that as well as the +express prohibitions upon the States, express power to legislate +was given.</p> +<p>There is one other point made by Justice Harlan which transfixes +as with a spear the decision of the Court. It is this: As soon as +the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments were adopted the colored +citizen was entitled to the protection of section two, article +four, namely: "The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all +the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States." +Now, suppose a colored citizen of Mississippi moves to Tennessee. +Then, under the section last quoted, he would immediately become +invested with all the privileges and immunities of a white citizen +of Tennessee. Although denied these privileges and immunities in +the State from which he emigrated, in the State to which he +immigrates he could not be discriminated against on account of his +color under the second section of the fourth article. Now, is it +possible that he gets additional rights by immigration? Is it +possible that the General Government is under a greater obligation +to protect him in a State of which he is not a citizen than in a +State of which he is a citizen? Must he leave home for protection, +and after he has lived long enough in the State to which he +immigrates to become a citizen there, must he again move in order +to protect his rights? Must one adopt the doctrine of peripatetic +protection—the doctrine that the Constitution is good only +<i>in transitu</i>, and that when the citizen stops, the +Constitution goes on and leaves him without protection?</p> +<p>Justice Harlan shows that Congress had the right to legislate +directly while that power was only implied, but that the moment +this power was conferred in express terms, then according to the +Supreme Court, it was lost.</p> +<p>There is another splendid definition given by Justice +Harlan—a line drawn as broad as the Mississippi. It is the +distinction between the rights conferred by a State and rights +conferred by the Nation. Admitting that many rights conferred by a +State cannot be enforced directly by Congress, Justice Harlan shows +that rights granted by the Nation to an individual may be protected +by direct legislation. This is a distinction that should not be +forgotten, and it is a definition clear and perfect.</p> +<p>Justice Harlan has shown that the Supreme Court failed to take +into consideration the intention of the framers of the amendment; +failed to see that the powers of Congress were given by express +terms and did not rest upon implication; failed to see that the +Thirteenth Amendment was broad enough to cover the Civil Rights +Act; failed to see that under the three amendments rights and +privileges were conferred by the Nation on citizens of the several +States, and that these rights are under the perpetual protection of +the General Government, and that for their enforcement Congress has +the right to legislate directly; failed to see that all +implications are now in favor of liberty instead of slavery; failed +to comprehend that we have a new nation with a new foundation, with +different objects, ends, and aims, for the attainment of which we +use different means and have been clothed with greater powers; +failed to see that the Republic changed front; failed to appreciate +the real reasons for the adoption of the amendments, and failed to +understand that the Civil Rights Act was passed in order that a +citizen of the United States might appeal from local prejudice to +national justice.</p> +<p>Justice Harlan shows that it was the object to accomplish for +the black man what had been accomplished for the white +man—that is, to protect all their rights as free men and +citizens; and that the one underlying purpose of the amendments and +of the congressional legislation has been to clothe the black race +with all the rights of citizenship, and to compel a recognition of +their rights by citizens and States—that the object was to do +away with class tyranny, the meanest and basest form of +oppression.</p> +<p>If Justice Harlan was wrong in his position, then, it may +truthfully be said of the three amendments that:</p> +<pre> + "The law hath bubbles as the water has, + And these are of them." +</pre> +<p>The decision of the Supreme Court denies the protection of the +Nation to the citizens of the Nation. That decision has already +borne fruit—the massacre at Danville. The protection of the +Nation having been withdrawn, the colored man was left to the mercy +of local prejudices and hatreds. He is without appeal, without +redress. The Supreme Court tells him that he must depend upon his +enemies for justice.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. You seem to agree with all that Justice Harlan +has said, and to have the greatest admiration for his opinion?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Yes, a man rises from reading this dissenting +opinion refreshed, invigorated, and strengthened. It is a mental +and moral tonic. It was produced after a clear head had held +conference with a good heart. It will furnish a perfectly clear +plank, without knot or wind-shake, for the next Republican +platform. It is written in good plain English, and ornamented with +good sound sense. The average man can and will understand its every +word. There is no subterfuge in it.</p> +<p>Each position is taken in the open field. There is no resort to +quibbles or technicalities—no hiding. Nothing is secreted in +the sleeve—no searching for blind paths—no stooping and +looking for ancient tracks, grass-grown and dim. Each argument +travels the highway—"the big road." It is logical. The facts +and conclusions agree, and fall naturally into line of battle. It +is sincere and candid—unpretentious and unanswerable. It is a +grand defence of human rights—a brave and manly plea for +universal justice. It leaves the decision of the Supreme Court +without argument, without reason, and without excuse. Such an +exhibition of independence, courage and ability has won for Justice +Harlan the respect and admiration of "both sides," and places him +in the front rank of constitutional lawyers.</p> +<p>—<i>The Inter-Ocean</i>, Chicago, Illinois, November 29, +1883.</p> +<a name="link0032" id="link0032"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>POLITICS AND THEOLOGY.</h2> +<h3><i>Question</i>. What is your opinion of Brewster's +administration?</h3> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I hardly think I ought to say much about the +administration of Mr. Brewster. Of course many things have been +done that I thought, and still think, extremely bad; but whether +Mr. Brewster was responsible for the things done, or not, I do not +pretend to say. When he was appointed to his present position, +there was great excitement in the country about the Star Route +cases, and Mr. Brewster was expected to prosecute everybody and +everything to the extent of the law; in fact, I believe he was +appointed by reason of having made such a promise. At that time +there were hundreds of people interested in exaggerating all the +facts connected with the Star Route cases, and when there were no +facts to be exaggerated, they made some, and exaggerated them +afterward. It may be that the Attorney-General was misled, and he +really supposed that all he heard was true. My objection to the +administration of the Department of Justice is, that a resort was +had to spies and detectives. The battle was not fought in the open +field. Influences were brought to bear. Nearly all departments of +the Government were enlisted. Everything was done to create a +public opinion in favor of the prosecution. Everything was done +that the cases might be decided on prejudice instead of upon +facts.</p> +<p>Everything was done to demoralize, frighten and overawe judges, +witnesses and jurors. I do not pretend to say who was responsible, +possibly I am not an impartial judge. I was deeply interested at +the time, and felt all of these things, rather than reasoned about +them.</p> +<p>Possibly I cannot give a perfectly unbiased opinion. Personally, +I have no feeling now upon the subject.</p> +<p>The Department of Justice, in spite of its methods, did not +succeed. That was enough for me. I think, however, when the country +knows the facts, that the people will not approve of what was done. +I do not believe in trying cases in the newspapers before they are +submitted to jurors. That is a little too early. Neither do I +believe in trying them in the newspapers after the verdicts have +been rendered. That is a little too late.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What are Mr. Blaine's chances for the +presidency?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. My understanding is that Mr. Blaine is not a +candidate for the nomination; that he does not wish his name to be +used in that connection. He ought to have been nominated in 1876, +and if he were a candidate, he would probably have the largest +following; but my understanding is, that he does not, in any event, +wish to be a candidate. He is a man perfectly familiar with the +politics of this country, knows its history by heart, and is in +every respect probably as well qualified to act as its Chief +Magistrate as any man in the nation. He is a man of ideas, of +action, and has positive qualities. He would not wait for something +to turn up, and things would not have to wait long for him to turn +them up.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Who do you think will be nominated at +Chicago?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Of course I have not the slightest idea who will +be nominated. I may have an opinion as to who ought to be +nominated, and yet I may be greatly mistaken in that opinion. There +are hundreds of men in the Republican party, any one of whom, if +elected, would make a good, substantial President, and there are +many thousands of men about whom I know nothing, any one of whom +would in all probability make a good President. We do not want any +man to govern this country. This country governs itself. We want a +President who will honestly and faithfully execute the laws, who +will appoint postmasters and do the requisite amount of handshaking +on public occasions, and we have thousands of men who can discharge +the duties of that position. Washington is probably the worst place +to find out anything definite upon the subject of presidential +booms. I have thought for a long time that one of the most valuable +men in the country was General Sherman. Everybody knows who and +what he is. He has one great advantage—he is a frank and +outspoken man. He has opinions and he never hesitates about letting +them be known. There is considerable talk about Judge Harlan. His +dissenting opinion in the Civil Rights case has made every colored +man his friend, and I think it will take considerable public +patronage to prevent a good many delegates from the Southern States +voting for him.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What are your present views on theology?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Well, I think my views have not undergone any +change that I know of. I still insist that observation, reason and +experience are the things to be depended upon in this world. I +still deny the existence of the supernatural. I still insist that +nobody can be good for you, or bad for you; that you cannot be +punished for the crimes of others, nor rewarded for their virtues. +I still insist that the consequences of good actions are always +good, and those of bad actions always bad. I insist that nobody can +plant thistles and gather figs; neither can they plant figs and +gather thistles. I still deny that a finite being can commit an +infinite sin; but I continue to insist that a God who would punish +a man forever is an infinite tyrant. My views have undergone no +change, except that the evidence of that truth constantly +increases, and the dogmas of the church look, if possible, a little +absurder every day. Theology, you know, is not a science. It stops +at the grave; and faith is the end of theology. Ministers have not +even the advantage of the doctors; the doctors sometimes can tell +by a post-mortem examination whether they killed the man or not; +but by cutting a man open after he is dead, the wisest theologians +cannot tell what has become of his soul, and whether it was injured +or helped by a belief in the inspiration of the Scriptures. +Theology depends on assertion for evidence, and on faith for +disciples.</p> +<p>—<i>The Tribune</i>, Denver, Colorado, January 17, +1886.</p> +<a name="link0033" id="link0033"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>MORALITY AND IMMORTALITY.</h2> +<p><i>Question</i>. I see that the clergy are still making all +kinds of charges against you and your doctrines.</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Yes. Some of the charges are true and some of +them are not. I suppose that they intend to get in the vicinity of +veracity, and are probably stating my belief as it is honestly +misunderstood by them. I admit that I have said and that I still +think that Christianity is a blunder. But the question arises, What +is Christianity? I do not mean, when I say that Christianity is a +blunder, that the morality taught by Christians is a mistake. +Morality is not distinctively Christian, any more than it is +Mohammedan. Morality is human, it belongs to no ism, and does not +depend for a foundation upon the supernatural, or upon any book, or +upon any creed. Morality is itself a foundation. When I say that +Christianity is a blunder, I mean all those things distinctively +Christian are blunders. It is a blunder to say that an infinite +being lived in Palestine, learned the carpenter's trade, raised the +dead, cured the blind, and cast out devils, and that this God was +finally assassinated by the Jews. This is absurd. All these +statements are blunders, if not worse. I do not believe that Christ +ever claimed that he was of supernatural origin, or that he wrought +miracles, or that he would rise from the dead. If he did, he was +mistaken—honestly mistaken, perhaps, but still mistaken.</p> +<p>The morality inculcated by Mohammed is good. The immorality +inculcated by Mohammed is bad. If Mohammed was a prophet of God, it +does not make the morality he taught any better, neither does it +make the immorality any better or any worse.</p> +<p>By this time the whole world ought to know that morality does +not need to go into partnership with miracles. Morality is based +upon the experience of mankind. It does not have to learn of +inspired writers, or of gods, or of divine persons. It is a lesson +that the whole human race has been learning and learning from +experience. He who upholds, or believes in, or teaches, the +miraculous, commits a blunder.</p> +<p>Now, what is morality? Morality is the best thing to do under +the circumstances. Anything that tends to the happiness of mankind +is moral. Anything that tends to unhappiness is immoral. We apply +to the moral world rules and regulations as we do in the physical +world. The man who does justice, or tries to do so—who is +honest and kind and gives to others what he claims for himself, is +a moral man. All actions must be judged by their consequences. +Where the consequences are good, the actions are good. Where the +consequences are bad, the actions are bad; and all consequences are +learned from experience. After we have had a certain amount of +experience, we then reason from analogy. We apply our logic and say +that a certain course will bring destruction, another course will +bring happiness. There is nothing inspired about +morality—nothing supernatural. It is simply good, common +sense, going hand in hand with kindness.</p> +<p>Morality is capable of being demonstrated. You do not have to +take the word of anybody; you can observe and examine for yourself. +Larceny is the enemy of industry, and industry is good; therefore +larceny is immoral. The family is the unit of good government; +anything that tends to destroy the family is immoral. Honesty is +the mother of confidence; it united, combines and solidifies +society. Dishonesty is disintegration; it destroys confidence; it +brings social chaos; it is therefore immoral.</p> +<p>I also admit that I regard the Mosaic account of the creation as +an absurdity—as a series of blunders. Probably Moses did the +best he could. He had never talked with Humboldt or Laplace. He +knew nothing of geology or astronomy. He had not the slightest +suspicion of Kepler's Three Laws. He never saw a copy of Newton's +Principia. Taking all these things into consideration, I think +Moses did the best he could.</p> +<p>The religious people say now that "days" did not mean days. Of +these "six days" they make a kind of telescope, which you can push +in or draw out at pleasure. If the geologists find that more time +was necessary they will stretch them out. Should it turn out that +the world is not quite as old as some think, they will push them +up. The "six days" can now be made to suit any period of time. +Nothing can be more childish, frivolous or contradictory.</p> +<p>Only a few years ago the Mosaic account was considered true, and +Moses was regarded as a scientific authority. Geology and astronomy +were measured by the Mosaic standard. The opposite is now true. The +church has changed; and instead of trying to prove that modern +astronomy and geology are false, because they do not agree with +Moses, it is now endeavoring to prove that the account by Moses is +true, because it agrees with modern astronomy and geology. In other +words, the standard has changed; the ancient is measured by the +modern, and where the literal statement in the Bible does not agree +with modern discoveries, they do not change the discoveries, but +give new meanings to the old account. We are not now endeavoring to +reconcile science with the Bible, but to reconcile the Bible with +science.</p> +<p>Nothing shows the extent of modern doubt more than the eagerness +with which Christians search for some new testimony. Luther +answered Copernicus with a passage of Scripture, and he answered +him to the satisfaction of orthodox ignorance.</p> +<p>The truth is that the Jews adopted the stories of Creation, the +Garden of Eden, Forbidden Fruit, and the Fall of Man. They were +told by older barbarians than they, and the Jews gave them to +us.</p> +<p>I never said that the Bible is all bad. I have always admitted +that there are many good and splendid things in the Jewish +Scriptures, and many bad things. What I insist is that we should +have the courage and the common sense to accept the good, and throw +away the bad. Evil is not good because found in good company, and +truth is still truth, even when surrounded by falsehood.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. I see that you are frequently charged with +disrespect toward your parents—with lack of reverence for the +opinions of your father?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I think my father and mother upon several +religious questions were mistaken. In fact, I have no doubt that +they were; but I never felt under the slightest obligation to +defend my father's mistakes. No one can defend what he thinks is a +mistake, without being dishonest. That is a poor way to show +respect for parents. Every Protestant clergyman asks men and women +who had Catholic parents to desert the church in which they were +raised. They have no hesitation in saying to these people that +their fathers and mothers were mistaken, and that they were +deceived by priests and popes.</p> +<p>The probability is that we are all mistaken about almost +everything; but it is impossible for a man to be respectable enough +to make a mistake respectable. There is nothing remarkably holy in +a blunder, or praiseworthy in stubbing the toe of the mind against +a mistake. Is it possible that logic stands paralyzed in the +presence of paternal absurdity? Suppose a man has a bad father; is +he bound by the bad father's opinion, when he is satisfied that the +opinion is wrong? How good does a father have to be, in order to +put his son under obligation to defend his blunders? Suppose the +father thinks one way, and the mother the other; what are the +children to do? Suppose the father changes his opinion; what then? +Suppose the father thinks one way and the mother the other, and +they both die when the boy is young; and the boy is bound out; +whose mistakes is he then bound to follow? Our missionaries tell +the barbarian boy that his parents are mistaken, that they know +nothing, and that the wooden god is nothing but a senseless idol. +They do not hesitate to tell this boy that his mother believed +lies, and hugged, it may be to her dying heart, a miserable +delusion. Why should a barbarian boy cast reproach upon his +parents?</p> +<p>I believe it was Christ who commanded his disciples to leave +father and mother; not only to leave them, but to desert them; and +not only to desert father and mother, but to desert wives and +children. It is also told of Christ that he said that he came to +set fathers against children and children against fathers. Strange +that a follower of his should object to a man differing in opinion +from his parents! The truth is, logic knows nothing of +consanguinity; facts have no relatives but other facts; and these +facts do not depend upon the character of the person who states +them, or upon the position of the discoverer. And this leads me to +another branch of the same subject.</p> +<p>The ministers are continually saying that certain great +men—kings, presidents, statesmen, millionaires—have +believed in the inspiration of the Bible. Only the other day, I +read a sermon in which Carlyle was quoted as having said that "the +Bible is a noble book." That all may be and yet the book not be +inspired. But what is the simple assertion of Thomas Carlyle worth? +If the assertion is based upon a reason, then it is worth simply +the value of the reason, and the reason is worth just as much +without the assertion, but without the reason the assertion is +worthless. Thomas Carlyle thought, and solemnly put the thought in +print, that his father was a greater man than Robert Burns. His +opinion did Burns no harm, and his father no good. Since reading +his "Reminiscences," I have no great opinion of his opinion. In +some respects he was undoubtedly a great man, in others a small +one.</p> +<p>No man should give the opinion of another as authority and in +place of fact and reason, unless he is willing to take all the +opinions of that man. An opinion is worth the warp and woof of fact +and logic in it and no more. A man cannot add to the truthfulness +of truth. In the ordinary business of life, we give certain weight +to the opinion of specialists—to the opinion of doctors, +lawyers, scientists, and historians. Within the domain of the +natural, we take the opinions of our fellow-men; but we do not feel +that we are absolutely bound by these opinions. We have the right +to re- examine them, and if we find they are wrong we feel at +liberty to say so. A doctor is supposed to have studied medicine; +to have examined and explored the questions entering into his +profession; but we know that doctors are often mistaken. We also +know that there are many schools of medicine; that these schools +disagree with one another, and that the doctors of each school +disagree with one another. We also know that many patients die, and +so far as we know, these patients have not come back to tell us +whether the doctors killed them or not. The grave generally +prevents a demonstration. It is exactly the same with the clergy. +They have many schools of theology, all despising each other. +Probably no two members of the same church exactly agree. They +cannot demonstrate their propositions, because between the premise +and the logical conclusion or demonstration, stands the tomb. A +gravestone marks the end of theology. In some cases, the physician +can, by a post- mortem examination, find what killed the patient, +but there is no theological post-mortem. It is impossible, by +cutting a body open, to find where the soul has gone; or whether +baptism, or the lack of it, had the slightest effect upon final +destiny. The church, knowing that there are no facts beyond the +coffin, relies upon opinions, assertions and theories. For this +reason it is always asking alms of distinguished people. Some +President wishes to be re-elected, and thereupon speaks about the +Bible as "the corner- stone of American Liberty." This sentence is +a mouth large enough to swallow any church, and from that time +forward the religious people will be citing that remark of the +politician to substantiate the inspiration of the Scriptures.</p> +<p>The man who accepts opinions because they have been entertained +by distinguished people, is a mental snob. When we blindly follow +authority we are serfs. When our reason is convinced we are +freemen. It is rare to find a fully rounded and complete man. A man +may be a great doctor and a poor mechanic, a successful politician +and a poor metaphysician, a poor painter and a good poet.</p> +<p>The rarest thing in the world is a logician—that is to +say, a man who knows the value of a fact. It is hard to find mental +proportion. Theories may be established by names, but facts cannot +be demonstrated in that way. Very small people are sometimes right, +and very great people are sometimes wrong. Ministers are sometimes +right.</p> +<p>In all the philosophies of the world there are undoubtedly +contradictions and absurdities. The mind of man is imperfect and +perfect results are impossible. A mirror, in order to reflect a +perfect picture, a perfect copy, must itself be perfect. The mind +is a little piece of intellectual glass the surface of which is not +true, not perfect. In consequence of this, every image is more or +less distorted. The less we know, the more we imagine that we can +know; but the more we know, the smaller seems the sum of knowledge. +The less we know, the more we expect, the more we hope for, and the +more seems within the range of probability. The less we have, the +more we want. There never was a banquet magnificent enough to +gratify the imagination of a beggar. The moment people begin to +reason about what they call the supernatural, they seem to lose +their minds. People seem to have lost their reason in religious +matters, very much as the dodo is said to have lost its wings; they +have been restricted to a little inspired island, and by disuse +their reason has been lost.</p> +<p>In the Jewish Scriptures you will find simply the literature of +the Jews. You will find there the tears and anguish of captivity, +patriotic fervor, national aspiration, proverbs for the conduct of +daily life, laws, regulations, customs, legends, philosophy and +folly. These books, of course, were not written by one man, but by +many authors. They do not agree, having been written in different +centuries, under different circumstances. I see that Mr. Beecher +has at last concluded that the Old Testament does not teach the +doctrine of immortality. He admits that from Mount Sinai came no +hope for the dead. It is very curious that we find in the Old +Testament no funeral service. No one stands by the dead and +predicts another life. In the Old Testament there is no promise of +another world. I have sometimes thought that while the Jews were +slaves in Egypt, the doctrine of immortality became hateful. They +built so many tombs; they carried so many burdens to commemorate +the dead; the saw a nation waste its wealth to adorn its graves, +and leave the living naked to embalm the dead, that they concluded +the doctrine was a curse and never should be taught.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. If the Jews did not believe in immortality, how +do you account for the allusions made to witches and wizards and +things of that nature?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. When Saul visited the Witch of Endor, and she, by +some magic spell, called up Samuel, the prophet said: "Why hast +thou disquieted me, to call me up?" He did not say: Why have you +called me from another world? The idea expressed is: I was asleep, +why did you disturb that repose which should be eternal? The +ancient Jews believed in witches and wizards and familiar spirits; +but they did not seem to think that these spirits had once been men +and women. They spoke to them as belonging to another world, a +world to which man would never find his way. At that time it was +supposed that Jehovah and his angels lived in the sky, but that +region was not spoken of as the destined home of man. Jacob saw +angels going up and down the ladder, but not the spirits of those +he had known. There are two cases where it seems that men were good +enough to be adopted into the family of heaven. Enoch was +translated, and Elijah was taken up in a chariot of fire. As it is +exceedingly cold at the height of a few miles, it is easy to see +why the chariot was of fire, and the same fact explains another +circumstance—the dropping of the mantle. The Jews probably +believed in the existence of other beings—that is to say, in +angels and gods and evil spirits —and that they lived in +other worlds—but there is no passage showing that they +believed in what we call the immortality of the soul.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you believe, or disbelieve, in the +immortality of the soul?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I neither assert nor deny; I simply admit that I +do not know. Upon that subject I am absolutely without evidence. +This is the only world that I was ever in. There may be spirits, +but I have never met them, and do not know that I would recognize a +spirit. I can form no conception of what is called spiritual life. +It may be that I am deficient in imagination, and that ministers +have no difficulty in conceiving of angels and disembodied souls. I +have not the slightest idea how a soul looks, what shape it is, how +it goes from one place to another, whether it walks or flies. I +cannot conceive of the immaterial having form; neither can I +conceive of anything existing without form, and yet the fact that I +cannot conceive of a thing does not prove that the thing does not +exist, but it does prove that I know nothing about it, and that +being so, I ought to admit my ignorance. I am satisfied of a good +many things that I do not know. I am satisfied that there is no +place of eternal torment. I am satisfied that that doctrine has +done more harm than all the religious ideas, other than that, have +done good. I do not want to take any hope from any human heart. I +have no objection to people believing in any good thing—no +objection to their expecting a crown of infinite joy for every +human being. Many people imagine that immortality must be an +infinite good; but, after all, there is something terrible in the +idea of endless life. Think of a river that never reaches the sea; +of a bird that never folds its wings; of a journey that never ends. +Most people find great pleasure in thinking about and in believing +in another world. There the prisoner expects to be free; the slave +to find liberty; the poor man expects wealth; the rich man +happiness; the peasant dreams of power, and the king of +contentment. They expect to find there what they lack here. I do +not wish to destroy these dreams. I am endeavoring to put out the +everlasting fires. A good, cool grave is infinitely better than the +fiery furnace of Jehovah's wrath. Eternal sleep is better than +eternal pain. For my part I would rather be annihilated than to be +an angel, with all the privileges of heaven, and yet have within my +breast a heart that could be happy while those who had loved me in +this world were in perdition.</p> +<p>I most sincerely hope that the future life will fulfill all +splendid dreams; but in the religion of the present day there is no +joy. Nothing is so devoid of comfort, when bending above our dead, +as the assertions of theology unsupported by a single fact. The +promises are so far away, and the dead are so near. From words +spoken eighteen centuries ago, the echoes are so weak, and the +sounds of the clods on the coffin are so loud. Above the grave what +can the honest minister say? If the dead were not a Christian, what +then? What comfort can the orthodox clergyman give to the widow of +an honest unbeliever? If Christianity is true, the other world will +be worse than this. There the many will be miserable, only the few +happy; there the miserable cannot better their condition; the +future has no star of hope, and in the east of eternity there can +never be a dawn.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. If you take away the idea of eternal +punishment, how do you propose to restrain men; in what way will +you influence conduct for good?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Well, the trouble with religion is that it +postpones punishment and reward to another world. Wrong is wrong, +because it breeds unhappiness. Right is right, because it tends to +the happiness of man. These facts are the basis of what I call the +religion of this world. When a man does wrong, the consequences +follow, and between the cause and effect, a Redeemer cannot step. +Forgiveness cannot form a breastwork between act and +consequence.</p> +<p>There should be a religion of the body—a religion that +will prevent deformity, that will refuse to multiply insanity, that +will not propagate disease—a religion that is judged by its +consequences in this world. Orthodox Christianity has taught, and +still teaches, that in this world the difference between the good +and the bad is that the bad enjoy themselves, while the good carry +the cross of virtue with bleeding brows bound and pierced with the +thorns of honesty and kindness. All this, in my judgment, is +immoral. The man who does wrong carries a cross. There is no world, +no star, in which the result of wrong is real happiness. There is +no world, no star, in which the result of doing right is +unhappiness. Virtue and vice must be the same everywhere.</p> +<p>Vice must be vice everywhere, because its consequences are evil; +and virtue must be virtue everywhere, because its consequences are +good. There can be no such thing as forgiveness. These facts are +the only restraining influences possible—the innocent man +cannot suffer for the guilty and satisfy the law.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. How do you answer the argument, or the fact, +that the church is constantly increasing, and that there are now +four hundred millions of Christians?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. That is what I call the argument of numbers. If +that argument is good now, it was always good. If Christians were +at any time in the minority, then, according to this argument, +Christianity was wrong. Every religion that has succeeded has +appealed to the argument of numbers. There was a time when Buddhism +was in a majority. Buddha not only had, but has more followers then +Christ. Success is not a demonstration. Mohammed was a success, and +a success from the commencement. Upon a thousand fields he was +victor. Of the scattered tribes of the desert, he made a nation, +and this nation took the fairest part of Europe from the followers +of the cross. In the history of the world, the success of Mohammed +is unparalleled, but this success does not establish that he was +the prophet of God.</p> +<p>Now, it is claimed that there are some four hundred millions of +Christians. To make that total I am counted as a Christian; I am +one of the fifty or sixty millions of Christians in the United +States—excluding Indians, not taxed. By this census report, +we are all going to heaven—we are all orthodox. At the last +great day we can refer with confidence to the ponderous volumes +containing the statistics of the United States. As a matter of +fact, how many Christians are there in the United States—how +many believers in the inspiration of the Scriptures—how many +real followers of Christ? I will not pretend to give the number, +but I will venture to say that there are not fifty millions. How +many in England? Where are the four hundred millions found? To make +this immense number, they have counted all the Heretics, all the +Catholics, all the Jews, Spiritualists, Universalists and +Unitarians, all the babes, all the idiotic and insane, all the +Infidels, all the scientists, all the unbelievers. As a matter of +fact, they have no right to count any except the orthodox members +of the orthodox churches. There may be more "members" now than +formerly, and this increase of members is due to a decrease of +religion. Thousands of members are only nominal Christians, wearing +the old uniform simply because they do not wish to be charged with +desertion. The church, too, is a kind of social institution, a club +with a creed instead of by-laws, and the creed is never defended +unless attacked by an outsider. No objection is made to the +minister because he is liberal, if he says nothing about it in his +pulpit. A man like Mr. Beecher draws a congregation, not because he +is a Christian, but because he is a genius; not because he is +orthodox, but because he has something to say. He is an +intellectual athlete. He is full of pathos and poetry. He has more +description than divinity; more charity than creed, and altogether +more common sense than theology. For these reasons thousands of +people love to hear him. On the other hand, there are many people +who have a morbid desire for the abnormal—for intellectual +deformities—for thoughts that have two heads. This accounts +for the success of some of Mr. Beecher's rivals.</p> +<p>Christians claim that success is a test of truth. Has any church +succeeded as well as the Catholic? Was the tragedy of the Garden of +Eden a success? Who succeeded there? The last best thought is not a +success, if you mean that only that is a success which has +succeeded, and if you mean by succeeding, that it has won the +assent of the majority. Besides there is no time fixed for the +test. Is that true which succeeds to-day, or next year, or in the +next century? Once the Copernican system was not a success. There +is no time fixed. The result is that we have to wait. A thing to +exist at all has to be, to a certain extent, a success. A thing +cannot even die without having been a success. It certainly +succeeded enough to have life. Presbyterians should remember, while +arguing the majority argument, and the success argument, that there +are far more Catholics than Protestants, and that the Catholics can +give a longer list of distinguished names.</p> +<p>My answer to all this, however, is that the history of the world +shows that ignorance has always been in the majority. There is one +right road; numberless paths that are wrong. Truth is one; error is +many. When a great truth has been discovered, one man has pitted +himself against the world. A few think; the many believe. The few +lead; the many follow. The light of the new day, as it looks over +the window sill of the east, falls at first on only one +forehead.</p> +<p>There is another thing. A great many people pass for Christians +who are not. Only a little while ago a couple of ladies were +returning from church in a carriage. They had listened to a good +orthodox sermon. One said to the other: "I am going to tell you +something—I am going to shock you—I do not believe in +the Bible." And the other replied: "Neither do I."</p> +<p>—<i>The News</i>, Detroit, Michigan, January 6, 1884.</p> +<a name="link0034" id="link0034"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>POLITICS, MORMONISM AND MR. BEECHER</h2> +<p><i>Question</i>. What will be the main issues in the next +presidential campaign?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I think that the principal issues will be civil +rights and protection for American industries. The Democratic party +is not a unit on the tariff question—neither is the +Republican; but I think that a majority of the Democrats are in +favor of free trade and a majority of Republicans in favor of a +protective tariff. The Democratic Congressmen will talk just enough +about free trade to frighten the manufacturing interests of the +country, and probably not quite enough to satisfy the free traders. +The result will be that the Democrats will talk about reforming the +tariff, but will do nothing but talk. I think the tariff ought to +be reformed in many particulars; but as long as we need to raise a +great revenue my idea is that it ought to be so arranged as to +protect to the utmost, without producing monopoly in American +manufacturers. I am in favor of protection because it multiplies +industries; and I am in favor of a great number of industries +because they develop the brain, because they give employment to all +and allow us to utilize all the muscle and all the sense we have. +If we were all farmers we would grow stupid. If we all worked at +one kind of mechanic art we would grow dull. But with a variety of +industries, with a constant premium upon ingenuity, with the +promise of wealth as the reward of success in any direction, the +people become intelligent, and while we are protecting our +industries we develop our brains. So I am in favor of the +protection of civil rights by the Federal Government, and that, in +my judgment, will be one of the great issues in the next +campaign.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. I see that you say that one of the great issues +in the coming campaign will be civil rights; what do you mean by +that?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Well, I mean this. The Supreme Court has recently +decided that a colored man whose rights are trampled upon, in a +State, cannot appeal to the Federal Government for protection. The +decision amounts to this: That Congress has no right until a State +has acted, and has acted contrary to the Constitution. Now, if a +State refuses to do anything upon the subject, what is the citizen +to do? My opinion is that the Government is bound to protect its +citizens, and as a consideration for this protection, the citizen +is bound to stand by the Government. When the nation calls for +troops, the citizen of each State is bound to respond, no matter +what his State may think. This doctrine must be maintained, or the +United States ceases to be a nation. If a man looks to his State +for protection, then he must go with his State. My doctrine is, +that there should be patriotism upon the one hand, and protection +upon the other. If a State endeavors to secede from the Union, a +citizen of that State should be in a position to defy the State and +appeal to the Nation for protection. The doctrine now is, that the +General Government turns the citizen over to the State for +protection, and if the State does not protect him, that is his +misfortune; and the consequence of this doctrine will be to build +up the old heresy of State Sovereignty—a doctrine that was +never appealed to except in the interest of thieving or robbery. +That doctrine was first appealed to when the Constitution was +formed, because they were afraid the National Government would +interfere with the slave trade. It was next appealed to, to uphold +the Fugitive Slave Law. It was next appealed to, to give the +territories of the United States to slavery. Then it was appealed +to, to support rebellion, and now out of this doctrine they attempt +to build a breastwork, behind which they can trample upon the +rights of free colored men.</p> +<p>I believe in the sovereignty of the Nation. A nation that cannot +protect its citizens ought to stop playing nation. In the old times +the Supreme Court found no difficulty in supporting slavery by +"inference," by "intendment," but now that liberty has become +national, the Court is driven to less than a literal +interpretation. If the Constitution does not support liberty, it is +of no use. To maintain liberty is the only legitimate object of +human government. I hope the time will come when the judges of the +Supreme Court will be elected, say for a period of ten years. I do +not believe in the legal monk system. I believe in judges still +maintaining an interest in human affairs.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think of the Mormon question?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I do not believe in the bayonet plan. Mormonism +must be done away with by the thousand influences of civilization, +by education, by the elevation of the people. Of course, a +gentleman would rather have one noble woman than a hundred females. +I hate the system of polygamy. Nothing is more infamous. I admit +that the Old Testament upholds it. I admit that the patriarchs were +mostly polygamists. I admit that Solomon was mistaken on that +subject. But notwithstanding the fact that polygamy is upheld by +the Jewish Scriptures, I believe it to be a great wrong. At the +same time if you undertake to get the idea out of the Mormons by +force you will not succeed. I think a good way to do away with that +institution would be for all the churches to unite, bear the +expense, and send missionaries to Utah; let these ministers call +the people together and read to them the lives of David, Solomon, +Abraham and other patriarchs. Let all the missionaries be called +home from foreign fields and teach these people that they should +not imitate the only men with whom God ever condescended to hold +intercourse. Let these frightful examples be held up to these +people, and if it is done earnestly, it seems to me that the result +would be good.</p> +<p>Polygamy exists. All laws upon the subject should take that fact +into consideration, and punishment should be provided for offences +thereafter committed. The children of Mormons should be +legitimized. In other words, in attempting to settle this question, +we should accomplish all the good possible, with the least possible +harm.</p> +<p>I agree mostly with Mr. Beecher, and I utterly disagree with the +Rev. Mr. Newman. Mr. Newman wants to kill and slay. He does not +rely upon Christianity, but upon brute force. He has lost his +confidence in example, and appeals to the bayonet. Mr. Newman had a +discussion with one of the Mormon elders, and was put to +ignominious flight; no wonder that he appeals to force. Having +failed in argument, he calls for artillery; having been worsted in +the appeal to Scripture, he asks for the sword. He says, failing to +convert, let us kill; and he takes this position in the name of the +religion of kindness and forgiveness.</p> +<p>Strange that a minister now should throw away the Bible and yell +for a bayonet; that he should desert the Scriptures and call for +soldiers; that he should lose confidence in the power of the Spirit +and trust in a sword. I recommend that Mormonism be done away with +by distributing the Old Testament throughout Utah.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think of the investigation of the +Department of Justice now going on?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. The result, in my judgment, will depend on its +thoroughness. If Mr. Springer succeeds in proving exactly what the +Department of Justice did, the methods pursued, if he finds out +what their spies and detectives and agents were instructed to do, +then I think the result will be as disastrous to the Department as +beneficial to the country. The people seem to have forgotten that a +little while after the first Star Route trial three of the agents +of the Department of Justice were indicted for endeavoring to bribe +the jury. They forget that Mr. Bowen, an agent of the Department of +Justice, is a fugitive, because he endeavored to bribe the foreman +of the jury. They seem to forget that the Department of Justice, in +order to cover its own tracks, had the foreman of the jury indicted +because one of its agents endeavored to bribe him. Probably this +investigation will nudge the ribs of the public enough to make +people remember these things. Personally, I have no feelings on the +subject. It was enough for me that we succeeded in thwarting its +methods, in spite of the detectives, spies, and informers.</p> +<p>The Department is already beginning to dissolve. Brewster +Cameron has left it, and as a reward has been exiled to Arizona. +Mr. Brewster will probably be the next to pack his official valise. +A few men endeavored to win popularity by pursuing a few others, +and thus far they have been conspicuous failures. MacVeagh and +James are to-day enjoying the oblivion earned by misdirected +energy, and Mr. Brewster will soon keep them company. The history +of the world does not furnish an instance of more flagrant abuse of +power. There never was a trial as shamelessly conducted by a +government. But, as I said before, I have no feeling now except +that of pity.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. I see that Mr. Beecher is coming round to your +views on theology?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I would not have the egotism to say that he was +coming round to my views, but evidently Mr. Beecher has been +growing. His head has been instructed by his heart; and if a man +will allow even the poor plant of pity to grow in his heart he will +hold in infinite execration all orthodox religion. The moment he +will allow himself to think that eternal consequences depend upon +human life; that the few short years we live in the world determine +for an eternity the question of infinite joy or infinite pain; the +moment he thinks of that he will see that it is an infinite +absurdity. For instance, a man is born in Arkansas and lives there +to be seventeen or eighteen years of age, is it possible that he +can be truthfully told at the day of judgment that he had a fair +chance? Just imagine a man being held eternally responsible for his +conduct in Delaware! Mr. Beecher is a man of great +genius—full of poetry and pathos. Every now and then he is +driven back by the orthodox members of his congregation toward the +old religion, and for the benefit of those weak disciples he will +preach what is called "a doctrinal sermon;" but before he gets +through with it, seeing that it is infinitely cruel, he utters a +cry of horror, and protests with all the strength of his nature +against the cruelty of the creed. I imagine that he has always +thought that he was under great obligation to Plymouth Church, but +the truth is that the church depends upon him; that church gets its +character from Mr. Beecher. He has done a vast deal to ameliorate +the condition of the average orthodox mind. He excites the envy of +the mediocre minister, and he excites the hatred of the really +orthodox, but he receives the approbation of good and generous men +everywhere. For my part, I have no quarrel with any religion that +does not threaten eternal punishment to very good people, and that +does not promise eternal reward to very bad people. If orthodox +Christianity is true, some of the best people I know are going to +hell, and some of the meanest I have ever known are either in +heaven or on the road. Of course, I admit that there are thousands +and millions of good Christians—honest and noble people, but +in my judgment, Mr. Beecher is the greatest man in the world who +now occupies a pulpit.</p> +<hr /> +<p>Speaking of a man's living in Delaware, a young man, some time +ago, came up to me on the street, in an Eastern city and asked for +money. "What is your business," I asked. "I am a waiter by +profession." "Where do you come from?" "Delaware." "Well, what was +the matter —did you drink, or cheat your employer, or were +you idle?" "No." "What was the trouble?" "Well, the truth is, the +State is so small they don't need any waiters; they all reach for +what they want."</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you not think there are some dangerous +tendencies in Liberalism?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I will first state this proposition: The credit +system in morals, as in business, breeds extravagance. The cash +system in morals, as well as in business, breeds economy. We will +suppose a community in which everybody is bound to sell on credit, +and in which every creditor can take the benefit of the bankrupt +law every Saturday night, and the constable pays the costs. In my +judgment that community would be extravagant as long as the +merchants lasted. We will take another community in which everybody +has to pay cash, and in my judgment that community will be a very +economical one. Now, then, let us apply this to morals. +Christianity allows everybody to sin on a credit, and allows a man +who has lived, we will say sixty-nine years, what Christians are +pleased to call a worldly life, an immoral life. They allow him on +his death-bed, between the last dose of medicine and the last +breath, to be converted, and that man who has done nothing except +evil, becomes an angel. Here is another man who has lived the same +length of time, doing all the good he possibly could do, but not +meeting with what they are pleased to call "a change of heart;" he +goes to a world of pain. Now, my doctrine is that everybody must +reap exactly what he sows, other things being equal. If he acts +badly he will not be very happy; if he acts well he will not be +very sad. I believe in the doctrine of consequences, and that every +man must stand the consequences of his own acts. It seems to me +that that fact will have a greater restraining influence than the +idea that you can, just before you leave this world, shift your +burden on to somebody else. I am a believer in the restraining +influences of liberty, because responsibility goes hand in hand +with freedom. I do not believe that the gallows is the last step +between earth and heaven. I do not believe in the conversion and +salvation of murderers while their innocent victims are in hell. +The church has taught so long that he who acts virtuously carries a +cross, and that only sinners enjoy themselves, that it may be that +for a little while after men leave the church they may go to +extremes until they demonstrate for themselves that the path of +vice is the path of thorns, and that only along the wayside of +virtue grow the flowers of joy. The church has depicted virtue as a +sour, wrinkled termagant; an old woman with nothing but skin and +bones, and a temper beyond description; and at the same time vice +has been painted in all the voluptuous outlines of a Greek statue. +The truth is exactly the other way. A thing is right because it +pays; a thing is wrong because it does not; and when I use the word +"pays," I mean in the highest and noblest sense.</p> +<p>—<i>The Daily News</i>, Denver, Colorado, January 17, +1884.</p> +<a name="link0035" id="link0035"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>FREE TRADE AND CHRISTIANITY.</h2> +<h3><i>Question</i>. Who will be the Republican nominee for +President?</h3> +<p><i>Answer</i>. The correct answer to this question would make so +many men unhappy that I have concluded not to give it.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Has not the Democracy injured itself +irretrievably by permitting the free trade element to rule it?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I do not think that the Democratic party weakened +itself by electing Carlisle, Speaker. I think him an excellent man, +an exceedingly candid man, and one who will do what he believes +ought to be done. I have a very high opinion of Mr. Carlisle. I do +not suppose any party in this country is really for free trade. I +find that all writers upon the subject, no matter which side they +are on, are on that side with certain exceptions. Adam Smith was in +favor of free trade, with a few exceptions, and those exceptions +were in matters where he thought it was for England's interest not +to have free trade. The same may be said of all writers. So far as +I can see, the free traders have all the arguments and the +protectionists all the facts. The free trade theories are splendid, +but they will not work; the results are disastrous. We find by +actual experiment that it is better to protect home industries. It +was once said that protection created nothing but monopoly; the +argument was that way, but the facts are not. Take, for instance, +steel rails; when we bought them of England we paid one hundred and +twenty-five dollars a ton. I believe there was a tariff of +twenty-eight or twenty-nine dollars a ton, and yet in spite of all +the arguments going to show that protection would simply increase +prices in America, would simply enrich the capitalists and +impoverish the consumer, steel rails are now produced, I believe, +right here in Colorado for forty-two dollars a ton.</p> +<p>After all, it is a question of labor; a question of prices that +shall be paid the laboring man; a question of what the laboring man +shall eat; whether he shall eat meat or soup made from the bones. +Very few people take into consideration the value of raw material +and the value of labor. Take, for instance, your ton of steel rails +worth forty-two dollars. The iron in the earth is not worth +twenty-five cents. The coal in the earth and the lime in the ledge +together are not worth twenty-five cents. Now, then, of the +forty-two dollars, forty-one and a half is labor. There is not two +dollars' worth of raw material in a locomotive worth fifteen +thousand dollars. By raw material I mean the material in the earth. +There is not in the works of a watch which will sell for fifteen +dollars, raw material of the value of one-half cent. All the rest +is labor. A ship, a man-of-war that costs one million +dollars— the raw material in the earth is not worth, in my +judgment, one thousand dollars. All the rest is labor. If there is +any way to protect American labor, I am in favor of it. If the +present tariff does not do it, then I am in favor of changing to +one that will. If the Democratic party takes a stand for free trade +or anything like it, they will need protection; they will need +protection at the polls; that is to say, they will meet only with +defeat and disaster.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What should be done with the surplus +revenue?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. My answer to that is, reduce internal revenue +taxation until the present surplus is exhausted, and then endeavor +so to arrange your tariff that you will not produce more than you +need. I think the easiest question to grapple with on this earth is +a surplus of money.</p> +<p>I do not believe in distributing it among the States. I do not +think there could be a better certificate of the prosperity of our +country than the fact that we are troubled with a surplus revenue; +that we have the machinery for collecting taxes in such perfect +order, so ingeniously contrived, that it cannot be stopped; that it +goes right on collecting money, whether we want it or not; and the +wonderful thing about it is that nobody complains. If nothing else +can be done with the surplus revenue, probably we had better pay +some of our debts. I would suggest, as a last resort, to pay a few +honest claims.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Are you getting nearer to or farther away from +God, Christianity and the Bible?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. In the first place, as Mr. Locke so often +remarked, we will define our terms. If by the word "God" is meant a +person, a being, who existed before the creation of the universe, +and who controls all that is, except himself, I do not believe in +such a being; but if by the word God is meant all that is, that is +to say, the universe, including every atom and every star, then I +am a believer. I suppose the word that would nearest describe me is +"Pantheist." I cannot believe that a being existed from eternity, +and who finally created this universe after having wasted an +eternity in idleness; but upon this subject I know just as little +as anybody ever did or ever will, and, in my judgment, just as +much. My intellectual horizon is somewhat limited, and, to tell you +the truth, this is the only world that I was ever in. I am what +might be called a representative of a rural district, and, as a +matter of fact, I know very little about the district. I believe it +was Confucius who said: "How should I know anything about another +world when I know so little of this?"</p> +<p>The greatest intellects of the world have endeavored to find +words to express their conception of God, of the first cause, or of +the science of being, but they have never succeeded. I find in the +old Confession of Faith, in the old Catechism, for instance, this +description: That God is a being without body, parts or passions. I +think it would trouble anybody to find a better definition of +nothing. That describes a vacuum, that is to say, that describes +the absence of everything. I find that theology is a subject that +only the most ignorant are certain about, and that the more a man +thinks, the less he knows.</p> +<p>From the Bible God, I do not know that I am going farther and +farther away. I have been about as far as a man could get for many +years. I do not believe in the God of the Old Testament.</p> +<p>Now, as to the next branch of your question, Christianity.</p> +<p>The question arises, What is Christianity? I have no objection +to the morality taught as a part of Christianity, no objection to +its charity, its forgiveness, its kindness; no objection to its +hope for this world and another, not the slightest, but all these +things do not make Christianity. Mohammed taught certain doctrines +that are good, but the good in the teachings of Mohammed is not +Mohammedism. When I speak of Christianity I speak of that which is +distinctly Christian. For instance, the idea that the Infinite God +was born in Palestine, learned the carpenter's trade, disputed with +the parsons of his time, excited the wrath of the theological +bigots, and was finally crucified; that afterward he was raised +from the dead, and that if anybody believes this he will be saved +and if he fails to believe it, he will be lost; in other words, +that which is distinctly Christian in the Christian system, is its +supernaturalism, its miracles, its absurdity. Truth does not need +to go into partnership with the supernatural. What Christ said is +worth the reason it contains. If a man raises the dead and then +says twice two are five, that changes no rule in mathematics. If a +multiplication table was divinely inspired, that does no good. The +question is, is it correct? So I think that in the world of morals, +we must prove that a thing is right or wrong by experience, by +analogy, not by miracles. There is no fact in physical science that +can be supernaturally demonstrated. Neither is there any fact in +the moral world that could be substantiated by miracles. Now, then, +keeping in mind that by Christianity I mean the supernatural in +that system, of course I am just as far away from it as I can get. +For the man Christ I have respect. He was an infidel in his day, +and the ministers of his day cried out blasphemy, as they have been +crying ever since, against every person who has suggested a new +thought or shown the worthlessness of an old one.</p> +<p>Now, as to the third part of the question, the Bible. People say +that the Bible is inspired. Well, what does inspiration mean? Did +God write it? No; but the men who did write it were guided by the +Holy Spirit. Very well. Did they write exactly what the Holy Spirit +wanted them to write? Well, religious people say, yes. At the same +time they admit that the gentlemen who were collecting, or taking +down in shorthand what was said, had to use their own words. Now, +we all know that the same words do not have the same meaning to all +people. It is impossible to convey the same thoughts to all minds +by the same language, and it is for that reason that the Bible has +produced so many sects, not only disagreeing with each other, but +disagreeing among themselves.</p> +<p>We find, then, that it is utterly impossible for God (admitting +that there is one) to convey the same thoughts in human language to +all people. No two persons understand the same language alike. A +man's understanding depends upon his experience, upon his capacity, +upon the particular bent of his mind—in fact, upon the +countless influences that have made him what he is. Everything in +nature tells everyone who sees it a story, but that story depends +upon the capacity of the one to whom it is told. The sea says one +thing to the ordinary man, and another thing to Shakespeare. The +stars have not the same language for all people. The consequence is +that no book can tell the same story to any two persons. The Jewish +Scriptures are like other books, written by different men in +different ages of the world, hundreds of years apart, filled with +contradictions. They embody, I presume, fairly enough, the wisdom +and ignorance, the reason and prejudice, of the times in which they +were written. They are worth the good that is in them, and the +question is whether we will take the good and throw the bad away. +There are good laws and bad laws. There are wise and foolish +sayings. There are gentle and cruel passages, and you can find a +text to suit almost any frame of mind; whether you wish to do an +act of charity or murder a neighbor's babe, you will find a passage +that will exactly fit the case. So that I can say that I am still +for the reasonable, for the natural; and am still opposed to the +absurd and supernatural.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Is there any better or more ennobling belief +than Christianity; if so, what is it?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. There are many good things, of course, in every +religion, or they would not have existed; plenty of good precepts +in Christianity, but the thing that I object to more than all +others is the doctrine of eternal punishment, the idea of hell for +many and heaven for the few. Take from Christianity the doctrine of +eternal punishment and I have no particular objection to what is +generally preached. If you will take that away, and all the +supernatural connected with it, I have no objection; but that +doctrine of eternal punishment tends to harden the human heart. It +has produced more misery than all the other doctrines in the world. +It has shed more blood; it has made more martyrs. It has lighted +the fires of persecution and kept the sword of cruelty wet with +heroic blood for at least a thousand years. There is no crime that +that doctrine has not produced. I think it would be impossible for +the imagination to conceive of a worse religion than orthodox +Christianity—utterly impossible; a doctrine that divides this +world, a doctrine that divides families, a doctrine that teaches +the son that he can be happy, with his mother in perdition; the +husband that he can be happy in heaven while his wife suffers the +agonies of hell. This doctrine is infinite injustice, and tends to +subvert all ideas of justice in the human heart. I think it would +be impossible to conceive of a doctrine better calculated to make +wild beasts of men than that; in fact, that doctrine was born of +all the wild beast there is in man. It was born of infinite +revenge.</p> +<p>Think of preaching that you must believe that a certain being +was the son of God, no matter whether your reason is convinced or +not. Suppose one should meet, we will say on London Bridge, a man +clad in rags, and he should stop us and say, "My friend, I wish to +talk with you a moment. I am the rightful King of Great Britain," +and you should say to him, "Well, my dinner is waiting; I have no +time to bother about who the King of England is," and then he +should meet another and insist on his stopping while the pulled out +some papers to show that he was the rightful King of England, and +the other man should say, "I have got business here, my friend; I +am selling goods, and I have no time to bother my head about who +the King of England is. No doubt you are the King of England, but +you don't look like him." And then suppose he stops another man, +and makes the same statement to him, and the other man should laugh +at him and say, "I don't want to hear anything on this subject; you +are crazy; you ought to go to some insane asylum, or put something +on your head to keep you cool." And suppose, after all, it should +turn out that the man was King of England, and should afterward +make his claim good and be crowned in Westminster. What would we +think of that King if he should hunt up the gentlemen that he met +on London Bridge, and have their heads cut off because they had no +faith that he was the rightful heir? And what would we think of a +God now who would damn a man eighteen hundred years after the +event, because he did not believe that he was God at the time he +was living in Jerusalem; not only damn the fellows that he met and +who did not believe him, but gentlemen who lived eighteen hundred +years afterward, and who certainly could have known nothing of the +facts except from hearsay?</p> +<p>The best religion, after all, is common sense; a religion for +this world, one world at a time, a religion for to-day. We want a +religion that will deal in questions in which we are interested. +How are we to do away with crime? How are we to do away with +pauperism? How are we to do away with want and misery in every +civilized country? England is a Christian nation, and yet about one +in six in the city of London dies in almshouses, asylums, prisons, +hospitals and jails. We, I suppose, are a civilized nation, and yet +all the penitentiaries are crammed; there is want on every hand, +and my opinion is that we had better turn our attention to this +world.</p> +<p>Christianity is charitable; Christianity spends a great deal of +money; but I am somewhat doubtful as to the good that is +accomplished. There ought to be some way to prevent crime; not +simply to punish it. There ought to be some way to prevent +pauperism, not simply to relieve temporarily a pauper, and if the +ministers and good people belonging to the churches would spend +their time investigating the affairs of this world and let the New +Jerusalem take care of itself, I think it would be far better.</p> +<p>The church is guilty of one great contradiction. The ministers +are always talking about worldly people, and yet, were it not for +worldly people, who would pay the salary? How could the church live +a minute unless somebody attended to the affairs of this world? The +best religion, in my judgment, is common sense going along hand in +hand with kindness, and not troubling ourselves about another world +until we get there. I am willing for one, to wait and see what kind +of a country it will be.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Does the question of the inspiration of +Scriptures affect the beauty and benefits of Christianity here and +hereafter?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. A belief in the inspiration of the Scriptures has +done, in my judgment, great harm. The Bible has been the breastwork +for nearly everything wrong. The defenders of slavery relied on the +Bible. The Bible was the real auction block on which every negro +stood when he was sold. I never knew a minister to preach in favor +of slavery that did not take his text from the Bible. The Bible +teaches persecution for opinion's sake. The Bible—that is the +Old Testament—upholds polygamy, and just to the extent that +men, through the Bible, have believed that slavery, religious +persecution, wars of extermination and polygamy were taught by God, +just to that extent the Bible has done great harm. The idea of +inspiration enslaves the human mind and debauches the human +heart.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Is not Christianity and the belief in God a +check upon mankind in general and thus a good thing in itself?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. This, again, brings up the question of what you +mean by Christianity, but taking it for granted that you mean by +Christianity the church, then I answer, when the church had almost +absolute authority, then the world was the worst.</p> +<p>Now, as to the other part of the question, "Is not a belief in +God a check upon mankind in general?" That is owing to what kind of +God the man believes in. When mankind believed in the God of the +Old Testament, I think that belief was a bad thing; the tendency +was bad. I think that John Calvin patterned after Jehovah as nearly +as his health and strength would permit. Man makes God in his own +image, and bad men are not apt to have a very good God if they make +him. I believe it is far better to have a real belief in goodness, +in kindness, in honesty and in mankind than in any supernatural +being whatever. I do not suppose it would do any harm for a man to +believe in a real good God, a God without revenge, a God that was +not very particular in having a man believe a doctrine whether he +could understand it or not. I do not believe that a belief of that +kind would do any particular harm.</p> +<p>There is a vast difference between the God of John Calvin and +the God of Henry Ward Beecher, and a great difference between the +God of Cardinal Pedro Gonzales de Mendoza and the God of Theodore +Parker.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Well, Colonel, is the world growing better or +worse?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I think better in some respects and worse in +others; but on the whole, better. I think that while events, like +the pendulum of a clock, go backward and forward, man, like the +hands, goes forward. I think there is more reason and less +religion, more charity and less creed. I think the church is +improving. Ministers are ashamed to preach the old doctrines with +the old fervor. There was a time when the pulpit controlled the +pews. It is so no longer. The pews know what they want, and if the +minister does not furnish it they discharge him and employ another. +He is no longer an autocrat; he must bring to the market what his +customers are willing to buy.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What are you going to do to be saved?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Well, I think I am safe, anyway. I suppose I have +a right to rely on what Matthew says, that if I will forgive others +God will forgive me. I suppose if there is another world I shall be +treated very much as I treat others. I never expect to find perfect +bliss anywhere; maybe I should tire of it if I should. What I have +endeavored to do has been to put out the fires of an ignorant and +cruel hell; to do what I could to destroy that dogma; to destroy +the doctrine that makes the cradle as terrible as the coffin.</p> +<p>—<i>The Denver Republican</i>, Denver, Colorado, January +17, 1884.</p> +<a name="link0036" id="link0036"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>THE OATH QUESTION.</h2> +<p><i>Question</i>. I suppose that your attention has been called +to the excitement in England over the oath question, and you have +probably wondered that so much should have been made of so +little?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Yes; I have read a few articles upon the subject, +including one by Cardinal Newman. It is wonderful that so many +people imagine that there is something miraculous in the oath. They +seem to regard it as a kind of verbal fetich, a charm, an "open +sesame" to be pronounced at the door of truth, a spell, a kind of +moral thumbscrew, by means of which falsehood itself is compelled +to turn informer.</p> +<p>The oath has outlived its brother, "the wager of battle." Both +were born of the idea that God would interfere for the right and +for the truth. Trial by fire and by water had the same origin. It +was once believed that the man in the wrong could not kill the man +in the right; but, experience having shown that he usually did, the +belief gradually fell into disrepute. So it was once thought that a +perjurer could not swallow a piece of sacramental bread; but, the +fear that made the swallowing difficult having passed away, the +appeal to the corsned was abolished. It was found that a brazen or +a desperate man could eat himself out of the greatest difficulty +with perfect ease, satisfying the law and his own hunger at the +same time.</p> +<p>The oath is a relic of barbarous theology, of the belief that a +personal God interferes in the affairs of men; that some God +protects innocence and guards the right. The experience of the +world has sadly demonstrated the folly of that belief. The +testimony of a witness ought to be believed, not because it is +given under the solemnities of an oath, but because it is +reasonable. If unreasonable it ought to be thrown aside. The +question ought not to be, "Has this been sworn to?" but, "Is this +true?" The moment evidence is tested by the standard of reason, the +oath becomes a useless ceremony. Let the man who gives false +evidence be punished as the lawmaking power may prescribe. He +should be punished because he commits a crime against society, and +he should be punished in this world. All honest men will tell the +truth if they can; therefore, oaths will have no effect upon them. +Dishonest men will not tell the truth unless the truth happens to +suit their purpose; therefore, oaths will have no effect upon them. +We punish them, not for swearing to a lie, but for telling it, and +we can make the punishment for telling the falsehood just as severe +as we wish. If they are to be punished in another world, the +probability is that the punishment there will be for having told +the falsehood here. After all, a lie is made no worse by an oath, +and the truth is made no better.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. You object then to the oath. Is your objection +based on any religious grounds, or on any prejudice against the +ceremony because of its religious origin; or what is your +objection?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I care nothing about the origin of the ceremony. +The objection to the oath is this: It furnishes a falsehood with a +letter of credit. It supplies the wolf with sheep's clothing and +covers the hands of Jacob with hair. It blows out the light, and in +the darkness Leah is taken for Rachel. It puts upon each witness a +kind of theological gown. This gown hides the moral rags of the +depraved wretch as well as the virtues of the honest man. The oath +is a mask that falsehood puts on, and for a moment is mistaken for +truth. It gives to dishonesty the advantage of solemnity. The +tendency of the oath is to put all testimony on an equality. The +obscure rascal and the man of sterling character both "swear," and +jurors who attribute a miraculous quality to the oath, forget the +real difference in the men, and give about the same weight to the +evidence of each, because both were "sworn." A scoundrel is +delighted with the opportunity of going through a ceremony that +gives importance and dignity to his story, that clothes him for the +moment with respectability, loans him the appearance of conscience, +and gives the ring of true coin to the base metal. To him the oath +is a shield. He is in partnership, for a moment, with God, and +people who have no confidence in the witness credit the firm.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Of course you know the religionists insist that +people are more likely to tell the truth when "sworn," and that to +take away the oath is to destroy the foundation of testimony?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. If the use of the oath is defended on the ground +that religious people need a stimulus to tell the truth, then I am +compelled to say that religious people have been so badly educated +that they mistake the nature of the crime.</p> +<p>They should be taught that to defeat justice by falsehood is the +real offence. Besides, fear is not the natural foundation of +virtue. Even with religious people fear cannot always last. Ananias +and Sapphira have been dead so long, and since their time so many +people have sworn falsely without affecting their health that the +fear of sudden divine vengeance no longer pales the cheek of the +perjurer. If the vengeance is not sudden, then, according to the +church, the criminal will have plenty of time to repent; so that +the oath no longer affects even the fearful. Would it not be better +for the church to teach that telling the falsehood is the real +crime, and that taking the oath neither adds to nor takes from its +enormity? Would it not be better to teach that he who does wrong +must suffer the consequences, whether God forgives him or not?</p> +<p>He who tries to injure another may or may not succeed, but he +cannot by any possibility fail to injure himself. Men should be +taught that there is no difference between truth-telling and +truth-swearing. Nothing is more vicious than the idea that any +ceremony or form of words—hand-lifting or +book-kissing—can add, even in the slightest degree, to the +perpetual obligation every human being is under to speak the +truth.</p> +<p>The truth, plainly told, naturally commends itself to the +intelligent. Every fact is a genuine link in the infinite chain, +and will agree perfectly with every other fact. A fact asks to be +inspected, asks to be understood. It needs no oath, no ceremony, no +supernatural aid. It is independent of all the gods. A falsehood +goes in partnership with theology, and depends on the partner for +success.</p> +<p>To show how little influence for good has been attributed to the +oath, it is only necessary to say that for centuries, in the +Christian world, no person was allowed to testify who had the +slightest pecuniary interest in the result of a suit.</p> +<p>The expectation of a farthing in this world was supposed to +outweigh the fear of God's wrath in the next. All the pangs, pains, +and penalties of perdition were considered as nothing when compared +with pounds, shillings and pence in this world.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. You know that in nearly all deliberative +bodies—in parliaments and congresses—an oath or an +affirmation is required to support what is called the Constitution; +and that all officers are required to swear or affirm that they +will discharge their duties; do these oaths and affirmations, in +your judgment, do any good?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Men have sought to make nations and institutions +immortal by oaths. Subjects have sworn to obey kings, and kings +have sworn to protect subjects, and yet the subjects have sometimes +beheaded a king; and the king has often plundered the subjects. The +oaths enabled them to deceive each other. Every absurdity in +religion, and all tyrannical institutions, have been patched, +buttressed, and reinforced by oaths; and yet the history of the +world shows the utter futility of putting in the coffin of an oath +the political and religious aspirations of the race.</p> +<p>Revolutions and reformations care little for "So help me God." +Oaths have riveted shackles and sanctified abuses. People swear to +support a constitution, and they will keep the oath as long as the +constitution supports them. In 1776 the colonists cared nothing for +the fact that they had sworn to support the British crown. All the +oaths to defend the Constitution of the United States did not +prevent the Civil War. We have at last learned that States may be +kept together for a little time, by force; permanently only by +mutual interests. We have found that the Delilah of superstition +cannot bind with oaths the secular Samson.</p> +<p>Why should a member of Parliament or of Congress swear to +maintain the Constitution? If he is a dishonest man, the oath will +have no effect; if he is an honest patriot, it will have no effect. +In both cases it is equally useless. If a member fails to support +the Constitution the probability is that his constituents will +treat him as he does the Constitution. In this country, after all +the members of Congress have sworn or affirmed to defend the +Constitution, each political party charges the other with a +deliberate endeavor to destroy that "sacred instrument." Possibly +the political oath was invented to prevent the free and natural +development of a nation. Kings and nobles and priests wished to +retain the property they had filched and clutched, and for that +purpose they compelled the real owners to swear that they would +support and defend the law under color of which the theft and +robbery had been accomplished.</p> +<p>So, in the church, creeds have been protected by oaths. Priests +and laymen solemnly swore that they would, under no circumstances, +resort to reason; that they would overcome facts by faith, and +strike down demonstrations with the "sword of the spirit." +Professors of the theological seminary at Andover, Massachusetts, +swear to defend certain dogmas and to attack others. They swear +sacredly to keep and guard the ignorance they have. With them, +philosophy leads to perjury, and reason is the road to crime. While +theological professors are not likely to make an intellectual +discovery, still it is unwise, by taking an oath, to render that +certain which is only improbable.</p> +<p>If all witnesses sworn to tell the truth, did so, if all members +of Parliament and of Congress, in taking the oath, became +intelligent, patriotic, and honest, I should be in favor of +retaining the ceremony; but we find that men who have taken the +same oath advocate opposite ideas, and entertain different +opinions, as to the meaning of constitutions and laws. The oath +adds nothing to their intelligence; does not even tend to increase +their patriotism, and certainly does not make the dishonest +honest.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Are not persons allowed to testify in the +United States whether they believe in future rewards and +punishments or not?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. In this country, in most of the States, witnesses +are allowed to testify whether they believe in perdition and +paradise or not. In some States they are allowed to testify even if +they deny the existence of God. We have found that religious belief +does not compel people to tell the truth, and than an utter denial +of every Christian creed does not even tend to make them dishonest. +You see, a religious belief does not affect the senses. Justice +should not shut any door that leads to truth. No one will pretend +that, because you do not believe in hell, your sight is impaired, +or your hearing dulled, or your memory rendered less retentive. A +witness in a court is called upon to tell what he has seen, what he +has heard, what he remembers, not what he believes about gods and +devils and hells and heavens. A witness substantiates not a faith, +but a fact. In order to ascertain whether a witness will tell the +truth, you might with equal propriety examine him as to his ideas +about music, painting or architecture, as theology. A man may have +no ear for music, and yet remember what he hears. He may care +nothing about painting, and yet is able to tell what he sees. So he +may deny every creed, and yet be able to tell the facts as he +remembers them.</p> +<p>Thomas Jefferson was wise enough so to frame the Constitution of +Virginia that no person could be deprived of any civil right on +account of his religious or irreligious belief. Through the +influence of men like Paine, Franklin and Jefferson, it was +provided in the Federal Constitution that officers elected under +its authority could swear or affirm. This was the natural result of +the separation of church and state.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. I see that your Presidents and Governors issue +their proclamations calling on the people to assemble in their +churches and offer thanks to God. How does this happen in a +Government where church and state are not united?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Jefferson, when President, refused to issue what +is known as the "Thanksgiving Proclamation," on the ground that the +Federal Government had no right to interfere in religious matters; +that the people owed no religious duties to the Government; that +the Government derived its powers, not from priests or gods, but +from the people, and was responsible alone to the source of its +power. The truth is, the framers of our Constitution intended that +the Government should be secular in the broadest and best sense; +and yet there are thousands and thousands of religious people in +this country who are greatly scandalized because there is no +recognition of God in the Federal Constitution; and for several +years a great many ministers have been endeavoring to have the +Constitution amended so as to recognize the existence of God and +the divinity of Christ. A man by the name of Pollock was once +superintendent of the mint of Philadelphia. He was almost insane +about having God in the Constitution. Failing in that, he got the +inscription on our money, "In God we Trust." As our silver dollar +is now, in fact, worth only eighty-five cents, it is claimed that +the inscription means that we trust in God for the other fifteen +cents.</p> +<p>There is a constant effort on the part of many Christians to +have their religion in some way recognized by law. Proclamations +are now issued calling upon the people to give thanks, and +directing attention to the fact that, while God has scourged or +neglected other nations, he has been remarkably attentive to the +wants and wishes of the United States. Governors of States issue +these documents written in a tone of pious insincerity. The year +may or may not have been prosperous, yet the degree of thankfulness +called for is always precisely the same.</p> +<p>A few years ago the Governor of Iowa issued an exceedingly +rhetorical proclamation, in which the people were requested to +thank God for the unparalleled blessings he had showered upon them. +A private citizen, fearing that the Lord might be misled by +official correspondence, issued his proclamation, in which he +recounted with great particularity the hardships of the preceding +year. He insisted that the weather had been of the poorest quality; +that the spring came late, and the frost early; that the people +were in debt; that the farms were mortgaged; that the merchants +were bankrupt; and that everything was in the worst possible +condition. He concluded by sincerely hoping that the Lord would pay +no attention to the proclamation of the Governor, but would, if he +had any doubt on the subject, come down and examine the State for +himself.</p> +<p>These proclamations have always appeared to me absurdly +egotistical. Why should God treat us any better than he does the +rest of his children? Why should he send pestilence and famine to +China, and health and plenty to us? Why give us corn, and Egypt +cholera? All these proclamations grow out of egotism and +selfishness, of ignorance and superstition, and are based upon the +idea that God is a capricious monster; that he loves flattery; that +he can be coaxed and cajoled.</p> +<p>The conclusion of the whole matter with me is this: For truth in +courts we must depend upon the trained intelligence of judges, the +right of cross-examination, the honesty and common sense of jurors, +and upon an enlightened public opinion. As for members of Congress, +we will trust to the wisdom and patriotism, not only of the +members, but of their constituents. In religion we will give to all +the luxury of absolute liberty.</p> +<p>The alchemist did not succeed in finding any stone the touch of +which transmuted baser things to gold; and priests have not +invented yet an oath with power to force from falsehood's desperate +lips the pearl of truth.</p> +<p>—<i>Secular Review</i>, London, England, 1884.</p> +<a name="link0037" id="link0037"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>WENDELL PHILLIPS, FITZ JOHN PORTER AND BISMARCK.</h2> +<p><i>Question</i>. Are you seeking to quit public lecturing on +religious questions?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. As long as I live I expect now and then to say my +say against the religious bigotry and cruelty of the world. As long +as the smallest coal is red in hell I am going to keep on. I never +had the slightest idea of retiring. I expect the church to do the +retiring.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think of Wendell Phillips as an +orator?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. He was a very great orator—one of the +greatest that the world has produced. He rendered immense service +in the cause of freedom. He was in the old days the thunderbolt +that pierced the shield of the Constitution. One of the bravest +soldiers that ever fought for human rights was Wendell +Phillips.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think of the action of Congress on +Fitz John Porter?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I think Congress did right. I think they should +have taken this action long before. There was a question of his +guilt, and he should have been given the benefit of a doubt. They +say he could have defeated Longstreet. There are some people, you +know, who would have it that an army could be whipped by a good +general with six mules and a blunderbuss. But we do not regard +those people. They know no more about it than a lady who talked to +me about Porter's case. She argued the question of Porter's guilt +for half an hour. I showed her where she was all wrong. When she +found she was beaten she took refuge with "Oh, well, anyhow he had +no genius." Well, if every man is to be shot who has no genius, I +want to go into the coffin business.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What, in your judgment, is necessary to be done +to insure Republican success this fall?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. It is only necessary for the Republican party to +stand by its principles. We must be in favor of protecting American +labor not only, but of protecting American capital, and we must be +in favor of civil rights, and must advocate the doctrine that the +Federal Government must protect all citizens. I am in favor of a +tariff, not simply to raise a revenue—that I regard as +incidental. The Democrats regard protection as incidental. The two +principles should be, protection to American industry and +protection to American citizens. So that, after all, there is but +one issue—protection. As a matter of fact, that is all a +government is for—to protect. The Republican party is +stronger to-day than it was four years ago. The Republican party +stands for the progressive ideas of the American people. It has +been said that the administration will control the Southern +delegates. I do not believe it. This administration has not been +friendly to the Southern Republicans, and my opinion is there will +be as much division in the Southern as in the Northern States. I +believe Blaine will be a candidate, and I do not believe the +Prohibitionists will put a ticket in the field, because they have +no hope of success.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think generally of the revival of +the bloody shirt? Do you think the investigations of the +Republicans of the Danville and Copiah massacres will benefit +them?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Well, I am in favor of the revival of that +question just as often as a citizen of the Republic is murdered on +account of his politics. If the South is sick of that question, let +it stop persecuting men because they are Republicans. I do not +believe, however, in simply investigating the question and then +stopping after the guilty ones are found. I believe in indicting +them, trying them, and convicting them. If the Government can do +nothing except investigate, we might as well stop, and admit that +we have no government. Thousands of people think that it is almost +vulgar to take the part of the poor colored people in the South. +What part should you take if not that of the weak? The strong do +not need you. And I can tell the Southern people now, that as long +as they persecute for opinion's sake they will never touch the +reins of political power in this country.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. How do you regard the action of Bismarck in +returning the Lasker resolutions? Was it the result of his hatred +of the Jews?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Bismarck opposed a bill to do away with the +disabilities of the Jews on the ground that Prussia is a Christian +nation, founded for the purpose of spreading the gospel of Jesus +Christ. I presume that it was his hatred of the Jews that caused +him to return the resolutions. Bismarck should have lived several +centuries ago. He belongs to the Dark Ages. He is a believer in the +sword and the bayonet—in brute force. He was loved by Germany +simply because he humiliated France. Germany gave her liberty for +revenge. It is only necessary to compare Bismarck with Gambetta to +see what a failure he really is. Germany was victorious and took +from France the earnings of centuries; and yet Germany is to-day +the least prosperous nation in Europe. France was prostrate, +trampled into the earth, robbed, and yet, guided by Gambetta, is +to-day the most prosperous nation in Europe. This shows the +difference between brute force and brain.</p> +<p>—<i>The Times</i>, Chicago, Illinois, February 21, +1884.</p> +<a name="link0038" id="link0038"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>GENERAL SUBJECTS.</h2> +<h3><i>Question</i>. Do you enjoy lecturing?</h3> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Of course I enjoy lecturing. It is a great +pleasure to drive the fiend of fear out of the hearts of men women +and children. It is a positive joy to put out the fires of +hell.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Where do you meet with the bitterest +opposition?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I meet with the bitterest opposition where the +people are the most ignorant, where there is the least thought, +where there are the fewest books. The old theology is becoming +laughable. Very few ministers have the impudence to preach in the +old way. They give new meanings to old words. They subscribe to the +same creed, but preach exactly the other way. The clergy are +ashamed to admit that they are orthodox, and they ought to be.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do liberal books, such as the works of Paine +and Infidel scientists sell well?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Yes, they are about the only books on serious +subjects that do sell well. The works of Darwin, Buckle, Draper, +Haeckel, Tyndall, Humboldt and hundreds of others, are read by +intelligent people the world over. Works of a religious character +die on the shelves. The people want facts. They want to know about +the world, about all forms of life. They want the mysteries of +every day solved. They want honest thoughts about sensible +questions. They are tired of the follies of faith and the +falsehoods of superstition. They want a heaven here. In a few years +the old theological books will be sold to make paper on which to +print the discoveries of science.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. In what section of the country do you find the +most liberality?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I find great freedom of thought in Boston, New +York, Chicago, San Francisco, in fact, all over what we call the +North. The West of course is liberal. The truth is that all the +intelligent part of the country is liberal. The railroad, the +telegraph, the daily paper, electric light, the telephone, and +freedom of thought belong together.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Is it true that you were once threatened with a +criminal prosecution for libel on religion?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Yes, in Delaware. Chief Justice Comegys +instructed the grand jury to indict me for blasphemy. I have taken +by revenge on the State by leaving it in ignorance. Delaware is +several centuries behind the times. It is as bigoted as it is +small. Compare Kansas City with Wilmington and you will see the +difference between liberalism and orthodoxy.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. This is Washington's birthday. What do you +think of General Washington?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I suppose that Washington was what was called +religious. He was not very strict in his conduct. He tried to have +church and state united in Virginia and was defeated by Jefferson. +It should make no difference with us whether Washington was +religious or not. Jefferson was by far the greater man. In +intellect there was no comparison between Washington and Franklin. +I do not prove the correctness of my ideas by names of dead people. +I depend upon reason instead of gravestones. One fact is worth a +cemetery full of distinguished corpses. We ask not for the belief +of somebody, but for evidence, for facts. The church is a beggar at +the door of respectability. The moment a man becomes famous, the +church asks him for a certificate that the Bible is true. It passes +its hat before generals and presidents, and kings while they are +alive. It says nothing about thinkers and real philosophers while +they live, except to slander them, but the moment they are dead it +seeks among their words for a crumb of comfort.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Will Liberalism ever organize in America?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I hope not. Organization means creed, and creed +means petrifaction and tyranny. I believe in individuality. I will +not join any society except an anti-society society.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you consider the religion of Bhagavat Purana +of the East as good as the Christian?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. It is far more poetic. It has greater variety and +shows vastly more thought. Like the Hebrew, it is poisoned with +superstition, but it has more beauty. Nothing can be more barren +than the theology of the Jews and Christians. One lonely God, a +heaven filled with thoughtless angels, a hell with unfortunate +souls. Nothing can be more desolate. The Greek mythology is +infinitely better.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you think that the marriage institution is +held in less respect by Infidels than by Christians?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. No; there was never a time when marriage was more +believed in than now. Never were wives treated better and loved +more; never were children happier than now. It is the ambition of +the average American to have a good and happy home. The fireside +was never more popular than now.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think of Beecher?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. He is a great man, but the habit of his mind and +the bent of his early education oppose his heart. He is growing and +has been growing every day for many years. He has given up the idea +of eternal punishment, and that of necessity destroys it all. The +Christian religion is founded upon hell. When the foundation +crumbles the fabric falls. Beecher was to have answered my article +in the <i>North American Review</i>, but when it appeared and he +saw it, he agreed with so much of it that he concluded that an +answer would be useless.</p> +<p>—<i>The Times</i>, Kansas City, Missouri, February 23, +1884.</p> +<a name="link0039" id="link0039"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>REPLY TO KANSAS CITY CLERGY.</h2> +<h3><i>Question</i>. Will you take any notice of Mr. Magrath's +challenge?</h3> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I do not think it worth while to discuss with Mr. +Magrath. I do not say this in disparagement of his ability, as I do +not know the gentleman. He may be one of the greatest of men. I +think, however, that Mr. Magrath might better answer what I have +already said. If he succeeds in that, then I will meet him in +public discussion. Of course he is an eminent theologian or he +would not think of discussing these questions with anybody. I have +never heard of him, but for all that he may be the most intelligent +of men.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. How have the recently expressed opinions of our +local clergy impressed you?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I suppose you refer to the preachers who have +given their opinion of me. In the first place I am obliged to them +for acting as my agents. I think Mr. Hogan has been imposed upon. +Tacitus is a poor witness—about like Josephus. I say again +that we have not a word about Christ written by any human being who +lived in the time of Christ—not a solitary word, and Mr. +Hogan ought to know it.</p> +<p>The Rev. Mr. Matthews is mistaken. If the Bible proves anything, +it proves that the world was made in six days and that Adam and Eve +were built on Saturday. The Bible gives the age of Adam when he +died, and then gives the ages of others down to the flood, and then +from that time at least to the return from the captivity. If the +genealogy of the Bible is true it is about six thousand years since +Adam was made, and the world is only five days older than Adam. It +is nonsense to say that the days were long periods of time. If that +is so, away goes the idea of Sunday. The only reason for keeping +Sunday given in the Bible is that God made the world in six days +and rested on the seventh. Mr. Mathews is not candid. He knows that +he cannot answer the arguments I have urged against the Bible. He +knows that the ancient Jews were barbarians, and that the Old +Testament is a barbarous book. He knows that it upholds slavery and +polygamy, and he probably feels ashamed of what he is compelled to +preach.</p> +<p>Mr. Jardine takes a very cheerful view of the subject. He +expects the light to dawn on the unbelievers. He speaks as though +he were the superior of all Infidels. He claims to be a student of +the evidences of Christianity. There are no evidences, consequently +Mr. Jardine is a student of nothing. It is amazing how dignified +some people can get on a small capital.</p> +<p>Mr. Haley has sense enough to tell the ministers not to attempt +to answer me. That is good advice. The ministers had better keep +still. It is the safer way. If they try to answer what I say, the +"sheep" will see how foolish the "shepherds" are. The best way is +for them to say, "that has been answered."</p> +<p>Mr. Wells agrees with Mr. Haley. He, too, thinks that silence is +the best weapon. I agree with him. Let the clergy keep still; that +is the best way. It is better to say nothing than to talk +absurdity. I am delighted to think that at last the ministers have +concluded that they had better not answer Infidels.</p> +<p>Mr. Woods is fearful only for the young. He is afraid that I +will hurt the children. He thinks that the mother ought to stoop +over the cradle and in the ears of the babe shout, Hell! So he +thinks in all probability that the same word ought to be repeated +at the grave as a consolation to mourners.</p> +<p>I am glad that Mr. Mann thinks that I am doing neither good nor +harm. This gives me great hope. If I do no harm, certainly I ought +not to be eternally damned. It is very consoling to have an +orthodox minister solemnly assert that I am doing no harm. I wish I +could say as much for him.</p> +<p>The truth is, all these ministers have kept back their real +thoughts. They do not tell their doubts—they know that +orthodoxy is doomed —they know that the old doctrine excites +laughter and scorn. They know that the fires of hell are dying out; +that the Bible is ceasing to be an authority; and that the pulpit +is growing feebler and feebler every day. Poor parsons!</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Would the Catholicism of General Sherman's +family affect his chances for the presidency?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I do not think the religion of the family should +have any weight one way or the other. It would make no difference +with me; although I hate Catholicism with all my heart, I do not +hate Catholics. Some people might be so prejudiced that they would +not vote for a man whose wife belongs to the Catholic Church; but +such people are too narrow to be consulted. General Sherman says +that he wants no office. In that he shows his good sense. He is a +great man and a great soldier. He has won laurels enough for one +brow. He has the respect and admiration of the nation, and does not +need the presidency to finish his career. He wishes to enjoy the +honors he has won and the rest he deserves.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What is your opinion of Matthew Arnold?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. He is a man of talent, well educated, a little +fussy, somewhat sentimental, but he is not a genius. He is not +creative. He is a critic—not an originator. He will not +compare with Emerson.</p> +<p>—<i>The Journal</i>, Kansas City, Missouri, February 23, +1884.</p> +<a name="link0040" id="link0040"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>SWEARING AND AFFIRMING.</h2> +<p><i>Question</i>. What is the difference in the parliamentary +oath of this country which saves us from such a squabble as they +have had in England over the Bradlaugh case?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Our Constitution provides that a member of +Congress may swear or affirm. The consequence is that we can have +no such controversy as they have had in England. The framers of our +Constitution wished forever to divorce church and state. They knew +that it made no possible difference whether a man swore or +affirmed, or whether he swore and affirmed to support the +Constitution. All the Federal officers who went into the Rebellion +had sworn or affirmed to support the Constitution. All that did no +good. The entire oath business is a mistake. I think it would be a +thousand times better to abolish all oaths in courts of justice. +The oath allows a rascal to put on the garments of solemnity, the +mask of piety, while he tells a lie. In other words, the oath +allows the villain to give falsehood the appearance of truth. I +think it would be far better to let each witness tell his story and +leave his evidence to the intelligence of the jury and judge. The +trouble about an oath is that its tendency is to put all witnesses +on an equality; the jury says, "Why, he swore to it." Now, if the +oath were abolished, the jury would judge all testimony according +to the witness, and then the evidence of one man of good reputation +would outweigh the lies of thousands of nobodies.</p> +<p>It was at one time believed that there was something miraculous +in the oath, that it was a kind of thumbscrew that would torture +the truth out of a rascal, and at one time they believed that if a +man swore falsely he might be struck by lightning or paralyzed. But +so many people have sworn to lies without having their health +impaired that the old superstition has very little weight with the +average witness. I think it would be far better to let every man +tell his story; let him be cross-examined, let the jury find out as +much as they can of his character, of his standing among his +neighbors—then weigh his testimony in the scale of reason. +The oath is born of superstition, and everything born of +superstition is bad. The oath gives the lie currency; it gives it +for the moment the ring of true metal, and the ordinary average +juror is imposed upon and justice in many instances defeated. +Nothing can be more absurd than the swearing of a man to support +the Constitution. Let him do what he likes. If he does not support +the Constitution, the probability is that his constituents will +refuse to support him. Every man who swears to support the +Constitution swears to support it as he understands it, and no two +understand it exactly alike. Now, if the oath brightened a man's +intellect or added to his information or increased his patriotism +or gave him a little more honesty, it would be a good +thing—but it doesn't. And as a consequence it is a very +useless and absurd proceeding. Nothing amuses me more in a court +than to see one calf kissing the tanned skin of another.</p> +<p>—<i>The Courier</i>, Buffalo, New York, May 19, 1884.</p> +<a name="link0041" id="link0041"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>REPLY TO A BUFFALO CRITIC.</h2> +<p><i>Question</i>. What have you to say in reply to the letter in +to- day's <i>Times</i> signed R. H. S.?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I find that I am accused of "four flagrant +wrongs," and while I am not as yet suffering from the qualms of +conscience, nor do I feel called upon to confess and be forgiven, +yet I have something to say in self-defence.</p> +<p>As to the first objection made by your correspondent, namely, +that my doctrine deprives people of the hope that after this life +is ended they will meet their fathers, mothers, sisters and +brothers, long since passed away, in the land beyond the grave, and +there enjoy their company forever, I have this to say: If +Christianity is true we are not quite certain of meeting our +relatives and friends where we can enjoy their company forever. If +Christianity is true most of our friends will be in hell. The ones +I love best and whose memory I cherish will certainly be among the +lost. The trouble about Christianity is that it is infinitely +selfish. Each man thinks that if he can save his own little, +shriveled, microscopic soul, that is enough. No matter what becomes +of the rest. Christianity has no consolation for a generous man. I +do not wish to go to heaven if the ones who have given me joy are +to be lost. I would much rather go with them. The only thing that +makes life endurable in this world is human love, and yet, +according to Christianity, that is the very thing we are not to +have in the other world. We are to be so taken up with Jesus and +the angels, that we shall care nothing about our brothers and +sisters that have been damned. We shall be so carried away with the +music of the harp that we shall not even hear the wail of father or +mother. Such a religion is a disgrace to human nature.</p> +<p>As to the second objection,—that society cannot be held +together in peace and good order without hell and a belief in +eternal torment, I would ask why an infinitely wise and good God +should make people of so poor and mean a character that society +cannot be held together without scaring them. Is it possible that +God has so made the world that the threat of eternal punishment is +necessary for the preservation of society?</p> +<p>The writer of the letter also says that it is necessary to +believe that if a man commits murder here he is destined to be +punished in hell for the offence. This is Christianity. Yet nearly +every murderer goes directly from the gallows to God. Nearly every +murderer takes it upon himself to lecture the assembled multitude +who have gathered to see him hanged, and invite them to meet him in +heaven. When the rope is about his neck he feels the wings growing. +That is the trouble with the Christian doctrine. Every murderer is +told he may repent and go to heaven, and have the happiness of +seeing his victim in hell. Should heaven at any time become dull, +the vein of pleasure can be re-thrilled by the sight of his victim +wriggling on the gridiron of God's justice. Really, Christianity +leads men to sin on credit. It sells rascality on time and tells +all the devils they can have the benefit of the gospel bankrupt +act.</p> +<p>The next point in the letter is that I do not preach for the +benefit of mankind, but for the money which is the price of blood. +Of course it makes no difference whether I preach for money or not. +That is to say, it makes no difference to the preached. The +arguments I advance are either good or bad. If they are bad they +can easily be answered by argument. If they are not they cannot be +answered by personalities or by ascribing to me selfish motives. It +is not a personal matter. It is a matter of logic, of sense— +not a matter of slander, vituperation or hatred. The writer of the +letter, R. H. S., may be an exceedingly good person, yet that will +add no weight to his or her argument. He or she may be a very bad +person, but that would not weaken the logic of the letter, if it +had any logic to begin with. It is not for me to say what my +motives are in what I do or say; it must be left to the judgment of +mankind. I presume I am about as bad as most folks, and as good as +some, but my goodness or badness has nothing to do with the +question. I may have committed every crime in the world, yet that +does not make the story of the flood reasonable, nor does it even +tend to show that the three gentlemen in the furnace were not +scorched. I may be the best man in the world, yet that does not go +to prove that Jonah was swallowed by the whale. Let me say right +here that if there is another world I believe that every soul who +finds the way to that shore will have an everlasting opportunity to +do right—of reforming. My objection to Christianity is that +it is infinitely cruel, infinitely selfish, and I might add +infinitely absurd. I deprive no one of any hope unless you call the +expectation of eternal pain a hope.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Have you read the Rev. Father Lambert's "Notes +on Ingersoll," and if so, what have you to say of them or in reply +to them?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I have read a few pages or paragraphs of that +pamphlet, and do not feel called upon to say anything. Mr. Lambert +has the same right to publish his ideas that I have, and the +readers must judge. People who believe his way will probably think +that he has succeeded in answering me. After all, he must leave the +public to decide. I have no anxiety about the decision. Day by day +the people are advancing, and in a little while the sacred +superstitions of to-day will be cast aside with the foolish myths +and fables of the pagan world.</p> +<p>As a matter of fact there can be no argument in favor of the +supernatural. Suppose you should ask if I had read the work of that +gentleman who says that twice two are five. I should answer you +that no gentleman can prove that twice two are five; and yet this +is exactly as easy as to prove the existence of the supernatural. +There are no arguments in favor of the supernatural. There are +theories and fears and mistakes and prejudices and guesses, but no +arguments—plenty of faith, but no facts; plenty of divine +revelation, but no demonstration. The supernatural, in my judgment, +is a mistake. I believe in the natural.</p> +<p>—<i>The Times</i>, Buffalo, New York, May 19, 1884.</p> +<a name="link0042" id="link0042"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>BLASPHEMY.*</h2> +<pre> + [* "If Robert G. Ingersoll indulges in blasphemy to-night in + his lecture, as he has in other places and in this city + before, he will be arrested before he leaves the city." So + spoke Rev. Irwin H. Torrence, General Secretary of the + Pennsylvania Bible Society, yesterday afternoon to a <i>Press</i> + reporter. "We have consulted counsel; the law is with us, + and Ingersoll has but to do what he has done before, to find + himself in a cell. Here is the act of March 31, 1860: + + "'If any person shall willfully, premeditatedly and + despitefully blaspheme or speak loosely and profanely of + Almighty God, Christ Jesus, the Holy Spirit, or the + Scriptures of Truth, such person, on conviction thereof, + shall be sentenced to pay a fine not exceeding one hundred + dollars, and undergo an imprisonment not exceeding three + months, or either, at the discretion of the court.'" + + Last evening Colonel Ingersoll sat in the dining room at + Guy's Hotel, just in from New York City. When told of the + plans of Mr. Torrence and his friends, he laughed and said:] +</pre> +<p>I did not suppose that anybody was idiotic enough to want me +arrested for blasphemy. It seems to me that an infinite Being can +take care of himself without the aid of any agent of a Bible +society. Perhaps it is wrong for me to be here while the Methodist +Conference is in session. Of course no one who differs from the +Methodist ministers should ever visit Philadelphia while they are +here. I most humbly hope to be forgiven.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think of the law of 1860?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. It is exceedingly foolish. Surely, there is no +need for the Legislature of Pennsylvania to protect an infinite +God, and why should the Bible be protected by law? The most +ignorant priest can hold Darwin up to orthodox scorn. This talk of +the Rev. Mr. Torrence shows that my lectures are needed; that +religious people do not know what real liberty is. I presume that +the law of 1860 is an old one re-enacted. It is a survival of +ancient ignorance and bigotry, and no one in the Legislature +thought it worth while to fight it. It is the same as the law +against swearing, both are dead letters and amount to nothing. They +are not enforced and should not be. Public opinion will regulate +such matters. If all who take the name of God in vain were +imprisoned there would not be room in the jails to hold the +ministers. They speak of God in the most flippant and +snap-your-fingers way that can be conceived of. They speak to him +as though he were an intimate chum, and metaphorically slap him on +the back in the most familiar way possible.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Have you ever had any similar experiences +before?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Oh, yes—threats have been made, but I never +was arrested. When Mr. Torrence gets cool he will see that he has +made a mistake. People in Philadelphia have been in the habit of +calling the citizens of Boston bigots—but there is more real +freedom of thought and expression in Boston than in almost any +other city of the world. I think that as I am to suffer in hell +forever, Mr. Torrence ought to be satisfied and let me have a good +time here. He can amuse himself through all eternity by seeing me +in hell, and that ought to be enough to satisfy, not only an agent, +but the whole Bible society. I never expected any trouble in this +State, and most sincerely hope that Mr. Torrence will not trouble +me and make the city a laughing stock.</p> +<p>Philadelphia has no time to waste in such foolish things. Let +the Bible take its chances with other books. Let everybody feel +that he has the right freely to express his opinions, provided he +is decent and kind about it. Certainly the Christians now ought to +treat Infidels as well as Penn did Indians.</p> +<p>Nothing could be more perfectly idiotic than in this day and +generation to prosecute any man for giving his conclusions upon any +religious subject. Mr. Torrence would have had Huxley and Haeckel +and Tyndall arrested; would have had Humboldt and John Stuart Mill +and Harriet Martineau and George Eliot locked up in the city jail. +Mr. Torrence is a fossil from the old red sandstone of a mistake. +Let him rest. To hear these people talk you would suppose that God +is some petty king, some Liliputian prince, who was about to be +dethroned, and who was nearly wild for recruits.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. But what would you do if they should make an +attempt to arrest you?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Nothing, except to defend myself in court.</p> +<p>—<i>Philadelphia Press</i>, May 24, 1884.</p> +<a name="link0043" id="link0043"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>POLITICS AND BRITISH COLUMBIA.</h2> +<p><i>Question</i>. I understand that there was some trouble in +connection with your lecture in Victoria, B. C. What are the +facts?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. The published accounts, as circulated by the +Associated Press, were greatly exaggerated. The affair was simply +this: The authorities endeavored to prevent the lecture. They +refused the license, on the ground that the theatre was unsafe, +although it was on the ground floor, had many exits and entrances, +not counting the windows. The theatre was changed to meet the +objections of the fire commissioner, and the authorities expressed +their satisfaction and issued the license. Afterward further +objection was raised, and on the night of the lecture, when the +building was about two- thirds full, the police appeared and said +that the lecture would not be allowed to be delivered, because the +house was unsafe. After a good deal of talk, the policeman in +authority said that there should be another door, whereupon my +friends, in a few minutes, made another door with an ax and a saw, +the crowd was admitted and the lecture was delivered. The audience +was well-behaved, intelligent and appreciative. Beyond some talking +in the hall, and the natural indignation of those who had purchased +tickets and were refused admittance, there was no disturbance. I +understand that those who opposed the lecture are now heartily +ashamed of the course pursued.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Are you going to take any part in the +campaign?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. It is not my intention to make any political +speeches. I have made a good many in the past, and, in my judgment, +have done my part. I have no other interest in politics than every +citizen should have. I want that party to triumph which, in my +judgment, represents the best interests of the country. I have no +doubt about the issue of the election. I believe that Mr. Blaine +will be the next President. But there are plenty of talkers, and I +really think that I have earned a vacation.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think Cleveland's chances are in +New York?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. At this distance it is hard to say. The recent +action of Tammany complicates matters somewhat. But my opinion is +that Blaine will carry the State. I had a letter yesterday from +that State, giving the opinion of a gentleman well informed, that +Blaine would carry New York by no less than fifty thousand +majority.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What figure will Butler cut in the +campaign?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I hardly think that Butler will have many +followers on the 4th of November. His forces will gradually go to +one side or the other. It is only when some great principle is at +stake that thousands of men are willing to vote with a known +minority.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. But what about the Prohibitionists?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. They have a very large following. They are +fighting for something they believe to be of almost infinite +consequence, and I can readily understand how a Prohibitionist is +willing to be in the minority. It may be well enough for me to say +here, that my course politically is not determined by my likes or +dislikes of individuals. I want to be governed by principles, not +persons. If I really thought that in this campaign a real principle +was at stake, I should take part. The only great question now is +protection, and I am satisfied that it is in no possible +danger.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Not even in the case of a Democratic +victory?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Not even in the event of a Democratic victory. No +State in the Union is for free trade. Every free trader has an +exception. These exceptions combined, control the tariff +legislation of this country, and if the Democrats were in power +to-day, with the control of the House and Senate and Executive, the +exceptions would combine and protect protection. As long as the +Federal Government collects taxes or revenue on imports, just so +long these revenues will be arranged to protect home +manufactures.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. You said that if there were a great principle +at stake, you would take part in the campaign. You think, then, +that there is no great principle involved?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. If it were a matter of personal liberty, I should +take part. If the Republican party had stood by the Civil Rights +Bill, I should have taken part in the present campaign.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Still, I suppose we can count on you as a +Republican?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Certainly, I am a Republican.</p> +<p>—<i>Evening Post</i>, San Francisco, California, September +16, 1884.</p> +<a name="link0044" id="link0044"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>INGERSOLL CATECHISED.</h2> +<h3><i>Question</i>. Does Christianity advance or retard +civilization?</h3> +<p><i>Answer</i>. If by Christianity you mean the orthodox church, +then I unhesitatingly answer that it does retard civilization, +always has retarded it, and always will. I can imagine no man who +can be benefitted by being made a Catholic or a Presbyterian or a +Baptist or a Methodist—or, in other words, by being made an +orthodox Christian. But by Christianity I do not mean morality, +kindness, forgiveness, justice. Those virtues are not distinctively +Christian. They are claimed by Mohammedans and Buddhists, by +Infidels and Atheists—and practiced by some of all classes. +Christianity consists of the miraculous, the marvelous, and the +impossible.</p> +<p>The one thing that I most seriously object to in Christianity is +the doctrine of eternal punishment. That doctrine subverts every +idea of justice. It teaches the infinite absurdity that a finite +offence can be justly visited by eternal punishment. Another +serious objection I have is, that Christianity endeavors to destroy +intellectual liberty. Nothing is better calculated to retard +civilization than to subvert the idea of justice. Nothing is better +calculated to retain barbarism than to deny to every human being +the right to think. Justice and Liberty are the two wings that bear +man forward. The church, for a thousand years, did all within its +power to prevent the expression of honest thought; and when the +church had power, there was in this world no civilization. We have +advanced just in the proportion that Christianity has lost power. +Those nations in which the church is still powerful are still +almost savage—Portugal, Spain, and many others I might name. +Probably no country is more completely under the control of the +religious idea than Russia. The Czar is the direct representative +of God. He is the head of the church, as well as of the state. In +Russia every mouth is a bastille and every tongue a convict. This +Russian pope, this representative of God, has on earth his hell +(Siberia), and he imitates the orthodox God to the extent of his +health and strength.</p> +<p>Everywhere man advances as the church loses power. In my +judgment, Ireland can never succeed until it ceases to be Catholic; +and there can be no successful uprising while the confessional +exists. At one time in New England the church had complete power. +There was then no religious liberty. And so we might make a tour of +the world, and find that superstition always has been, is, and +forever will be, inconsistent with human advancement.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do not the evidences of design in the universe +prove a Creator?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. If there were any evidences of design in the +universe, certainly they would tend to prove a designer, but they +would not prove a Creator. Design does not prove creation. A man +makes a machine. That does not prove that he made the material out +of which the machine is constructed. You find the planets arranged +in accordance with what you call a plan. That does not prove that +they were created. It may prove that they are governed, but it +certainly does not prove that they were created. Is it consistent +to say that a design cannot exist without a designer, but that a +designer can? Does not a designer need a design as much as a design +needs a designer? Does not a Creator need a Creator as much as the +thing we think has been created? In other words, is not this simply +a circle of human ignorance? Why not say that the universe has +existed from eternity, as well as to say that a Creator has existed +from eternity? And do you not thus avoid at least one absurdity by +saying that the universe has existed from eternity, instead of +saying that it was created by a Creator who existed from eternity? +Because if your Creator existed from eternity, and created the +universe, there was a time when he commenced; and back of that, +according to Shelley, is "an eternity of idleness."</p> +<p>Some people say that God existed from eternity, and has created +eternity. It is impossible to conceive of an act co-equal with +eternity. If you say that God has existed forever, and has always +acted, then you make the universe eternal, and you make the +universe as old as God; and if the universe be as old as God, he +certainly did not create it.</p> +<p>These questions of origin and destiny—of infinite +gods—are beyond the powers of the human mind. They cannot be +solved. We might as well try to travel fast enough to get beyond +the horizon. It is like a man trying to run away from his girdle. +Consequently, I believe in turning our attention to things of +importance—to questions that may by some possibility be +solved. It is of no importance to me whether God exists or not. I +exist, and it is important to me to be happy while I exist. +Therefore I had better turn my attention to finding out the secret +of happiness, instead of trying to ascertain the secret of the +universe.</p> +<p>I say with regard to God, I do not know; and therefore I am +accused of being arrogant and egotistic. Religious papers say that +I do know, because Webster told me. They use Webster as a witness +to prove the divinity of Christ. They say that Webster was on the +God side, and therefore I ought to be. I can hardly afford to take +Webster's ideas of another world, when his ideas about this were so +bad. When bloodhounds were pursuing a woman through the tangled +swamps of the South—she hungry for liberty—Webster took +the side of the bloodhounds. Such a man is no authority for me. +Bacon denied the Copernican system of astronomy; he is an unsafe +guide. Wesley believed in witches; I cannot follow him. No man +should quote a name instead of an argument; no man should bring +forward a person instead of a principle, unless he is willing to +accept all the ideas of that person.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Is not a pleasant illusion preferable to a +dreary truth—a future life being in question?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I think it is. I think that a pleasing illusion +is better then a terrible truth, so far as its immediate results +are concerned. I would rather think the one I love living, than to +think her dead. I would rather think that I had a large balance in +bank than that my account was overdrawn. I would rather think I was +healthy than to know that I had a cancer. But if we have an +illusion, let us have it pleasing. The orthodox illusion is the +worst that can possibly be conceived. Take hell out of that +illusion, take eternal pain away from that dream, and say that the +whole world is to be happy forever—then you might have an +excuse for calling it a pleasant illusion; but it is, in fact, a +nightmare —a perpetual horror—a cross, on which the +happiness of man has been crucified.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Are not religion and morals inseparable?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Religion and morality have nothing in common, and +yet there is no religion except the practice of morality. But what +you call religion is simply superstition. Religion as it is now +taught teaches our duties toward God—our obligations to the +Infinite, and the results of a failure to discharge those +obligations. I believe that we are under no obligations to the +Infinite; that we cannot be. All our obligations are to each other, +and to sentient beings. "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou +shalt be saved," has nothing to do with morality. "Do unto other as +ye would that others should do unto you" has nothing to do with +believing in the Lord Jesus Christ. Baptism has nothing to do with +morality. "Pay your honest debts." That has nothing to do with +baptism. What is called religion is simple superstition, with which +morality has nothing to do.</p> +<p>The churches do not prevent people from committing natural +offences, but restrain them from committing artificial ones. As for +instance, the Catholic Church can prevent one of its members from +eating meat on Friday, but not from whipping his wife. The +Episcopal Church can prevent dancing, it may be, in Lent, but not +slander. The Presbyterian can keep a man from working on Sunday, +but not from practicing deceit on Monday. And so I might go through +the churches. They lay the greater stress upon the artificial +offences. Those countries that are the most religious are the most +immoral. When the world was under the control of the Catholic +Church, it reached the very pit of immorality, and nations have +advanced in morals just in proportion that they have lost +Christianity.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. It is frequently asserted that there is nothing +new in your objections against Christianity. What is your reply to +such assertions?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Of course, the editors of religious papers will +say this; Christians will say this. In my opinion, an argument is +new until it has been answered. An argument is absolutely fresh, +and has upon its leaves the dew of morning, until it has been +refuted. All men have experienced, it may be, in some degree, what +we call love. Millions of men have written about it. The subject is +of course old. It is only the presentation that can be new. +Thousands of men have attacked superstition. The subject is old, +but the manner in which the facts are handled, the arguments +grouped—these may be forever new. Millions of men have +preached Christianity. Certainly there is nothing new in the +original ideas. Nothing can be new except the presentation, the +grouping. The ideas may be old, but they may be clothed in new +garments of passion; they may be given additional human interest. A +man takes a fact, or an old subject, as a sculptor takes a rock; +the rock is not new. Of this rock he makes a statue; the statue is +new. And yet some orthodox man might say there is nothing new about +that statue: "I know the man that dug the rock; I know the owner of +the quarry." Substance is eternal; forms are new. So in the human +mind certain ideas, or in the human heart certain passions, are +forever old; but genius forever gives them new forms, new meanings; +and this is the perpetual originality of genius.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you consider that churches are injurious to +the community?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. In the exact proportion that churches teach +falsehood; in the exact proportion that they destroy liberty of +thought, the free action of the human mind; in the exact proportion +that they teach the doctrine of eternal pain, and convince people +of its truth—they are injurious. In the proportion that they +teach morality and justice, and practice kindness and +charity—in that proportion they are a benefit. Every church, +therefore, is a mixed problem—part good and part bad. In one +direction it leads toward and sheds light; in the other direction +its influence is entirely bad.</p> +<p>Now, I would like to civilize the churches, so that they will be +able to do good deeds without building bad creeds. In other words, +take out the superstitious and the miraculous, and leave the human +and the moral.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Why do you not respond to the occasional +clergyman who replies to your lectures?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. In the first place, no clergyman has ever replied +to my lectures. In the second place, no clergyman ever will reply +to my lectures. He does not answer my arguments—he attacks +me; and the replies that I have seen are not worth answering. They +are far below the dignity of the question under discussion. Most of +them are ill-mannered, as abusive as illogical, and as malicious as +weak. I cannot reply without feeling humiliated. I cannot use their +weapons, and my weapons they do not understand. I attack +Christianity because it is cruel, and they account for all my +actions by putting behind them base motives. They make it at once a +personal question. They imagine that epithets are good enough +arguments with which to answer an Infidel. A few years ago they +would have imprisoned me. A few years before that they would have +burned me. We have advanced. Now they only slander; and I +congratulate myself on the fact that even that is not believed. +Ministers do not believe each other about each other. The truth has +never yet been ascertained in any trial by a church. The longer the +trial lasts, the obscurer is the truth. They will not believe each +other, even on oath; and one of the most celebrated ministers of +this country has publicly announced that there is no use in +answering a lie started by his own church; that if he does answer +it—if he does kill it—forty more lies will come to the +funeral.</p> +<p>In this connection we must remember that the priests of one +religion never credit the miracles of another religion. Is this +because priests instinctively know priests? Now, when a Christian +tells a Buddhist some of the miracles of the Testament, the +Buddhist smiles. When a Buddhist tells a Christian the miracles +performed by Buddha, the Christian laughs. This reminds me of an +incident. A man told a most wonderful story. Everybody present +expressed surprise and astonishment, except one man. He said +nothing; he did not even change countenance. One who noticed that +the story had no effect on this man, said to him: "You do not seem +to be astonished in the least at this marvelous tale." The man +replied, "No; I am a liar myself."</p> +<p>You see, I am not trying to answer individual ministers. I am +attacking the whole body of superstition. I am trying to kill the +entire dog, and I do not feel like wasting any time killing fleas +on that dog. When the dog dies, the fleas will be out of +provisions, and in that way we shall answer them all at once.</p> +<p>So, I do not bother myself answering religious newspapers. In +the first place, they are not worth answering; and in the second +place, to answer would only produce a new crop of falsehoods. You +know, the editor of a religious newspaper, as a rule, is one who +has failed in the pulpit; and you can imagine the brains necessary +to edit a religious weekly from this fact. I have known some good +religious editors. By some I mean one. I do not say that there are +not others, but I do say I do not know them. I might add, here, +that the one I did know is dead.</p> +<p>Since I have been in this city there have been some "replies" to +me. They have been almost idiotic. A Catholic priest asked me how I +had the impudence to differ with Newton. Newton, he says, believed +in a God; and I ask this Catholic priest how he has the impudence +to differ with Newton. Newton was a Protestant. This simply shows +the absurdity of using men's names for arguments. This same priest +proves the existence of God by a pagan orator. Is it possible that +God's last witness died with Cicero? If it is necessary to believe +in a God now, the witnesses ought to be on hand now.</p> +<p>Another man, pretending to answer me, quotes Le Conte, a +geologist; and according to this geologist we are "getting very +near to the splendors of the great white throne." Where is the +great white throne? Can any one, by studying geology, find the +locality of the great white throne? To what stratum does it belong? +In what geologic period was the great white throne formed? What on +earth has geology to do with the throne of God?</p> +<p>The truth is, there can be no reply to the argument that man +should be governed by his reason; that he should depend upon +observation and experience; that he should use the faculties he has +for his own benefit, and the benefit of his fellow-man. There is no +answer. It is not within the power of man to substantiate the +supernatural. It is beyond the power of evidence.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Why do the theological seminaries find it +difficult to get students?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I was told last spring, at New Haven, that the +"theologs," as they call the young men there being fitted for the +ministry, were not regarded as intellectual by all the other +students. The orthodox pulpit has no rewards for genius. It has +rewards only for stupidity, for belief—not for investigation, +not for thought; and the consequence is that young men of talent +avoid the pulpit. I think I heard the other day that of all the +students at Harvard only nine are preparing for the ministry. The +truth is, the ministry is not regarded as an intellectual +occupation. The average church now consists of women and children. +Men go to please their wives, or stay at home and subscribe to +please their wives; and the wives are beginning to think, and many +of them are staying at home. Many of them now prefer the theatre or +the opera or the park or the seashore or the forest or the +companionship of their husbands and children at home.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. How does the religious state of California +compare with the rest of the Union?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I find that sensible people everywhere are about +the same, and the proportion of Freethinkers depends on the +proportion of sensible folks. I think that California has her full +share of sensible people. I find everywhere the best people and the +brightest people—the people with the most heart and the best +brain—all tending toward free thought. Of course, a man of +brain cannot believe the miracles of the Old and New Testaments. A +man of heart cannot believe in the doctrine of eternal pain. We +have found that other religions are like ours, with precisely the +same basis, the same idiotic miracles, the same Christ or Saviour. +It will hardly do to say that all others like ours are false, and +ours the only true one, when others substantially like it are +thousands of years older. We have at last found that a religion is +simply an effort on the part of man to account for what he sees, +what he experiences, what he feels, what he fears, and what he +hopes. Every savage has his philosophy. That is his religion and +his science.</p> +<p>The religions of to-day are the sciences of the past; and it may +be that the sciences of to-day will be the religions of the future, +and that other sciences will be as far beyond them as the science +of to-day is beyond the religion of to-day. As a rule, religion is +a sanctified mistake, and heresy a slandered fact. In other words, +the human mind grows—and as it grows it abandons the old, and +the old gets its revenge by maligning the new.</p> +<p>—<i>The San Franciscan</i>, San Francisco, October 4, +1884.</p> +<a name="link0045" id="link0045"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>BLAINE'S DEFEAT.</h2> +<p><i>Question</i>. Colonel, the fact that you took no part in the +late campaign, is a subject for general comment, and knowing your +former enthusiastic advocacy and support of Blaine, the people are +somewhat surprised, and would like to know why?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. In the first place, it was generally supposed +that Blaine needed no help. His friends were perfectly confident. +They counted on a very large Catholic support. The Irish were +supposed to be spoiling to vote for Blaine and Logan. All the +Protestant ministers were also said to be solid for the ticket. +Under these circumstances it was hardly prudent for me to say +much.</p> +<p>I was for Blaine in 1876. In 1880 I was for Garfield, and in +1884 I was for Gresham or Harlan. I believed then and I believe now +that either one of these men could have been elected. Blaine is an +exceedingly able man, but he made some mistakes and some very +unfortunate utterances. I took no part in the campaign; first, +because there was no very important issue, no great principle at +stake, and second, I thought that I had done enough, and, third, +because I wanted to do something else.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What, in your opinion, were the causes for +Blaine's defeat?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. First, because of dissension in the party. +Second, because party ties have grown weak. Third, the Prohibition +vote. Fourth, the Delmonico dinner—too many rich men. Fifth, +the Rev. Dr. Burchard with his Rum, Romanism and Rebellion. Sixth, +giving too much attention to Ohio and not enough to New York. +Seventh, the unfortunate remark of Mr. Blaine, that "the State +cannot get along without the Church." Eighth, the weakness of the +present administration. Ninth, the abandonment by the party of the +colored people of the South. Tenth, the feeling against monopolies, +and not least, a general desire for a change.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What, in your opinion, will be the result of +Cleveland's election and administration upon the general political +and business interests of the country?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. The business interests will take care of +themselves. A dollar has the instinct of self-preservation largely +developed. The tariff will take care of itself. No State is +absolutely for free trade. In each State there is an exception. The +exceptions will combine, as they always have. Michigan will help +Pennsylvania take care of iron, if Pennsylvania will help Michigan +take care of salt and lumber. Louisiana will help Pennsylvania and +Michigan if they help her take care of sugar. Colorado, California +and Ohio will help the other States if they will help them about +wool—and so I might make a tour of the States, ending with +Vermont and maple sugar. I do not expect that Cleveland will do any +great harm. The Democrats want to stay in power, and that desire +will give security for good behavior.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Will he listen to or grant any demands made of +him by the alleged Independent Republicans of New York, either in +his appointments or policies?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Of this I know nothing. The +Independents—from what I know of them—will be too +modest to claim credit or to ask office. They were actuated by pure +principle. They did what they did to purify the party, so that they +could stay in it. Now that it has been purified they will remain, +and hate the Democratic party as badly as ever. I hardly think that +Cleveland would insult their motives by offering loaves and fishes. +All they desire is the approval of their own consciences.</p> +<p>—<i>The Commonwealth</i>, Topeka, Kansas, November 21, +1884.</p> +<a name="link0046" id="link0046"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>BLAINE'S DEFEAT.</h2> +<h3><i>Question</i>. How do you account for the defeat of Mr. +Blaine?</h3> +<p><i>Answer</i>. How do I account for the defeat of Mr. Blaine? I +will answer: St. John, the Independents, Burchard, Butler and +Cleveland did it. The truth is that during the war a majority of +the people, counting those in the South, were opposed to putting +down the Rebellion by force. It is also true that when the +Proclamation of Emancipation was issued a majority of the people, +counting the whole country, were opposed to it, and it is also true +that when the colored people were made citizens a majority of the +people, counting the whole country, were opposed to it.</p> +<p>Now, while, in my judgment, an overwhelming majority of the +whole people have honestly acquiesced in the result of the war, and +are now perfectly loyal to the Union, and have also acquiesced in +the abolition of slavery, I doubt very much whether they are really +in favor of giving the colored man the right to vote. Of course +they have not the power now to take that right away, but they feel +anything but kindly toward the party that gave the colored man that +right. That is the only result of the war that is not fully +accepted by the South and by many Democrats of the North.</p> +<p>Another thing, the Republican party was divided—divided +too by personal hatreds. The party was greatly injured by the +decision of the Supreme Court in which the Civil Rights Bill was +held void. Now, a great many men who kept with the Republican +party, did so because they believed that that party would protect +the colored man in the South, but as soon as the Court decided that +all the laws passed were unconstitutional, these men felt free to +vote for the other side, feeling that it would make no difference. +They reasoned this way: If the Republican party cannot defend the +colored people, why make a pretence that excites hatred on one side +and disarms the other? If the colored people have to depend upon +the State for protection, and the Federal Government cannot +interfere, why say any more about it?</p> +<p>I think that these men made a mistake and our party made a +mistake in accepting without protest a decision that was far worse +than the one delivered in the case of Dred Scott. By accepting this +decision the most important issue was abandoned. The Republican +party must take the old ground that it is the duty of the Federal +Government to protect the citizens, and that it cannot simply leave +that duty to the State. It must see to it that the State performs +that duty.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Have you seen the published report that Dorsey +claims to have paid you one hundred thousand dollars for your +services in the Star Route Cases?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I have seen the report, but Dorsey never said +anything like that.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Is there no truth in the statement, then?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Well, Dorsey never said anything of the kind.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Then you do not deny that you received such an +enormous fee?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. All I say is that Dorsey did not say I did.*</p> +<p>—<i>The Commercial</i>, Louisville, Kentucky, October 24, +1884.</p> +<pre> + [* Col. Ingersoll has been so criticised and maligned for + defending Mr. Dorsey in the Star Route cases, and so + frequently charged with having received an enormous fee, + that I think it but simple justice to his memory to say that + he received no such fee, and that the ridiculously small + sums he did receive were much more than offset by the amount + he had to pay as indorser of Mr. Dorsey's paper. —C. F. + FARRELL.] +</pre> +<a name="link0047" id="link0047"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>PLAGIARISM AND POLITICS.</h2> +<p><i>Question</i>. What have you to say about the charges +published in this morning's <i>Herald</i> to the effect that you +copied your lecture about "Mistakes of Moses" from a chapter +bearing the same title in a book called Hittell's "Evidences +against Christianity"?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. All I have to say is that the charge is utterly +false. I will give a thousand dollars reward to any one who will +furnish a book published before my lecture, in which that lecture +can be found. It is wonderful how malicious the people are who love +their enemies. This charge is wholly false, as all others of like +nature are. I do not have to copy the writings of others. The +Christians do not seem to see that they are constantly +complimenting me by saying that what I write is so good that I must +have stolen it. Poor old orthodoxy!</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What is your opinion of the incoming +administration, and how will it affect the country?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I feel disposed to give Cleveland a chance. If he +does the fair thing, then it is the duty of all good citizens to +say so. I do not expect to see the whole country go to destruction +because the Democratic party is in power. Neither do I believe that +business is going to suffer on that account. The times are hard, +and I fear will be much harder, but they would have been +substantially the same if Blaine had been elected. I wanted the +Republican party to succeed and fully expected to see Mr. Blaine +President, but I believe in making the best of what has happened. I +want no office, I want good government—wise legislation. I +believe in protection, but I want the present tariff reformed and I +hope the Democrats will be wise enough to do so.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. How will the Democratic victory affect the +colored people in the South?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Certainly their condition will not be worse than +it has been. The Supreme Court decided that the Civil Rights Bill +was unconstitutional and that the Federal Government cannot +interfere. That was a bad decision and our party made a mistake in +not protesting against it. I believe it to be the duty of the +Federal Government to protect all its citizens, at home as well as +abroad. My hope is that there will be a division in the Democratic +party. That party has something now to divide. At last it has a +bone, and probably the fighting will commence. I hope that some new +issue will take color out of politics, something about which both +white and colored may divide. Of course nothing would please me +better than to see the Democratic party become great and grand +enough to give the colored people their rights.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Why did you not take part in the campaign?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Well, I was afraid of frightening the preachers +away. I might have done good by scaring one, but I did not know +Burchard until it was too late. Seriously, I did not think that I +was needed. I supposed that Blaine had a walkover, that he was +certain to carry New York. I had business of my own to attend to +and did not want to interfere with the campaign.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think of the policy of nominating +Blaine in 1888, as has been proposed?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I think it too early to say what will be done in +1888. Parties do not exist for one man. Parties have certain ends +in view and they choose men as instruments to accomplish these +ends. Parties belong to principles, not persons. No party can +afford to follow anybody. If in 1888 Mr. Blaine should appear to be +the best man for the party then he will be nominated, otherwise +not. I know nothing about any intention to nominate him again and +have no idea whether he has that ambition. The Whig party was +intensely loyal to Henry Clay and forgot the needs of the country, +and allowed the Democrats to succeed with almost unknown men. +Parties should not belong to persons, but persons should belong to +parties. Let us not be too previous—let us wait.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think of the course pursued by the +Rev. Drs. Ball and Burchard?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. In politics the preacher is somewhat dangerous. +He has a standard of his own; he has queer ideas of evidence, great +reliance on hearsay; he is apt to believe things against +candidates, just because he wants to. The preacher thinks that all +who differ with him are instigated by the Devil—that their +intentions are evil, and that when they behave themselves they are +simply covering the poison with sugar. It would have been far +better for the country if Mr. Ball had kept still. I do not pretend +to say that his intentions were not good. He likely thought it his +duty to lift a warning voice, to bawl aloud and to spare not, but I +think he made a mistake, and he now probably thinks so himself. Mr. +Burchard was bound to say a smart thing. It sounded well, and he +allowed his ears to run away with his judgment. As a matter of +fact, there is no connection between rum and Romanism. Catholic +countries do not use as much alcohol as Protestant. England has far +more drunkards than Spain. Scotland can discount Italy or Portugal +in good, square drinking. So there is no connection between +Romanism and rebellion. Ten times as many Methodists and twenty +times as many Baptists went into the Rebellion as Catholics. +Thousands of Catholics fought as bravely as Protestants for the +preservation of the Union. No doubt Mr. Burchard intended well. He +thought he was giving Blaine a battle-cry that would send +consternation into the hearts of the opposition. My opinion is that +in the next campaign the preachers will not be called to the front. +Of course they have the same right to express their views that +other people have, but other people have the right to avoid the +responsibility of appearing to agree with them. I think though that +it is about time to let up on Burchard. He has already unloaded on +the Lord.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you think Cleveland will put any Southern +men in his Cabinet?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I do. Nothing could be in worse taste than to +ignore the section that gave him three-fourths of his vote. The +people have put the Democratic party in power. They intended to do +what they did, and why should the South not be recognized? Garland +would make a good Attorney-General; Lamar has the ability to fill +any position in the Cabinet. I could name several others well +qualified, and I suppose that two or three Southern men will be in +the Cabinet. If they are good enough to elect a President they are +good enough to be selected by a President.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think of Mr. Conkling's course?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Mr. Conkling certainly had the right to keep +still. He was under no obligation to the party. The Republican +papers have not tried to secure his services. He has been very +generally and liberally denounced ever since his quarrel with Mr. +Garfield, and it is only natural to resent what a man feels to be +an injustice. I suppose he has done what he honestly thought was, +under the circumstances, his duty. I believe him to be a man of +stainless integrity, and he certainly has as much independence of +character as one man can carry. It is time to put the party whip +away. People can be driven from, but not to, the Republican party. +If we expect to win in 1888 we must welcome recruits.</p> +<p>—<i>The Plain Dealer</i>, Cleveland, Ohio, Dec. 11, +1884.</p> +<a name="link0048" id="link0048"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>RELIGIOUS PREJUDICE.</h2> +<p><i>Question</i>. Will a time ever come when political campaigns +will be conducted independently of religious prejudice?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. As long as men are prejudiced, they will probably +be religious, and certainly as long as they are religious they will +be prejudiced, and every religionist who imagines the next world +infinitely more important than this, and who imagines that he gets +his orders from God instead of from his own reason, or from his +fellow-citizens, and who thinks that he should do something for the +glory of God instead of for the benefit of his fellow-citizens +—just as long as they believe these things, just so long +their prejudices will control their votes. Every good, ignorant, +orthodox Christian places his Bible above laws and constitutions. +Every good, sincere and ignorant Catholic puts pope above king and +president, as well as above the legally expressed will of a +majority of his countrymen. Every Christian believes God to be the +source of all authority. I believe that the authority to govern +comes from the consent of the governed. Man is the source of power, +and to protect and increase human happiness should be the object of +government. I think that religious prejudices are growing weaker +because religious belief is growing weaker. And these prejudices +—should men ever become really civilized—will finally +fade away. I think that a Presbyterian, to-day, has no more +prejudice against an Atheist than he has against a Catholic. A +Catholic does not dislike an Infidel any more than he does a +Presbyterian, and I believe, to-day, that most of the Presbyterians +would rather see and Atheist President than a pronounced +Catholic.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Is Agnosticism gaining ground in the United +States?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Of course, there are thousands and thousands of +men who have now advanced intellectually to the point of perceiving +the limit of human knowledge. In other words, at last they are +beginning to know enough to know what can and cannot be known. +Sensible men know that nobody knows whether an infinite God exists +or not. Sensible men know that an infinite personality cannot, by +human testimony, be established. Sensible men are giving up trying +to answer the questions of origin and destiny, and are paying more +attention to what happens between these questions—that is to +say, to this world. Infidelity increases as knowledge increases, as +fear dies, and as the brain develops. After all, it is a question +of intelligence. Only cunning performs a miracle, only ignorance +believes it.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you think that evolution and revealed +religion are compatible—that is to say, can a man be an +evolutionist and a Christian?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Evolution and Christianity may be compatible, +provided you take the ground that Christianity is only one of the +links in the chain, one of the phases of civilization. But if you +mean by Christianity what is generally understood, of course that +and evolution are absolutely incompatible. Christianity pretends to +be not only the truth, but, so far as religion is concerned, the +whole truth. Christianity pretends to give a history of religion +and a prophecy of destiny. As a philosophy, it is an absolute +failure. As a history, it is false. There is no possible way by +which Darwin and Moses can be harmonized. There is an inexpressible +conflict between Christianity and Science, and both cannot long +inhabit the same brain. You cannot harmonize evolution and the +atonement. The survival of the fittest does away with original +sin.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. From your knowledge of the religious tendency +in the United States, how long will orthodox religion be +popular?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I do not think that orthodox religion is popular +to-day. The ministers dare not preach the creed in all its naked +deformity and horror. They are endeavoring with the vines of +sentiment to cover up the caves and dens in which crawl the +serpents of their creed. Very few ministers care now to speak of +eternal pain. They leave out the lake of fire and brimstone. They +are not fond of putting in the lips of Christ the loving words, +"Depart from me, ye cursed." The miracles are avoided. In short, +what is known as orthodoxy is already unpopular. Most ministers are +endeavoring to harmonize what they are pleased to call science and +Christianity, and nothing is now so welcome to the average +Christian as some work tending to show that, after all, Joshua was +an astronomer.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What section of the United States, East, West, +North, or South, is the most advanced in liberal religious +ideas?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. That section of the country in which there is the +most intelligence is the most liberal. That section of the country +where there is the most ignorance is the most prejudiced. The least +brain is the most orthodox. There possibly is no more progressive +city in the world, no more liberal, than Boston. Chicago is full of +liberal people. So is San Francisco. The brain of New York is +liberal. Every town, every city, is liberal in the precise +proportion that it is intelligent.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Will the religion of humanity be the religion +of the future?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Yes; it is the only religion now. All other is +superstition. What they call religion rests upon a supposed +relation between man and God. In what they call religion man is +asked to do something for God. As God wants nothing, and can by no +possibility accept anything, such a religion is simply +superstition. Humanity is the only possible religion. Whoever +imagines that he can do anything for God is mistaken. Whoever +imagines that he can add to his happiness in the next world by +being useless in this, is also mistaken. And whoever thinks that +any God cares how he cuts his hair or his clothes, or what he eats, +or whether he fasts, or rings a bell, or puts holy water on his +breast, or counts beads, or shuts his eyes and says words to the +clouds, is laboring under a great mistake.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. A man in the Swaim Court Martial case was +excluded as a witness because he was an Atheist. Do you think the +law in the next decade will permit the affirmative oath?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. If belief affected your eyes, your ears, any of +your senses, or your memory, then, of course, no man ought to be a +witness who had not the proper belief. But unless it can be shown +that Atheism interferes with the sight, the hearing, or the memory, +why should justice shut the door to truth?</p> +<p>In most of the States of this Union I could not give testimony. +Should a man be murdered before my eyes I could not tell a jury who +did it. Christianity endeavors to make an honest man an outlaw. +Christianity has such a contemptible opinion of human nature that +it does not believe a man can tell the truth unless frightened by a +belief in God. No lower opinion of the human race has ever been +expressed.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you think that bigotry would persecute now +for religious opinion's sake, if it were not for the law and the +press?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I think that the church would persecute to-day if +it had the power, just as it persecuted in the past. We are +indebted for nearly all our religious liberty to the hypocrisy of +the church. The church does not believe. Some in the church do, and +if they had the power, they would torture and burn as of yore. Give +the Presbyterian Church the power, and it would not allow an +Infidel to live. Give the Methodist Church the power and the result +would be the same. Give the Catholic Church the power—just +the same. No church in the United States would be willing that any +other church should have the power. The only men who are to be +angels in the next world are the ones who cannot be trusted with +human liberty in this; and the man who are destined to live forever +in hell are the only gentlemen with whom human liberty is safe. Why +should Christians refuse to persecute in this world, when their God +is going to in the next?</p> +<p>—<i>Mail and Express</i>, New York, January 12, 1885.</p> +<a name="link0049" id="link0049"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>CLEVELAND AND HIS CABINET.</h2> +<h3><i>Question</i>. What do you think of Mr. Cleveland's +Cabinet?</h3> +<p><i>Answer</i>. It is a very good Cabinet. Some objections have +been made to Mr. Lamar, but I think he is one of the very best. He +is a man of ability, of unquestioned integrity, and is well +informed on national affairs. Ever since he delivered his eulogy on +the life and services of Sumner, I have had great respect for Mr. +Lamar. He is far beyond most of his constituents, and has done much +to destroy the provincial prejudices of Mississippi. He will +without doubt make an excellent Secretary of the Interior. The +South has no better representative man, and I believe his +appointment will, in a little while, be satisfactory to the whole +country. Bayard stands high in his party, and will certainly do as +well as his immediate predecessor. Nothing could be better than the +change in the Department of Justice. Garland is an able lawyer, has +been an influential Senator and will, in my judgment, make an +excellent Attorney-General. The rest of the Cabinet I know little +about, but from what I hear I believe they are men of ability and +that they will discharge their duties well. Mr. Vilas has a great +reputation in Wisconsin, and is one of the best and most forcible +speakers in the country.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Will Mr. Cleveland, in your opinion, carry out +the civil service reform he professes to favor?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I have no reason to suspect even that he will +not. He has promised to execute the law, and the promise is in +words that do not admit of two interpretations. Of course he is +sincere. He knows that this course will save him a world of +trouble, and he knows that it makes no difference about the +politics of a copyist. All the offices of importance will in all +probability be filled by Democrats. The President will not put +himself in the power of his opponents. If he is to be held +responsible for the administration he must be permitted to choose +his own assistants. This is too plain to talk about. Let us give +Mr. Cleveland a fair show—and let us expect success instead +of failure. I admit that many Presidents have violated their +promises. There seems to be something in the atmosphere of +Washington that breeds promise and prevents performance. I suppose +it is some kind of political malarial microbe. I hope that some +political Pasteur will, one of these days, discover the real +disease so that candidates can be vaccinated during the campaign. +Until them, presidential promises will be liable to a discount.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Is the Republican party dead?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. My belief is that the next President will be a +Republican, and that both houses will be Republican in 1889. Mr. +Blaine was defeated by an accident—by the slip of another +man's tongue. But it matters little what party is in power if the +Government is administered upon correct principles, and if the +Democracy adopt the views of the Republicans and carry out +Republican measures, it may be that they can keep in +power—otherwise—otherwise. If the Democrats carry out +real Democratic measures, then their defeat is certain.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you think that the era of good feeling +between the North and the South has set in with the appointment of +ex-rebels to the Cabinet?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. The war is over. The South failed. The Nation +succeeded. We should stop talking about South and North. We are one +people, and whether we agree or disagree one destiny awaits us. We +cannot divide. We must live together. We must trust each other. +Confidence begets confidence. The whole country was responsible for +slavery. Slavery was rebellion. Slavery is dead—so is +rebellion. Liberty has united the country and there is more real +union, national sentiment to-day, North and South, than ever +before.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. It is hinted that Mr. Tilden is really the +power behind the throne. Do you think so?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I guess nobody has taken the hint. Of course Mr. +Tilden has retired from politics. The probability is that many +Democrats ask his advice, and some rely on his judgment. He is +regarded as a piece of ancient wisdom—a phenomenal +persistence of the Jeffersonian type—the connecting link with +the framers, founders and fathers. The power behind the throne is +the power that the present occupant supposes will determine who the +next occupant shall be.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. With the introduction of the Democracy into +power, what radical changes will take place in the Government, and +what will be the result?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. If the President carries out his inaugural +promises there will be no radical changes, and if he does not there +will be a very radical change at the next presidential election. +The inaugural is a very good Republican document. There is nothing +in it calculated to excite alarm. There is no dangerous policy +suggested—no conceited vagaries—nothing but a plain +statement of the situation and the duty of the Chief Magistrate as +understood by the President. I think that the inaugural surprised +the Democrats and the Republicans both, and if the President +carries out the program he has laid down he will surprise and +pacify a large majority of the American people.</p> +<p>—<i>Mail and Express</i>, New York, March 10, 1885.</p> +<a name="link0050" id="link0050"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>RELIGION, PROHIBITION, AND GEN. GRANT.</h2> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think of prohibition, and what do +you think of its success in this State?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Few people understand the restraining influence +of liberty. Moderation walks hand in hand with freedom. I do not +mean the freedom springing from the sudden rupture of restraint. +That kind of freedom usually rushes to extremes.</p> +<p>People must be educated to take care of themselves, and this +education must commence in infancy. Self-restraint is the only kind +that can always be depended upon. Of course intemperance is a great +evil. It causes immense suffering—clothes wives and children +in rags, and is accountable for many crimes, particularly those of +violence. Laws to be of value must be honestly enforced. Laws that +sleep had better be dead. Laws to be enforced must be honestly +approved of and believed in by a large majority of the people. +Unpopular laws make hypocrites, perjurers and official shirkers of +duty. And if to the violation of such laws severe penalties attach, +they are rarely enforced. Laws that create artificial crimes are +the hardest to carry into effect. You can never convince a majority +of people that it is as bad to import goods without paying the +legal duty as to commit larceny. Neither can you convince a +majority of people that it is a crime or sin, or even a mistake, to +drink a glass of wine or beer. Thousands and thousands of people in +this State honestly believe that prohibition is an interference +with their natural rights, and they feel justified in resorting to +almost any means to defeat the law.</p> +<p>In this way people become somewhat demoralized. It is +unfortunate to pass laws that remain unenforced on account of their +unpopularity. People who would on most subjects swear to the truth +do not hesitate to testify falsely on a prohibition trial. In +addition to this, every known device is resorted to, to sell in +spite of the law, and when some want to sell and a great many want +to buy, considerable business will be done, while there are fewer +saloons and less liquor sold in them. The liquor is poorer and the +price is higher. The consumer has to pay for the extra risk. More +liquor finds its way to homes, more men buy by the bottle and +gallon. In old times nearly everybody kept a little rum or whiskey +on the sideboard. The great Washingtonian temperance movement drove +liquor out of the home and increased the taverns and saloons. Now +we are driving liquor back to the homes. In my opinion there is a +vast difference between distilled spirits and the lighter drinks, +such as wine and beer. Wine is a fireside and whiskey a +conflagration. These lighter drinks are not unhealthful and do not, +as I believe, create a craving for stronger beverages. You will, I +think, find it almost impossible to enforce the present law against +wine and beer. I was told yesterday that there are some sixty +places in Cedar Rapids where whiskey is sold. It takes about as +much ceremony to get a drink as it does to join the Masons, but +they seem to like the ceremony. People seem to take delight in +outwitting the State when it does not involve the commission of any +natural offence, and when about to be caught, may not hesitate to +swear falsely to the extent of "don't remember," or "can't say +positively," or "can't swear whether it was whiskey or not."</p> +<p>One great trouble in Iowa is that the politicians, or many of +them who openly advocate prohibition, are really opposed to it. +They want to keep the German vote, and they do not want to lose +native Republicans. They feel a "divided duty" to ride both horses. +This causes the contrast between their conversation and their +speeches. A few years ago I took dinner with a gentleman who had +been elected Governor of one of our States on the Prohibition +ticket. We had four kinds of wine during the meal, and a pony of +brandy at the end. Prohibition will never be a success until it +prohibits the Prohibitionists. And yet I most sincerely hope and +believe that the time will come when drunkenness shall have +perished from the earth. Let us cultivate the love of home. Let +husbands and wives and children be companions. Let them seek +amusements together. If it is a good place for father to go, it is +a good place for mother and the children. I believe that a home can +be made more attractive than a saloon. Let the boys and girls amuse +themselves at home—play games, study music, read interesting +books, and let the parents be their playfellows. The best +temperance lecture, in the fewest words, you will find in Victor +Hugo's great novel "Les Miserables." The grave digger is asked to +take a drink. He refuses and gives this reason: "The hunger of my +family is the enemy of my thirst."</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Many people wonder why you are out of politics. +Will you give your reasons?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. A few years ago great questions had to be +settled. The life of the nation was at stake. Later the liberty of +millions of slaves depended upon the action of the Government. +Afterward reconstruction and the rights of citizens pressed +themselves upon the people for solution. And last, the preservation +of national honor and credit. These questions did not enter into +the last campaign. They had all been settled, and properly settled, +with the one exception of the duty of the nation to protect the +colored citizens. The Supreme Court settled that, at least for a +time, and settled it wrong. But the Republican party submitted to +the civil rights decision, and so, as between the great parties, +that question did not arise. This left only two +questions—protection and office. But as a matter of fact, all +Republicans were not for our present system of protection, and all +Democrats were not against it. On that question each party was and +is divided. On the other question—office—both parties +were and are in perfect harmony. Nothing remains now for the +Democrats to do except to give a "working" definition of "offensive +partisanship."</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you think that the American people are +seeking after truth, or do they want to be amused?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. We have all kinds. Thousands are earnestly +seeking for the truth. They are looking over the old creeds, they +are studying the Bible for themselves, they have the candor born of +courage, they are depending upon themselves instead of on the +clergy. They have found out that the clergy do not know; that their +sources of information are not reliable; that, like the +politicians, many ministers preach one way and talk another. The +doctrine of eternal pain has driven millions from the church. +People with good hearts cannot get consolation out of that cruel +lie. The ministers themselves are getting ashamed to call that +doctrine "the tidings of great joy." The American people are a +serious people. They want to know the truth. They fell that +whatever the truth may be they have the courage to hear it. The +American people also have a sense of humor. They like to see old +absurdities punctured and solemn stupidity held up to laughter. +They are, on the average, the most intelligent people on the earth. +They can see the point. Their wit is sharp, quick and logical. +Nothing amuses them more that to see the mask pulled from the face +of sham. The average American is generous, intelligent, +level-headed, manly, and good- natured.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What, in your judgment, is the source of the +greatest trouble among men?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Superstition. That has caused more agony, more +tears, persecution and real misery than all other causes combined. +The other name for superstition is ignorance. When men learn that +all sin is a mistake, that all dishonesty is a blunder, that even +intelligent selfishness will protect the rights of others, there +will be vastly more happiness in this world. Shakespeare says that +"There is no darkness but ignorance." Sometime man will learn that +when he steals from another, he robs himself—that the way to +be happy is to make others so, and that it is far better to assist +his fellow-man than to fast, say prayers, count beads or build +temples to the Unknown. Some people tell us that selfishness is the +only sin, but selfishness grows in the soil of ignorance. After +all, education is the great lever, and the only one capable of +raising mankind. People ignorant of their own rights are ignorant +of the rights of others. Every tyrant is the slave of +ignorance.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. How soon do you think we would have the +millennium if every person attended strictly to his own +business?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Now, if every person were intelligent enough to +know his own business—to know just where his rights ended and +the rights of others commenced, and then had the wisdom and honesty +to act accordingly, we should have a very happy world. Most people +like to control the conduct of others. They love to write rules, +and pass laws for the benefit of their neighbors, and the neighbors +are pretty busy at the same business. People, as a rule, think that +they know the business of other people better than they do their +own. A man watching others play checkers or chess always thinks he +sees better moves than the players make. When all people attend to +their own business they will know that a part of their own business +is to increase the happiness of others.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What is causing the development of this +country?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Education, the free exchange of ideas, inventions +by which the forces of nature become our servants, intellectual +hospitality, a willingness to hear the other side, the richness of +our soil, the extent of our territory, the diversity of climate and +production, our system of government, the free discussion of +political questions, our social freedom, and above all, the fact +that labor is honorable.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What is your opinion of the religious tendency +of the people of this country?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Using the word religion in its highest and best +sense, the people are becoming more religious. We are far more +religious —using the word in its best sense—than when +we believed in human slavery, but we are not as orthodox as we were +then. We have more principle and less piety. We care more for the +right and less for the creed. The old orthodox dogmas are mouldy. +You will find moss on their backs. They are only brought out when a +new candidate for the ministry is to be examined. Only a little +while ago in New York a candidate for the Presbyterian pulpit was +examined and the following is a part of the examination:</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. "Do you believe in eternal punishment, as set +forth in the confession of faith?"</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. (With some hesitation) "Yes, I do."</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. "Have you preached on that subject lately?"</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. "No. I prepared a sermon on hell, in which I took +the ground that the punishment of the wicked will be endless, and +have it with me."</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. "Did you deliver it?"</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. "No. I thought that my congregation would not +care to hear it. The doctrine is rather unpopular where I have been +preaching, and I was afraid I might do harm, so I have not +delivered it yet."</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. "But you believe in eternal damnation, do you +not?"</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. "O yes, with all my heart."</p> +<p>He was admitted, and the admission proves the dishonesty of the +examiners and the examined. The new version of the Old and New +Testaments has done much to weaken confidence in the doctrine of +inspiration. It has occurred to a good many that if God took the +pains to inspire men to write the Bible, he ought to have inspired +others to translate it correctly. The general tendency today is +toward science, toward naturalism, toward what is called +Infidelity, but is in fact fidelity. Men are in a transition state, +and the people, on the average, have more real good, sound sense +to-day than ever before. The church is losing its power for evil. +The old chains are wearing out, and new ones are not being made. +The tendency is toward intellectual freedom, and that means the +final destruction of the orthodox bastille.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What is your opinion of General Grant as he +stands before the people to-day?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I have always regarded General Grant as the +greatest soldier this continent has produced. He is to-day the most +distinguished son of the Republic. The people have the greatest +confidence in his ability, his patriotism and his integrity. The +financial disaster impoverished General Grant, but he did not stain +the reputation of the grand soldier who led to many victories the +greatest army that ever fought for the liberties of man.</p> +<p>—<i>Iowa State Register</i>, May 23, 1885.</p> +<a name="link0051" id="link0051"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>HELL OR SHEOL AND OTHER SUBJECTS.</h2> +<h3><i>Question</i>. Colonel, have you read the revised +Testament?</h3> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Yes, but I don't believe the work has been fairly +done. The clergy are not going to scrape the butter off their own +bread. The clergy are offensive partisans, and those of each +denomination will interpret the Scriptures their way. No Baptist +minister would countenance a "Revision" that favored sprinkling, +and no Catholic priest would admit that any version would be +correct that destroyed the dogma of the "real presence." So I might +go through all the denominations.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Why was the word sheol introduced in place of +hell, and how do you like the substitute?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. The civilized world has outgrown the vulgar and +brutal hell of their fathers and founders of the churches. The +clergy are ashamed to preach about sulphurous flames and undying +worms. The imagination of the world has been developed, the heart +has grown tender, and the old dogma of eternal pain shocks all +civilized people. It is becoming disgraceful either to preach or +believe in such a beastly lie. The clergy are beginning to think +that it is hardly manly to frighten children with a detected +falsehood. Sheol is a great relief. It is not so hot as the old +place. The nights are comfortable, and the society is quite +refined. The worms are dead, and the air reasonably free from +noxious vapors. It is a much worse word to hold a revival with, but +much better for every day use. It will hardly take the place of the +old word when people step on tacks, put up stoves, or sit on pins; +but for use at church fairs and mite societies it will do about as +well. We do not need revision; excision is what we want. The +barbarism should be taken out of the Bible. Passages upholding +polygamy, wars of extermination, slavery, and religious persecution +should not be attributed to a perfect God. The good that is in the +Bible will be saved for man, and man will be saved from the evil +that is in that book. Why should we worship in God what we detest +in man?</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you think the use of the word sheol will +make any difference to the preachers?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Of course it will make no difference with +Talmage. He will make sheol just as hot and smoky and uncomfortable +as hell, but the congregations will laugh instead of tremble. The +old shudder has gone. Beecher had demolished hell before sheol was +adopted. According to his doctrine of evolution hell has been +slowly growing cool. The cindered souls do not even perspire. Sheol +is nothing to Mr. Beecher but a new name for an old mistake. As for +the effect it will have on Heber Newton, I cannot tell, neither can +he, until he asks his bishop. There are people who believe in +witches and madstones and fiat money, and centuries hence it may be +that people will exist who will believe as firmly in hell as Dr. +Shedd does now.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What about Beecher's sermons on +"Evolution"?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Beecher's sermons on "Evolution" will do good. +Millions of people believe that Mr. Beecher knows at least as much +as the other preachers, and if he regards the atonement as a dogma +with a mistake for a foundation, they may conclude that the whole +system is a mistake. But whether Mr. Beecher is mistaken or not, +people know that honesty is a good thing, that gratitude is a +virtue, that industry supports the world, and that whatever they +believe about religion they are bound by every conceivable +obligation to be just and generous. Mr. Beecher can no more succeed +in reconciling science and religion, than he could in convincing +the world that triangles and circles are exactly the same. There is +the same relation between science and religion that there is +between astronomy and astrology, between alchemy and chemistry, +between orthodoxy and common sense.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Have you read Miss Cleveland's book? She +condemns George Eliot's poetry on the ground that it has no faith +in it, nothing beyond. Do you imagine she would condemn Burns or +Shelley for that reason?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I have not read Miss Cleveland's book; but, if +the author condemns the poetry of George Eliot, she has made a +mistake. There is no poem in our language more beautiful than "The +Lovers," and none loftier or purer than "The Choir Invisible." +There is no poetry in the "beyond." The poetry is here—here +in this world, where love is in the heart. The poetry of the beyond +is too far away, a little too general. Shelley's "Skylark" was in +our sky, the daisy of Burns grew on our ground, and between that +lark and that daisy is room for all the real poetry of the +earth.</p> +<p>—<i>Evening Record</i>, Boston, Mass., 1885.</p> +<a name="link0052" id="link0052"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>INTERVIEWING, POLITICS AND SPIRITUALISM.</h2> +<p><i>Question</i>. What is your opinion of the peculiar +institution of American journalism known as interviewing?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. If the interviewers are fair, if they know how to +ask questions of a public nature, if they remember what is said, or +write it at the time, and if the interviewed knows enough to answer +questions in a way to amuse or instruct the public, then +interviewing is a blessing. But if the representative of the press +asks questions, either impudent or unimportant, and the answers are +like the questions, then the institution is a failure. When the +journalist fails to see the man he wishes to interview, or when the +man refuses to be interviewed, and thereupon the aforesaid +journalist writes up an interview, doing the talking for both +sides, the institution is a success. Such interviews are always +interesting, and, as a rule, the questions are to the point and the +answers perfectly responsive. There is probably a little too much +interviewing, and to many persons are asked questions upon subjects +about which they know nothing. Mr. Smith makes some money in stocks +or pork, visits London, and remains in that city for several weeks. +On his return he is interviewd as to the institutions, laws and +customs of the British Empire. Of course such an interview is +exceedingly instructive. Lord Affanaff lands at the dock in North +River, is driven to a hotel in a closed carriage, is interviewed a +few minutes after by a representative of the <i>Herald</i> as to +his view of the great Republic based upon what he has seen. Such an +interview is also instructive. Interviews with candidates as to +their chances of election is another favorite way of finding out +their honest opinion, but people who rely on those interviews +generally lose their bets. The most interesting interviews are +generally denied. I have been expecting to see an interview with +the Rev. Dr. Leonard on the medicinal properties of champagne and +toast, or the relation between old ale and modern theology, and as +to whether prohibition prohibits the Prohibitionists.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Have you ever been misrepresented in +interviews?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Several times. As a general rule, the clergy have +selected these misrepresentations when answering me. I never blamed +them, because it is much easier to answer something I did not say. +Most reporters try to give my real words, but it is difficult to +remember. They try to give the substance, and in that way change or +destroy the sense. You remember the Frenchman who translated +Shakespeare's great line in Macbeth—"Out, brief +candle!"—into "Short candle, go out!" Another man, trying to +give the last words of Webster—"I still live"—said "I +aint dead yit." So that when they try to do their best they often +make mistakes. Now and then interviews appear not one word of which +I ever said, and sometimes when I really had an interview, another +one has appeared. But generally the reporters treat me well, and +most of them succeed in telling about what I said. Personally I +have no cause for complaint.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think of the administration of +President Cleveland?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I know but very little about it. I suppose that +he is doing the best he can. He appears to be carrying out in good +faith the principles laid down in the platform on which he was +elected. He is having a hard road to travel. To satisfy an old +Democrat and a new mugwump is a difficult job. Cleveland appears to +be the owner of himself—appears to be a man of great firmness +and force of character. The best thing that I have heard about him +is that he went fishing on Sunday. We have had so much mock +morality, dude deportment and hypocritical respectability in public +office, that a man with courage enough to enjoy himself on Sunday +is a refreshing and healthy example. All things considered I do not +see but that Cleveland is doing well enough. The attitude of the +administration toward the colored people is manly and fair so far +as I can see.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Are you still a Republican in political +belief?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I believe that this is a Nation. I believe in the +equality of all men before the law, irrespective of race, religion +or color. I believe that there should be a dollar's worth of silver +in a silver dollar. I believe in a free ballot and a fair count. I +believe in protecting those industries, and those only, that need +protection. I believe in unrestricted coinage of gold and silver. I +believe in the rights of the State, the rights of the citizen, and +the sovereignty of the Nation. I believe in good times, good +health, good crops, good prices, good wages, good food, good +clothes and in the absolute and unqualified liberty of thought. If +such belief makes a Republican, than that is what I am.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you approve of John Sherman's policy in the +present campaign with reference to the bloody shirt, which reports +of his speeches show that he is waving?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I have not read Senator Sherman's speech. It +seems to me that there is a better feeling between the North and +South than ever before—better than at any time since the +Revolutionary war. I believe in cultivating that feeling, and in +doing and saying what we can to contribute to its growth. We have +hated long enough and fought enough. The colored people never have +been well treated but they are being better treated now than ever +before. It takes a long time to do away with prejudices that were +based upon religion and rascality—that is to say, inspiration +and interest. We must remember that slavery was the crime of the +whole country. Now, if Senator Sherman has made a speech calculated +to excite the hatreds and prejudices of the North and South, I +think that he has made a mistake. I do not say that he has made +such a speech, because I have not read it. The war is over—it +ended at Appomattox. Let us hope that the bitterness born of the +conflict died out forever at Riverside. The people are tired almost +to death of the old speeches. They have been worn out and patched, +and even the patches are threadbare. The Supreme Court decided the +Civil Rights Bill to be unconstitutional, and the Republican party +submitted. I regarded the decision as monstrous, but the Republican +party when in power said nothing and did nothing. I most sincerely +hope that the Democratic party will protect the colored people at +least as well as we did when we were in power. But I am out of +politics and intend to keep politics out of me.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. We have been having the periodical revival of +interest in Spiritualism. What do you think of "Spiritualism," as +it is popularly termed?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I do not believe in the supernatural. One who +does not believe in gods would hardly believe in ghosts. I am not a +believer in any of the "wonders" and "miracles" whether ancient or +modern. There may be spirits, but I do not believe there are. They +may communicate with some people, but thus far they have been +successful in avoiding me. Of course, I know nothing for certain on +the subject. I know a great many excellent people who are +thoroughly convinced of the truth of Spiritualism. Christians laugh +at the "miracles" to-day, attested by folks they know, but believe +the miracles of long ago, attested by folks that they did not know. +This is one of the contradictions in human nature. Most people are +willing to believe that wonderful things happened long ago and will +happen again in the far future; with them the present is the only +time in which nature behaves herself with becoming sobriety.</p> +<p>In old times nature did all kinds of juggling tricks, and after +a long while will do some more, but now she is attending strictly +to business, depending upon cause and effect.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Who, in your opinion, is the greatest leader of +the "opposition" yclept the Christian religion?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I suppose that Mr. Beecher is the greatest man in +the pulpit, but he thinks more of Darwin than he does of David and +has an idea that the Old Testament is just a little too old. He has +put evolution in the place of the atonement—has thrown away +the Garden of Eden, snake, apples and all, and is endeavoring to +save enough of the orthodox wreck to make a raft. I know of no +other genius in the pulpit. There are plenty of theological doctors +and bishops and all kinds of titled humility in the sacred +profession, but men of genius are scarce. All the ministers, except +Messrs. Moody and Jones, are busy explaining away the contradiction +between inspiration and demonstration.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What books would you recommend for the perusal +of a young man of limited time and culture with reference to +helping him in the development of intellect and good character?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. The works of Darwin, Ernst Haeckel, Draper's +"Intellectual Development of Europe," Buckle's "History of +Civilization in England," Lecky's "History of European Morals," +Voltaire's "Philosophical Dictionary," Büchner's "Force and +Matter," "The History of the Christian Religion" by Waite; Paine's +"Age of Reason," D'Holbach's "System of Nature," and, above all, +Shakespeare. Do not forget Burns, Shelley, Dickens and Hugo.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Will you lecture the coming winter?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Yes, about the same as usual. Woe is me if I +preach not my gospel.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Have you been invited to lecture in Europe? If +so do you intend to accept the "call"?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Yes, often. The probability is that I shall go to +England and Australia. I have not only had invitations but most +excellent offers from both countries. There is, however, plenty to +do here. This is the best country in the world and our people are +eager to hear the other side.</p> +<p>The old kind of preaching is getting superannuated. It lags +superfluous in the pulpit. Our people are outgrowing the cruelties +and absurdities of the ancient Jews. The idea of hell has become +shocking and vulgar. Eternal punishment is eternal injustice. It is +infinitely infamous. Most ministers are ashamed to preach the +doctrine, and the congregations are ashamed to hear it preached. It +is the essence of savagery.</p> +<p>—<i>Plain Dealer</i>, Cincinnati, Ohio, September 5, +1885.</p> +<a name="link0053" id="link0053"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>MY BELIEF.</h2> +<p><i>Question</i>. It is said that in the past four or five years +you have changed or modified your views upon the subject of +religion; is this so?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. It is not so. The only change, if that can be +called a change, is, that I am more perfectly satisfied that I am +right— satisfied that what is called orthodox religion is a +simple fabrication of mistaken men; satisfied that there is no such +thing as an inspired book and never will be; satisfied that a +miracle never was and never will be performed; satisfied that no +human being knows whether there is a God or not, whether there is +another life or not; satisfied that the scheme of atonement is a +mistake, that the innocent cannot, by suffering for the guilty, +atone for the guilt; satisfied that the doctrine that salvation +depends on belief, is cruel and absurd; satisfied that the doctrine +of eternal punishment is infamously false; satisfied that +superstition is of no use to the human race; satisfied that +humanity is the only true and real religion.</p> +<p>No, I have not modified my views. I detect new absurdities every +day in the popular belief. Every day the whole thing becomes more +and more absurd. Of course there are hundreds and thousands of most +excellent people who believe in orthodox religion; people for whose +good qualities I have the greatest respect; people who have good +ideas on most other subjects; good citizens, good fathers, +husbands, wives and children—good in spite of their religion. +I do not attack people. I attack the mistakes of people. Orthodoxy +is getting weaker every day.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you believe in the existence of a Supreme +Being?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I do not believe in any Supreme personality or in +any Supreme Being who made the universe and governs nature. I do +not say that there is no such Being—all I say is that I do +not believe that such a Being exists. I know nothing on the +subject, except that I know that I do not know and that nobody else +knows. But if there is such a Being, he certainly never wrote the +Old Testament. You will understand my position. I do not say that a +Supreme Being does not exist, but I do say that I do not believe +such a Being exists. The universe—embracing all that +is—all atoms, all stars, each grain of sand and all the +constellations, each thought and dream of animal and man, all +matter and all force, all doubt and all belief, all virtue and all +crime, all joy and all pain, all growth and all decay—is all +there is. It does not act because it is moved from without. It acts +from within. It is actor and subject, means and end.</p> +<p>It is infinite; the infinite could not have been created. It is +indestructible and that which cannot be destroyed was not created. +I am a Pantheist.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Don't you think the belief of the Agnostic is +more satisfactory to the believer than that of the Atheist?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. There is no difference. The Agnostic is an +Atheist. The Atheist is an Agnostic. The Agnostic says: "I do not +know, but I do not believe there is any God." The Atheist says the +same. The orthodox Christian says he knows there is a God; but we +know that he does not know. He simply believes. He cannot know. The +Atheist cannot know that God does not exist.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Haven't you just the faintest glimmer of a hope +that in some future state you will meet and be reunited to those +who are dear to you in this?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I have no particular desire to be destroyed. I am +willing to go to heaven if there be such a place, and enjoy myself +for ever and ever. It would give me infinite satisfaction to know +that all mankind are to be happy forever. Infidels love their wives +and children as well as Christians do theirs. I have never said a +word against heaven—never said a word against the idea of +immortality. On the contrary, I have said all I could truthfully +say in favor of the idea that we shall live again. I most sincerely +hope that there is another world, better than this, where all the +broken ties of love will be united. It is the other place I have +been fighting. Better that all of us should sleep the sleep of +death forever than that some should suffer pain forever. If in +order to have a heaven there must be a hell, then I say away with +them both. My doctrine puts the bow of hope over every grave; my +doctrine takes from every mother's heart the fear of hell. No good +man would enjoy himself in heaven with his friends in hell. No good +God could enjoy himself in heaven with millions of his poor, +helpless mistakes in hell. The orthodox idea of heaven—with +God an eternal inquisitor, a few heartless angels and some redeemed +orthodox, all enjoying themselves, while the vast multitude will +weep in the rayless gloom of God's eternal dungeon—is not +calculated to make man good or happy. I am doing what I can to +civilize the churches, humanize the preachers and get the fear of +hell out of the human heart. In this business I am meeting with +great success.</p> +<p>—<i>Philadelphia Times</i>, September 25, 1885.</p> +<a name="link0054" id="link0054"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>SOME LIVE TOPICS.</h2> +<h3><i>Question</i>. Shall you attend the Albany Freethought +Convention?</h3> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I have agreed to be present not only, but to +address the convention, on Sunday, the 13th of September. I am +greatly gratified to know that the interest in the question of +intellectual liberty is growing from year to year. Everywhere I go +it seems to be the topic of conversation. No matter upon what +subject people begin to talk, in a little while the discussion +takes a religious turn, and people who a few moments before had not +the slightest thought of saying a word about the churches, or about +the Bible, are giving their opinions in full. I hear discussions of +this kind in all the public conveyances, at the hotels, on the +piazzas at the seaside—and they are not discussions in which +I take any part, because I rarely say anything upon these questions +except in public, unless I am directly addressed.</p> +<p>There is a general feeling that the church has ruled the world +long enough. People are beginning to see that no amount of +eloquence, or faith, or erudition, or authority, can make the +records of barbarism satisfactory to the heart and brain of this +century. They have also found that a falsehood in Hebrew in no more +credible than in plain English. People at last are beginning to be +satisfied that cruel laws were never good laws, no matter whether +inspired or uninspired. The Christian religion, like every other +religion depending upon inspired writings, is wrecked upon the +facts of nature. So long as inspired writers confined themselves to +the supernatural world; so long as they talked about angels and +Gods and heavens and hells; so long as they described only things +that man has never seen, and never will see, they were safe, not +from contradiction, but from demonstration. But these writings had +to have a foundation, even for their falsehoods, and that +foundation was in Nature. The foundation had to be something about +which somebody knew something, or supposed they knew something. +They told something about this world that agreed with the then +general opinion. Had these inspired writers told the truth about +Nature— had they said that the world revolved on its axis, +and made a circuit about the sun—they could have gained no +credence for their statements about other worlds. They were forced +to agree with their contemporaries about this world, and there is +where they made the fundamental mistake. Having grown in knowledge, +the world has discovered that these inspired men knew nothing about +this earth; that the inspired books are filled with +mistakes—not only mistakes that we can contradict, but +mistakes that we can demonstrate to be mistakes. Had they told the +truth in their day, about this earth, they would not have been +believed about other worlds, because their contemporaries would +have used their own knowledge about this world to test the +knowledge of these inspired men. We pursue the same course; and +what we know about this world we use as the standard, and by that +standard we have found that the inspired men knew nothing about +Nature as it is. Finding that they were mistaken about this world, +we have no confidence in what they have said about another. Every +religion has had its philosophy about this world, and every one has +been mistaken. As education becomes general, as scientific modes +are adopted, this will become clearer and clearer, until "ignorant +as inspiration" will be a comparison.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Have you seen the memorial to the New York +Legislature, to be presented this winter, asking for the repeal of +such laws as practically unite church and state?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I have seen a memorial asking that church +property be taxed like other property; that no more money should be +appropriated from the public treasury for the support of +institutions managed by and in the interest of sectarian +denominations; for the repeal of all laws compelling the observance +of Sunday as a religious day. Such memorials ought to be addressed +to the Legislatures of all the States. The money of the public +should only be used for the benefit of the public. Public money +should not be used for what a few gentlemen think is for the +benefit of the public. Personally, I think it would be for the +benefit of the public to have Infidel or scientific—which is +the same thing—lectures delivered in every town, in every +State, on every Sunday; but knowing that a great many men disagree +with me on this point, I do not claim that such lectures ought to +be paid for with public money. The Methodist Church ought not to be +sustained by taxation, nor the Catholic, nor any other church. To +relieve their property from taxation is to appropriate money, to +the extent of that tax, for the support of that church. Whenever a +burden is lifted from one piece of property, it is distributed over +the rest of the property of the State, and to release one kind of +property is to increase the tax on all other kinds.</p> +<p>There was a time when people really supposed the churches were +saving souls from the eternal wrath of a God of infinite love. +Being engaged in such a philanthropic work, and at the time nobody +having the courage to deny it—the church being +all-powerful—all other property was taxed to support the +church; but now the more civilized part of the community, being +satisfied that a God of infinite love will not be eternally unjust, +feel as though the church should support herself. To exempt the +church from taxation is to pay a part of the priest's salary. The +Catholic now objects to being taxed to support a school in which +his religion is not taught. He is not satisfied with the school +that says nothing on the subject of religion. He insists that it is +an outrage to tax him to support a school where the teacher simply +teaches what he knows. And yet this same Catholic wants his church +exempted from taxation, and the tax of an Atheist or of a Jew +increased, when he teaches in his untaxed church that the Atheist +and Jew will both be eternally damned! Is it possible for impudence +to go further?</p> +<p>I insist that no religion should be taught in any school +supported by public money; and by religion I mean superstition. +Only that should be taught in a school that somebody can learn and +that somebody can know. In my judgment, every church should be +taxed precisely the same as other property. The church may claim +that it is one of the instruments of civilization and therefore +should be exempt. If you exempt that which is useful, you exempt +every trade and every profession. In my judgment, theatres have +done more to civilize mankind than churches; that is to say, +theatres have done something to civilize mankind—churches +nothing. The effect of all superstition has been to render men +barbarous. I do not believe in the civilizing effects of +falsehood.</p> +<p>There was a time when ministers were supposed to be in the +employ of God, and it was thought that God selected them with great +care —that their profession had something sacred about it. +These ideas are no longer entertained by sensible people. Ministers +should be paid like other professional men, and those who like +their preaching should pay for the preach. They should depend, as +actors do, upon their popularity, upon the amount of sense, or +nonsense, that they have for sale. They should depend upon the +market like other people, and if people do not want to hear sermons +badly enough to build churches and pay for them, and pay the taxes +on them, and hire the preacher, let the money be diverted to some +other use. The pulpit should no longer be a pauper. I do not +believe in carrying on any business with the contribution box. All +the sectarian institutions ought to support themselves. These +should be no Methodist or Catholic or Presbyterian hospitals or +orphan asylums. All these should be supported by the State. There +is no such thing as Catholic charity, or Methodist charity. Charity +belongs to humanity, not to any particular form of faith or +religion. You will find as charitable people who never heard of +religion, as you can find in the church. The State should provide +for those who ought to be provided for. A few Methodists beg of +everybody they meet—send women with subscription papers, +asking money from all classes of people, and nearly everybody gives +something from politeness, or to keep from being annoyed; and when +the institution is finished, it is pointed at as the result of +Methodism.</p> +<p>Probably a majority of the people in this country suppose that +there was no charity in the world until the Christian religion was +founded. Great men have repeated this falsehood, until ignorance +and thoughtlessness believe it. There were orphan asylums in China, +in India, and in Egypt thousands of years before Christ was born; +and there certainly never was a time in the history of the whole +world when there was less charity in Europe than during the +centuries when the Church of Christ had absolute power. There were +hundreds of Mohammedan asylums before Christianity had built ten in +the entire world.</p> +<p>All institutions for the care of unfortunate people should be +secular—should be supported by the State. The money for the +purpose should be raised by taxation, to the end that the burden +may be borne by those able to bear it. As it is now, most of the +money is paid, not by the rich, but by the generous, and those most +able to help their needy fellow citizens are the very ones who do +nothing. If the money is raised by taxation, then the burden will +fall where it ought to fall, and these institutions will no longer +be supported by the generous and emotional, and the rich and stingy +will no longer be able to evade the duties of citizenship and of +humanity.</p> +<p>Now, as to the Sunday laws, we know that they are only +spasmodically enforced. Now and then a few people are arrested for +selling papers or cigars. Some unfortunate barber is grabbed by a +policeman because he has been caught shaving a Christian, Sunday +morning. Now and then some poor fellow with a hack, trying to make +a dollar or two to feed his horses, or to take care of his wife and +children, is arrested as though he were a murderer. But in a few +days the public are inconvenienced to that degree that the arrests +stop and business goes on in its accustomed channels, Sunday and +all.</p> +<p>Now and then society becomes so pious, so virtuous, that people +are compelled to enter saloons by the back door; others are +compelled to drink beer with the front shutters up; but otherwise +the stream that goes down the thirsty throats is unbroken. The +ministers have done their best to prevent all recreation on the +Sabbath. They would like to stop all the boats on the Hudson, and +on the sea— stop all the excursion trains. They would like to +compel every human being that lives in the city of New York to +remain within its limits twenty-four hours every Sunday. They hate +the parks; they hate music; they hate anything that keeps a man +away from church. Most of the churches are empty during the summer, +and now most of the ministers leave themselves, and give over the +entire city to the Devil and his emissaries. And yet if the +ministers had their way, there would be no form of human enjoyment +except prayer, signing subscription papers, putting money in +contribution boxes, listening to sermons, reading the cheerful +histories of the Old Testament, imagining the joys of heaven and +the torments of hell. The church is opposed to the theatre, is the +enemy of the opera, looks upon dancing as a crime, hates billiards, +despises cards, opposes roller-skating, and even entertains a +certain kind of prejudice against croquet.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you think that the orthodox church gets its +ideas of the Sabbath from the teachings of Christ?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I do not hold Christ responsible for these +idiotic ideas concerning the Sabbath. He regarded the Sabbath as +something made for man—which was a very sensible view. The +holiest day is the happiest day. The most sacred day is the one in +which have been done the most good deeds. There are two reasons +given in the Bible for keeping the Sabbath. One is that God made +the world in six days, and rested on the seventh. Now that all the +ministers admit that he did not make the world in six days, but +that he made it in six "periods," this reason is no longer +applicable. The other reason is that he brought the Jews out of +Egypt with a "mighty hand." This may be a very good reason still +for the observance of the Sabbath by the Jews, but the real +Sabbath, that is to say, the day to be commemorated, is our +Saturday, and why should we commemorate the wrong day? That +disposes of the second reason.</p> +<p>Nothing can be more inconsistent than the theories and practice +of the churches about the Sabbath. The cars run Sundays, and out of +the profits hundreds of ministers are supported. The great iron and +steel works fill with smoke and fire the Sabbath air, and the +proprietors divide the profits with the churches. The printers of +the city are busy Sunday afternoons and evenings, and the presses +during the nights, so that the sermons of Sunday can reach the +heathen on Monday. The servants of the rich are denied the +privileges of the sanctuary. The coachman sits on the box +out-doors, while his employer kneels in church preparing himself +for the heavenly chariot. The iceman goes about on the holy day, +keeping believers cool, they knowing at the same time that he is +making it hot for himself in the world to come. Christians cross +the Atlantic, knowing that the ship will pursue its way on the +Sabbath. They write letters to their friends knowing that they will +be carried in violation of Jehovah's law, by wicked men. Yet they +hate to see a pale-faced sewing girl enjoying a few hours by the +sea; a poor mechanic walking in the fields; or a tired mother +watching her children playing on the grass. Nothing ever was, +nothing ever will be, more utterly absurd and disgusting than a +Puritan Sunday. Nothing ever did make a home more hateful than the +strict observance of the Sabbath. It fills the house with hypocrisy +and the meanest kind of petty tyranny. The parents look sour and +stern, the children sad and sulky. They are compelled to talk upon +subjects about which they feel no interest, or to read books that +are thought good only because they are so stupid.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What have you to say about the growth of +Catholicism, the activity of the Salvation Army, and the success of +revivalists like the Rev. Samuel Jones? Is Christianity really +gaining a strong hold on the masses?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Catholicism is growing in this country, and it is +the only country on earth in which it is growing. Its growth here +depends entirely upon immigration, not upon intellectual conquest. +Catholic emigrants who leave their homes in the Old World because +they have never had any liberty, and who are Catholics for the same +reason, add to the number of Catholics here, but their children's +children will not be Catholics. Their children will not be very +good Catholics, and even these immigrants themselves, in a few +years, will not grovel quite so low in the presence of a priest. +The Catholic Church is gaining no ground in Catholic countries.</p> +<p>The Salvation Army is the result of two things—the general +belief in what are known as the fundamentals of Christianity, and +the heartlessness of the church. The church in England—that +is to say, the Church of England—having succeeded—that +is to say, being supported by general taxation—that is to +say, being a successful, well-fed parasite—naturally +neglected those who did not in any way contribute to its support. +It became aristocratic. Splendid churches were built; younger sons +with good voices were put in the pulpits; the pulpit became the +asylum for aristocratic mediocrity, and in this way the Church of +England lost interest in the masses and the masses lost interest in +the Church of England. The neglected poor, who really had some +belief in religion, and who had not been absolutely petrified by +form and patronage, were ready for the Salvation Army. They were +not at home in the church. They could not pay. They preferred the +freedom of the street. They preferred to attend a church where rags +were no objection. Had the church loved and labored with the poor +the Salvation Army never would have existed. These people are +simply giving their idea of Christianity, and in their way +endeavoring to do what they consider good. I don't suppose the +Salvation Army will accomplish much. To improve mankind you must +change conditions. It is not enough to work simply upon the +emotional nature. The surroundings must be such as naturally +produce virtuous actions. If we are to believe recent reports from +London, the Church of England, even with the assistance of the +Salvation Army, has accomplished but little. It would be hard to +find any country with less morality. You would search long in the +jungles of Africa to find greater depravity.</p> +<p>I account for revivalists like the Rev. Samuel Jones in the same +way. There is in every community an ignorant class—what you +might call a literal class—who believe in the real blood +atonement; who believe in heaven and hell, and harps and gridirons; +who have never had their faith weakened by reading commentators or +books harmonizing science and religion. They love to hear the good +old doctrine; they want hell described; they want it described so +that they can hear the moans and shrieks; they want heaven +described; they want to see God on a throne, and they want to feel +that they are finally to have the pleasure of looking over the +battlements of heaven and seeing all their enemies among the +damned. The Rev. Mr. Munger has suddenly become a revivalist. +According to the papers he is sought for in every direction. His +popularity seems to rest upon the fact that he brutally beat a girl +twelve years old because she did not say her prayers to suit him. +Muscular Christianity is what the ignorant people want. I regard +all these efforts—including those made by Mr. Moody and Mr. +Hammond—as evidence that Christianity, as an intellectual +factor, has almost spent its force. It no longer governs the +intellectual world.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Are not the Catholics the least progressive? +And are they not, in spite of their professions to the contrary, +enemies to republican liberty?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Every church that has a standard higher than +human welfare is dangerous. A church that puts a book above the +laws and constitution of its country, that puts a book above the +welfare of mankind, is dangerous to human liberty. Every church +that puts itself above the legally expressed will of the people is +dangerous. Every church that holds itself under greater obligation +to a pope than to a people is dangerous to human liberty. Every +church that puts religion above humanity—above the well-being +of man in this world—is dangerous. The Catholic Church may be +more dangerous, not because its doctrines are more dangerous, but +because, on the average, its members more sincerely believe its +doctrines, and because that church can be hurled as a solid body in +any given direction. For these reasons it is more dangerous than +other churches; but the doctrines are no more dangerous than those +of the Protestant churches. The man who would sacrifice the well- +being of man to please an imaginary phantom that he calls God, is +also dangerous. The only safe standard is the well-being of man in +this world. Whenever this world is sacrificed for the sake of +another, a mistake has been made. The only God that man can know is +the aggregate of all beings capable of suffering and of joy within +the reach of his influence. To increase the happiness of such +beings is to worship the only God that man can know.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What have you to say to the assertion of Dr. +Deems that there were never so many Christians as now?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I suppose that the population of the earth is +greater now than at any other time within the historic period. This +being so, there may be more Christians, so-called, in this world +than there were a hundred years ago. Of course, the reverend +doctor, in making up his aggregate of Christians, counts all kinds +and sects—Unitarians, Universalists, and all the other "ans" +and "ists" and "ics" and "ites" and "ers." But Dr. Deems must admit +that only a few years ago most of the persons he now calls +Christians would have been burnt as heretics and Infidels. Let us +compare the average New York Christian with the Christian of two +hundred years ago. It is probably safe to say that there is not now +in the city of New York a genuine Presbyterian outside of an insane +asylum. Probably no one could be found who will to-day admit that +he believes absolutely in the Presbyterian Confession of Faith. +There is probably not an Episcopalian who believes in the +Thirty-nine Articles. Probably there is not an intelligent minister +in the city of New York, outside of the Catholic Church, who +believes that everything in the Bible is true. Probably no +clergyman, of any standing, would be willing to take the ground +that everything in the Old Testament—leaving out the question +of inspiration—is actually true. Very few ministers now +preach the doctrine of eternal punishment. Most of them would be +ashamed to utter that brutal falsehood. A large majority of +gentlemen who attend church take the liberty of disagreeing with +the preacher. They would have been very poor Christians two hundred +years ago. A majority of the ministers take the liberty of +disagreeing, in many things, with their Presbyteries and Synods. +They would have been very poor preachers two hundred years ago. Dr. +Deems forgets that most Christians are only nominally so. Very few +believe their creeds. Very few even try to live in accordance with +what they call Christian doctrines. Nobody loves his enemies. No +Christian when smitten on one cheek turns the other. Most +Christians do take a little thought for the morrow. They do not +depend entirely upon the providence of God. Most Christians now +have greater confidence in the average life-insurance company than +in God—feel easier when dying to know that they have a +policy, through which they expect the widow will receive ten +thousand dollars, than when thinking of all the Scripture promises. +Even church-members do not trust in God to protect their own +property. They insult heaven by putting lightning rods on their +temples. They insure the churches against the act of God. The +experience of man has shown the wisdom of relying on something that +we know something about, instead of upon the shadowy supernatural. +The poor wretches to-day in Spain, depending upon their priests, +die like poisoned flies; die with prayers between their pallid +lips; die in their filth and faith.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What have you to say on the Mormon +question?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. The institution of polygamy is infamous and +disgusting beyond expression. It destroys what we call, and all +civilized people call, "the family." It pollutes the fireside, and, +above all, as Burns would say, "petrifies the feeling." It is, +however, one of the institutions of Jehovah. It is protected by the +Bible. It has inspiration on its side. Sinai, with its barren, +granite peaks, is a perpetual witness in its favor. The beloved of +God practiced it, and, according to the sacred word, the wisest man +had, I believe, about seven hundred wives. This man received his +wisdom directly from God. It is hard for the average Bible +worshiper to attack this institution without casting a certain +stain upon his own book.</p> +<p>Only a few years ago slavery was upheld by the same Bible. +Slavery having been abolished, the passages in the inspired volume +upholding it have been mostly forgotten, but polygamy lives, and +the polygamists, with great volubility, repeat the passages in +their favor. We send our missionaries to Utah, with their Bibles, +to convert the Mormons.</p> +<p>The Mormons show, by these very Bibles, that God is on their +side. Nothing remain now for the missionaries except to get back +their Bibles and come home. The preachers do not appeal to the +Bible for the purpose of putting down Mormonism. They say: "Send +the army." If the people of this country could only be honest; if +they would only admit that the Old Testament is but the record of a +barbarous people; if the Samson of the nineteenth century would not +allow its limbs to be bound by the Delilah of superstition, it +could with one blow destroy this monster. What shall we say of the +moral force of Christianity, when it utterly fails in the presence +of Mormonism? What shall we say of a Bible that we dare not read to +a Mormon as an argument against legalized lust, or as an argument +against illegal lust?</p> +<p>I am opposed to polygamy. I want it exterminated by law; but I +hate to see the exterminators insist that God, only a few thousand +years ago, was as bad as the Mormons are to-day. In my judgment, +such a God ought to be exterminated.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think of men like the Rev. Henry +Ward Beecher and the Rev. R. Heber Newton? Do they deserve any +credit for the course they have taken?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Mr. Beecher is evidently endeavoring to shore up +the walls of the falling temple. He sees the cracks; he knows that +the building is out of plumb; he feels that the foundation is +insecure. Lies can take the place of stones only so long as they +are thoroughly believed. Mr. Beecher is trying to do something to +harmonize superstition and science. He is reading between the +lines. He has discovered that Darwin is only a later Saint Paul, or +that Saint Paul was the original Darwin. He is endeavoring to make +the New Testament a scientific text-book. Of course he will fail. +But his intentions are good. Thousands of people will read the New +Testament with more freedom than heretofore. They will look for new +meanings; and he who looks for new meanings will not be satisfied +with the old ones. Mr. Beecher, instead of strengthening the walls, +will make them weaker.</p> +<p>There is no harmony between religion and science. When science +was a child, religion sought to strangle it in the cradle. Now that +science has attained its youth, and superstition is in its dotage, +the trembling, palsied wreck says to the athlete: "Let us be +friends." It reminds me of the bargain the cock wished to make with +the horse: "Let us agree not to step on each other's feet." Mr. +Beecher, having done away with hell, substitutes annihilation. His +doctrine at present is that only a fortunate few are immortal, and +that the great mass return to dreamless dust. This, of course, is +far better than hell, and is a great improvement on the orthodox +view. Mr. Beecher cannot believe that God would make such a mistake +as to make men doomed to suffer eternal pain. Why, I ask, should +God give life to men whom he knows are unworthy of life? Why should +he annihilate his mistakes? Why should he make mistakes that need +annihilation?</p> +<p>It can hardly be said that Mr. Beecher's idea is a new one. It +was taught, with an addition, thousands of years ago, in India, and +the addition almost answers my objection. The old doctrine was that +only the soul that bears fruit, only the soul that bursts into +blossom, will at the death of the body rejoin the Infinite, and +that all other souls—souls not having blossomed—will go +back into low forms and make the journey up to man once more, and +should they then blossom and bear fruit, will be held worthy to +join the Infinite, but should they again fail, they again go back; +and this process is repeated until they do blossom, and in this way +all souls at last become perfect. I suggest that Mr. Beecher make +at least this addition to his doctrine.</p> +<p>But allow me to say that, in my judgment, Mr. Beecher is doing +great good. He may not convince many people that he is right, but +he will certainly convince a great many people that Christianity is +wrong.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. In what estimation do you hold Charles Watts +and Samuel Putnam, and what do you think of their labors in the +cause of Freethought?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Mr. Watts is an extremely logical man, with a +direct and straightforward manner and mind. He has paid great +attention to what is called "Secularism." He thoroughly understands +organization, and he is undoubtedly one of the strongest debaters +in the field. He has had great experience. He has demolished more +divines than any man of my acquaintance. I have read several of his +debates. In discussion he is quick, pertinent, logical, and, above +all, good natured.</p> +<p>There is not in all he says a touch of malice. He can afford to +be generous to his antagonists, because he is always the victor, +and is always sure of the victory. Last winter wherever I went, I +heard the most favorable accounts of Mr. Watts. All who heard him +were delighted.</p> +<p>Mr. Putnam is one of the most thorough believers in intellectual +liberty in the world. He believes with all his heart, is full of +enthusiasm, ready to make any sacrifice, and to endure any +hardship. Had he lived a few years ago, he would have been a +martyr. He has written some of the most stirring appeals to the +Liberals of this country that I have ever read. He believes that +Freethought has a future; that the time is coming when the +superstitions of the world will either be forgotten, or +remembered—some of them with smiles—most of them with +tears. Mr. Putnam, although endowed with a poetic nature, with +poetic insight, clings to the known, builds upon the experience of +man, and believes in fancies only when they are used as the wings +of a fact. I have never met a man who appeared to be more +thoroughly devoted to the great cause of mental freedom. I have +read his books with great interest, and find in them many pages +filled with philosophy and pathos. I have met him often and I never +heard him utter a harsh word about any human being. His good nature +is as unfailing as the air. His abilities are of the highest order. +It is a positive pleasure to meet him. He is so enthusiastic, so +unselfish, so natural, so appreciative of others, so thoughtful for +the cause, and so careless of himself, that he compels the +admiration of every one who really loves the just and true.</p> +<p>—<i>The Truth Seeker</i>, New York, September 5, 1885.</p> +<a name="link0055" id="link0055"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>THE PRESIDENT AND SENATE.</h2> +<p><i>Question</i>. What have you to say with reference to the +respective attitudes of the President and Senate?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I don't think there is any doubt as to the right +of the Senate to call on the President for information. Of course +that means for what information he has. When a duty devolves upon +two persons, one of them has no right to withhold any facts +calculated to throw any light on the question that both are to +decide. The President cannot appoint any officer who has to be +confirmed by the Senate; he can simply nominate. The Senate cannot +even suggest a name; it can only pass upon the person nominated. If +it is called upon for counsel and advice, how can it give advice +without knowing the facts and circumstances? The President must +have a reason for wishing to make a change. He should give that +reason to the Senate without waiting to be asked. He has assured +the country that he is a civil service reformer; that no man is to +be turned out because he is a Republican, and no man appointed +because he is a Democrat. Now, the Senate has given the President +an opportunity to prove that he has acted as he has talked. If the +President feels that he is bound to carry out the civil-service +law, ought not the Senate to feel in the same way? Is it not the +duty of the Senate to see to it that the President does not, with +its advice and consent, violate the civil service law? Is the +consent of the Senate a mere matter of form? In these appointments +the President is not independent of or above the Senate; they are +equal, and each has the right to be "honor bright" with the other, +at least.</p> +<p>As long as this foolish law is unrepealed it must be carried +out. Neither party is in favor of civil service reform, and never +was. The Republican party did not carry it out, and did not intend +to. The President has the right to nominate. Under the law as it is +now, when the President wants to appoint a clerk, or when one of +his secretaries wants one, four names are sent, and from these four +names a choice has to be made. This is clearly an invasion of the +rights of the Executive. If they have the right to compel the +President to choose from four, why not from three, or two? Why not +name the one, and have done with it? The law is worse than +unconstitutional—it is absurd.</p> +<p>But in this contest the Senate, in my judgment, is right. In my +opinion, by the time Cleveland goes out most of the offices will be +filled with Democrats. If the Republicans succeed next time, I +know, and everybody knows, that they will never rest easy until +they get the Democrats out. They will shout "offensive +partisanship." The truth is, the theory is wrong. Every citizen +should take an interest in politics. A good man should not agree to +keep silent just for the sake of an office. A man owes his best +thoughts to his country. If he ought to defend his country in time +of war, and under certain circumstances give his life for it, can +we say that in time of peace he is under no obligation to discharge +what he believes to be a duty, if he happens to hold an office? +Must he sell his birthright for the sake of being a doorkeeper? The +whole doctrine is absurd and never will be carried out.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think as to the presidential +race?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. That is a good way off. I think the people can +hardly be roused to enthusiasm by the old names. Our party must +take another step forward. We cannot live on what we have done; we +must seek power for the sake, not of power, but for the +accomplishment of a purpose. We must reform the tariff. We must +settle the question of silver. We must have sense enough to know +what the country needs, and courage enough to tell it. By reforming +the tariff, I mean protect that and that only that needs +protection— laws for the country and not for the few. We want +honest money; we want a dollar's worth of gold in a silver dollar, +and a dollar's worth of silver in a gold dollar. We want to make +them of equal value. Bi-metallism does not mean that eighty cents' +worth of silver is worth one hundred in gold. The Republican party +must get back its conscience and be guided by it in deciding the +questions that arise. Great questions are pressing for solution. +Thousands of working people are in want. Business is depressed. The +future is filled with clouds. What does the Republican party +propose? Must we wait for mobs to inaugurate reform? Must we depend +on police or statesmen? Should we wait and crush by brute force or +should we prevent?</p> +<p>The toilers demand that eight hours should constitute a day's +work. Upon this question what does our party say? Labor saving +machines ought to lighten the burdens of the laborers. It will not +do to say "over production" and keep on inventing machines and +refuse to shorten the hours. What does our party say? The rich can +take care of themselves if the mob will let them alone, and there +will be no mob if there is no widespread want. Hunger is a +communist. The next candidate of the Republican party must be big +enough and courageous enough to answer these questions. If we find +that kind of a candidate we shall succeed—if we do not, we +ought not.</p> +<p>—<i>Chicago Inter-Ocean</i>, February, 1886.</p> +<a name="link0056" id="link0056"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>ATHEISM AND CITIZENSHIP.</h2> +<p><i>Question</i>. Have you noticed the decision of Mr. Nathaniel +Jarvis, Jr., clerk of the Naturalization Bureau of the Court of +Common Pleas, that an Atheist cannot become a citizen?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Yes, but I do not think it necessary for a man to +be a theist in order to become or to remain a citizen of this +country. The various laws, from 1790 up to 1828, provided that the +person wishing to be naturalized might make oath or affirmation. +The first exception you will find in the Revised Statutes of the +United States passed in 1873-74, section 2,165, as +follows:—"An alien may be admitted to become a citizen of the +United States in the following manner, and not +otherwise:—First, he shall declare on oath, before a Circuit +or District Court of the United States, etc." I suppose Mr. Jarvis +felt it to be his duty to comply with this section. In this section +there is nothing about affirmation —only the word "oath" is +used—and Mr. Jarvis came to the conclusion that an Atheist +could not take an oath, and, therefore, could not declare his +intention legally to become a citizen of the United States. +Undoubtedly Mr. Jarvis felt it his duty to stand by the law and to +see to it that nobody should become a citizen of this country who +had not a well defined belief in the existence of a being that he +could not define and that no man has ever been able to define. In +other words, that he should be perfectly convinced that there is a +being "without body, parts or passions," who presides over the +destinies of this world, and more especially those of New York in +and about that part known as City Hall Park.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Was not Mr. Jarvis right in standing by the +law?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. If Mr. Jarvis is right, neither Humboldt nor +Darwin could have become a citizen of the United States. Wagner, +the greatest of musicians, not being able to take an oath, would +have been left an alien. Under this ruling Haeckel, Spencer and +Tyndall would be denied citizenship—that is to say, the six +greatest men produced by the human race in the nineteenth century, +were and are unfit to be citizens of the United States. Those who +have placed the human race in debt cannot be citizens of the +Republic. On the other hand, the ignorant wife beater, the +criminal, the pauper raised in the workhouse, could take the +necessary oath and would be welcomed by New York "with arms +outstretched as she would fly."</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. You have quoted one statute. Is there no other +applicable to this case?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I am coming to that. If Mr. Jarvis will take the +pains to read not only the law of naturalization in section 2,165 +of the Revised Statutes of the United States, but the very first +chapter in the book, "Title I.," he will find in the very first +section this sentence: "The requirements of any 'oath' shall be +deemed complied with by making affirmation in official form." This +applies to section 2,165. Of course an Atheist can affirm, and the +statute provides that wherever an oath is required affirmation may +be made.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Did you read the recent action of Judge +O'Gorman, of the Superior Court, in refusing naturalization papers +to an applicant because he had not read the Constitution of the +United States?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I did. The United States Constitution is a very +important document, a good, sound document, but it is talked about +a great deal more than it is read. I'll venture that you may +commence at the Battery to interview merchants and other business +men about the Constitution and you will talk with a hundred before +you will find one who has ever read it.</p> +<p>—<i>New York Herald</i>, August 8, 1886.</p> +<a name="link0057" id="link0057"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>THE LABOR QUESTION.</h2> +<p><i>Question</i>. What is your remedy, Colonel, for the labor +troubles of the day?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. One remedy is this: I should like to see the +laboring men succeed. I should like to see them have a majority in +Congress and with a President of their own. I should like to see +this so that they could satisfy themselves how little, after all, +can be accomplished by legislation. The moment responsibility +should touch their shoulders they would become conservative. They +would find that making a living in this world is an individual +affair, and that each man must look out for himself. They would +soon find that the Government cannot take care of the people. The +people must support the Government. Everything cannot be regulated +by law. The factors entering into this problem are substantially +infinite and beyond the intellectual grasp of any human being. +Perhaps nothing in the world will convince the laboring man how +little can be accomplished by law until there is opportunity of +trying. To discuss the question will do good, so I am in favor of +its discussion. To give the workingmen a trial will do good, so I +am in favor of giving them a trial.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. But you have not answered my question: I asked +you what could be done, and you have told me what could not be +done. Now, is there not some better organization of society that +will help in this trouble?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Undoubtedly. Unless humanity is a failure, +society will improve from year to year and from age to age. There +will be, as the years go by, less want, less injustice, and the +gifts of nature will be more equally divided, but there will never +come a time when the weak can do as much as the strong, or when the +mentally weak can accomplish as much as the intellectually strong. +There will forever be inequality in society; but, in my judgment, +the time will come when an honest, industrious person need not +want. In my judgment, that will come, not through governmental +control, not through governmental slavery, not through what is +called Socialism, but through liberty and through individuality. I +can conceive of no greater slavery than to have everything done by +the Government. I want free scope given to individual effort. In +time some things that governments have done will be removed. The +creation of a nobility, the giving of vast rights to corporations, +and the bestowment of privileges on the few will be done away with. +In other words, governmental interference will cease and man will +be left more to himself. The future will not do away with want by +charity, which generally creates more want than it alleviates, but +by justice and intelligence. Shakespeare says, "There is no +darkness but ignorance," and it might be added that ignorance is +the mother of most suffering.</p> +<p>—<i>The Enquirer</i>, Cincinnati, Ohio, September 30, +1886.</p> +<a name="link0058" id="link0058"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>RAILROADS AND POLITICS.</h2> +<p><i>Question</i>. You are intimately acquainted with the great +railroad managers and the great railroad systems, and what do you +think is the great need of the railways to-day?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. The great need of the railroads to-day is more +business, more cars, better equipments, better pay for the men and +less gambling in Wall Street.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Is it your experience that public men usually +ride on passes?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Yes, whenever they can get them. Passes are for +the rich. Only those are expected to pay who can scarcely afford +it. Nothing shortens a journey, nothing makes the road as smooth, +nothing keeps down the dust and keeps out the smoke like a +pass.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Don't you think that the pass system is an +injustice —that is, that ordinary travelers are taxed for the +man who rides on a pass?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Certainly, those who pay, pay for those who do +not. This is one of the misfortunes of the obscure. It is so with +everything. The big fish live on the little ones.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Are not parallel railroads an evil?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. No, unless they are too near together. +Competition does some good and some harm, but it must exist. All +these things must be left to take care of themselves. If the +Government interferes it is at the expense of the manhood and +liberty of the people.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. But wouldn't it be better for the people if the +railroads were managed by the Government as is the Post-Office?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. No, everything that individual can do should be +left to them. If the Government takes charge of the people they +become weak and helpless. The people should take charge of the +Government. Give the folks a chance.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. In the next presidential contest what will be +the main issue?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. The Maine issue!</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Would you again refuse to take the stump for +Mr. Blaine if he should be renominated, and if so, why?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I do not expect to take the stump for anybody. +Mr. Blaine is probably a candidate, and if he is nominated there +will be plenty of people on the stump—or fence—or up a +tree or somewhere in the woods.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What are the most glaring mistakes of +Cleveland's administration?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. First, accepting the nomination. Second, taking +the oath of office. Third, not resigning.</p> +<p>—<i>Times Star</i>, Cincinnati, September 30, 1886.</p> +<a name="link0059" id="link0059"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>PROHIBITION.</h2> +<p><i>Question</i>. How much importance do you attach to the +present prohibition movement?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. No particular importance. I am opposed to +prohibition and always have been, and hope always to be. I do not +want the Legislature to interfere in these matters. I do not +believe that the people can be made temperate by law. Men and women +are not made great and good by the law. There is no good in the +world that cannot be abused. Prohibition fills the world with spies +and tattlers, and, besides that, where a majority of the people are +not in favor of it the law will not be enforced; and where a +majority of the people are in favor of it there is not much need of +the law. Where a majority are against it, juries will violate their +oath, and witnesses will get around the truth, and the result is +demoralization. Take wine and malt liquors out of the world and we +shall lose a vast deal of good fellowship; the world would lose +more than it would gain. There is a certain sociability about wine +that I should hate to have taken from the earth. Strong liquors the +folks had better let alone. If prohibition succeeds, and wines and +malt liquors go, the next thing will be to take tobacco away, and +the next thing all other pleasures, until prayer meetings will be +the only places of enjoyment.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you care to say who your choice is for +Republican nominee for President in 1888?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I now promise that I will answer this question +either in May or June, 1888. At present my choice is not fixed, and +is liable to change at any moment, and I need to leave it free, so +that it can change from time to time as the circumstances change. I +will, however, tell you privately that I think it will probably be +a new man, somebody on whom the Republicans can unite. I have made +a good many inquiries myself to find out who this man is to be, but +in every instance the answer has been determined by the location in +which the gentleman lived who gave the answer. Let us wait.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you think the Republican party should take a +decided stand on the temperance issue?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I do; and that decided stand should be that +temperance is an individual question, something with which the +State and Nation have nothing to do. Temperance is a thing that the +law cannot control. You might as well try to control music, +painting, sculpture, or metaphysics, as the question of temperance. +As life becomes more valuable, people will learn to take better +care of it. There is something more to be desired even than +temperance, and that is liberty. I do not believe in putting out +the sun because weeds grow. I should rather have some weeds than go +without wheat and corn. The Republican party should represent +liberty and individuality; it should keep abreast of the real +spirit of the age; the Republican party ought to be intelligent +enough to know that progress has been marked not by the enactment +of new laws, but by the repeal of old ones.</p> +<p>—<i>Evening Traveler</i>, Boston, October, 1886.</p> +<a name="link0060" id="link0060"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>HENRY GEORGE AND LABOR.</h2> +<p><i>Question</i>. It is said, Colonel Ingersoll, that you are for +Henry George?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Of course; I think it the duty of the Republicans +to defeat the Democracy—a solemn duty—and I believe +that they have a chance to elect George; that is to say, an +opportunity to take New York from their old enemy. If the +Republicans stand by George he will succeed. All the Democratic +factions are going to unite to beat the workingmen. What a picture! +Now is the time for the Republicans to show that all their +sympathies are not given to bankers, corporations and millionaires. +They were on the side of the slave—they gave liberty to +millions. Let them take another step and extend their hands to the +sons of toil.</p> +<p>My heart beats with those who bear the burdens of this poor +world.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you not think that capital is entitled to +protection?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I am in favor of accomplishing all reforms in a +legal and orderly way, and I want the laboring people of this +country to appeal to the ballot. All classes and all interests must +be content to abide the result.</p> +<p>I want the laboring people to show that they are intelligent +enough to stand by each other. Henry George is their natural +leader. Let them be true to themselves by being true to him. The +great questions between capital and labor must be settled +peaceably. There is no excuse for violence, and no excuse for +contempt and scorn. No country can be prosperous while the workers +want and the idlers waste. Those who do the most should have the +most. There is no civilized country, so far as I know, but I +believe there will be, and I want to hasten they day when the map +of the world will give the boundaries of that blessed land.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you agree with George's principles? Do you +believe in socialism?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I do not understand that George is a Socialist. +He is on the side of those that work—so am I. He wants to +help those that need help—so do I. The rich can take care of +themselves. I shed no tears over the miseries of capital. I think +of the men in mines and factories, in huts, hovels and cellars; of +the poor sewing women; of the poor, the hungry and the despairing. +The world must be made better through intelligence. I do not go +with the destroyers, with those that hate the successful, that hate +the generous, simply because they are rich. Wealth is the surplus +produced by labor, and the wealth of the world should keep the +world from want.</p> +<p>—<i>New York Herald</i>, October 13, 1886.</p> +<a name="link0061" id="link0061"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>LABOR QUESTION AND SOCIALISM.</h2> +<h3><i>Question</i>. What do you think of Henry George for +mayor?</h3> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Several objections have been urged, not to what +Mr. George has done, but to what Mr. George has thought, and he is +the only candidate up to this time against whom a charge of this +character could be made. Among other things, he seems to have +entertained an idea to the effect that a few men should not own the +entire earth; that a child coming into the world has a right to +standing room, and that before he walks, his mother has a right to +standing room while she holds him. He insists that if it were +possible to bottle the air, and sell it as we do mineral water, it +would be hardly fair for the capitalists of the world to embark in +such a speculation, especially where millions were allowed to die +simply because they were not able to buy breath at "pool prices." +Mr. George seems to think that the time will come when capital will +be intelligent enough and civilized enough to take care of itself. +He has a dream that poverty and crime and all the evils that go +hand in hand with partial famine, with lack of labor, and all the +diseases born of living in huts and cellars, born of poor food and +poor clothing and of bad habits, will disappear, and that the world +will be really fit to live in. He goes so far as to insist that men +ought to have more than twenty-three or twenty-four dollars a month +for digging coal, and that they ought not to be compelled to spend +that money in the store or saloon of the proprietor of the mine. He +has also stated on several occasions that a man ought not to drive +a street car for sixteen or eighteen hours a day—that even a +street-car driver ought to have the privilege now and then of +seeing his wife, or at least one of the children, awake. And he has +gone so far as to say that a letter-carrier ought not to work +longer in each day for the United States than he would for a +civilized individual.</p> +<p>To people that imagine that this world is already perfection; +that the condition of no one should be bettered except their own, +these ideas seem dangerous. A man who has already amassed a +million, and who has no fear for the future, and who says: "I will +employ the cheapest labor and make men work as long as they can +possibly endure the toil," will regard Mr. George as an impractical +man. It is very probable that all of us will be dead before all the +theories of Mr. George are put in practice. Some of them, however, +may at some time benefit mankind; and so far as I am concerned, I +am willing to help hasten the day, although it may not come while I +live. I do not know that I agree with many of the theories of Mr. +George. I know that I do not agree with some of them. But there is +one thing in which I do agree with him, and that is, in his effort +to benefit the human race, in his effort to do away with some of +the evils that now afflict mankind. I sympathize with him in his +endeavor to shorten the hours of labor, to increase the well- being +of laboring men, to give them better houses, better food, and in +every way to lighten the burdens that now bear upon their bowed +backs. It may be that very little can be done by law, except to see +that they are not absolutely abused; to see that the mines in which +they work are supplied with air and with means of escape in time of +danger; to prevent the deforming of children by forcing upon them +the labor of men; to shorten the hours of toil, and to give all +laborers certain liens, above all other claims, for their work. It +is easy to see that in this direction something may be done by +law.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Colonel Ingersoll, are you a Socialist?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I am an Individualist instead of a Socialist. I +am a believer in individuality and in each individual taking care +of himself, and I want the Government to do just as little as it +can consistently with the safety of the nation, and I want as +little law as possible—only as much as will protect life, +reputation and property by punishing criminals and by enforcing +honest contracts. But if a government gives privileges to a few, +the few must not oppress the many. The Government has no right to +bestow any privilege upon any man or upon any corporation, except +for the public good. That which is a special privilege to the few, +should be a special benefit to the many. And whenever the +privileged few abuse the privilege so that it becomes a curse to +the many, the privilege, whatever it is, should be withdrawn. I do +not pretend to know enough to suggest a remedy for all the evils of +society. I doubt if one human mind could take into consideration +the almost infinite number of factors entering into such a problem. +And this fact that no one knows, is the excuse for trying. While I +may not believe that a certain theory will work, still, if I feel +sure it will do no harm, I am willing to see it tried.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you think that Mr. George would make a good +mayor?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I presume he would. He is a thoughtful, prudent +man. His reputation for honesty has never, so far as I know, been +called in question. It certainly does not take a genius to be mayor +of New York. If so, there have been some years when there was +hardly a mayor. I take it that a clear-headed, honest man, whose +only object is to do his duty, and with courage enough to stand by +his conscience, would make a good mayor of New York or of any other +city.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Are you in sympathy with the workingmen and +their objects?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I am in sympathy with laboring men of all kinds, +whether they labor with hand or brain. The Knights of Labor, I +believe, do not allow a lawyer to become a member. I am somewhat +wider in my sympathies. No men in the world struggle more +heroically; no men in the world have suffered more, or carried a +heavier cross, or worn a sharper crown of thorns, than those that +have produced what we call the literature of our race. So my +sympathies extend all the way from hod-carriers to sculptors; from +well-diggers to astronomers. If the objects of the laboring men are +to improve their condition without injuring others; to have homes +and firesides, and wives and children; plenty to eat, good clothes +to wear; to develop their minds, to educate their children—in +short, to become prosperous and civilized, I sympathize with them, +and hope they will succeed. I have not the slightest sympathy with +those that wish to accomplish all these objects through brute +force. A Nihilist may be forgiven in Russia—may even be +praised in Russia; a Socialist may be forgiven in Germany; and +certainly a Home-ruler can be pardoned in Ireland, but in the +United States there is no place for Anarchist, Socialist or +Dynamiter. In this country the political power has been fairly +divided. Poverty has just as many votes as wealth. No man can be so +poor as not to have a ballot; no man is rich enough to have two; +and no man can buy another vote, unless somebody is mean enough and +contemptible enough to sell; and if he does sell his vote, he never +should complain about the laws or their administration. So the +foolish and the wise are on an equality, and the political power of +this country is divided so that each man is a sovereign.</p> +<p>Now, the laboring people are largely in the majority in this +country. If there are any laws oppressing them, they should have +them repealed. I want the laboring people—and by the word +"laboring" now, I include only the men that they include by that +word—to unite; I want them to show that they have the +intelligence to act together, and sense enough to vote for a +friend. I want them to convince both the other great parties that +they cannot be purchased. This will be an immense step in the right +direction.</p> +<p>I have sometimes thought that I should like to see the laboring +men in power, so that they would realize how little, after all, can +be done by law. All that any man should ask, so far as the +Government is concerned, is a fair chance to compete with his +neighbors. Personally, I am for the abolition of all special +privileges that are not for the general good. My principal hope of +the future is the civilization of my race; the development not only +of the brain, but of the heart. I believe the time will come when +we shall stop raising failures, when we shall know something of the +laws governing human beings. I believe the time will come when we +shall not produce deformed persons, natural criminals. In other +words, I think the world is going to grow better and better. This +may not happen to this nation or to what we call our race, but it +may happen to some other race, and all that we do in the right +direction hastens that day and that race.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you think that the old parties are about to +die?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. It is very hard to say. The country is not old +enough for tables of mortality to have been calculated upon +parties. I suppose a party, like anything else, has a period of +youth, of manhood and decay. The Democratic party is not dead. Some +men grow physically strong as they grow mentally weak. The +Democratic party lived out of office, and in disgrace, for +twenty-five years, and lived to elect a President. If the +Democratic party could live on disgrace for twenty-five years it +now looks as though the Republican party, on the memory of its +glory and of its wonderful and unparalleled achievements, might +manage to creep along for a few years more.</p> +<p>—<i>New York World</i>, October 26, 1886.</p> +<a name="link0062" id="link0062"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>HENRY GEORGE AND SOCIALISM.</h2> +<h3><i>Question</i>. What is your opinion of the result of the +election?</h3> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I find many dead on the field whose faces I +recognize. I see that Morrison has taken a "horizontal" position. +Free trade seems to have received an exceedingly black eye. +Carlisle, in my judgment, one of the very best men in Congress, has +been defeated simply because he is a free trader, and I suppose you +can account for Hurd's defeat in the same way. The people believe +in protection although they generally admit that the tariff ought +to be reformed. I believe in protecting "infant industries," but I +do not believe in rocking the cradle when the infant is seven feet +high and wears number twelve boots.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you sympathize with the Socialists, or do +you think that the success of George would promote socialism?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I have said frequently that if I lived in Russia +I should in all probability be a Nihilist. I can conceive of no +government that would not be as good as that of Russia, and I would +consider <i>no</i> government far preferable to that government. +Any possible state of anarchy is better than organized crime, +because in the chaos of anarchy justice may be done by accident, +but in a government organized for the perpetuation of slavery, and +for the purpose of crushing out of the human brain every noble +thought, justice does not live. In Germany I would probably be a +Socialist—to this extent, that I would want the political +power honestly divided among the people. I can conceive of no +circumstance in which I could support Bismarck. I regard Bismarck +as a projection of the Middle Ages, as a shadow that has been +thrown across the sunlight of modern civilization, and in that +shadow grow all the bloodless crimes. Now, in Ireland, of course, I +believe in home rule. In this country I am an Individualist. The +political power here is equally divided. Poverty and wealth have +the same power at the ballot-box. Intelligence and ignorance are on +an equality here, simply because all men have a certain interest in +the government where they live. I hate above all other things the +tyranny of a government. I do not want a government to send a +policeman along with me to keep me from buying eleven eggs for a +dozen. I will take care of myself. I want the people to do +everything they can do, and the Government to keep its hands off, +because if the Government attends to all these matters the people +lose manhood, and in a little while become serfs, and there will +arise some strong mind and some powerful hand that will reduce them +to actual slavery. So I am in favor or personal liberty to the +largest extent. Whenever the Government grants privileges to the +few, these privileges should be for the benefit of the many, and +when they cease to be for the benefit of the many, they should be +taken from the few and used by the government itself for the +benefit of the whole people. And I want to see in this country the +Government so administered that justice will be done to all as +nearly as human institutions can produce such a result. Now, I +understand that in any state of society there will be failures. We +have failures among the working people. We have had some failures +in Congress. I will not mention the names, because your space is +limited. There have been failures in the pulpit, at the bar; in +fact, in every pursuit of life you will presume we shall have +failures with us for a great while; at least until the +establishment of the religion of the body, when we shall cease to +produce failures; and I have faith enough in the human race to +believe that that time will come, but I do not expect it during my +life.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think of the income tax as a step +toward the accomplishment of what you desire?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. There are some objections to an income tax. +First, the espionage that it produces on the part of the +Government. Second, the amount of perjury that it annually +produces. Men hate to have their business inquired into if they are +not doing well. They often pay a very large tax to make their +creditors think they are prosperous. Others by covering up, avoid +the tax. But I will say this with regard to taxation: The great +desideratum is stability. If we tax only the land, and that were +the only tax, in a little while every other thing, and the value of +every other thing, would adjust itself in relation to that tax, and +perfect justice would be the result. That is to say, if it were +stable long enough the burden would finally fall upon the right +backs in every department. The trouble with taxation is that it is +continually changing—not waiting for the adjustment that will +naturally follow provided it is stable. I think the end, so far as +land is concerned, could be reached by cumulative +taxation—that is to say, a man with a certain amount of land +paying a very small per cent., with more land, and increased per +cent., and let that per cent. increase rapidly enough so that no +man could afford to hold land that he did not have a use for. So I +believe in cumulative taxation in regard to any kind of wealth. Let +a man worth ten million dollars pay a greater per cent. than one +worth one hundred thousand, because he is able to pay it. The other +day a man was talking to me about having the dead pay the expenses +of the Government; that whenever a man died worth say five million +dollars, one million should go to the Government; that if he died +worth ten million dollars, three millions should go to the +Government; if he died worth twenty million dollars, eight million +should go to the Government, and so on. He said that in this way +the expenses of the Government could be borne by the dead. I should +be in favor of cumulative taxation upon legacies— the greater +the legacy, the greater the per cent. of taxation.</p> +<p>But, of course, I am not foolish enough to suppose that I +understand these questions. I am giving you a few guesses. My only +desire is to guess right. I want to see the people of this world +live for this world, and I hope the time will come when a civilized +man will understand that he cannot be perfectly happy while anybody +else is miserable; that a perfectly civilized man could not enjoy a +dinner knowing that others were starving; that he could not enjoy +the richest robes if he knew that some of his fellow-men in rags +and tatters were shivering in the blast. In other words, I want to +carry out the idea there that I have so frequently uttered with +regard to the other world; that is, that no gentleman angel could +be perfectly happy knowing that somebody else was in hell.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What are the chances for the Republican party +in 1888?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. If it will sympathize with the toilers, as it did +with the slaves; if it will side with the needy; if it will only +take the right side it will elect the next President. The poor +should not resort to violence; the rich should appeal to the +intelligence of the working people. These questions cannot be +settled by envy and scorn. The motto of both parties should be: +"Come, let us reason together." The Republican party was the +grandest organization that ever existed. It was brave, intelligent +and just. It sincerely loved the right. A certificate of membership +was a patent of nobility. If it will only stand by the right again, +its victorious banner will float over all the intelligent sons of +toil.</p> +<p>—<i>The Times</i>, Chicago, Illinois, November 4, +1886.</p> +<a name="link0063" id="link0063"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>REPLY TO THE REV. B. F. MORSE.*</h2> +<pre> + [* At the usual weekly meeting of the Baptist ministers at + the Publication Rooms yesterday, the Rev. Dr. B. F. Morse + read an essay on "Christianity vs. Materialism." His + contention was that all nature showed that design, not + evolution, was its origin. + + In his concluding remarks Dr. Morse said that he knew from + unquestionable authority, that Robert G. Ingersoll did not + believe what he uttered in his lectures, and that to get out + of a financial embarrassment he looked around for a money + making scheme that could be put into immediate execution. + To lecture against Christianity was the most rapid way of + giving him the needed cash and, what was quite as acceptable + to him, at the same time, notoriety.] +</pre> +<p>This aquatic or web-footed theologian who expects to go to +heaven by diving is not worth answering. Nothing can be more +idiotic than to answer an argument by saying he who makes it does +not believe it. Belief has nothing to do with the cogency or worth +of an argument. There is another thing. This man, or rather this +minister, says that I attacked Christianity simply to make money. +Is it possible that, after preachers have had the field for +eighteen hundred years, the way to make money is to attack the +clergy? Is this intended as a slander against me or the +ministers?</p> +<p>The trouble is that my arguments cannot be answered. All the +preachers in the world cannot prove that slavery is better than +liberty. They cannot show that all have not an equal right to +think. They cannot show that all have not an equal right to express +their thoughts. They cannot show that a decent God will punish a +decent man for making the best guess he can. This is all there is +about it.</p> +<p>—<i>The Herald</i>, New York, December 14, 1886.</p> +<a name="link0064" id="link0064"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>INGERSOLL ON McGLYNN.</h2> +<p>The attitude of the Roman Catholic Church in Dr. McGlynn's case +is consistent with the history and constitution of the Catholic +Church —perfectly consistent with its ends, its objects, and +its means— and just as perfectly inconsistent with +intellectual liberty and the real civilization of the human +race.</p> +<p>When a man becomes a Catholic priest, he has been convinced that +he ought not to think for himself upon religious questions. He has +become convinced that the church is the only teacher—that he +has a right to think only to enforce its teachings. From that +moment he is a moral machine. The chief engineer resides at Rome, +and he gives his orders through certain assistant engineers until +the one is reached who turns the crank, and the machine has nothing +to do one way or the other. This machine is paid for giving up his +liberty by having machines under him who have also given up theirs. +While somebody else turns his crank, he has the pleasure of turning +a crank belonging to somebody below him.</p> +<p>Of course, the Catholic Church is supposed to be the only +perfect institution on earth. All others are not only imperfect, +but unnecessary. All others have been made either by man, or by the +Devil, or by a partnership, and consequently cannot be depended +upon for the civilization of man.</p> +<p>The Catholic Church gets its power directly from God, and is the +only institution now in the world founded by God. There was never +any other, so far as I know, except polygamy and slavery and a +crude kind of monarchy, and they have been, for the most part, +abolished.</p> +<p>The Catholic Church must be true to itself. It must claim +everything, and get what it can. It alone is infallible. It alone +has all the wisdom of this world. It alone has the right to exist. +All other interests are secondary. To be a Catholic is of the first +importance. Human liberty is nothing. Wealth, position, food, +clothing, reputation, happiness—all these are less than +worthless compared with what the Catholic Church promises to the +man who will throw all these away.</p> +<p>A priest must preach what his bishop tells him. A bishop must +preach what his archbishop tells him. The pope must preach what he +says God tells him.</p> +<p>Dr. McGlynn cannot make a compromise with the Catholic Church. +It never compromises when it is in the majority.</p> +<p>I do not mean by this that the Catholic Church is worse than any +other. All are alike in this regard. Every sect, no matter how +insignificant; every church, no matter how powerful, asks precisely +the same thing from every member—that is to say, a surrender +of intellectual freedom. The Catholic Church wants the same as the +Baptist, the Presbyterian, and the Methodist—it wants the +whole earth. It is ambitious to be the one supreme power. It hopes +to see the world upon its knees, with all its tongues thrust out +for wafers. It has the arrogance of humility and the ferocity of +universal forgiveness. In this respect it resembles every other +sect. Every religion is a system of slavery.</p> +<p>Of course, the religionists say that they do not believe in +persecution; that they do not believe in burning and hanging and +whipping or loading with chains a man simply because he is an +Infidel. They are willing to leave all this with God, knowing that +a being of infinite goodness will inflict all these horrors and +tortures upon an honest man who differs with the church.</p> +<p>In case Dr. McGlynn is deprived of his priestly functions, it is +hard to say what effect it will have upon his church and the labor +party in the country.</p> +<p>So long as a man believes that a church has eternal joy in store +for him, so long as he believes that a church holds within its hand +the keys of heaven and hell, it will be hard to make him trade off +the hope of everlasting happiness for a few good clothes and a +little good food and higher wages here. He finally thinks that, +after all, he had better work for less and go a little hungry, and +be an angel forever.</p> +<p>I hope, however, that a good many people who have been +supporting the Catholic Church by giving tithes of the wages of +weariness will see, and clearly see, that Catholicism is not their +friend; that the church cannot and will not support them; that, on +the contrary, they must support the church. I hope they will see +that all the prayers have to be paid for, although not one has ever +been answered. I hope they will perceive that the church is on the +side of wealth and power, that the mitre is the friend of the +crown, that the altar is the sworn brother of the throne. I hope +they will finally know that the church cares infinitely more for +the money of the millionaire than for the souls of the poor.</p> +<p>Of course, there are thousands of individual exceptions. I am +speaking of the church as an institution, as a +corporation—and when I say the church, I include all +churches. It is said of corporations in general, that they have no +soul, and it may truthfully be said of the church that it has less +than any other. It lives on alms. It gives nothing for what it +gets. It has no sympathy. Beggars never weep over the misfortunes +of other beggars.</p> +<p>Nothing could give me more pleasure than to see the Catholic +Church on the side of human freedom; nothing more pleasure than to +see the Catholics of the world—those who work and weep and +toil— sensible enough to know that all the money paid for +superstition is worse than lost. I wish they could see that the +counting of beads, and the saying of prayers and celebrating of +masses, and all the kneelings and censer-swingings and fastings and +bell-ringing, amount to less than nothing—that all these +things tend only to the degradation of mankind. It is hard, I know, +to find an antidote for a poison that was mingled with a mother's +milk.</p> +<p>The laboring masses, so far as the Catholics are concerned, are +filled with awe and wonder and fear about the church. This fear +began to grow while they were being rocked in their cradles, and +they still imagine that the church has some mysterious power; that +it is in direct communication with some infinite personality that +could, if it desired, strike then dead, or damn their souls +forever. Persons who have no such belief, who care nothing for +popes or priests or churches or heavens or hells or devils or gods, +have very little idea of the power of fear.</p> +<p>The old dogmas filled the brain with strange monsters. The soul +of the orthodox Christian gropes and wanders and crawls in a kind +of dungeon, where the strained eyes see fearful shapes, and the +frightened flesh shrinks from the touch of serpents.</p> +<p>The good part of Christianity—that is to say, kindness, +morality —will never go down. The cruel part ought to go +down. And by the cruel part I mean the doctrine of eternal +punishment—of allowing the good to suffer for the +bad—allowing innocence to pay the debt of guilt. So the +foolish part of Christianity—that is to say, the +miraculous—will go down. The absurd part must perish. But +there will be no war about it as there was in France. Nobody +believes enough in the foolish part of Christianity now to fight +for it. Nobody believes with intensity enough in miracles to +shoulder a musket. There is probably not a Christian in New York +willing to fight for any story, no matter if the story is so old +that it is covered with moss. No mentally brave and intelligent man +believes in miracles, and no intelligent man cares whether there +was a miracle or not, for the reason that every intelligent man +knows that the miraculous has no possible connection with the +moral. "Thou shalt not steal," is just as good a commandment if it +should turn out that the flood was a drouth. "Thou shalt not +murder," is a good and just and righteous law, and whether any +particular miracle was ever performed or not has nothing to do with +the case. There is no possible relation between these things.</p> +<p>I am on the side not only of the physically oppressed, but of +the mentally oppressed. I hate those who put lashes on the body, +and I despise those who put the soul in chains. In other words, I +am in favor of liberty. I do not wish that any man should be the +slave of his fellow-men, or that the human race should be the +slaves of any god, real or imaginary. Man has the right to think +for himself, to work for himself, to take care of himself, to get +bread for himself, to get a home for himself. He has a right to his +own opinion about God, and heaven and hell; the right to learn any +art or mystery or trade; the right to work for whom he will, for +what he will, and when he will.</p> +<p>The world belongs to the human race. There is to be no war in +this country on religious opinions, except a war of words—a +conflict of thoughts, of facts; and in that conflict the hosts of +superstition will go down. They may not be defeated to-day, or +to-morrow, or next year, or during this century, but they are +growing weaker day by day.</p> +<p>This priest, McGlynn, has the courage to stand up against the +propaganda. What would have been his fate a few years ago? What +would have happened to him in Spain, in Portugal, in Italy—in +any other country that was Catholic—only a few years ago? Yet +he stands here in New York, he refuses to obey God's vicegerent; he +freely gives his mind to an archbishop; he holds the holy +Inquisition in contempt. He has done a great thing. He is +undoubtedly an honest man. He never should have been a Catholic. He +has no business in that church. He has ideas of his +own—theories, and seems to be governed by principles. The +Catholic Church is not his place. If he remains, he must submit, he +must kneel in the humility of abjectness; he must receive on the +back of his independence the lashes of the church. If he remains, +he must ask the forgiveness of slaves for having been a man. If he +refuses to submit, the church will not have him. He will be driven +to take his choice— to remain a member, humiliated, shunned, +or go out into the great, free world a citizen of the Republic, +with the rights, responsibilities, and duties of an American +citizen.</p> +<p>I believe that Dr. McGlynn is an honest man, and that he really +believes in the land theories of Mr. George. I have no confidence +in his theories, but I have confidence that he is actuated by the +best and noblest motives.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Are you to go on the lecture platform +again?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I expect to after a while. I am now waiting for +the church to catch up. I got so far ahead that I began almost to +sympathize with the clergy. They looked so helpless and talked in +such a weak, wandering, and wobbling kind of way that I felt as +though I had been cruel. From the papers I see that they are busy +trying to find out who the wife of Cain was. I see that the Rev. +Dr. Robinson, of New York, is now wrestling with that problem. He +begins to be in doubt whether Adam was the first man, whether Eve +was the first woman; suspects that there were other races, and that +Cain did not marry his sister, but somebody else's sister, and that +the somebody else was not Cain's brother. One can hardly over- +estimate the importance of these questions, they have such a direct +bearing on the progress of the world. If it should turn out that +Adam was the first man, or that he was not the first man, something +might happen—I am not prepared to say what, but it might.</p> +<p>It is a curious kind of a spectacle to see a few hundred people +paying a few thousand dollars a year for the purpose of hearing +these great problems discussed: "Was Adam the first man?" "Who was +Cain's wife?" "Has anyone seen a map of the land of Nod?" "Where +are the four rivers that ran murmuring through the groves of +Paradise?" "Who was the snake? How did he walk? What language did +he speak?" This turns a church into a kind of nursery, makes a +cradle of each pew, and gives to each member a rattle with which he +can amuse what he calls his mind.</p> +<p>The great theologians of Andover—the gentlemen who wear +the brass collars furnished by the dead founder—have been +disputing among themselves as to what is to become of the heathen +who fortunately died before meeting any missionary from that +institution. One can almost afford to be damned hereafter for the +sake of avoiding the dogmas of Andover here. Nothing more absurd +and childish has ever happened—not in the intellectual, but +in the theological world.</p> +<p>There is no need of the Freethinkers saying anything at present. +The work is being done by the church members themselves. They are +beginning to ask questions of the clergy. They are getting tired of +the old ideas—tired of the consolations of eternal +pain—tired of hearing about hell—tired of hearing the +Bible quoted or talked about—tired of the scheme of +redemption—tired of the Trinity, of the plenary inspiration +of the barbarous records of a barbarous people—tired of the +patriarchs and prophets—tired of Daniel and the goats with +three horns, and the image with the clay feet, and the little stone +that rolled down the hill—tired of the mud man and the rib +woman—tired of the flood of Noah, of the astronomy of Joshua, +the geology of Moses—tired of Kings and Chronicles and +Lamentations—tired of the lachrymose Jeremiah—tired of +the monstrous, the malicious, and the miraculous. In short, they +are beginning to think. They have bowed their necks to the yoke of +ignorance and fear and impudence and superstition, until they are +weary. They long to be free. They are tired of the services— +tired of the meaningless prayers—tired of hearing each other +say, "Hear us, good Lord"—tired of the texts, tired of the +sermons, tired of the lies about spontaneous combustion as a +punishment for blasphemy, tired of the bells, and they long to hear +the doxology of superstition. They long to have Common Sense lift +its hands in benediction and dismiss the congregation.</p> +<p>—<i>Brooklyn Citizen</i>, April, 1886.</p> +<a name="link0065" id="link0065"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>TRIAL OF THE CHICAGO ANARCHISTS.</h2> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think of the trial of the Chicago +Anarchists and their chances for a new trial?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I have paid some attention to the evidence and to +the rulings of the court, and I have read the opinion of the +Supreme Court of Illinois, in which the conviction is affirmed. Of +course these men were tried during a period of great +excitement—tried when the press demanded their +conviction—when it was asserted that society was on the edge +of destruction unless these men were hanged. Under such +circumstances, it is not easy to have a fair and impartial trial. A +judge should either sit beyond the reach of prejudice, in some calm +that storms cannot invade, or he should be a kind of oak that +before any blast he would stand erect. It is hard to find such a +place as I have suggested and not easy to find such a man. We are +all influenced more or less by our surroundings, by the demands and +opinions and feelings and prejudices of our fellow- citizens. There +is a personality made up of many individuals known as society. This +personality has prejudices like an individual. It often becomes +enraged, acts without the slightest sense, and repents at its +leisure. It is hard to reason with a mob whether organized or +disorganized, whether acting in the name of the law or of simple +brute force. But in any case, where people refuse to be governed by +reason, they become a mob.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you not think that these men had a fair +trial?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I have no doubt that the court endeavored to be +fair— no doubt that Judge Gary is a perfectly honest, upright +man, but I think his instructions were wrong. He instructed the +jury to the effect that where men have talked in a certain way, and +where the jury believed that the result of such talk might be the +commission of a crime, that such men are responsible for that +crime. Of course, there is neither law nor sense in an instruction +like this. I hold that it must have been the intention of the man +making the remark, or publishing the article, or doing the +thing—it must have been his intention that the crime should +be committed. Men differ as to the effect of words, and a man may +say a thing with the best intentions the result of which is a +crime, and he may say a thing with the worst of intentions and the +result may not be a crime. The Supreme Court of Illinois seemed to +have admitted that the instructions were wrong, but took the ground +that it made no difference with the verdict. This is a dangerous +course for the court of last resort to pursue; neither is it very +complimentary to the judge who tried the case, that his +instructions had no effect upon the jury. Under the instructions of +the court below, any man who had been arrested with the seven +Anarchists and of whom it could be proved that he had ever said a +word in favor of any change in government, or of other peculiar +ideas, no matter whether he knew of the meeting at the Haymarket or +not, would have been convicted.</p> +<p>I am satisfied that the defendant Fielden never intended to harm +a human being. As a matter of fact, the evidence shows that he was +making a speech in favor of peace at the time of the occurrence. +The evidence also shows that he was an exceedingly honest, +industrious, and a very poor and philanthropic man.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you uphold the Anarchists?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Certainly not. There is no place in this country +for the Anarchist. The source of power here is the people, and to +attack the political power is to attack the people. If the laws are +oppressive, it is the fault of the oppressed. If the laws touch the +poor and leave them without redress, it is the fault of the poor. +They are in a majority. The men who work for their living are the +very men who have the power to make every law that is made in the +United States. There is no excuse for any resort to violence in +this country. The boycotting by trades unions and by labor +organizations is all wrong. Let them resort to legal methods and to +no other. I have not the slightest sympathy with the methods that +have been pursued by Anarchists, or by Socialists, or by any other +class that has resorted to force or intimidation. The ballot-box is +the place to assemble. The will of the people can be made known in +that way, and their will can be executed. At the same time, I think +I understand what has produced the Anarchist, the Socialist, and +the agitator. In the old country, a laboring man, poorly clad, +without quite enough to eat, with a wife in rags, with a few +children asking for bread—this laboring man sees the idle +enjoying every luxury of this life; he sees on the breast of "my +lady" a bonfire of diamonds; he sees "my lord" riding in his park; +he sees thousands of people who from the cradle to the grave do no +useful act; add nothing to the intellectual or the physical wealth +of the world; he sees labor living in the tenement house, in the +hut; idleness and nobility in the mansion and the palace; the poor +man a trespasser everywhere except upon the street, where he is +told to "move on," and in the dusty highways of the country. That +man naturally hates the government—the government of the few, +the government that lives on the unpaid labor of the many, the +government that takes the child from the parents, and puts him in +the army to fight the child of another poor man and woman in some +other country. These Anarchists, these Socialists, these agitators, +have been naturally produced. All the things of which I have spoken +sow in the breast of poverty the seeds of hatred and revolution. +These poor men, hunted by the officers of the law, cornered, +captured, imprisoned, excite the sympathy of other poor men, and if +some are dragged to the gallows and hanged, or beheaded by the +guillotine, they become saints and martyrs, and those who +sympathize with them feel that they have the power, and only the +power of hatred—the power of riot, of destruction—the +power of the torch, of revolution, that is to say, of chaos and +anarchy. The injustice of the higher classes makes the lower +criminal. Then there is another thing. The misery of the poor +excites in many noble breasts sympathy, and the men who thus +sympathize wish to better the condition of their fellows. At first +they depend upon reason, upon calling the attention of the educated +and powerful to the miseries of the poor. Nothing happens, no +result follows. The Juggernaut of society moves on, and the +wretches are still crushed beneath the great wheels. These men who +are really good at first, filled with sympathy, now become +indignant—they are malicious, then destructive and criminal. +I do not sympathize with these methods, but I do sympathize with +the general object that all good and generous people seek to +accomplish—namely, to better the condition of the human race. +Only the other day, in Boston, I said that we ought to take into +consideration the circumstances under which the Anarchists were +reared; that we ought to know that every man is necessarily +produced; that man is what he is, not by accident, but necessity; +that society raises its own criminals—that it plows the soil +and cultivates and harvests the crop. And it was telegraphed that I +had defended anarchy. Nothing was ever further from my mind. There +is no place, as I said before, for anarchy in the United States. In +Russia it is another question; in Germany another question. Every +country that is governed by the one man, or governed by the few, is +the victim of anarchy. That <i>is</i> anarchy. That is the worst +possible form of socialism. The definition of socialism given by +its bitterest enemy is, that idlers wish to live on the labor and +on the money of others. Is not this definition—a definition +given in hatred—a perfect definition of every monarchy and of +nearly every government in the world? That is to say: The idle few +live on the labor and the money of others.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Will the Supreme Court take cognizance of this +case and prevent the execution of the judgment?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Of course it is impossible for me to say. At the +same time, judging from the action of Justice Miller in the case of +<i>The People vs. Maxwell</i>, it seems probable that the Supreme +Court may interfere, but I have not examined the question +sufficiently to form an opinion. My feeling about the whole matter +is this: That it will not tend to answer the ideas advanced by +these men, to hang them. Their execution will excite sympathy among +thousands and thousands of people who have never examined and knew +nothing of the theories advanced by the Anarchists, or the +Socialists, or other agitators. In my judgment, supposing the men +to be guilty, it is far better to imprison them. Less harm will be +done the cause of free government. We are not on the edge of any +revolution. No other government is as firmly fixed as ours. No +other government has such a broad and splendid foundation. We have +nothing to fear. Courage and safety can afford to be +generous—can afford to act without haste and without the +feeling of revenge. So, for my part, I hope that the sentence may +be commuted, and that these men, if found guilty at last, may be +imprisoned. This course is, in my judgment, the safest to pursue. +It may be that I am led to this conclusion, because of my belief +that every man does as he must. This belief makes me charitable +toward all the world. This belief makes me doubt the wisdom of +revenge. This belief, so far as I am concerned, blots from our +language the word "punishment." Society has a right to protect +itself, and it is the duty of society to reform, in so far as it +may be possible, any member who has committed what is called a +crime. Where the criminal cannot be reformed, and the safety of +society can be secured by his imprisonment, there is no possible +excuse for destroying his life. After these six or seven men have +been, in accordance with the forms of law, strangled to death, +there will be a few pieces of clay, and about them will gather a +few friends, a few admirers—and these pieces will be buried, +and over the grave will be erected a monument, and those who were +executed as criminals will be regarded by thousands as saints. It +is far better for society to have a little mercy. The effect upon +the community will be good. If these men are imprisoned, people +will examine their teachings without prejudice. If they are +executed, seen through the tears of pity, their virtues, their +sufferings, their heroism, will be exaggerated; others may emulate +their deeds, and the gulf between the rich and the poor will be +widened—a gulf that may not close until it has devoured the +noblest and the best.</p> +<p>—<i>The Mail and Express</i>, New York, November 3, +1887.</p> +<a name="link0066" id="link0066"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>THE STAGE AND THE PULPIT.</h2> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think of the Methodist minister at +Nashville, Tenn., who, from his pulpit, denounced the theatrical +profession, without exception, as vicious, and of the congregation +which passed resolutions condemning Miss Emma Abbott for rising in +church and contradicting him, and of the Methodist bishop who +likened her to a "painted courtesan," and invoked the aid of the +law "for the protection of public worship" against "strolling +players"?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. The Methodist minister of whom you speak, without +doubt uttered his real sentiments. The church has always regarded +the stage as a rival, and all its utterances have been as malicious +as untrue. It has always felt that the money given to the stage was +in some way taken from the pulpit. It is on this principle that the +pulpit wishes everything, except the church, shut up on Sunday. It +knows that it cannot stand free and open competition.</p> +<p>All well-educated ministers know that the Bible suffers by a +comparison with Shakespeare. They know that there is nothing within +the lids of what they call "the sacred book" that can for one +moment stand side by side with "Lear" or "Hamlet" or "Julius +Cæsar" or "Antony and Cleopatra" or with any other play +written by the immortal man. They know what a poor figure the +Davids and the Abrahams and the Jeremiahs and the Lots, the Jonahs, +the Jobs and the Noahs cut when on the stage with the great +characters of Shakespeare. For these reasons, among others, the +pulpit is malicious and hateful when it thinks of the glories of +the stage. What minister is there now living who could command the +prices commanded by Edwin Booth or Joseph Jefferson; and what two +clergymen, by making a combination, could contend successfully with +Robson and Crane? How many clergymen would it take to command, at +regular prices, the audiences that attend the presentation of +Wagner's operas?</p> +<p>It is very easy to see why the pulpit attacks the stage. Nothing +could have been in more wretched taste than for the minister to +condemn Miss Emma Abbott for rising in church and defending not +only herself, but other good women who are doing honest work for an +honest living. Of course, no minister wishes to be answered; no +minister wishes to have anyone in the congregation call for the +proof. A few questions would break up all the theology in the +world. Ministers can succeed only when congregations keep silent. +When superstition succeeds, doubt must be dumb.</p> +<p>The Methodist bishop who attacked Miss Abbott simply repeated +the language of several centuries ago. In the laws of England +actors were described as "sturdy vagrants," and this bishop calls +them "strolling players." If we only had some strolling preachers +like Garrick, like Edwin Forrest, or Booth or Barrett, or some +crusade sisters like Mrs. Siddons, Madam Ristori, Charlotte +Cushman, or Madam Modjeska, how fortunate the church would be!</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What is your opinion of the relative merits of +the pulpit and the stage, preachers and actors?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. We must remember that the stage presents an ideal +life. It is a world controlled by the imagination—a world in +which the justice delayed in real life may be done, and in which +that may happen which, according to the highest ideal, should +happen. It is a world, for the most part, in which evil does not +succeed, in which the vicious are foiled, in which the right, the +honest, the sincere, and the good prevail. It cultivates the +imagination, and in this respect is far better than the pulpit. The +mission of the pulpit is to narrow and shrivel the human mind. The +pulpit denounces the freedom of thought and of expression; but on +the stage the mind is free, and for thousands of years the poor, +the oppressed, the enslaved, have been permitted to witness plays +wherein the slave was freed, wherein the oppressed became the +victor, and where the downtrodden rose supreme.</p> +<p>And there is another thing. The stage has always laughed at the +spirit of caste. The low-born lass has loved the prince. All human +distinctions in this ideal world have for the moment vanished, +while honesty and love have triumphed. The stage lightens the cares +of life. The pulpit increases the tears and groans of man. There is +this difference: The pretence of honesty and the honesty of +pretence.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. How do you view the Episcopalian scheme of +building a six-million-dollar untaxed cathedral in this city for +the purpose of "uniting the sects," and, when that is accomplished, +"unifying the world in the love of Christ," and thereby abolishing +misery?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I regard the building of an Episcopal cathedral +simply as a piece of religious folly. The world will never be +converted by Christian palaces and temples. Every dollar used in +its construction will be wasted. It will have no tendency to unite +the various sects; on the contrary, it will excite the envy and +jealousy of every other sect. It will widen the gulf between the +Episcopalian and the Methodist, between the Episcopalian and the +Presbyterian, and this hatred will continue until the other sects +build a cathedral just a little larger, and then the envy and the +hatred will be on the other side.</p> +<p>Religion will never unify the world, and never will give peace +to mankind. There has been more war in the last eighteen hundred +years than during any similar period within historic times. War +will be abolished, if it ever is abolished, not by religion, but by +intelligence. It will be abolished when the poor people of Germany, +of France, of Spain, of England, and other countries find that they +have no interest in war. When those who pay, and those who do the +fighting, find that they are simply destroying their own interests, +wars will cease.</p> +<p>There ought to be a national court to decide national +difficulties. We consider a community civilized when the +individuals of that community submit their differences to a legal +tribunal; but there being no national court, nations now sustain, +as to each other, the relation of savages—that is to say, +each one must defend its rights by brute force. The establishment +of a national court civilizes nations, and tends to do away with +war.</p> +<p>Christianity caused so much war, so much bloodshed, that +Christians were forced to interpolate a passage to account for +their history, and the interpolated passage is, "I came not to +bring peace, but a sword." Suppose that all the money wasted in +cathedrals in the Middle Ages had been used for the construction of +schoolhouses, academies, and universities, how much better the +world would have been! Suppose that instead of supporting hundreds +of thousands of idle priests, the money had been given to men of +science, for the purpose of finding out something of benefit to the +human race here in this world.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What is your opinion of "Christian charity" and +the "fatherhood of God" as an economic polity for abolishing +poverty and misery?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Of course, the world is not to be civilized and +clothed and fed through charity. Ordinary charity creates more want +than it alleviates. The greatest possible charity is the greatest +possible justice. When proper wages are paid, when every one is as +willing to give what a thing is worth as he is now willing to get +it for less, the world will be fed and clothed.</p> +<p>I believe in helping people to help themselves. I believe that +corporations, and successful men, and superior men intellectually, +should do all within their power to keep from robbing their fellow- +men. The superior man should protect the inferior. The powerful +should be the shield of the weak. To-day it is, for the most part, +exactly the other way. The failures among men become the food of +success.</p> +<p>The world is to grow better and better through intelligence, +through a development of the brain, through taking advantage of the +forces of nature, through science, through chemistry, and through +the arts. Religion can do nothing except to sow the seeds of +discord between men and nations. Commerce, manufactures, and the +arts tend to peace and the well-being of the world. What is known +as religion —that is to say, a system by which this world is +wasted in preparation for another—a system in which the +duties of men are greater to God than to his fellow-men—a +system that denies the liberty of thought and +expression—tends only to discord and retrogression. Of +course, I know that religious people cling to the Bible on account +of the good that is in it, and in spite of the bad, and I know that +Freethinkers throw away the Bible on account of the bad that is in +it, in spite of the good. I hope the time will come when that book +will be treated like other books, and will be judged upon its +merits, apart from the fiction of inspiration. The church has no +right to speak of charity, because it is an object of charity +itself. It gives nothing; all it can do is to receive. At best, it +is only a respectable beggar. I never care to hear one who receives +alms pay a tribute to charity. The one who gives alms should pay +this tribute. The amount of money expended upon churches and +priests and all the paraphernalia of superstition, is more than +enough to drive the wolves from the doors of the world.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Have you noticed the progress Catholics are +making in the Northwest, discontinuing public schools, and forcing +people to send their children to the parochial schools; also, at +Pittsburg, Pa., a Roman Catholic priest has been elected principal +of a public school, and he has appointed nuns as assistant +teachers?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Sectarian schools ought not to be supported by +public taxation. It is the very essence of religious tyranny to +compel a Methodist to support a Catholic school, or to compel a +Catholic to support a Baptist academy. Nothing should be taught in +the public schools that the teachers do not know. Nothing should be +taught about any religion, and nothing should be taught that can, +in any way, be called sectarian. The sciences are not religion. +There is no such thing as Methodist mathematics, or Baptist botany. +In other words, no religion has anything to do with facts. The +facts are all secular; the sciences are all of this world. If +Catholics wish to establish their own schools for the purpose of +preserving their ignorance, they have the right to do so; so has +any other denomination. But in this country the State has no right +to teach any form of religion whatever. Persons of all religions +have the right to advocate and defend any religion in which they +believe, or they have the right to denounce all religions. If the +Catholics establish parochial schools, let them support such +schools; and if they do, they will simply lessen or shorten the +longevity of that particular superstition. It has often been said +that nothing will repeal a bad law as quickly as its enforcement. +So, in my judgment, nothing will destroy any church as certainly, +and as rapidly, as for the members of that church to live squarely +up to the creed. The church is indebted to its hypocrisy to-day for +its life. No orthodox church in the United States dare meet for the +purpose of revising the creed. They know that the whole thing would +fall to pieces.</p> +<p>Nothing could be more absurd than for a Roman Catholic priest to +teach a public school, assisted by nuns. The Catholic Church is the +enemy of human progress; it teaches every man to throw away his +reason, to deny his observation and experience.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Your opinions have frequently been quoted with +regard to the Anarchists—with regard to their trial and +execution. Have you any objection to stating your real opinion in +regard to the matter?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Not in the least. I am perfectly willing that all +civilized people should know my opinions on any question in which +others than myself can have any interest.</p> +<p>I was anxious, in the first place, that the defendants should +have a fair and impartial trial. The worst form of anarchy is when +a judge violates his conscience and bows to a popular demand. A +court should care nothing for public opinion. An honest judge +decides the law, not as it ought to be, but as it is, and the state +of the public mind throws no light upon the question of what the +law then is.</p> +<p>I thought that some of the rulings on the trial of the +Anarchists were contrary to law. I think so still. I have read the +opinion of the Supreme Court of Illinois, and while the conclusion +reached by that tribunal is the law of that case, I was not +satisfied with the reasons given, and do not regard the opinion as +good law. There is no place for an Anarchist in the United States. +There is no excuse for any resort to force; and it is impossible to +use language too harsh or too bitter in denouncing the spirit of +anarchy in this country. But, no matter how bad a man is, he has +the right to be fairly tried; and if he cannot be fairly tried, +then there is anarchy on the bench. So I was opposed to the +execution of these men. I thought it would have been far better to +commute the punishment to imprisonment, and I said so; and I not +only said so, but I wrote a letter to Governor Oglesby, in which I +urged the commutation of the death sentence. In my judgment, a +great mistake was made. I am on the side of mercy, and if I ever +make mistakes, I hope they will all be made on that side. I have +not the slightest sympathy with the feeling of revenge. Neither +have I ever admitted, and I never shall, that every citizen has not +the right to give his opinion on all that may be done by any +servant of the people, by any judge, or by any court, by any +officer—however small or however great. Each man in the +United States is a sovereign, and a king can freely speak his +mind.</p> +<p>Words were put in my mouth that I never uttered with regard to +the Anarchists. I never said that they were saints, or that they +would be martyrs. What I said was that they would be regarded as +saints and martyrs by many people if they were executed, and that +has happened which I said would happen. I am, so far as I know, on +the side of the right. I wish, above all things, for the +preservation of human liberty. This Government is the best, and we +should not lose confidence in liberty. Property is of very little +value in comparison with freedom. A civilization that rests on +slavery is utterly worthless. I do not believe in sacrificing all +there is of value in the human heart, or in the human brain, for +the preservation of what is called property, or rather, on account +of the fear that what is called "property" may perish. Property is +in no danger while man is free. It is the freedom of man that gives +value to property. It is the happiness of the human race that +creates what we call value. If we preserve liberty, the spirit of +progress, the conditions of development, property will take care of +itself.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. The Christian press during the past few months +has been very solicitous as to your health, and has reported you +weak and feeble physically, and not only so, but asserts that there +is a growing disposition on your part to lay down your arms, and +even to join the church.</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I do not think the Christian press has been very +solicitous about my <i>health</i>. Neither do I think that my +health will ever add to theirs. The fact is, I am exceedingly well, +and my throat is better than it has been for many years. Any one +who imagines that I am disposed to lay down my arms can read by +Reply to Dr. Field in the November number of the <i>North American +Review</i>. I see no particular difference in myself, except this; +that my hatred of superstition becomes a little more and more +intense; on the other hand, I see more clearly, that all the +superstitions were naturally produced, and I am now satisfied that +every man does as he must, including priests and editors of +religious papers.</p> +<p>This gives me hope for the future. We find that certain soil, +with a certain amount of moisture and heat, produces good corn, and +we find when the soil is poor, or when the ground is too wet, or +too dry, that no amount of care can, by any possibility, produce +good corn. In other words, we find that the fruit, that is to say, +the result, whatever it may be, depends absolutely upon the +conditions. This being so, we will in time find out the conditions +that produce good, intelligent, honest men. This is the hope for +the future. We shall know better than to rely on what is called +reformation, or regeneration, or a resolution born of ignorant +excitement. We shall rely, then, on the eternal +foundation—the fact in nature— that like causes produce +like results, and that good conditions will produce good +people.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Every now and then some one challenges you to a +discussion, and nearly every one who delivers lectures, or +speeches, attacking you, or your views, says that you are afraid +publicly to debate these questions. Why do you not meet these men, +and why do you not answer these attacks?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. In the first place, it would be a physical +impossibility to reply to all the attacks that have been +made—to all the "answers." I receive these attacks, and these +answers, and these lectures almost every day. Hundreds of them are +delivered every year. A great many are put in pamphlet form, and, +of course, copies are received by me. Some of them I read, at least +I look them over, and I have never yet received one worthy of the +slightest notice, never one in which the writer showed the +slightest appreciation of the questions under discussion. All these +pamphlets are about the same, and they could, for the matter, have +all been produced by one person. They are impudent, shallow, +abusive, illogical, and in most respects, ignorant. So far as the +lecturers are concerned, I know of no one who has yet said anything +that challenges a reply. I do not think a single paragraph has been +produced by any of the gentlemen who have replied to me in public, +that is now remembered by reason of its logic or beauty. I do not +feel called upon to answer any argument that does not at least +appear to be of value. Whenever any article appears worthy of an +answer, written in a kind and candid spirit, it gives me pleasure +to reply.</p> +<p>I should like to meet some one who speaks by authority, some one +who really understands his creed, but I cannot afford to waste time +on little priests or obscure parsons or ignorant laymen.</p> +<p>—<i>The Truth Seeker</i>, New York, January 14, 1888.</p> +<a name="link0067" id="link0067"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>ROSCOE CONKLING.</h2> +<p><i>Question</i>. What is Mr. Conkling's place in the political +history of the United States?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Upon the great questions Mr. Conkling has been +right. During the war he was always strong and clear, unwavering +and decided. His position was always known. He was right on +reconstruction, on civil rights, on the currency, and, so far as I +know, on all important questions. He will be remembered as an +honest, fearless man. He was admired for his known integrity. He +was never even suspected of being swayed by an improper +consideration. He was immeasurably above purchase.</p> +<p>His popularity rested upon his absolute integrity. He was not +adapted for a leader, because he would yield nothing. He had no +compromise in his nature. He went his own road and he would not +turn aside for the sake of company. His individuality was too +marked and his will too imperious to become a leader in a republic. +There is a great deal of individuality in this country, and a +leader must not appear to govern and must not demand obedience. In +the Senate he was a leader. He settled with no one.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What essentially American idea does he stand +for?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. It is a favorite saying in this country that the +people are sovereigns. Mr. Conkling felt this to be true, and he +exercised what he believed to be his rights. He insisted upon the +utmost freedom for himself. He settled with no one but himself. He +stands for individuality—for the freedom of the citizen, the +independence of the man. No lord, no duke, no king was ever prouder +of his title or his place than Mr. Conkling was of his position and +his power. He was thoroughly American in every drop of his +blood.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What have you to say about his having died with +sealed lips?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Mr. Conkling was too proud to show wounds. He did +not tell his sorrows to the public. It seemed sufficient to him to +know the facts himself. He seemed to have great confidence in time, +and he had the patience to wait. Of course he could have told many +things that would have shed light on many important events, but for +my part I think he acted in the noblest way.</p> +<p>He was a striking and original figure in our politics. He stood +alone. I know of no one like him. He will be remembered as a +fearless and incorruptible statesman, a great lawyer, a magnificent +speaker, and an honest man.</p> +<p>—<i>The Herald</i>, New York, April 19, 1888.</p> +<a name="link0068" id="link0068"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>THE CHURCH AND THE STAGE.</h2> +<p><i>Question</i>. I have come to talk with you a little about the +drama. Have you any decided opinions on that subject?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Nothing is more natural than imitation. The +little child with her doll, telling it stories, putting words in +its mouth, attributing to it the feelings of happiness and misery, +is the simple tendency toward the drama. Little children always +have plays, they imitate their parents, they put on the clothes of +their elders, they have imaginary parties, carry on conversation +with imaginary persons, have little dishes filled with imaginary +food, pour tea and coffee out of invisible pots, receive callers, +and repeat what they have heard their mothers say. This is simply +the natural drama, an exercise of the imagination which always has +been and which, probably, always will be, a source of great +pleasure. In the early days of the world nothing was more natural +than for the people to re-enact the history of their +country—to represent the great heroes, the great battles, and +the most exciting scenes the history of which has been preserved by +legend. I believe this tendency to re-enact, to bring before the +eyes the great, the curious, and pathetic events of history, has +been universal. All civilized nations have delighted in the +theatre, and the greatest minds in many countries have been devoted +to the drama, and, without doubt, the greatest man about whom we +know anything devoted his life to the production of plays.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. I would like to ask you why, in your opinion as +a student of history, has the Protestant Church always been so +bitterly opposed to the theatre?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I believe the early Christians expected the +destruction of the world. They had no idea of remaining here, in +the then condition of things, but for a few days. They expected +that Christ would come again, that the world would be purified by +fire, that all the unbelievers would be burned up and that the +earth would become a fit habitation for the followers of the +Saviour. Protestantism became as ascetic as the early Christians. +It is hard to conceive of anybody believing in the "Five Points" of +John Calvin going to any place of amusement. The creed of +Protestantism made life infinitely sad and made man infinitely +responsible. According to this creed every man was liable at any +moment to be summoned to eternal pain; the most devout Christian +was not absolutely sure of salvation. This life was a probationary +one. Everybody was considered as waiting on the dock of time, +sitting on his trunk, expecting the ship that was to bear him to an +eternity of good or evil—probably evil. They were in no state +of mind to enjoy burlesque or comedy, and, so far as tragedy was +concerned, their own lives and their own creeds were tragic beyond +anything that could by any possibility happen in this world. A +broken heart was nothing to be compared with a damned soul; the +afflictions of a few years, with the flames of eternity. This, to +say the least of it, accounts, in part, for the hatred that +Protestantism always bore toward the stage. Of course, the churches +have always regarded the theatre as a rival and have begrudged the +money used to support the stage. You know that Macaulay said the +Puritans objected to bear-baiting, not because they pitied the +bears, but because they hated to see the people enjoy themselves. +There is in this at least a little truth. Orthodox religion has +always been and always will be the enemy of happiness. This world +is not the place for enjoyment. This is the place to suffer. This +is the place to practice self-denial, to wear crowns of thorns; the +other world is the place for joy, provided you are fortunate enough +to travel the narrow, grass-grown path. Of course, wicked people +can be happy here. People who care nothing for the good of others, +who live selfish and horrible lives, are supposed by Christians to +enjoy themselves; consequently, they will be punished in another +world. But whoever carried the cross of decency, and whoever denied +himself to that degree that he neither stole nor forged nor +murdered, will be paid for this self-denial in another world. And +whoever said that he preferred a prayer-meeting with five or six +queer old men and two or three very aged women, with one or two +candles, and who solemnly affirmed that he enjoyed that far more +than he could a play of Shakespeare, was expected with much reason, +I think, to be rewarded in another world.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you think that church people were justified +in their opposition to the drama in the days when Congreve, +Wycherley and Ben Jonson were the popular favorites?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. In that time there was a great deal of vulgarity +in many of the plays. Many things were said on the stage that the +people of this age would not care to hear, and there was not very +often enough wit in the saying to redeem it. My principal objection +to Congreve, Wycherley and most of their contemporaries is that the +plays were exceedingly poor and had not much in them of real, +sterling value. The Puritans, however, did not object on account of +the vulgarity; that was not the honest objection. No play was ever +put upon the English stage more vulgar then the "Table Talk" of +Martin Luther, and many sermons preached in that day were almost +unrivaled for vulgarity. The worst passages in the Old Testament +were quoted with a kind of unction that showed a love for the +vulgar. And, in my judgment, the worst plays were as good as the +sermons, and the theatre of that time was better adapted to +civilize mankind, to soften the human heart, and to make better men +and better women, than the pulpit of that day. The actors, in my +judgment, were better people than the preachers. They had in them +more humanity, more real goodness and more appreciation of beauty, +of tenderness, of generosity and of heroism. Probably no religion +was ever more thoroughly hateful than Puritanism. But all +religionists who believe in an eternity of pain would naturally be +opposed to everything that makes this life better; and, as a matter +of fact, orthodox churches have been the enemies of painting, of +sculpture, of music and the drama.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What, in your estimation, is the value of the +drama as a factor in our social life at the present time?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I believe that the plays of Shakespeare are the +most valuable things in the possession of the human race. No man +can read and understand Shakespeare without being an intellectually +developed man. If Shakespeare could be as widely circulated as the +Bible—if all the Bible societies would break the plates they +now have and print Shakespeare, and put Shakespeare in all the +languages of the world, nothing would so raise the intellectual +standard of mankind. Think of the different influence on men +between reading Deuteronomy and "Hamlet" and "King Lear"; between +studying Numbers and the "Midsummer Night's Dream"; between +pondering over the murderous crimes and assassinations in Judges, +and studying "The Tempest" or "As You Like It." Man advances as he +develops intellectually. The church teaches obedience. The man who +reads Shakespeare has his intellectual horizon enlarged. He begins +to think for himself, and he enjoys living in a new world. The +characters of Shakespeare become his acquaintances. He admires the +heroes, the philosophers; he laughs with the clowns, and he almost +adores the beautiful women, the pure, loving, and heroic women born +of Shakespeare's heart and brain. The stage has amused and +instructed the world. It had added to the happiness of mankind. It +has kept alive all arts. It is in partnership with all there is of +beauty, of poetry, and expression. It goes hand in hand with music, +with painting, with sculpture, with oratory, with philosophy, and +history. The stage has humor. It abhors stupidity. It despises +hypocrisy. It holds up to laughter the peculiarities, the +idiosyncrasies, and the little insanities of mankind. It thrusts +the spear of ridicule through the shield of pretence. It laughs at +the lugubrious and it has ever taught and will, in all probability, +forever teach, that Man is more than a title, and that human love +laughs at all barriers, at all the prejudices of society and caste +that tend to keep apart two loving hearts.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What is your opinion of the progress of the +drama in educating the artistic sense of the community as compared +with the progress of the church as an educator of the moral +sentiment?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Of course, the stage is not all good, nor +is—and I say this with becoming modesty—the pulpit all +bad. There have been bad actors and there have been good preachers. +There has been no improvement in plays since Shakespeare wrote. +There has been great improvement in theatres, and the tendency +seems to me be toward higher artistic excellence in the +presentation of plays. As we become slowly civilized we will +constantly demand more artistic excellence. There will always be a +class satisfied with the lowest form of dramatic presentation, with +coarse wit, with stupid but apparent jokes, and there will always +be a class satisfied with almost anything; but the class demanding +the highest, the best, will constantly increase in numbers, and the +other classes will, in all probability, correspondingly decrease. +The church has ceased to be an educator. In an artistic direction +it never did anything except in architecture, and that ceased long +ago. The followers of to-day are poor copyists. The church has been +compelled to be a friend of, or rather to call in the assistance +of, music. As a moral teacher, the church always has been and +always will be a failure. The pulpit, to use the language of +Frederick Douglass, has always "echoed the cry of the street." Take +our own history. The church was the friend of slavery. That +institution was defended in nearly every pulpit. The Bible was the +auction-block on which the slave-mother stood while her child was +sold from her arms. The church, for hundreds of years, was the +friend and defender of the slave-trade. I know of no crime that has +not been defended by the church, in one form or another. The church +is not a pioneer; it accepts a new truth, last of all, and only +when denial has become useless. The church preaches the doctrine of +forgiveness. This doctrine sells crime on credit. The idea that +there is a God who rewards and punishes, and who can reward, if he +so wishes, the meanest and vilest of the human race, so that he +will be eternally happy, and can punish the best of the human race, +so that he will be eternally miserable, is subversive of all +morality. Happiness ought to be the result of good actions. +Happiness ought to spring from the seed a man sows himself. It +ought not to be a reward, it ought to be a consequence, and there +ought to be no idea that there is any being who can step between +action and consequence. To preach that a man can abuse his wife and +children, rob his neighbors, slander his fellow-citizens, and yet, +a moment or two before he dies, by repentance become a glorified +angel is, in my judgment, immoral. And to preach that a man can be +a good man, kind to his wife and children, an honest man, paying +his debts, and yet, for the lack of a certain belief, the moment +after he is dead, be sent to an eternal prison, is also immoral. So +that, according to my opinion, while the church teaches men many +good things, it also teaches doctrines subversive of morality. If +there were not in the whole world a church, the morality of man, in +my judgment, would be the gainer.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think of the treatment of the actor +by society in his social relations?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. For a good many years the basis of society has +been the dollar. Only a few years ago all literary men were +ostracized because they had no money; neither did they have a +reading public. If any man produced a book he had to find a +patron—some titled donkey, some lauded lubber, in whose honor +he could print a few well-turned lies on the fly-leaf. If you wish +to know the degradation of literature, read the dedication written +by Lord Bacon to James I., in which he puts him beyond all kings, +living and dead—beyond Cæsar and Marcus Aurelius. In +those days the literary man was a servant, a hack. He lived in Grub +Street. He was only one degree above the sturdy vagrant and the +escaped convict. Why was this? He had no money and he lived in an +age when money was the fountain of respectability. Let me give you +another instance: Mozart, whose brain was a fountain of melody, was +forced to eat at table with coachmen, with footmen and scullions. +He was simply a servant who was commanded to make music for a +pudding-headed bishop. The same was true of the great painters, and +of almost all other men who rendered the world beautiful by art, +and who enriched the languages of mankind. The basis of +respectability was the dollar.</p> +<p>Now that the literary man has an intelligent public he cares +nothing for the ignorant patron. The literary man makes money. The +world is becoming civilized and the literary man stands high. In +England, however, if Charles Darwin had been invited to dinner, and +there had been present some sprig of nobility, some titled vessel +holding the germs of hereditary disease, Darwin would have been +compelled to occupy a place beneath him. But I have hopes even for +England. The same is true of the artist. The man who can now paint +a picture by which he receives from five thousand to fifty thousand +dollars, is necessarily respectable. The actor who may realize from +one to two thousand dollars a night, or even more, is welcomed in +the stupidest and richest society. So with the singers and with all +others who instruct and amuse mankind. Many people imagine that he +who amuses them must be lower than they. This, however, is hardly +possible. I believe in the aristocracy of the brain and heart; in +the aristocracy of intelligence and goodness, and not only +appreciate but admire the great actor, the great painter, the great +sculptor, the marvelous singer. In other words, I admire all people +who tend to make this life richer, who give an additional thought +to this poor world.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you think this liberal movement, favoring +the better class of plays, inaugurated by the Rev. Dr. Abbott, will +tend to soften the sentiment of the orthodox churches against the +stage?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I have not read what Dr. Abbott has written on +this subject. From your statement of his position, I think he +entertains quite a sensible view, and, when we take into +consideration that he is a minister, a miraculously sensible view. +It is not the business of the dramatist, the actor, the painter or +the sculptor to teach what the church calls morality. The dramatist +and the actor ought to be truthful, ought to be natural—that +is to say, truthfully and naturally artistic. He should present +pictures of life properly chosen, artistically constructed; an +exhibition of emotions truthfully done, artistically done. If vice +is presented naturally, no one will fall in love with vice. If the +better qualities of the human heart are presented naturally, no one +can fail to fall in love with them. But they need not be presented +for that purpose. The object of the artist is to present truthfully +and artistically. He is not a Sunday school teacher. He is not to +have the moral effect eternally in his mind. It is enough for him +to be truly artistic. Because, as I have said, a great many times, +the greatest good is done by indirection. For instance, a man lives +a good, noble, honest and lofty life. The value of that life would +be destroyed if he kept calling attention to it—if he said to +all who met him, "Look at me!" he would become intolerable. The +truly artistic speaks of perfection; that is to say, of harmony, +not only of conduct, but of harmony and proportion in everything. +The pulpit is always afraid of the passions, and really imagines +that it has some influence on men and women, keeping them in the +path of virtue. No greater mistake was ever made. Eternally talking +and harping on that one subject, in my judgment, does harm. Forever +keeping it in the mind by reading passages from the Bible, by +talking about the "corruption of the human heart," of the "power of +temptation," of the scarcity of virtue, of the plentifulness of +vice—all these platitudes tend to produce exactly what they +are directed against.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. I fear, Colonel, that I have surprised you into +agreeing with a clergyman. The following are the points made by the +Rev. Dr. Abbott in his editorial on the theatre, and it seems to me +that you and he think very much alike—on that subject. The +points are these:</p> +<p>1. It is not the function of the drama to teach moral +lessons.</p> +<p>2. A moral lesson neither makes nor mars either a drama or a +novel.</p> +<p>3. The moral quality of a play does not depend upon the +result.</p> +<p>4. The real function of the drama is like that of the +novel—not to amuse, not to excite; but to portray life, and +so minister to it. And as virtue and vice, goodness and evil, are +the great fundamental facts of life, they must, in either serious +story or serious play, be portrayed. If they are so portrayed that +the vice is alluring and the virtue repugnant, the play or story is +immoral; if so portrayed that the vice is repellant and the virtue +alluring, they play or story is moral.</p> +<p>5. The church has no occasion to ask the theatre to preach; +though if it does preach we have a right to demand that its ethical +doctrines be pure and high. But we have a right to demand that in +its pictures of life it so portrays vice as to make it abhorrent, +and so portrays virtue as to make it attractive.</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I agree in most of what you have read, though I +must confess that to find a minister agreeing with me, or to find +myself agreeing with a minister, makes me a little uncertain. All +art, in my judgment, is for the sake of expression—equally +true of the drama as of painting and sculpture. No poem touches the +human heart unless it touches the universal. It must, at some +point, move in unison with the great ebb and flow of things. The +same is true of the play, of a piece of music or a statue. I think +that all real artists, in all departments, touch the universal and +when they do the result is good; but the result need not have been +a consideration. There is an old story that at first there was a +temple erected upon the earth by God himself; that afterward this +temple was shivered into countless pieces and distributed over the +whole earth, and that all the rubies and diamonds and precious +stones since found are parts of that temple. Now, if we could +conceive of a building, or of anything involving all Art, and that +it had been scattered abroad, then I would say that whoever find +and portrays truthfully a thought, an emotion, a truth, has found +and restored one of the jewels.</p> +<p>—<i>Dramatic Mirror</i>, New York, April 21, 1888.</p> +<a name="link0069" id="link0069"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>PROTECTION AND FREE TRADE.</h2> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you take much interest in politics, Colonel +Ingersoll?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I take as much interest in politics as a +Republican ought who expects nothing and who wants nothing for +himself. I want to see this country again controlled by the +Republican party. The present administration has not, in my +judgment, the training and the political intelligence to decide +upon the great economic and financial questions. There are a great +many politicians and but few statesmen. Here, where men have to be +elected every two or six years, there is hardly time for the +officials to study statesmanship—they are busy laying pipes +and fixing fences for the next election. Each one feels much like a +monkey at a fair, on the top of a greased pole, and puts in the +most of his time dodging stones and keeping from falling. I want to +see the party in power best qualified, best equipped, to administer +the Government.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think will be the particular issue +of the coming campaign?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. That question has already been answered. The +great question will be the tariff. Mr. Cleveland imagines that the +surplus can be gotten rid of by a reduction of the tariff. If the +reduction is so great as to increase the demand for foreign +articles, the probability is that the surplus will be increased. +The surplus can surely be done away with by either of two methods; +first make the tariff prohibitory; second, have no tariff. But if +the tariff is just at that point where the foreign goods could pay +it and yet undersell the American so as to stop home manufactures, +then the surplus would increase.</p> +<p>As a rule we can depend on American competition to keep prices +at a reasonable rate. When that fails we have at all times the +governing power in our hands—that is to say, we can reduce +the tariff. In other words, the tariff is not for the benefit of +the manufacturer—the protection is not for the mechanic or +the capitalist —it is for the whole country. I do not believe +in protecting silk simply to help the town of Paterson, but I am +for the protection of the manufacture, because, in my judgment, it +helps the entire country, and because I know that it has given us a +far better article of silk at a far lower price than we obtained +before the establishment of those factories.</p> +<p>I believe in the protection of every industry that needs it, to +the end that we may make use of every kind of brain and find use +for all human capacities. In this way we will produce greater and +better people. A nation of agriculturalists or a nation of +mechanics would become narrow and small, but where everything is +done, then the brain is cultivated on every side, from artisan to +artist. That is to say, we become thinkers as well as workers; +muscle and mind form a partnership.</p> +<p>I don't believe that England is particularly interested in the +welfare of the United States. It never seemed probable to me that +men like Godwin Smith sat up nights fearing that we in some way +might injure ourselves. To use a phrase that will be understood by +theologians at least, we ought to "copper" all English advice.</p> +<p>The free traders say that there ought to be no obstructions +placed by governments between buyers and sellers. If we want to +make the trade, of course there should be no obstruction, but if we +prefer that Americans should trade with Americans—that +Americans should make what Americans want—then, so far as +trading with foreigners is concerned, there ought to be an +obstruction.</p> +<p>I am satisfied that the United States could get along if the +rest of the world should be submerged, and I want to see this +country in such a condition that it can be independent of the rest +of mankind.</p> +<p>There is more mechanical genius in the United States than in the +rest of the world, and this genius has been fostered and developed +by protection. The Democracy wish to throw all this away—to +make useless this skill, this ingenuity, born of generations of +application and thought. These deft and marvelous hands that create +the countless things of use and beauty to be worth no more than the +common hands of ignorant delvers and shovelers. To the extent that +thought is mingled with labor, labor becomes honorable and its +burden lighter.</p> +<p>Thousands of millions of dollars have been invested on the faith +of this policy—millions and millions of people are this day +earning their bread by reason of protection, and they are better +housed and better fed and better clothed than any other workmen on +the globe.</p> +<p>The intelligent people of this country will not be satisfied +with President Cleveland's platform—with his free trade +primer. They believe in good wages for good work, and they know +that this is the richest nation in the world. The Republic is worth +at least sixty billion dollars. This vast sum is the result of +labor, and this labor has been protected either directly or +indirectly. This vast sum has been made by the farmer, the +mechanic, the laborer, the miner, the inventor.</p> +<p>Protection has given work and wages to the mechanic and a market +to the farmer. The interests of all laborers in America—all +men who work—are identical. If the farmer pays more for his +plow he gets more for his plowing. In old times, when the South +manufactured nothing and raised only raw material—for the +reason that its labor was enslaved and could not be trusted with +education enough to become skillful—it was in favor of free +trade; it wanted to sell the raw material to England and buy the +manufactured article where it could buy the cheapest. Even under +those circumstances it was a short-sighted and unpatriotic policy. +Now everything is changing in the South. They are beginning to see +that he who simply raises raw material is destined to be forever +poor. For instance, the farmer who sells corn will never get rich; +the farmer should sell pork and beef and horses. So a nation, a +State, that parts with its raw material, loses nearly all the +profits, for the reason that the profit rises with the skill +requisite to produce. It requires only brute strength to raise +cotton; it requires something more to spin it, to weave it, and the +more beautiful the fabric the greater the skill, and consequently +the higher the wages and the greater the profit. In other words, +the more thought is mingled with labor the more valuable is the +result.</p> +<p>Besides all this, protection is the mother of economy; the +cheapest at last, no matter whether the amount paid is less or +more. It is far better for us to make glass than to sell sand to +other countries; the profit on sand will be exceedingly small.</p> +<p>The interests of this country are united; they depend upon each +other. You destroy one and the effect upon all the rest may be +disastrous. Suppose we had free trade to-day, what would become of +the manufacturing interests to-morrow? The value of property would +fall thousands of millions of dollars in an instant. The fires +would die out in thousands and thousands of furnaces, innumerable +engines would stop, thousands and thousands would stop digging coal +and iron and steel. What would the city that had been built up by +the factories be worth? What would be the effect on farms in that +neighborhood? What would be the effect on railroads, on freights, +on business—what upon the towns through which they passed? +Stop making iron in Pennsylvania, and the State would be bankrupt +in an hour. Give us free trade, and New Jersey, Connecticut and +many other States would not be worth one dollar an acre.</p> +<p>If a man will think of the connection between all +industries—of the dependence and inter-dependence of each on +all; of the subtle relations between all human pursuits—he +will see that to destroy some of the grand interest makes financial +ruin and desolation. I am not talking now about a tariff that is +too high, because that tariff does not produce a +surplus—neither am I asking to have that protected which +needs no protection—I am only insisting that all the +industries that have been fostered and that need protection should +be protected, and that we should turn our attention to the +interests of our own country, letting other nations take care of +themselves. If every American would use only articles produced by +Americans—if they would wear only American cloth, only +American silk—if we would absolutely stand by each other, the +prosperity of this nation would be the marvel of human history. We +can live at home, and we have now the ingenuity, the intelligence, +the industry to raise from nature everything that a nation +needs.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What have you to say about the claim that Mr. +Cleveland does not propose free trade?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I suppose that he means what he said. His +argument was all for free trade, and he endeavored to show to the +farmer that he lost altogether more money by protection, because he +paid a higher price for manufactured articles and received no more +for what he had to sell. This certainly was an argument in favor of +free trade. And there is no way to decrease the surplus except to +prohibit the importation of foreign articles, which certainly Mr. +Cleveland is not in favor of doing, or to reduce the tariff to a +point so low that no matter how much may be imported the surplus +will be reduced. If the message means anything it means free trade, +and if there is any argument in it it is an argument in favor of +absolutely free trade. The party, not willing to say "free trade" +uses the word "reform." This is simply a mask and a pretence. The +party knows that the President made a mistake. The party, however, +is so situated that it cannot get rid of Cleveland, and +consequently must take him with his mistake—they must take +him with his message, and then show that all he intended by "free +trade" was "reform."</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Who do you think ought to be nominated at +Chicago?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Personally, I am for General Gresham. I am saying +nothing against the other prominent candidates. They have their +friends, and many of them are men of character and capacity, and +would make good Presidents. But I know of no man who has a better +record than Gresham, and of no man who, in my judgment, would +receive a larger number of votes. I know of no Republican who would +not support Judge Gresham. I have never heard one say that he had +anything against him or know of any reason why he should not be +voted for. He is a man of great natural capacity. He is candid and +unselfish. He has for many years been engaged in the examination +and decision of important questions, of good principles, and +consequently he has a trained mind. He knows how to take hold of a +question, to get at a fact, to discover in a multitude of +complications the real principle—the heart of the case. He +has always been a man of affairs. He is not simply a +judge—that is to say, a legal pair of scales—he knows +the effect of his decision on the welfare of communities—he +is not governed entirely by precedents—he has opinions of his +own. In the next place, he is a man of integrity in all the +relations of life. He is not a seeker after place, and, so far as I +know, he has done nothing for the purpose of inducing any human +being to favor his nomination. I have never spoken to him on the +subject.</p> +<p>In the West he has developed great strength, in fact, his +popularity has astonished even his best friends. The great mass of +people want a perfectly reliable man—one who will be governed +by his best judgment and by a desire to do the fair and honorable +thing. It has been stated that the great corporations might not +support him with much warmth for the reason that he has failed to +decide certain cases in their favor. I believe that he has decided +the law as he believed it to be, and that he has never been +influenced in the slightest degree, by the character, position, or +the wealth of the parties before him. It may be that some of the +great financiers, the manipulators, the creators of bonds and +stocks, the blowers of financial bubbles, will not support him and +will not contribute any money for the payment of election expenses, +because they are perfectly satisfied that they could not make any +arrangements with him to get the money back, together with interest +thereon, but the people of this country are intelligent enough to +know what that means, and they will be patriotic enough to see to +it that no man needs to bow or bend or cringe to the rich to attain +the highest place.</p> +<p>The possibility is that Mr. Blaine could have been nominated had +he not withdrawn, but having withdrawn, of course the party is +released. Others were induced to become candidates, and under these +circumstances Mr. Blaine has hardly the right to change his mind, +and certainly other persons ought not to change it for him.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you think that the friends of Gresham would +support Blaine if he should be nominated?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Undoubtedly they would. If they go into +convention they must abide the decision. It would be dishonorable +to do that which you would denounce in others. Whoever is nominated +ought to receive the support of all good Republicans. No party can +exist that will not be bound by its own decision. When the platform +is made, then is the time to approve or reject. The conscience of +the individual cannot be bound by the action of party, church or +state. But when you ask a convention to nominate your candidate, +you really agree to stand by the choice of the convention. +Principles are of more importance than candidates. As a rule, men +who refuse to support the nominee, while pretending to believe in +the platform, are giving an excuse for going over to the enemy. It +is a pretence to cover desertion. I hope that whoever may be +nominated at Chicago will receive the cordial support of the entire +party, of every man who believes in Republican principles, who +believes in good wages for good work, and has confidence in the old +firms of "Mind and Muscle," of "Head and Hand."</p> +<p>—<i>New York Press</i>, May 27, 1888.</p> +<a name="link0070" id="link0070"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>LABOR, AND TARIFF REFORM.</h2> +<p><i>Question</i>. What, in your opinion, is the condition of +labor in this country as compared with that abroad?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. In the first place, it is self-evident that if +labor received more in other lands than in this the tide of +emigration would be changed. The workingmen would leave our shores. +People who believe in free trade are always telling us that the +laboring man is paid much better in Germany than in the United +States, and yet nearly every ship that comes from Germany is +crammed with Germans, who, for some unaccountable reason, prefer to +leave a place where they are doing well and come to one where they +must do worse.</p> +<p>The same thing can be said of Denmark and Sweden, of England, +Scotland, Ireland and of Italy. The truth is, that in all those +lands the laboring man can earn just enough to-day to do the work +of to-morrow; everything he earns is required to get food enough in +his body and rags enough on his back to work from day to day, to +toil from week to week. There are only three luxuries within his +reach—air, light, and water; probably a fourth might be added +—death.</p> +<p>In those countries the few own the land, the few have the +capital, the few make the laws, and the laboring man is not a +power. His opinion in neither asked nor heeded. The employers pay +as little as they can. When the world becomes civilized everybody +will want to pay what things are worth, but now capital is +perfectly willing that labor shall remain at the starvation line. +Competition on every hand tends to put down wages. The time will +come when the whole community will see that justice is economical. +If you starve laboring men you increase crime; you multiply, as +they do in England, workhouses, hospitals and all kinds of asylums, +and these public institutions are for the purpose of taking care of +the wrecks that have been produced by greed and stinginess and +meanness—that is to say, by the ignorance of capital.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What effect has the protective tariff on the +condition of labor in this country?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. To the extent that the tariff keeps out the +foreign article it is a direct protection to American labor. +Everything in this country is on a larger scale than in any other. +There is far more generosity among the manufacturers and merchants +and millionaires and capitalists of the United States than among +those of any other country, although they are bad enough and mean +enough here.</p> +<p>But the great thing for the laboring man in the United States is +that he is regarded as a man. He is a unit of political power. His +vote counts just as much as that of the richest and most powerful. +The laboring man has to be consulted. The candidate has either to +be his friend or to pretend to be his friend, before he can +succeed. A man running for the presidency could not say the +slightest word against the laboring man, or calculated to put a +stain upon industry, without destroying every possible chance of +success. Generally, every candidate tries to show that he is a +laboring man, or that he was a laboring man, or that his father was +before him. There is in this country very little of the spirit of +caste—the most infamous spirit that ever infested the +heartless breast of the brainless head of a human being.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What will be the effect on labor of a departure +in American policy in the direction of free trade?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. If free trade could be adopted to-morrow there +would be an instant shrinkage of values in this country. Probably +the immediate loss would equal twenty billion dollars—that is +to say, one-third of the value of the country. No one can tell its +extent. All thing are so interwoven that to destroy one industry +cripples another, and the influence keeps on until it touches the +circumference of human interests.</p> +<p>I believe that labor is a blessing. It never was and never will +be a curse. It is a blessed thing to labor for your wife and +children, for your father and mother, and for the ones you love. It +is a blessed thing to have an object in life—something to +do— something to call into play your best thoughts, to +develop your faculties and to make you a man. How beautiful, how +charming, are the dreams of the young mechanic, the artist, the +musician, the actor and the student. How perfectly stupid must be +the life of a young man with nothing to do, no ambition, no +enthusiasm—that is to say, nothing of the divine in him; the +young man with an object in life, of whose brain a great thought, a +great dream has taken possession, and in whose heart there is a +great, throbbing hope. He looks forward to success—to wife, +children, home—all the blessings and sacred joys of human +life. He thinks of wealth and fame and honor, and of a long, +genial, golden, happy autumn.</p> +<p>Work gives the feeling of independence, of self-respect. A man +who does something necessarily puts a value on himself. He feels +that he is a part of the world's force. The idler—no matter +what he says, no matter how scornfully he may look at the +laborer—in his very heart knows exactly what he is; he knows +that he is a counterfeit, a poor worthless imitation of a man.</p> +<p>But there is a vast difference between work and what I call +"toil." What must be the life of a man who can earn only one dollar +or two dollars a day? If this man has a wife and a couple of +children how can the family live? What must they eat? What must +they wear? From the cradle to the coffin they are ignorant of any +luxury of life. If the man is sick, if one of the children dies, +how can doctors and medicines be paid for? How can the coffin or +the grave be purchased? These people live on what might be called +"the snow line"—just at that point where trees end and the +mosses begin. What are such lives worth? The wages of months would +hardly pay for the ordinary dinner of the family of a rich man. The +savings of a whole life would not purchase one fashionable dress, +or the lace on it. Such a man could not save enough during his +whole life to pay for the flowers of a fashionable funeral.</p> +<p>And yet how often hundreds of thousands of persons, who spend +thousands of dollars every year on luxuries, really wonder why the +laboring people should complain. They are astonished when a car +driver objects to working fourteen hours a day. Men give millions +of dollars to carry the gospel to the heathen, and leave their own +neighbors without bread; and these same people insist on closing +libraries and museums of art on Sunday, and yet Sunday is the only +day that these institutions can be visited by the poor.</p> +<p>They even want to stop the street cars so that these workers, +these men and women, cannot go to the parks or the fields on +Sunday. They want stages stopped on fashionable avenues so that the +rich may not be disturbed in their prayers and devotions.</p> +<p>The condition of the workingman, even in America, is bad enough. +If free trade will not reduce wages what will? If manufactured +articles become cheaper the skilled laborers of America must work +cheaper or stop producing the articles. Every one knows that most +of the value of a manufactured article comes from labor. Think of +the difference between the value of a pound of cotton and a pound +of the finest cotton cloth; between a pound of flax and enough +point lace to weigh a pound; between a few ounces of paint, two or +three yards of canvas and a great picture; between a block of stone +and a statue! Labor is the principal factor in price; when the +price falls wages must go down.</p> +<p>I do not claim that protection is for the benefit of any +particular class, but that it is for the benefit not only of that +particular class, but of the entire country. In England the common +laborer expects to spend his old age in some workhouse. He is +cheered through all his days of toil, through all his years of +weariness, by the prospect of dying a respectable pauper. The women +work as hard as the men. They toil in the iron mills. They make +nails, they dig coal, they toil in the fields.</p> +<p>In Europe they carry the hod, they work like beasts and with +beasts, until they lose almost the semblance of human +beings—until they look inferior to the animals they drive. On +the labor of these deformed mothers, of these bent and wrinkled +girls, of little boys with the faces of old age, the heartless +nobility live in splendor and extravagant idleness. I am not now +speaking of the French people, as France is the most prosperous +country in Europe.</p> +<p>Let us protect our mothers, our wives and our children from the +deformity of toil, from the depths of poverty.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Is not the ballot an assurance to the laboring +man that he can get fair treatment from his employer?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. The laboring man in this country has the +political power, provided he has the intelligence to know it and +the intelligence to use it. In so far as laws can assist labor, the +workingman has it in his power to pass such laws; but in most +foreign lands the laboring man has really no voice. It is enough +for him to work and wait and suffer and emigrate. He can take +refuge in the grave or go to America.</p> +<p>In the old country, where people have been taught that all +blessing come from the king, it is very natural for the poor to +believe the other side of that proposition—that is to say, +all evils come from the king, from the government. They are rocked +in the cradle of this falsehood. So when they come to this country, +if they are unfortunate, it is natural for them to blame the +Government.</p> +<p>The discussion of these questions, however, has already done +great good. The workingman is becoming more and more intelligent. +He is getting a better idea every day of the functions and powers +and limitations of government, and if the problem is ever worked +out— and by "problem" I mean the just and due relations that +should exist between labor and capital—it will be worked out +here in America.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What assurance has the American laborer that he +will not be ultimately swamped by foreign immigration?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Most of the immigrants that come to American come +because they want a home. Nearly every one of them is what you may +call "land hungry." In his country, to own a piece of land was to +be respectable, almost a nobleman. The owner of a little land was +regarded as the founder of a family—what you might call a +"village dynasty." When they leave their native shores for America, +their dream is to become a land owner—to have fields, to own +trees, and to listen to the music of their own brooks.</p> +<p>The moment they arrive the mass of them seek the West, where +land can be obtained. The great Northwest now is being filled with +Scandinavian farmers, with persons from every part of +Germany—in fact from all foreign countries—and every +year they are adding millions of acres to the plowed fields of the +Republic. This land hunger, this desire to own a home, to have a +field, to have flocks and herds, to sit under your own vine and fig +tree, will prevent foreign immigration from interfering to any +hurtful degree with the skilled workmen of America. These land +owners, these farmers, become consumers of manufactured articles. +They keep the wheels and spindles turning and the fires in the +forges burning.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think of Cleveland's message?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Only the other day I read a speech made by the +Hon. William D. Kelley, of Pennsylvania, upon this subject, in +which he says in answer to what he calls "the puerile absurdity of +President Cleveland's assumption" that the duty is always added to +the cost, not only of imported commodities, but to the price of +like commodities produced in this country, "that the duties imposed +by our Government on sugar reduced to <i>ad valorem</i> were never +so high as now, and the price of sugar was never in this country so +low as it is now." He also showed that this tax on sugar has made +it possible for us to produce sugar from other plants and he gives +the facts in relation to corn sugar.</p> +<p>We are now using annually nineteen million bushels of corn for +the purpose of making glucose or corn sugar. He shows that in this +industry alone there has been a capital invested of eleven million +dollars; that seven hundred and thirty-two thousand acres of land +are required to furnish the supply, and that this one industry now +gives employment to about twenty-two thousand farmers, about five +thousand laborers in factories, and that the annual value of this +product of corn sugar is over seventeen million dollars.</p> +<p>He also shows what we may expect from the cultivation of the +beet. I advise every one to read that speech, so that they may have +some idea of the capabilities of this country, of the vast wealth +asking for development, of the countless avenues opened for +ingenuity, energy and intelligence.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Does the protective tariff cheapen the prices +of commodities to the laboring man?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. In this there are involved two questions. If the +tariff is so low that the foreign article is imported, of course +this tariff is added to the cost and must be paid by the consumer; +but if the protective tariff is so high that the importer cannot +pay it, and as a consequence the article is produced in America, +then it depends largely upon competition whether the full amount of +the tariff will be added to the article. As a rule, competition +will settle that question in America, and the article will be sold +as cheaply as the producers can afford.</p> +<p>For instance: If there is a tariff, we will say of fifty cents +on a pair of shoes, and this tariff is so low that the foreign +article can afford to pay it, then that tariff, of course, must be +paid by the consumer. But suppose the tariff was five dollars on a +pair of shoes—that is to say, absolutely +prohibitory—does any man in his senses say that five dollars +would be added to each pair of American shoes? Of course, the +statement is the answer.</p> +<p>I think it is the duty of the laboring man in this country, +first, thoroughly to post himself upon these great questions, to +endeavor to understand his own interest as well as the interest of +his country, and if he does, I believe he will arrive at the +conclusion that it is far better to have the country filled with +manufacturers than to be employed simply in the raising of raw +material. I think he will come to the conclusion that we had better +have skilled labor here, and that it is better to pay for it than +not to have it. I think he will find that it is better for America +to be substantially independent of the rest of the world. I think +he will conclude that nothing is more desirable than the +development of American brain, and that nothing better can be +raised than great and splendid men and women. I think he will +conclude that the cloud coming from the factories, from the great +stacks and chimneys, is the cloud on which will be seen, and always +seen, the bow of American promise.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What have you to say about tariff reform?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I have this to say: That the tariff is for the +most part the result of compromises—that is, one State +wishing to have something protected agrees to protect something +else in some other State, so that, as a matter of fact, many things +are protected that need no protection, and many things are +unprotected that ought to be cared for by the Government.</p> +<p>I am in favor of a sensible reform of the tariff—that is +to say, I do not wish to put it in the power of the few to practice +extortion upon the many. Congress should always be wide awake, and +whenever there is any abuse it should be corrected. At the same +time, next to having the tariff just—next in importance is to +have it stable. It does us great injury to have every dollar +invested in manufactures frightened every time Congress meets. +Capital should feel secure. Insecurity calls for a higher interest, +wants to make up for the additional risk, whereas, when a dollar +feels absolutely certain that it is well invested, that it is not +to be disturbed, it is satisfied with a very low rate of +interest.</p> +<p>The present agitation—the message of President Cleveland +upon these questions—will cost the country many hundred +millions of dollars.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. I see that some one has been charging that +Judge Gresham is an Infidel?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I have known Judge Gresham for many years, and of +course have heard him talk upon many subjects, but I do not +remember ever discussing with him a religious topic. I only know +that he believes in allowing every man to express his opinions, and +that he does not hate a man because he differs with him. I believe +that he believes in intellectual hospitality, and that he would +give all churches equal rights, and would treat them all with the +utmost fairness. I regard him as a fair-minded, intelligent and +honest man, and that is enough for me. I am satisfied with the way +he acts, and care nothing about his particular creed. I like a +manly man, whether he agrees with me or not. I believe that +President Garfield was a minister of the Church of the +Disciples—that made no difference to me. Mr. Blaine is a +member of some church in Augusta—I care nothing for that. +Whether Judge Gresham belongs to any church, I do not know. I never +asked him, but I know he does not agree with me by a large +majority.</p> +<p>In this country, where a divorce has been granted between church +and state, the religious opinions of candidates should be let +alone. To make the inquiry is a piece of impertinence—a piece +of impudence. I have voted for men of all persuasions and expect to +keep right on, and if they are not civilized enough to give me the +liberty they ask for themselves, why I shall simply set them an +example of decency.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think of the political outlook?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. The people of this country have a great deal of +intelligence. Tariff and free trade and protection and home +manufactures and American industries—all these things will be +discussed in every schoolhouse of the country, and in thousands and +thousands of political meetings, and when next November comes you +will see the Democratic party overthrown and swept out of power by +a cyclone. All other questions will be lost sight of. Even the +Prohibitionists would rather drink beer in a prosperous country +than burst with cold water and hard times.</p> +<p>The preservation of what we have will be the great question. +This is the richest country and the most prosperous country, and I +believe that the people have sense enough to continue the policy +that has given them those results. I never want to see the +civilization of the Old World, or rather the barbarism of the Old +World, gain a footing on this continent. I am an American. I +believe in American ideas—that is to say, in equal rights, +and in the education and civilization of all the people.</p> +<p>—<i>New York Press</i>, June 3, 1888.</p> +<a name="link0071" id="link0071"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>CLEVELAND AND THURMAN.</h2> +<h3><i>Question</i>. What do you think of the Democratic +nominations?</h3> +<p><i>Answer</i>. In the first place, I hope that this campaign is +to be fought on the issues involved, and not on the private +characters of the candidates. All that they have done as +politicians—all measures that they have favored or +opposed—these are the proper subjects of criticism; in all +other respects I think it better to let the candidates alone. I +care but little about the private character of Mr. Cleveland or of +Mr. Thurman. The real question is, what do they stand for? What +policy do they advocate? What are the reasons for and against the +adoption of the policy they propose?</p> +<p>I do not regard Cleveland as personally popular. He has done +nothing, so far as I know, calculated to endear him to the popular +heart. He certainly is not a man of enthusiasm. He has said nothing +of a striking or forcible character. His messages are exceedingly +commonplace. He is not a man of education, of wide reading, of +refined tastes, or of general cultivation. He has some firmness and +a good deal of obstinacy, and he was exceedingly fortunate in his +marriage.</p> +<p>Four years ago he was distinctly opposed to a second term. He +was then satisfied that no man should be elected President more +than once. He was then fearful that a President might use his +office, his appointing power, to further his own ends instead of +for the good of the people. He started, undoubtedly, with that idea +in his mind. He was going to carry out the civil service doctrine +to the utmost. But when he had been President a few months he was +exceedingly unpopular with his party. The Democrats who elected him +had been out of office for twenty-five years. During all those +years they had watched the Republicans sitting at the national +banquet. Their appetites had grown keener and keener, and they +expected when the 4th of March, 1885, came that the Republicans +would be sent from the table and that they would be allowed to tuck +the napkins under their chins. The moment Cleveland got at the head +of the table he told his hungry followers that there was nothing +for them, and he allowed the Republicans to go on as usual.</p> +<p>In a little while he began to hope for a second term, and +gradually the civil service notion faded from his mind. He stuck to +it long enough to get the principal mugwump papers committed to him +and to his policy; long enough to draw their fire and to put them +in a place where they could not honorably retreat without making +themselves liable to the charge of having fought only for the +loaves and fishes. As a matter of fact, no men were hungrier for +office than the gentlemen who had done so much for civil service +reform. They were so earnest in the advocacy of that principle that +they insisted that only their followers should have place; but the +real rank and file, the men who had been Democrats through all the +disastrous years, and who had prayed and fasted, became utterly +disgusted with Mr. Cleveland's administration and they were not +slow to express their feelings. Mr. Cleveland saw that he was in +danger of being left with no supporters, except a few who thought +themselves too respectable really to join the Democratic party. So +for the last two years, and especially the last year, he turned his +attention to pacifying the real Democrats. He is not the choice of +the Democratic party. Although unanimously nominated, I doubt if he +was the unanimous choice of a single delegate.</p> +<p>Another very great mistake, I think, has been made by Mr. +Cleveland. He seems to have taken the greatest delight in vetoing +pension bills, and they seem to be about the only bills he has +examined, and he has examined them as a lawyer would examine the +declaration, brief or plea of his opponent. He has sought for +technicalities, to the end that he might veto these bills. By this +course he has lost the soldier vote, and there is no way by which +he can regain it. Upon this point I regard the President as +exceedingly weak. He has shown about the same feeling toward the +soldier now that he did during the war. He was not with them then +either in mind or body. He is not with them now. His sympathies are +on the other side. He has taken occasion to show his contempt for +the Democratic party again and again. This certainly will not add +to his strength. He has treated the old leaders with great +arrogance. He has cared nothing for their advice, for their +opinions, or for their feelings.</p> +<p>The principal vestige of monarchy or despotism in our +Constitution is the veto power, and this has been more liberally +used by Mr. Cleveland than by any other President. This shows the +nature of the man and how narrow he is, and through what a small +intellectual aperture he views the world. Nothing is farther from +true democracy than this perpetual application of the veto power. +As a matter of fact, it should be abolished, and the utmost that a +President should be allowed to do, would be to return a bill with +his objections, and the bill should then become a law upon being +passed by both houses by a simple majority. This would give the +Executive the opportunity of calling attention to the supposed +defects, and getting the judgment of Congress a second time.</p> +<p>I am perfectly satisfied that Mr. Cleveland is not popular with +his party. The noise and confusion of the convention, the cheers +and cries, were all produced and manufactured for effect and for +the purpose of starting the campaign.</p> +<p>Now, as to Senator Thurman. During the war he occupied +substantially the same position occupied by Mr. Cleveland. He was +opposed to putting down the Rebellion by force, and as I remember +it, he rather justified the people of the South for going with +their States. Ohio was in favor of putting down the Rebellion, yet +Mr. Thurman, by some peculiar logic of his own, while he justified +Southern people for going into rebellion because they followed +their States, justified himself for not following his State. His +State was for the Union. His State was in favor of putting down +rebellion. His State was in favor of destroying slavery. Certainly, +if a man is bound to follow his State, he is equally bound when the +State is right. It is hardly reasonable to say that a man is only +bound to follow his State when his State is wrong; yet this was +really the position of Senator Thurman.</p> +<p>I saw the other day that some gentlemen in this city had given +as a reason for thinking that Thurman would strengthen the ticket, +that he had always been right on the financial question. Now, as a +matter of fact, he was always wrong. When it was necessary for the +Government to issue greenbacks, he was a hard money man—he +believed in the mint drops—and if that policy had been +carried out, the Rebellion could not have been suppressed. After +the suppression of the Rebellion, and when hundreds and hundreds of +millions of greenbacks were afloat, and the Republican party +proposed to redeem them in gold, and to go back—as it always +intended to do—to hard money—to a gold and silver +basis—then Senator Thurman, holding aloft the red bandanna, +repudiated hard money, opposed resumption, and came out for rag +currency as being the best. Let him change his ideas—put +those first that he had last—and you might say that he was +right on the currency question; but when the country needed the +greenback he was opposed to it, and when the country was able to +redeem the greenback, he was opposed to it.</p> +<p>It gives me pleasure to say that I regard Senator Thurman as a +man of ability, and I have no doubt that he was coaxed into his +last financial position by the Democratic party, by the necessities +of Ohio, and by the force and direction of the political wind. No +matter how much respectability he adds to the ticket, I do not +believe that he will give any great strength. In the first place, +he is an old man. He has substantially finished his career. Young +men cannot attach themselves to him, because he has no future. His +following is not an army of the young and ambitious—it is +rather a funeral procession. Yet, notwithstanding this fact, he +will furnish most of the enthusiasm for this campaign—and +that will be done with his handkerchief. The Democratic banner is +Thurman's red bandanna. I do not believe that it will be possible +for the Democracy to carry Ohio by reason of Thurman's nomination, +and I think the failure to nominate Gray or some good man from that +State, will lose Indiana. So, while I have nothing to say against +Senator Thurman, nothing against his integrity or his ability, +still, under the circumstances, I do not think his nomination a +strong one.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you think that the nominations have been +well received throughout the United States?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Not as well as in England. I see that all the +Tory papers regard the nominations as excellent—especially +that of Cleveland. Every Englishman who wants Ireland turned into a +penitentiary, and every Irishman to be treated as a convict, is +delighted with the action of the St. Louis convention. England +knows what she wants. Her market is growing small. A few years ago +she furnished manufactured articles to a vast portion of the world. +Millions of her customers have become ingenious enough to +manufacture many things that they need, so the next thing England +did was to sell them the machinery. Now they are beginning to make +their own machinery. Consequently, English trade is falling off. +She must have new customers. Nothing would so gratify her as to +have sixty millions of Americans buy her wares. If she could see +our factories still and dead; if she could put out the fires of our +furnaces and forges; there would come to her the greatest +prosperity she has ever known. She would fatten on our misfortunes +—grow rich and powerful and arrogant upon our poverty. We +would become her servants. We would raise the raw material with +ignorant labor and allow her children to reap all the profit of its +manufacture, and in the meantime to become intelligent and cultured +while we grew poor and ignorant.</p> +<p>The greatest blow that can be inflicted upon England is to keep +her manufactured articles out of the United States. Sixty millions +of Americans buy and use more than five hundred millions of +Asiatics —buy and use more than all of China, all of India +and all of Africa. One civilized man has a thousand times the wants +of a savage or of a semi-barbarian. Most of the customers of +England want a few yards of calico, some cheap jewelry, a little +powder, a few knives and a few gallons of orthodox rum.</p> +<p>To-day the United States is the greatest market in the world. +The commerce between the States is almost inconceivable in its +immensity. In order that you may have some idea of the commerce of +this country, it is only necessary to remember one fact. We have +railroads enough engaged in this commerce to make six lines around +the globe. The addition of a million Americans to our population +gives us a better market than a monopoly of ten millions of +Asiatics. England, with her workhouses, with her labor that barely +exists, wishes this market, and wishes to destroy the manufactures +of America, and she expects Irish-Americans to assist her in this +patriotic business.</p> +<p>Now, as to the enthusiasm in this country. I fail to see it. The +nominations have fallen flat. It has been known for a long time +that Cleveland was to be nominated. That has all been discounted, +and the nomination of Judge Thurman has been received in a quite +matter-of-fact way. It may be that his enthusiasm was somewhat +dampened by what might be called the appearance above the horizon +of the morning star of this campaign—Oregon. What a star to +rise over the work of the St. Louis convention! What a prophecy for +Democrats to commence business with! Oregon, with the free trade +issue, seven thousand to eight thousand Republican +majority—the largest ever given by that State—Oregon +speaks for the Pacific Coast.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think of the Democratic +platform?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Mr. Watterson was kind enough to say that before +they took the roof off of the house they were going to give the +occupants a chance to get out. By the "house" I suppose he means +the great workshop of America. By the "roof" he means protection; +and by the "occupants" the mechanics. He is not going to turn them +out at once, or take the roof off in an instant, but this is to be +done gradually.</p> +<p>In other words, they will remove it shingle by shingle or tile +by tile, until it becomes so leaky or so unsafe that the +occupants— that is to say, the mechanics, will leave the +building.</p> +<p>The first thing in the platform is a reaffirmation of the +platform of 1884, and an unqualified endorsement of President +Cleveland's message on the tariff. And if President Cleveland's +message has any meaning whatever, it means free trade—not +instantly, it may be—but that is the object and the end to be +attained. All his reasoning, if reasoning it can be called, is in +favor of absolute free trade. The issue is fairly made—shall +American labor be protected, or must the American laborer take his +chances with the labor market of the world? Must he stand upon an +exact par with the laborers of Belgium and England and Germany, not +only, but with the slaves and serfs of other countries? Must he be +reduced to the diet of the old country? Is he to have meat on +holidays and a reasonably good dinner on Christmas, and live the +rest of the year on crusts, crumbs, scraps, skimmed milk, potatoes, +turnips, and a few greens that he can steal from the corners of +fences? Is he to rely for meat, on poaching, and then is he to be +transported to some far colony for the crime of catching a rabbit? +Are our workingmen to wear wooden shoes?</p> +<p>Now, understand me, I do not believe that the Democrats think +that free trade would result in disaster. Their minds are so +constituted that they really believe that free trade would be a +great blessing. I am not calling in question their honesty. I am +simply disputing the correctness of their theory. It makes no +difference, as a matter of fact, whether they are honest or +dishonest. Free trade established by honest people would be just as +injurious as if established by dishonest people. So there is no +necessity of raising the question of intention. Consequently, I +admit that they are doing the best they know now. This is not +admitting much, but it is something, as it tends to take from the +discussion all ill feeling.</p> +<p>We all know that the tariff protects special interests in +particular States. Louisiana is not for free trade. It may be for +free trade in everything except sugar. It is willing that the rest +of the country should pay an additional cent or two a pound on +sugar for its benefit, and while receiving the benefit it does not +wish to bear its part of the burden. If the other States protect +the sugar interests in Louisiana, certainly that State ought to be +willing to protect the wool interest in Ohio, the lead and hemp +interest in Missouri, the lead and wool interest in Colorado, the +lumber interest in Minnesota, the salt and lumber interest in +Michigan, the iron interest in Pennsylvania, and so I might go on +with a list of the States—because each one has something that +it wishes to have protected.</p> +<p>It sounds a little strange to hear a Democratic convention cry +out that the party "is in favor of the maintenance of an +indissoluble union of free and indestructible States." Only a +little while ago the Democratic party regarded it as the height of +tyranny to coerce a free State. Can it be said that a State is +"free" that is absolutely governed by the Nation? Is a State free +that can make no treaty with any other State or country—that +is not permitted to coin money or to declare war? Why should such a +State be called free? The truth is that the States are not free in +that sense. The Republican party believes that this is a Nation and +that the national power is the highest, and that every citizen owes +the highest allegiance to the General Government and not to his +State. In other words, we are not Virginians or Mississippians or +Delawareans —we are Americans. The great Republic is a free +Nation, and the States are but parts of that Nation. The doctrine +of State Sovereignty was born of the institution of slavery. In the +history of our country, whenever anything wrong was to be done, +this doctrine of State Sovereignty was appealed to. It protected +the slave-trade until the year 1808. It passed the Fugitive Slave +Law. It made every citizen in the North a catcher of his +fellow-man—made it the duty of free people to enslave others. +This doctrine of State Rights was appealed to for the purpose of +polluting the Territories with the institution of slavery. To +deprive a man of his liberty, to put him back into slavery, State +lines were instantly obliterated; but whenever the Government +wanted to protect one of its citizens from outrage, then the State +lines became impassable barriers, and the sword of justice fell in +twain across the line of a State.</p> +<p>People forget that the National Government is the creature of +the people. The real sovereign is the people themselves. Presidents +and congressmen and judges are the creatures of the people. If we +had a governing class—if men were presidents or senators by +virtue of birth—then we might talk about the danger of +centralization; but if the people are sufficiently intelligent to +govern themselves, they will never create a government for the +destruction of their liberties, and they are just as able to +protect their rights in the General Government as they are in the +States. If you say that the sovereignty of the State protects +labor, you might as well say that the sovereignty of the county +protects labor in the State and that the sovereignty of the town +protects labor in the county.</p> +<p>Of all subjects in the world the Democratic party should avoid +speaking of "a critical period of our financial affairs, resulting +from over taxation." How did taxation become necessary? Who created +the vast debt that American labor must pay? Who made this taxation +of thousands of millions necessary? Why were the greenbacks issued? +Why were the bonds sold? Who brought about "a critical period of +our financial affairs"? How has the Democratic party "averted +disaster"? How could there be a disaster with a vast surplus in the +treasury? Can you find in the graveyard of nations this epitaph: +"Died of a Surplus"? Has any nation ever been known to perish +because it had too much gold and too much silver, and because its +credit was better than that of any other nation on the earth? The +Democrats seem to think—and it is greatly to their +credit—that they have prevented the destruction of the +Government when the treasury was full—when the vaults were +overflowing. What would they have done had the vaults been empty? +Let them wrestle with the question of poverty; let them then see +how the Democratic party would succeed. When it is necessary to +create credit, to inspire confidence, not only in our own people, +but in the nations of the world—which of the parties is best +adapted for the task? The Democratic party congratulates itself +that it has not been ruined by a Republican surplus! What good boys +we are! We have not been able to throw away our legacy!</p> +<p>Is it not a little curious that the convention plumed itself on +having paid out more for pensions and bounties to the soldiers and +sailors of the Republic than was ever paid before during an equal +period? It goes wild in its pretended enthusiasm for the President +who has vetoed more pension bills than all the other Presidents put +together.</p> +<p>The platform informs us that "the Democratic party has adopted +and consistently pursued and affirmed a prudent foreign policy, +preserving peace with all nations." Does it point with pride to the +Mexican fiasco, or does it rely entirely upon the great fishery +triumph? What has the administration done—what has it +accomplished in the field of diplomacy?</p> +<p>When we come to civil service, about how many Federal officials +were at the St. Louis convention? About how many have taken part in +the recent nominations? In other words, who has been idle?</p> +<p>We have recently been told that the wages of workingmen are just +as high in the old country as in this, when you take into +consideration the cost of living. We have always been told by all +the free trade papers and orators, that the tariff has no bearing +whatever upon wages, and yet, the Democrats have not succeeded in +convincing themselves. I find in their platform this language: "A +fair and careful revision of our tax laws, with due allowance for +the difference between the wages of American and foreign labor, +must promote and encourage every branch of such industries and +enterprises by giving them the assurance of an extended market and +steady and continuous operations."</p> +<p>It would seem from this that the Democratic party admits that +wages are higher here than in foreign countries. Certainly they do +not mean to say that they are lower. If they are higher here than +in foreign countries, the question arises, why are they higher? If +you took off the tariff, the presumption is that they would be as +low here as anywhere else, because this very Democratic convention +says: "A fair and careful revision of our tax laws, with due +allowance for the difference between wages." In other words, they +would keep tariff enough on to protect our workingmen from the low +wages of the foreigner—consequently, we have the admission of +the Democratic party that in order to keep wages in this country +higher than they are in Belgium, in Italy, in England and in +Germany, we must protect home labor. Then follows the <i>non +sequitur</i>, which is a Democratic earmark. They tell us that by +keeping a tariff, "making due allowance for the difference between +wages, all the industries and enterprises would be encouraged and +promoted by giving them the assurance of an extended market." What +does the word "extended" mean? If it means anything, it means a +market in other countries. In other words, we will put the tariff +so low that the wages of American workingmen will be so low that he +can compete with the laborers of other countries; otherwise his +market could not be "extended." What does this mean? There is +evidently a lack of thought here. The two things cannot be +accomplished in that way. If the tariff raises American wages, the +American cannot compete in foreign markets with the men who work +for half the price. What may be the final result is another +question. American industry properly protected, American genius +properly fostered, may invent ways and means—such wonderful +machinery, such quick, inexpensive processes, that in time American +genius may produce at a less rate than any other country, for the +reason that the laborers of other countries will not be as +intelligent, will not be as independent, will not have the same +ambition.</p> +<p>Fine phrases will not deceive the people of this country. The +American mechanic already has a market of sixty millions of people, +and, as I said before, the best market in the world. This country +is now so rich, so prosperous, that it is the greatest market of +the earth, even for luxuries. It is the best market for pictures, +for works of art. It is the best market for music and song. It is +the best market for dramatic genius, and it is the best market for +skilled labor, the best market for common labor, and in this +country the poor man to-day has the best chance—he can look +forward to becoming the proprietor of a home, of some land, to +independence, to respectability, and to an old age without want and +without disgrace.</p> +<p>The platform, except upon this question of free trade, means +very little. There are other features in it which I have not at +present time to examine, but shall do so hereafter. I want to take +it up point by point and find really what it means, what its scope +is, and what the intentions were of the gentlemen who made it.</p> +<p>But it may be proper to say here, that in my judgment it is a +very weak and flimsy document, as Victor Hugo would say, "badly cut +and badly sewed."</p> +<p>Of course, I know that the country will exist whatever party may +be in power. I know that all our blessings do not come from laws, +or from the carrying into effect of certain policies, and probably +I could pay no greater compliment to any country than to say that +even eight years of Democratic rule cannot materially affect her +destiny.</p> +<p>—<i>New York Press</i>, June 10, 1888.</p> +<a name="link0072" id="link0072"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>THE REPUBLICAN PLATFORM OF 1888.</h2> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think of the signs of the times so +far as the campaign has progressed?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. The party is now going through a period of +misrepresentation. Every absurd meaning that can be given to any +combination of words will be given to every plank of the platform. +In the heat of partisan hatred every plank will look warped and +cracked. A great effort is being made to show that the Republican +party is in favor of intemperance,—that the great object now +is to lessen the price of all intoxicants and increase the cost of +all the necessaries of life. The papers that are for nothing but +reform of everything and everybody except themselves, are doing +their utmost to show that the Republican party is the enemy of +honesty and temperance.</p> +<p>The other day, at a Republican ratification meeting, I stated +among other things, that we could not make great men and great +women simply by keeping them out of temptation—that nobody +would think of tying the hands of a person behind them and then +praise him for not picking pockets; that great people were great +enough to withstand temptation, and in that connection I made this +statement: "Temperance goes hand in hand with liberty"—the +idea being that when a chain is taken from the body an additional +obligation is perceived by the mind. These good papers—the +papers that believe in honest politics—stated that I said: +"Temperance goes hand in hand with liquor." This was not only in +the reports of the meeting, but this passage was made the subject +of several editorials. It hardly seems possible that any person +really thought that such a statement had been expressed. The +Republican party does not want free whiskey —it wants free +men; and a great many people in the Republican party are great +enough to know that temperance does go hand in hand with liberty; +they are great enough to know that all legislation as to what we +shall eat, as to what we shall drink, and as to wherewithal we +shall be clothed, partakes of the nature of petty, irritating and +annoying tyranny. They also know that the natural result is to fill +a country with spies, hypocrites and pretenders, and that when a +law is not in accordance with an enlightened public sentiment, it +becomes either a dead letter, or, when a few fanatics endeavor to +enforce it, a demoralizer of courts, of juries and of people.</p> +<p>The attack upon the platform by temperance people is doing no +harm, for the reason that long before November comes these people +will see the mistake they have made. It seems somewhat curious that +the Democrats should attack the platform if they really believe +that it means free whiskey.</p> +<p>The tax was levied during the war. It was a war measure. The +Government was <i>in extremis</i>, and for that reason was obliged +to obtain a revenue from every possible article of value. The war +is over; the necessity has disappeared; consequently the Government +should return to the methods of peace. We have too many Government +officials. Let us get rid of collectors and gaugers and inspectors. +Let us do away with all this machinery, and leave the question to +be settled by the State. If the temperance people themselves would +take a second thought, they would see that when the Government +collects eighty or ninety million dollars from a tax on whiskey, +the traffic becomes entrenched, it becomes one of the pillars of +the State, one of the great sources of revenue. Let the States +attend to this question, and it will be a matter far easier to deal +with.</p> +<p>The Prohibitionists are undoubtedly honest, and their object is +to destroy the traffic, to prevent the manufacture of whiskey. Can +they do this as long as the Government collects ninety million +dollars per annum from that one source? If there is anything +whatever in this argument, is it not that the traffic pays a bribe +of ninety million dollars a year for its life? Will not the farmers +say to the temperance men: "The distilleries pay the taxes, the +distilleries raise the price of corn; is it not better for the +General Government to look to another direction for its revenues +and leave the States to deal as they may see proper with this +question?"</p> +<p>With me, it makes no difference what is done with the +liquor— whether it is used in the arts or not—it is a +question of policy. There is no moral principle involved on our +side of the question, to say the least of it. If it is a crime to +make and sell intoxicating liquors, the Government, by licensing +persons to make and sell, becomes a party to the crime. If one man +poisons another, no matter how much the poison costs, the crime is +the same; and if the person from whom the poison was purchased knew +how it was to be used, he is also a murderer.</p> +<p>There have been many reformers in this world, and they have +seemed to imagine that people will do as they say. They think that +you can use people as you do bricks or stones; that you can lay +them up in walls and they will remain where they are placed; but +the truth is, you cannot do this. The bricks are not satisfied with +each other—they go away in the night—in the morning +there is no wall. Most of these reformers go up what you might call +the Mount Sinai of their own egotism, and there, surrounded by the +clouds of their own ignorance, they meditate upon the follies and +the frailties of their fellow-men and then come down with ten +commandments for their neighbors.</p> +<p>All this talk about the Republican platform being in favor of +intemperance, so far as the Democratic party is concerned, is pure, +unadulterated hypocrisy—nothing more, nothing less. So far as +the Prohibitionists are concerned, they may be perfectly honest, +but, if they will think a moment, they will see how perfectly +illogical they are. No one can help sympathizing with any effort +honestly made to do away with the evil of intemperance. I know that +many believe that these evils can be done away with by legislation. +While I sympathize with the objects that these people wish to +attain, I do not believe in the means they suggest. As life becomes +valuable, people will become temperate, because they will take care +of themselves. Temperance is born of the countless influences of +civilization. Character cannot be forced upon anybody; it is a +growth, the seeds of which are within. Men cannot be forced into +real temperance any more than they can be frightened into real +morality. You may frighten a man to that degree that he will not do +a certain thing, but you cannot scare him badly enough to prevent +his wanting to do that thing. Reformation begins on the inside, and +the man refrains because he perceives that he ought to refrain, not +because his neighbors say that he ought to refrain. No one would +think of praising convicts in jail for being regular at their +meals, or for not staying out nights; and it seems to me that when +the Prohibitionists—when the people who are really in favor +of temperance—look the ground all over they will see that it +is far better to support the Republican party than to throw their +votes away; and the Republicans will see that it is simply a +proposition to go back to the original methods of collecting +revenue for the Government—that it is simply abandoning the +measures made necessary by war, and that it is giving to the people +the largest liberty consistent with the needs of the Government, +and that it is only leaving these questions where in time of peace +they properly belong —to the States themselves.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you think that the Knights of Labor will cut +any material figure in this election?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. The Knights of Labor will probably occupy +substantially the same position as other laborers and other +mechanics. If they clearly see that the policy advocated by the +Republican party is to their interest, that it will give them +better wages than the policy advocated by the Democrats, then they +will undoubtedly support our ticket. There is more or less +irritation between employers and employed. All men engaged in +manufacturing and neither good nor generous. Many of them get work +for as little as possible, and sell its product for all they can +get. It is impossible to adopt a policy that will not by such +people be abused. Many of them would like to see the working man +toil for twelve hours or fourteen or sixteen in each day. Many of +them wonder why they need sleep or food, and are perfectly +astonished when they ask for pay. In some instances, undoubtedly, +the working men will vote against their own interests simply to get +even with such employers.</p> +<p>Some laboring men have been so robbed, so tyrannized over, that +they would be perfectly willing to feel for the pillars and take a +certain delight in a destruction that brought ruin even to +themselves. Such manufacturers, however, I believe to be in a +minority, and the laboring men, under the policy of free trade, +would be far more in their power. When wages fall below a certain +point, then comes degradation, loss of manhood, serfdom and +slavery. If any man has the right to vote for his own interests, +certainly the man who labors is that man, and every working man +having in his will a part of the sovereignty of this nation, having +within him a part of the lawmaking power, should have the +intelligence and courage to vote for his own interests; he should +vote for good wages; he should vote for a policy that would enable +him to lay something by for the winter of his life, that would +enable him to earn enough to educate his children, enough to give +him a home and a fireside.</p> +<p>He need not do this in anger or for revenge, but because it is +just, because it is right, and because the working people are in a +majority. They ought to control the world, because they have made +the world what it is. They have given everything there is of value. +Labor plows every field, builds every house, fashions everything of +use, and when that labor is guided by intelligence the world is +prosperous.</p> +<p>He who thinks good thoughts is a laborer—one of the +greatest. The man who invented the reaper will be harvesting the +fields for thousands of years to come. If labor is abused in this +country the laborers have it within their power to defend +themselves.</p> +<p>All my sympathies are with the men who toil. I shed very few +tears over bankers and millionaires and corporations—they can +take care of themselves. My sympathies are with the man who has +nothing to sell but his strength; nothing to sell but his muscle +and his intelligence; who has no capital except that which his +mother gave him—a capital he must sell every day; my +sympathies are with him; and I want him to have a good market; and +I want it so that he can sell the work for more than enough to take +care of him to-morrow.</p> +<p>I believe that no corporation should be allowed to exist except +for the benefit of the whole people. The Government should always +act for the benefit of all, and when the Government gives a part of +its power to an aggregation of individuals, the accomplishment of +some public good should justify the giving of that power; and +whenever a corporation becomes subversive of the very end for which +it was created, the Government should put an end to its life.</p> +<p>So I believe that after these matters, these issues have been +discussed—when something is understood about the effect of a +tariff, the effect of protection, the laboring people of this +country will be on the side of the Republican party. The Republican +party is always trying to do something—trying to take a step +in advance. Persons who care for nothing except +themselves—who wish to make no effort except for +themselves—are its natural enemies.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think of Mr. Mills' Fourth of July +speech on his bill?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Certain allowances should always be made for the +Fourth of July. What Mr. Mills says with regard to free trade +depends, I imagine, largely on where he happens to be. You remember +the old story about the <i>Moniteur</i>. When Napoleon escaped from +Elba that paper said: "The ogre has escaped." And from that moment +the epithets grew a little less objectionable as Napoleon advanced, +and at last the <i>Moniteur</i> cried out: "The Emperor has reached +Paris." I hardly believe that Mr. Mills would call his bill in +Texas a war tariff measure. He might commence in New York with that +description, but as he went South that language, in my judgment, +would change, and when he struck the Brazos I think the bill would +be described as the nearest possible approach to free trade.</p> +<p>Mr. Mills takes the ground that if raw material comes here free +of duty, then we can manufacture that raw material and compete with +other countries in the markets of the world—that is to say, +under his bill. Now, other countries can certainly get the raw +material as cheaply as we can, especially those countries in which +the raw material is raised; and if wages are less in other +countries than in ours, the raw material being the same, the +product must cost more with us than with them. Consequently we +cannot compete with foreign countries simply by getting the raw +material at the same price; we must be able to manufacture it as +cheaply as they, and we can do that only by cutting down the wages +of the American workingmen. Because, to have raw material at the +same price as other nations, is only a part of the problem. The +other part is how cheaply can we manufacture it? And that depends +upon wages. If wages are twenty-five cents a day, then we can +compete with those nations where wages are twenty-five cents a day; +but if our wages are five or six times as high, then the +twenty-five cent labor will supply the market. There is no possible +way of putting ourselves on an equality with other countries in the +markets of the world, except by putting American labor on an +equality with the other labor of the world. Consequently, we cannot +obtain a foreign market without lessening our wages. No proposition +can be plainer than this.</p> +<p>It cannot be said too often that the real prosperity of a +country depends upon the well-being of those who labor. That +country is not prosperous where a few are wealthy and have all the +luxuries that the imagination can suggest, and where the millions +are in want, clothed in rags, and housed in tenements not fit for +wild beasts. The value of our property depends on the civilization +of our people. If the people are happy and contented, if the +workingman receives good wages, then our houses and our farms are +valuable. If the people are discontented, if the workingmen are in +want, then our property depreciates from day to day, and national +bankruptcy will only be a question of time.</p> +<p>If Mr. Mills has given a true statement with regard to the +measure proposed by him, what relation does that measure bear to +the President's message? What has it to do with the Democratic +platform? If Mr. Mills has made no mistake, the President wrote a +message substantially in favor of free trade. The Democratic party +ratified and indorsed that message, and at the same time ratified +and indorsed the Mills bill. Now, the message was for free trade, +and the Mills bill, according to Mr. Mills, is for the purpose of +sustaining the war tariff. They have either got the wrong child or +the wrong parents.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. I see that some people are objecting to your +taking any part in politics, on account of your religious +opinion?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. The Democratic party has always been pious. If it +is noted for anything it is for its extreme devotion. You have no +idea how many Democrats wear out the toes of their shoes praying. I +suppose that in this country there ought to be an absolute divorce +between church and state and without any alimony being allowed to +the church; and I have always supposed that the Republican party +was perfectly willing that anybody should vote its ticket who +believed in its principles. The party was not established, as I +understand it, in the interest of any particular denomination; it +was established to promote and preserve the freedom of the American +citizen everywhere. Its first object was to prevent the spread of +human slavery; its second object was to put down the Rebellion and +preserve the Union; its third object was the utter destruction of +human slavery everywhere, and its fourth object is to preserve not +only the fruit of all that it has won, but to protect American +industry to the end that the Republic may not only be free, but +prosperous and happy. In this great work all are invited to join, +no matter whether Catholics or Presbyterians or Methodists or +Infidels—believers or unbelievers. The object is to have a +majority of the people of the United States in favor of human +liberty, in favor of justice and in favor of an intelligent +American policy.</p> +<p>I am not what is called strictly orthodox, and yet I am liberal +enough to vote for a Presbyterian, and if a Presbyterian is not +liberal enough to stand by a Republican, no matter what his +religious opinions may be, then the Presbyterian is not as liberal +as the Republican party, and he is not as liberal as an unbeliever; +in other words, he is not a manly man.</p> +<p>I object to no man who is running for office on the ticket of my +party on account of his religious convictions. I care nothing about +the church of which he is a member. That is his business. That is +an individual matter—something with which the State has no +right to interfere—something with which no party can +rightfully have anything to do. These great questions are left open +to discussion. Every church must take its chance in the open field +of debate. No belief has the right to draw the sword—no dogma +the right to resort to force. The moment a church asks for the help +of the State, it confesses its weakness, it confesses its inability +to answer the arguments against it.</p> +<p>I believe in the absolute equality before the law, of all +religions and all metaphysical theories; and I would no more +control those things by law than I would endeavor to control the +arts and the sciences by legislation. Man admires the beautiful, +and what is beautiful to one may not be to another, and this +inequality or this difference cannot be regulated by law.</p> +<p>The same is true of what is called religious belief. I am +willing to give all others every right that I claim for myself, and +if they are not willing to give me the rights they claim for +themselves, they are not civilized.</p> +<p>No man acknowledges the truth of my opinions because he votes +the same ticket that I do, and I certainly do not acknowledge the +correctness of the opinions of others because I vote the Republican +ticket. We are Republicans together. Upon certain political +questions we agree, upon other questions we disagree—and that +is all. Only religious people, who have made up their minds to vote +the Democratic ticket, will raise an objection of this kind, and +they will raise the objection simply as a pretence, simply for the +purpose of muddying the water while they escape.</p> +<p>Of course there may be some exceptions. There are a great many +insane people out of asylums. If the Republican party does not +stand for absolute intellectual liberty, it had better disband. And +why should we take so much pains to free the body, and then enslave +the mind? I believe in giving liberty to both. Give every man the +right to labor, and give him the right to reap the harvest of his +toil. Give every man the right to think, and to reap the harvest of +his brain—that is to say, give him the right to express his +thoughts.</p> +<p>—<i>New York Press</i>, July 8, 1888.</p> +<a name="link0073" id="link0073"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>JAMES G. BLAINE AND POLITICS.</h2> +<p><i>Question</i>. I see that there has lately been published a +long account of the relations between Mr. Blaine and yourself, and +the reason given for your failure to support him for the nomination +in 1884 and 1888?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Every little while some donkey writes a long +article pretending to tell all that happened between Mr. Blaine and +myself. I have never seen any article on the subject that contained +any truth. They are always the invention of the writer or of +somebody who told him. The last account is more than usually +idiotic. An unpleasant word has never passed between Mr. Blaine and +myself. We have never had any falling out. I never asked Mr. +Blaine's influence for myself. I never asked President Hayes or +Garfield or Arthur for any position whatever, and I have never +asked Mr. Cleveland for any appointment under the civil +service.</p> +<p>With regard to the German Mission, about which so much has been +said, all that I ever did in regard to that was to call on +Secretary Evarts and inform him that there was no place in the gift +of the administration that I would accept. I could not afford to +throw away a good many thousand dollars a year for the sake of an +office. So I say again that I never asked, or dreamed of asking, +any such favor of Mr. Blaine. The favors have been exactly the +other way— from me, and not from him. So there is not the +slightest truth in the charge that there was some difference +between our families.</p> +<p>I have great respect for Mrs. Blaine, have always considered her +an extremely good and sensible woman; our relations have been of +the friendliest character, and such relations have always existed +between all the members of both families, so far as I know. Nothing +could be more absurd that the charge that there was some feeling +growing out of our social relations. We do not depend upon others +to help us socially; we need no help, and if we did we would not +accept it. The whole story about there having been any lack of +politeness or kindness is without the slightest foundation.</p> +<p>In 1884 I did not think that Mr. Blaine could be elected. I +thought the same at the Chicago convention this year. I know that +he has a great number of ardent admirers and of exceedingly +self-denying and unselfish friends. I believe that he has more +friends than any other man in the Republican party; but he also has +very bitter enemies—enemies with influence. Taking this into +consideration, and believing that the success of the party was more +important than the success of any individual, I was in favor of +nominating some man who would poll the entire Republican vote. This +feeling did not grow out of any hostility to any man, but simply +out of a desire for Republican success. In other words, I +endeavored to take an unprejudiced view of the situation. Under no +circumstances would I underrate the ability and influence of Mr. +Blaine, nor would I endeavor to deprecate the services he has +rendered to the Republican party and to the country. But by this +time it ought to be understood that I belong to no man, that I am +the proprietor of myself.</p> +<p>There are two kinds of people that I have no use +for—leaders and followers. The leader should be principle; +the leader should be a great object to be accomplished. The +follower should be the man dedicated to the accomplishment of a +noble end. He who simply follows persons gains no honor and is +incapable of giving honor even to the one he follows. There are +certain things to be accomplished and these things are the leaders. +We want in this country an American system; we wish to carry into +operation, into practical effect, ideas, policies, theories in +harmony with our surroundings.</p> +<p>This is a great country filled with intelligent, industrious, +restless, ambitious people. Millions came here because they were +dissatisfied with the laws, the institutions, the tyrannies, the +absurdities, the poverty, the wretchedness and the infamous spirit +of caste found in the Old World. Millions of these people are +thinking for themselves, and only the people who can teach, who can +give new facts, who can illuminate, should be regarded as political +benefactors. This country is, in my judgment, in all that +constitutes true greatness, the nearest civilized of any country. +Only yesterday the German Empire robbed a woman of her child; this +was done as a political necessity. Nothing is taken into +consideration except some move on the political chess-board. The +feelings of a mother are utterly disregarded; they are left out of +the question; they are not even passed upon. They are naturally +ignored, because in these governments only the unnatural is +natural.</p> +<p>In our political life we have substantially outgrown the duel. +There are some small, insignificant people who still think it +important to defend a worthless reputation on the field of "honor," +but for respectable members of the Senate, of the House, of the +Cabinet, to settle a political argument with pistols would render +them utterly contemptible in this country; that is to say, the +opinion that governs, that dominates in this country, holds the +duel in abhorrence and in contempt. What could be more idiotic, +absurd, childish, than the duel between Boulanger and Floquet? What +was settled? It needed no duel to convince the world that Floquet +is a man of courage. The same may be said of Boulanger. He has +faced death upon many fields. Why, then, resort to the duel? If +Boulanger's wound proves fatal, that certainly does not tend to +prove that Floquet told the truth, and if Boulanger recovers, it +does not tend to prove that he did not tell the truth.</p> +<p>Nothing is settled. Two men controlled by vanity, that +individual vanity born of national vanity, try to kill each other; +the public ready to reward the victor; the cause of the quarrel +utterly ignored; the hands of the public ready to applaud the +successful swordsman —and yet France is called a civilized +nation. No matter how serious the political situation may be, no +matter if everything depends upon one man, that man is at the mercy +of anyone in opposition who may see fit to challenge him. The +greatest general at the head of their armies may be forced to fight +a duel with a nobody. Such ideas, such a system, keeps a nation in +peril and makes every cause, to a greater or less extent, depend +upon the sword or the bullet of a criminal.</p> +<p>—<i>The Press</i>, New York, July 16, 1888.</p> +<a name="link0074" id="link0074"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>THE MILLS BILL.</h2> +<p><i>Question</i>. What, in your opinion, is the significance of +the vote on the Mills Bill recently passed in the House? In this I +find there were one hundred and sixty-two for it, and one hundred +and forty-nine against it; of these, two Republicans voted for, and +five Democrats against.</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. In the first place, I think it somewhat doubtful +whether the bill could have been passed if Mr. Randall had been +well. His sickness had much to do with this vote. Had he been +present to have taken care of his side, to have kept his forces in +hand, he, in my judgment, taking into consideration his wonderful +knowledge of parliamentary tactics, would have defeated this +bill.</p> +<p>It is somewhat hard to get the average Democrat, in the absence +of his leader, to throw away the prospect of patronage. Most +members of Congress have to pay tolerably strict attention to their +political fences. The President, although clinging with great +tenacity to the phrase "civil service," has in all probability +pulled every string he could reach for the purpose of compelling +the Democratic members not only to stand in line, but to answer +promptly to their names. Every Democrat who has shown independence +has been stepped on just to the extent he could be reached; but +many members, had the leader been on the floor—and a leader +like Randall—would have followed him.</p> +<p>There are very few congressional districts in the United States +not intensely Democratic where the people want nothing protected. +There are a few districts where nothing grows except ancient +politics, where they cultivate only the memory of what never ought +to have been, where the subject of protection has not yet +reached.</p> +<p>The impudence requisite to pass the Mills Bill is something +phenomenal. Think of the Representatives from Louisiana saying to +the ranchmen of the West and to the farmers of Ohio that wool must +be on the free list, but that for the sake of preserving the sugar +interest of Louisiana and a little portion of Texas, all the rest +of the United States must pay tribute.</p> +<p>Everybody admits that Louisiana is not very well adapted by +nature for raising sugar, for the reason that the cane has to be +planted every year, and every third year the frost puts in an +appearance just a little before the sugar. Now, while I think +personally that the tariff on sugar has stimulated the inventive +genius of the country to find other ways of producing that which is +universally needed; and while I believe that it will not be long +until we shall produce every pound of sugar that we consume, and +produce it cheaper than we buy it now, I am satisfied that in time +and at no distant day sugar will be made in this country extremely +cheap, not only from beets, but from sorghum and corn, and it may +be from other products. At the same time this is no excuse for +Louisiana, neither is it any excuse for South Carolina asking for a +tariff on rice, and at the same time wishing to leave some other +industry in the United States, in which many more millions have +been invested, absolutely without protection.</p> +<p>Understand, I am not opposed to a reasonable tariff on rice, +provided it is shown that we can raise rice in this country cheaply +and at a profit to such an extent as finally to become +substantially independent of the rest of the world. What I object +to is the impudence of the gentleman who is raising the rice +objecting to the protection of some other industry of far greater +importance than his.</p> +<p>After all, the whole thing must be a compromise. We must act +together for the common good. If we wish to make something at the +expense of another State we must allow that State to make something +at our expense, or at least we must be able to show that while it +is for our benefit it is also for the benefit of the country at +large. Everybody is entitled to have his own way up to the point +that his way interferes with somebody else. States are like +individuals—their rights are relative—they are +subordinated to the good of the whole country.</p> +<p>For many years it has been the American policy to do all that +reasonably could be done to foster American industry, to give scope +to American ingenuity and a field for American enterprise—in +other words, a future for the United States.</p> +<p>The Southern States were always in favor of something like free +trade. They wanted to raise cotton for Great Britain—raw +material for other countries. At that time their labor was slave +labor, and they could not hope ever to have skilled labor, because +skilled labor cannot be enslaved. The Southern people knew at that +time that if a man was taught enough of mathematics to understand +machinery, to run locomotives, to weave cloth; it he was taught +enough of chemistry even to color calico, it would be impossible to +keep him a slave. Education always was and always will be an +abolitionist. The South advocated a system of harmony with slavery, +in harmony with ignorance—that is to say, a system of free +trade, under which it might raise its raw material. It could not +hope to manufacture, because by making its labor intelligent enough +to manufacture it would lose it.</p> +<p>In the North, men are working for themselves, and as I have +often said, they were getting their hands and heads in partnership. +Every little stream that went singing to the sea was made to turn a +thousand wheels; the water became a spinner and a weaver; the water +became a blacksmith and ran a trip hammer; the water was doing the +work of millions of men. In other words, the free people of the +North were doing what free people have always done, going into +partnership with the forces of nature. Free people want good tools, +shapely, well made—tools with which the most work can be done +with the least strain.</p> +<p>Suppose the South had been in favor of protection; suppose that +all over the Southern country there had been workshops, factories, +machines of every kind; suppose that her people had been as +ingenious as the people of the North; suppose that her hands had +been as deft as those that had been accustomed to skilled labor; +then one of two things would have happened; either the South would +have been too intelligent to withdraw from the Union, or, having +withdrawn, it would have had the power to maintain its position. My +opinion is that is would have been too intelligent to withdraw.</p> +<p>When the South seceded it had no factories. The people of the +South had ability, but it was not trained in the direction then +necessary. They could not arm and equip their men; they could not +make their clothes; they could not provide them with guns, with +cannon, with ammunition, and with the countless implements of +destruction. They had not the ingenuity; they had not the means; +they could not make cars to carry their troops, or locomotives to +draw them; they had not in their armies the men to build bridges or +to supply the needed transportation. They had nothing but cotton +—that is to say, raw material. So that you might say that the +Rebellion has settled the question as to whether a country is +better off and more prosperous, and more powerful, and more ready +for war, that is filled with industries, or one that depends simply +upon the production of raw material.</p> +<p>There is another thing in this connection that should never be +forgotten—at least, not until after the election in November, +and then if forgotten, should be remembered at every subsequent +election —and that is, that the Southern Confederacy had in +its Constitution the doctrine of free trade. Among other things it +was fighting for free trade. As a matter of fact, John C. Calhoun +was fighting for free trade; the nullification business was in the +interest of free trade.</p> +<p>The Southern people are endeavoring simply to accomplish, with +the aid of New York, what they failed to accomplish on the field. +The South is as "solid" to-day as in 1863. It is now for free +trade, and it purposes to carry the day by the aid of one or two +Northern States. History is repeating itself. It was the same for +many years, up to the election of Abraham Lincoln.</p> +<p>Understand me, I do not blame the South for acting in accordance +with its convictions, but the North ought not to be misled. The +North ought to understand what the issue is. The South has a +different idea of government—it is afraid of what it calls +"centralization"—it is extremely sensitive about what are +called "State Rights" or the sovereignty of the State. But the +North believes in a Union that is united. The North does not expect +to have any interest antagonistic to the Union. The North has no +mental reservation. The North believes in the Government and in the +Federal system, and the North believes that when a State is +admitted into the Union it becomes a part—an integral +part—of the Nation; that there was a welding, that the State, +so far as sovereignty is concerned, is lost in the Union, and that +the people of that State become citizens of the whole country.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. I see that by the vote two of the five +Democrats who voted for protection, and one of the two Republicans +who voted for free trade, were New Yorkers. What do you think is +the significance of this fact in relation to the question as to +whether New York will join the South in the opposition to the +industries of the country?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. In the city of New York there are a vast number +of men —importers, dealers in foreign articles, +representatives of foreign houses, of foreign interests, of foreign +ideas. Of course most of these people are in favor of free trade. +They regard New York as a good market; beyond that they have not +the slightest interest in the United States. They are in favor of +anything that will give them a large profit, or that will allow +them to do the same business with less capital, or that will do +them any good without the slightest regard as to what the effect +may be on this country as a nation. They come from all countries, +and they expect to remain here until their fortunes are made or +lost and all their ideas are moulded by their own interests. Then, +there are a great many natives who are merchants in New York and +who deal in foreign goods, and they probably think—some of +them—that it would be to their interest to have free trade, +and they will probably vote according to the ledger. With them it +is a question of bookkeeping. Their greed is too great to +appreciate the fact that to impoverish customers destroys +trade.</p> +<p>At the same time, New York, being one of the greatest +manufacturing States of the world, will be for protection, and the +Democrats of New York who voted for protection did so, not only +because the believed in it themselves, but because their +constituents believe in it, and the Republicans who voted the other +way must have represented some district where the foreign influence +controls.</p> +<p>The people of this State will protect their own industries.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What will be the fate of the Mills Bill in the +Senate?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I think that unless the Senate has a bill +prepared embodying Republican ideals, a committee should be +appointed, not simply to examine the Mills Bill, but to get the +opinions and the ideas of the most intelligent manufacturers and +mechanics in this country. Let the questions be thoroughly +discussed, and let the information thus obtained be given to the +people; let it be published from day to day; let the laboring man +have his say, let the manufacturer give his opinion; let the +representatives of the principal industries be heard, so that we +may vote intelligently, so that the people may know what they are +doing.</p> +<p>A great many industries have been attacked. Let them defend +themselves. Public property should not be taken for Democratic use +without due process of law.</p> +<p>Certainly it is not the business of a Republican Senate to pull +the donkey of the Democrats out of the pit; the dug the pit, and we +have lost no donkey.</p> +<p>I do not think the Senate called upon to fix up this Mills Bill, +to rectify its most glaring mistakes, and then for the sake of +saving a little, give up a great deal. What we have got is safe +until the Democrats have the power to pass a bill. We can protect +our rights by not passing their bills. In other words, we do not +wish to practice any great self-denial simply for the purpose of +insuring Democratic success. If the bill is sent back to the House, +no matter in what form, if it still has the name "Mills Bill" I +think the Democrats will vote for it simply to get out of their +trouble. They will have the President's message left.</p> +<p>But I do hope that the Senate will investigate this business. It +is hardly fair to ask the Senate to take decided and final action +upon this bill in the last days of the session. There is no time to +consider it unless it is instantly defeated. This would probably be +a safe course, and yet, by accident, there may be some good things +in this bill that ought to be preserved, and certainly the +Democratic party ought to regard it as a compliment to keep it long +enough to read it.</p> +<p>The interests involved are great—there are the commercial +and industrial interests of sixty millions of people. These +questions touch the prosperity of the Republic. Every person under +the flag has a direct interest in the solution of these questions. +The end that is now arrived at, the policy now adopted, may and +probably will last for many years. One can hardly overestimate the +immensity of the interests at stake. A man dealing with his own +affairs should take time to consider; he should give himself the +benefit of his best judgment. When acting for others he should do +no less. The Senators represent, or should represent, not only +their own views, but above these things they represent the material +interests of their constituents, of their States, and to this trust +they must be true, and in order to be true, they must understand +the material interests of their States, and in order to be +faithful, they must understand how the proposed changes in the +tariff will affect these interests. This cannot be done in a +moment.</p> +<p>In my judgment, the best way is for the Senate, through the +proper committee, to hear testimony, to hear the views of +intelligent men, of interested men, of prejudiced men—that is +to say, they should look at the question from all sides.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. The Senate is almost tied; do you think that +any Republicans are likely to vote in the interest of the +President's policy at this session?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Of course I cannot pretend to answer that +question from any special knowledge, or on any information that +others are not in possession of. My idea is simply this: That a +majority of the Senators are opposed to the President's policy. A +majority of the Senate will, in my judgment, sustain the Republican +policy; that is to say, they will stand by the American system. A +majority of the Senate, I think, know that it will be impossible +for us to compete in the markets of the world with those nations in +which labor is far cheaper than it is in the United States, and +that when you make the raw material just the same, you have not +overcome the difference in labor, and until this is overcome we +cannot successfully compete in the markets of the world with those +countries where labor is cheaper. And there are only two ways to +overcome this difficulty—either the price of labor must go up +in the other countries or must go down in this. I do not believe +that a majority of the Senate can be induced to vote for a policy +that will decrease the wages of American workingmen.</p> +<p>There is this curious thing: The President started out blowing +the trumpet of free trade. It gave, as the Democrats used to say, +"no uncertain sound." He blew with all his might. Messrs. Morrison, +Carlisle, Mills and many others joined the band. When the Mills +Bill was introduced it was heralded as the legitimate offspring of +the President's message. When the Democratic convention at St. +Louis met, the declaration was made that the President's message, +the Mills Bill, the Democratic platform of 1884 and the Democratic +platform of 1888, were all the same—all segments of one +circle; in fact, they were like modern locomotives—"all the +parts interchangeable." As soon as the Republican convention met, +made its platform and named its candidates, it is not free trade, +but freer trade; and now Mr. Mills, in the last speech that he was +permitted to make in favor of his bill, endeavored to show that it +was a high protective tariff measure.</p> +<p>This is what lawyers call "a departure in pleading." That is to +say, it is a case that ought to be beaten on demurrer.</p> +<p>—<i>New York Press</i>, July 29, 1888.</p> +<a name="link0075" id="link0075"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>SOCIETY AND ITS CRIMINALS*</h2> +<pre> + [* Col. Robert G. Ingersoll was greatly interested in + securing for Chiara Cignarale a commutation of the death + sentence to imprisonment for life. In view of the fact that + the great Agnostic has made a close study of capital + punishment, a reporter for the <i>World</i> called upon him a day + or two ago for an interview touching modern reformatory + measures and the punishment of criminals. Speaking + generally on the subject Colonel Ingersoll said:] +</pre> +<p>I suppose that society—that is to say, a state or a +nation—has the right of self-defence. It is impossible to +maintain society— that is to say, to protect the rights of +individuals in life, in property, in reputation, and in the various +pursuits known as trades and professions, without in some way +taking care of those who violate these rights. The principal object +of all government should be to protect those in the right from +those in the wrong. There are a vast number of people who need to +be protected who are unable, by reason of the defects in their +minds and by the countless circumstances that enter into the +question of making a living, to protect themselves. Among the +barbarians there was, comparatively speaking, but little +difference. A living was made by fishing and hunting. These arts +were simple and easily learned. The principal difference in +barbarians consisted in physical strength and courage. As a +consequence, there were comparatively few failures. Most men were +on an equality. Now that we are somewhat civilized, life has become +wonderfully complex. There are hundreds of arts, trades, and +professions, and in every one of these there is great +competition.</p> +<p>Besides all this, something is needed every moment. Civilized +man has less credit than the barbarian. There is something by which +everything can be paid for, including the smallest services. +Everybody demands payment, and he who fails to pay is a failure. +Owing to the competition, owing to the complexity of modern life, +owing to the thousand things that must be known in order to succeed +in any direction, on either side of the great highway that is +called Progress, are innumerable wrecks. As a rule, failure in some +honest direction, or at least in some useful employment, is the +dawn of crime. People who are prosperous, people who by reasonable +labor can make a reasonable living, who, having a little leisure +can lay in a little for the winter that comes to all, are +honest.</p> +<p>As a rule, reasonable prosperity is virtuous. I don't say great +prosperity, because it is very hard for the average man to +withstand extremes. When people fail under this law, or rather this +fact, of the survival of the fittest, they endeavor to do by some +illegal way that which they failed to do in accordance with law. +Persons driven from the highway take to the fields, and endeavor to +reach their end or object in some shorter way, by some quicker +path, regardless of its being right or wrong.</p> +<p>I have said this much to show that I regard criminals as +unfortunates. Most people regard those who violate the law with +hatred. They do not take into consideration the circumstances. They +do not believe that man is perpetually acted upon. They throw out +of consideration the effect of poverty, of necessity, and above +all, of opportunity. For these reasons they regard criminals with +feelings of revenge. They wish to see them punished. They want them +imprisoned or hanged. They do not think the law has been vindicated +unless somebody has been outraged. I look at these things from an +entirely different point of view. I regard these people who are in +the clutches of the law not only as unfortunates, but, for the most +part, as victims. You may call them victims of nature, or of +nations, or of governments; it makes no difference, they are +victims. Under the same circumstances the very persons who punish +them would be punished. But whether the criminal is a victim or +not, the honest man, the industrious man, has the right to defend +the product of his labor. He who sows and plows should be allowed +to reap, and he who endeavors to take from him his harvest is what +we call a criminal; and it is the business of society to protect +the honest from the dishonest.</p> +<p>Without taking into account whether the man is or is not +responsible, still society has the right of self-defence. Whether +that right of self-defence goes to the extent of taking life, +depends, I imagine, upon the circumstances in which society finds +itself placed. A thousand men on a ship form a society. If a few +men should enter into a plot for the destruction of the ship, or +for turning it over to pirates, or for poisoning and plundering the +most of the passengers—if the passengers found this out +certainly they would have the right of self-defence. They might not +have the means to confine the conspirators with safety. Under such +circumstances it might be perfectly proper for them to destroy +their lives and to throw their worthless bodies into the sea. But +what society has the right to do depends upon the circumstances. +Now, in my judgment, society has the right to do two +things—to protect itself and to do what it can to reform the +individual. Society has no right to take revenge; no right to +torture a convict; no right to do wrong because some individual has +done wrong. I am opposed to all corporal punishment in +penitentiaries. I am opposed to anything that degrades a criminal +or leaves upon him an unnecessary stain, or puts upon him any stain +that he did not put upon himself.</p> +<p>Most people defend capital punishment on the ground that the man +ought to be killed because he has killed another. The only real +ground for killing him, even if that be good, is not that he has +killed, but that he may kill. What he has done simply gives +evidence of what he may do, and to prevent what he may do, instead +of to revenge what he has done, should be the reason given.</p> +<p>Now, there is another view. To what extent does it harden the +community for the Government to take life? Don't people reason in +this way: That man ought to be killed; the Government, under the +same circumstances, would kill him, therefore I will kill him? Does +not the Government feed the mob spirit—the lynch spirit? Does +not the mob follow the example set by the Government? The +Government certainly cannot say that it hangs a man for the purpose +of reforming him. Its feelings toward that man are only feelings of +revenge and hatred. These are the same feelings that animate the +lowest and basest mob.</p> +<p>Let me give you an example. In the city of Bloomington, in the +State of Illinois, a man confined in the jail, in his efforts to +escape, shot and, I believe, killed the jailer. He was pursued, +recaptured, brought back and hanged by a mob. The man who put the +rope around his neck was then under indictment for an assault to +kill and was out on bail, and after the poor wretch was hanged +another man climbed the tree and, in a kind of derision, put a +piece of cigar between the lips of the dead man. The man who did +this had also been indicted for a penitentiary offence and was then +out on bail.</p> +<p>I mention this simply to show the kind of people you find in +mobs. Now, if the Government had a greater and nobler thought; if +the Government said: "We will reform; we will not destroy; but if +the man is beyond reformation we will simply put him where he can +do no more harm," then, in my judgment, the effect would be far +better. My own opinion is, that the effect of an execution is bad +upon the community—degrading and debasing. The effect is to +cheapen human life; and, although a man is hanged because he has +taken human life, the very fact that his life is taken by the +Government tends to do away with the idea that human life is +sacred.</p> +<p>Let me give you an illustration. A man in the city of Washington +went to Alexandria, Va., for the purpose of seeing a man hanged who +had murdered an old man and a woman for the purpose of getting +their money. On his return from that execution he came through what +is called the Smithsonian grounds. This was on the same day, late +in the evening. There he met a peddler, whom he proceeded to murder +for his money. He was arrested in a few hours, in a little while +was tried and convicted, and in a little while was hanged. And +another man, present at this second execution, went home on that +same day, and, in passing by a butcher-shop near his house, went +in, took from the shop a cleaver, went into his house and chopped +his wife's head off.</p> +<p>This, I say, throws a little light upon the effect of public +executions. In the Cignarale case, of course the sentence should +have been commuted. I think, however, that she ought not to be +imprisoned for life. From what I read of the testimony I think she +should have been pardoned.</p> +<p>It is hard, I suppose, for a man fully to understand and enter +into the feelings of a wife who has been trampled upon, abused, +bruised, and blackened by the man she loved—by the man who +made to her the vows of eternal affection. The woman, as a rule, is +so weak, so helpless. Of course, it does not all happen in a +moment. It comes on as the night comes. She notices that he does +not act quite as affectionately as he formerly did. Day after day, +month after month, she feels that she is entering a twilight. But +she hopes that she is mistaken, and that the light will come again. +The gloom deepens, and at last she is in midnight—a midnight +without a star. And this man, whom she once worshiped, is now her +enemy— one who delights to trample upon every sentiment she +has—who delights in humiliating her, and who is guilty of a +thousand nameless tyrannies. Under these circumstances, it is +hardly right to hold that woman accountable for what she does. It +has always seemed to me strange that a woman so +circumstanced—in such fear that she dare not even tell her +trouble—in such fear that she dare not even run +away—dare not tell a father or a mother, for fear that she +will be killed—I say, that in view of all this, it has always +seemed strange to me that so few husbands have been poisoned.</p> +<p>The probability is that society raises its own criminals. It +plows the land, sows the seed, and harvests the crop. I believe +that the shadow of the gibbet will not always fall upon the earth. +I believe the time will come when we shall know too much to raise +criminals—know too much to crowd those that labor into the +dens and dungeons that we call tenements, while the idle live in +palaces. The time will come when men will know that real progress +means the enfranchisement of the whole human race, and that our +interests are so united, so interwoven, that the few cannot be +happy while the many suffer; so that the many cannot be happy while +the few suffer; so that none can be happy while one suffers. In +other words, it will be found that the human race is interested in +each individual. When that time comes we will stop producing +criminals; we will stop producing failures; we will not leave the +next generation to chance; we will not regard the gutter as a +proper nursery for posterity.</p> +<p>People imagine that if the thieves are sent to the penitentiary, +that is the last of the thieves; that if those who kill others are +hanged, society is on a safe and enduring basis. But the trouble is +here: A man comes to your front door and you drive him away. You +have an idea that that man's case is settled. You are mistaken. He +goes to the back door. He is again driven away. But the case is not +settled. The next thing you know he enters at night. He is a +burglar. He is caught; he is convicted; he is sent to the +penitentiary, and you imagine that the case is settled. But it is +not. You must remember that you have to keep all the agencies alive +for the purpose of taking care of these people. You have to build +and maintain your penitentiaries, your courts of justice; you have +to pay your judges, your district attorneys, your juries, you +witnesses, your detectives, your police—all these people must +be paid. So that, after all, it is a very expensive way of settling +this question. You could have done it far more cheaply had you +found this burglar when he was a child; had you taken his father +and mother from the tenement house, or had you compelled the owners +to keep the tenement clean; or if you had widened the streets, if +you had planted a few trees, if you had had plenty of baths, if you +had had a school in the neighborhood. If you had taken some +interest in this family—some interest in this +child—instead of breaking into houses, he might have been a +builder of houses.</p> +<p>There is, and it cannot be said too often, no reforming +influence in punishment; no reforming power in revenge. Only the +best of men should be in charge of penitentiaries; only the noblest +minds and the tenderest hearts should have the care of criminals. +Criminals should see from the first moment that they enter a +penitentiary that it is filled with the air of kindness, full of +the light of hope. The object should be to convince every criminal +that he has made a mistake; that he has taken the wrong way; that +the right way is the easy way, and that the path of crime never did +and never can lead to happiness; that that idea is a mistake, and +that the Government wishes to convince him that he has made a +mistake; wishes to open his intellectual eyes; wishes so to educate +him, so to elevate him, that he will look back upon what he has +done, only with horror. This is reformation. Punishment is not. +When the convict is taken to Sing Sing or to Auburn, and when a +striped suit of clothes is put upon him—that is to say, when +he is made to feel the degradation of his position—no step +has been taken toward reformation. You have simply filled his heart +with hatred. Then, when he has been abused for several years, +treated like a wild beast, and finally turned out again in the +community, he has no thought, in a majority of cases, except to +"get even" with those who have persecuted him. He feels that it is +a persecution.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you think that men are naturally criminals +and naturally virtuous?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I think that man does all that he does +naturally—that is to say, a certain man does a certain act +under certain circumstances, and he does this naturally. For +instance, a man sees a five dollar bill, and he knows that he can +take it without being seen. Five dollars is no temptation to him. +Under the circumstances it is not natural that he should take it. +The same man sees five million dollars, and feels that he can get +possession of it without detection. If he takes it, then under the +circumstances, that was natural to him. And yet I believe there are +men above all price, and that no amount of temptation or glory or +fame could mislead them. Still, whatever man does, is or was +natural to him.</p> +<p>Another view of the subject is this: I have read that out of +fifty criminals who had been executed it was found, I believe, in +nearly all the cases, that the shape of the skull was abnormal. +Whether this is true or not, I don't know; but that some men have a +tendency toward what we call crime, I believe. Where this has been +ascertained, then, it seems to me, such men should be placed where +they cannot multiply their kind. Women who have a criminal tendency +should be placed where they cannot increase their kind. For +hardened criminals —that is to say, for the people who make +crime a business—it would probably be better to separate the +sexes; to send the men to one island, the women to another. Let +them be kept apart, to the end that people with criminal tendencies +may fade from the earth. This is not prompted by revenge. This +would not be done for the purpose of punishing these people, but +for the protection of society —for the peace and happiness of +the future.</p> +<p>My own belief is that the system in vogue now in regard to the +treatment of criminals in many States produces more crime than it +prevents. Take, for instance, the Southern States. There is hardly +a chapter in the history of the world the reading of which could +produce greater indignation than the history of the convict system +in many of the Southern States. These convicts are hired out for +the purpose of building railways, or plowing fields, or digging +coal, and in some instances the death-rate has been over twelve per +cent. a month. The evidence shows that no respect was paid to the +sexes—men and women were chained together indiscriminately. +The evidence also shows that for the slightest offences they were +shot down like beasts. They were pursued by hounds, and their flesh +was torn from their bones.</p> +<p>So in some of the Northern prisons they have what they call the +weighing machine—an infamous thing, and he who uses it +commits as great a crime as the convict he punishes could have +committed. All these things are degrading, debasing, and +demoralizing. There is no need of any such punishment in any +penitentiary. Let the punishment be of such kind that the convict +is responsible himself. For instance, if the convict refuses to +obey a reasonable rule he can be put into a cell. He can be fed +when he obeys the rule.</p> +<p>If he goes hungry it is his own fault. It depends upon himself +to say when he shall eat. Or he may be placed in such a position +that if he does not work—if he does not pump—the water +will rise and drown him. If the water does rise it is his fault. +Nobody pours it upon him. He takes his choice.</p> +<p>These are suggested as desperate cases, but I can imagine no +case where what is called corporal punishment should be inflicted, +and the reason I am against it is this: I am opposed to any +punishment that cannot be inflicted by a gentleman. I am opposed to +any punishment the infliction of which tends to harden and debase +the man who inflicts it. I am for no laws that have to be carried +out by human curs.</p> +<p>Take, for instance, the whipping-post. Nothing can be more +degrading. The man who applies the lash is necessarily a cruel and +vulgar man, and the oftener he applies it the more and more debased +he will become. The whole thing can be stated in the one sentence: +I am opposed to any punishment that cannot be inflicted by a +gentleman, and by "gentleman" I mean a self-respecting, honest, +generous man.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think of the efficacy or the +propriety of punishing criminals by solitary confinement?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Solitary confinement is a species of torture. I +am opposed to all torture. I think the criminal should not be +punished. He should be reformed, if he is capable of reformation. +But, whatever is done, it should not be done as a punishment. +Society should be too noble, too generous, to harbor a thought of +revenge. Society should not punish, it should protect itself only. +It should endeavor to reform the individual. Now, solitary +confinement does not, I imagine, tend to the reformation of the +individual. Neither can the person in that position do good to any +human being. The prisoner will be altogether happier when his mind +is engaged, when his hands are busy, when he has something to do. +This keeps alive what we call cheerfulness. And let me say a word +on this point.</p> +<p>I don't believe that the State ought to steal the labor of a +convict. Here is a man who has a family. He is sent to the +penitentiary. He works from morning till night. Now, in my +judgment, he ought to be paid for the labor over and above what it +costs to keep him. That money should be sent to his family. That +money should be subject, at least, to his direction. If he is a +single man, when he comes out of the penitentiary he should be +given his earnings, and all his earnings, so that he would not have +the feeling that he had been robbed. A statement should be given to +him to show what it had cost to keep him and how much his labor had +brought and the balance remaining in his favor. With this little +balance he could go out into the world with something like +independence. This little balance would be a foundation for his +honesty—a foundation for a resolution on his part to be a +man. But now each one goes out with the feeling that he has not +only been punished for the crime which he committed, but that he +has been robbed of the results of his labor while there.</p> +<p>The idea is simply preposterous that the people sent to the +penitentiary should live in idleness. They should have the benefit +of their labor, and if you give them the benefit of their labor +they will turn out as good work as if they were out of the +penitentiary. They will have the same reason to do their best. +Consequently, poor articles, poorly constructed things, would not +come into competition with good articles made by free people +outside of the walls.</p> +<p>Now many mechanics are complaining because work done in the +penitentiaries is brought into competition with their work. But the +only reason that convict work is cheaper is because the poor wretch +who does it is robbed. The only reason that the work is poor is +because the man who does it has no interest in its being good. If +he had the profit of his own labor he would do the best that was in +him, and the consequence would be that the wares manufactured in +the prisons would be as good as those manufactured elsewhere. For +instance, we will say here are three or four men working together. +They are all free men. One commits a crime and he is sent to the +penitentiary. Is it possible that his companions would object to +his being paid for honest work in the penitentiary?</p> +<p>And let me say right here, all labor is honest. Whoever makes a +useful thing, the labor is honest, no matter whether the work is +done in a penitentiary or in a palace; in a hovel or the open +field. Wherever work is done for the good of others, it is honest +work. If the laboring men would stop and think, they would know +that they support everybody. Labor pays all the taxes. Labor +supports all the penitentiaries. Labor pays the warden. Labor pays +everything, and if the convicts are allowed to live in idleness +labor must pay their board. Every cent of tax is borne by the back +of labor. No matter whether your tariff is put on champagne and +diamonds, it has to be paid by the men and women who +work—those who plow in the fields, who wash and iron, who +stand by the forge, who run the cars and work in the mines, and by +those who battle with the waves of the sea. Labor pays every +bill.</p> +<p>There is one little thing to which I wish to call the attention +of all who happen to read this interview, and that is this: +Undoubtedly you think of all criminals with horror and when you +hear about them you are, in all probability, filled with virtuous +indignation. But, first of all, I want you to think of what you +have in fact done. Secondly, I want you to think of what you have +wanted to do. Thirdly, I want you to reflect whether you were +prevented from doing what you wanted to do by fear or by lack of +opportunity. Then perhaps you will have more charity.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think of the new legislation in the +State changing the death penalty to death by electricity?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. If death by electricity is less painful than +hanging, then the law, so far as that goes, is good. There is not +the slightest propriety in inflicting upon the person executed one +single unnecessary pang, because that partakes of the nature of +revenge—that is to say, of hatred—and, as a +consequence, the State shows the same spirit that the criminal was +animated by when he took the life of his neighbor. If the death +penalty is to be inflicted, let it be done in the most humane way. +For my part, I should like to see the criminal removed, if he must +be removed, with the same care and with the same mercy that you +would perform a surgical operation. Why inflict pain? Who wants it +inflicted? What good can it, by any possibility, do? To inflict +unnecessary pain hardens him who inflicts it, hardens each among +those who witness it, and tends to demoralize the community.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Is it not the fact that punishments have grown +less and less severe for many years past?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. In the old times punishment was the only means of +reformation. If anybody did wrong, punish him. If people still +continued to commit the same offence, increase the punishment; and +that went on until in what they call "civilized countries" they +hanged people, provided they stole the value of one shilling. But +larceny kept right on. There was no diminution. So, for treason, +barbarous punishments were inflicted. Those guilty of that offence +were torn asunder by horses; their entrails were cut out of them +while they were yet living and thrown into their faces; their +bodies were quartered and their heads were set on pikes above the +gates of the city. Yet there was a hundred times more treason then +than now. Every time a man was executed and mutilated and tortured +in this way the seeds of other treason were sown.</p> +<p>So in the church there was the same idea. No reformation but by +punishment. Of course in this world the punishment stopped when the +poor wretch was dead. It was found that that punishment did not +reform, so the church said: "After death it will go right on, +getting worse and worse, forever and forever." Finally it was found +that this did not tend to the reformation of mankind. Slowly the +fires of hell have been dying out. The climate has been changing +from year to year. Men have lost confidence in the power of the +thumbscrew, the fagot, and the rack here, and they are losing +confidence in the flames of perdition hereafter. In other words, it +is simply a question of civilization.</p> +<p>When men become civilized in matters of thought, they will know +that every human being has the right to think for himself, and the +right to express his honest thought. Then the world of thought will +be free. At that time they will be intelligent enough to know that +men have different thoughts, that their ways are not alike, because +they have lived under different circumstances, and in that time +they will also know that men act as they are acted upon. And it is +my belief that the time will come when men will no more think of +punishing a man because he has committed the crime of larceny than +they will think of punishing a man because he has the consumption. +In the first case they will endeavor to reform him, and in the +second case they will endeavor to cure him.</p> +<p>The intelligent people of the world, many of them, are +endeavoring to find out the great facts in Nature that control the +dispositions of men. So other intelligent people are endeavoring to +ascertain the facts and conditions that govern what we call health, +and what we call disease, and the object of these people is finally +to produce a race without disease of flesh and without disease of +mind. These people look forward to the time when there need to be +neither hospitals nor penitentiaries.</p> +<p>—<i>New York World</i>, August 5, 1888.</p> +<a name="link0076" id="link0076"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>WOMAN'S RIGHT TO DIVORCE.</h2> +<p><i>Question</i>. Col. Robert G. Ingersoll, the great Agnostic, +has always been an ardent defender of the sanctity of the home and +of the marriage relation. Apropos of the horrible account of a +man's tearing out the eyes of his wife at Far Rockaway last week, +Colonel Ingersoll was asked what recourse a woman had under such +circumstances?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I read the account, and I don't remember of ever +having read anything more perfectly horrible and cruel. It is +impossible for me to imagine such a monster, or to account for such +an inhuman human being. How a man could deprive a human being of +sight, except where some religious question is involved, is beyond +my comprehension. We know that for many centuries frightful +punishments were inflicted, and inflicted by the pious, by the +theologians, by the spiritual minded, and by those who "loved their +neighbors as themselves." We read the accounts of how the lids of +men's eyes were cut off and then the poor victims tied where the +sum would shine upon their lifeless orbs; of others who were buried +alive; of others staked out on the sands of the sea, to be drowned +by the rising tide; of others put in sacks filled with snakes. Yet +these things appeared far away, and we flattered ourselves that, to +a great degree, the world had outgrown these atrocities; and now, +here, near the close of the nineteenth century, we find a +man—a husband—cruel enough to put out the eyes of the +woman he swore to love, protect and cherish. This man has probably +been taught that there is forgiveness for every crime, and now +imagines that when he repents there will be more joy in heaven over +him than over ninety and nine good and loving husbands who have +treated their wives in the best possible manner, and who, instead +of tearing out their eyes, have filled their lives with content and +covered their faces with kisses.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. You told me, last week, in a general way, what +society should do with the husband in such a case as that. I would +like to ask you to-day, what you think society ought to do with the +wife in such a case, or what ought the wife to be permitted to do +for herself?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. When we take into consideration the crime of the +man who blinded his wife, it is impossible not to think of the +right of divorce. Many people insist that marriage is an +indissoluble tie; that nothing can break it, and that nothing can +release either party from the bond. Now, take this case at Far +Rockaway. One year ago the husband tore out one of his wife's eyes. +Had she then good cause for divorce? Is it possible that an +infinitely wise and good God would insist on this poor, helpless +woman remaining with the wild beast, her husband? Can anyone +imagine that such a course would add to the joy of Paradise, or +even tend to keep one harp in tune? Can the good of society require +the woman to remain? She did remain, and the result is that the +other eye has been torn from its socket by the hands of the +husband. Is she entitled to a divorce now? And if she is granted +one, is virtue in danger, and shall we lose the high ideal of home +life? Can anything be more infamous than to endeavor to make a +woman, under such circumstances, remain with such a man? It may be +said that she should leave him—that they should live separate +and apart. That is to say, that this woman should be deprived of a +home; that she should not be entitled to the love of man; that she +should remain, for the rest of her days, worse than a widow. That +is to say, a wife, hiding, keeping out of the way, secreting +herself from the hyena to whom she was married. Nothing, in my +judgment, can exceed the heartlessness of a law or of a creed that +would compel this woman to remain the wife of this monster. And it +is not only cruel, but it is immoral, low, vulgar.</p> +<p>The ground has been taken that woman would lose her dignity if +marriages were dissoluble. Is it necessary to lose your freedom in +order to retain your character, in order to be womanly or manly? +Must a woman in order to retain her womanhood become a slave, a +serf, with a wild beast for a master, or with society for a master, +or with a phantom for a master? Has not the married woman the right +of self-defence? Is it not the duty of society to protect her from +her husband? If she owes no duty to her husband; if it is +impossible for her to feel toward him any thrill of affection, what +is there of marriage left? What part of the contract remains in +force? She is not to live with him, because she abhors him. She is +not to remain in the same house with him, for fear he may kill her. +What, then, are their relations? Do they sustain any relation +except that of hunter and hunted—that is, of tyrant and +victim? And is it desirable that this relation should be rendered +sacred by a church? Is it desirable to have families raised under +such circumstances? Are we really in need of the children born of +such parents? If the woman is not in fault, does society insist +that her life should be wrecked? Can the virtue of others be +preserved only by the destruction of her happiness, and by what +might be called her perpetual imprisonment? I hope the clergy who +believe in the sacredness of marriage—in the indissolubility +of the marriage tie—will give their opinions on this case. I +believe that marriage is the most important contract that human +beings can make. I always believe that a man will keep his +contract; that a woman, in the highest sense, will keep hers, But +suppose the man does not. Is the woman still bound?</p> +<p>Is there no mutuality? What is a contract? It is where one party +promises to do something in consideration that the other party will +do something. That is to say, there is a consideration on both +sides, moving from one to the other. A contract without +consideration is null and void; and a contract duly entered into, +where the consideration of one party is withheld, is voidable, and +can be voided by the party who has kept, or who is willing to keep, +the contract. A marriage without love is bad enough. But what can +we say of a marriage where the parties hate each other? Is there +any morality in this—any virtue? Will any decent person say +that a woman, true, good and loving, should be compelled to live +with a man she detests, compelled to be the mother of his children? +Is there a woman in the world who would not shrink from this +herself? And is there a woman so heartless and so immoral that she +would force another to bear what she would shudderingly avoid? Let +us bring these questions home. In other words, let us have some +sense, some feeling, some heart—and just a little brain. +Marriages are made by men and women. They are not made by the +State, and they are not made by the gods. By this time people +should learn that human happiness is the foundation of +virtue—the foundation of morality. Nothing is moral that does +not tend to the well-being of sentient beings. Nothing is virtuous +the result of which is not a human good. The world has always been +living for phantoms, for ghosts, for monsters begotten by ignorance +and fear. The world should learn to live for itself. Man should, by +this time, be convinced that all the reasons for doing right, and +all the reasons for doing wrong, are right here in this +world—all within the horizon of this life. And besides, we +should have imagination to put ourselves in the place of another. +Let a man suppose himself a helpless wife, beaten by a brute who +believes in the indissolubility of marriage. Would he want a +divorce?</p> +<p>I suppose that very few people have any adequate idea of the +sufferings of women and children; of the number of wives who +tremble when they hear the footsteps of a returning husband; of the +number of children who hide when they hear the voice of a father. +Very few people know the number of blows that fall on the flesh of +the helpless every day. Few know the nights of terror passed by +mothers holding young children at their breasts. Compared with +this, the hardships of poverty, borne by those who love each other, +are nothing. Men and women, truly married, bear the sufferings of +poverty. They console each other; their affection gives to the +heart of each perpetual sunshine. But think of the others! I have +said a thousand times that the home is the unit of good government. +When we have kind fathers and loving mothers, then we shall have +civilized nations, and not until then. Civilization commences at +the hearthstone. When intelligence rocks the cradle—when the +house is filled with philosophy and kindness—you will see a +world a peace. Justice will sit in the courts, wisdom in the +legislative halls, and over all, like the dome of heaven, will be +the spirit of Liberty!</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What is your idea with regard to divorce?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. My idea is this: As I said before, marriage is +the most sacred contract—the most important +contract—that human beings can make. As a rule, the woman +dowers the husband with her youth—with all she has. From this +contract the husband should never be released unless the wife has +broken a condition; that is to say, has failed to fulfill the +contract of marriage. On the other hand, the woman should be +allowed a divorce for the asking. This should be granted in public, +precisely as the marriage should be in public. Every marriage +should be known. There should be witnesses, to the end that the +character of the contract entered into should be understood; and as +all marriage records should be kept, so the divorce should be open, +public and known. The property should be divided by a court of +equity, under certain regulations of law. If there are children, +they should be provided for through the property and the parents. +People should understand that men and women are not virtuous by +law. They should comprehend the fact that law does not create +virtue—that law is not the foundation, the fountain, of love. +They should understand that love is in the human heart, and that +real love is virtuous. People who love each other will be true to +each other. The death of love is the commencement of vice. Besides +this, there is a public opinion that has great weight. When that +public opinion is right, it does a vast amount of good, and when +wrong, a great amount of harm. People marry, or should marry, +because it increases the happiness of each and all. But where the +marriage turns out to have been a mistake, and where the result is +misery, and not happiness, the quicker they are divorced the +better, not only for themselves, but for the community at large. +These arguments are generally answered by some donkey braying about +free love, and by "free love" he means a condition of society in +which there is no love. The persons who make this cry are, in all +probability, incapable of the sentiment, of the feeling, known as +love. They judge others by themselves, and they imagine that +without law there would be no restraint.</p> +<p>What do they say of natural modesty? Do they forget that people +have a choice? Do they not understand something of the human heart, +and that true love has always been as pure as the morning star? Do +they believe that by forcing people to remain together who despise +each other they are adding to the purity of the marriage relation? +Do they not know that all marriage is an outward act, testifying to +that which has happened in the heart? Still, I always believe that +words are wasted on such people. It is useless to talk to anybody +about music who is unable to distinguish one tune from another. It +is useless to argue with a man who regards his wife as his +property, and it is hardly worth while to suggest anything to a +gentleman who imagines that society is so constructed that it +really requires, for the protection of itself, that the lives of +good and noble women should be wrecked, I am a believer in the +virtue of women, in the honesty of man. The average woman is +virtuous; the average man is honest, and the history of the world +shows it. If it were not so, society would be impossible. I don't +mean by this that most men are perfect, but what I mean is this: +That there is far more good than evil in the average human being, +and that the natural tendency of most people is toward the good and +toward the right. And I most passionately deny that the good of +society demands that any good person should suffer. I do not regard +government as a Juggernaut, the wheels of which must, of necessity, +roll over and crush the virtuous, the self-denying and the good. My +doctrine is the exact opposite of what is known as free love. I +believe in the marriage of true minds and of true hearts. But I +believe that thousands of people are married who do not love each +other. That is the misfortune of our century. Other things are +taken into consideration—position, wealth, title and the +thousand things that have nothing to do with real affection. Where +men and women truly love each other, that love, in my judgment, +lasts as long as life. The greatest line that I know of in the +poetry of the world is in the 116th sonnet of Shakespeare: "Love is +not love which alters when it alteration finds."</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Why do you make such a distinction between the +rights of man and the rights of women?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. The woman has, as her capital, her youth, her +beauty. We will say that she is married at twenty or twenty-five. +In a few years she has lost her beauty. During these years the man, +so far as capacity to make money is concerned—to do +something—has grown better and better. That is to say, his +chances have improved; hers have diminished. She has dowered him +with the Spring of her life, and as her life advances her chances +decrease. Consequently, I would give her the advantage, and I would +not compel her to remain with him against her will. It seems to me +far worse to be a wife upon compulsion than to be a husband upon +compulsion. Besides this, I have a feeling of infinite tenderness +toward mothers. The woman that bears children certainly should not +be compelled to live with a man whom she despises. The suffering is +enough when the father of the child is to her the one man of all +the world. Many people who have a mechanical apparatus in their +breasts that assists in the circulation of what they call blood, +regard these views as sentimental. But when you take sentiment out +of the world nothing is left worth living for, and when you get +sentiment out of the heart it is nothing more or less than a pump, +an old piece of rubber that has acquired the habit of contracting +and dilating. But I have this consolation: The people that do not +agree with me are those that do not understand me.</p> +<p>—<i>New York World</i>, 1888.</p> +<a name="link0077" id="link0077"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>SECULARISM.</h2> +<p><i>Question</i>. Colonel, what is your opinion of Secularism? Do +you regard it as a religion?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I understand that the word Secularism embraces +everything that is of any real interest or value to the human race. +I take it for granted that everybody will admit that well-being is +the only good; that is to say, that it is impossible to conceive of +anything of real value that does not tend either to preserve or to +increase the happiness of some sentient being. Secularism, +therefore, covers the entire territory. It fills the circumference +of human knowledge and of human effort. It is, you may say, the +religion of this world; but if there is another world, it is +necessarily the religion of that, as well.</p> +<p>Man finds himself in this world naked and hungry. He needs food, +raiment, shelter. He finds himself filled with almost innumerable +wants. To gratify these wants is the principal business of life. To +gratify them without interfering with other people is the course +pursued by all honest men.</p> +<p>Secularism teaches us to be good here and now. I know nothing +better than goodness. Secularism teaches us to be just here and +now. It is impossible to be juster than just.</p> +<p>Man can be as just in this world as in any other, and justice +must be the same in all worlds. Secularism teaches a man to be +generous, and generosity is certainly as good here as it can be +anywhere else. Secularism teaches a man to be charitable, and +certainly charity is as beautiful in this world and in this short +life as it could be were man immortal.</p> +<p>But orthodox people insist that there is something higher than +Secularism; but, as a matter of fact, the mind of man can conceive +of nothing better, nothing higher, nothing more spiritual, than +goodness, justice, generosity, charity. Neither has the mind of men +been capable of finding a nobler incentive to action than human +love. Secularism has to do with every possible relation. It says to +the young man and to the young woman: "Don't marry unless you can +take care of yourselves and your children." It says to the parents: +"Live for your children; put forth every effort to the end that +your children may know more than you—that they may be better +and grander than you." It says: "You have no right to bring +children into the world that you are not able to educate and feed +and clothe." It says to those who have diseases that can be +transmitted to children: "Do not marry; do not become parents; do +not perpetuate suffering, deformity, agony, imbecility, insanity, +poverty, wretchedness."</p> +<p>Secularism tells all children to do the best they can for their +parents—to discharge every duty and every obligation. It +defines the relation that should exist between husband and wife; +between parent and child; between the citizen and the Nation. And +not only that, but between nations.</p> +<p>Secularism is a religion that is to be used everywhere, and at +all times—that is to be taught everywhere and practiced at +all times. It is not a religion that is so dangerous that it must +be kept out of the schools; it is not a religion that is so +dangerous that it must be kept out of politics. It belongs in the +schools; it belongs at the polls. It is the business of Secularism +to teach every child; to teach every voter. It is its business to +discuss all political problems, and to decide all questions that +affect the rights or the happiness of a human being.</p> +<p>Orthodox religion is a firebrand; it must be kept out of the +schools; it must be kept out of politics. All the churches unite in +saying that orthodox religion is not for every day use. The +Catholics object to any Protestant religion being taught to +children. Protestants object to any Catholic religion being taught +to children. But the Secularist wants his religion taught to all; +and his religion can produce no feeling, for the reason that it +consists of facts—of truths. And all of it is important; +important for the child, important for the parent, important for +the politician —for the President—for all in power; +important to every legislator, to every professional man, to every +laborer and every farmer—that is to say, to every human +being.</p> +<p>The great benefit of Secularism is that is appeals to the reason +of every man. It asks every man to think for himself. It does not +threaten punishment if a man thinks, but it offers a reward, for +fear that he will not think. It does not say, "You will be damned +in another world if you think." But it says, "You will be damned in +this world if you do not think."</p> +<p>Secularism preserves the manhood and the womanhood of all. It +says to each human being: "Stand upon your own feet. Count one! +Examine for yourself. Investigate, observe, think. Express your +opinion. Stand by your judgment, unless you are convinced you are +wrong, and when you are convinced, you can maintain and preserve +your manhood or womanhood only by admitting that you were +wrong."</p> +<p>It is impossible that the whole world should agree on one creed. +It may be impossible that any two human beings can agree exactly in +religious belief. Secularism teaches that each one must take care +of himself, that the first duty of man is to himself, to the end +that he may be not only useful to himself, but to others. He who +fails to take care of himself becomes a burden; the first duty of +man is not to be a burden.</p> +<p>Every Secularist can give a reason for his creed. First of all, +he believes in work—taking care of himself. He believes in +the cultivation of the intellect, to the end that he may take +advantage of the forces of nature—to the end that he may be +clothed and fed and sheltered.</p> +<p>He also believes in giving to every other human being every +right that he claims for himself. He does not depend on prayer. He +has no confidence in ghosts or phantoms. He knows nothing of +another world, and knows just as little of a First Cause. But what +little he does know, he endeavors to use, and to use for the +benefit of himself and others.</p> +<p>He knows that he sustains certain relations to other sentient +beings, and he endeavors to add to the aggregate of human joy. He +is his own church, his own priest, his own clergyman and his own +pope. He decides for himself; in other words, he is a free man.</p> +<p>He also has a Bible, and this Bible embraces all the good and +true things that have been written, no matter by whom, or in what +language, or in what time. He accepts everything that he believes +to be true, and rejects all that he thinks is false. He knows that +nothing is added to the probability of an event, because there has +been an account of it written and printed.</p> +<p>All that has been said that is true is part of his Bible. Every +splendid and noble thought, every good word, every kind +action— all these you will find in his Bible. And, in +addition to these, all that is absolutely known—that has been +demonstrated—belongs to the Secularist. All the inventions, +machines—everything that has been of assistance to the human +race—belongs to his religion. The Secularist is in possession +of everything that man has. He is deprived only of that which man +never had. The orthodox world believes in ghosts and phantoms, in +dreams and prayers, in miracles and monstrosities; that is to say, +in modern theology. But these things do not exist, or if they do +exist, it is impossible for a human being to ascertain the fact. +Secularism has no "castles in Spain." It has no glorified fog. It +depends upon realities, upon demonstrations; and its end and aim is +to make this world better every day—to do away with poverty +and crime, and to cover the world with happy and contended +homes.</p> +<p>Let me say, right here, that a few years ago the Secular Hall at +Leicester, England, was opened by a speech from George Jacob +Holyoake, entitled, "Secularism as a Religion." I have never read +anything better on the subject of Secularism than this address. It +is so clear and so manly that I do not see how any human being can +read it without becoming convinced, and almost enraptured.</p> +<p>Let me quote a few lies from this address:—</p> +<p>"The mind of man would die if it were not for Thought, and were +Thought suppressed, God would rule over a world of idiots.</p> +<p>"Nature feeds Thought, day and night, with a million hands.</p> +<p>"To think is a duty, because it is a man's duty not to be a +fool.</p> +<p>"If man does not think himself, he is an intellectual pauper, +living upon the truth acquired by others, and making no +contribution himself in return. He has no ideas but such as he +obtains by 'out- door relief,' and he goes about the world with a +charity mind.</p> +<p>"The more thinkers there are in the world, the more truth there +is in the world.</p> +<p>"Progress can only walk in the footsteps of Conviction.</p> +<p>"Coercion in thought is not progress, it reduces to ignominious +pulp the backbone of the mind.</p> +<p>"By Religion I mean the simple creed of deed and duty, by which +a man seeks his own welfare in his own way, with an honest and fair +regard to the welfare and ways of others.</p> +<p>"In these thinking and practical days, men demand a religion of +daily life, which stands on a business footing."</p> +<p>I think nothing could be much better than the following, which +shows the exact relation that orthodox religion sustains to the +actual wants of human beings:</p> +<p>"The Churches administer a system of Foreign Affairs.</p> +<p>"Secularism dwells in a land of its own. It dwells in a land of +Certitude.</p> +<p>"In the Kingdom of Thought there is no conquest over man, but +over foolishness only."</p> +<p>I will not quote more, but hope all who read this will read the +address of Mr. Holyoake, who has, in my judgment, defined +Secularism with the greatest possible clearness.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What, in your opinion, are the best possible +means to spread this gospel or religion of Secularism?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. This can only be done by the cultivation of the +mind— only through intelligence—because we are fighting +only the monsters of the mind. The phantoms whom we are endeavoring +to destroy do not exist; they are all imaginary. They live in that +undeveloped or unexplored part of the mind that belongs to +barbarism.</p> +<p>I have sometimes thought that a certain portion of the mind is +cultivated so that it rises above the surrounding faculties and is +like some peak that has lifted itself above the clouds, while all +the valleys below are dark or dim with mist and cloud. It is in +this valley-region, amid these mists, beneath these clouds, that +these monsters and phantoms are born. And there they will remain +until the mind sheds light—until the brain is developed.</p> +<p>One exceedingly important thing is to teach man that his mind +has limitations; that there are walls that he cannot +scale—that he cannot pierce, that he cannot dig under. When a +man finds the limitations of his own mind, he knows that other +people's minds have limitations. He, instead of believing what the +priest says, he asks the priest questions. In a few moments he +finds that the priest has been drawing on his imagination for what +is beyond the wall. Consequently he finds that the priest knows no +more than he, and it is impossible that he should know more than +he.</p> +<p>An ignorant man has not the slightest suspicion of what a +superior man may do. Consequently, he is liable to become the +victim of the intelligent and cunning. A man wholly unacquainted +with chemistry, after having been shown a few wonders, is ready to +believe anything. But a chemist who knows something of the +limitations of that science—who knows what chemists have done +and who knows the nature of things—cannot be imposed upon. +When no one can be imposed upon, orthodox religion cannot exist. It +is an imposture, and there must be impostors and there must be +victims, or the religion cannot be a success.</p> +<p>Secularism cannot be a success, universally, as long as there is +an impostor or a victim. This is the difference: The foundation of +orthodox religion is imposture. The foundation of Secularism is +demonstration. Just to the extent that a man knows, he becomes a +Secularist.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think of the action of the Knights +of Labor in Indiana in turning out one of their members because he +was an Atheist, and because he objected to the reading of the Bible +at lodge meetings?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. In my judgment, the Knights of Labor have made a +great mistake. They want liberty for themselves—they feel +that, to a certain extent, they have been enslaved and robbed. If +they want liberty, they should be willing to give liberty to +others. Certainly one of their members has the same right to his +opinion with regard to the existence of a God, that the other +members have to theirs.</p> +<p>I do not blame this man for doubting the existence of a Supreme +Being, provided he understands the history of liberty. When a man +takes into consideration the fact that for many thousands of years +labor was unpaid, nearly all of it being done by slaves, and that +millions and hundreds of millions of human beings were bought and +sold the same as cattle, and that during all that time the +religions of the world upheld the practice, and the priests of the +countless unknown gods insisted that the institution of slavery was +divine— I do not wonder that he comes to the conclusion that, +perhaps, after all, there is no Supreme Being—at least none +who pays any particular attention to the affairs of this world.</p> +<p>If one will read the history of the slave-trade, of the +cruelties practiced, of the lives sacrificed, of the tortures +inflicted, he will at least wonder why "a God of infinite goodness +and wisdom" did not interfere just a little; or, at least, why he +did not deny that he was in favor of the trade. Here, in our own +country, millions of men were enslaved, and hundreds and thousands +of ministers stood up in their pulpits, with their Bibles in front +of them, and proceeded to show that slavery was about the only +institution that they were absolutely certain was divine. And they +proved it by reading passages from this very Bible that the Knights +of Labor in Indiana are anxious to have read in their meetings. For +their benefit, let me call their attention to a few passages, and +suggest that, hereafter, they read those passages at every meeting, +for the purpose of convincing all the Knights that the Lord is on +the side of those who work for a living:—</p> +<p>"Both thy bondsmen and thy bondsmaids which thou shalt have, +shall be of the heathen round about you; of them shall ye buy +bondsmen and bondmaids.</p> +<p>"Moreover, of the children of the strangers that do sojourn +among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families which are +with you, which they begat in your land; and they shall be your +possession.</p> +<p>"And ye shall take them as an inheritance, for your children +after you to inherit them for a possession. They shall be your +bondsmen forever."</p> +<p>Nothing seems more natural to me than that a man who believes +that labor should be free, and that he who works should be free, +should come to the conclusion that the passages above quoted are +not entirely on his side. I don't see why people should be in favor +of free bodies who are not also in favor of free minds. If the mind +is to remain in imprisonment, it is hardly worth while to free the +body. If the man has the right to labor, he certainly has the right +to use his mind, because without mind he can do no labor. As a +rule, the more mind he has, the more valuable his labor is, and the +freer his mind is the more valuable he is.</p> +<p>If the Knights of Labor expect to accomplish anything in this +world, they must do it by thinking. They must have reason on their +side, and the only way they can do anything by thinking is to allow +each other to think. Let all the men who do not believe in the +inspiration of the Bible, leave the Knights of Labor and I do not +know how many would be left. But I am perfectly certain that those +left will accomplish very little, simply from their lack of +sense.</p> +<p>Intelligent clergymen have abandoned the idea of plenary +inspiration. The best ministers in the country admit that the Bible +is full of mistakes, and while many of them are forced to say that +slavery is upheld by the Old Testament they also insist that +slavery was and is, and forever will be wrong. What had the Knights +of Labor to do with a question of religion? What business is it of +theirs who believes or disbelieves in the religion of the day? +Nobody can defend the rights of labor without defending the right +to think.</p> +<p>I hope that in time these Knights will become intelligent enough +to read in their meetings something of importance; something that +applies to this century; something that will throw a little light +on questions under discussion at the present time. The idea of men +engaged in a kind of revolution reading from Leviticus, Deuteronomy +and Haggai, for the purpose of determining the rights of workingmen +in the nineteenth century! No wonder such men have been swallowed +by the whale of monopoly. And no wonder that, while that are in the +belly of this fish, they insist on casting out a man with sense +enough to understand the situation! The Knights of Labor have made +a mistake and the sooner they reverse their action the better for +all concerned. Nothing should be taught in this world that somebody +does not know.</p> +<p>—<i>Secular Thought</i>, Toronto, Canada, August 25, +1888.</p> +<a name="link0078" id="link0078"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>SUMMER RECREATION—MR. GLADSTONE.</h2> +<h3><i>Question</i>. What is the best philosophy of summer +recreation?</h3> +<p><i>Answer</i>. As a matter of fact, no one should be overworked. +Recreation becomes necessary only when a man has abused himself or +has been abused. Holidays grew out of slavery. An intelligent man +ought not to work so hard to-day that he is compelled to rest +to-morrow. Each day should have its labor and its rest. But in our +civilization, if it can be called civilization, every man is +expected to devote himself entirely to business for the most of the +year and by that means to get into such a state of body and mind +that he requires, for the purpose of recreation, the +inconveniences, the poor diet, the horrible beds, the little +towels, the warm water, the stale eggs and the tough beef of the +average "resort." For the purpose of getting his mental and +physical machinery in fine working order, he should live in a room +for two or three months that is about eleven by thirteen; that is +to say, he should live in a trunk, fight mosquitoes, quarrel with +strangers, dispute bills, and generally enjoy himself; and this is +supposed to be the philosophy of summer recreation. He can do this, +or he can go to some extremely fashionable resort where his time is +taken up in making himself and family presentable.</p> +<p>Seriously, there are few better summer resorts than New York +City. If there were no city here it would be the greatest resort +for the summer on the continent; with its rivers, its bay, with its +wonderful scenery, with the winds from the sea, no better could be +found. But we cannot in this age of the world live in accordance +with philosophy. No particular theory can be carried out. We must +live as we must; we must earn our bread and we must earn it as +others do, and, as a rule, we must work when others work. +Consequently, if we are to take any recreation we must follow the +example of others; go when they go and come when they come. In +other words, man is a social being, and if one endeavors to carry +individuality to an extreme he must suffer the consequences. So I +have made up my mind to work as little as I can and to rest as much +as I can.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What is your opinion of Mr. Gladstone as a +controversialist?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Undoubtedly Mr. Gladstone is a man of great +talent, of vast and varied information, and undoubtedly he is, +politically speaking, at least, one of the greatest men in +England—possibly the greatest. As a controversialist, and I +suppose by that you mean on religious questions, he is certainly as +good as his cause. Few men can better defend the indefensible than +Mr. Gladstone. Few men can bring forward more probabilities in +favor of the impossible, then Mr. Gladstone. He is, in my judgment, +controlled in the realm of religion by sentiment; he was taught +long ago certain things as absolute truths and he has never +questioned them. He has had all he can do to defend them. It is of +but little use to attack sentiment with argument, or to attack +argument with sentiment. A question of sentiment can hardly be +discussed; it is like a question of taste. A man is enraptured with +a landscape by Corot; you cannot argue him out of his rapture; the +sharper the criticism the greater his admiration, because he feels +that it is incumbent upon him to defend the painter who has given +him so much real pleasure. Some people imagine that what they think +ought to exist must exist, and that what they really desire to be +true is true. We must remember that Mr. Gladstone has been what is +called a deeply religions man all his life. There was a time when +he really believed it to be the duty of the government to see to it +that the citizens were religious; when he really believed that no +man should hold any office or any position under the government who +was not a believer in the established religion; who was not a +defender of the parliamentary faith. I do not know whether he has +ever changed his opinions upon these subjects or not. There is not +the slightest doubt as to his honesty, as to his candor. He says +what he believes, and for his belief he gives the reasons that are +satisfactory to him. To me it seems impossible that miracles can be +defended. I do not see how it is possible to bring forward any +evidence that any miracle was ever performed; and unless miracles +have been performed, Christianity has no basis as a system. Mr. +Hume took the ground that it was impossible to substantiate a +miracle, for the reason that it is more probable that the witnesses +are mistaken, or are dishonest, than that a fact in nature should +be violated. For instance: A man says that a certain time, in a +certain locality, the attraction of gravitation was suspended; that +there were several moments during which a cannon ball weighed +nothing, during which when dropped from the hand, or rather when +released from the hand, it refused to fall and remained in the air. +It is safe to say that no amount of evidence, no number of +witnesses, could convince an intelligent man to-day that such a +thing occurred. We believe too thoroughly in the constancy of +nature. While men will not believe witnesses who testify to the +happening of miracles now, they seem to have perfect confidence in +men whom they never saw, who have been dead for two thousand years. +Of course it is known that Mr. Gladstone has published a few +remarks concerning my religious views and that I have answered him +the best I could. I have no opinion to give as to that controversy; +neither would it be proper for me to say what I think of the +arguments advanced by Mr. Gladstone in addition to what I have +already published. I am willing to leave the controversy where it +is, or I am ready to answer any further objections that Mr. +Gladstone may be pleased to urge.</p> +<p>In my judgment, the "Age of Faith" is passing away. We are +living in a time of demonstration.</p> +<p>[NOTE: From an unfinished interview found among Colonel +Ingersoll's papers.]</p> +<a name="link0079" id="link0079"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>PROHIBITION.</h2> +<p>It has been decided in many courts in various States that the +traffic in liquor can be regulated—that it is a police +question. It has been decided by the courts in Iowa that its +manufacture and sale can be prohibited, and, not only so, but that +a distillery or a brewery may be declared a nuisance and may +legally be abated, and these decisions have been upheld by the +Supreme Court of the United States. Consequently, it has been +settled by the highest tribunal that States have the power either +to regulate or to prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquors, and +not only so, but that States have the power to destroy breweries +and distilleries without making any compensation to owners.</p> +<p>So it has always been considered within the power of the State +to license the selling of intoxicating liquors. In other words, +this question is one that the States can decide for themselves. It +is not, and it should not be, in my judgment, a Federal question. +It is something with which the United States has nothing to do. It +belongs to the States; and where a majority of the people are in +favor of prohibition and pass laws to that effect, there is nothing +in the Constitution of the United States that interferes with such +action.</p> +<p>The remaining question, then, is not a question of power, but a +question of policy, and at the threshold of this question is +another: Can prohibitory laws be enforced? There are to-day in +Kansas,—a prohibition State—more saloons, that is to +say, more places in which liquor is sold, than there are in +Georgia, a State without prohibition legislation. There are more in +Nebraska, according to the population, more in Iowa, according to +the population, than in many of the States in which there is the +old license system. You will find that the United States has +granted more licenses to wholesale and retail dealers in these +prohibition States,—according to the population,—than +in many others in which prohibition has not been adopted.</p> +<p>These facts tend to show that it is not enough for the +Legislature to say: "Be it enacted." Behind every law there must be +an intelligent and powerful public opinion. A law, to be enforced, +must be the expression of such powerful and intelligent opinion; +otherwise it becomes a dead letter; it is avoided; judges continue +the cases, juries refuse to convict, and witnesses are not +particular about telling the truth. Such laws demoralize the +community, or, to put it in another way, demoralized communities +pass such laws.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think of the prohibitory movement +on general principles?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. The trouble is that when a few zealous men, +intending to reform the world, endeavor to enforce unpopular laws, +they are compelled to resort to detectives, to a system of +espionage. For the purpose of preventing the sale of liquors +somebody has to watch. Eyes and ears must become acquainted with +keyholes. Every neighbor suspects every other. A man with a bottle +or demijohn is followed. Those who drink get behind doors, in +cellars and garrets. Hypocrisy becomes substantially universal. +Hundreds of people become suddenly afflicted with a variety of +diseases, for the cure of which alcohol in some form is supposed to +be indispensable. Malaria becomes general, and it is perfectly +astonishing how long a few pieces of Peruvian bark will last, and +how often the liquor can be renewed without absorbing the medicinal +qualities of the bark. The State becomes a paradise for patent +medicine—the medicine being poor whiskey with a scientific +name.</p> +<p>Physicians become popular in proportion as liquor of some kind +figures in their prescriptions. Then in the towns clubs are formed, +the principal object being to establish a saloon, and in many +instances the drug store becomes a favorite resort, especially on +Sundays.</p> +<p>There is, however, another side to this question. It is this: +Nothing in the world is more important than personal liberty. Many +people are in favor of blotting out the sun to prevent the growth +of weeds. This is the mistake of all prohibitory fanaticism.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What is true temperance, Colonel Ingersoll?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Men have used stimulants for many thousand years, +and as much is used to-day in various forms as in any other period +of the world's history. They are used with more prudence now than +ever before, for the reason that the average man is more +intelligent now than ever before. Intelligence has much to do with +temperance. The barbarian rushes to the extreme, for the reason +that but little, comparatively, depends upon his personal conduct +or personal habits. Now the struggle for life is so sharp, +competition is so severe, that few men can succeed who carry a +useless burden. The business men of our country are compelled to +lead temperate lives, otherwise their credit is gone. Men of +wealth, men of intelligence, do not wish to employ intemperate +physicians. They are not willing to trust their health or their +lives with a physician who is under the influence of liquor. The +same is true of business men in regard to their legal interests. +They insist upon having sober attorneys; they want the counsel of a +sober man. So in every department. On the railways it is absolutely +essential that the engineer, that the conductor, the train +dispatcher and every other employee, in whose hands are the lives +of men, should be temperate. The consequence is that under the law +of the survival of the fittest, the intemperate are slowly but +surely going to the wall; they are slowly but surely being driven +out of employments of trust and importance. As we rise in the scale +of civilization we continually demand better and better service. We +are continually insisting upon better habits, upon a higher +standard of integrity, of fidelity. These are the causes, in my +judgment, that are working together in the direction of true +temperance.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you believe the people can be made to do +without a stimulant?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. The history of the world shows that all men who +have advanced one step beyond utter barbarism have used some kind +of stimulant. Man has sought for it in every direction. Every +savage loves it. Everything has been tried. Opium has been used by +many hundreds of millions. Hasheesh has filled countless brains +with chaotic dreams, and everywhere that civilization has gone the +blood of the grape has been used. Nothing is easier now to obtain +than liquor. In one bushel of corn there are at least five +gallons— four can easily be extracted. All starch, all +sugars, can be changed almost instantly into alcohol. Every grain +that grows has in it the intoxicating principle, and, as a matter +of fact, nearly all of the corn, wheat, sugar and starch that man +eats is changed into alcohol in his stomach. Whether man can be +compelled to do without a stimulant is a question that I am unable +to answer. Of one thing I am certain: He has never yet been +compelled to do without one. The tendency, I think, of modern times +is toward a milder stimulant than distilled liquors. Whisky and +brandies are too strong; wine and beer occupy the middle ground. +Wine is a fireside, whisky a conflagration.</p> +<p>It seems to me that it would be far better if the +Prohibitionists would turn their attention toward distilled +spirits. If they were willing to compromise, the probability is +that they would have public opinion on their side. If they would +say: "You may have all the beer and all the wine and cider you +wish, and you can drink them when and where you desire, but the +sale of distilled spirits shall be prohibited," it is possible that +this could be carried out in good faith in many if not in most of +the States—possibly in all. We all know the effect of wine, +even when taken in excess, is nothing near as disastrous as the +effect of distilled spirits. Why not take the middle ground? The +wine drinkers of the old country are not drunkards. They have been +drinking wine for generations. It is drunk by men, women and +children. It adds to the sociability of the family. It does not +separate the husband from the rest, it keeps them all together, and +in that view is rather a benefit than an injury. Good wine can be +raised as cheaply here as in any part of the world. In nearly every +part of our country the grape grows and good wine can be made. If +our people had a taste for wine they would lose the taste for +stronger drink, and they would be disgusted with the surroundings +of the stronger drink.</p> +<p>The same may be said in favor of beer. As long as the +Prohibitionists make no distinction between wine and whisky, +between beer and brandy, just so long they will be regarded by most +people as fanatics.</p> +<p>The Prohibitionists cannot expect to make this question a +Federal one. The United States has no jurisdiction of this subject. +Congress can pass no laws affecting this question that could have +any force except in such parts of our country as are not within the +jurisdiction of States. It is a question for the States and not for +the Federal Government. The Prohibitionists are simply throwing +away their votes. Let us suppose that we had a Prohibition Congress +and a Prohibition President—what steps could be taken to do +away with drinking in the city of New York? What steps could be +taken in any State of this Union? What could by any possibility be +done?</p> +<p>A few years ago the Prohibitionists demanded above all things +that the tax be taken from distilled spirits, claiming at that time +that such a tax made the Government a partner in vice.</p> +<p>Now when the Republican party proposes under certain +circumstances to remove that tax, the Prohibitionists denounce the +movement as one in favor of intemperance. We have also been told +that the tax on whisky should be kept for the reason that it +increases the price, and that an increased price tends to make a +temperate people; that if the tax is taken off, the price will fall +and the whole country start on the downward road to destruction. Is +it possible that human nature stands on such slippery ground? It is +possible that our civilization to-day rests upon the price of +alcohol, and that, should the price be reduced, we would all go +down together? For one, I cannot entertain such a humiliating and +disgraceful view of human nature. I believe that man is destined to +grow greater, grander and nobler. I believe that no matter what the +cost of alcohol may be, life will grow too valuable to be thrown +away. Men hold life according to its value. Men, as a rule, only +throw away their lives when they are not worth keeping. When life +becomes worth living it will be carefully preserved and will be +hoarded to the last grain of sand that falls through the glass of +time.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What is the reason for so much +intemperance?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. When many people are failures, when they are +distanced in the race, when they fall behind, when they give up, +when they lose ambition, when they finally become convinced that +they are worthless, precisely as they are in danger of becoming +dishonest. In other words, having failed in the race of life on the +highway, they endeavor to reach to goal by going across lots, by +crawling through the grass. Disguise this matter as we may, all +people are not successes, all people have not the brain or the +muscle or the moral stamina necessary to succeed. Some fall in one +way, some in another; some in the net of strong drink, some in the +web of circumstances and others in a thousand ways, and the world +itself cannot grow better unless the unworthy fail. The law is the +survival of the fittest, that is to say, the destruction of the +unfit. There is no scheme of morals, no scheme of government, no +scheme of charity, that can reverse this law. If it could be +reversed, then the result would be the survival of the unfittest, +the speedy end of which would be the extinction of the human +race.</p> +<p>Temperance men say that it is wise, in so far as possible, to +remove temptation from our fellow-men.</p> +<p>Let us look at this in regard to other matters. How do we do +away with larceny? We cannot remove property. We cannot destroy the +money of the world to keep people from stealing some of it. In +other words, we cannot afford to make the world valueless to +prevent larceny. All strength by which temptation is resisted must +come from the inside. Virtue does not depend upon the obstacles to +be overcome; virtue depends upon what is inside of the man. A man +is not honest because the safe of the bank is perfectly secure. +Upon the honest man the condition of the safe has no effect. We +will never succeed in raising great and splendid people by keeping +them out of temptation. Great people withstand temptation. Great +people have what may be called moral muscle, moral force. They are +poised within themselves. They understand their relations to the +world. The best possible foundation for honesty is the intellectual +perception that dishonesty can, under no circumstances, be a good +investment—that larceny is not only wicked, but +foolish—not only criminal, but stupid—that crimes are +committed only by fools.</p> +<p>On every hand there is what is called temptation. Every man has +the opportunity of doing wrong. Every man, in this country, has the +opportunity of drinking too much, has the opportunity of acquiring +the opium habit, has the opportunity of taking morphine every +day—in other words, has the opportunity of destroying +himself. How are they to be prevented? Most of them are +prevented—at least in a reasonable degree—and they are +prevented by their intelligence, by their surroundings, by their +education, by their objects and aims in life, by the people they +love, by the people who love them.</p> +<p>No one will deny the evils of intemperance, and it is hardly to +be wondered at that people who regard only one side—who think +of the impoverished and wretched, of wives and children in want, of +desolate homes—become the advocates of absolute prohibition. +At the same time, there is a philosophic side, and the question is +whether more good cannot be done by moral influence, by example, by +education, by the gradual civilization of our fellow-men, than in +any other possible way. The greatest things are accomplished by +indirection. In this way the idea of force, of slavery, is avoided. +The person influenced does not feel that he has been trampled upon, +does not regard himself as a victim—he feels rather as a +pupil, as one who receives a benefit, whose mind has been enlarged, +whose life has been enriched—whereas the direct way of "Thou +shalt not" produces an antagonism—in other words, produces +the natural result of "I will."</p> +<p>By removing one temptation you add strength to others. By +depriving a man of one stimulant, as a rule, you drive him to +another, and the other may be far worse than the one from which he +has been driven. We have hundreds of laws making certain things +misdemeanors, which are naturally right.</p> +<p>Thousands of people, honest in most directions, delight in +outwitting the Government—derive absolute pleasure from +getting in a few clothes and gloves and shawls without the payment +of duty. Thousands of people buy things in Europe for which they +pay more than they would for the same things in America, and then +exercise their ingenuity in slipping them through the +custom-house.</p> +<p>A law to have real force must spring from the nature of things, +and the justice of this law must be generally perceived, otherwise +it will be evaded.</p> +<p>The temperance people themselves are playing into the hands of +the very party that would refuse to count their votes. Allow the +Democrats to remain in power, allow the Democrats to be controlled +by the South, and a large majority might be in favor of temperance +legislation, and yet the votes would remain uncounted. The party of +reform has a great interest in honest elections, and honest +elections must first be obtained as the foundation of reform. The +Prohibitionists can take their choice between these parties. Would +it not be far better for the Prohibitionists to say: "We will vote +for temperance men; we will stand with the party that is the +nearest in favor of what we deem to be the right"? They should also +take into consideration that other people are as honest as they; +that others disbelieve in prohibition as honestly as they believe +in it, and that other people cannot leave their principles to vote +for prohibition; and they must remember, that these other people +are in the majority.</p> +<p>Mr. Fisk knows that he cannot be elected President—knows +that it is impossible for him to carry any State in the Union. He +also knows that in nearly every State in the Union—probably +in all—a majority of the people believe in stimulants. Why +not work with the great and enlightened majority? Why rush to the +extreme for the purpose not only of making yourself useless but +hurtful?</p> +<p>No man in the world is more opposed to intemperance than I am. +No man in the world feels more keenly the evils and the agony +produced by the crime of drunkenness. And yet I would not be +willing to sacrifice liberty, individuality, and the glory and +greatness of individual freedom, to do away with all the evils of +intemperance. In other words, I believe that slavery, oppression +and suppression would crowd humanity into a thousand deformities, +the result of which would be a thousand times more disastrous to +the well-being of man. I do not believe in the slave virtues, in +the monotony of tyranny, in the respectability produced by force. I +admire the men who have grown in the atmosphere of liberty, who +have the pose of independence, the virtues of strength, of heroism, +and in whose hearts is the magnanimity, the tenderness, and the +courage born of victory.</p> +<p>—<i>New York World</i>, October 21, 1888.</p> +<a name="link0080" id="link0080"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>ROBERT ELSMERE.</h2> +<p>Why do people read a book like "Robert Elsmere," and why do they +take any interest in it? Simply because they are not satisfied with +the religion of our day. The civilized world has outgrown the +greater part of the Christian creed. Civilized people have lost +their belief in the reforming power of punishment. They find that +whips and imprisonment have but little influence for good. The +truth has dawned upon their minds that eternal punishment is +infinite cruelty—that it can serve no good purpose and that +the eternity of hell makes heaven impossible. That there can be in +this universe no perfectly happy place while there is a perfectly +miserable place—that no infinite being can be good who +knowingly and, as one may say, willfully created myriads of human +beings, knowing that they would be eternally miserable. In other +words, the civilized man is greater, tenderer, nobler, nearer just +than the old idea of God. The ideal of a few thousand years ago is +far below the real of to-day. No good man now would do what Jehovah +is said to have done four thousand years ago, and no civilized +human being would now do what, according to the Christian religion, +Christ threatens to do at the day of judgment.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Has the Christian religion changed in theory of +late years, Colonel Ingersoll?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. A few years ago the Deists denied the inspiration +of the Bible on account of its cruelty. At the same time they +worshiped what they were pleased to call the God of Nature. Now we +are convinced that Nature is as cruel as the Bible; so that, if the +God of Nature did not write the Bible, this God at least has caused +earthquakes and pestilence and famine, and this God has allowed +millions of his children to destroy one another. So that now we +have arrived at the question—not as to whether the Bible is +inspired and not as to whether Jehovah is the real God, but whether +there is a God or not. The intelligence of Christendom to-day does +not believe in an inspired art or an inspired literature. If there +be an infinite God, inspiration in some particular regard would be +a patch—it would be the puttying of a crack, the hiding of a +defect —in other words, it would show that the general plan +was defective.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you consider any religion adequate?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. A good man, living in England, drawing a certain +salary for reading certain prayers on stated occasions, for making +a few remarks on the subject of religion, putting on clothes of a +certain cut, wearing a gown with certain frills and flounces +starched in an orthodox manner, and then looking about him at the +suffering and agony of the world, would not feel satisfied that he +was doing anything of value for the human race. In the first place, +he would deplore his own weakness, his own poverty, his inability +to help his fellow-men. He would long every moment for wealth, that +he might feed the hungry and clothe the naked—for knowledge, +for miraculous power, that he might heal the sick and the lame and +that he might give to the deformed the beauty of proportion. He +would begin to wonder how a being of infinite goodness and infinite +power could allow his children to die, to suffer, to be deformed by +necessity, by poverty, to be tempted beyond resistance; how he +could allow the few to live in luxury, and the many in poverty and +want, and the more he wondered the more useless and ironical would +seem to himself his sermons and his prayers. Such a man is driven +to the conclusion that religion accomplishes but little—that +it creates as much want as it alleviates, and that it burdens the +world with parasites. Such a man would be forced to think of the +millions wasted in superstition. In other words, the inadequacy, +the uselessness of religion would be forced upon his mind. He would +ask himself the question: "Is it possible that this is a divine +institution? Is this all that man can do with the assistance of +God? Is this the best?"</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. That is a perfectly reasonable question, is it +not, Colonel Ingersoll?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. The moment a man reaches the point where he asks +himself this question he has ceased to be an orthodox Christian. It +will not do to say that in some other world justice will be done. +If God allows injustice to triumph here, why not there?</p> +<p>Robert Elsmere stands in the dawn of philosophy. There is hardly +light enough for him to see clearly; but there is so much light +that the stars in the night of superstition are obscured.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. You do not deny that a religious belief is a +comfort?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. There is one thing that it is impossible for me +to comprehend. Why should any one, when convinced that Christianity +is a superstition, have or feel a sense of loss? Certainly a man +acquainted with England, with London, having at the same time +something like a heart, must feel overwhelmed by the failure of +what is known as Christianity. Hundreds of thousands exist there +without decent food, dwelling in tenements, clothed with rags, +familiar with every form of vulgar vice, where the honest poor eat +the crust that the vicious throw away. When this man of +intelligence, of heart, visits the courts; when he finds human +liberty a thing treated as of no value, and when he hears the judge +sentencing girls and boys to the penitentiary—knowing that a +stain is being put upon them that all the tears of all the coming +years can never wash away—knowing, too, and feeling that this +is done without the slightest regret, without the slightest +sympathy, as a mere matter of form, and that the judge puts this +brand of infamy upon the forehead of the convict just as cheerfully +as a Mexican brands his cattle; and when this man of intelligence +and heart knows that these poor people are simply the victims of +society, the unfortunates who stumble and over whose bodies rolls +the Juggernaut—he knows that there is, or at least appears to +be, no power above or below working for righteousness—that +from the heavens is stretched no protecting hand. And when a man of +intelligence and heart in England visits the workhouse, the last +resting place of honest labor; when he thinks that the young man, +without any great intelligence, but with a good constitution, +starts in the morning of his life for the workhouse, and that it is +impossible for the laboring man, one who simply has his muscle, to +save anything; that health is not able to lay anything by for the +days of disease—when the man of intelligence and heart sees +all this, he is compelled to say that the civilization of to-day, +the religion of to-day, the charity of to-day—no matter how +much of good there may be behind them or in them, are failures.</p> +<p>A few years ago people were satisfied when the minister said: +"All this will be made even in another world; a crust-eater here +will sit at the head of the banquet there, and the king here will +beg for the crumbs that fall from the table there." When this was +said, the poor man hoped and the king laughed. A few years ago the +church said to the slave: "You will be free in another world, and +your freedom will be made glorious by the perpetual spectacle of +your master in hell." But the people—that is, many of the +people—are no longer deceived by what once were considered +fine phrases. They have suffered so much that they no longer wish +to see others suffer and no longer think of the suffering of others +as a source of joy to themselves. The poor see that the eternal +starvation of kings and queens in another world will be no +compensation for what they have suffered there. The old religions +appear vulgar and the ideas of rewards and punishments are only +such as would satisfy a cannibal chief or one of his favorites.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you think the Christian religion has made +the world better?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. For many centuries there has been preached and +taught in an almost infinite number of ways a supernatural +religion. During all this time the world has been in the care of +the Infinite, and yet every imaginable vice has flourished, every +imaginable pang has been suffered, and every injustice has been +done. During all these years the priests have enslaved the minds, +and the kings the bodies, of men. The priests did what they did in +the name of God, and the kings appeal to the same source of +authority. Man suffered as long as he could. Revolution, +reformation, was simply a re- action, a cry from the poor wretch +that was between the upper and the nether millstone. The liberty of +man has increased just in the proportion that the authority of the +gods has decreased. In other words, the wants of man, instead of +the wishes of God, have inaugurated what we call progress, and +there is this difference: Theology is based upon the narrowest and +intensest form of selfishness. Of course, the theologian knows, the +Christian knows, that he can do nothing for God; consequently all +that he does must be and is for himself, his object being to win +the approbation of this God, to the end that he may become a +favorite. On the other side, men touched not only by their own +misfortunes, but by the misfortunes of others, are moved not simply +by selfishness, but by a splendid sympathy with their +fellow-men.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Christianity certainly fosters charity?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Nothing is more cruel than orthodox theology, +nothing more heartless than a charitable institution. For instance, +in England, think for a moment of the manner in which charities are +distributed, the way in which the crust is flung at Lazarus. If +that parable could be now retold, the dogs would bite him. The same +is true in this country. The institution has nothing but contempt +for the one it relieves. The people in charge regard the pauper as +one who has wrecked himself. They feel very much as a man would +feel rescuing from the water some hare-brained wretch who had +endeavored to swim the rapids of Niagara—the moment they +reach him they begin to upbraid him for being such a fool. This +course makes charity a hypocrite, with every pauper for its +enemy.</p> +<p>Mrs. Ward compelled Robert Elsmere to perceive, in some slight +degree, the failure of Christianity to do away with vice and +suffering, with poverty and crime. We know that the rich care but +little for the poor. No matter how religious the rich may be, the +sufferings of their fellows have but little effect upon them. We +are also beginning to see that what is called charity will never +redeem this world.</p> +<p>The poor man willing to work, eager to maintain his +independence, knows that there is something higher than +charity—that is to say, justice. He finds that many years +before he was born his country was divided out between certain +successful robbers, flatterers, cringers and crawlers, and that in +consequence of such division not only he himself, but a large +majority of his fellow-men are tenants, renters, occupying the +surface of the earth only at the pleasure of others. He finds, too, +that these people who have done nothing and who do nothing, have +everything, and that those who do everything have but little. He +finds that idleness has the money and that the toilers are +compelled to bow to the idlers. He finds also that the young men of +genius are bribed by social distinctions —unconsciously it +may be—but still bribed in a thousand ways. He finds that the +church is a kind of waste-basket into which are thrown the younger +sons of titled idleness.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you consider that society in general has +been made better by religious influences?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Society is corrupted because the laurels, the +titles, are in the keeping and within the gift of the corrupters. +Christianity is not an enemy of this system—it is in harmony +with it. Christianity reveals to us a universe presided over by an +infinite autocrat—a universe without republicanism, without +democracy—a universe where all power comes from one and the +same source, and where everyone using authority is accountable, not +to the people, but to this supposed source of authority. Kings +reign by divine right. Priests are ordained in a divinely appointed +way—they do not get their office from man. Man is their +servant, not their master.</p> +<p>In the story of Robert Elsmere all there is of Christianity is +left except the miraculous. Theism remains, and the idea of a +protecting Providence is left, together with a belief in the +immeasurable superiority of Jesus Christ. That is to say, the +miracles are discarded for lack of evidence, and only for lack of +evidence; not on the ground that they are impossible, not on the +ground that they impeach and deny the integrity of cause and +effect, not on the ground that they contradict the self-evident +proposition that an effect must have an efficient cause, but like +the Scotch verdict, "not proven." It is an effort to save and keep +in repair the dungeons of the Inquisition for the sake of the +beauty of the vines that have overrun them. Many people imagine +that falsehoods may become respectable on account of age, that a +certain reverence goes with antiquity, and that if a mistake is +covered with the moss of sentiment it is altogether more credible +than a parvenu fact. They endeavor to introduce the idea of +aristocracy into the world of thought, believing, and honestly +believing, that a falsehood long believed is far superior to a +truth that is generally denied.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. If Robert Elsmere's views were commonly adopted +what would be the effect?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. The new religion of Elsmere is, after all, only a +system of outdoor relief, an effort to get successful piracy to +give up a larger per cent. for the relief of its victims. The +abolition of the system is not dreamed of. A civilized minority +could not by any possibility be happy while a majority of the world +were miserable. A civilized majority could not be happy while a +minority were miserable. As a matter of fact, a civilized world +could not be happy while one man was really miserable. At the +foundation of civilization is justice—that is to say, the +giving of an equal opportunity to all the children of men. +Secondly, there can be no civilization in the highest sense until +sympathy becomes universal. We must have a new definition for +success. We must have new ideals. The man who succeeds in amassing +wealth, who gathers money for himself, is not a success. It is an +exceedingly low ambition to be rich to excite the envy of others, +or for the sake of the vulgar power it gives to triumph over +others. Such men are failures. So the man who wins fame, position, +power, and wins these for the sake of himself, and wields this +power not for the elevation of his fellow-men, but simply to +control, is a miserable failure. He may dispense thousands of +millions in charity, and his charity may be prompted by the meanest +part of his nature—using it simply as a bait to catch more +fish and to prevent the rising tide of indignation that might +overwhelm him. Men who steal millions and then give a small +percentage to the Lord to gain the praise of the clergy and to +bring the salvation of their souls within the possibilities of +imagination, are all failures.</p> +<p>Robert Elsmere gains our affection and our applause to the +extent that he gives up what are known as orthodox views, and his +wife Catherine retains our respect in the proportion that she lives +the doctrine that Elsmere preaches. By doing what she believes to +be right, she gains our forgiveness for her creed. One is +astonished that she can be as good as she is, believing as she +does. The utmost stretch of our intellectual charity is to allow +the old wine to be put in a new bottle, and yet she regrets the +absence of the old bottle—she really believes that the bottle +is the important thing—that the wine is but a secondary +consideration. She misses the label, and not having perfect +confidence in her own taste, she does not feel quite sure that the +wine is genuine.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What, on the whole, is your judgment of the +book?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I think the book conservative. It is an effort to +save something—a few shreds and patches and +ravelings—from the wreck. Theism is difficult to maintain. +Why should we expect an infinite Being to do better in another +world than he has done and is doing in this? If he allows the +innocent to suffer here, why not there? If he allows rascality to +succeed in this world, why not in the next? To believe in God and +to deny his personality is an exceedingly vague foundation for a +consolation. If you insist on his personality and power, then it is +impossible to account for what happens. Why should an infinite God +allow some of his children to enslave others? Why should he allow a +child of his to burn another child of his, under the impression +that such a sacrifice was pleasing to him?</p> +<p>Unitarianism lacks the motive power. Orthodox people who insist +that nearly everybody is going to hell, and that it is their duty +to do what little they can to save their souls, have what you might +call a spur to action. We can imagine a philanthropic man engaged +in the business of throwing ropes to persons about to go over the +falls of Niagara, but we can hardly think of his carrying on the +business after being convinced that there are no falls, or that +people go over them in perfect safety. In this country the question +has come up whether all the heathen are bound to be damned unless +they believe in the gospel. Many admit that the heathen will be +saved if they are good people, and that they will not be damned for +not believing something that they never heard. The really orthodox +people—that is to say, the missionaries—instantly see +that this doctrine destroys their business. They take the ground +that there is but one way to be saved—you must believe on the +Lord Jesus Christ—and they are willing to admit, and +cheerfully to admit, that the heathen for many generations have +gone in an unbroken column down to eternal wrath. And they not only +admit this, but insist upon it, to the end that subscriptions may +not cease. With them salary and salvation are convertible +terms.</p> +<p>The tone of this book is not of the highest. Too much stress is +laid upon social advantages—too much respect for fashionable +folly and for ancient absurdity. It is hard for me to appreciate +the feelings of one who thinks it difficult to give up the +consolations of the gospel. What are the consolations of the Church +of England? It is a religion imposed upon the people by authority. +It is the gospel at the mouth of a cannon, at the point of a +bayonet, enforced by all authority, from the beadle to the Queen. +It is a parasite living upon tithes—these tithes being +collected by the army and navy. It produces nothing—is simply +a beggar—or rather an aggregation of beggars. It teaches +nothing of importance. It discovers nothing. It is under obligation +not to investigate. It has agreed to remain stationary not only, +but to resist all innovation. According to the creed of this +church, a very large proportion of the human race is destined to +suffer eternal pain. This does not interfere with the quiet, with +the serenity and repose of the average clergyman. They put on their +gowns, they read the service, they repeat the creed and feel that +their duty has been done. How any one can feel that he is giving up +something of value when he finds that the Episcopal creed is untrue +is beyond my imagination. I should think that every good man and +woman would overflow with joy, that every heart would burst into +countless blossoms the moment the falsity of the Episcopal creed +was established.</p> +<p>Christianity is the most heartless of all religions—the +most unforgiving, the most revengeful. According to the +Episcopalian belief, God becomes the eternal prosecutor of his own +children. I know of no creed believed by any tribe, not excepting +the tribes where cannibalism is practiced, that is more heartless, +more inhuman than this. To find that the creed is false is like +being roused from a frightful dream, in which hundreds of serpents +are coiled about you, in which their eyes, gleaming with hatred, +are fixed on you, and finding the world bathed in sunshine and the +songs of birds in your ears and those you love about you.</p> +<p>—<i>New York World</i>, November 18, 1888.</p> +<a name="link0081" id="link0081"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>WORKING GIRLS.</h2> +<p><i>Question</i>. What is your opinion of the work undertaken by +the <i>World</i> in behalf of the city slave girl?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I know of nothing better for a great journal to +do. The average girl is so helpless, and the greed of the employer +is such, that unless some newspaper or some person of great +influence comes to her assistance, she is liable not simply to be +imposed upon, but to be made a slave. Girls, as a rule, are so +anxious to please, so willing to work, that they bear almost every +hardship without complaint. Nothing is more terrible than to see +the rich living on the work of the poor. One can hardly imagine the +utter heartlessness of a man who stands between the wholesale +manufacturer and the wretched women who make their living—or +rather retard their death—by the needle. How a human being +can consent to live on this profit, stolen from poverty, is beyond +my imagination. These men, when known, will be regarded as hyenas +and jackals. They are like the wild beasts which follow herds of +cattle for the purpose of devouring those that are injured or those +that have fallen by the wayside from weakness.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What effect has unlimited immigration on the +wages of women?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. If our country were overpopulated, the effect of +immigration would be to lessen wages, for the reason that the +working people of Europe are used to lower wages, and have been in +the habit of practicing an economy unknown to us. But this country +is not overpopulated. There is plenty of room for several hundred +millions more. Wages, however, are too low in the United States. +The general tendency is to leave the question of labor to what is +called the law of supply and demand. My hope is that in time we +shall become civilized enough to know that there is a higher law, +or rather a higher meaning in the law of supply and demand, than is +now perceived. Year after year what are called the necessaries of +life increase. Many things now regarded as necessaries were +formerly looked upon as luxuries. So, as man becomes civilized, he +increases what may be called the necessities of his life. When +perfectly civilized, one of the necessities of his life will be +that the lives of others shall be of some value to them. A good man +is not happy so long as he knows that other good men and women +suffer for raiment and for food, and have no roof but the sky, no +home but the highway. Consequently what is called the law of supply +and demand will then have a much larger meaning.</p> +<p>In nature everything lives upon something else. Life feeds upon +life. Something is lying in wait for something else, and even the +victim is weaving a web or crouching for some other victim, and the +other victim is in the same business—watching for something +else. The same is true in the human world—people are living +on each other; the cunning obtain the property of the simple; +wealth picks the pockets of poverty; success is a highwayman +leaping from the hedge. The rich combine, the poor are unorganized, +without the means to act in concert, and for that reason become the +prey of combinations and trusts. The great questions are: Will man +ever be sufficiently civilized to be honest? Will the time ever +come when it can truthfully be said that right is might? The lives +of millions of people are not worth living, because of their +ignorance and poverty, and the lives of millions of others are not +worth living, on account of their wealth and selfishness. The +palace without justice, without charity, is as terrible as the +hovel without food.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What effect has the woman's suffrage movement +had on the breadwinners of the country?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I think the women who have been engaged in the +struggle for equal rights have done good for women in the direction +of obtaining equal wages for equal work. There has also been for +many years a tendency among women in our country to become +independent —a desire to make their own living—to win +their own bread. So many husbands are utterly useless, or worse, +that many women hardly feel justified in depending entirely on a +husband for the future. They feel somewhat safer to know how to do +something and earn a little money themselves. If men were what they +ought to be, few women would be allowed to labor—that is to +say, to toil. It should be the ambition of every healthy and +intelligent man to take care of, to support, to make happy, some +woman. As long as women bear the burdens of the world, the human +race can never attain anything like a splendid civilization. There +will be no great generation of men until there has been a great +generation of women. For my part, I am glad to hear this question +discussed—glad to know that thousands of women take some +interest in the fortunes and in the misfortunes of their +sisters.</p> +<p>The question of wages for women is a thousand times more +important than sending missionaries to China or to India. There is +plenty for missionaries to do here. And by missionaries I do not +mean gentlemen and ladies who distribute tracts or quote Scripture +to people out of work. If we are to better the condition of men and +women we must change their surroundings. The tenement house breeds +a moral pestilence. There can be in these houses no home, no +fireside, no family, for the reason that there is no privacy, no +walls between them and the rest of the world. There is no +sacredness, no feeling, "this is ours."</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Might not the rich do much?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. It would be hard to overestimate the good that +might be done by the millionaires if they would turn their +attention to sending thousands and thousands into the country or to +building them homes miles from the city, where they could have +something like privacy, where the family relations could be kept +with some sacredness. Think of the "homes" in which thousands and +thousands of young girls are reared in our large cities. Think of +what they see and what they hear; of what they come in contact +with. How is it possible for the virtues to grow in the damp and +darkened basements? Can we expect that love and chastity and all +that is sweet and gentle will be produced in these surroundings, in +cellars and garrets, in poverty and dirt? The surroundings must be +changed.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Are the fathers and brothers blameless who +allow young girls to make coats, cloaks and vests in an atmosphere +poisoned by the ignorant and low-bred?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. The same causes now brutalizing girls brutalize +their fathers and brothers, and the same causes brutalize the +ignorant and low-lived that poison the air in which these girls are +made to work. It is hard to pick out one man and say that he is to +blame, or one woman and say that the fault is hers. We must go back +of all this. In my opinion, society raises its own failures, its +own criminals, its own wretches of every sort and kind. Great pains +are taken to raise these crops. The seeds, it may be, were sown +thousands of years ago, but they were sown, and the present is the +necessary child of all the past. If the future is to differ from +the present, the seeds must now be sown. It is not simply a +question of charity, or a question of good nature, or a question of +what we call justice—it is a question of intelligence. In the +first place, I suppose that it is the duty of every human being to +support himself—first, that he may not become a burden upon +others, and second, that he may help others. I think all people +should be taught never, under any circumstances, if by any +possibility they can avoid it, to become a burden. Every one should +be taught the nobility of labor, the heroism and splendor of honest +effort. As long as it is considered disgraceful to labor, or +aristocratic not to labor, the world will be filled with idleness +and crime, and with every possible moral deformity.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Has the public school system anything to do +with the army of pupils who, after six years of study, willingly +accept the injustice and hardship imposed by capital?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. The great trouble with the public school is that +many things are taught that are of no immediate use. I believe in +manual training schools. I believe in the kindergarten system. +Every person ought to be taught how to do something—ought to +be taught the use of their hands. They should endeavor to put in +palpable form the ideas that they gain. Such an education gives +them a confidence in themselves, a confidence in the +future—gives them a spirit and feeling of independence that +they do not now have. Men go through college studying for many +years, and when graduated have not the slightest conception of how +to make a living in any department of human effort. Thousands of +them are to-day doing manual labor and doing it very poorly, +whereas, if they had been taught the use of tools, the use of their +hands, they would derive a certain pleasure from their work. It is +splendid to do anything well. One can be just as poetic working +with iron and wood as working with words and colors.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What ought to be done, or what is to be the +end?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. The great thing is for the people to know the +facts. There are thousands and millions of splendid and sympathetic +people who would willingly help, if they only knew; but they go +through the world in such a way that they know but little of it. +They go to their place of business; they stay in their offices for +a few hours; they go home; they spend the evening there or at a +club; they come in contact with the well-to-do, with the +successful, with the satisfied, and they know nothing of the +thousands and millions on every side. They have not the least idea +how the world lives, how it works, how it suffers. They read, of +course, now and then, some paragraph in which the misfortune of +some wretch is set forth, but the wretch is a kind of steel +engraving, an unreal shadow, a something utterly unlike themselves. +The real facts should be brought home, the sympathies of men +awakened, and awakened to such a degree that they will go and see +how these people live, see how they work, see how they suffer.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Does exposure do any good?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I hope that <i>The World</i> will keep on. I hope +that it will express every horror that it can, connected with the +robbery of poor and helpless girls, and I hope that it will publish +the names of all the robbers it can find, and the wretches who +oppress the poor and who live upon the misfortunes of women.</p> +<p>The crosses of this world are mostly born by wives, by mothers +and by daughters. Their brows are pierced by thorns. They shed the +bitterest tears. They live and suffer and die for others. It is +almost enough to make one insane to think of what woman, in the +years of savagery and civilization, has suffered. Think of the +anxiety and agony of motherhood. Maternity is the most pathetic +fact in the universe. Think how helpless girls are. Think of the +thorns in the paths they walk—of the trials, the temptations, +the want, the misfortune, the dangers and anxieties that fill their +days and nights. Every true man will sympathize with woman, and +will do all in his power to lighten her burdens and increase the +sunshine of her life.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Is there any remedy?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I have always wondered that the great +corporations have made no provisions for their old and worn out +employees. It seems to me that not only great railway companies, +but great manufacturing corporations, ought to provide for their +workmen. Many of them are worn out, unable longer to work, and they +are thrown aside like old clothes. They find their way to the +poorhouses or die in tenements by the roadside. This seems almost +infinitely heartless. Men of great wealth, engaged in +manufacturing, instead of giving five hundred thousand dollars for +a library, or a million dollars for a college, ought to put this +money aside, invest it in bonds of the Government, and the interest +ought to be used in taking care of the old, of the helpless, of +those who meet with accidents in their work. Under our laws, if an +employee is caught in a wheel or in a band, and his arm or leg is +torn off, he is left to the charity of the community, whereas the +profits of the business ought to support him in his old age. If +employees had this feeling—that they were not simply working +for that day, not simply working while they have health and +strength, but laying aside a little sunshine for the winter of +age—if they only felt that they, by their labor, were +creating a fireside in front of which their age and helplessness +could sit, the feeling between employed and employers would be a +thousand times better. On the great railways very few people know +the number of the injured, of those who lose their hands or feet, +of those who contract diseases riding on the tops of freight trains +in snow and sleet and storm; and yet, when these men become old and +helpless through accident, they are left to shift for themselves. +The company is immortal, but the employees become helpless. Now, it +seems to me that a certain per cent. should be laid aside, so that +every brakeman and conductor could feel that he was providing for +himself, as well as for his fellow-workmen, so that when the dark +days came there would be a little light.</p> +<p>The men of wealth, the men who control these great +corporations— these great mills—give millions away in +ostentatious charity. They send missionaries to foreign lands. They +endow schools and universities and allow the men who earned the +surplus to die in want. I believe in no charity that is founded on +robbery. I have no admiration for generous highwaymen or +extravagant pirates. At the foundation of charity should be +justice. Let these men whom others have made wealthy give something +to their workmen—something to those who created their +fortunes. This would be one step in the right direction. Do not let +it be regarded as charity—let it be regarded as justice.</p> +<p>—<i>New York World</i>, December 2, 1888.</p> +<a name="link0082" id="link0082"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>PROTECTION FOR AMERICAN ACTORS.</h2> +<p><i>Question</i>. It is reported that you have been retained as +counsel for the Actors' Order of Friendship—the Edwin Forrest +Lodge of New York, and the Shakespeare Lodge of +Philadelphia—for the purpose of securing the necessary +legislation to protect American actors— is that so?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Yes, I have been retained for that purpose, and +the object is simply that American actors may be put upon an equal +footing with Americans engaged in other employments. There is a law +now which prevents contractors going abroad and employing mechanics +or skilled workmen, and bringing them to this country to take the +places of our citizens.</p> +<p>No one objects to the English, German and French mechanics +coming with their wives and children to this country and making +their homes here. Our ports are open, and have been since the +foundation of this Government. Wages are somewhat higher in this +country than in any other, and the man who really settles here, who +becomes, or intends to become an American citizen, will demand +American wages. But if a manufacturer goes to Europe, he can make a +contract there and bring hundreds and thousands of mechanics to +this country who will work for less wages than the American, and a +law was passed to prevent the American manufacturer, who was +protected by a tariff, from burning the laborer's candle at both +ends. That is to say, we do not wish to give him the American +price, by means of a tariff, and then allow him to go to Europe and +import his labor at the European price.</p> +<p>In the law, actors were excepted, and we now find the managers +are bringing entire companies from the old county, making contracts +with them there, and getting them at much lower prices than they +would have had to pay for American actors.</p> +<p>No one objects to a foreign actor coming here for employment, +but we do not want an American manager to go there, and employ him +to act here. No one objects to the importation of a star. We wish +to see and hear the best actors in the world. But the rest of the +company—the support—should be engaged in the United +States, if the star speaks English.</p> +<p>I see that it is contended over in England, that English actors +are monopolizing the American stage because they speak English, +while the average American actor does not. The real reason is that +the English actor works for less money—he is the cheaper +article. Certainly no one will accuse the average English actor of +speaking English. The hemming and hawing, the aristocratic stutter, +the dropping of h's and picking them up at the wrong time, have +never been popular in the United States, except by way of +caricature. Nothing is more absurd than to take the ground that the +English actors are superior to the American. I know of no English +actor who can for a moment be compared with Joseph Jefferson, or +with Edwin Booth, or with Lawrence Barrett, or with Denman +Thompson, and I could easily name others.</p> +<p>If English actors are so much better than American, how is it +that an American star is supported by the English? Mary Anderson is +certainly an American actress, and she is supported by English +actors. Is it possible that the superior support the inferior? I do +not believe that England has her equal as an actress. Her Hermione +is wonderful, and the appeal to Apollo sublime. In Perdita she +"takes the winds of March with beauty." Where is an actress on the +English stage the superior of Julia Marlowe in genius, in +originality, in naturalness?</p> +<p>Is there any better Mrs. Malaprop than Mrs. Drew, and better Sir +Anthony than John Gilbert? No one denies that the English actors +and actresses are great. No one will deny that the plays of +Shakespeare are the greatest that have been produced, and no one +wishes in any way to belittle the genius of the English people.</p> +<p>In this country the average person speaks fairly good English, +and you will find substantially the same English spoken in most of +the country; whereas in England there is a different dialect in +almost every county, and most of the English people speak the +language as if was not their native tongue. I think it will be +admitted that the English write a good deal better than they speak, +and that their pronunciation is not altogether perfect.</p> +<p>These things, however, are not worth speaking of. There is no +absolute standard. They speak in the way that is natural to them, +and we in the way that is natural to us. This difference furnishes +no foundation for a claim of general superiority. The English +actors are not brought here on account of their excellence, but on +account of their cheapness. It requires no great ability to play +the minor parts, or the leading roles in some plays, for that +matter. And yet acting is a business, a profession, a means of +getting bread.</p> +<p>We protect our mechanics and makers of locomotives and of all +other articles. Why should we not protect, by the same means, the +actor? You may say that we can get along without actors. So we can +get along without painters, without sculptors and without poets. +But a nation that gets along without these people of genius amounts +to but little. We can do without music, without players and without +composers; but when we take art and poetry and music and the +theatre out of the world, it becomes an exceedingly dull place.</p> +<p>Actors are protected and cared for in proportion that people are +civilized. If the people are intelligent, educated, and have +imaginations, they enjoy the world of the stage, the creations of +poets, and they are thrilled by great music, and, as a consequence, +respect the dramatist, the actor and the musician.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. It is claimed that an amendment to the law, +such as is desired, will interfere with the growth of art?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. No one is endeavoring to keep stars from this +country. If they have American support, and the stars really know +anything, the American actors will get the benefit. If they bring +their support with them, the American actor is not particularly +benefitted, and the star, when the season is over, takes his art +and his money with him.</p> +<p>Managers who insist on employing foreign support are not +sacrificing anything for art. Their object is to make money. They +care nothing for the American actor—nothing for the American +drama. They look for the receipts. It is the sheerest cant to +pretend that they are endeavoring to protect art.</p> +<p>On the 26th of February, 1885, a law was passed making it +unlawful "for any person, company, partnership or corporation, in +any manner whatsoever, to prepay the transportation, or in any way +assist or encourage the importation or emigration of any alien or +aliens into the United States, under contract or agreement, parol +or special, previous to the importation or emigration of such +aliens to perform labor or services of any kind the United +States."</p> +<p>By this act it was provided that its provisions should not apply +to professional actors, artists, lecturers or singers, in regard to +persons employed strictly as personal or domestic servants. The +object now in view is so to amend the law that its provision shall +apply to all actors except stars.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. In this connection there has been so much said +about the art of acting—what is your idea as to that art?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Above all things in acting, there must be +proportion. There are no miracles in art or nature. All that is +done—every inflection and gesture—must be in perfect +harmony with the circumstances. Sensationalism is based on +deformity, and bears the same relation to proportion that +caricature does to likeness.</p> +<p>The stream that flows even with its banks, making the meadows +green, delights us ever; the one that overflows surprises for a +moment. But we do not want a succession of floods.</p> +<p>In acting there must be natural growth, not sudden climax. The +atmosphere of the situation, the relation sustained to others, +should produce the emotions. Nothing should be strained. Beneath +domes there should be buildings, and buildings should have +foundations. There must be growth. There should be the bud, the +leaf, the flower, in natural sequence. There must be no leap from +naked branches to the perfect fruit.</p> +<p>Most actors depend on climax—they save themselves for the +supreme explosion. The scene opens with a slow match and ends when +the spark reaches the dynamite. So, most authors fill the first act +with contradictions and the last with explanations. Plots and +counter-plots, violence and vehemence, perfect saints and perfect +villains—that is to say, monsters, impelled by improbable +motives, meet upon the stage, where they are pushed and pulled for +the sake of the situation, and where everything is so managed that +the fire reaches the powder and the explosion is the climax.</p> +<p>There is neither time, nor climate, nor soil, in which the +emotions and intentions may grow. No land is plowed, no seed is +sowed, no rain falls, no light glows—the events are all +orphans.</p> +<p>No one would enjoy a sudden sunset—we want the clouds of +gold that float in the azure sea. No one would enjoy a sudden +sunrise—we are in love with the morning star, with the dawn +that modestly heralds the day and draws aside, with timid hands, +the curtains of the night. In other words, we want sequence, +proportion, logic, beauty.</p> +<p>There are several actors in this country who are in perfect +accord with nature—who appear to make no effort—whose +acting seems to give them joy and rest. We do well what we do +easily. It is a great mistake to exhaust yourself, instead of the +subject. All great actors "fill the stage" because they hold the +situation. You see them and nothing else.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Speaking of American actors, Colonel, I believe +you are greatly interested in the playing of Miss Marlowe, and have +given your opinion of her as Parthenia; what do you think of her +Julia and Viola?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. A little while ago I saw Miss Marlowe as Julia, +in "The Hunchback." We must remember the limitations of the play. +Nothing can excel the simplicity, the joyous content of the first +scene. Nothing could be more natural than the excitement produced +by the idea of leaving what you feel to be simple and yet good, for +what you think is magnificent, brilliant and intoxicating. It is +only in youth that we are willing to make this exchange. One does +not see so clearly in the morning of life when the sun shines in +his eyes. In the afternoon, when the sun is behind him, he sees +better —he is no longer dazzled. In old age we are not only +willing, but anxious, to exchange wealth and fame and glory and +magnificence, for simplicity. All the palaces are nothing compared +with our little cabin, and all the flowers of the world are naught +to the wild rose that climbs and blossoms by the lowly window of +content.</p> +<p>Happiness dwells in the valleys with the shadows.</p> +<p>The moment Julia is brought in contact with wealth, she longs +for the simple—for the true love of one true man. Wealth and +station are mockeries. These feelings, these emotions, Miss Marlowe +rendered not only with look and voice and gesture, but with every +pose of her body; and when assured that her nuptials with the Earl +could be avoided, the only question in her mind was as to the +absolute preservation of her honor—not simply in fact, but in +appearance, so that even hatred could not see a speck upon the +shining shield of her perfect truth. In this scene she was +perfect—everything was forgotten except the desire to be +absolutely true.</p> +<p>So in the scene with Master Walter, when he upbraids her for +forgetting that she is about to meet her father, when excusing her +forgetfulness on the ground that he has been to her a father. +Nothing could exceed the delicacy and tenderness of this passage. +Every attitude expressed love, gentleness, and a devotion even unto +death. One felt that there could be no love left for the father she +expected to meet—Master Walter had it all.</p> +<p>A greater Julia was never on the stage—one in whom so much +passion mingled with so much purity. Miss Marlowe never "o'ersteps +the modesty of nature." She maintains proportion. The river of her +art flows even with the banks.</p> +<p>In Viola, we must remember the character—a girl just +rescued from the sea—disguised as a boy—employed by the +Duke, whom she instantly loves—sent as his messenger to woo +another for him—Olivia enamored of the messenger—forced +to a duel—mistaken for her brother by the Captain, and her +brother taken for herself by Olivia—and yet, in the midst of +these complications and disguises, she remains a pure and perfect +girl—these circumstances having no more real effect upon her +passionate and subtle self than clouds on stars.</p> +<p>When Malvolio follows and returns the ring the whole truth +flashes upon her. She is in love with Orsino—this she knows. +Olivia, she believes, is in love with her. The edge of the +situation, the dawn of this entanglement, excites her mirth. In +this scene she becomes charming—an impersonation of Spring. +Her laughter is as natural and musical as the song of a brook. So, +in the scene with Olivia in which she cries, "Make me a willow +cabin at your gate!" she is the embodiment of grace, and her voice +is as musical as the words, and as rich in tone as they are in +thought.</p> +<p>In the duel with Sir Andrew she shows the difference between the +delicacy of woman and the cowardice of man. She does the little +that she can, not for her own sake, but for the sake of her +disguise —she feels that she owes something to her +clothes.</p> +<p>But I have said enough about this actress to give you an idea of +one who is destined to stand first in her profession.</p> +<p>We will now come back to the real question. I am in favor of +protecting the American actor. I regard the theatre as the +civilizer of man. All the arts united upon the stage, and the +genius of the race has been lavished on this mimic world.</p> +<p>—<i>New York Star</i>, December 23, 1888.</p> +<a name="link0083" id="link0083"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>LIBERALS AND LIBERALISM.</h2> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think of the prospects of +Liberalism in this country?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. The prospects of Liberalism are precisely the +same as the prospects of civilization—that is to say, of +progress. As the people become educated, they become liberal. +Bigotry is the provincialism of the mind. Men are bigoted who are +not acquainted with the thoughts of others. They have been taught +one thing, and have been made to believe that their little mental +horizon is the circumference of all knowledge. The bigot lives in +an ignorant village, surrounded by ignorant neighbors. This is the +honest bigot. The dishonest bigot may know better, but he remains a +bigot because his salary depends upon it. A bigot is like a country +that has had no commerce with any other. He imagines that in his +little head there is everything of value. When a man becomes an +intellectual explorer, an intellectual traveler, he begins to +widen, to grow liberal. He finds that the ideas of others are as +good as and often better than his own. The habits and customs of +other people throw light on his own, and by this light he is +enabled to discover at least some of his own mistakes. Now the +world has become acquainted. A few years ago, a man knew something +of the doctrines of his own church. Now he knows the creeds of +others, and not only so, but he has examined to some extent the +religions of other nations. He finds in other creeds all the +excellencies that are in his own, and most of the mistakes. In this +way he learns that all creeds have been produced by men, and that +their differences have been accounted for by race, climate, +heredity—that is to say, by a difference in circumstances. So +we now know that the cause of Liberalism is the cause of +civilization. Unless the race is to be a failure, the cause of +Liberalism must succeed. Consequently, I have the same faith in +that cause that I have in the human race.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Where are the most Liberals, and in what +section of the country is the best work for Liberalism being +done?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. The most Liberals are in the most intelligent +section of the United States. Where people think the most, there +you will find the most Liberals; where people think the least, you +will find the most bigots. Bigotry is produced by +feeling—Liberalism by thinking—that is to say, the one +is a prejudice, the other a principle. Every geologist, every +astronomer, every scientist, is doing a noble work for Liberalism. +Every man who finds a fact, and demonstrates it, is doing work for +the cause. All the literature of our time that is worth reading is +on the liberal side. All the fiction that really interests the +human mind is with us. No one cares to read the old theological +works. Essays written by professors of theological colleges are +regarded, even by Christians, with a kind of charitable contempt. +When any demonstration of science is attacked by a creed, or a +passage of Scripture, all the intelligent smile. For these reasons +I think that the best work for Liberalism is being done where the +best work for science is being done—where the best work for +man is being accomplished. Every legislator that assists in the +repeal of theological laws is doing a great work for +Liberalism.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. In your opinion, what relation do Liberalism +and Prohibition bear to each other?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I do not think they have anything to do with each +other. They have nothing in common except this: The +Prohibitionists, I presume, are endeavoring to do what they can for +temperance; so all intelligent Liberals are doing what they can for +the cause of temperance. The Prohibitionist endeavors to accomplish +his object by legislation—the Liberalist by education, by +civilization, by example, by persuasion. The method of the +Liberalist is good, that of the Prohibitionist chimerical and +fanatical.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you think that Liberals should undertake a +reform in the marriage and divorce laws and relations?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I think that Liberals should do all in their +power to induce people to regard marriage and divorce in a sensible +light, and without the slightest reference to any theological +ideas. They should use their influence to the end that marriage +shall be considered as a contract—the highest and holiest +that men and women can make. And they should also use their +influence to have the laws of divorce based on this fundamental +idea,—that marriage is a contract. All should be done that +can be done by law to uphold the sacredness of this relation. All +should be done that can be done to impress upon the minds of all +men and all women their duty to discharge all the obligations of +the marriage contract faithfully and cheerfully. I do not believe +that it is to the interest of the State or of the Nation, that +people should be compelled to live together who hate each other, or +that a woman should be bound to a man who has been false and who +refuses to fulfill the contract of marriage. I do not believe that +any man should call upon the police, or upon the creeds, or upon +the church, to compel his wife to remain under his roof, or to +compel a woman against her will to become the mother of his +children. In other words, Liberals should endeavor to civilize +mankind, and when men and women are civilized, the marriage +question, and the divorce question, will be settled.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Should Liberals vote on Liberal issues?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I think that, other things being anywhere near +equal, Liberals should vote for men who believe in liberty, men who +believe in giving to others the rights they claim for +themselves—that is to say, for civilized men, for men of some +breadth of mind. Liberals should do what they can to do away with +all the theological absurdities.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Can, or ought, the Liberals and Spiritualists +to unite?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. All people should unite where they have objects +in common. They can vote together, and act together, without +believing the same on all points. A Liberal is not necessarily a +Spiritualist, and a Spiritualist is not necessarily a Liberal. If +Spiritualists wish to liberalize the Government, certainly Liberals +would be glad of their assistance, and if Spiritualists take any +step in the direction of freedom, the Liberals should stand by them +to that extent.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Which is the more dangerous to American +institutions —the National Reform Association +(God-in-the-Constitution party) or the Roman Catholic Church?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. The Association and the Catholic Church are +dangerous according to their power. The Catholic Church has far +more power than the Reform Association, and is consequently far +more dangerous. The God-in-the-Constitution association is weak, +fanatical, stupid, and absurd. What God are we to have in the +Constitution? Whose God? If we should agree to-morrow to put God in +the Constitution, the question would then be: Which God? On that +question, the religious world would fall out. In that direction +there is no danger. But the Roman Catholic Church is the enemy of +intellectual liberty. It is the enemy of investigation. It is the +enemy of free schools. That church always has been, always will be, +the enemy of freedom. It works in the dark. When in a minority it +is humility itself—when in power it is the impersonation of +arrogance. In weakness it crawls—in power it stands erect, +and compels its victims to fall upon their faces. The most +dangerous institution in this world, so far as the intellectual +liberty of man is concerned, is the Roman Catholic Church. Next to +that is the Protestant Church.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What is your opinion of the Christian religion +and the Christian Church?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. My opinion upon this subject is certainly well +known. The Christian Church is founded upon miracles—that is +to say, upon impossibilities. Of course, there is a great deal that +is good in the creeds of the churches, and in the sermons delivered +by its ministers; but mixed with this good is much that is evil. My +principal objection to orthodox religion is the dogma of eternal +pain. Nothing can be more infamously absurd. All civilized men +should denounce it—all women should regard it with a kind of +shuddering abhorrence.</p> +<p>—<i>Secular Thought</i>, Toronto, Canada, 1888.</p> +<a name="link0084" id="link0084"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>POPE LEO XIII.</h2> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you agree with the views of Pope Leo XIII. +as expressed in <i>The Herald</i> of last week?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I am not personally acquainted with Leo XIII., +but I have not the slightest idea that he loves Americans or their +country. I regard him as an enemy of intellectual liberty. He tells +us that where the church is free it will increase, and I say to him +that where others are free it will not. The Catholic Church has +increased in this country by immigration and in no other way. +Possibly the Pope is willing to use his power for the good of the +whole people, Protestants and Catholics, and to increase their +prosperity and happiness, because by this he means that he will use +his power to make Catholics out of Protestants.</p> +<p>It is impossible for the Catholic Church to be in favor of +mental freedom. That church represents absolute authority. Its +members have no right to reason—no right to ask +questions—they are called upon simply to believe and to pay +their subscriptions.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you agree with the Pope when he says that +the result of efforts which have been made to throw aside +Christianity and live without it can be seen in the present +condition of society— discontent, disorder, hatred and +profound unhappiness?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Undoubtedly the people of Europe who wish to be +free are discontented. Undoubtedly these efforts to have something +like justice done will bring disorder. Those in power will hate +those who are endeavoring to drive them from their thrones. If the +people now, as formerly, would bear all burdens cheerfully placed +upon their shoulders by church and state—that is to say, if +they were so enslaved mentally that they would not even have sense +enough to complain, then there would be what the Pope might call +"peace and happiness"—that is to say, the peace of ignorance, +and the happiness of those who are expecting pay in another world +for their agonies endured in this.</p> +<p>Of course, the revolutionaries of Europe are not satisfied with +the Catholic religion; neither are they satisfied with the +Protestant. Both of these religions rest upon authority. Both +discourage reason. Both say "Let him that hath ears to hear, hear," +but neither say let him that hath brains to think, think.</p> +<p>Christianity has been thoroughly tried, and it is a failure. +Nearly every church has upheld slavery, not only of the body, but +of the mind. When Christian missionaries invade what they call a +heathen country, they are followed in a little while by merchants +and traders, and in a few days afterward by the army. The first +real work is to kill the heathen or steal their lands, or else +reduce them to something like slavery.</p> +<p>I have no confidence in the reformation of this world by +churches. Churches for the most part exist, not for this world, but +for another. They are founded upon the supernatural, and they say: +"Take no thought for the morrow; put your trust in your Heavenly +Father and he will take care of you." On the other hand, science +says: "You must take care of yourself, live for the world in which +you happen to be—if there is another, live for that when you +get there."</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think of the plan to better the +condition of the workingmen, by committees headed by bishops of the +Catholic Church, in discussing their duties?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. If the bishops wish to discuss with anybody about +duties they had better discuss with the employers, instead of the +employed. This discussion had better take place between the clergy +and the capitalist. There is no need of discussing this question +with the poor wretches who cannot earn more than enough to keep +their souls in their bodies. If the Catholic Church has so much +power, and if it represents God on earth, let it turn its attention +to softening the hearts of capitalists, and no longer waste its +time in preaching patience to the poor slaves who are now bearing +the burdens of the world.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you agree with the Pope that: "Sound rules +of life must be founded on religion"?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I do not. Sound rules of life must be founded on +the experience of mankind. In other words, we must live for this +world. Why should men throw away hundreds and thousands of millions +of dollars in building cathedrals and churches, and paying the +salaries of bishops and priests, and cardinals and popes, and get +no possible return for all this money except a few guesses about +another world —those guesses being stated as facts—when +every pope and priest and bishop knows that no one knows the +slightest thing on the subject. Superstition is the greatest burden +borne by the industry of the world.</p> +<p>The nations of Europe to-day all pretend to be Christian, yet +millions of men are drilled and armed for the purpose of killing +other Christians. Each Christian nation is fortified to prevent +other Christians from devastating their fields. There is already a +debt of about twenty-five thousand millions of dollars which has +been incurred by Christian nations, because each one is afraid of +every other, and yet all say: "It is our duty to love our +enemies."</p> +<p>This world, in my judgment, is to be reformed through +intelligence —through development of the mind—not by +credulity, but by investigation; not by faith in the supernatural, +but by faith in the natural. The church has passed the zenith of +her power. The clergy must stand aside. Scientists must take their +places.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you agree with the Pope in attacking the +present governments of Europe and the memories of Mazzini and +Saffi?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I do not. I think Mazzini was of more use to +Italy than all the popes that ever occupied the chair of St. +Peter—which, by the way, was not his chair. I have a thousand +times more regard for Mazzini, for Garibaldi, for Cavour, than I +have for any gentleman who pretends to be the representative of +God.</p> +<p>There is another objection I have to the Pope, and that is that +he was so scandalized when a monument was reared in Rome to the +memory of Giordano Bruno. Bruno was murdered about two hundred and +sixty years ago by the Catholic Church, and such has been the +development of the human brain and heart that on the very spot +where he was murdered a monument rises to his memory.</p> +<p>But the vicar of God has remained stationary, and he regards +this mark of honor to one of the greatest and noblest of the human +race as an act of blasphemy. The poor old man acts as if America +had never been discovered—as if the world were still +flat—and as if the stars had been made out of little pieces +left over from the creation of the world and stuck in the sky +simply to beautify the night.</p> +<p>But, after all, I do not blame this Pope. He is the victim of +his surroundings. He was never married. His heart was never +softened by wife or children. He was born that way, and, to tell +you the truth, he has my sincere sympathy. Let him talk about +America and stay in Italy.</p> +<p>—<i>The Herald</i>, New York, April 22, 1890.</p> +<a name="link0085" id="link0085"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>THE SACREDNESS OF THE SABBATH.</h2> +<h3><i>Question</i>. What do you think of the sacredness of the +Sabbath?</h3> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I think all days, all times and all seasons are +alike sacred. I think the best day in a man's life is the day that +he is truly the happiest. Every day in which good is done to +humanity is a holy day.</p> +<p>If I were to make a calendar of sacred days, I would put down +the days in which the greatest inventions came to the mind of +genius; the days when scattered tribes became nations; the days +when good laws were passed; the days when bad ones were repealed; +the days when kings were dethroned, and the people given their own; +in other words, every day in which good has been done; in which men +and women have truly fallen in love, days in which babes were born +destined to change the civilization of the world. These are all +sacred days; days in which men have fought for the right, suffered +for the right, died for the right; all days in which there were +heroic actions for good. The day when slavery was abolished in the +United States is holier than any Sabbath by reason of "divine +consecration."</p> +<p>Of course, I care nothing about the sacredness of the Sabbath +because it was hallowed in the Old Testament, or because of that +day Jehovah is said to have rested from his labors. A space of time +cannot be sacred, any more than a vacuum can be sacred, and it is +rendered sacred by deeds done in it, and not in and of itself.</p> +<p>If we should finally invent some means of traveling by which we +could go a thousand miles a day, a man could escape Sunday all his +life by traveling West. He could start Monday, and stay Monday all +the time. Or, if he should some time get near the North Pole, he +could walk faster than the earth turns and thus beat Sunday all the +while.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Should not the museums and art galleries be +thrown open to the workingmen free on Sunday?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Undoubtedly. In all civilized countries this is +done, and I believe it would be done in New York, only it is said +that money has been given on condition that the museums should be +kept closed on Sundays. I have always heard it said that large sums +will be withheld by certain old people who have the prospect of +dying in the near future if the museums are open on Sunday.</p> +<p>This, however, seems to me a very poor and shallow excuse. Money +should not be received under such conditions. One of the curses of +our country has been the giving of gifts to colleges on certain +conditions. As, for instance, the money given to Andover by the +original founder on the condition that a certain creed be taught, +and other large amounts have been given on a like condition. Now, +the result of this is that the theological professor must teach +what these donors have indicated, or go out of the institution; or +—and this last "or" is generally the trouble—teach what +he does not believe, endeavoring to get around it by giving new +meaning to old words.</p> +<p>I think the cause of intellectual progress has been much delayed +by these conditions put in the wills of supposed benefactors, so +that after they are dead they can rule people who have the habit of +being alive. In my opinion, a corpse is a poor ruler, and after a +man is dead he should keep quiet.</p> +<p>Of course all that he did will live, and should be allowed to +have its natural effect. If he was a great inventor or discoverer, +or if he uttered great truths, these became the property of the +world; but he should not endeavor, after he is dead, to rule the +living by conditions attached to his gifts.</p> +<p>All the museums and libraries should be opened, not only to +workingmen, but to all others. If to see great paintings, great +statues, wonderful works of art; if to read the thoughts of the +greatest men—if these things tend to the civilization of the +race, then they should be put as nearly as possible within the +reach of all.</p> +<p>The man who works eight or ten or twelve hours a day has not +time during the six days of labor to visit libraries or museums. +Sunday is his day of leisure, his day of recreation, and on that +day he should have the privilege, and he himself should deem it a +right to visit all the public libraries and museums, parks and +gardens.</p> +<p>In other words, I think the laboring man should have the same +rights on Sundays, to say the least of it, that wealthy people have +on other days. The man of wealth has leisure. He can attend these +places on any day he may desire; but necessity being the master of +the poor man, Sunday is his one day for such a purpose. For men of +wealth to close the museums and libraries on that day, shows that +they have either a mistaken idea as to the well-being of their +fellow-men, or that they care nothing about the rights of any +except the wealthy.</p> +<p>Personally, I have no sort of patience with the theological +snivel and drivel about the sacredness of the Sabbath. I do not +understand why they do not accept the words of their own Christ, +namely, that "the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the +Sabbath."</p> +<p>The hypocrites of Judea were great sticklers for the Sabbath, +and the orthodox Christians of New York are exactly the same. My +own opinion is that a man who has been at work all the week, in the +dust and heat, can hardly afford to waste his Sunday in hearing an +orthodox sermon—a sermon that gives him the cheerful +intelligence that his chances for being damned are largely in the +majority. I think it is far better for the workingman to go out +with his family in the park, into the woods, to some German garden, +where he can hear the music of Wagner, or even the waltzes of +Strauss, or to take a boat and go down to the shore of the sea. I +think than in summer a few waves of the ocean are far more +refreshing then all the orthodox sermons of the world.</p> +<p>As a matter of fact, I believe the preachers leave the city in +the summer and let the Devil do his worst. Whether it is believed +that the Devil has less power in warm weather, I do not know. But I +do know that, as the mercury rises, the anxiety about souls +decreases, and the hotter New York becomes, the cooler hell seems +to be.</p> +<p>I want the workingman, no matter what he works at—whether +at doctoring people, or trying law suits, or running for +office—to have a real good time on Sunday. He, of course, +must be careful not to interfere with the rights of others. He +ought not to play draw-poker on the steps of a church; neither +should he stone a Chinese funeral, nor go to any excesses; but all +the week long he should have it in his mind: Next Sunday I am going +to have a good time. My wife and I and the children are going to +have a happy time. I am going out with the girl I like; or my young +man is going to take me to the picnic. And this thought, and this +hope, of having a good time on Sunday—of seeing some great +pictures at the Metropolitan Art Gallery—together with a good +many bad ones— will make work easy and lighten the burden on +the shoulders of toil.</p> +<p>I take a great interest, too, in the working +women—particularly in the working woman. I think that every +workingman should see to it that every working woman has a good +time on Sunday. I am no preacher. All I want is that everybody +should enjoy himself in a way that he will not and does not +interfere with the enjoyment of others.</p> +<p>It will not do to say that we cannot trust the people. Our +Government is based upon the idea that the people can be trusted, +and those who say that the workingmen cannot be trusted, do not +believe in Republican or Democratic institutions. For one, I am +perfectly willing to trust the working people of the country. I do, +every day. I trust the engineers on the cars and steamers. I trust +the builders of houses. I trust all laboring men every day of my +life, and if the laboring people of the country were not +trustworthy—if they were malicious or dishonest—life +would not be worth living.</p> +<p>—<i>The Journal</i>, New York, June 6, 1890.</p> +<a name="link0086" id="link0086"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>THE WEST AND SOUTH.</h2> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you think the South will ever equal or +surpass the West in point of prosperity?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I do not. The West has better soil and more of +the elements of wealth. It is not liable to yellow fever; its +rivers have better banks; the people have more thrift, more +enterprise, more political hospitality; education is more general; +the people are more inventive; better traders, and besides all +this, there is no race problem. The Southern people are what their +surroundings made them, and the influence of slavery has not yet +died out. In my judgment the climate of the West is superior to +that of the South. The West has good, cold winters, and they make +people a little more frugal, prudent and industrious. Winters make +good homes, cheerful firesides, and, after all, civilization +commences at the hearthstone. The South is growing, and will +continue to grow, but it will never equal the West. The West is +destined to dominate the Republic.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you consider the new ballot-law adapted to +the needs of our system of elections? If not, in what particulars +does it require amendment?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Personally I like the brave and open way. The +secret ballot lacks courage. I want people to know just how I vote. +The old <i>viva voce</i> way was manly and looked well. Every +American should be taught that he votes as a sovereign—an +emperor—and he should exercise the right in a kingly way. But +if we must have the secret ballot, then let it be secret indeed, +and let the crowd stand back while the king votes.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think of the service pension +movement?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I see that there is a great deal of talk here in +Indiana about this service pension movement. It has always seemed +to me that the pension fund has been frittered away. Of what use is +it to give a man two or three dollars a month? If a man is rich why +should he have any pension? I think it would be better to give +pensions only to the needy, and then give them enough to support +them. If the man was in the army a day or a month, and was +uninjured, and can make his own living, or has enough, why should +he have a pension? I believe in giving to the wounded and disabled +and poor, with a liberal hand, but not to the rich. I know that the +nation could not pay the men who fought and suffered. There is not +money enough in the world to pay the heroes for what they did and +endured —but there is money enough to keep every wounded and +diseased soldier from want. There is money enough to fill the lives +of those who gave limbs or health for the sake of the Republic, +with comfort and happiness. I would also like to see the poor +soldier taken care of whether he was wounded or not, but I see no +propriety in giving to those who do not need.</p> +<p>—<i>The Journal</i>, Indianapolis, Indiana, June 21, +1890.</p> +<a name="link0087" id="link0087"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>THE WESTMINSTER CREED AND OTHER SUBJECTS.</h2> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think of the revision of the +Westminster creed?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I think that the intelligence and morality of the +age demand the revision. The Westminster creed is infamous. It +makes God an infinite monster, and men the most miserable of +beings. That creed has made millions insane. It has furrowed +countless cheeks with tears. Under its influence the sentiments and +sympathies of the heart have withered. This creed was written by +the worst of men. The civilized Presbyterians do not believe it. +The intelligent clergyman will not preach it, and all good men who +understand it, hold it in abhorrence. But the fact is that it is +just as good as the creed of any orthodox church. All these creeds +must be revised. Young America will not be consoled by the doctrine +of eternal pain. Yes, the creeds must be revised or the churches +will be closed.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think of the influence of the press +on religion?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. If you mean on orthodox religion, then I say the +press is helping to destroy it. Just to the extent that the press +is intelligent and fearless, it is and must be the enemy of +superstition. Every fact in the universe is the enemy of every +falsehood. The press furnishes food for, and excites thought. This +tends to the destruction of the miraculous and absurd. I regard the +press as the friend of progress and consequently the foe of +orthodox religion. The old dogmas do not make the people happy. +What is called religion is full of fear and grief. The clergy are +always talking about dying, about the grave and eternal pain. They +do not add to the sunshine of life. If they could have their way +all the birds would stop singing, the flowers would lose their +color and perfume, and all the owls would sit on dead trees and +hoot, "Broad is the road that leads to death."</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. If you should write your last sentence on +religious topics what would be your closing?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I now in the presence of death affirm and +reaffirm the truth of all that I have said against the +superstitions of the world. I would say at least that much on the +subject with my last breath.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What, in your opinion, will be Browning's +position in the literature of the future?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Lower than at present. Mrs. Browning was far +greater than her husband. He never wrote anything comparable to +"Mother and Poet." Browning lacked form, and that is as great a +lack in poetry as it is in sculpture. He was the author of some +great lines, some great thoughts, but he was obscure, uneven and +was always mixing the poetic with the commonplace. To me he cannot +be compared with Shelley or Keats, or with our own Walt Whitman. Of +course poetry cannot be very well discussed. Each man knows what he +likes, what touches his heart and what words burst into blossom, +but he cannot judge for others. After one has read Shakespeare, +Burns and Byron, and Shelley and Keats; after he has read the +"Sonnets" and the "Daisy" and the "Prisoner of Chillon" and the +"Skylark" and the "Ode to the Grecian Urn"—the "Flight of the +Duchess" seems a little weak.</p> +<p>—<i>The Post-Express</i>, Rochester, New York, June 23, +1890.</p> +<a name="link0088" id="link0088"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>SHAKESPEARE AND BACON.</h2> +<p><i>Question</i>. What is your opinion of Ignatius Donnelly as a +literary man irrespective of his Baconian theory?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I know that Mr. Donnelly enjoys the reputation of +being a man of decided ability and that he is regarded by many as a +great orator. He is known to me through his Baconian theory, and in +that of course I have no confidence. It is nearly as ingenious as +absurd. He has spent great time, and has devoted much curious +learning to the subject, and has at last succeeded in convincing +himself that Shakespeare claimed that which he did not write, and +that Bacon wrote that which he did not claim. But to me the theory +is without the slightest foundation.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Mr. Donnelly asks: "Can you imagine the author +of such grand productions retiring to that mud house in Stratford +to live without a single copy of the quarto that has made his name +famous?" What do you say?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Yes; I can. Shakespeare died in 1616, and the +quarto was published in 1623, seven years after he was dead. Under +these circumstances I think Shakespeare ought to be excused, even +by those who attack him with the greatest bitterness, for not +having a copy of the book. There is, however, another side to his. +Bacon did not die until long after the quarto was published. Did he +have a copy? Did he mention the copy in his will? Did he ever +mention the quarto in any letter, essay, or in any way? He left a +library, was there a copy of the plays in it? Has there ever been +found a line from any play or sonnet in his handwriting? Bacon left +his writings, his papers, all in perfect order, but no plays, no +sonnets, said nothing about plays—claimed nothing on their +behalf. This is the other side. Now, there is still another thing. +The edition of 1623 was published by Shakespeare's friends, Heminge +and Condell. They knew him—had been with him for years, and +they collected most of his plays and put them in book form.</p> +<p>Ben Jonson wrote a preface, in which he placed Shakespeare above +all the other poets—declared that he was for all time.</p> +<p>The edition of 1623 was gotten up by actors, by the friends and +associates of Shakespeare, vouched for by dramatic writers—by +those who knew him. This is enough.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. How do you explain the figure: "His soul, like +Mazeppa, was lashed naked to the wild horse of every fear and love +and hate"? Mr. Donnelly does not understand you.</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. It hardly seems necessary to explain a thing as +simple and plain as that. Men are carried away by some fierce +passion— carried away in spite of themselves as Mazeppa was +carried by the wild horse to which he was lashed. Whether the +comparison is good or bad it is at least plain. Nothing could tempt +me to call Mr. Donnelly's veracity in question. He says that he +does not understand the sentence and I most cheerfully admit that +he tells the exact truth.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Mr. Donnelly says that you said: "Where there +is genius, education seems almost unnecessary," and he denounces +your doctrine as the most abominable doctrine ever taught. What +have you to say to that?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. In the first place, I never made the remark. In +the next place, it may be well enough to ask what education is. +Much is taught in colleges that is of no earthly use; much is +taught that is hurtful. There are thousands of educated men who +never graduated from any college or university. Every observant, +thoughtful man is educating himself as long as he lives. Men are +better then books. Observation is a great teacher. A man of talent +learns slowly. He does not readily see the necessary relation that +one fact bears to another. A man of genius, learning one fact, +instantly sees hundreds of others. It is not necessary for such a +man to attend college. The world is his university. Every man he +meets is a book—every woman a volume every fact a +torch—and so without the aid of the so-called schools he +rises to the very top. Shakespeare was such a man.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Mr. Donnelly says that: "The biggest myth ever +on earth was Shakespeare, and that if Francis Bacon had said to the +people, I, Francis Bacon, a gentleman of gentlemen, have been +taking in secret my share of the coppers and shillings taken at the +door of those low playhouses, he would have been ruined. If he had +put the plays forth simply as poetry it would have ruined his legal +reputation." What do you think of this?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I hardly think that Shakespeare was a myth. He +was certainly born, married, lived in London, belonged to a company +of actors; went back to Stratford, where he had a family, and died. +All these things do not as a rule happen to myths. In addition to +this, those who knew him believed him to be the author of the +plays. Bacon's friends never suspected him. I do not think it would +have hurt Bacon to have admitted that he wrote "Lear" and +"Othello," and that he was getting "coppers and shillings" to which +he was justly entitled. Certainly not as much as for him to have +written this, which if fact, though not in exact form, he did +write: "I, Francis Bacon, a gentleman of gentlemen, have been +taking coppers and shillings to which I was not entitled—but +which I received as bribes while sitting as a judge." He has been +excused for two reasons. First, because his salary was small, and, +second, because it was the custom for judges to receive +presents.</p> +<p>Bacon was a lawyer. He was charged with corruption—with +having taken bribes, with having sold his decisions. He knew what +the custom was and knew how small his salary was. But he did not +plead the custom in his defense. He did not mention the smallness +of the salary. He confessed that he was guilty—as charged. +His confession was deemed too general and he was called upon by the +Lords to make a specific confession. This he did. He specified the +cases in which he had received the money and told how much, and +begged for mercy. He did not make his confession, as Mr. Donnelly +is reported to have said, to get his fine remitted. The confession +was made before the fine was imposed.</p> +<p>Neither do I think that the theatre in which the plays of +Shakespeare were represented could or should be called a "low play +house." The fact that "Othello," "Lear," "Hamlet," "Julius +Cæsar," and the other great dramas were first played in that +playhouse made it the greatest building in the world. The gods +themselves should have occupied seats in that theatre, where for +the first time the greatest productions of the human mind were put +upon the stage.</p> +<p>—<i>The Tribune</i>, Minneapolis, Minn., May 31, 1891.</p> +<a name="link0089" id="link0089"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>GROWING OLD GRACEFULLY, AND PRESBYTERIANISM.</h2> +<p><i>Question</i>. How have you acquired the art of growing old +gracefully?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. It is very hard to live a great while without +getting old, and it is hardly worth while to die just to keep +young. It is claimed that people with certain incomes live longer +than those who have to earn their bread. But the income people have +a stupid kind of life, and though they may hang on a good many +years, they can hardly be said to do much real living. The best you +can say is, not that they lived so many years, but that it took +them so many years to die. Some people imagine that regular habits +prolong life, but that depends somewhat on the habits. Only the +other day I read an article written by a physician, in which +regular habits —good ones, were declared to be quite +dangerous.</p> +<p>Where life is perfectly regular, all the wear and tear comes on +the same nerves—every blow falls on the same place. Variety, +even in a bad direction, is a great relief. But living long has +nothing to do with getting old gracefully. Good nature is a great +enemy of wrinkles, and cheerfulness helps the complexion. If we +could only keep from being annoyed at little things, it would add +to the luxury of living. Great sorrows are few, and after all do +not affect us as much as the many irritating, almost nothings that +attack from every side. The traveler is bothered more with dust +than mountains. It is a great thing to have an object in +life— something to work for and think for. If a man thinks +only about himself, his own comfort, his own importance, he will +not grow old gracefully. More and more his spirit, small and mean, +will leave its impress on his face, and especially in his eyes. You +look at him and feel that there is no jewel in the casket; that a +shriveled soul is living in a tumble-down house.</p> +<p>The body gets its grace from the mind. I suppose that we are all +more or less responsible for our looks. Perhaps the thinker of +great thoughts, the doer of noble deeds, moulds his features in +harmony with his life.</p> +<p>Probably the best medicine, the greatest beautifier in the +world, is to make somebody else happy. I have noticed that good +mothers have faces as serene as a cloudless day in June, and the +older the serener. It is a great thing to know the relative +importance of things, and those who do, get the most out of life. +Those who take an interest in what they see, and keep their minds +busy are always young.</p> +<p>The other day I met a blacksmith who has given much attention to +geology and fossil remains. He told me how happy he was in his +excursions. He was nearly seventy years old, and yet he had the +enthusiasm of a boy. He said he had some very fine specimens, +"but," said he, "nearly every night I dream of finding perfect +ones."</p> +<p>That man will keep young as long as he lives. As long as a man +lives he should study. Death alone has the right to dismiss the +school. No man can get too much knowledge. In that, he can have all +the avarice he wants, but he can get too much property. If the +business men would stop when they got enough, they might have a +chance to grow old gracefully. But the most of them go on and on, +until, like the old stage horse, stiff and lame, they drop dead in +the road. The intelligent, the kind, the reasonably contented, the +courageous, the self-poised, grow old gracefully.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Are not the restraints to free religious +thought being worn away, as the world grows older, and will not the +recent attacks of the religious press and pulpit upon the +unorthodoxy of Dr. Briggs, Rev. R. Heber Newton and the prospective +Episcopal bishop of Massachusetts, Dr. Phillips Brooks, and others, +have a tendency still further to extend this freedom?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Of course the world is growing somewhat +wiser—getting more sense day by day. It is amazing to me that +any human being or beings ever wrote the Presbyterian creed. +Nothing can be more absurd—more barbaric than that creed. It +makes man the sport of an infinite monster, and yet good people, +men and women of ability, who have gained eminence in almost every +department of human effort, stand by this creed as if it were +filled with wisdom and goodness. They really think that a good God +damns his poor ignorant children just for his own glory, and that +he sends people to perdition, not for any evil in them, but to the +praise of his glorious justice. Dr. Briggs has been wicked enough +to doubt this phase of God's goodness, and Dr. Bridgman was +heartless enough to drop a tear in hell. Of course they have no +idea of what justice really is.</p> +<p>The Presbyterian General Assembly that has just adjourned stood +by Calvinism. The "Five Points" are as sharp as ever. The members +of that assembly—most of them—find all their happiness +in the "creed." They need no other amusement. If they feel blue +they read about total depravity—and cheer up. In moments of +great sorrow they think of the tale of non-elect infants, and their +hearts overflow with a kind of joy.</p> +<p>They cannot imagine why people wish to attend the theatre when +they can read the "Confession of Faith," or why they should feel +like dancing after they do read it.</p> +<p>It is very sad to think of the young men and women who have been +eternally ruined by witnessing the plays of Shakespeare, and it is +also sad to think of the young people, foolish enough to be happy, +keeping time to the pulse of music, waltzing to hell in loving +pairs—all for the glory of God, and to the praise of his +glorious justice. I think, too, of the thousands of men and women +who, while listening to the music of Wagner, have absolutely +forgotten the Presbyterian creed, and who for a little while have +been as happy as if the creed had never been written. Tear down the +theatres, burn the opera houses, break all musical instruments, and +then let us go to church.</p> +<p>I am not at all surprised that the General Assembly took up this +progressive euchre matter. The word "progressive" is always +obnoxious to the ministers. Euchre under another name might go. Of +course, progressive euchre is a kind of gambling. I knew a young +man, or rather heard of him, who won at progressive euchre a silver +spoon. At first this looks like nothing, almost innocent, and yet +that spoon, gotten for nothing, sowed the seed of gambling in that +young man's brain. He became infatuated with euchre, then with +cards in general, then with draw-poker in particular,—then +into Wall Street. He is now a total wreck, and has the impudence to +say that is was all "pre-ordained." Think of the thousands and +millions that are being demoralized by games of chance, by marbles +—when they play for keeps—by billiards and croquet, by +fox and geese, authors, halma, tiddledywinks and pigs in clover. In +all these miserable games, is the infamous element of +chance—the raw material of gambling. Probably none of these +games could be played exclusively for the glory of God. I agree +with the Presbyterian General Assembly, if the creed is true, why +should anyone try to amuse himself? If there is a hell, and all of +us are going there, there should never be another smile on the +human face. We should spend our days in sighs, our nights in tears. +The world should go insane. We find strange combinations—good +men with bad creeds, and bad men with good ones—and so the +great world stumbles along.</p> +<p>—<i>The Blade</i>, Toledo, Ohio, June 4, 1891.</p> +<a name="link0090" id="link0090"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>CREEDS.</h2> +<p>There is a natural desire on the part of every intelligent human +being to harmonize his information—to make his theories +agree—in other words, to make what he knows, or thinks he +knows, in one department, agree and harmonize with what he knows, +or thinks he knows, in every other department of human +knowledge.</p> +<p>The human race has not advanced in line, neither has it advanced +in all departments with the same rapidity. It is with the race as +it is with an individual. A man may turn his entire attention to +some one subject—as, for instance, to geology—and +neglect other sciences. He may be a good geologist, but an +exceedingly poor astronomer; or he may know nothing of politics or +of political economy. So he may be a successful statesman and know +nothing of theology. But if a man, successful in one direction, +takes up some other question, he is bound to use the knowledge he +has on one subject as a kind of standard to measure what he is told +on some other subject. If he is a chemist, it will be natural for +him, when studying some other question, to use what he knows in +chemistry; that is to say, he will expect to find cause and effect +everywhere —succession and resemblance. He will say: It must +be in all other sciences as in chemistry—there must be no +chance. The elements have no caprice. Iron is always the same. Gold +does not change. Prussic acid is always poison—it has no +freaks. So he will reason as to all facts in nature. He will be a +believer in the atomic integrity of all matter, in the persistence +of gravitation. Being so trained, and so convinced, his tendency +will be to weigh what is called new information in the same scales +that he has been using.</p> +<p>Now, for the application of this. Progress in religion is the +slowest, because man is kept back by sentimentality, by the efforts +of parents, by old associations. A thousand unseen tendrils are +twining about him that he must necessarily break if he advances. In +other departments of knowledge inducements are held out and rewards +are promised to the one who does succeed—to the one who +really does advance—to the one who discovers new facts. But +in religion, instead of rewards being promised, threats are made. +The man is told that he must not advance; that if he takes a step +forward, it is at the peril of his soul; that if he thinks and +investigates, he is in danger of exciting the wrath of God. +Consequently religion has been of the slowest growth. Now, in most +departments of knowledge, man has advanced; and coming back to the +original statement—a desire to harmonize all that we +know—there is a growing desire on the part of intelligent men +to have a religion fit to keep company with the other sciences.</p> +<p>Our creeds were made in times of ignorance. They suited very +well a flat world, and a God who lived in the sky just above us and +who used the lightning to destroy his enemies. This God was +regarded much as a savage regarded the head of his tribe—as +one having the right to reward and punish. And this God, being much +greater than a chief of the tribe, could give greater rewards and +inflict greater punishments. They knew that the ordinary chief, or +the ordinary king, punished the slightest offence with death. They +also knew that these chiefs and kings tortured their victims as +long as the victims could bear the torture. So when they described +their God, they gave this God power to keep the tortured victim +alive forever —because they knew that the earthly chief, or +the earthly king, would prolong the life of the tortured for the +sake of increasing the agonies of the victim. In those savage days +they regarded punishment as the only means of protecting society. +In consequence of this they built heaven and hell on an earthly +plan, and they put God—that is to say the chief, that is to +say the king—on a throne like an earthly king.</p> +<p>Of course, these views were all ignorant and barbaric; but in +that blessed day their geology and astronomy were on a par with +their theology. There was a harmony in all departments of +knowledge, or rather of ignorance. Since that time there has been a +great advance made in the idea of government—the old idea +being that the right to govern came from God to the king, and from +the king to his people. Now intelligent people believe that the +source of authority has been changed, and that all just powers of +government are derived from the consent of the governed. So there +has been a great advance in the philosophy of punishment—in +the treatment of criminals. So, too, in all the sciences. The earth +is no longer flat; heaven is not immediately above us; the universe +has been infinitely enlarged, and we have at last found that our +earth is but a grain of sand, a speck on the great shore of the +infinite. Consequently there is a discrepancy, a discord, a +contradiction between our theology and the other sciences. Men of +intelligence feel this. Dr. Briggs concluded that a perfectly good +and intelligent God could not have created billions of sentient +beings, knowing that they were to be eternally miserable. No man +could do such a thing, had he the power, without being infinitely +malicious. Dr. Briggs began to have a little hope for the human +race—began to think that maybe God is better than the creed +describes him.</p> +<p>And right here it may be well enough to remark that no one has +ever been declared a heretic for thinking God bad. Heresy has +consisted in thinking God better than the church said he was. The +man who said God will damn nearly everybody, was orthodox. The man +who said God will save everybody, was denounced as a blaspheming +wretch, as one who assailed and maligned the character of God. I +can remember when the Universalists were denounced as vehemently +and maliciously as the Atheists are to-day.</p> +<p>Now, Dr. Briggs is undoubtedly an intelligent man. He knows that +nobody on earth knows who wrote the five books of Moses. He knows +that they were not written until hundreds of years after Moses was +dead. He knows that two or more persons were the authors of Isaiah. +He knows that David did not write to exceed three or four of the +Psalms. He knows that the Book of Job is not a Jewish book. He +knows that the Songs of Solomon were not written by Solomon. He +knows that the Book of Ecclesiastes was written by a Freethinker. +He also knows that there is not in existence to-day—so far as +anybody knows—any of the manuscripts of the Old or New +Testaments.</p> +<p>So about the New Testament, Dr. Briggs knows that nobody lives +who has ever seen an original manuscript, or who ever saw anybody +that did see one, or that claims to have seen one. He knows that +nobody knows who wrote Matthew or Mark or Luke or John. He knows +that John did not write John, and that that gospel was not written +until long after John was dead. He knows that no one knows who +wrote the Hebrews. He also knows that the Book of Revelation is an +insane production. Dr. Briggs also knows the way in which these +books came to be canonical, and he knows that the way was no more +binding than a resolution passed by a political convention. He also +knows that many books were left out that had for centuries equal +authority with those that were put in. He also knows that many +passages— and the very passages upon which many churches are +founded—are interpolations. He knows that the last chapter of +Mark, beginning with the sixteenth verse to the end, is an +interpolation; and he also knows that neither Matthew nor Mark nor +Luke ever said one word about the necessity of believing on the +Lord Jesus Christ, or of believing anything—not one word +about believing the Bible or joining the church, or doing any +particular thing in the way of ceremony to insure salvation. He +knows that according to Matthew, God agreed to forgive us when we +would forgive others. Consequently he knows that there is not one +particle of what is called modern theology in Matthew, Mark, or +Luke. He knows that the trouble commenced in John, and that John +was not written until probably one hundred and fifty +years—possibly two hundred years—after Christ was dead. +So he also knows that the sin against the Holy Ghost is an +interpolation; that "I came not to bring peace but a sword," if not +an interpolation, is an absolute contradiction. So, too, he knows +that the promise to forgive in heaven what the disciples should +forgive on earth, is an interpolation; and that if its not an +interpolation, it is without the slightest sense in fact.</p> +<p>Knowing these things, and knowing, in addition to what I have +stated, that there are thirty thousand or forty thousand mistakes +in the Old Testament, that there are a great many contradictions +and absurdities, than many of the laws are cruel and infamous, and +could have been made only by a barbarous people, Dr. Briggs has +concluded that, after all, the torch that sheds the serenest and +divinest light is the human reason, and that we must investigate +the Bible as we do other books. At least, I suppose he has reached +some such conclusion. He may imagine that the pure gold of +inspiration still runs through the quartz and porphyry of ignorance +and mistake, and that all we have to do is to extract the shining +metal by some process that may be called theological smelting; and +if so I have no fault to find. Dr. Briggs has taken a step in +advance—that is to say, the tree is growing, and when the +tree grows, the bark splits; when the new leaves come the old +leaves are rotting on the ground.</p> +<p>The Presbyterian creed is a very bad creed. It has been the +stumbling-block, not only of the head, but of the heart for many +generations. I do not know that it is, in fact, worse than any +other orthodox creed; but the bad features are stated with an +explicitness and emphasized with a candor that render the creed +absolutely appalling. It is amazing to me that any man ever wrote +it, or that any set of men ever produced it. It is more amazing to +me that any human being ever believed in it. It is still more +amazing that any human being ever thought it wicked not to believe +it. It is more amazing still, than all the others combined, that +any human being ever wanted it to be true.</p> +<p>This creed is a relic of the Middle Ages. It has in it the +malice, the malicious logic, the total depravity, the utter +heartlessness of John Calvin, and it gives me great pleasure to say +that no Presbyterian was ever as bad as his creed. And here let me +say, as I have said many times, that I do not hate +Presbyterians—because among them I count some of my best +friends—but I hate Presbyterianism. And I cannot illustrate +this any better than by saying, I do not hate a man because he has +the rheumatism, but I hate the rheumatism because it has a man.</p> +<p>The Presbyterian Church is growing, and is growing because, as I +said at first, there is a universal tendency in the mind of man to +harmonize all that he knows or thinks he knows. This growth may be +delayed. The buds of heresy may be kept back by the north wind of +Princeton and by the early frost called Patton. In spite of these +souvenirs of the Dark Ages, the church must continue to grow. The +theologians who regard theology as something higher than a trade, +tend toward Liberalism. Those who regard preaching as a business, +and the inculcation of sentiment as a trade, will stand by the +lowest possible views. They will cling to the letter and throw away +the spirit. They prefer the dead limb to a new bud or to a new +leaf. They want no more sap. They delight in the dead tree, in its +unbending nature, and they mistake the stiffness of death for the +vigor and resistance of life.</p> +<p>Now, as with Dr. Briggs, so with Dr. Bridgman, although it seems +to me that he has simply jumped from the frying-pan into the fire; +and why he should prefer the Episcopal creed to the Baptist, is +more than I can imagine. The Episcopal creed is, in fact, just as +bad as the Presbyterian. It calmly and with unruffled brow, utters +the sentence of eternal punishment on the majority of the human +race, and the Episcopalian expects to be happy in heaven, with his +son or daughter or his mother or wife in hell.</p> +<p>Dr. Bridgman will find himself exactly in the position of the +Rev. Mr. Newton, provided he expresses his thought. But I account +for the Bridgmans and for the Newtons by the fact that there is +still sympathy in the human heart, and that there is still +intelligence in the human brain. For my part, I am glad to see this +growth in the orthodox churches, and the quicker they revise their +creeds the better.</p> +<p>I oppose nothing that is good in any creed—I attack only +that which is ignorant, cruel and absurd, and I make the attack in +the interest of human liberty, and for the sake of human +happiness.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think of the action of the +Presbyterian General Assembly at Detroit, and what effect do you +think it will have on religious growth?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. That General Assembly was controlled by the +orthodox within the church, by the strict constructionists and by +the Calvinists; by gentlemen who not only believe the creed, not +only believe that a vast majority of people are going to hell, but +are really glad of it; by gentlemen who, when they feel a little +blue, read about total depravity to cheer up, and when they think +of the mercy of God as exhibited in their salvation, and the +justice of God as illustrated by the damnation of others, their +hearts burst into a kind of efflorescence of joy.</p> +<p>These gentlemen are opposed to all kinds of amusements except +reading the Bible, the Confession of Faith, and the creed, and +listening to Presbyterian sermons and prayers. All these things +they regard as the food of cheerfulness. They warn the elect +against theatres and operas, dancing and games of chance.</p> +<p>Well, if their doctrine is true, there ought to be no theatres, +except exhibitions of hell; there ought to be no operas, except +where the music is a succession of wails for the misfortunes of +man. If their doctrine is true, I do not see how any human being +could ever smile again—I do not see how a mother could +welcome her babe; everything in nature would become hateful; +flowers and sunshine would simply tell us of our fate.</p> +<p>My doctrine is exactly the opposite of this. Let us enjoy +ourselves every moment that we can. The love of the dramatic is +universal. The stage has not simply amused, but it has elevated +mankind. The greatest genius of our world poured the treasures of +his soul into the drama. I do not believe that any girl can be +corrupted, or that any man can be injured, by becoming acquainted +with Isabella or Miranda or Juliet or Imogen, or any of the great +heroines of Shakespeare.</p> +<p>So I regard the opera as one of the great civilizers. No one can +listen to the symphonies of Beethoven, or the music of Schubert, +without receiving a benefit. And no one can hear the operas of +Wagner without feeling that he has been ennobled and refined.</p> +<p>Why is it the Presbyterians are so opposed to music in the +world, and yet expect to have so much in heaven? Is not music just +as demoralizing in the sky as on the earth, and does anybody +believe that Abraham or Isaac or Jacob, ever played any music +comparable to Wagner?</p> +<p>Why should we postpone our joy to another world? Thousands of +people take great pleasure in dancing, and I say let them dance. +Dancing is better than weeping and wailing over a theology born of +ignorance and superstition.</p> +<p>And so with games of chance. There is a certain pleasure in +playing games, and the pleasure is of the most innocent character. +Let all these games be played at home and children will not prefer +the saloon to the society of their parents. I believe in cards and +billiards, and would believe in progressive euchre, were it more of +a game—the great objection to it is its lack of complexity. +My idea is to get what little happiness you can out of this life, +and to enjoy all sunshine that breaks through the clouds of +misfortune. Life is poor enough at best. No one should fail to pick +up every jewel of joy that can be found in his path. Every one +should be as happy as he can, provided he is not happy at the +expense of another, and no person rightly constituted can be happy +at the expense of another.</p> +<p>So let us get all we can of good between the cradle and the +grave; all that we can of the truly dramatic; all that we can of +music; all that we can of art; all that we can of enjoyment; and +if, when death comes, that is the end, we have at least made the +best of this life; and if there be another life, let us make the +best of that.</p> +<p>I am doing what little I can to hasten the coming of the day +when the human race will enjoy liberty—not simply of body, +but liberty of mind. And by liberty of mind I mean freedom from +superstition, and added to that, the intelligence to find out the +conditions of happiness; and added to that, the wisdom to live in +accordance with those conditions.</p> +<p>—<i>The Morning Advertiser</i>, New York, June 12, +1891.</p> +<a name="link0091" id="link0091"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>THE TENDENCY OF MODERN THOUGHT.</h2> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you regard the Briggs trial as any evidence +of the growth of Liberalism in the church itself?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. When men get together, and make what they call a +creed, the supposition is that they then say as nearly as possible +what they mean and what they believe. A written creed, of +necessity, remains substantially the same. In a few years this +creed ceases to give exactly the new shade of thought. Then begin +two processes, one of destruction and the other of preservation. In +every church, as in every party, and as you may say in every +corporation, there are two wings—one progressive, the other +conservative. In the church there will be a few, and they will +represent the real intelligence of the church, who become +dissatisfied with the creed, and who at first satisfy themselves by +giving new meanings to old words. On the other hand, the +conservative party appeals to emotions, to memories, and to the +experiences of their fellow- members, for the purpose of upholding +the old dogmas and the old ideas; so that each creed is like a +crumbling castle. The conservatives plant ivy and other vines, +hoping that their leaves will hide the cracks and erosions of time; +but the thoughtful see beyond these leaves and are satisfied that +the structure itself is in the process of decay, and that no amount +of ivy can restore the crumbling stones.</p> +<p>The old Presbyterian creed, when it was first formulated, +satisfied a certain religious intellect. At that time people were +not very merciful. They had no clear conceptions of justice. Their +lives were for the most part hard; most of them suffered the pains +and pangs of poverty; nearly all lived in tyrannical governments +and were the sport of nobles and kings. Their idea of God was born +of their surroundings. God, to them, was an infinite king who +delighted in exhibitions of power. At any rate, their minds were so +constructed that they conceived of an infinite being who, billions +of years before the world was, made up his mind as to whom he would +save and whom he would damn. He not only made up his mind as to the +number he would save, and the number that should be lost, but he +saved and damned without the slightest reference to the character +of the individual. They believed then, and some pretend to believe +still, that God damns a man not because he is bad, and that he +saves a man not because he is good, but simply for the purpose of +self-glorification as an exhibition of his eternal justice. It +would be impossible to conceive of any creed more horrible than +that of the Presbyterians. Although I admit—and I not only +admit but I assert—that the creeds of all orthodox Christians +are substantially the same, the Presbyterian creed says plainly +what it means. There is no hesitation, no evasion. The horrible +truth, so-called, is stated in the clearest possible language. One +would think after reading this creed, that the men who wrote it not +only believed it, but were really glad it was true.</p> +<p>Ideas of justice, of the use of power, of the use of mercy, have +greatly changed in the last century. We are beginning dimly to see +that each man is the result of an infinite number of conditions, of +an infinite number of facts, most of which existed before he was +born. We are beginning dimly to see that while reason is a pilot, +each soul navigates the mysterious sea filled with tides and +unknown currents set in motion by ancestors long since dust. We are +beginning to see that defects of mind are transmitted precisely the +same as defects of body, and in my judgment the time is coming when +we shall not more think of punishing a man for larceny than for +having the consumption. We shall know that the thief is a necessary +and natural result of conditions, preparing, you may say, the field +of the world for the growth of man. We shall no longer depend upon +accident and ignorance and providence. We shall depend upon +intelligence and science.</p> +<p>The Presbyterian creed is no longer in harmony with the average +sense of man. It shocks the average mind. It seems too monstrous to +be true; too horrible to find a lodgment in the mind of the +civilized man. The Presbyterian minister who thinks, is giving new +meanings to the old words. The Presbyterian minister who feels, +also gives new meanings to the old words. Only those who neither +think nor feel remain orthodox.</p> +<p>For many years the Christian world has been engaged in examining +the religions of other peoples, and the Christian scholars have had +but little trouble in demonstrating the origin of Mohammedanism and +Buddhism and all other isms except ours. After having examined +other religions in the light of science, it occurred to some of our +theologians to examine their own doctrine in the same way, and the +result has been exactly the same in both cases. Dr. Briggs, as I +believe, is a man of education. He is undoubtedly familiar with +other religions, and has, to some extent at least, made himself +familiar with the sacred books of other people. Dr. Briggs knows +that no human being knows who wrote a line of the Old Testament. He +knows as well as he can know anything, for instance, that Moses +never wrote one word of the books attributed to him. He knows that +the book of Genesis was made by putting two or three stories +together. He also knows that it is not the oldest story, but was +borrowed. He knows that in this book of Genesis there is not one +word adapted to make a human being better, or to shed the slightest +light on human conduct. He knows, if he knows anything, that the +Mosaic Code, so-called, was, and is, exceedingly barbarous and not +adapted to do justice between man and man, or between nation and +nation. He knows that the Jewish people pursued a course adapted to +destroy themselves; that they refused to make friends with their +neighbors; that they had not the slightest idea of the rights of +other people; that they really supposed that the earth was theirs, +and that their God was the greatest God in the heavens. He also +knows that there are many thousands of mistakes in the Old +Testament as translated. He knows that the book of Isaiah is made +up of several books. He knows the same thing in regard to the New +Testament. He also knows that there were many other books that were +once considered sacred that have been thrown away, and that nobody +knows who wrote a solitary line of the New Testament.</p> +<p>Besides all this, Dr. Briggs knows that the Old and New +Testaments are filled with interpolations, and he knows that the +passages of Scripture which have been taken as the foundation +stones for creeds, were written hundreds of years after the death +of Christ. He knows well enough that Christ never said: "I came not +to bring peace, but a sword." He knows that the same being never +said: "Thou art Peter, and on this rock will I build my church." He +knows, too, that Christ never said: "Whosoever believes shall be +saved, and whosoever believes not shall be damned." He knows that +these were interpolations. He knows that the sin against the Holy +Ghost is another interpolation. He knows, if he knows anything, +that the gospel according to John was written long after the rest, +and that nearly all of the poison and superstition of orthodoxy is +in that book. He knows also, if he knows anything, that St. Paul +never read one of the four gospels.</p> +<p>Knowing all these things, Dr. Briggs has had the honesty to say +that there was some trouble about taking the Bible as absolutely +inspired in word and punctuation. I do not think, however, that he +can maintain his own position and still remain a Presbyterian or +anything like a Presbyterian. He takes the ground, I believe, that +there are three sources of knowledge: First, the Bible; second, the +church; third, reason. It seems to me that reason should come +first, because if you say the Bible is a source of authority, why +do you say it? Do you say this because your reason is convinced +that it is? If so, then reason is the foundation of that belief. +If, again, you say the church is a source of authority, why do you +say so? It must be because its history convinces your reason that +it is. Consequently, the foundation of that idea is reason. At the +bottom of this pyramid must be reason, and no man is under any +obligation to believe that which is unreasonable to him. He may +believe things that he cannot prove, but he does not believe them +because they are unreasonable. He believes them because he thinks +they are not unreasonable, not impossible, not improbable. But, +after all, reason is the crucible in which every fact must be +placed, and the result fixes the belief of the intelligent man.</p> +<p>It seems to me that the whole Presbyterian creed must come down +together. It is a scheme based upon certain facts, so-called. There +is in it the fall of man. There is in it the scheme of the +atonement, and there is the idea of hell, eternal punishment, and +the idea of heaven, eternal reward; and yet, according to their +creed, hell is not a punishment and heaven is not a reward. Now, if +we do away with the fall of man we do away with the atonement; then +we do away with all supernatural religion. Then we come back to +human reason. Personally, I hope that the Presbyterian Church will +be advanced enough and splendid enough to be honest, and if it is +honest, all the gentlemen who amount to anything, who assist in the +trial of Dr. Briggs, will in all probability agree with him, and he +will be acquitted. But if they throw aside their reason, and remain +blindly orthodox, then he will be convicted. To me it is simply +miraculous that any man should imagine that the Bible is the source +of truth. There was a time when all scientific facts were measured +by the Bible. That time is past, and now the believers in the Bible +are doing their best to convince us that it is in harmony with +science. In other words, I have lived to see a change of standards. +When I was a boy, science was measured by the Bible. Now the Bible +is measured by science. This is an immense step. So it is +impossible for me to conceive what kind of a mind a man has, who +finds in the history of the church the fact that it has been a +source of truth. How can any one come to the conclusion that the +Catholic Church has been a source of truth, a source of +intellectual light? How can anyone believe that the church of John +Calvin has been a source of truth? If its creed is not true, if its +doctrines are mistakes, if its dogmas are monstrous delusions, how +can it be said to have been a source of truth?</p> +<p>My opinion is that Dr. Briggs will not be satisfied with the +step he has taken. He has turned his face a little toward the +light. The farther he walks the harder it will be for him to turn +back. The probability is that the orthodox will turn him out, and +the process of driving out men of thought and men of genius will go +on until the remnant will be as orthodox as they are stupid.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you think mankind is drifting away from the +supernatural?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. My belief is that the supernatural has had its +day. The church must either change or abdicate. That is to say, it +must keep step with the progress of the world or be trampled under +foot. The church as a power has ceased to exist. To-day it is a +matter of infinite indifference what the pulpit thinks unless there +comes the voice of heresy from the sacred place. Every orthodox +minister in the United States is listened to just in proportion +that he preaches heresy. The real, simon-pure, orthodox clergyman +delivers his homilies to empty benches, and to a few ancient people +who know nothing of the tides and currents of modern thought. The +orthodox pulpit to-day has no thought, and the pews are +substantially in the same condition. There was a time when the +curse of the church whitened the face of a race, but now its +anathema is the food of laughter.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What, in your judgment, is to be the outcome of +the present agitation in religious circles?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. My idea is that people more and more are +declining the postponement of happiness to another world. The +general tendency is to enjoy the present. All religions have taught +men that the pleasures of this world are of no account; that they +are nothing but husks and rags and chaff and disappointment; that +whoever expects to be happy in this world makes a mistake; that +there is nothing on the earth worth striving for; that the +principal business of mankind should be to get ready to be happy in +another world; that the great occupation is to save your soul, and +when you get it saved, when you are satisfied that you are one of +the elect, then pack up all your worldly things in a very small +trunk, take it to the dock of time that runs out into the ocean of +eternity, sit down on it, and wait for the ship of death. And of +course each church is the only one that sells a through ticket +which can be depended on. In all religions, as far as I know, is an +admixture of asceticism, and the greater the quantity, the more +beautiful the religion has been considered, The tendency of the +world to- day is to enjoy life while you have it; it is to get +something out of the present moment; and we have found that there +are things worth living for even in this world. We have found that +a man can enjoy himself with wife and children; that he can be +happy in the acquisition of knowledge; that he can be very happy in +assisting others; in helping those he loves; that there is some joy +in poetry, in science and in the enlargement and development of the +mind; that there is some delight in music and in the drama and in +the arts. We are finding, poor as the world is, that it beats a +promise the fulfillment of which is not to take place until after +death. The world is also finding out another thing, and that is +that the gentlemen who preach these various religions, and promise +these rewards, and threaten the punishments, know nothing whatever +of the subject; that they are as blindly ignorant as the people +they pretend to teach, and the people are as blindly ignorant as +the animals below them. We have finally concluded that no human +being has the slightest conception of origin or of destiny, and +that this life, not only in its commencement but in its end, is +just as mysterious to-day as it was to the first man whose eyes +greeted the rising sun. We are no nearer the solution of the +problem than those who lived thousands of years before us, and we +are just as near it as those who will live millions of years after +we are dead. So many people having arrived at the conclusion that +nobody knows and that nobody can know, like sensible folks they +have made up their minds to enjoy life. I have often said, and I +say again, that I feel as if I were on a ship not knowing the port +from which it sailed, not knowing the harbor to which it was going, +not having a speaking acquaintance with any of the officers, and I +have made up my mind to have as good a time with the other +passengers as possible under the circumstances. If this ship goes +down in mid- sea I have at least made something, and if it reaches +a harbor of perpetual delight I have lost nothing, and I have had a +happy voyage. And I think millions and millions are agreeing with +me.</p> +<p>Now, understand, I am not finding fault with any of these +religions or with any of these ministers. These religions and these +ministers are the necessary and natural products of sufficient +causes. Mankind has traveled from barbarism to what we now call +civilization, by many paths, all of which under the circumstances, +were absolutely necessary; and while I think the individual does as +he must, I think the same of the church, of the corporation, and of +the nation, and not only of the nation, but of the whole human +race. Consequently I have no malice and no prejudices. I have likes +and dislikes. I do not blame a gourd for not being a cantaloupe, +but I like cantaloupes. So I do not blame the old hard-shell +Presbyterian for not being a philosopher, but I like philosophers. +So to wind it all up with regard to the tendency of modern thought, +or as to the outcome of what you call religion, my own belief is +that what is known as religion will disappear from the human mind. +And by "religion" I mean the supernatural. By "religion" I mean +living in this world for another, or living in this world to +gratify some supposed being, whom we never saw and about whom we +know nothing, and of whose existence we know nothing. In other +words, religion consists of the duties we are supposed to owe to +the first great cause, and of certain things necessary for us to do +here to insure happiness hereafter. These ideas, in my judgment, +are destined to perish, and men will become convinced that all +their duties are within their reach, and that obligations can exist +only between them and other sentient beings. Another idea, I think, +will force itself upon the mind, which is this: That he who lives +the best for this world lives the best for another if there be one. +In other words, humanity will take the place of what is called +"religion." Science will displace superstition, and to do justice +will be the ambition of man.</p> +<p>My creed is this: Happiness is the only good. The place to be +happy is here. The time to be happy is now. The way to be happy is +to make others so.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What is going to take the place of the +pulpit?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I have for a long time wondered why somebody +didn't start a church on a sensible basis. My idea is this: There +are, of course, in every community, lawyers, doctors, merchants, +and people of all trades and professions who have not the time +during the week to pay any particular attention to history, poetry, +art, or song. Now, it seems to me that it would be a good thing to +have a church and for these men to employ a man of ability, of +talent, to preach to them Sundays, and let this man say to his +congregation: "Now, I am going to preach to you for the first few +Sundays—eight or ten or twenty, we will say—on the art, +poetry, and intellectual achievements of the Greeks." Let this man +study all the week and tell his congregation Sunday what he has +ascertained. Let him give to his people the history of such men as +Plato, as Socrates, what they did; of Aristotle, of his philosophy; +of the great Greeks, their statesmen, their poets, actors, and +sculptors, and let him show the debt that modern civilization owes +to these people. Let him, too, give their religions, their +mythology—a mythology that has sown the seed of beauty in +every land. Then let him take up Rome. Let him show what a +wonderful and practical people they were; let him give an idea of +their statesmen, orators, poets, lawyers—because probably the +Romans were the greatest lawyers. And so let him go through with +nation after nation, biography after biography, and at the same +time let there be a Sunday school connected with this church where +the children shall be taught something of importance. For instance, +teach them botany, and when a Sunday is fair, clear, and beautiful, +let them go into the fields and woods with their teachers, and in a +little while they will become acquainted with all kinds of tress +and shrubs and flowering plants. They could also be taught +entomology, so that every bug would be interesting, for they would +see the facts in science— something of use to them. I believe +that such a church and such a Sunday school would at the end of a +few years be the most intelligent collection of people in the +United States. To teach the children all of these things and to +teach their parents, too, the outlines of every science, so that +every listener would know something of geology, something of +astronomy, so that every member could tell the manner in which they +find the distance of a star— how much better that would be +than the old talk about Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and quotations +from Haggai and Zephaniah, and all this eternal talk about the fall +of man and the Garden of Eden, and the flood, and the atonement, +and the wonders of Revelation! Even if the religious scheme be +true, it can be told and understood as well in one day as in a +hundred years. The church says, "He that hath ears to hear let him +hear." I say: "He that hath brains to think, let him think." So, +too, the pulpit is being displaced by what we call places of +amusement, which are really places where men go because they find +there is something which satisfies in a greater or less degree the +hunger of the brain. Never before was the theatre as popular as it +is now. Never before was so much money lavished upon the stage as +now. Very few men having their choice would go to hear a sermon, +especially of the orthodox kind, when they had a chance to see a +great actor.</p> +<p>The man must be a curious combination who would prefer an +orthodox sermon, we will say, to a concert given by Theodore +Thomas. And I may say in passing that I have great respect for +Theodore Thomas, because it was he who first of all opened to the +American people the golden gates of music. He made the American +people acquainted with the great masters, and especially with +Wagner, and it is a debt that we shall always owe him. In this day +the opera—that is to say, music in every form—is +tending to displace the pulpit. The pulpits have to go in +partnership with music now. Hundreds of people have excused +themselves to me for going to church, saying they have splendid +music. Long ago the Catholic Church was forced to go into +partnership not only with music, but with painting and with +architecture. The Protestant Church for a long time thought it +could do without these beggarly elements, and the Protestant Church +was simply a dry-goods box with a small steeple on top of it, its +walls as bleak and bare and unpromising as the creed. But even +Protestants have been forced to hire a choir of ungodly people who +happen to have beautiful voices, and they, too, have appealed to +the organ. Music is taking the place of creed, and there is more +real devotional feeling summoned from the temple of the mind by +great music than by any sermon ever delivered. Music, of all other +things, gives wings to thought and allows the soul to rise above +all the pains and troubles of this life, and to feel for a moment +as if it were absolutely free, above all clouds, destined to enjoy +forever. So, too, science is beckoning with countless hands. Men of +genius are everywhere beckoning men to discoveries, promising them +fortunes compared with which Aladdin's lamp was weak and poor. All +these things take men from the church; take men from the pulpit. In +other words, prosperity is the enemy of the pulpit. When men enjoy +life, when they are prosperous here, they are in love with the +arts, with the sciences, with everything that gives joy, with +everything that promises plenty, and they care nothing about the +prophecies of evil that fall from the solemn faces of the parsons. +They look in other directions. They are not thinking about the end +of the world. They hate the lugubrious, and they enjoy the sunshine +of to-day. And this, in my judgment, is the highest philosophy: +First, do not regret having lost yesterday; second, do not fear +that you will lose to-morrow; third, enjoy to- day.</p> +<p>Astrology was displaced by astronomy. Alchemy and the black art +gave way to chemistry. Science is destined to take the place of +superstition. In my judgment, the religion of the future will be +Reason.</p> +<p>—<i>The Tribune</i>, Chicago, Illinois, November, +1891.</p> +<a name="link0092" id="link0092"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>WOMAN SUFFRAGE, HORSE RACING, AND MONEY.</h2> +<p><i>Question</i>. What are your opinions on the woman's suffrage +question?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I claim no right that I am not willing to give to +my wife and daughters, and to the wives and daughters of other men. +We shall never have a generation of great men until we have a +generation of great women. I do not regard ignorance as the +foundation of virtue, or uselessness as one of the requisites of a +lady. I am a believer in equal rights. Those who are amenable to +the laws should have a voice in making the laws. In every +department where woman has had an equal opportunity with man, she +has shown that she has equal capacity.</p> +<p>George Sand was a great writer, George Eliot one of the +greatest, Mrs. Browning a marvelous poet—and the lyric beauty +of her "Mother and Poet" is greater than anything her husband ever +wrote—Harriet Martineau a wonderful woman, and Ouida is +probably the greatest living novelist, man or woman. Give the women +a chance.</p> +<p>[The Colonel's recent election as a life member of the Manhattan +Athletic Club, due strangely enough to a speech of his denouncing +certain forms of sport, was referred to, and this led him to +express his contempt for prize-fighting, and then he said on the +subject of horse-racing: ]</p> +<p>The only objection I have to horse racing is its cruelty. The +whip and spur should be banished from the track. As long as these +are used, the race track will breed a very low and heartless set of +men. I hate to see a brute whip and spur a noble animal. The good +people object to racing, because of the betting, but bad people, +like myself, object to the cruelty. Men are not forced to bet. That +is their own business, but the poor horse, straining every nerve, +does not ask for the lash and iron. Abolish torture on the track +and let the best horse win.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think of the Chilian insult to the +United States flag?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. In the first place, I think that our Government +was wrong in taking the part of Balmaceda. In the next place, we +made a mistake in seizing the Itata. America should always side +with the right. We should care nothing for the pretender in power, +and Balmaceda was a cruel, tyrannical scoundrel. We should be with +the people everywhere. I do not blame Chili for feeling a little +revengeful. We ought to remember that Chili is weak, and nations, +like individuals, are sensitive in proportion that they are weak. +Let us trust Chili just as we would England. We are too strong to +be unjust.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. How do you stand on the money question?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I am with the Republican party on the question of +money. I am for the use of gold and silver both, but I want a +dollar's worth of silver in a silver dollar. I do not believe in +light money, or in cheap money, or in poor money. These are all +contradictions in terms. Congress cannot fix the value of money. +The most it can do is to fix its debt paying power. It is beyond +the power of any Congress to fix the purchasing value of what it +may be pleased to call money. Nobody knows, so far as I know, why +people want gold. I do not know why people want silver. I do not +know how gold came to be money; neither do I understand the +universal desire, but it exists, and we take things as we find +them. Gold and silver make up, you may say, the money of the world, +and I believe in using the two metals. I do not believe in +depreciating any American product; but as value cannot be +absolutely fixed by law, so far as the purchasing power is +concerned, and as the values of gold and silver vary, neither being +stable any more than the value of wheat or corn is stable, I +believe that legislation should keep pace within a reasonable +distance at least, of the varying values, and that the money should +be kept as nearly equal as possible. Of course, there is one +trouble with money to-day, and that is the use of the word +"dollar." It has lost its meaning. So many governments have +adulterated their own coin, and as many have changed weights, that +the word "dollar" has not to-day an absolute, definite, specific +meaning. Like individuals, nations have been dishonest. The only +time the papal power had the right to coin money—I believe it +was under Pius IX., when Antonelli was his minister—the coin +of the papacy was so debased that even orthodox Catholics refused +to take it, and it had to be called in and minted by the French +Empire, before even the Italians recognized it as money. My own +opinion is, that either the dollar must be absolutely +defined—it must be the world over so many grains of pure +gold, or so many grains of pure silver—or we must have other +denominations for our money, as for instance, ounces, or parts of +ounces, and the time will come, in my judgment, when there will be +a money of the world, the same everywhere; because each coin will +contain upon its face the certificate of a government that it +contains such a weight—so many grains or so many +ounces—of a certain metal. I, for one, want the money of the +United States to be as good as that of any other country. I want +its gold and silver exactly what they purport to be; and I want the +paper issued by the Government to be the same as gold. I want its +credit so perfectly established that it will be taken in every part +of the habitable globe. I am with the Republican party on the +question of money, also on the question of protection, and all I +hope is that the people of this country will have sense enough to +defend their own interests.</p> +<p>—<i>The Inter-Ocean</i>, Chicago, Illinois, October 27, +1891.</p> +<a name="link0093" id="link0093"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>MISSIONARIES.</h2> +<h3><i>Question</i>. What is your opinion of foreign missions?</h3> +<p><i>Answer</i>. In the first place, there seems to be a pretty +good opening in this country for missionary work. We have a good +many Indians who are not Methodists. I have never known one to be +converted. A good many have been killed by Christians, but their +souls have not been saved. Maybe the Methodists had better turn +their attention to the heathen of our own country. Then we have a +good many Mormons who rely on the truth of the Old Testament and +follow the example of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. It seems to me that +the Methodists better convert the Mormons before attacking the +tribes of Central Africa. There is plenty of work to be done right +here. A few good bishops might be employed for a time in converting +Dr. Briggs and Professor Swing, to say nothing of other heretical +Presbyterians.</p> +<p>There is no need of going to China to convert the Chinese. There +are thousands of them here. In China our missionaries will tell the +followers of Confucius about the love and forgiveness of +Christians, and when the Chinese come here they are robbed, +assaulted, and often murdered. Would it not be a good thing for the +Methodists to civilize our own Christians to such a degree that +they would not murder a man simply because he belongs to another +race and worships other gods?</p> +<p>So, too, I think it would be a good thing for the Methodists to +go South and persuade their brethren in that country to treat the +colored people with kindness. A few efforts might be made to +convert the "White-caps" in Ohio, Indiana and some other +States.</p> +<p>My advice to the Methodists is to do what little good they can +right here and now. It seems cruel to preach to the heathen a +gospel that is dying out even here, and fill their poor minds with +the absurd dogmas and cruel creeds that intelligent men have +outgrown and thrown away.</p> +<p>Honest commerce will do a thousand times more good than all the +missionaries on earth. I do not believe that an intelligent +Chinaman or an intelligent Hindoo has ever been or ever will be +converted into a Methodist. If Methodism is good we need it here, +and if it is not good, do not fool the heathen with it.</p> +<p>—<i>The Press</i>, Cleveland, Ohio, November 12, 1891.</p> +<a name="link0094" id="link0094"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>MY BELIEF AND UNBELIEF.*</h2> +<pre> + [* Col. Robert G. Ingersoll was in Toledo for a few hours + yesterday afternoon on railroad business. Whatever Mr. + Ingersoll says is always read with interest, for besides the + independence of his averments, his ideas are worded in a way + that in itself is attractive. + + While in the court room talking with some of the officials + and others, he was saying that in this world there is rather + an unequal distribution of comforts, rewards, and + punishments. For himself, he had fared pretty well. He + stated that during the thirty years he has been married + there have been fifteen to twenty of his relatives under the + same roof, but never had there been in his family a death or + a night's loss of sleep on account of sickness. + + "The Lord has been pretty good to you," suggested Marshall + Wade. + + "Well, I've been pretty good to him," he answered.] +</pre> +<p><i>Question</i>. I have heard people in discussing yourself and +your views, express the belief that way down in the depths of your +mind you are not altogether a "disbeliever." Are they in any sense +correct?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I am an unbeliever, and I am a believer. I do not +believe in the miraculous, the supernatural, or the impossible. I +do not believe in the "Mosaic" account of the creation, or in the +flood, or the Tower of Babel, or that General Joshua turned back +the sun or stopped the earth. I do not believe in the Jonah story, +or that God and the Devil troubled poor Job. Neither do I believe +in the Mt. Sinai business, and I have my doubts about the broiled +quails furnished in the wilderness. Neither do I believe that man +is wholly depraved. I have not the least faith in the Eden, snake +and apple story. Neither do I believe that God is an eternal +jailer; that he is going to be the warden of an everlasting +penitentiary in which the most of men are to be eternally +tormented. I do not believe that any man can be justly punished or +rewarded on account of his belief.</p> +<p>But I do believe in the nobility of human nature. I believe in +love and home, and kindness and humanity. I believe in good +fellowship and cheerfulness, in making wife and children happy. I +believe in good nature, in giving to others all the rights that you +claim for yourself. I believe in free thought, in reason, +observation and experience. I believe in self-reliance and in +expressing your honest thought. I have hope for the whole human +race. What will happen to one, will, I hope, happen to all, and +that, I hope, will be good. Above all, I believe in Liberty.</p> +<p>—<i>The Blade</i>, Toledo, Ohio, January 9, 1892.</p> +<a name="link0095" id="link0095"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>MUST RELIGION GO?</h2> +<p><i>Question</i>. What is your idea as to the difference between +honest belief, as held by honest religious thinkers, and +heterodoxy?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Of course, I believe that there are thousands of +men and women who honestly believe not only in the improbable, not +only in the absurd, but in the impossible. Heterodoxy, so-called, +occupies the half-way station between superstition and reason. A +heretic is one who is still dominated by religion, but in the east +of whose mind there is a dawn. He is one who has seen the morning +star; he has not entire confidence in the day, and imagines in some +way that even the light he sees was born of the night. In the mind +of the heretic, darkness and light are mingled, the ties of +intellectual kindred bind him to the night, and yet he has enough +of the spirit of adventure to look toward the east. Of course, I +admit that Christians and heretics are both honest; a real +Christian must be honest and a real heretic must be the same. All +men must be honest in what they think; but all men are not honest +in what they say. In the invisible world of the mind every man is +honest. The judgment never was bribed. Speech may be false, but +conviction is always honest. So that the difference between honest +belief, as shared by honest religious thinkers and heretics, is a +difference of intelligence. It is the difference between a ship +lashed to the dock, and on making a voyage; it is the difference +between twilight and dawn—that is to say, the coming of the +sight and the coming of the morning.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Are women becoming freed from the bonds of +sectarianism?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Women are less calculating than men. As a rule +they do not occupy the territory of compromise. They are natural +extremists. The woman who is not dominated by superstition is apt +to be absolutely free, and when a woman has broken the shackles of +superstition, she has no apprehension, no fears. She feels that she +is on the open sea, and she cares neither for wind nor wave. An +emancipated woman never can be re-enslaved. Her heart goes with her +opinions, and goes first.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you consider that the influence of religion +is better than the influence of Liberalism upon society, that is to +say, is society less or more moral, is vice more or less +conspicuous?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Whenever a chain is broken an obligation takes +its place. There is and there can be no responsibility without +liberty. The freer a man is, the more responsible, the more +accountable he feels; consequently the more liberty there is, the +more morality there is. Believers in religion teach us that God +will reward men for good actions, but men who are intellectually +free, know that the reward of a good action cannot be given by any +power, but that it is the natural result of the good action. The +free man, guided by intelligence, knows that his reward is in the +nature of things, and not in the caprice even of the Infinite. He +is not a good and faithful servant, he is an intelligent free +man.</p> +<p>The vicious are ignorant; real morality is the child of +intelligence; the free and intelligent man knows that every action +must be judged by its consequences; he knows that if he does good +he reaps a good harvest; he knows that if he does evil he bears a +burden, and he knows that these good and evil consequences are not +determined by an infinite master, but that they live in and are +produced by the actions themselves.</p> +<p>—<i>Evening Advertiser</i>, New York, February 6, +1892.</p> +<a name="link0096" id="link0096"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>WORD PAINTING AND COLLEGE EDUCATION.</h2> +<p><i>Question</i>. What is the history of the speech delivered +here in 1876? Was it extemporaneous?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. It was not born entirely of the occasion. It took +me several years to put the thoughts in form—to paint the +pictures with words. No man can do his best on the instant. Iron to +be beaten into perfect form has to be heated several times and +turned upon the anvil many more, and hammered long and often.</p> +<p>You might as well try to paint a picture with one sweep of the +brush, or chisel a statue with one stroke, as to paint many +pictures with words, without great thought and care. Now and then, +while a man is talking, heated with his subject, a great thought, +sudden as a flash of lightning, illumines the intellectual sky, and +a great sentence clothed in words of purple, falls, or rather +rushes, from his lips—but a continuous flight is born, not +only of enthusiasm, but of long and careful thought. A perfect +picture requires more details, more lights and shadows, than the +mind can grasp at once, or on the instant. Thoughts are not born of +chance. They grow and bud and blossom, and bear the fruit of +perfect form.</p> +<p>Genius is the soil and climate, but the soil must be cultivated, +and the harvest is not instantly after the planting. It takes time +and labor to raise and harvest a crop from that field called the +brain.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you think young men need a college education +to get along?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Probably many useless things are taught in +colleges. I think, as a rule, too much time is wasted learning the +names of the cards without learning to play a game. I think a young +man should be taught something that he can use—something he +can sell. After coming from college he should be better equipped to +battle with the world—to do something of use. A man may have +his brain stuffed with Greek and Latin without being able to fill +his stomach with anything of importance. Still, I am in favor of +the highest education. I would like to see splendid schools in +every State, and then a university, and all scholars passing a +certain examination sent to the State university free, and then a +United States university, the best in the world, and all graduates +of the State universities passing a certain examination sent to the +United States university free. We ought to have in this country the +best library, the best university, the best school of design in the +world; and so I say, more money for the mind.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Was the peculiar conduct of the Rev. Dr. +Parkhurst, of New York, justifiable, and do you think that it had a +tendency to help morality?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. If Christ had written a decoy letter to the woman +to whom he said: "Go and sin no more," and if he had disguised +himself and visited her house and had then lodged a complaint +against her before the police and testified against her, taking one +of his disciples with him, I do not think he would have added to +his reputation.</p> +<p>—<i>The News</i>, Indianapolis, Indiana, February 18, +1892.</p> +<a name="link0097" id="link0097"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>PERSONAL MAGNETISM AND THE SUNDAY QUESTION.</h2> +<pre> + [Colonel Ingersoll was a picturesque figure as he sat in his + room at the Gibson House yesterday, while the balmy May + breeze blew through the open windows, fluttered the lace + curtains and tossed the great Infidel's snowy hair to and + fro. The Colonel had come in from New York during the + morning and the keen white sunlight of a lovely May day + filled his heart with gladness. After breakfast, the man + who preaches the doctrine of the Golden Rule and the Gospel + of Humanity and the while chaffs the gentlemen of the + clerical profession, was in a fine humor. He was busy with + cards and callers, but not too busy to admire the vase full + of freshly-picked spring flowers that stood on the mantel, + and wrestled with clouds of cigar smoke, to see which + fragrance should dominate the atmosphere. + + To a reporter of <i>The Commercial Gazette</i>, the Colonel spoke + freely and interestingly upon a variety of subjects, from + personal magnetism in politics to mob rule in Tennessee. He + had been interested in Colonel Weir's statement about the + lack of gas in Exposition Hall, at the 1876 convention, and + when asked if he believed there was any truth in the stories + that the gas supply had been manipulated so as to prevent + the taking of a ballot after he had placed James G. Blaine + in nomination, he replied: ] +</pre> +<p>All I can say is, that I heard such a story the day after the +convention, but I do not know whether or not it is true. I have +always believed, that if a vote had been taken that evening, Blaine +would have been nominated, possibly not as the effect of my speech, +but the night gave time for trafficking, and that is always +dangerous in a convention. I believed then that Blaine ought to +have been nominated, and that it would have been a very wise thing +for the party to have done. That he was not the candidate was due +partly to accident and partly to political traffic, but that is one +of the bygones, and I believe there is an old saying to the effect +that even the gods have no mastery over the past.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you think that eloquence is potent in a +convention to set aside the practical work of politics and +politicians?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I think that all the eloquence in the world +cannot affect a trade if the parties to the contract stand firm, +and when people have made a political trade they are not the kind +of people to be affected by eloquence. The practical work of the +world has very little to do with eloquence. There are a great many +thousand stone masons to one sculptor, and houses and walls are not +constructed by sculptors, but by masons. The daily wants of the +world are supplied by the practical workers, by men of talent, not +by men of genius, although in the world of invention, genius has +done more, it may be, than the workers themselves. I fancy the +machinery now in the world does the work of many hundreds of +millions; that there is machinery enough now to do several times +the work that could be done by all the men, women and children of +the earth. The genius who invented the reaper did more work and +will do more work in the harvest field than thousands of millions +of men, and the same may be said of the great engines that drive +the locomotives and the ships. All these marvelous machines were +made by men of genius, but they are not the men who in fact do the +work.</p> +<p>[This led the Colonel to pay a brilliant tribute to the great +orators of ancient and modern times, the peer of all of them being +Cicero. He dissected and defined oratory and eloquence, and +explained with picturesque figures, wherein the difference between +them lay. As he mentioned the magnetism of public speakers, he was +asked as to his opinion of the value of personal magnetism in +political life.]</p> +<p>It may be difficult to define what personal magnetism is, but I +think it may be defined in this way: You don't always feel like +asking a man whom you meet on the street what direction you should +take to reach a certain point. You often allow three or four to +pass, before you meet one who seems to invite the question. So, +too, there are men by whose side you may sit for hours in the cars +without venturing a remark as to the weather, and there are others +to whom you will commence talking the moment you sit down. There +are some men who look as if they would grant a favor, men toward +whom you are unconsciously drawn, men who have a real human look, +men with whom you seem to be acquainted almost before you speak, +and that you really like before you know anything about them. It +may be that we are all electric batteries; that we have our +positive and our negative poles; it may be that we need some +influence that certain others impart, and it may be that certain +others have that which we do not need and which we do not want, and +the moment you think that, you feel annoyed and hesitate, and +uncomfortable, and possibly hateful.</p> +<p>I suppose there is a physical basis for everything. Possibly the +best test of real affection between man and woman, or of real +friendship between man and woman, is that they can sit side by +side, for hours maybe, without speaking, and yet be having a really +social time, each feeling that the other knows exactly what they +are thinking about. Now, the man you meet and whom you would not +hesitate a moment to ask a favor of, is what I call a magnetic man. +This magnetism, or whatever it may be, assists in making friends, +and of course is a great help to any one who deals with the public. +Men like a magnetic man even without knowing him, perhaps simply +having seen him. There are other men, whom the moment you shake +hands with them, you feel you want no more; you have had enough. A +sudden chill runs up the arm the moment your hand touches theirs, +and finally reaches the heart; you feel, if you had held that hand +a moment longer, an icicle would have formed in the brain. Such +people lack personal magnetism. These people now and then thaw out +when you get thoroughly acquainted with them, and you find that the +ice is all on the outside, and then you come to like them very +well, but as a rule first impressions are lasting. Magnetism is +what you might call the climate of a man. Some men, and some women, +look like a perfect June day, and there are others who, while the +look quite smiling, yet you feel that the sky is becoming overcast, +and the signs all point to an early storm. There are people who are +autumnal—that is to say, generous. They have had their +harvest, and have plenty to spare. Others look like the end of an +exceedingly hard winter—between the hay and grass, the hay +mostly gone and the grass not yet come up. So you will see that I +think a great deal of this thing that is called magnetism. As I +said, there are good people who are not magnetic, but I do not care +to make an Arctic expedition for the purpose of discovering the +north pole of their character. I would rather stay with those who +make me feel comfortable at the first.</p> +<p>[From personal magnetism to the lynching Saturday morning down +at Nashville, Tennessee, was a far cry, but when Colonel Ingersoll +was asked what he thought of mob law, whether there was any +extenuation, any propriety and moral effect resultant from it, he +quickly answered: ]</p> +<p>I do not believe in mob law at any time, among any people. I +believe in justice being meted out in accordance with the forms of +law. If a community violates that law, why should not the +individual? The example is bad. Besides all that, no punishment +inflicted by a mob tends to prevent the commission of crime. +Horrible punishment hardens the community, and that in itself +produces more crime.</p> +<p>There seems to be a sort of fascination in frightful +punishments, but, to say the least of it, all these things +demoralize the community. In some countries, you know, they whip +people for petty offences. The whipping, however, does no good, and +on the other hand it does harm; it hardens those who administer the +punishment and those who witness it, and it degrades those who +receive it. There will be but little charity in the world, and but +little progress until men see clearly that there is no chance in +the world of conduct any more than in the physical world.</p> +<p>Back of every act and dream and thought and desire and virtue +and crime is the efficient cause. If you wish to change mankind, +you must change the conditions. There should be no such thing as +punishment. We should endeavor to reform men, and those who cannot +be reformed should be placed where they cannot injure their +fellows. The State should never take revenge any more than the +community should form itself into a mob and take revenge. This does +harm, not good. The time will come when the world will no more +think of sending men to the penitentiary for stealing, as a +punishment, that it will for sending a man to the penitentiary +because he has consumption. When that time comes, the object will +be to reform men; to prevent crime instead of punishing it, and the +object then will be to make the conditions such that honest people +will be the result, but as long as hundreds of thousands of human +beings live in tenements, as long as babes are raised in gutters, +as long as competition is so sharp that hundreds of thousands must +of necessity be failures, just so long as society gets down on its +knees before the great and successful thieves, before the +millionaire thieves, just so long will it have to fill the jails +and prisons with the little thieves. When the "good time" comes, +men will not be judged by the money they have accumulated, but by +the uses they make of it. So men will be judged, not according to +their intelligence, but by what they are endeavoring to accomplish +with their intelligence. In other words, the time will come when +character will rise above all. There is a great line in Shakespeare +that I have often quoted, and that cannot be quoted too often: +"There is no darkness but ignorance." Let the world set itself to +work to dissipate this darkness; let us flood the world with +intellectual light. This cannot be accomplished by mobs or +lynchers. It must be done by the noblest, by the greatest, and by +the best.</p> +<p>[The conversation shifting around to the Sunday question; the +opening of the World's Fair on Sunday, the attacks of the pulpit +upon the Sunday newspapers, the opening of parks and museums and +libraries on Sunday, Colonel Ingersoll waxed eloquent, and in +answer to many questions uttered these paragraphs: ]</p> +<p>Of course, people will think that I have some prejudice against +the parsons, but really I think the newspaper press is of far more +importance in the world than the pulpit. If I should admit in a +kind of burst of generosity, and simply for the sake of making a +point, that the pulpit can do some good, how much can it do without +the aid of the press? Here is a parson preaching to a few ladies +and enough men, it may be, to pass the contribution box, and all he +says dies within the four walls of that church. How many ministers +would it take to reform the world, provided I again admit in a +burst of generosity, that there is any reforming power in what they +preach, working along that line?</p> +<p>The Sunday newspaper, I think, is the best of any day in the +week. That paper keeps hundreds and thousands at home. You can find +in it information about almost everything in the world. One of the +great Sunday papers will keep a family busy reading almost all day. +Now, I do not wonder that the ministers are so opposed to the +Sunday newspaper, and so they are opposed to anything calculated to +decrease the attendance at church. Why, they want all the parks, +all the museums, all the libraries closed on Sunday, and they want +the World's Fair closed on Sunday.</p> +<p>Now, I am in favor of Sunday; in fact, I am perfectly willing to +have two of them a week, but I want Sunday as a day of recreation +and pleasure. The fact is we ought not to work hard enough during +the week to require a day of rest. Every day ought to be so +arranged that there would be time for rest from the labor of that +day. Sunday is a good day to get business out of your mind, to +forget the ledger and the docket and the ticker, to forget profits +and losses, and enjoy yourself. It is a good day to go to the art +museums, to look at pictures and statues and beautiful things, so +that you may feel that there is something in this world besides +money and mud. It is a good day, is Sunday, to go to the libraries +and spend a little time with the great and splendid dead, and to go +to the cemetery and think of those who are sleeping there, and to +give a little thought to the time when you, too, like them, will +fall asleep. I think it is a good day for almost anything except +going to church. There is no need of that; everybody knows the +story, and if a man has worked hard all the week, you can hardly +call it recreation if he goes to church Sunday and hears that his +chances are ninety-nine in a hundred in favor of being eternally +damned.</p> +<p>So it is I am in favor of having the World's Fair open on +Sunday. It will be a good day to look at the best the world has +produced; a good day to leave the saloons and commune for a little +while with the mighty spirits that have glorified this world. +Sunday is a good day to leave the churches, where they teach that +man has become totally depraved, and look at the glorious things +that have been wrought by these depraved beings. Besides all this, +it is the day of days for the working man and working woman, for +those who have to work all the week. In New York an attempt was +made to open the Metropolitan Museum of Art on Sunday, and the +pious people opposed it. They thought it would interfere with the +joy of heaven if people were seen in the park enjoying themselves +on Sunday, and they also held that nobody would visit the Museum if +it were opened on Sunday; that the "common people" had no love for +pictures and statues and cared nothing about art. The doors were +opened, and it was demonstrated that the poor people, the toilers +and workers, did want to see such things on Sunday, and now more +people visit the Museum on Sunday than on all the other days of the +week put together. The same is true of the public libraries. There +is something to me infinitely pharisaical, hypocritical and +farcical in this Sunday nonsense. The rich people who favor keeping +Sunday "holy," have their coachman drive them to church and wait +outside until the services end. What do they care about the +coachman's soul? While they are at church their cooks are busy at +home getting dinner ready. What do they care for the souls of +cooks? The whole thing is pretence, and nothing but pretence. It is +the instinct of business. It is the competition of the gospel shop +with other shops and places of resort.</p> +<p>The ministers, of course, are opposed to all shows except their +own, for they know that very few will come to see or hear them and +the choice must be the church or nothing.</p> +<p>I do not believe that one day can be more holy than another +unless more joyous than another. The holiest day is the happiest +day— the day on which wives and children and men are +happiest. In that sense a day can be holy.</p> +<p>Our idea of the Sabbath is from the Puritans, and they imagined +that a man has to be miserable in order to excite the love of God. +We have outgrown the old New England Sabbath—the old Scotch +horror. The Germans have helped us and have set a splendid example. +I do not see how a poor workingman can go to church for +recreation—I mean an orthodox church. A man who has hell here +cannot be benefitted by being assured that he is likely to have +hell hereafter. The whole business I hold in perfect +abhorrence.</p> +<p>They tell us that God will not prosper us unless we observe the +Sabbath. The Jews kept the Sabbath and yet Jehovah deserted them, +and they are a people without a nation. The Scotch kept Sunday; +they are not independent. The French never kept Sunday, and yet +they are the most prosperous nation in Europe.</p> +<p>—<i>Commercial Gazette</i>, Cincinnati, Ohio, May 2, +1892.</p> +<a name="link0098" id="link0098"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>AUTHORS.</h2> +<p><i>Question</i>. Who, in your opinion, is the greatest novelist +who has written in the English language?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. The greatest novelist, in my opinion, who has +ever written in the English language, was Charles Dickens. He was +the greatest observer since Shakespeare. He had the eyes that see, +the ears that really hear. I place him above Thackeray. Dickens +wrote for the home, for the great public. Thackeray wrote for the +clubs. The greatest novel in our language—and it may be in +any other—is, according to my ideas, "A Tale of Two Cities." +In that, are philosophy, pathos, self-sacrifice, wit, humor, the +grotesque and the tragic. I think it is the most artistic novel +that I have read. The creations of Dickens' brain have become the +citizens of the world.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What is your opinion of American writers?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I think Emerson was a fine writer, and he did +this world a great deal of good, but I do not class him with the +first. Some of his poetry is wonderfully good and in it are some of +the deepest and most beautiful lines. I think he was a poet rather +than a philosopher. His doctrine of compensation would be +delightful if it had the facts to support it.</p> +<p>Of course, Hawthorne was a great writer. His style is a little +monotonous, but the matter is good. "The Marble Faun" is by far his +best effort. I shall always regret that Hawthorne wrote the life of +Franklin Pierce.</p> +<p>Walt Whitman will hold a high place among American writers. His +poem on the death of Lincoln, entitled "When Lilacs Last in the +Dooryard Bloom'd," is the greatest ever written on this continent. +He was a natural poet and wrote lines worthy of America. He was the +poet of democracy and individuality, and of liberty. He was worthy +of the great Republic.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What about Henry George's books?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Henry George wrote a wonderful book and one that +arrested the attention of the world—one of the greatest books +of the century. While I do not believe in his destructive theories, +I gladly pay a tribute to his sincerity and his genius.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think of Bellamy?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I do not think what is called nationalism of the +Bellamy kind is making any particular progress in this country. We +are believers in individual independence, and will be, I hope, +forever.</p> +<p>Boston was at one time the literary center of the country, but +the best writers are not living here now. The best novelists of our +country are not far from Boston. Edgar Fawcett lives in New York. +Howells was born, I believe, in Ohio, and Julian Hawthorne lives in +New Jersey or in Long Island. Among the poets, James Whitcomb Riley +is a native of Indiana, and he has written some of the daintiest +and sweetest things in American literature. Edgar Fawcett is a +great poet. His "Magic Flower" is as beautiful as anything Tennyson +has ever written. Eugene Field of Chicago, has written some +charming things, natural and touching.</p> +<p>Westward the star of literature takes its course.</p> +<p>—<i>The Star</i>, Kansas City, Mo., May 26, 1892.</p> +<a name="link0099" id="link0099"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>INEBRIETY.*</h2> +<pre> + [* Published from notes found among Colonel Ingersoll's + papers, evidently written soon after the discovery of the + "Keeley Cure."] +</pre> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you consider inebriety a disease, or the +result of diseased conditions?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I believe that by a long and continuous use of +stimulants, the system gets in such a condition that it +imperatively demands not only the usual, but an increased +stimulant. After a time, every nerve becomes hungry, and there is +in the body of the man a cry, coming from every nerve, for +nourishment. There is a kind of famine, and unless the want is +supplied, insanity is the result. This hunger of the nerves drowns +the voice of reason—cares nothing for argument—nothing +for experience—nothing for the sufferings of +others—nothing for anything, except for the food it requires. +Words are wasted, advice is of no possible use, argument is like +reasoning with the dead. The man has lost the control of his will +—it has been won over to the side of the nerves. He imagines +that if the nerves are once satisfied he can then resume the +control of himself. Of course, this is a mistake, and the more the +nerves are satisfied, the more imperative is their demand. +Arguments are not of the slightest force. The knowledge—the +conviction—that the course pursued is wrong, has no effect. +The man is in the grasp of appetite. He is like a ship at the mercy +of wind and wave and tide. The fact that the needle of the compass +points to the north has no effect—the compass is not a +force—it cannot battle with the wind and tide—and so, +in spite of the fact that the needle points to the north, the ship +is stranded on the rocks.</p> +<p>So the fact that the man knows that he should not drink has not +the slightest effect upon him. The sophistry of passion outweighs +all that reason can urge. In other words, the man is the victim of +disease, and until the disease is arrested, his will is not his +own. He may wish to reform, but wish is not will. He knows all of +the arguments in favor of temperance—he knows all about the +distress of wife and child—all about the loss of reputation +and character—all about the chasm toward which he is +drifting—and yet, not being the master of himself, he goes +with the tide.</p> +<p>For thousands of years society has sought to do away with +inebriety by argument, by example, by law; and yet millions and +millions have been carried away and countless thousands have become +victims of alcohol. In this contest words have always been +worthless, for the reason that no argument can benefit a man who +has lost control of himself.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. As a lawyer, will you express an opinion as to +the moral and legal responsibility of a victim of alcoholism?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Personally, I regard the moral and legal +responsibility of all persons as being exactly the same. All +persons do as they must. If you wish to change the conduct of an +individual you must change his conditions—otherwise his +actions will remain the same.</p> +<p>We are beginning to find that there is no effect without a +cause, and that the conduct of individuals is not an exception to +this law. Every hope, every fear, every dream, every virtue, every +crime, has behind it an efficient cause. Men do neither right nor +wrong by chance. In the world of fact and in the world of conduct, +as well as in the world of imagination, there is no room, no place, +for chance.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. In the case of an inebriate who has committed a +crime, what do you think of the common judicial opinion that such a +criminal is as deserving of punishment as a person not +inebriated?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I see no difference. Believing as I do that all +persons act as they must, it makes not the slightest difference +whether the person so acting is what we call inebriated, or sane, +or insane —he acts as he must.</p> +<p>There should be no such thing as punishment. Society should +protect itself by such means as intelligence and humanity may +suggest, but the idea of punishment is barbarous. No man ever was, +no man ever will be, made better by punishment. Society should have +two objects in view: First, the defence of itself, and second, the +reformation of the so-called criminal.</p> +<p>The world has gone on fining, imprisoning, torturing and killing +the victims of condition and circumstance, and condition and +circumstance have gone on producing the same kind of men and women +year after year and century after century—and all this is so +completely within the control of cause and effect, within the scope +and jurisdiction of universal law, that we can prophesy the number +of criminals for the next year—the thieves and robbers and +murderers —with almost absolute certainty.</p> +<p>There are just so many mistakes committed every year—so +many crimes —so many heartless and foolish things +done—and it does not seem to be—at least by the present +methods—possible to increase or decrease the number.</p> +<p>We have thousands and thousands of pulpits, and thousands of +moralists, and countless talkers and advisers, but all these +sermons, and all the advice, and all the talk, seem utterly +powerless in the presence of cause and effect. Mothers may pray, +wives may weep, children may starve, but the great procession moves +on.</p> +<p>For thousands of years the world endeavored to save itself from +disease by ceremonies, by genuflections, by prayers, by an appeal +to the charity and mercy of heaven—but the diseases +flourished and the graveyards became populous, and all the +ceremonies and all the prayers were without the slightest effect. +We must at last recognize the fact, that not only life, but +conduct, has a physical basis. We must at last recognize the fact +that virtue and vice, genius and stupidity, are born of certain +conditions.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. In which way do you think the reformation or +reconstruction of the inebriate is to be effected—by +punishment, by moral suasion, by seclusion, or by medical +treatment?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. In the first place, punishment simply increases +the disease. The victim, without being able to give the reasons, +feels that punishment is unjust, and thus feeling, the effect of +the punishment cannot be good.</p> +<p>You might as well punish a man for having the consumption which +he inherited from his parents, or for having a contagious disease +which was given to him without his fault, as to punish him for +drunkenness. No one wishes to be unhappy—no one wishes to +destroy his own well-being. All persons prefer happiness to +unhappiness, and success to failure, Consequently, you might as +well punish a man for being unhappy, and thus increase his +unhappiness, as to punish him for drunkenness. In neither case is +he responsible for what he suffers.</p> +<p>Neither can you cure this man by what is called moral suasion. +Moral suasion, if it amounts to anything, is the force of argument +—that is to say, the result of presenting the facts to the +victim. Now, of all persons in the world, the victim knows the +facts. He knows not only the effect upon those who love him, but +the effect upon himself. There are no words that can add to his +vivid appreciation of the situation. There is no language so +eloquent as the sufferings of his wife and children. All these +things the drunkard knows, and knows perfectly, and knows as well +as any other human being can know. At the same time, he feels that +the tide and current of passion are beyond his power. He feels that +he cannot row against the stream.</p> +<p>There is but one way, and that is, to treat the drunkard as the +victim of a disease—treat him precisely as you would a man +with a fever, as a man suffering from smallpox, or with some form +of indigestion. It is impossible to talk a man out of consumption, +or to reason him out of typhoid fever. You may tell him that he +ought not to die, that he ought to take into consideration the +condition in which he would leave his wife. You may talk to him +about his children—the necessity of their being fed and +educated —but all this will have nothing to do with the +progress of the disease. The man does not wish to die—he +wishes to live—and yet, there will come a time in his disease +when even that wish to live loses its power to will, and the man +drifts away on the tide, careless of life or death.</p> +<p>So it is with drink. Every nerve asks for a stimulant. Every +drop of blood cries out for assistance, and in spite of all +argument, in spite of all knowledge, in this famine of the nerves, +a man loses the power of will. Reason abdicates the throne, and +hunger takes its place.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Will you state your reasons for your +belief?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. In the first place, I will give a reason for my +unbelief in what is called moral suasion and in legislation.</p> +<p>As I said before, for thousands and thousands of years, fathers +and mothers and daughters and sisters and brothers have been +endeavoring to prevent the ones they love from drink, and yet, in +spite of everything, millions have gone on and filled at last a +drunkard's grave. So, societies have been formed all over the +world. But the consumption of ardent spirits has steadily +increased. Laws have been passed in nearly all the nations of the +world upon the subject, and these laws, so far as I can see, have +done but little, if any, good.</p> +<p>And the same old question is upon us now: What shall be done +with the victims of drink? There have been probably many instances +in which men have signed the pledge and have reformed. I do not say +that it is not possible to reform many men, in certain stages, by +moral suasion. Possibly, many men can be reformed in certain +stages, by law; but the per cent. is so small that, in spite of +that per cent., the average increases. For these reasons, I have +lost confidence in legislation and in moral suasion. I do not say +what legislation may do by way of prevention, or what moral suasion +may do in the same direction, but I do say that after man have +become the victims of alcohol, advice and law seem to have lost +their force.</p> +<p>I believe that science is to become the savior of mankind. In +other words, every appetite, every excess, has a physical basis, +and if we only knew enough of the human system—of the tides +and currents of thought and will and wish—enough of the +storms of passion—if we only knew how the brain acts and +operates—if we only knew the relation between blood and +thought, between thought and act—if we only knew the +conditions of conduct, then we could, through science, control the +passions of the human race.</p> +<p>When I first heard of the cure of inebriety through scientific +means, I felt that the morning star had risen in the east—I +felt that at last we were finding solid ground. I did not +accept—being of a skeptical turn of mind—all that I +heard as true. I preferred to hope, and wait. I have waited, until +I have seen men, the victims of alcohol, in the very gutter of +disgrace and despair, lifted from the mire, rescued from the famine +of desire, from the grasp of appetite. I have seen them suddenly +become men—masters and monarchs of themselves.</p> +<a name="link0100" id="link0100"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>MIRACLES, THEOSOPHY AND SPIRITUALISM.</h2> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you believe that there is such a thing as a +miracle, or that there has ever been?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Mr. Locke was in the habit of saying: "Define +your terms." So the first question is, What is a miracle? If it is +something wonderful, unusual, inexplicable, then there have been +many miracles. If you mean simply that which is inexplicable, then +the world is filled with miracles; but if you mean by a miracle, +something contrary to the facts in nature, then it seems to me that +the miracle must be admitted to be an impossibility. It is like +twice two are eleven in mathematics.</p> +<p>If, again, we take the ground of some of the more advanced +clergy, that a miracle is in accordance with the facts in nature, +but with facts unknown to man, then we are compelled to say that a +miracle is performed by a divine sleight-of-hand; as, for instance, +that our senses are deceived; or, that it is perfectly simple to +this higher intelligence, while inexplicable to us. If we give this +explanation, then man has been imposed upon by a superior +intelligence. It is as though one acquainted with the +sciences—with the action of electricity—should excite +the wonder of savages by sending messages to his partner. The +savage would say, "A miracle;" but the one who sent the message +would say, "There is no miracle; it is in accordance with facts in +nature unknown to you." So that, after all, the word miracle grows +in the soil of ignorance.</p> +<p>The question arises whether a superior intelligence ought to +impose upon the inferior. I believe there was a French saint who +had his head cut off by robbers, and this saint, after the robbers +went away, got up, took his head under his arm and went on his way +until he found friends to set it on right. A thing like this, if it +really happened, was a miracle.</p> +<p>So it may be said that nothing is much more miraculous than the +fact that intelligent men believe in miracles. If we read in the +annals of China that several thousand years ago five thousand +people were fed on one sandwich, and that several sandwiches were +left over after the feast, there are few intelligent +men—except, it may be, the editors of religious +weeklies—who would credit the statement. But many intelligent +people, reading a like story in the Hebrew, or in the Greek, or in +a mistranslation from either of these languages, accept the story +without a doubt.</p> +<p>So if we should find in the records of the Indians that a +celebrated medicine-man of their tribe used to induce devils to +leave crazy people and take up their abode in wild swine, very few +people would believe the story.</p> +<p>I believe it is true that the priest of one religion has never +had the slightest confidence in the priest of any other +religion.</p> +<p>My own opinion is, that nature is just as wonderful one time as +another; that that which occurs to-day is just as miraculous as +anything that ever happened; that nothing is more wonderful than +that we live—that we think—that we convey our thoughts +by speech, by gestures, by pictures.</p> +<p>Nothing is more wonderful than the growth of grass—the +production of seed—the bud, the blossom and the fruit. In +other words, we are surrounded by the inexplicable.</p> +<p>All that happens in conformity with what we know, we call +natural; and that which is said to have happened, not in conformity +with what we know, we say is wonderful; and that which we believe +to have happened contrary to what we know, we call the +miraculous.</p> +<p>I think the truth is, that nothing ever happened except in a +natural way; that behind every effect has been an efficient cause, +and that this wondrous procession of causes and effects has never +been, and never will be, broken. In other words, there is nothing +superior to the universe—nothing that can interfere with this +procession of causes and effects. I believe in no miracles in the +theological sense. My opinion is that the universe is, forever has +been, and forever will be, perfectly natural.</p> +<p>Whenever a religion has been founded among barbarians and +ignorant people, the founder has appealed to miracle as a kind of +credential —as an evidence that he is in partnership with +some higher power. The credulity of savagery made this easy. But at +last we have discovered that there is no necessary relation between +the miraculous and the moral. Whenever a man's reason is developed +to that point that he sees the reasonableness of a thing, he needs +no miracle to convince him. It is only ignorance or cunning that +appeals to the miraculous.</p> +<p>There is another thing, and that is this: Truth relies upon +itself —that is to say, upon the perceived relation between +itself and all other truths. If you tell the facts, you need not +appeal to a miracle. It is only a mistake or a falsehood, that +needs to be propped and buttressed by wonders and miracles.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What is your explanation of the miracles +referred to in the Old and New Testaments?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. In the first place, a miracle cannot be +explained. If it is a real miracle, there is no explanation. If it +can be explained, then the miracle disappears, and the thing was +done in accordance with the facts and forces of nature.</p> +<p>In a time when not one it may be in thousands could read or +write, when language was rude, and when the signs by which thoughts +were conveyed were few and inadequate, it was very easy to make +mistakes, and nothing is more natural than for a mistake to grow +into a miracle. In an ignorant age, history for the most part +depended upon memory. It was handed down from the old in their +dotage, to the young without judgment. The old always thought that +the early days were wonderful—that the world was wearing out +because they were. The past looked at through the haze of memory, +became exaggerated, gigantic. Their fathers were stronger than +they, and their grandfathers far superior to their fathers, and so +on until they reached men who had the habit of living about a +thousand years.</p> +<p>In my judgment, everything in the Old Testament contrary to the +experience of the civilized world, is false. I do not say that +those who told the stories knew that they were false, or that those +who wrote them suspected that they were not true. Thousands and +thousands of lies are told by honest stupidity and believed by +innocent credulity. Then again, cunning takes advantage of +ignorance, and so far as I know, though all the history of the +world a good many people have endeavored to make a living without +work.</p> +<p>I am perfectly convinced of the integrity of nature—that +the elements are eternally the same—that the chemical +affinities and hatreds know no shadow of turning—that just so +many atoms of one kind combine with so many atoms of another, and +that the relative numbers have never changed and never will change. +I am satisfied that the attraction of gravitation is a permanent +institution; that the laws of motion have been the same that they +forever will be. There is no chance, there is no caprice. Behind +every effect is a cause, and every effect must in its turn become a +cause, and only that is produced which a cause of necessity +produces.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think of Madame Blavatsky and her +school of Theosophists? Do you believe Madame Blavatsky does or has +done the wonderful things related of her? Have you seen or known of +any Theosophical or esoteric marvels?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I think wonders are about the same in this +country that they are in India, and nothing appears more likely to +me simply because it is surrounded with the mist of antiquity. In +my judgment, Madame Blavatsky has never done any wonderful +things—that is to say, anything not in perfect accordance +with the facts of nature.</p> +<p>I know nothing of esoteric marvels. In one sense, everything +that exists is a marvel, and the probability is that if we knew the +history of one grain of sand we would know the history of the +universe. I regard the universe as a unit. Everything that happens +is only a different aspect of that unit. There is no room for the +marvelous—there is no space in which it can +operate—there is no fulcrum for its lever. The universe is +already occupied with the natural. The ground is all taken.</p> +<p>It may be that all these people are perfectly honest, and +imagine that they have had wonderful experiences. I know but little +of the Theosophists—but little of the Spiritualists. It has +always seemed to me that the messages received by Spiritualists are +remarkably unimportant—that they tell us but little about the +other world, and just as little about this—that if all the +messages supposed to have come from angelic lips, or spiritual +lips, were destroyed, certainly the literature of the world would +lose but little. Some of these people are exceedingly intelligent, +and whenever they say any good thing, I imagine that it was +produced in their brain, and that it came from no other world. I +have no right to pass upon their honesty. Most of them may be +sincere. It may be that all the founders of religions have really +supposed themselves to be inspired—believed that they held +conversations with angels and Gods. It seems to be easy for some +people to get in such a frame of mind that their thoughts become +realities, their dreams substances, and their very hopes +palpable.</p> +<p>Personally, I have no sort of confidence in these messages from +the other world. There may be mesmeric forces—there may be an +odic force. It may be that some people can tell of what another is +thinking. I have seen no such people—at least I am not +acquainted with them—and my own opinion is that no such +persons exist.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you believe the spirits of the dead come +back to earth?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I do not. I do not say that the spirits do not +come back. I simply say that I know nothing on the subject. I do +not believe in such spirits, simply for the reason that I have no +evidence upon which to base such a belief. I do not say there are +no such spirits, for the reason that my knowledge is limited, and I +know of no way of demonstrating the non-existence of spirits.</p> +<p>It may be that man lives forever, and it may be that what we +call life ends with what we call death. I have had no experience +beyond the grave, and very little back of birth. Consequently, I +cannot say that I have a belief on this subject. I can simply say +that I have no knowledge on this subject, and know of no fact in +nature that I would use as the corner-stone of a belief.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you believe in the resurrection of the +body?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. My answer to that is about the same as to the +other question. I do not believe in the resurrection of the body. +It seems to me an exceedingly absurd belief—and yet I do not +know. I am told, and I suppose I believe, that the atoms that are +in me have been in many other people, and in many other forms of +life, and I suppose at death the atoms forming my body go back to +the earth and are used in countless forms. These facts, or what I +suppose to be facts, render a belief in the resurrection of the +body impossible to me.</p> +<p>We get atoms to support our body from what we eat. Now, if a +cannibal should eat a missionary, and certain atoms belonging to +the missionary should be used by the cannibal in his body, and the +cannibal should then die while the atoms of the missionary formed +part of his flesh, to whom would these atoms belong in the morning +of the resurrection?</p> +<p>Then again, science teaches us that there is a kind of balance +between animal and vegetable life, and that probably all men and +all animals have been trees, and all trees have been animals; so +that the probability is that the atoms that are now in us have +been, as I said in the first place, in millions of other people. +Now, if this be so, there cannot be atoms enough in the morning of +the resurrection, because, if the atoms are given to the first men, +that belonged to the first men when they died, there will certainly +be no atoms for the last men.</p> +<p>Consequently, I am compelled to say that I do not believe in the +resurrection of the body.*</p> +<pre> + [* From notes found among Colonel Ingersoll's papers.] +</pre> +<a name="link0101" id="link0101"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>TOLSTOY AND LITERATURE.</h2> +<h3><i>Question</i>. What is your opinion of Count Leo +Tolstoy?</h3> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I have read Tolstoy. He is a curious mixture of +simplicity and philosophy. He seems to have been carried away by +his conception of religion. He is a non-resistant to such a degree +that he asserts that he would not, if attacked, use violence to +preserve his own life or the life of a child. Upon this question he +is undoubtedly insane.</p> +<p>So he is trying to live the life of a peasant and doing without +the comforts of life! This is not progress. Civilization should not +endeavor to bring about equality by making the rich poor or the +comfortable miserable. This will not add to the pleasures of the +rich, neither will it feed the hungry, not clothe the naked.</p> +<p>The civilized wealthy should endeavor to help the needy, and +help them in a sensible way, not through charity, but through +industry; through giving them opportunities to take care of +themselves. I do not believe in the equality that is to be reached +by pulling the successful down, but I do believe in civilization +that tends to raise the fallen and assists those in need.</p> +<p>Should we all follow Tolstoy's example and live according to his +philosophy the world would go back to barbarism; art would be lost; +that which elevates and refines would be destroyed; the voice of +music would become silent, and man would be satisfied with a rag, a +hut, a crust. We do not want the equality of savages.</p> +<p>No, in civilization there must be differences, because there is +a constant movement forward. The human race cannot advance in line. +There will be pioneers, there will be the great army, and there +will be countless stragglers. It is not necessary for the whole +army to go back to the stragglers, it is better that the army +should march forward toward the pioneers.</p> +<p>It may be that the sale of Tolstoy's works is on the increase in +America, but certainly the principles of Tolstoy are gaining no +foothold here. We are not a nation of non-resistants. We believe in +defending our homes. Nothing can exceed the insanity of non- +resistance. This doctrine leaves virtue naked and clothes vice in +armor; it gives every weapon to the wrong and takes every shield +from the right. I believe that goodness has the right of self- +defence. As a matter of fact, vice should be left naked and virtue +should have all the weapons. The good should not be a flock of +sheep at the mercy of every wolf. So, I do not accept Tolstoy's +theory of equality as a sensible solution of the labor problem.</p> +<p>The hope of this world is that men will become civilized to that +degree that they cannot be happy while they know that thousands of +their fellow-men are miserable.</p> +<p>The time will come when the man who dwells in a palace will not +be happy if Want sits upon the steps at his door. No matter how +well he is clothed himself he will not enjoy his robes if he sees +others in rags, and the time will come when the intellect of this +world will be directed by the heart of this world, and when men of +genius and power will do what they can for the benefit of their +fellow- men. All this is to come through civilization, through +experience.</p> +<p>Men, after a time, will find the worthlessness of great wealth; +they will find it is not splendid to excite envy in others. So, +too, they will find that the happiness of the human race is so +interdependent and so interwoven, that finally the interest of +humanity will be the interest of the individual.</p> +<p>I know that at present the lives of many millions are +practically without value, but in my judgment, the world is growing +a little better every day. On the average, men have more comforts, +better clothes, better food, more books and more of the luxuries of +life than ever before.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. It is said that properly to appreciate +Rousseau, Voltaire, Hugo and other French classics, a thorough +knowledge of the French language is necessary. What is your +opinion?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. No; to say that a knowledge of French is +necessary in order to appreciate Voltaire or Hugo is nonsensical. +For a student anxious to study the works of these masters, to set +to work to learn the language of the writers would be like my +building a flight of stairs to go down to supper. The stairs are +already there. Some other person built them for me and others who +choose to use them.</p> +<p>Men have spent their lives in the study of the French and +English, and have given us Voltaire, Hugo and all other works of +French classics, perfect in sentiment and construction as the +originals are. Macaulay was a great linguist, but he wrote no +better than Shakespeare, and Burns wrote perfect English, though +virtually uneducated. Good writing is a matter of genius and heart; +reading is application and judgment.</p> +<p>I am of the opinion that Wilbur's English translation of "Les +Miserables" is better than Hugo's original, as a literary +masterpiece.</p> +<p>What a grand novel it is! What characters, Jean Valjean and +Javert!</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Which in your opinion is the greatest English +novel?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I think the greatest novel ever written in +English is "A Tale of Two Cities," by Dickens. It is full of +philosophy; its incidents are dramatically grouped. Sidney Carton, +the hero, is a marvelous creation and a marvelous character. Lucie +Manette is as delicate as the perfume of wild violets, and cell +105, North Tower, and scenes enacted there, almost touch the region +occupied by "Lear." There, too, Mme. Defarge is the impersonation +of the French Revolution, and the nobleman of the chateau with his +fine features changed to stone, and the messenger at Tellson's Bank +gnawing the rust from his nails; all there are the creations of +genius, and these children of fiction will live as long as +Imagination spreads her many-colored wings in the mind of man.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think of Pope?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Pope! Alexander Pope, the word-carpenter, a +mechanical poet, or stay—rather a "digital poet;" that fits +him best—one of those fellows who counts his fingers to see +that his verse is in perfect rhythm. His "Essay on Man" strikes me +as being particularly defective. For instance:</p> +<pre> + "All discord, harmony not understood, + All partial evil, universal good," +</pre> +<p>from the first epistle of his "Essay on Man." Anything that is +evil cannot by any means be good, and anything partial cannot be +universal.</p> +<p>We see in libraries ponderous tomes labeled "Burke's Speeches." +No person ever seems to read them, but he is now regarded as being +in his day a great speaker, because now no one has pluck enough to +read his speeches. Why, for thirty years Burke was known in +Parliament as the "Dinner Bell"—whenever he rose to speak, +everybody went to dinner.</p> +<p>—<i>The Evening Express</i>, Buffalo, New York, October 6, +1892.</p> +<a name="link0102" id="link0102"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>WOMAN IN POLITICS.</h2> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think of the influence of women in +politics?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I think the influence of women is always good in +politics, as in everything else. I think it the duty of every woman +to ascertain what she can in regard to her country, including its +history, laws and customs. Woman above all others is a teacher. +She, above all others, determines the character of children; that +is to say, of men and women.</p> +<p>There is not the slightest danger of women becoming too +intellectual or knowing too much. Neither is there any danger of +men knowing too much. At least, I know of no men who are in +immediate peril from that source. I am a firm believer in the equal +rights of human beings, and no matter what I think as to what woman +should or should not do, she has the same right to decide for +herself that I have to decide for myself. If women wish to vote, if +they wish to take part in political matters, if they wish to run +for office, I shall do nothing to interfere with their rights. I +most cheerfully admit that my political rights are only equal to +theirs.</p> +<p>There was a time when physical force or brute strength gave pre- +eminence. The savage chief occupied his position by virtue of his +muscle, of his courage, on account of the facility with which he +wielded a club. As long as nations depend simply upon brute force, +the man, in time of war, is, of necessity, of more importance to +the nation than woman, and as the dispute is to be settled by +strength, by force, those who have the strength and force naturally +settle it. As the world becomes civilized, intelligence slowly +takes the place of force, conscience restrains muscle, reason +enters the arena, and the gladiator retires.</p> +<p>A little while ago the literature of the world was produced by +men, and men were not only the writers, but the readers. At that +time the novels were coarse and vulgar. Now the readers of fiction +are women, and they demand that which they can read, and the result +is that women have become great writers. The women have changed our +literature, and the change has been good.</p> +<p>In every field where woman has become a competitor of man she +has either become, or given evidence that she is to become, his +equal. My own opinion is that woman is naturally the equal of man +and that in time, that is to say, when she has had the opportunity +and the training, she will produce in the world of art as great +pictures, as great statues, and in the world of literature as great +books, dramas and poems as man has produced or will produce.</p> +<p>There is nothing very hard to understand in the politics of a +country. The general principles are for the most part simple. It is +only in the application that the complexity arises, and woman, I +think, by nature, is as well fitted to understand these things as +man. In short, I have no prejudice on this subject. At first, women +will be more conservative than men; and this is natural. Women +have, through many generations, acquired the habit of submission, +of acquiescence. They have practiced what may be called the slave +virtues—obedience, humility—so that some time will be +required for them to become accustomed to the new order of things, +to the exercise of greater freedom, acting in accordance with +perceived obligation, independently of authority.</p> +<p>So I say equal rights, equal education, equal advantages. I hope +that woman will not continue to be the serf of superstition; that +she will not be the support of the church and priest; that she will +not stand for the conservation of superstition, but that in the +east of her mind the sun of progress will rise.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. In your lecture on Voltaire you made a remark +about the government of ministers, and you stated that if the +ministers of the city of New York had to power to make the laws +most people would prefer to live in a well regulated penitentiary. +What do you mean by this?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Well, as a rule, ministers are quite severe. They +have little patience with human failures. They are taught, and they +believe and they teach, that man is absolutely master of his own +fate. Besides, they are believers in the inspiration of the +Scriptures, and the laws of the Old Testament are exceedingly +severe. Nearly every offence was punished by death. Every offence +was regarded as treason against Jehovah.</p> +<p>In the Pentateuch there is no pity. If a man committed some +offence justice was not satisfied with his punishment, but +proceeded to destroy his wife and children. Jehovah seemed to think +that crime was in the blood; that it was not sufficient to kill the +criminal, but to prevent future crimes you should kill his wife and +babes. The reading of the Old Testament is calculated to harden the +heart, to drive the angel of pity from the breast, and to make man +a religious savage. The clergy, as a rule, do not take a broad and +liberal view of things. They judge every offence by what they +consider would be the result if everybody committed the same +offence. They do not understand that even vice creates obstructions +for itself, and that there is something in the nature of crime the +tendency of which is to defeat crime, and I might add in this place +that the same seems to be true of excessive virtue. As a rule, the +clergy clamor with great zeal for the execution of cruel laws.</p> +<p>Let me give an instance in point: In the time of George III., in +England, there were two hundred and twenty-three offences +punishable with death. From time to time this cruel code was +changed by Act of Parliament, yet no bishop sitting in the House of +Lords ever voted in favor of any one of these measures. The bishops +always voted for death, for blood, against mercy and against the +repeal of capital punishment. During all these years there were +some twenty thousand or more of the established clergy, and yet, +according to John Bright, no voice was ever raised in any English +pulpit against the infamous criminal code.</p> +<p>Another thing: The orthodox clergy teach that man is totally +depraved; that his inclination is evil; that his tendency is toward +the Devil. Starting from this as a foundation, of course every +clergyman believes every bad thing said of everybody else. So, when +some man is charged with a crime, the clergyman taking into +consideration the fact that the man is totally depraved, takes it +for granted that he must be guilty. I am not saying this for the +purpose of exciting prejudice against the clergy. I am simply +showing what is the natural result of a certain creed, of a belief +in universal depravity, or a belief in the power and influence of a +personal Devil. If the clergy could have their own way they would +endeavor to reform the world by law. They would re-enact the old +statutes of the Puritans. Joy would be a crime. Love would be an +offence. Every man with a smile on his face would be suspected, and +a dimple in the cheek would be a demonstration of depravity.</p> +<p>In the trial of a cause it is natural for a clergyman to start +with the proposition, "The defendant is guilty;" and then he says +to himself, "Let him prove himself innocent." The man who has not +been poisoned with the creed starts out with the proposition, "The +defendant is innocent; let the State prove that he is guilty." +Consequently, I say that if I were defending a man whom I knew to +be innocent, I would not have a clergyman on the jury if I could +help it.</p> +<p>—<i>New York Advertiser</i>, December 24, 1893.</p> +<a name="link0103" id="link0103"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>SPIRITUALISM.</h2> +<p><i>Question</i>. Have you investigated Spiritualism, and what +has been your experience?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. A few years ago I paid some attention to what is +called Spiritualism, and was present when quite mysterious things +were supposed to have happened. The most notable seance that I +attended was given by Slade, at which slate-writing was done. Two +slates were fastened together, with a pencil between them, and on +opening the slates certain writing was found. When the writing was +done it was impossible to tell. So, I have been present when it was +claimed that certain dead people had again clothed themselves in +flesh and were again talking in the old way. In one instance, I +think, George Washington claimed to be present. On the same evening +Shakespeare put in an appearance. It was hard to recognize +Shakespeare from what the spirit said, still I was assured by the +medium that there was no mistake as to the identity.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Can you offer any explanation of the +extraordinary phenomena such as Henry J. Newton has had produced at +his own house under his own supervision?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. In the first place, I don't believe that anything +such as you describe has ever happened. I do not believe that a +medium ever passed into and out of a triple-locked iron cage. +Neither do I believe that any spirits were able to throw shoes and +wraps out of the cage; neither do I believe that any apparitions +ever rose from the floor, or that anything you relate has ever +happened. The best explanation I can give of these wonderful +occurrences is the following: A little boy and girl were standing +in a doorway holding hands. A gentleman passing, stopped for a +moment and said to the little girl: "What relation is the little +boy to you?" and she replied, "We had the same father and we had +the same mother, but I am not his sister and he is not my brother." +This at first seemed to be quite a puzzle, but it was exceedingly +plain when the answer was known: The little girl lied.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Have you had any experience with spirit +photography, spirit physicians, or spirit lawyers?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I was shown at one time several pictures said to +be the photographs of living persons surrounded by the photographs +of spirits. I examined them very closely, and I found evidence in +the photographs themselves that they were spurious. I took it for +granted that light is the same everywhere, and that it obeys the +angle of incidence in all worlds and at all times. In looking at +the spirit photographs I found, for instance, that in the +photograph of the living person the shadows fell to the right, and +that in the photographs of the ghosts, or spirits, supposed to have +been surrounding the living person at the time the picture was +taken, the shadows did not fall in the same direction, sometimes in +the opposite direction, never at the same angle even when the +general direction was the same. This demonstrated that the +photographs of the spirits and of the living persons were not taken +at the same time. So much for photographs.</p> +<p>I have had no experience with spirit physicians. I was once told +by a lawyer who came to employ me in a will case, that a certain +person had made a will giving a large amount of money for the +purpose of spreading the gospel of Spiritualism, but that the will +had been lost and than an effort was then being made to find it, +and they wished me to take certain action pending the search, and +wanted my assistance. I said to him: "If Spiritualism be true, why +not ask the man who made the will what it was and also what has +become of it. If you can find that out from the departed, I will +gladly take a retainer in the case; otherwise, I must decline." I +have had no other experience with the lawyers.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. If you were to witness phenomena that seemed +inexplicable by natural laws, would you be inclined to favor +Spiritualism?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I would not. If I should witness phenomena that I +could not explain, I would leave the phenomena unexplained. I would +not explain them because I did not understand them, and say they +were or are produced by spirits. That is no explanation, and, after +admitting that we do not know and that we cannot explain, why +should we proceed to explain? I have seen Mr. Kellar do things for +which I cannot account. Why should I say that he has the assistance +of spirits? All I have a right to say is that I know nothing about +how he does them. So I am compelled to say with regard to many +spiritualistic feats, that I am ignorant of the ways and means. At +the same time, I do not believe that there is anything supernatural +in the universe.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What is your opinion of Spiritualism and +Spiritualists?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I think the Spiritualism of the present day is +certainly in advance of the Spiritualism of several centuries ago. +Persons who now deny Spiritualism and hold it in utter contempt +insist that some eighteen or nineteen centuries ago it had +possession of the world; that miracles were of daily occurrence; +that demons, devils, fiends, took possession of human beings, lived +in their bodies, dominated their minds. They believe, too, that +devils took possession of the bodies of animals. They also insist +that a wish could multiply fish. And, curiously enough, the +Spiritualists of our time have but little confidence in the +phenomena of eighteen hundred years ago; and, curiously enough, +those who believe in the Spiritualism of eighteen hundred years ago +deny the Spiritualism of to-day. I think the Spiritualists of +to-day have far more evidence of their phenomena than those who +believe in the wonderful things of eighteen centuries ago. The +Spiritualists of to-day have living witnesses, which is something. +I know a great many Spiritualists that are exceedingly good people, +and are doing what they can to make the world better. But I think +they are mistaken.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you believe in spirit entities, whether +manifestible or not?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I believe there is such a thing as matter. I +believe there is a something called force. The difference between +force and matter I do not know. So there is something called +consciousness. Whether we call consciousness an entity or not makes +no difference as to what it really is. There is something that +hears, sees and feels, a something that takes cognizance of what +happens in what we call the outward world. No matter whether we +call this something matter or spirit, it is something that we do +not know, to say the least of it, all about. We cannot understand +what matter is. It defies us, and defies definitions. So, with what +we call spirit, we are in utter ignorance of what it is. We have +some little conception of what we mean by it, and of what others +mean, but as to what it really is no one knows. It makes no +difference whether we call ourselves Materialists or Spiritualists, +we believe in all there is, no matter what you call it. If we call +it all matter, then we believe that matter can think and hope and +dream. If we call it all spirit, then we believe that spirit has +force, that it offers a resistance; in other words, that it is, in +one of its aspects, what we call matter. I cannot believe that +everything can be accounted for by motion or by what we call force, +because there is something that recognizes force. There is +something that compares, that thinks, that remembers; there is +something that suffers and enjoys; there is something that each one +calls himself or herself, that is inexplicable to himself or +herself, and it makes no difference whether we call this something +mind or soul, effect or entity, it still eludes us, and all the +words we have coined for the purpose of expressing our knowledge of +this something, after all, express only our desire to know, and our +efforts to ascertain. It may be that if we would ask some minister, +some one who has studied theology, he would give us a perfect +definition. The scientists know nothing about it, and I know of no +one who does, unless it be a theologian.</p> +<p>—<i>The Globe-Democrat</i>, St. Louis, Mo., 1893.</p> +<a name="link0104" id="link0104"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>PLAYS AND PLAYERS.</h2> +<a name="image-0001" id="image-0001"><!--IMG--></a> +<center><img src="images/theater.jpg" height="767" width="1248" +alt=" Chatham Street Theater " /></center> +<p><i>Chatham Street Theater, New York City, N. Y., where Robert G. +Ingersoll was baptized in 1836 by his father, the Rev. John +Ingersoll, who temporarily preached at the theatre, his church +having been destroyed by fire</i>.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What place does the theatre hold among the +arts?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Nearly all the arts unite in the theatre, and it +is the result of the best, the highest, the most artistic, that man +can do.</p> +<p>In the first place, there must be the dramatic poet. Dramatic +poetry is the subtlest, profoundest, the most intellectual, the +most passionate and artistic of all. Then the stage must be +prepared, and there is work for the architect, the painter and +sculptor. Then the actors appear, and they must be gifted with +imagination, with a high order of intelligence; they must have +sympathies quick and deep, natures capable of the greatest emotion, +dominated by passion. They must have impressive presence, and all +that is manly should meet and unite in the actor; all that is +womanly, tender, intense and admirable should be lavishly bestowed +on the actress. In addition to all this, actors should have the art +of being natural.</p> +<p>Let me explain what I mean by being natural. When I say that an +actor is natural, I mean that he appears to act in accordance with +his ideal, in accordance with his nature, and that he is not an +imitator or a copyist—that he is not made up of shreds and +patches taken from others, but that all he does flows from interior +fountains and is consistent with his own nature, all having in a +marked degree the highest characteristics of the man. That is what +I mean by being natural.</p> +<p>The great actor must be acquainted with the heart, must know the +motives, ends, objects and desires that control the thoughts and +acts of men. He must be familiar with many people, including the +lowest and the highest, so that he may give to others, clothed with +flesh and blood, the characters born of the poet's brain. The great +actor must know the relations that exist between passion and voice, +gesture and emphasis, expression and pose. He must speak not only +with his voice, but with his body. The great actor must be master +of many arts.</p> +<p>Then comes the musician. The theatre has always been the home of +music, and this music must be appropriate; must, or should, express +or supplement what happens on the stage; should furnish rest and +balm for minds overwrought with tragic deeds. To produce a great +play, and put it worthily upon the stage, involves most arts, many +sciences and nearly all that is artistic, poetic and dramatic in +the mind of man.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Should the drama teach lessons and discuss +social problems, or should it give simply intellectual pleasure and +furnish amusement?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Every great play teaches many lessons and touches +nearly all social problems. But the great play does this by +indirection. Every beautiful thought is a teacher; every noble line +speaks to the brain and heart. Beauty, proportion, melody suggest +moral beauty, proportion in conduct and melody in life. In a great +play the relations of the various characters, their objects, the +means adopted for their accomplishment, must suggest, and in a +certain sense solve or throw light on many social problems, so that +the drama teaches lessons, discusses social problems and gives +intellectual pleasure.</p> +<p>The stage should not be dogmatic; neither should its object be +directly to enforce a moral. The great thing for the drama to do, +and the great thing it has done, and is doing, is to cultivate the +imagination. This is of the utmost importance. The civilization of +man depends upon the development, not only of the intellect, but of +the imagination. Most crimes of violence are committed by people +who are destitute of imagination. People without imagination make +most of the cruel and infamous creeds. They were the persecutors +and destroyers of their fellow-men. By cultivating the imagination, +the stage becomes one of the greatest teachers. It produces the +climate in which the better feelings grow; it is the home of the +ideal. All beautiful things tend to the civilization of man. The +great statues plead for proportion in life, the great symphonies +suggest the melody of conduct, and the great plays cultivate the +heart and brain.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think of the French drama as +compared with the English, morally and artistically considered?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. The modern French drama, so far as I am +acquainted with it, is a disease. It deals with the abnormal. It is +fashioned after Balzac. It exhibits moral tumors, mental cancers +and all kinds of abnormal fungi,—excrescences. Everything is +stood on its head; virtue lives in the brothel; the good are the +really bad and the worst are, after all, the best. It portrays the +exceptional, and mistakes the scum-covered bayou for the great +river. The French dramatists seem to think that the ceremony of +marriage sows the seed of vice. They are always conveying the idea +that the virtuous are uninteresting, rather stupid, without sense +and spirit enough to take advantage of their privilege. Between the +greatest French plays and the greatest English plays of course +there is no comparison. If a Frenchman had written the plays of +Shakespeare, Desdemona would have been guilty, Isabella would have +ransomed her brother at the Duke's price, Juliet would have married +the County Paris, run away from him, and joined Romeo in Mantua, +and Miranda would have listened coquettishly to the words of +Caliban. The French are exceedingly artistic. They understand stage +effects, love the climax, delight in surprises, especially in the +improbable; but their dramatists lack sympathy and breadth of +treatment. They are provincial. With them France is the world. They +know little of other countries. Their plays do not touch the +universal.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What are your feelings in reference to idealism +on the stage?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. The stage ought to be the home of the ideal; in a +word, the imagination should have full sway. The great dramatist is +a creator; he is the sovereign, and governs his own world. The +realist is only a copyist. He does not need genius. All he wants is +industry and the trick of imitation. On the stage, the real should +be idealized, the ordinary should be transfigured; that is, the +deeper meaning of things should be given. As we make music of +common air, and statues of stone, so the great dramatist should +make life burst into blossom on the stage. A lot of words, facts, +odds and ends divided into acts and scenes do not make a play. +These things are like old pieces of broken iron that need the heat +of the furnace so that they may be moulded into shape. Genius is +that furnace, and in its heat and glow and flame these pieces, +these fragments, become molten and are cast into noble and heroic +forms. Realism degrades and impoverishes the stage.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What attributes should an actor have to be +really great?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Intelligence, imagination, presence; a mobile and +impressive face; a body that lends itself to every mood in +appropriate pose, one that is oak or willow, at will; +self-possession; absolute ease; a voice capable of giving every +shade of meaning and feeling, an intuitive knowledge or perception +of proportion, and above all, the actor should be so sincere that +he loses himself in the character he portrays. Such an actor will +grow intellectually and morally. The great actor should strive to +satisfy himself—to reach his own ideal.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you enjoy Shakespeare more in the library +than Shakespeare interpreted by actors now on the boards?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I enjoy Shakespeare everywhere. I think it would +give me pleasure to hear those wonderful lines spoken even by +phonographs. But Shakespeare is greatest and best when grandly put +upon the stage. There you know the connection, the relation, the +circumstances, and these bring out the appropriateness and the +perfect meaning of the text. Nobody in this country now thinks of +Hamlet without thinking of Booth. For this generation at least, +Booth is Hamlet. It is impossible for me to read the words of Sir +Toby without seeing the face of W. F. Owen. Brutus is Davenport, +Cassius is Lawrence Barrett, and Lear will be associated always in +my mind with Edwin Forrest. Lady Macbeth is to me Adelaide Ristori, +the greatest actress I ever saw. If I understood music perfectly, I +would much rather hear Seidl's orchestra play "Tristan," or hear +Remenyi's matchless rendition of Schubert's "Ave Maria," than to +read the notes.</p> +<p>Most people love the theatre. Everything about it from stage to +gallery attracts and fascinates. The mysterious realm, behind the +scenes, from which emerge kings and clowns, villains and fools, +heroes and lovers, and in which they disappear, is still a +fairyland. As long as man is man he will enjoy the love and +laughter, the tears and rapture of the mimic world.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Is it because we lack men of genius or because +our life is too material that no truly great American plays have +been written?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. No great play has been written since Shakespeare; +that is, no play has been written equal to his. But there is the +same reason for that in all other countries, including England, +that there is in this country, and that reason is that Shakespeare +has had no equal.</p> +<p>America has not failed because life in the Republic is too +material. Germany and France, and, in fact, all other nations, have +failed in the same way. In the sense in which I am speaking, +Germany has produced no great play.</p> +<p>In the dramatic world Shakespeare stands alone. Compared with +him, even the classic is childish.</p> +<p>There is plenty of material for plays. The Republic has lived a +great play—a great poem—a most marvelous drama. Here, +on our soil, have happened some of the greatest events in the +history of the world.</p> +<p>All human passions have been and are in full play here, and here +as elsewhere, can be found the tragic, the comic, the beautiful, +the poetic, the tears, the smiles, the lamentations and the +laughter that are the necessary warp and woof with which to weave +the living tapestries that we call plays.</p> +<p>We are beginning. We have found that American plays must be +American in spirit. We are tired of imitations and adaptations. We +want plays worthy of the great Republic. Some good work has +recently been done, giving great hope for the future. Of course the +realistic comes first; afterward the ideal. But here in America, as +in all other lands, love is the eternal passion that will forever +hold the stage. Around that everything else will move. It is the +sun. All other passions are secondary. Their orbits are determined +by the central force from which they receive their light and +meaning.</p> +<p>Love, however, must be kept pure.</p> +<p>The great dramatist is, of necessity, a believer in virtue, in +honesty, in courage and in the nobility of human nature. He must +know that there are men and women that even a God could not +corrupt; such knowledge, such feeling, is the foundation, and the +only foundation, that can support the splendid structure, the many +pillared stories and the swelling dome of the great drama.</p> +<p>—<i>The New York Dramatic Mirror</i>, December 26, +1891.</p> +<a name="link0105" id="link0105"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>WOMAN.</h2> +<p>It takes a hundred men to make an encampment, but one woman can +make a home. I not only admire woman as the most beautiful object +ever created, but I reverence her as the redeeming glory of +humanity, the sanctuary of all the virtues, the pledge of all +perfect qualities of heart and head. It is not just or right to lay +the sins of men at the feet of women. It is because women are so +much better than men that their faults are considered greater.</p> +<p>The one thing in this world that is constant, the one peak that +rises above all clouds, the one window in which the light forever +burns, the one star that darkness cannot quench, is woman's love. +It rises to the greatest heights, it sinks to the lowest depths, it +forgives the most cruel injuries. It is perennial of life, and +grows in every climate. Neither coldness nor neglect, harshness nor +cruelty, can extinguish it. A woman's love is the perfume of the +heart.</p> +<p>This is the real love that subdues the earth; the love that has +wrought all the miracles of art, that gives us music all the way +from the cradle song to the grand closing symphony that bears the +soul away on wings of fire. A love that is greater than power, +sweeter than life and stronger than death.</p> +<a name="link0106" id="link0106"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>STRIKES, EXPANSION AND OTHER SUBJECTS.</h2> +<p><i>Question</i>. What have you to say in regard to the decision +of Judge Billings in New Orleans, that strikes which interfere with +interstate commerce, are illegal?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. As a rule, men have a right to quit work at any +time unless there is some provision to the contrary in their +contracts. They have not the right to prevent other men from taking +their places. Of course I do not mean by this that strikers may not +use persuasion and argument to prevent other men from filling their +places. All blacklisting and refusing to work with other men is +illegal and punishable. Of course men may conspire to quit work, +but how is it to be proved? One man can quit, or five hundred men +can quit together, and nothing can prevent them. The decisions of +Judge Ricks and Judge Billings are an acknowledgment, at least, of +the principle of public control or regulation of railroads and of +commerce generally. The railroads, which run for private profit, +are public carriers, and the public has a vested interest in them +as such. The same principle applies to the commerce of the country +and can be dealt with by the courts in the same way. It is +unlikely, however, that Judge Billings' decision will have any +lasting effect upon organized labor. Law cannot be enforced against +such vast numbers of people, especially when they have the general +sympathy. Nearly all strikes have been illegal, but the numbers +involved have made the courts powerless.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Are you in favor of the annexation of +Canada?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Yes, if Canada is. We do not want that country +unless that country wants us. I do not believe it to the interests +of Canada to remain a province. Canada should either be an +independent nation, or a part of a nation. Now Canada is only a +province—with no career—with nothing to stimulate +either patriotism or great effort. Yes, I hope that Canada will be +annexed.</p> +<p>By all means annex the Sandwich Islands, too. I believe in +territorial expansion. A prosperous farmer wants the land next him, +and a prosperous nation ought to grow. I believe that we ought to +hold the key to the Pacific and its commerce. We want to be +prepared at all points to defend our interests from the greed and +power of England.</p> +<p>We are going to have a navy, and we want that navy to be of use +in protecting our interests the world over. And we want interests +to protect.</p> +<p>It is a splendid feeling—this feeling of growth. By the +annexation of these islands we open new avenues to American +adventure, and the tendency is to make our country greater and +stronger. The West Indian Islands ought to be ours, and some day +our flag will float there. This country must not stop growing.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Is the spirit of patriotism declining in +America?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. There has been no decline in the spirit of +American patriotism; in fact, it has increased rather then +otherwise as the nation has grown older, stronger, more prosperous, +more glorious. If there were occasion to demonstrate the truth of +this statement it would be quickly demonstrated. Let an attack be +made upon the American flag, and you will very quickly find out how +genuine is the patriotic spirit of Americans.</p> +<p>I do not think either that there has been a decline in the +celebration of the Fourth of July. The day is probably not +celebrated with as much burning of gunpowder and shooting of fire +crackers in the large cities as formerly, but it is celebrated with +as much enthusiasm as ever all through the West, and the feeling of +rejoicing over the anniversary of the day is as great and strong as +ever. The people are tired of celebrating with a great noise and I +am glad of it.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think of the Congress of Religions, +to be held in Chicago during the World's Fair?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. It will do good, if they will honestly compare +their creeds so that each one can see just how foolish all the rest +are. They ought to compare their sacred books, and their miracles, +and their mythologies, and if they do so they will probably see +that ignorance is the mother of them all. Let them have a Congress, +by all means, and let them show how priests live on the labor of +those they deceive. It will do good.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you think that Cleveland's course as to +appointments has strengthened him with the people?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Patronage is a two-edged sword with very little +handle. It takes an exceedingly clever President to strengthen +himself by its exercise. When a man is running for President the +twenty men in every town who expect to be made postmaster are for +him heart and soul. Only one can get the office, and the nineteen +who do not, feel outraged, and the lucky one is mad on account of +the delay. So twenty friends are lost with one place.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Is the Age of Chivalry dead?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. The "Age of Chivalry" never existed except in the +imagination. The Age of Chivalry was the age of cowardice and +crime.</p> +<p>There is more chivalry to-day than ever. Men have a better, a +clearer idea of justice, and pay their debts better, and treat +their wives and children better than ever before. The higher and +better qualities of the soul have more to do with the average life. +To-day men have greater admiration and respect for women, greater +regard for the social and domestic obligations than their fathers +had.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What led you to begin lecturing on your present +subject, and what was your first lecture?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. My first lecture was entitled "Progress." I began +lecturing because I thought the creeds of the orthodox church false +and horrible, and because I thought the Bible cruel and absurd, and +because I like intellectual liberty.</p> +<p>—New York, May 5, 1893.</p> +<a name="link0107" id="link0107"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>SUNDAY A DAY OF PLEASURE.</h2> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think of the religious spirit that +seeks to regulate by legislation the manner in which the people of +this country shall spend their Sundays?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. The church is not willing to stand alone, not +willing to base its influence on reason and on the character of its +members. It seeks the aid of the State. The cross is in partnership +with the sword. People should spend Sundays as they do other days; +that is to say, as they please. No one has the right to do anything +on Monday that interferes with the rights of his neighbors, and +everyone has the right to do anything he pleases on Sunday that +does not interfere with the rights of his neighbors. Sunday is a +day of rest, not of religion. We are under obligation to do right +on all days.</p> +<p>Nothing can be more absurd than the idea that any particular +space of time is sacred. Everything in nature goes on the same on +Sunday as on other days, and if beyond nature there be a God, then +God works on Sunday as he does on all other days. There is no rest +in nature. There is perpetual activity in every possible direction. +The old idea that God made the world and then rested, is idiotic. +There were two reasons given to the Hebrews for keeping the Sabbath +—one because Jehovah rested on that day, the other because +the Hebrews were brought out of Egypt. The first reason, we know, +is false, and the second reason is good only for the Hebrews. +According to the Bible, Sunday, or rather the Sabbath, was not for +the world, but for the Hebrews, and the Hebrews alone. Our Sunday +is pagan and is the day of the sun, as Monday is the day of the +moon. All our day names are pagan. I am opposed to all Sunday +legislation.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Why should Sunday be observed otherwise than as +a day of recreation?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Sunday is a day of recreation, or should be; a +day for the laboring man to rest, a day to visit museums and +libraries, a day to look at pictures, a day to get acquainted with +your wife and children, a day for poetry and art, a day on which to +read old letters and to meet friends, a day to cultivate the +amenities of life, a day for those who live in tenements to feel +the soft grass beneath their feet. In short, Sunday should be a day +of joy. The church endeavors to fill it with gloom and sadness, +with stupid sermons and dyspeptic theology.</p> +<p>Nothing could be more cowardly than the effort to compel the +observance of the Sabbath by law. We of America have outgrown the +childishness of the last century; we laugh at the superstitions of +our fathers. We have made up our minds to be as happy as we can be, +knowing that the way to be happy is to make others so, that the +time to be happy is now, whether that now is Sunday or any other +day in the week.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Under a Federal Constitution guaranteeing civil +and religious liberty, are the so-called "Blue Laws" +constitutional?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. No, they are not. But the probability is that the +Supreme Courts of most of the States would decide the other way. +And yet all these laws are clearly contrary to the spirit of the +Federal Constitution and the constitutions of most of the +States.</p> +<p>I hope to live until all these foolish laws are repealed and +until we are in the highest and noblest sense a free people. And by +free I mean each having the right to do anything that does not +interfere with the rights or with the happiness of another. I want +to see the time when we live for this world and when all shall +endeavor to increase, by education, by reason, and by persuasion, +the sum of human happiness.</p> +<p>—<i>New York Times</i>, July 21, 1893.</p> +<a name="link0108" id="link0108"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>THE PARLIAMENT OF RELIGIONS.</h2> +<p><i>Question</i>. The Parliament of Religions was called with a +view to discussing the great religions of the world on the broad +platform of tolerance. Supposing this to have been accomplished, +what effect is it likely to have on the future of creeds?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. It was a good thing to get the representatives of +all creeds to meet and tell their beliefs. The tendency, I think, +is to do away with prejudice, with provincialism, with egotism. We +know that the difference between the great religions, so far as +belief is concerned, amounts to but little. Their gods have +different names, but in other respects they differ but little. They +are all cruel and ignorant.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you think likely that the time is coming +when all the religions of the world will be treated with the +liberality that is now characterizing the attitude of one sect +toward another in Christendom?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Yes, because I think that all religions will be +found to be of equal authority, and because I believe that the +supernatural will be discarded and that man will give up his vain +and useless efforts to get back of nature—to answer the +questions of whence and whither? As a matter of fact, the various +sects do not love one another. The keenest hatred is religious +hatred. The most malicious malice is found in the hearts of those +who love their enemies.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Bishop Newman, in replying to a learned +Buddhist at the Parliament of Religions, said that Buddhism had +given to the world no helpful literature, no social system, and no +heroic virtues. Is this true?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Bishop Newman is a very prejudiced man. Probably +he got his information from the missionaries. Buddha was +undoubtedly a great teacher. Long before Christ lived Buddha taught +the brotherhood of man. He said that intelligence was the only +lever capable of raising mankind. His followers, to say the least +of them, are as good as the followers of Christ. Bishop Newman is a +Methodist—a follower of John Wesley—and he has the +prejudices of the sect to which he belongs. We must remember that +all prejudices are honest.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Is Christian society, or rather society in +Christian countries, cursed with fewer robbers, assassins, and +thieves, proportionately, then countries where "heathen" religions +predominate?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I think not. I do not believe that there are more +lynchings, more mob murders in India or Turkey or Persia than in +some Christian States of the great Republic. Neither will you find +more train robbers, more forgers, more thieves in heathen lands +than in Christian countries. Here the jails are full, the +penitentiaries are crowded, and the hangman is busy. All over +Christendom, as many assert, crime is on the increase, going hand +in hand with poverty. The truth is, that some of the wisest and +best men are filled with apprehension for the future, but I believe +in the race and have confidence in man.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. How can society be so reconstructed that all +this horrible suffering, resultant from poverty and its natural +associate, crime, may be abolished, or at least reduced to a +minimum?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. In the first place we should stop supporting the +useless. The burden of superstition should be taken from the +shoulders of industry. In the next place men should stop bowing to +wealth instead of worth. Men should be judged by what they do, by +what they are, instead of by the property they have. Only those +able to raise and educate children should have them. Children +should be better born—better educated. The process of +regeneration will be slow, but it will be sure. The religion of our +day is supported by the worst, by the most dangerous people in +society. I do not allude to murderers or burglars, or even to the +little thieves. I mean those who debauch courts and legislatures +and elections— those who make millions by legal fraud.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think of the Theosophists? Are they +sincere—have they any real basis for their psychological +theories?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. The Theosophists may be sincere. I do not know. +But I am perfectly satisfied that their theories are without any +foundation in fact—that their doctrines are as unreal as +their "astral bodies," and as absurd as a contradiction in +mathematics. We have had vagaries and theories enough. We need the +religion of the real, the faith that rests on fact. Let us turn our +attention to this world—the world in which we live.</p> +<p>—<i>New York Herald</i>, September, 1893.</p> +<a name="link0109" id="link0109"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>CLEVELAND'S HAWAIIAN POLICY.</h2> +<p><i>Question</i>. Colonel, what do you think about Mr. +Cleveland's Hawaiian policy?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I think it exceedingly laughable and a little +dishonest —with the further fault that it is wholly +unconstitutional. This is not a one-man Government, and while +Liliuokalani may be Queen, Cleveland is certainly not a king. The +worst thing about the whole matter, as it appears to me, is the bad +faith that was shown by Mr. Cleveland—the double-dealing. He +sent Mr. Willis as Minister to the Provisional Government and by +that act admitted the existence, and the rightful existence, of the +Provisional Government of the Sandwich Islands.</p> +<p>When Mr. Willis started he gave him two letters. One was +addressed to Dole, President of the Provisional Government, in +which he addressed Dole as "Great and good friend," and at the +close, being a devout Christian, he asked "God to take care of +Dole." This was the first letter. The letter of one President to +another; of one friend to another. The second letter was addressed +to Mr. Willis, in which Mr. Willis was told to upset Dole at the +first opportunity and put the deposed Queen back on her throne. +This may be diplomacy, but it is no kin to honesty.</p> +<p>In my judgment, it is the worst thing connected with the +Hawaiian affair. What must "the great and good" Dole think of our +great and good President? What must other nations think when they +read the two letters and mentally exclaim, "Look upon this and then +upon that?" I think Mr. Cleveland has acted arrogantly, foolishly, +and unfairly. I am in favor of obtaining the Sandwich +Islands—of course by fair means. I favor this policy because +I want my country to become a power in the Pacific. All my life I +have wanted this country to own the West Indies, the Bermudas, the +Bahamas and Barbadoes. They are our islands. They belong to this +continent, and for any other nation to take them or claim them was, +and is, a piece of impertinence and impudence.</p> +<p>So I would like to see the Sandwich Islands annexed to the +United States. They are a good way from San Francisco and our +Western shore, but they are nearer to us than they are to any other +nation. I think they would be of great importance. They would tend +to increase the Asiatic trade, and they certainly would be +important in case of war. We should have fortifications on those +islands that no naval power could take.</p> +<p>Some objection has been made on the ground that under our system +the people of those islands would have to be represented in +Congress. I say yes, represented by a delegate until the islands +become a real part of the country, and by that time, there would be +several hundred thousand Americans living there, capable of sending +over respectable members of Congress.</p> +<p>Now, I think that Mr. Cleveland has made a very great mistake. +First, I think he was mistaken as to the facts in the Sandwich +Islands; second, as to the Constitution of the United States, and +thirdly, as to the powers of the President of the United +States.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. In your experience as a lawyer what was the +most unique case in which you were ever engaged?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. The Star Route trial. Every paper in the country, +but one, was against the defence, and that one was a little sheet +owned by one of the defendants. I received a note from a man living +in a little town in Ohio criticizing me for defending the accused. +In reply I wrote that I supposed he was a sensible man and that he, +of course, knew what he was talking about when he said the accused +were guilty; that the Government needed just such men as he, and +that he should come to the trial at once and testify. The man wrote +back: "Dear Colonel: I am a —— fool."</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Will the church and the stage ever work +together for the betterment of the world, and what is the province +of each?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. The church and stage will never work together. +The pulpit pretends that fiction is fact. The stage pretends that +fiction is fact. The pulpit pretence is dishonest—that of the +stage is sincere. The actor is true to art, and honestly pretends +to be what he is not. The actor is natural, if he is great, and in +this naturalness is his truth and his sincerity. The pulpit is +unnatural, and for that reason untrue. The pulpit is for another +world, the stage for this. The stage is good because it is natural, +because it portrays real and actual life; because "it holds the +mirror up to nature." The pulpit is weak because it too often +belittles and demeans this life; because it slanders and +calumniates the natural and is the enemy of joy.</p> +<p>—<i>The Inter-Ocean</i>, Chicago, February 2, 1894.</p> +<a name="link0110" id="link0110"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>ORATORS AND ORATORY.*</h2> +<pre> + [* It was at his own law office in New York City that I had + my talk with that very notable American, Col. Robert G. + Ingersoll. "Bob" Ingersoll, Americans call him + affectionately; in a company of friends it is "The Colonel." + + A more interesting personality it would be hard to find, and + those who know even a little of him will tell you that a + bigger-hearted man probably does not live. Suppose a well- + knit frame, grown stouter than it once was, and a fine, + strong face, with a vivid gleam in the eyes, a deep, + uncommonly musical voice, clear cut, decisive, and a manner + entirely delightful, yet tinged with a certain reserve. + Introduce a smoking cigar, the smoke rising in little curls + and billows, then imagine a rugged sort of picturesqueness + in dress, and you get, not by any means the man, but, still, + some notion of "Bob" Ingersoll. + + Colonel Ingersoll stands at the front of American orators. + The natural thing, therefore, was that I should ask him—a + master in the art—about oratory. What he said I shall give + in his own words precisely as I took them down from his + lips, for in the case of such a good commander of the old + English tongue that is of some importance. But the + wonderful limpidness, the charming pellucidness of Ingersoll + can only be adequately understood when you also have the + finishing touch of his facile voice.] +</pre> +<p><i>Question</i>. I should be glad if you would tell me what you +think the differences are between English and American oratory?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. There is no difference between the real English +and the real American orator. Oratory is the same the world over. +The man who thinks on his feet, who has the pose of passion, the +face that thought illumines, a voice in harmony with the ideals +expressed, who has logic like a column and poetry like a vine, who +transfigures the common, dresses the ideals of the people in purple +and fine linen, who has the art of finding the best and noblest in +his hearers, and who in a thousand ways creates the climate in +which the best grows and flourishes and bursts into +blossom—that man is an orator, no matter of what time, of +what country.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. If you were to compare individual English and +American orators—recent or living orators in +particular—what would you say?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I have never heard any of the great English +speakers, and consequently can pass no judgment as to their merits, +except such as depends on reading. I think, however, the finest +paragraph ever uttered in Great Britain was by Curran in his +defence of Rowan. I have never read one of Mr. Gladstone's +speeches, only fragments. I think he lacks logic. Bright was a +great speaker, but he lacked imagination and the creative faculty. +Disræli spoke for the clubs, and his speeches were +artificial. We have had several fine speakers in America. I think +that Thomas Corwin stands at the top of the natural orators. +Sergeant S. Prentiss, the lawyer, was a very great talker; Henry +Ward Beecher was the greatest orator that the pulpit has produced. +Theodore Parker was a great orator. In this country, however, +probably Daniel Webster occupies the highest place in general +esteem.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Which would you say are the better orators, +speaking generally, the American people or the English people?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I think Americans are, on the average, better +talkers than the English. I think England has produced the greatest +literature of the world; but I do not think England has produced +the greatest orators of the world. I know of no English orator +equal to Webster or Corwin or Beecher.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Would you mind telling me how it was you came +to be a public speaker, a lecturer, an orator?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. We call this America of ours free, and yet I +found it was very far from free. Our writers and our speakers +declared that here in America church and state were divorced. I +found this to be untrue. I found that the church was supported by +the state in many ways, that people who failed to believe certain +portions of the creeds were not allowed to testify in courts or to +hold office. It occurred to me that some one ought to do something +toward making this country intellectually free, and after a while I +thought that I might as well endeavor to do this as wait for +another. This is the way in which I came to make speeches; it was +an action in favor of liberty. I have said things because I wanted +to say them, and because I thought they ought to be said.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Perhaps you will tell me your methods as a +speaker, for I'm sure it would be interesting to know them?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Sometimes, and frequently, I deliver a lecture +several times before it is written. I have it taken by a shorthand +writer, and afterward written out. At other times I have dictated a +lecture, and delivered it from manuscript. The course pursued +depends on how I happen to feel at the time. Sometimes I read a +lecture, and sometimes I deliver lectures without any +notes—this, again, depending much on how I happen to feel. So +far as methods are concerned, everything should depend on feeling. +Attitude, gestures, voice, emphasis, should all be in accord with +and spring from feeling, from the inside.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Is there any possibility of your coming to +England, and, I need hardly add, of your coming to speak?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I have thought of going over to England, and I +may do so. There is an England in England for which I have the +highest possible admiration, the England of culture, of art, of +principle.</p> +<p>—<i>The Sketch</i>, London, Eng., March 21, 1894.</p> +<a name="link0111" id="link0111"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>CATHOLICISM AND PROTESTANTISM. THE POPE, THE A. P. A., +AGNOSTICISM</h2> +<center>AND THE CHURCH.</center> +<p><i>Question</i>. Which do you regard as the better, Catholicism +or Protestantism?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Protestantism is better than Catholicism because +there is less of it. Protestantism does not teach that a monk is +better than a husband and father, that a nun is holier than a +mother. Protestants do not believe in the confessional. Neither do +they pretend that priests can forgive sins. Protestantism has fewer +ceremonies and less opera bouffe, clothes, caps, tiaras, mitres, +crooks and holy toys. Catholics have an infallible man—an old +Italian. Protestants have an infallible book, written by Hebrews +before they were civilized. The infallible man is generally wrong, +and the infallible book is filled with mistakes and contradictions. +Catholics and Protestants are both enemies of intellectual freedom +—of real education, but both are opposed to education enough +to make free men and women.</p> +<p>Between the Catholics and Protestants there has been about as +much difference as there is between crocodiles and alligators. Both +have done the worst they could, both are as bad as they can be, and +the world is getting tired of both. The world is not going to +choose either—both are to be rejected.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Are you willing to give your opinion of the +Pope?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. It may be that the Pope thinks he is infallible, +but I doubt it. He may think that he is the agent of God, but I +guess not. He may know more than other people, but if he does he +has kept it to himself. He does not seem satisfied with standing in +the place and stead of God in spiritual matters, but desires +temporal power. He wishes to be Pope and King. He imagines that he +has the right to control the belief of all the world; that he is +the shepherd of all "sheep" and that the fleeces belong to him. He +thinks that in his keeping is the conscience of mankind. So he +imagines that his blessing is a great benefit to the faithful and +that his prayers can change the course of natural events. He is a +strange mixture of the serious and comical. He claims to represent +God, and admits that he is almost a prisoner. There is something +pathetic in the condition of this pontiff. When I think of him, I +think of Lear on the heath, old, broken, touched with insanity, and +yet, in his own opinion, "every inch a king."</p> +<p>The Pope is a fragment, a remnant, a shred, a patch of ancient +power and glory. He is a survival of the unfittest, a souvenir of +theocracy, a relic of the supernatural. Of course he will have a +few successors, and they will become more and more comical, more +and more helpless and impotent as the world grows wise and free. I +am not blaming the Pope. He was poisoned at the breast of his +mother. Superstition was mingled with her milk. He was poisoned at +school—taught to distrust his reason and to live by faith. +And so it may be that his mind was so twisted and tortured out of +shape that he now really believes that he is the infallible agent +of an infinite God.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Are you in favor of the A. P. A.?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. In this country I see no need of secret political +societies. I think it better to fight in the open field. I am a +believer in religious liberty, in allowing all sects to preach +their doctrines and to make as many converts as they can. As long +as we have free speech and a free press I think there is no danger +of the country being ruled by any church. The Catholics are much +better than their creed, and the same can be said of nearly all +members of orthodox churches. A majority of American Catholics +think a great deal more of this country than they do of their +church. When they are in good health they are on our side. It is +only when they are very sick that they turn their eyes toward Rome. +If they were in the majority, of course, they would destroy all +other churches and imprison, torture and kill all Infidels. But +they will never be in the majority. They increase now only because +Catholics come in from other countries. In a few years that supply +will cease, and then the Catholic Church will grow weaker every +day. The free secular school is the enemy of priestcraft and +superstition, and the people of this country will never consent to +the destruction of that institution. I want no man persecuted on +account of his religion.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. If there is no beatitude, or heaven, how do you +account for the continual struggle in every natural heart for its +own betterment?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Man has many wants, and all his efforts are the +children of wants. If he wanted nothing he would do nothing. We +civilize the savage by increasing his wants, by cultivating his +fancy, his appetites, his desires. He is then willing to work to +satisfy these new wants. Man always tries to do things in the +easiest way. His constant effort is to accomplish more with less +work. He invents a machine; then he improves it, his idea being to +make it perfect. He wishes to produce the best. So in every +department of effort and knowledge he seeks the highest success, +and he seeks it because it is for his own good here in this world. +So he finds that there is a relation between happiness and conduct, +and he tries to find out what he must do to produce the greatest +enjoyment. This is the basis of morality, of law and ethics. We are +so constituted that we love proportion, color, harmony. This is the +artistic man. Morality is the harmony and proportion of +conduct— the music of life. Man continually seeks to better +his condition —not because he is immortal—but because +he is capable of grief and pain, because he seeks for happiness. +Man wishes to respect himself and to gain the respect of others. +The brain wants light, the heart wants love. Growth is natural. The +struggle to overcome temptation, to be good and noble, brave and +sincere, to reach, if possible, the perfect, is no evidence of the +immortality of the soul or of the existence of other worlds. Men +live to excel, to become distinguished, to enjoy, and so they +strive, each in his own way, to gain the ends desired.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you believe that the race is growing moral +or immoral?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. The world is growing better. There is more real +liberty, more thought, more intelligence than ever before. The +world was never so charitable or generous as now. We do not put +honest debtors in prison, we no longer believe in torture. +Punishments are less severe. We place a higher value on human life. +We are far kinder to animals. To this, however, there is one +terrible exception. The vivisectors, those who cut, torture, and +mutilate in the name of science, disgrace our age. They excite the +horror and indignation of all good people. Leave out the actions of +those wretches, and animals are better treated than ever before. So +there is less beating of wives and whipping of children. The whip +in no longer found in the civilized home. Intelligent parents now +govern by kindness, love and reason. The standard of honor is +higher than ever. Contracts are more sacred, and men do nearer as +they agree. Man has more confidence in his fellow-man, and in the +goodness of human nature. Yes, the world is getting better, nobler +and grander every day. We are moving along the highway of progress +on our way to the Eden of the future.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Are the doctrines of Agnosticism gaining +ground, and what, in your opinion, will be the future of the +church?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. The Agnostic is intellectually honest. He knows +the limitations of his mind. He is convinced that the questions of +origin and destiny cannot be answered by man. He knows that he +cannot answer these questions, and he is candid enough to say so. +The Agnostic has good mental manners. He does not call belief or +hope or wish, a demonstration. He knows the difference between hope +and belief—between belief and knowledge—and he keeps +these distinctions in his mind. He does not say that a certain +theory is true because he wishes it to be true. He tries to go +according to evidence, in harmony with facts, without regard to his +own desires or the wish of the public. He has the courage of his +convictions and the modesty of his ignorance. The theologian is his +opposite. He is certain and sure of the existence of things and +beings and worlds of which there is, and can be, no evidence. He +relies on assertion, and in all debate attacks the motive of his +opponent instead of answering his arguments. All savages know the +origin and destiny of man. About other things they know but little. +The theologian is much the same. The Agnostic has given up the hope +of ascertaining the nature of the "First Cause"—the hope of +ascertaining whether or not there was a "First Cause." He admits +that he does not know whether or not there is an infinite Being. He +admits that these questions cannot be answered, and so he refuses +to answer. He refuses also to pretend. He knows that the theologian +does not know, and he has the courage to say so.</p> +<p>He knows that the religious creeds rest on assumption, +supposition, assertion—on myth and legend, on ignorance and +superstition, and that there is no evidence of their truth. The +Agnostic bends his energies in the opposite direction. He occupies +himself with this world, with things that can be ascertained and +understood. He turns his attention to the sciences, to the solution +of questions that touch the well-being of man. He wishes to prevent +and cure diseases; to lengthen life; to provide homes and raiment +and food for man; to supply the wants of the body.</p> +<p>He also cultivates the arts. He believes in painting and +sculpture, in music and the drama—the needs of the soul. The +Agnostic believes in developing the brain, in cultivating the +affections, the tastes, the conscience, the judgment, to the end +that man may be happy in this world. He seeks to find the relation +of things, the condition of happiness. He wishes to enslave the +forces of nature to the end that they may perform the work of the +world. Back of all progress are the real thinkers; the finders of +facts, those who turn their attention to the world in which we +live. The theologian has never been a help, always a hindrance. He +has always kept his back to the sunrise. With him all wisdom was in +the past. He appealed to the dead. He was and is the enemy of +reason, of investigation, of thought and progress. The church has +never given "sanctuary" to a persecuted truth.</p> +<p>There can be no doubt that the ideas of the Agnostic are gaining +ground. The scientific spirit has taken possession of the +intellectual world. Theological methods are unpopular to-day, even +in theological schools. The attention of men everywhere is being +directed to the affairs of this world, this life. The gods are +growing indistinct, and, like the shapes of clouds, they are +changing as they fade. The idea of special providence has been +substantially abandoned. People are losing, and intelligent people +have lost, confidence in prayer. To-day no intelligent person +believes in miracles—a violation of the facts in nature. They +may believe that there used to be miracles a good while ago, but +not now. The "supernatural" is losing its power, its influence, and +the church is growing weaker every day.</p> +<p>The church is supported by the people, and in order to gain the +support of the people it must reflect their ideas, their hopes and +fears. As the people advance, the creeds will be changed, either by +changing the words or giving new meanings to the old words. The +church, in order to live, must agree substantially with those who +support it, and consequently it will change to any extent that may +be necessary. If the church remains true to the old standards then +it will lose the support of progressive people, and if the people +generally advance the church will die. But my opinion is that it +will slowly change, that the minister will preach what the members +want to hear, and that the creed will be controlled by the +contribution box. One of these days the preachers may become +teachers, and when that happens the church will be of use.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you regard as the greatest of all +themes in poetry and song?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Love and Death. The same is true of the greatest +music. In "Tristan and Isolde" is the greatest music of love and +death. In Shakespeare the greatest themes are love and death. In +all real poetry, in all real music, the dominant, the triumphant +tone, is love, and the minor, the sad refrain, the shadow, the +background, the mystery, is death.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What would be your advice to an intelligent +young man just starting out in life?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I would say to him: "Be true to your ideal. +Cultivate your heart and brain. Follow the light of your reason. +Get all the happiness out of life that you possibly can. Do not +care for power, but strive to be useful. First of all, support +yourself so that you may not be a burden to others. If you are +successful, if you gain a surplus, use it for the good of others. +Own yourself and live and die a free man. Make your home a heaven, +love your wife and govern your children by kindness. Be good +natured, cheerful, forgiving and generous. Find out the conditions +of happiness, and then be wise enough to live in accordance with +them. Cultivate intellectual hospitality, express your honest +thoughts, love your friends, and be just to your enemies."</p> +<p>—<i>New York Herald</i>, September 16, 1894.</p> +<a name="link0112" id="link0112"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>WOMAN AND HER DOMAIN.</h2> +<p><i>Question</i>. What is your opinion of the effect of the +multiplicity of women's clubs as regards the intellectual, moral +and domestic status of their members?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I think that women should have clubs and +societies, that they should get together and exchange ideas. Women, +as a rule, are provincial and conservative. They keep alive all the +sentimental mistakes and superstitions. Now, if they can only get +away from these, and get abreast with the tide of the times, and +think as well as feel, it will be better for them and their +children. You know St. Paul tells women that if they want to know +anything they must ask their husbands. For many centuries they have +followed this orthodox advice, and of course they have not learned +a great deal, because their husbands could not answer their +questions. Husbands, as a rule, do not know a great deal, and it +will not do for every wife to depend on the ignorance of her worst +half. The women of to-day are the great readers, and no book is a +great success unless it pleases the women.</p> +<p>As a result of this, all the literature of the world has +changed, so that now in all departments the thoughts of women are +taken into consideration, and women have thoughts, because they are +the intellectual equals of men.</p> +<p>There are no statesmen in this country the equals of Harriet +Martineau; probably no novelists the equals of George Eliot or +George Sand, and I think Ouida the greatest living novelist. I +think her "Ariadne" is one of the greatest novels in the English +language. There are few novels better than "Consuelo," few poems +better than "Mother and Poet."</p> +<p>So in all departments women are advancing; some of them have +taken the highest honors at medical colleges; others are prominent +in the sciences, some are great artists, and there are several very +fine sculptors, &c., &c.</p> +<p>So you can readily see what my opinion is on that point.</p> +<p>I am in favor of giving woman all the domain she conquers, and +as the world becomes civilized the domain that she can conquer will +steadily increase.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. But, Colonel, is there no danger of greatly +interfering with a woman's duties as wife and mother?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I do not think that it is dangerous to think, or +that thought interferes with love or the duties of wife or mother. +I think the contrary is the truth; the greater the brain the +greater the power to love, the greater the power to discharge all +duties and obligations, so I have no fear for the future. About +women voting I don't care; whatever they want to do they have my +consent.</p> +<p>—<i>The Democrat</i>, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1894.</p> +<a name="link0113" id="link0113"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>PROFESSOR SWING.</h2> +<p><i>Question</i>. Since you were last in this city, Colonel, a +distinguished man has passed away in the person of Professor Swing. +The public will be interested to have your opinion of him.</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I think Professor Swing did a great amount of +good. He helped to civilize the church and to humanize the people. +His influence was in the right direction—toward the light. In +his youth he was acquainted with toil, poverty, and hardship; his +road was filled with thorns, and yet he lived and scattered flowers +in the paths of many people. At first his soul was in the dungeon +of a savage creed, where the windows were very small and closely +grated, and though which struggled only a few rays of light. He +longed for more light and for more liberty, and at last his fellow- +prisoners drove him forth, and from that time until his death he +did what he could to give light and liberty to the souls of men. He +was a lover of nature, poetic in his temperament, charitable and +merciful. As an orator he may have lacked presence, pose and voice, +but he did not lack force of statement or beauty of expression. He +was a man of wide learning, of great admiration of the heroic and +tender. He did what he could to raise the standard of character, to +make his fellow-men just and noble. He lost the provincialism of +his youth and became in a very noble sense a citizen of the world. +He understood that all the good is not in our race or in our +religion—that in every land there are good and noble men, +self- denying and lovely women, and that in most respects other +religions are as good as ours, and in many respects better. This +gave him breadth of intellectual horizon and enlarged his sympathy +for the failures of the world. I regard his death as a great loss, +and his life as a lesson and inspiration.</p> +<p>—<i>Inter-Ocean</i>, Chicago, October 13, 1894.</p> +<a name="link0114" id="link0114"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>SENATOR SHERMAN AND HIS BOOK.*</h2> +<pre> + [* No one is better qualified than Robert G. Ingersoll to + talk about Senator Sherman's book and the questions it + raises in political history. Mr. Ingersoll was for years a + resident of Washington and a next-door neighbor to Mr. + Sherman; he was for an even longer period the intimate + personal friend of James G. Blaine; he knew Garfield from + almost daily contact, and of the Republican National + Conventions concerning which Senator Sherman has raised + points of controversy Mr. Ingersoll can say, as the North + Carolinian said of the Confederacy: "Part of whom I am + which." + + He placed Blaine's name before the convention at Cincinnati + in 1876. He made the first of the three great nominating + speeches in convention history, Conkling and Garfield making + the others in 1880. + + The figure of the Plumed Knight which Mr. Ingersoll created + to characterize Mr. Blaine is part of the latter's memory. + At Chicago, four years later, when Garfield, dazed by the + irresistible doubt of the convention, was on the point of + refusing that in the acceptance of which he had no voluntary + part, Ingersoll was the adviser who showed him that duty to + Sherman required no such action.] +</pre> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think of Senator Sherman's +book—especially the part about Garfield?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Of course, I have only read a few extracts from +Mr. Sherman's reminiscences, but I am perfectly satisfied that the +Senator is mistaken about Garfield's course. The truth is that +Garfield captured the convention by his course from day to day, and +especially by the speech he made for Sherman. After that speech, +and it was a good one, the best Garfield ever made, the convention +said, "Speak for yourself, John."</p> +<p>It was perfectly apparent that if the Blaine and Sherman forces +should try to unite, Grant would be nominated. It had to be Grant +or a new man, and that man was Garfield. It all came about without +Garfield's help, except in the way I have said. Garfield even went +so far as to declare that under no circumstances could he accept, +because he was for Sherman, and honestly for him. He told me that +he would not allow his name to go before the convention. Just +before he was nominated I wrote him a note in which I said he was +about to be nominated, and that he must not decline. I am perfectly +satisfied that he acted with perfect honor, and that he did his +best for Sherman.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Mr. Sherman expresses the opinion that if he +had had the "moral strength" of the Ohio delegation in his support +he would have been nominated?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. We all know that while Senator Sherman had many +friends, and that while many thought he would make an excellent +President, still there was but little enthusiasm among his +followers. Sherman had the respect of the party, but hardly the +love.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. In his book the Senator expresses the opinion +that he was quite close to the nomination in 1888, when Mr. Quay +was for him. Do you think that is so, Mr. Ingersoll?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I think Mr. Sherman had a much better chance in +1888 than in 1880, but as a matter of fact, he never came within +hailing distance of success at any time. He is not of the nature to +sway great bodies of men. He lacks the power to impress himself +upon others to such an extent as to make friends of enemies and +devotees of friends. Mr. Sherman has had a remarkable career, and I +think that he ought to be satisfied with what he has achieved.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Mr. Ingersoll, what do you think defeated +Blaine for the nomination in 1876?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. On the first day of the convention at Cincinnati +it was known that Blaine was the leading candidate. All of the +enthusiasm was for him. It was soon known that Conkling, Bristow or +Morton could not be nominated, and that in all probability Blaine +would succeed. The fact that Blaine had been attacked by vertigo, +or had suffered from a stroke of apoplexy, gave an argument to +those who opposed him, and this was used with great effect. After +Blaine was put in nomination, and before any vote was taken, the +convention adjourned, and during the night a great deal of work was +done. The Michigan delegation was turned inside out and the Blaine +forces raided in several States. Hayes, the dark horse, suddenly +developed speed, and the scattered forces rallied to his support. I +have always thought that if a ballot could have been taken on the +day Blaine was put in nomination he would have succeeded, and yet +he might have been defeated for the nomination anyway.</p> +<p>Blaine had the warmest friends and the bitterest enemies of any +man in the party. People either loved or hated him. He had no +milk-and-water friends and no milk-and-water enemies.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. If Blaine had been nominated at Cincinnati in +1876 would he have made a stronger candidate than Hayes did?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. If he had been nominated then, I believe that he +would have been triumphantly elected. Mr. Blaine's worst enemies +would not have supported Tilden, and thousands of moderate +Democrats would have given their votes to Blaine.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Mr. Ingersoll, do you think that Mr. Blaine +wanted the nomination in 1884, when he got it?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. In 1883, Mr. Blaine told me that he did not want +the nomination. I said to him: "Is that honest?" He replied that he +did not want it, that he was tired of the whole business. I said: +"If you do not want it; if you have really reached that conclusion, +then I think you will get it." He laughed, and again said: "I do +not want it." I believe that he spoke exactly as he then felt.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think defeated Mr. Blaine at the +polls in 1884?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Blaine was a splendid manager for another man, a +great natural organizer, and when acting for others made no +mistake; but he did not manage his own campaign with ability. He +made a succession of mistakes. His suit against the Indianapolis +editor; his letter about the ownership of certain stocks; his reply +to Burchard and the preachers, in which he said that history showed +the church could get along without the state, but the state could +not get along without the church, and this in reply to the "Rum, +Romanism and Rebellion" nonsense; and last, but not least, his +speech to the millionaires in New York—all of these things +weakened him. As a matter of fact many Catholics were going to +support Blaine, but when they saw him fooling with the Protestant +clergy, and accepting the speech of Burchard, they instantly turned +against him. If he had never met Burchard, I think he would have +been elected. His career was something like that of Mr. Clay; he +was the most popular man of his party and yet——</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. How do you account for Mr. Blaine's action in +allowing his name to go before the convention at Minneapolis in +1892?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. In 1892, Mr. Blaine was a sick man, almost worn +out; he was not his former self, and he was influenced by others. +He seemed to have lost his intuition; he was misled, yet in spite +of all defeats, no name will create among Republicans greater +enthusiasm than that of James G. Blaine. Millions are still his +devoted, unselfish and enthusiastic friends and defenders.</p> +<p>—<i>The Globe-Democrat</i>, St. Louis, October 27, +1895.</p> +<a name="link0115" id="link0115"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>REPLY TO THE CHRISTIAN ENDEAVORERS.</h2> +<p><i>Question</i>. How were you affected by the announcement that +the united prayers of the Salvationists and Christian Endeavorers +were to be offered for your conversion?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. The announcement did not affect me to any great +extent. I take it for granted that the people praying for me are +sincere and that they have a real interest in my welfare. Of +course, I thank them one and all. At the same time I can hardly +account for what they did. Certainly they would not ask God to +convert me unless they thought the prayer could be answered. And if +their God can convert me of course he can convert everybody. Then +the question arises why he does not do it. Why does he let millions +go to hell when he can convert them all. Why did he not convert +them all before the flood and take them all to heaven instead of +drowning them and sending them all to hell. Of course these +questions can be answered by saying that God's ways are not our +ways. I am greatly obliged to these people. Still, I feel about the +same, so that it would be impossible to get up a striking picture +of "before and after." It was good-natured on their part to pray +for me, and that act alone leads me to believe that there is still +hope for them. The trouble with the Christian Endeavorers is that +they don't give my arguments consideration. If they did they would +agree with me. It seemed curious that they would advise divine +wisdom what to do, or that they would ask infinite mercy to treat +me with kindness. If there be a God, of course he knows what ought +to be done, and will do it without any hints from ignorant human +beings. Still, the Endeavorers and the Salvation people may know +more about God than I do. For all I know, this God may need a +little urging. He may be powerful but a little slow; intelligent +but sometimes a little drowsy, and it may do good now and then to +call his attention to the facts. The prayers did not, so far as I +know, do me the least injury or the least good. I was glad to see +that the Christians are getting civilized. A few years ago they +would have burned me. Now they pray for me.</p> +<p>Suppose God should answer the prayers and convert me, how would +he bring the conversion about? In the first place, he would have to +change my brain and give me more credulity—that is, he would +be obliged to lessen my reasoning power. Then I would believe not +only without evidence, but in spite of evidence. All the miracles +would appear perfectly natural. It would then seem as easy to raise +the dead as to waken the sleeping. In addition to this, God would +so change my mind that I would hold all reason in contempt and put +entire confidence in faith. I would then regard science as the +enemy of human happiness, and ignorance as the soil in which +virtues grow. Then I would throw away Darwin and Humboldt, and rely +on the sermons of orthodox preachers. In other words, I would +become a little child and amuse myself with a religious rattle and +a Gabriel horn. Then I would rely on a man who has been dead for +nearly two thousand years to secure me a seat in Paradise.</p> +<p>After conversion, it is not pretended that I will be any better +so far as my actions are concerned; no more charitable, no more +honest, no more generous. The great difference will be that I will +believe more and think less.</p> +<p>After all, the converted people do not seem to be better than +the sinners. I never heard of a poor wretch clad in rags, limping +into a town and asking for the house of a Christian.</p> +<p>I think that I had better remain as I am. I had better follow +the light of my reason, be true to myself, express my honest +thoughts, and do the little I can for the destruction of +superstition, the little I can for the development of the brain, +for the increase of intellectual hospitality and the happiness of +my fellow-beings. One world at a time.</p> +<p>—<i>New York Journal</i>, December 15, 1895.</p> +<a name="link0116" id="link0116"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>SPIRITUALISM.</h2> +<p>There are several good things about Spiritualism. First, they +are not bigoted; second, they do not believe in salvation by faith; +third, they don't expect to be happy in another world because +Christ was good in this; fourth, they do not preach the consolation +of hell; fifth, they do not believe in God as an infinite monster; +sixth, the Spiritualists believe in intellectual hospitality. In +these respects they differ from our Christian brethren, and in +these respects they are far superior to the saints.</p> +<p>I think that the Spiritualists have done good. They believe in +enjoying themselves—in having a little pleasure in this +world. They are social, cheerful and good-natured. They are not the +slaves of a book. Their hands and feet are not tied with passages +of Scripture. They are not troubling themselves about getting +forgiveness and settling their heavenly debts for a cent on the +dollar. Their belief does not make then mean or miserable.</p> +<p>They do not persecute their neighbors. They ask no one to have +faith or to believe without evidence. They ask all to investigate, +and then to make up their minds from the evidence. Hundreds and +thousands of well-educated, intelligent people are satisfied with +the evidence and firmly believe in the existence of spirits. For +all I know, they may be right—but——</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. The Spiritualists have indirectly claimed, that +you were in many respects almost one of them. Have you given them +reason to believe so?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I am not a Spiritualist, and have never pretended +to be. The Spiritualists believe in free thought, in freedom of +speech, and they are willing to hear the other side—willing +to hear me. The best thing about the Spiritualists is that they +believe in intellectual hospitality.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Is Spiritualism a religion or a truth?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I think that Spiritualism may properly be called +a religion. It deals with two worlds—teaches the duty of man +to his fellows—the relation that this life bears to the next. +It claims to be founded on facts. It insists that the "dead" +converse with the living, and that information is received from +those who once lived in this world. Of the truth of these claims I +have no sufficient evidence.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Are all mediums impostors?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I will not say that all mediums are impostors, +because I do not know. I do not believe that these mediums get any +information or help from "spirits." I know that for thousands of +years people have believed in mediums—in Spiritualism. A +spirit in the form of a man appeared to Samson's mother, and +afterward to his father.</p> +<p>Spirits, or angels, called on Abraham. The witch of Endor raised +the ghost of Samuel. An angel appeared with three men in the +furnace. The handwriting on the wall was done by a spirit. A spirit +appeared to Joseph in a dream, to the wise men and to Joseph +again.</p> +<p>So a spirit, an angel or a god, spoke to Saul, and the same +happened to Mary Magdalene.</p> +<p>The religious literature of the world is filled with such +things. Take Spiritualism from Christianity and the whole edifice +crumbles. All religions, so far as I know, are based on +Spiritualism—on communications received from angels, from +spirits.</p> +<p>I do not say that all the mediums, ancient and modern, were, and +are, impostors—but I do think that all the honest ones were, +and are, mistaken. I do not believe that man has ever received any +communication from angels, spirits or gods. No whisper, as I +believe, has ever come from any other world. The lips of the dead +are always closed. From the grave there has come no voice. For +thousands of years people have been questioning the dead. They have +tried to catch the whisper of a vanished voice. Many say that they +have succeeded. I do not know.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What is the explanation of the startling +knowledge displayed by some so-called "mediums" of the history and +personal affairs of people who consult them? Is there any such +thing as mind-reading or thought-transference?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. In a very general way, I suppose that one person +may read the thought of another—not definitely, but by the +expression of the face, by the attitude of the body, some idea may +be obtained as to what a person thinks, what he intends. So thought +may be transferred by look or language, but not simply by will. +Everything that is, is natural. Our ignorance is the soil in which +mystery grows. I do not believe that thoughts are things that can +been seen or touched. Each mind lives in a world of its own, a +world that no other mind can enter. Minds, like ships at sea, give +signs and signals to each other, but they do not exchange +captains.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Is there any such thing as telepathy? What is +the explanation of the stories of mental impressions received at +long distances?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. There are curious coincidences. People sometimes +happen to think of something that is taking place at a great +distance. The stories about these happenings are not very well +authenticated, and seem never to have been of the least use to +anyone.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Can these phenomena be considered aside from +any connection with, or form of, superstition?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I think that mistake, emotion, nervousness, +hysteria, dreams, love of the wonderful, dishonesty, ignorance, +grief and the longing for immortality—the desire to meet the +loved and lost, the horror of endless death—account for these +phenomena. People often mistake their dreams for +realities—often think their thoughts have "happened." They +live in a mental mist, a mirage. The boundary between the actual +and the imagined becomes faint, wavering and obscure. They mistake +clouds for mountains. The real and the unreal mix and mingle until +the impossible becomes common, and the natural absurd.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you believe that any sane man ever had a +vision?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Of course, the sane and insane have visions, +dreams. I do not believe that any man, sane or insane, was ever +visited by an angel or spirit, or ever received any information +from the dead.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Setting aside from consideration the so-called +physical manifestations of the mediums, has Spiritualism offered +any proof of the immortality of the soul?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Of course Spiritualism offers what it calls proof +of immortality. That is its principal business. Thousands and +thousands of good, honest, intelligent people think the proof +sufficient. They receive what they believe to be messages from the +departed, and now and then the spirits assume their old forms +—including garments—and pass through walls and doors as +light passes through glass. Do these things really happen? If the +spirits of the dead do return, then the fact of another life is +established. It all depends on the evidence. Our senses are easily +deceived, and some people have more confidence in their reason than +in their senses.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you not believe that such a man as Robert +Dale Owen was sincere? What was the real state of mind of the +author of "Footfalls on the Boundaries of Another World"?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Without the slightest doubt, Robert Dale Owen was +sincere. He was one of the best of men. His father labored all his +life for the good of others. Robert Owen, the father, had a debate, +in Cincinnati, with the Rev. Alexander Campbell, the founder of the +Campbellite Church. Campbell was no match for Owen, and yet the +audience was almost unanimously against Owen.</p> +<p>Robert Dale Owen was an intelligent, thoughtful, honest man. He +was deceived by several mediums, but remained a believer. He wanted +Spiritualism to be true. He hungered and thirsted for another life. +He explained everything that was mysterious or curious by assuming +the interference of spirits. He was a good man, but a poor +investigator. He thought that people were all honest.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you understand the Spiritualist means +when he claims that the soul goes to the "Summer land," and there +continues to work and evolute to higher planes?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. No one pretends to know where "heaven" is. The +celestial realm is the blessed somewhere in the unknown nowhere. So +far as I know, the "Summer land" has no metes and bounds, and no +one pretends to know exactly or inexactly where it is. After all, +the "Summer land" is a hope—a wish. Spiritualists believe +that a soul leaving this world passes into another, or into another +state, and continues to grow in intelligence and virtue, if it so +desires.</p> +<p>Spiritualists claim to prove that there is another life. +Christians believe this, but their witnesses have been dead for +many centuries. They take the "hearsay" of legend and ancient +gossip; but Spiritualists claim to have living witnesses; witnesses +that can talk, make music; that can take to themselves bodies and +shake hands with the people they knew before they passed to the +"other shore."</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Has Spiritualism, through its mediums, ever +told the world anything useful, or added to the store of the +world's knowledge, or relieved its burdens?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I do not know that any medium has added to the +useful knowledge of the world, unless mediums have given evidence +of another life. Mediums have told us nothing about astronomy, +geology or history, have made no discoveries, no inventions, and +have enriched no art. The same may be said of every religion.</p> +<p>All the orthodox churches believe in Spiritualism. Every now and +then the Virgin appears to some peasant, and in the old days the +darkness was filled with evil spirits. Christ was a Spiritualist, +and his principal business was the casting out of devils. All of +his disciples, all of the church fathers, all of the saints were +believers in Spiritualism of the lowest and most ignorant type. +During the Middle Ages people changed themselves, with the aid of +spirits, into animals. They became wolves, dogs, cats and donkeys. +In those day all the witches and wizards were mediums. So animals +were sometimes taken possession of by spirits, the same as Balaam's +donkey and Christ's swine. Nothing was too absurd for the +Christians.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Has not Spiritualism added to the world's stock +of hope? And in what way has not Spiritualism done good?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. The mother holding in her arms her dead child, +believing that the babe has simply passed to another life, does not +weep as bitterly as though she thought that death was the eternal +end. A belief in Spiritualism must be a consolation. You see, the +Spiritualists do not believe in eternal pain, and consequently a +belief in immortality does not fill their hearts with fear.</p> +<p>Christianity makes eternal life an infinite horror, and casts +the glare of hell on almost every grave.</p> +<p>The Spiritualists appear to be happy in their belief. I have +never known a happy orthodox Christian.</p> +<p>It is natural to shun death, natural to desire eternal life. +With all my heart I hope for everlasting life and joy—a life +without failures, without crimes and tears.</p> +<p>If immortality could be established, the river of life would +overflow with happiness. The faces of prisoners, of slaves, of the +deserted, of the diseased and starving would be radiant with +smiles, and the dull eyes of despair would glow with light.</p> +<p>If it could be established.</p> +<p>Let us hope.</p> +<p>—<i>The Journal</i>, New York, July 26, 1896.</p> +<a name="link0117" id="link0117"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>A LITTLE OF EVERYTHING.</h2> +<p><i>Question</i>. What is your opinion of the position taken by +the United States in the Venezuelan dispute? How should the dispute +be settled?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I do not think that we have any interest in the +dispute between Venezuela and England. It was and is none of our +business. The Monroe doctrine was not and is not in any way +involved. Mr. Cleveland made a mistake and so did Congress.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What should be the attitude of the church +toward the stage?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. It should be, what it always has been, against +it. If the orthodox churches are right, then the stage is wrong. +The stage makes people forget hell; and this puts their souls in +peril. There will be forever a conflict between Shakespeare and the +Bible.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think of the new woman?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I like her.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Where rests the responsibility for the Armenian +atrocities?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Religion is the cause of the hatred and +bloodshed.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think of international marriages, +as between titled foreigners and American heiresses?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. My opinion is the same as is entertained by the +American girl after the marriages. It is a great mistake.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think of England's Poet Laureate, +Alfred Austin?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I have only read a few of his lines and they were +not poetic. The office of Poet Laureate should be abolished. Men +cannot write poems to order as they could deliver cabbages or beer. +By poems I do not mean jingles of words. I mean great thoughts +clothed in splendor.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What is your estimate of Susan B. Anthony?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Miss Anthony is one of the most remarkable women +in the world. She has the enthusiasm of youth and spring, the +courage and sincerity of a martyr. She is as reliable as the +attraction of gravitation. She is absolutely true to her +conviction, intellectually honest, logical, candid and infinitely +persistent. No human being has done more for women than Miss +Anthony. She has won the respect and admiration of the best people +on the earth. And so I say: Good luck and long life to Susan B. +Anthony.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Which did more for his country, George +Washington or Abraham Lincoln?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. In my judgment, Lincoln was the greatest man ever +President. I put him above Washington and Jefferson. He had the +genius of goodness; and he was one of the wisest and shrewdest of +men. Lincoln towers above them all.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What gave rise to the report that you had been +converted —did you go to church somewhere?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I visited the "People's Church" in Kalamazoo, +Michigan. This church has no creed. The object is to make people +happy in this world. Miss Bartlett is the pastor. She is a +remarkable woman and is devoting her life to good work. I liked her +church and said so. This is all.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Are there not some human natures so morally +weak or diseased that they cannot keep from sin without the aid of +some sort of religion?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I do not believe that the orthodox religion helps +anybody to be just, generous or honest. Superstition is not the +soil in which goodness grows. Falsehood is poor medicine.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Would you consent to live in any but a +Christian community? If you would, please name one.</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I would not live in a community where all were +orthodox Christians. I would rather dwell in Central Africa. If I +could have my choice I would rather live among people who were +free, who sought for truth and lived according to reason. Sometime +there will be such a community.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Is the noun "United States" singular or plural, +as you use English?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I use it in the singular.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Have you read Nordau's "Degeneracy"? If so, +what do you think of it?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I think it is substantially insane.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think of Bishop Doane's advocacy of +free rum as a solution of the liquor problem?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I am a believer in liberty. All the temperance +legislation, all the temperance societies, all the agitation, all +these things have done no good.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you agree with Mr. Carnegie that a college +education is of little or no practical value to a man?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. A man must have education. It makes no difference +where or how he gets it. To study the dead languages is time wasted +so far as success in business is concerned. Most of the colleges in +this country are poor because controlled by theologians.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What suggestion would you make for the +improvement of the newspapers of this country?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Every article in a newspaper should be signed by +the writer. And all writers should do their best to tell the exact +facts.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think of Niagara Falls?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. It is a dangerous place. Those great rushing +waters— there is nothing attractive to me in them. There is +so much noise; so much tumult. It is simply a mighty force of +nature—one of those tremendous powers that is to be feared +for its danger. What I like in nature is a cultivated field, where +men can work in the free open air, where there is quiet and +repose—no turmoil, no strife, no tumult, no fearful roar or +struggle for mastery. I do not like the crowded, stuffy workshop, +where life is slavery and drudgery. Give me the calm, cultivated +land of waving grain, of flowers, of happiness.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What is worse than death?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Oh, a great many things. To be dishonored. To be +worthless. To feel that you are a failure. To be insane. To be +constantly afraid of the future. To lose the ones you love.</p> +<p>—<i>The Herald</i>, Rochester, New York, February 25, +1896.</p> +<a name="link0118" id="link0118"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>IS LIFE WORTH LIVING—CHRISTIAN SCIENCE AND POLITICS.</h2> +<p><i>Question</i>. With all your experiences, the trials, the +responsibilities, the disappointments, the heartburnings, Colonel, +is life worth living?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Well, I can only answer for myself. I like to be +alive, to breathe the air, to look at the landscape, the clouds and +stars, to repeat old poems, to look at pictures and statues, to +hear music, the voices of the ones I love. I like to talk with my +wife, my girls, my grandchildren. I like to sleep and to dream. +Yes, you can say that life, to me, is worth living.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Colonel, did you ever kill any game?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. When I was a boy I killed two ducks, and it hurt +me as much as anything I ever did. No, I would not kill any living +creature. I am sometimes tempted to kill a mosquito on my hand, but +I stop and think what a wonderful construction it has, and shoo it +away.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think of political parties, +Colonel?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. In a country where the sovereignty is divided +among the people, that is to say, among the men, in order to +accomplish anything, many must unite, and I believe in joining the +party that is going the nearest your way. I do not believe in being +the slave or serf or servant of a party. Go with it if it is going +your road, and when the road forks, take the one that leads to the +place you wish to visit, no matter whether the party goes that way +or not. I do not believe in belonging to a party or being the +property of any organization. I do not believe in giving a mortgage +on yourself or a deed of trust for any purpose whatever. It is +better to be free and vote wrong than to be a slave and vote right. +I believe in taking the chances. At the same time, as long as a +party is going my way, I believe in placing that party above +particular persons, and if that party nominates a man that I +despise, I will vote for him if he is going my way. I would rather +have a bad man belonging to my party in place, than a good man +belonging to the other, provided my man believes in my principles, +and to that extent I believe in party loyalty.</p> +<p>Neither do I join in the general hue and cry against bosses. +There has always got to be a leader, even in a flock of wild geese. +If anything is to be accomplished, no matter what, somebody takes +the lead and the others allow him to go on. In that way political +bosses are made, and when you hear a man howling against bosses at +the top of his lungs, distending his cheeks to the bursting point, +you may know that he has ambition to become a boss.</p> +<p>I do not belong to the Republican party, but I have been going +with it, and when it goes wrong I shall quit, unless the other is +worse. There is no office, no place, that I want, and as it does +not cost anything to be right, I think it better to be that +way.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What is your idea of Christian Science?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I think it is superstition, pure and +unadulterated. I think that soda will cure a sour stomach better +than thinking. In my judgment, quinine is a better tonic than +meditation. Of course cheerfulness is good and depression bad, but +if you can absolutely control the body and all its functions by +thought, what is the use of buying coal? Let the mercury go down +and keep yourself hot by thinking. What is the use of wasting money +for food? Fill your stomach with think. According to these +Christian Science people all that really exists is an illusion, and +the only realities are the things that do not exist. They are like +the old fellow in India who said that all things were illusions. +One day he was speaking to a crowd on his favorite hobby. Just as +he said "all is illusion" a fellow on an elephant rode toward him. +The elephant raised his trunk as though to strike, thereupon the +speaker ran away. Then the crowd laughed. In a few moments the +speaker returned. The people shouted: "If all is illusion, what +made you run away?" The speaker replied: "My poor friends, I said +all is illusion. I say so still. There was no elephant. I did not +run away. You did not laugh, and I am not explaining now. All is +illusion."</p> +<p>That man must have been a Christian Scientist.</p> +<p>—<i>The Inter-Ocean</i>, Chicago, November, 1897.</p> +<a name="link0119" id="link0119"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>VIVISECTION.</h2> +<h3><i>Question</i>. Why are you so utterly opposed to +vivisection?</h3> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Because, as it is generally practiced, it is an +unspeakable cruelty. Because it hardens the hearts and demoralizes +those who inflict useless and terrible pains on the bound and +helpless. If these vivisectionists would give chloroform or ether +to the animals they dissect; if they would render them insensible +to pain, and if, by cutting up these animals, they could learn +anything worth knowing, no one would seriously object.</p> +<p>The trouble is that these doctors, these students, these +professors, these amateurs, do not give anesthetics. They insist +that to render the animal insensible does away with the value of +the experiment. They care nothing for the pain they inflict. They +are so eager to find some fact that will be of benefit to the human +race, that they are utterly careless of the agony endured.</p> +<p>Now, what I say is that no decent man, no gentleman, no +civilized person, would vivisect an animal without first having +rendered that animal insensible to pain. The doctor, the scientist, +who puts his knives, forceps, chisels and saws into the flesh, +bones and nerves of an animal without having used an anesthetic, is +a savage, a pitiless, heartless monster. When he says he does this +for the good of man, because he wishes to do good, he says what is +not true. No such man wants to do good; he commits the crime for +his own benefit and because he wishes to gratify an insane cruelty +or to gain a reputation among like savages.</p> +<p>These scientists now insist that they have done some good. They +do not tell exactly what they have done. The claim is general in +its character—not specific. If they have done good, could +they not have done just as much if they had used anesthetics? Good +is not the child of cruelty.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you think that the vivisectionists do their +work without anesthetics? Do they not, as a rule, give something to +deaden pain?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Here is what the trouble is. Now and then one +uses chloroform, but the great majority do not. They claim that it +interferes with the value of the experiment, and, as I said before, +they object to the expense. Why should they care for what the +animals suffer? They inflict the most horrible and useless pain, +and they try the silliest experiments—experiments of no +possible use or advantage.</p> +<p>For instance: They flay a dog to see how long he can live +without his skin. Is this trifling experiment of any importance? +Suppose the dog can live a week or a month or a year, what then? +What must the real character of the scientific wretch be who would +try an experiment like this? Is such a man seeking the good of his +fellow- men?</p> +<p>So, these scientists starve animals until they slowly die; watch +them from day to day as life recedes from the extremities, and +watch them until the final surrender, to see how long the heart +will flutter without food; without water. They keep a diary of +their sufferings, of their whinings and moanings, of their +insanity. And this diary is published and read with joy and +eagerness by other scientists in like experiments. Of what possible +use is it to know how long a dog or horse can live without +food?</p> +<p>So, they take animals, dogs and horses, cut through the flesh +with the knife, remove some of the back bone with the chisel, then +divide the spinal marrow, then touch it with red hot wires for the +purpose of finding, as they say, the connection of nerves; and the +animal, thus vivisected, is left to die.</p> +<p>A good man will not voluntarily inflict pain. He will see that +his horse has food, if he can procure it, and if he cannot procure +the food, he will end the sufferings of the animal in the best and +easiest way. So, the good man would rather remain in ignorance as +to how pain is transmitted than to cut open the body of a living +animal, divide the marrow and torture the nerves with red hot iron. +Of what use can it be to take a dog, tie him down and cut out one +of his kidneys to see if he can live with the other?</p> +<p>These horrors are perpetrated only by the cruel and the +heartless —so cruel and so heartless that they are utterly +unfit to be trusted with a human life. They inoculate animals with +a virus of disease; they put poison in their eyes until rottenness +destroys the sight; until the poor brutes become insane. They given +them a disease that resembles hydrophobia, that is accompanied by +the most frightful convulsions and spasms. They put them in ovens +to see what degree of heat it is that kills. They also try the +effect of cold; they slowly drown them; they poison them with the +venom of snakes; they force foreign substances into their blood, +and, by inoculation, into their eyes; and then watch and record +their agonies; their sufferings.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Don't you think that some good has been +accomplished, some valuable information obtained, by +vivisection?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I don't think any valuable information has been +obtained by the vivisection of animals without chloroform that +could not have been obtained with chloroform. And to answer the +question broadly as to whether any good has been accomplished by +vivisection, I say no.</p> +<p>According to the best information that I can obtain, the +vivisectors have hindered instead of helped. Lawson Tait, who +stands at the head of his profession in England, the best surgeon +in Great Britain, says that all this cutting and roasting and +freezing and torturing of animals has done harm instead of good. He +says publicly that the vivisectors have hindered the progress of +surgery. He declares that they have not only done no good, but +asserts that they have done only harm. The same views according to +Doctor Tait, are entertained by Bell, Syme and Fergusson.</p> +<p>Many have spoken of Darwin as though he were a vivisector. This +is not true. All that has been accomplished by these torturers of +dumb and helpless animals amounts to nothing. We have obtained from +these gentlemen Koch's cure for consumption, Pasteur's factory of +hydrophobia and Brown-Sequard's elixir of life. These three +failures, gigantic, absurd, ludicrous, are the great accomplishment +of vivisection.</p> +<p>Surgery has advanced, not by the heartless tormentors of +animals, but by the use of anesthetics—that is to say, +chloroform, ether and cocaine. The cruel wretches, the scientific +assassins, have accomplished nothing. Hundreds of thousands of +animals have suffered every pain that nerves can feel, and all for +nothing—nothing except to harden the heart and to make +criminals of men.</p> +<p>They have not given anesthetics to these animals, but they have +been guilty of the last step in cruelty. They have given curare, a +drug that attacks the centers of motion, that makes it impossible +for the animal to move, so that when under its influence, no matter +what the pain may be, the animal lies still. This curare not only +destroys the power of motion, but increases the sensitiveness of +the nerves. To give this drug and then to dissect the living animal +is the extreme of cruelty. Beyond this, heartlessness cannot +go.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you know that you have been greatly +criticized for what you have said on this subject?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Yes; I have read many criticisms; but what of +that. It is impossible for the ingenuity of man to say anything in +defence of cruelty—of heartlessness. So, it is impossible for +the defenders of vivisection to show any good that has been +accomplished without the use of anesthetics. The chemist ought to +be able to determine what is and what is not poison. There is no +need of torturing the animals. So, this giving to animals diseases +is of no importance to man—not the slightest; and nothing has +been discovered in bacteriology so far that has been of use or that +is of benefit.</p> +<p>Personally, I admit that all have the right to criticise; and my +answer to the critics is, that they do not know the facts; or, +knowing them, they are interested in preventing a knowledge of +these facts coming to the public. Vivisection should be controlled +by law. No animal should be allowed to be tortured. And to cut up a +living animal not under the influence of chloroform or ether, +should be a penitentiary offence.</p> +<p>A perfect reply to all the critics who insist that great good +has been done is to repeat the three names—Koch, Pasteur and +Brown- Sequard.</p> +<p>The foundation of civilization is not cruelty; it is justice, +generosity, mercy.</p> +<p>—<i>Evening Telegram</i>, New York, September 30, +1893.</p> +<a name="link0120" id="link0120"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>DIVORCE.</h2> +<p><i>Question</i>. The <i>Herald</i> would like to have you give +your ideas on divorce. On last Sunday in your lecture you said a +few words on the subject, but only a few. Do you think the laws +governing divorce ought to be changed?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. We obtained our ideas about divorce from the +Hebrews— from the New Testament and the church. In the Old +Testament woman is not considered of much importance. The wife was +the property of the husband.</p> +<p>"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's ox or his wife." In this +commandment the wife is put on an equality with other property, so +under certain conditions the husband could put away his wife, but +the wife could not put away her husband.</p> +<p>In the New Testament there is little in favor of marriage, and +really nothing as to the rights of wives. Christ said nothing in +favor of marriage, and never married. So far as I know, none of the +apostles had families. St. Paul was opposed to marriage, and +allowed it only as a choice of evils. In those days it was imagined +by the Christians that the world was about to be purified by fire, +and that they would be changed into angels.</p> +<p>The early Christians were opposed to marriage, and the "fathers" +looked upon woman as the source of all evil. They did not believe +in divorces. They thought that if people loved each other better +than they did God, and got married, they ought to be held to the +bargain, no matter what happened.</p> +<p>These "fathers" were, for the most part, ignorant and hateful +savages, and had no more idea of right and wrong than wild +beasts.</p> +<p>The church insisted that marriage was a sacrament, and that God, +in some mysterious way, joined husband and wife in +marriage—that he was one of the parties to the contract, and +that only death could end it.</p> +<p>Of course, this supernatural view of marriage is perfectly +absurd. If there be a God, there certainly have been marriages he +did not approve, and certain it is that God can have no interest in +keeping husbands and wives together who never should have +married.</p> +<p>Some of the preachers insist that God instituted marriage in the +Garden of Eden. We now know that there was no Garden of Eden, and +that woman was not made from the first man's rib. Nobody with any +real sense believes this now. The institution of marriage was not +established by Jehovah. Neither was it established by Christ, not +any of his apostles.</p> +<p>In considering the question of divorce, the supernatural should +be discarded. We should take into consideration only the effect +upon human beings. The gods should be allowed to take care of +themselves.</p> +<p>Is it to the interest of a husband and wife to live together +after love has perished and when they hate each other? Will this +add to their happiness? Should a woman be compelled to remain the +wife of a man who hates and abuses her, and whom she loathes? Has +society any interest in forcing women to live with men they +hate?</p> +<p>There is no real marriage without love, and in the marriage +state there is no morality without love. A woman who remains the +wife of a man whom she despises, or does not love, corrupts her +soul. She becomes degraded, polluted, and feels that her flesh has +been soiled. Under such circumstances a good woman suffers the +agonies of moral death. It may be said that the woman can leave her +husband; that she is not compelled to live in the same house or to +occupy the same room. If she has the right to leave, has she the +right to get a new house? Should a woman be punished for having +married? Women do not marry the wrong men on purpose. Thousands of +mistakes are made—are these mistakes sacred? Must they be +preserved to please God?</p> +<p>What good can it do God to keep people married who hate each +other? What good can it do the community to keep such people +together?</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you consider marriage a contract or a +sacrament?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Marriage is the most important contract that +human beings can make. No matter whether it is called a contract or +a sacrament, it remains the same. A true marriage is a natural +concord or agreement of souls—a harmony in which discord is +not even imagined. It is a mingling so perfect that only one seems +to exist. All other considerations are lost. The present seems +eternal. In this supreme moment there is no shadow, or the shadow +is as luminous as light.</p> +<p>When two beings thus love, thus united, this is the true +marriage of soul and soul. The idea of contract is lost. Duty and +obligation are instantly changed into desire and joy, and two +lives, like uniting streams, flow on as one.</p> +<p>This is real marriage.</p> +<p>Now, if the man turns out to be a wild beast, if he destroys the +happiness of the wife, why should she remain his victim?</p> +<p>If she wants a divorce, she should have it. The divorce will not +hurt God or the community. As a matter of fact, it will save a +life.</p> +<p>No man not poisoned by superstition will object to the release +of an abused wife. In such a case only savages can object to +divorce. The man who wants courts and legislatures to force a woman +to live with him is a monster.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you believe that the divorced should be +allowed to marry again?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Certainly. Has the woman whose rights have been +outraged no right to build another home? Must this woman, full of +kindness, affection and health, be chained until death releases +her? Is there no future for her? Must she be an outcast forever? +Can she never sit by her own hearth, with the arms of her children +about her neck, and by her side a husband who loves and protects +her?</p> +<p>There are no two sides to this question.</p> +<p>All human beings should be allowed to correct their mistakes. If +the wife has flagrantly violated the contract of marriage, the +husband should be given a divorce. If the wife wants a divorce, if +she loathes her husband, if she no longer loves him, then the +divorce should be granted.</p> +<p>It is immoral for a woman to live as the wife of a man whom she +abhors. The home should be pure. Children should be well-born. +Their parents should love one another.</p> +<p>Marriages are made by men and women, not by society, not by the +state, not by the church, not by the gods. Nothing is moral, that +does not tend to the well-being of sentient beings.</p> +<p>The good home is the unit of good government. The hearthstone is +the corner-stone of civilization. Society is not interested in the +preservation of hateful homes. It is not to the interest of society +that good women should be enslaved or that they should become +mothers by husbands whom they hate.</p> +<p>Most of the laws about divorce are absurd or cruel, and ought to +be repealed.</p> +<p>—<i>The Herald</i>, New York, February, 1897.</p> +<a name="link0121" id="link0121"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>MUSIC, NEWSPAPERS, LYNCHING AND ARBITRATION.</h2> +<h3><i>Question</i>. How do you enjoy staying in Chicago?</h3> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Well, I am about as happy as a man can be when he +is away from home. I was at the opera last night. I am always happy +when I hear the music of Wagner interpreted by such a genius as +Seidl. I do not believe there is a man in the world who has in his +brain and heart more of the real spirit of Wagner than Anton Seidl. +He knows how to lead, how to phrase and shade, how to rush and how +to linger, and to express every passion and every mood. So I was +happy last night to hear him. Then I heard Edouard de Reszke, the +best of bass singers, with tones of a great organ, and others soft +and liquid, and Jean de Reszke, a great tenor, who sings the "Swan +Song" as though inspired; and I liked Bispham, but hated his part. +He is a great singer; so is Mme. Litvinne.</p> +<p>So, I can say that I am enjoying Chicago. In fact, I always did. +I was here when the town was small, not much more than huts and +hogs, lumber and mud; and now it is one of the greatest of cities. +It makes me happy just to think of the difference. I was born the +year Chicago was incorporated. In my time matches were invented. +Steam navigation became really useful. The telegraph was invented. +Gas was discovered and applied to practical uses, and electricity +was made known in its practical workings to mankind. Thus, it is +seen the world is progressing; men are becoming civilized. But the +process of civilization even now is slow. In one or two thousand +years we may hope to see a vast improvement in man's condition. We +may expect to have the employer so far civilized that he will not +try to make money for money's sake, but in order that he may apply +it to good uses, to the amelioration of his fellow-man's condition. +We may also expect the see the workingman, the employee, so far +civilized that he will know it is impossible and undesirable for +him to attempt to fix the wages paid by his employer. We may in a +thousand or more years reasonably expect that the employee will be +so far civilized and become sufficiently sensible to know that +strikes and threats and mob violence can never improve his +condition. Altruism is nonsense, craziness.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Is Chicago as liberal, intellectually, as New +York?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I think so. Of course you will find thousands of +free, thoughtful people in New York—people who think and want +others to do the same. So, there are thousands of respectable +people who are centuries behind the age. In other words, you will +find all kinds. I presume the same is true of Chicago. I find many +liberal people here, and some not quite so liberal.</p> +<p>Some of the papers here seem to be edited by real pious men. On +last Tuesday the <i>Times-Herald</i> asked pardon of its readers +for having given a report of my lecture. That editor must be pious. +In the same paper, columns were given to the prospective prize- +fight at Carson City. All the news about the good Corbett and the +orthodox Fitzsimmons—about the training of the gentlemen who +are going to attack each others' jugulars and noses; who are +expected to break jaws, blacken eyes, and peel foreheads in a few +days, to settle the question of which can bear the most pounding. +In this great contest and in all its vulgar details, the readers of +the <i>Times-Herald</i> are believed by the editor of that +religious daily to take great interest.</p> +<p>The editor did not ask the pardon of his readers for giving so +much space to the nose-smashing sport. No! He knew that would fill +their souls with delight, and, so knowing, he reached the correct +conclusion that such people would not enjoy anything I had said. +The editor did a wise thing and catered to a large majority of his +readers. I do not think that we have as religious a daily paper in +New York as the <i>Times-Herald</i>. So the editor of the <i>Times- +Herald</i> took the ground that men with little learning, in youth, +might be agnostic, but as they grew sensible they would become +orthodox. When he wrote that he was probably thinking of Humboldt +and Darwin, of Huxley and Haeckel. May be Herbert Spencer was in +his mind, but I think that he must have been thinking of a few boys +in his native village.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think about prize-fighting +anyway?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Well, I think that prize-fighting is worse, if +possible, than revival meetings. Next to fighting to kill, as they +did in the old Roman days, I think the modern prize-fight is the +most disgusting and degrading of exhibitions. All fights, whether +cock- fights, bull-fights or pugilistic encounters, are practiced +and enjoyed only by savages. No matter what office they hold, what +wealth or education they have, they are simply savages. Under no +possible circumstances would I witness a prize-fight or a bull- +fight or a dog-fight. The Marquis of Queensbury was once at my +house, and I found his opinions were the same as mine. Everyone +thinks that he had something to do with the sport of +prize-fighting, but he did not, except to make some rules once for +a college boxing contest. He told me that he never saw but one +prize-fight in his life, and that it made him sick.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. How are you on the arbitration treaty?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I am for it with all my heart. I have read it, +and read it with care, and to me it seems absolutely fair. England +and America should set an example to the world. The +English-speaking people have reason enough and sense enough, I +hope, to settle their differences by argument—by reason. Let +us get the wild beast out of us. Two great nations like England and +America appealing to force, arguing with shot and shell! What is +education worth? Is what we call civilization a sham? Yes, I +believe in peace, in arbitration, in settling disputes like +reasonable, human beings. All that war can do is to determine who +is the stronger. It throws no light on any question, addresses no +argument. There is a point to a bayonet, but no logic. After the +war is over the victory does not tell which nation was right. +Civilized men take their differences to courts or arbitrators. +Civilized nations should do the same. There ought to be an +international court.</p> +<p>Let every man do all he can to prevent war—to prevent the +waste, the cruelties, the horrors that follow every flag on every +field of battle. It is time that man was human—time that the +beast was out of his heart.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think of McKinley's inaugural?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. It is good, honest, clear, patriotic and +sensible. There is one thing in it that touched me; I agree with +him that lynching has to be stopped. You see that now we are +citizens of the United States, not simply of the State in which we +happen to live. I take the ground that it is the business of the +United States to protect its citizens, not only when they are in +some other country, but when they are at home. The United States +cannot discharge this obligation by allowing the States to do as +they please. Where citizens are being lynched the Government should +interfere. If the Governor of some barbarian State says that he +cannot protect the lives of citizens, then the United States +should, if it took the entire Army and Navy.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What is your opinion of charity +organizations?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I think that the people who support them are good +and generous—splendid—but I have a poor opinion of the +people in charge. As a rule, I think they are cold, impudent and +heartless. There is too much circumlocution, or too many details +and too little humanity. The Jews are exceedingly charitable. I +think that in New York the men who are doing the most for their +fellow-men are Jews. Nathan Strauss is trying to feed the hungry, +warm the cold, and clothe the naked. For the most part, organized +charities are, I think, failures. A real charity has to be in the +control of a good man, a real sympathetic, a sensible man, one who +helps others to help themselves. Let a hungry man go to an +organized society and it requires several days to satisfy the +officers that the man is hungry. Meanwhile he will probably starve +to death.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you believe in free text-books in the public +schools?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I do not care about the text-book question. But I +am in favor of the public school. Nothing should be taught that +somebody does not know. No superstitions—nothing but +science.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. There has been a good deal said lately about +your suicide theology, Colonel. Do you still believe that suicide +is justifiable?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Certainly. When a man is useless to himself and +to others he has a right to determine what he will do about living. +The only thing to be considered is a man's obligation to his +fellow- beings and to himself. I don't take into consideration any +supernatural nonsense. If God wants a man to stay here he ought to +make it more comfortable for him.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Since you expounded your justification of +suicide, Colonel, I believe you have had some cases of suicide laid +at your door?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Oh, yes. Every suicide that has happened since +that time has been charged to me. I don't know how the people +account for the suicides before my time. I have not yet heard of my +being charged with the death of Cato, but that may yet come to +pass. I was reading the other day that the rate of suicide in +Germany is increasing. I suppose my article has been translated +into German.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. How about lying, Colonel? Is it ever right to +lie?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Of course, sometimes. In war when a man is +captured by the enemy he ought to lie to them to mislead them. What +we call strategy is nothing more than lies. For the accomplishment +of a good end, for instance, the saving of a woman's reputation, it +is many times perfectly right to lie. As a rule, people ought to +tell the truth. If it is right to kill a man to save your own life +it certainly ought to be right to fool him for the same purpose. I +would rather be deceived than killed, wouldn't you?</p> +<p>—<i>The Inter-Ocean</i>, Chicago, Illinois, March, +1897.</p> +<a name="link0122" id="link0122"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>A VISIT TO SHAW'S GARDEN.</h2> +<p><i>Question</i>. I was told that you came to St. Louis on your +wedding trip some thirty years ago and went to Shaw's Garden?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Yes; we were married on the 13th of February, +1862. We were here in St. Louis, and we did visit Shaw's Garden, +and we thought it perfectly beautiful. Afterward we visited the Kew +Gardens in London, but our remembrance of Shaw's left Kew in the +shade.</p> +<p>Of course, I have been in St. Louis many times, my first visit +being, I think, in 1854. I have always liked the town. I was +acquainted at one time with a great many of your old citizens. Most +of them have died, and I know but few of the present generation. I +used to stop at the old Planter's House, and I was there quite +often during the war. In those days I saw Hackett as Falstaff, the +best Falstaff that ever lived. Ben de Bar was here then, and the +Maddern sisters, and now the daughter of one of the sisters, Minnie +Maddern Fiske, is one of the greatest actresses in the world. She +has made a wonderful hit in New York this season. And so the ebb +and flow of life goes on—the old pass and the young +arrive.</p> +<p>"Death and progress!" It may be that death is, after all, a +great blessing. Maybe it gives zest and flavor to life, ardor and +flame to love. At the same time I say, "long life" to all my +friends.</p> +<p>I want to live—I get great happiness out of life. I enjoy +the company of my friends. I enjoy seeing the faces of the ones I +love. I enjoy art and music. I love Shakespeare and Burns; love to +hear the music of Wagner; love to see a good play. I take pleasure +in eating and sleeping. The fact is, I like to breathe.</p> +<p>I want to get all the happiness out of life that I can. I want +to suck the orange dry, so that when death comes nothing but the +peelings will be left, and so I say: "Long life!"</p> +<p>—<i>The Republic</i>, St. Louis, April 11, 1897.</p> +<a name="link0123" id="link0123"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>THE VENEZUELAN BOUNDARY DISCUSSION AND THE WHIPPING-POST.</h2> +<p><i>Question</i>. What is your opinion as to the action of the +President on the Venezuelan matter?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. In my judgment, the President acted in haste and +without thought. It may be said that it would have been well enough +for him to have laid the correspondence before Congress and asked +for an appropriation for a commission to ascertain the facts, to +the end that our Government might intelligently act. There was no +propriety in going further than that. To almost declare war before +the facts were known was a blunder—almost a crime. For my +part, I do not think the Monroe doctrine has anything to do with +the case. Mr. Olney reasons badly, and it is only by a perversion +of facts, and an exaggeration of facts, and by calling in question +the motives of England that it is possible to conclude that the +Monroe doctrine has or can have anything to do with the +controversy. The President went out of his way to find a cause of +quarrel. Nobody doubts the courage of the American people, and we +for that reason can afford to be sensible and prudent. Valor and +discretion should go together. Nobody doubts the courage of +England.</p> +<p>America and England are the leading nations, and in their +keeping, to a great extent, is the glory of the future. They should +be at peace. Should a difference arise it should be settled without +recourse to war.</p> +<p>Fighting settles nothing but the relative strength. No light is +thrown on the cause of the conflict—on the question or fact +that caused the war.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you think that there is any danger of +war?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. If the members of Congress really represent the +people, then there is danger. But I do not believe the people will +really want to fight about a few square miles of malarial territory +in Venezuela—something in which they have no earthly or +heavenly interest. The people do not wish to fight for fight's +sake. When they understand the question they will regard the +administration as almost insane.</p> +<p>The message has already cost us more than the War of 1812 or the +Mexican war, or both. Stocks and bonds have decreased in value +several hundred millions, and the end is not yet. It may be that it +will, on account of the panic, be impossible for the Government to +maintain the gold standard—the reserve. Then gold would +command a premium, the Government would be unable to redeem the +greenbacks, and the result would be financial chaos, and all this +the result of Mr. Cleveland's curiosity about a boundary line +between two countries, in neither of which we have any interest, +and this curiosity has already cost us more than both countries, +including the boundary line, are worth.</p> +<p>The President made a great mistake. So did the House and Senate, +and the poor people have paid a part of the cost.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What is your opinion of the Gerry Whipping Post +bill?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I see that it has passed the Senate, and yet I +think it is a disgrace to the State. How the Senators can go back +to torture, to the Dark Ages, to the custom of savagery, is beyond +belief. I hope that the House is nearer civilized, and that the +infamous bill will be defeated. If, however, the bill should pass, +then I hope Governor Morton will veto it.</p> +<p>Nothing is more disgusting, more degrading, than the +whipping-post. It degrades the whipped and the whipper. It degrades +all who witness the flogging. What kind of a person will do the +whipping? Men who would apply the lash to the naked backs of +criminals would have to be as low as the criminals, and probably a +little lower.</p> +<p>The shadow of the whipping-post does not fall on any civilized +country, and never will. The next thing we know Mr. Gerry will +probably introduce some bill to brand criminals on the forehead or +cut off their ears and slit their noses. This is in the same line, +and is born of the same hellish spirit. There is no reforming power +in torture, in bruising and mangling the flesh.</p> +<p>If the bill becomes a law, I hope it will provide that the lash +shall be applied by Mr. Gerry and his successors in office. Let +these pretended enemies of cruelty enjoy themselves. If the bill +passes, I presume Mr. Gerry could get a supply of knouts from +Russia, as that country has just abolished the whipping-post.</p> +<p>—<i>The Journal</i>, New York, December 24, 1895.</p> +<a name="link0124" id="link0124"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>COLONEL SHEPARD'S STAGE HORSES.*</h2> +<pre> + [* One of Colonel Shepard's equine wrecks was picked up on + Fifth avenue yesterday by the Prevention of Cruelty Society, + and was laid up for repairs. The horse was about twenty- + eight years old, badly foundered, and its leg was cut and + bleeding. It was the leader of three that had been hauling + a Fifth avenue stage, and, according to the Society's + agents, was in about as bad a condition as a horse could be + and keep on his feet. The other two horses were little + better, neither of them being fit to drive. + + Colonel Shepard's scrawny nags have long been an eyesore to + Colonel Robert G. Ingersoll, who is compelled to see them + from his windows at number 400 Fifth avenue. He said last + night:] +</pre> +<p>It might not be in good taste for me to say anything about +Colonel Shepard's horses. He might think me prejudiced. But I am +satisfied horses cannot live on faith or on the substance of things +hoped for. It is far better for the horse, to feed him without +praying, than to pray without feeding him. It is better to be kind +even to animals, than to quote Scripture in small capitals. Now, I +am not saying anything against Colonel Shepard. I do not know how +he feeds his horses. If he is as good and kind as he is pious, then +I have nothing to say. Maybe he does not allow the horses to break +the Sabbath by eating. They are so slow that they make one think of +a fast. They put me in mind of the Garden of Eden—the rib +story. When I watch them on the avenue I, too, fall to quoting +Scripture, and say, "Can these dry bones live?" Still, I have a +delicacy on this subject; I hate to think about it, and I think the +horses feel the same way.</p> +<p>—<i>Morning Advertiser</i>, New York, January 21, +1892.</p> +<a name="link0125" id="link0125"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>A REPLY TO THE REV. L. A. BANKS.</h2> +<p><i>Question</i>. Have you read the remarks made about you by the +Rev. Mr. Banks, and what do you think of what he said?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. The reverend gentleman pays me a great compliment +by comparing me to a circus. Everybody enjoys the circus. They love +to see the acrobats, the walkers on the tight rope, the beautiful +girls on the horses, and they laugh at the wit of the clowns. They +are delighted with the jugglers, with the music of the band. They +drink the lemonade, eat the colored popcorn and laugh until they +nearly roll off their seats. Now the circus has a few animals so +that Christians can have an excuse for going. Think of the joy the +circus gives to the boys and girls. They look at the show bills, +see the men and women flying through the air, bursting through +paper hoops, the elephants standing on their heads, and the clowns, +in curious clothes, with hands on their knees and open mouths, +supposed to be filled with laughter.</p> +<p>All the boys and girls for many miles around know the blessed +day. They save their money, obey their parents, and when the circus +comes they are on hand. They see the procession and then they see +the show. They are all happy. No sermon ever pleased them as much, +and in comparison even the Sunday school is tame and dull.</p> +<p>To feel that I have given as much joy as the circus fills me +with pleasure. What chance would the Rev. Dr. Banks stand against a +circus?</p> +<p>The reverend gentleman has done me a great honor, and I tender +him my sincere thanks.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Dr. Banks says that you write only one lecture +a year, while preachers write a brand new one every week—that +if you did that people would tire of you. What have you to say to +that?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. It may be that great artists paint only one +picture a year, and it may be that sign painters can do several +jobs a day. Still, I would not say that the sign painters were +superior to the artists. There is quite a difference between a +sculptor and a stone-cutter.</p> +<p>There are thousands of preachers and thousands and thousands of +sermons preached every year. Has any orthodox minister in the year +1898 given just one paragraph to literature? Has any orthodox +preacher uttered one great thought, clothed in perfect English that +thrilled the hearers like music—one great strophe that became +one of the treasures of memory?</p> +<p>I will make the question a little clearer. Has any orthodox +preacher, or any preacher in an orthodox pulpit uttered a paragraph +of what may be called sculptured speech since Henry Ward Beecher +died? I do not wonder that the sermons are poor. Their doctrines +have been discussed for centuries. There is little chance for +originality; they not only thresh old straw, but the thresh straw +that has been threshed a million times—straw in which there +has not been a grain of wheat for hundreds of years. No wonder that +they have nervous prostration. No wonder that they need vacations, +and no wonder that their congregations enjoy the vacations as +keenly as the ministers themselves. Better deliver a real good +address fifty-two times than fifty-two poor ones—just for the +sake of variety.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Dr. Banks says that the tendency at present is +not toward Agnosticism, but toward Christianity. What is your +opinion?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. When I was a boy "Infidels" were very rare. A man +who denied the inspiration of the Bible was regarded as a monster. +Now there are in this country millions who regard the Bible as the +work of ignorant and superstitious men. A few years ago the Bible +was the standard. All scientific theories were tested by the Bible. +Now science is the standard and the Bible is tested by that.</p> +<p>Dr. Banks did not mention the names of the great scientists who +are or were Christians, but he probably thought of Laplace, +Humboldt, Haeckel, Huxley, Spencer, Tyndall, Darwin, Helmholtz and +Draper. When he spoke of Christian statesmen he likely thought of +Jefferson, Franklin, Washington, Paine and Lincoln—or he may +have thought of Pierce, Fillmore and Buchanan.</p> +<p>But, after all, there is no argument in names. A man is not +necessarily great because he holds office or wears a crown or talks +in a pulpit. Facts, reasons, are better than names. But it seems to +me that nothing can be plainer than that the church is losing +ground—that the people are discarding the creeds and that +superstition has passed the zenith of its power.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Dr. Banks says that Christ did not mention the +Western Hemisphere because God does nothing for men that they can +do for themselves. What have you to say?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Christ said nothing about the Western Hemisphere +because he did not know that it existed. He did not know the shape +of the earth. He was not a scientist—never even hinted at any +science— never told anybody to investigate—to think. +His idea was that this life should be spent in preparing for the +next. For all the evils of this life, and the next, faith was his +remedy.</p> +<p>I see from the report in the paper that Dr. Banks, after making +the remarks about me preached a sermon on "Herod the Villain in the +Drama of Christ." Who made Herod? Dr. Banks will answer that God +made him. Did God know what Herod would do? Yes. Did he know that +he would cause the children to be slaughtered in his vain efforts +to kill the infant Christ? Yes. Dr. Banks will say that God is not +responsible for Herod because he gave Herod freedom. Did God know +how Herod would use his freedom? Did he know that he would become +the villain in the drama of Christ? Yes. Who, then, is really +responsible for the acts of Herod?</p> +<p>If I could change a stone into a human being, and if I could +give this being freedom of will, and if I knew that if I made him +he would murder a man, and if with that knowledge I made him, and +he did commit a murder, who would be the real murderer?</p> +<p>Will Dr. Banks in his fifty-two sermons of next year show that +his God is not responsible for the crimes of Herod?</p> +<p>No doubt Dr. Banks is a good man, and no doubt he thinks that +liberty of thought leads to hell, and honestly believes that all +doubt comes from the Devil. I do not blame him. He thinks as he +must. He is a product of conditions.</p> +<p>He ought to be my friend because I am doing the best I can to +civilize his congregation.</p> +<p>—<i>The Plain Dealer</i>, Cleveland, Ohio, 1898.</p> +<a name="link0126" id="link0126"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>CUBA—ZOLA AND THEOSOPHY.</h2> +<h3><i>Question</i>. What do you think, Colonel, of the Cuban +question?</h3> +<p><i>Answer</i>. What I know about this question is known by all. +I suppose that the President has information that I know nothing +about. Of course, all my sympathies are with the Cubans. They are +making a desperate—an heroic struggle for their freedom. For +many years they have been robbed and trampled under foot. Spain is, +and always has been, a terrible master—heartless and +infamous. There is no language with which to tell what Cuba has +suffered. In my judgment, this country should assist the Cubans. We +ought to acknowledge the independence of that island, and we ought +to feed the starving victims of Spain. For years we have been +helping Spain. Cleveland did all he could to prevent the Cubans +from getting arms and men. This was a criminal mistake—a +mistake that even Spain did not appreciate. All this should +instantly be reversed, and we should give aid to Cuba. The war that +Spain is waging shocks every civilized man. Spain has always been +the same. In Holland, in Peru, in Mexico, she was infinitely cruel, +and she is the same to-day. She loves to torture, to imprison, to +degrade, to kill. Her idea of perfect happiness is to shed blood. +Spain is a legacy of the Dark Ages. She belongs to the den, the +cave period. She has no business to exist. She is a blot, a stain +on the map of the world. Of course there are some good Spaniards, +but they are not in control.</p> +<p>I want Cuba to be free. I want Spain driven from the Western +World. She has already starved five hundred thousand +Cubans—poor, helpless non-combatants. Among the helpless she +is like a hyena—a tiger among lambs. This country ought to +stop this gigantic crime. We should do this in the name of +humanity—for the sake of the starving, the dying.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you think we are going to have war with +Spain?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I do not think there will be war. Unless Spain is +insane, she will not attack the United States. She is bankrupt. No +nation will assist her. A civilized nation would be ashamed to take +her hand, to be her friend. She has not the power to put down the +rebellion in Cuba. How then can she hope to conquer this country? +She is full of brag and bluster. Of course she will play her hand +for all it is worth, so far as talk goes. She will double her fists +and make motions. She will assume the attitude of war, but she will +never fight. Should she commence hostilities, the war would be +short. She would lose her navy. The little commerce she has would +be driven from the sea. She would drink to the dregs the cup of +humiliation and disgrace. I do not believe that Spain is insane +enough to fire upon our flag. I know that there is nothing too +mean, too cruel for her to do, but still she must have sense enough +to try and save her own life. No, I think there will be no war, but +I believe that Cuba will be free. My opinion is that the Maine was +blown up from the outside—blown up by Spanish officers, and I +think the report of the Board will be to that effect. Such a crime +ought to redden even the cheeks of Spain. As soon as this fact is +known, other nations will regard Spain with hatred and horror. If +the Maine was destroyed by Spain we will ask for indemnity. The +people insist that the account be settled and at once. Possibly we +may attack Spain. There is the only danger of war. We must avenge +that crime. The destruction of two hundred and fifty-nine Americans +must be avenged. Free Cuba must be their monument. I hope for the +sake of human nature that the Spanish did not destroy the Maine. I +hope it was the result of an accident. I hope there is to be no +war, but Spain must be driven from the New World.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What about Zola's trial and conviction?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. It was one of the most infamous trials in the +history of the world. Zola is a great man, a genius, the best man +in France. His trial was a travesty on justice. The judge acted +like a bandit. The proceedings were a disgrace to human nature. The +jurors must have been ignorant beasts. The French have disgraced +themselves. Long live Zola.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Having expressed yourself less upon the subject +of Theosophy than upon other religious beliefs, and as Theosophy +denies the existence of a God as worshiped by Christianity, what is +your idea of the creed?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Insanity. I think it is a mild form of delusion +and illusion; vague, misty, obscure, half dream, mixed with other +mistakes and fragments of facts—a little philosophy, +absurdity— a few impossibilities—some +improbabilities—some accounts of events that never +happened—some prophecies that will not come to pass— a +structure without foundation. But the Theosophists are good people; +kind and honest. Theosophy is based on the supernatural and is just +as absurd as the orthodox creeds.</p> +<p>—<i>The Courier-Journal</i>, Louisville, Ky., February, +1898.</p> +<a name="link0127" id="link0127"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>HOW TO BECOME AN ORATOR.</h2> +<p><i>Question</i>. What advice would you give to a young man who +was ambitious to become a successful public speaker or orator?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. In the first place, I would advise him to have +something to say—something worth saying—something that +people would be glad to hear. This is the important thing. Back of +the art of speaking must be the power to think. Without thoughts +words are empty purses. Most people imagine that almost any words +uttered in a loud voice and accompanied by appropriate gestures, +constitute an oration. I would advise the young man to study his +subject, to find what others had thought, to look at it from all +sides. Then I would tell him to write out his thoughts or to +arrange them in his mind, so that he would know exactly what he was +going to say. Waste no time on the how until you are satisfied with +the what. After you know what you are to say, then you can think of +how it should be said. Then you can think about tone, emphasis, and +gesture; but if you really understand what you say, emphasis, tone, +and gesture will take care of themselves. All these should come +from the inside. They should be in perfect harmony with the +feelings. Voice and gesture should be governed by the emotions. +They should unconsciously be in perfect agreement with the +sentiments. The orator should be true to his subject, should avoid +any reference to himself.</p> +<p>The great column of his argument should be unbroken. He can +adorn it with vines and flowers, but they should not be in such +profusion as to hide the column. He should give variety of episode +by illustrations, but they should be used only for the purpose of +adding strength to the argument. The man who wishes to become an +orator should study language. He should know the deeper meaning of +words. He should understand the vigor and velocity of verbs and the +color of adjectives. He should know how to sketch a scene, to paint +a picture, to give life and action. He should be a poet and a +dramatist, a painter and an actor. He should cultivate his +imagination. He should become familiar with the great poetry and +fiction, with splendid and heroic deeds. He should be a student of +Shakespeare. He should read and devour the great plays. From +Shakespeare he could learn the art of expression, of compression, +and all the secrets of the head and heart.</p> +<p>The great orator is full of variety—of surprises. Like a +juggler, he keeps the colored balls in the air. He expresses +himself in pictures. His speech is a panorama. By continued change +he holds the attention. The interest does not flag. He does not +allow himself to be anticipated. A picture is shown but once. So, +an orator should avoid the commonplace. There should be no +stuffing, no filling. He should put no cotton with his silk, no +common metals with his gold. He should remember that "gilded dust +is not as good as dusted gold." The great orator is honest, +sincere. He does not pretend. His brain and heart go together. +Every drop of his blood is convinced. Nothing is forced. He knows +exactly what he wishes to do—knows when he has finished it, +and stops.</p> +<p>Only a great orator knows when and how to close. Most speakers +go on after they are through. They are satisfied only with a "lame +and impotent conclusion." Most speakers lack variety. They travel a +straight and dusty road. The great orator is full of episode. He +convinces and charms by indirection. He leaves the road, visits the +fields, wanders in the woods, listens to the murmurs of springs, +the songs of birds. He gathers flowers, scales the crags and comes +back to the highway refreshed, invigorated. He does not move in a +straight line. He wanders and winds like a stream.</p> +<p>Of course, no one can tell a man what to do to become an orator. +The great orator has that wonderful thing called presence. He has +that strange something known as magnetism. He must have a flexible, +musical voice, capable of expressing the pathetic, the humorous, +the heroic. His body must move in unison with his thought. He must +be a reasoner, a logician. He must have a keen sense of humor +—of the laughable. He must have wit, sharp and quick. He must +have sympathy. His smiles should be the neighbors of his tears. He +must have imagination. He should give eagles to the air, and +painted moths should flutter in the sunlight.</p> +<p>While I cannot tell a man what to do to become an orator, I can +tell him a few things not to do. There should be no introduction to +an oration. The orator should commence with his subject. There +should be no prelude, no flourish, no apology, no explanation. He +should say nothing about himself. Like a sculptor, he stands by his +block of stone. Every stroke is for a purpose. As he works the form +begins to appear. When the statue is finished the workman stops. +Nothing is more difficult than a perfect close. Few poems, few +pieces of music, few novels end well. A good story, a great speech, +a perfect poem should end just at the proper point. The bud, the +blossom, the fruit. No delay. A great speech is a crystallization +in its logic, an efflorescence in its poetry.</p> +<p>I have not heard many speeches. Most of the great speakers in +our country were before my time. I heard Beecher, and he was an +orator. He had imagination, humor and intensity. His brain was as +fertile as the valleys of the tropics. He was too broad, too +philosophic, too poetic for the pulpit. Now and then, he broke the +fetters of his creed, escaped from his orthodox prison, and became +sublime.</p> +<p>Theodore Parker was an orator. He preached great sermons. His +sermons on "Old Age" and "Webster," and his address on "Liberty" +were filled with great thoughts, marvelously expressed. When he +dealt with human events, with realities, with things he knew, he +was superb. When he spoke of freedom, of duty, of living to the +ideal, of mental integrity, he seemed inspired.</p> +<p>Webster I never heard. He had great qualities; force, dignity, +clearness, grandeur; but, after all, he worshiped the past. He kept +his back to the sunrise. There was no dawn in his brain. He was not +creative. He had no spirit of prophecy. He lighted no torch. He was +not true to his ideal. He talked sometimes as though his head was +among the stars, but he stood in the gutter. In the name of +religion he tried to break the will of Stephen Girard—to +destroy the greatest charity in all the world; and in the name of +the same religion he defended the Fugitive Slave Law. His purpose +was the same in both cases. He wanted office. Yet he uttered a few +very great paragraphs, rich with thought, perfectly expressed.</p> +<p>Clay I never heard, but he must have had a commanding presence, +a chivalric bearing, an heroic voice. He cared little for the past. +He was a natural leader, a wonderful talker—forcible, +persuasive, convincing. He was not a poet, not a master of +metaphor, but he was practical. He kept in view the end to be +accomplished. He was the opposite of Webster. Clay was the morning, +Webster the evening. Clay had large views, a wide horizon. He was +ample, vigorous, and a little tyrannical.</p> +<p>Benton was thoroughly commonplace. He never uttered an inspired +word. He was an intense egoist. No subject was great enough to make +him forget himself. Calhoun was a political Calvinist—narrow, +logical, dogmatic. He was not an orator. He delivered essays, not +orations. I think it was in 1851 that Kossuth visited this country. +He was an orator. There was no man, at that time, under our flag, +who could speak English as well as he. In the first speech I read +of Kossuth's was this line: "Russia is the rock against which the +sigh for freedom breaks." In this you see the poet, the painter, +the orator.</p> +<p>S. S. Prentiss was an orator, but, with the recklessness of a +gamester, he threw his life away. He said profound and beautiful +things, but he lacked application. He was uneven, disproportioned, +saying ordinary things on great occasions, and now and then, +without the slightest provocation, uttering the sublimest and most +beautiful thoughts.</p> +<p>In my judgment, Corwin was the greatest orator of them all. He +had more arrows in his quiver. He had genius. He was full of humor, +pathos, wit, and logic. He was an actor. His body talked. His +meaning was in his eyes and lips. Gov. O. P. Morton of Indiana had +the greatest power of statement of any man I ever heard. All the +argument was in his statement. The facts were perfectly grouped. +The conclusion was a necessity.</p> +<p>The best political speech I ever heard was made by Gov. Richard +J. Oglesby of Illinois. It had every element of +greatness—reason, humor, wit, pathos, imagination, and +perfect naturalness. That was in the grand years, long ago. Lincoln +had reason, wonderful humor, and wit, but his presence was not +good. His voice was poor, his gestures awkward—but his +thoughts were profound. His speech at Gettysburg is one of the +masterpieces of the world. The word "here" is used four or five +times too often. Leave the "heres" out, and the speech is +perfect.</p> +<p>Of course, I have heard a great many talkers, but orators are +few and far between. They are produced by victorious +nations—born in the midst of great events, of marvelous +achievements. They utter the thoughts, the aspirations of their +age. They clothe the children of the people in the gorgeous robes +of giants. The interpret the dreams. With the poets, they prophesy. +They fill the future with heroic forms, with lofty deeds. They keep +their faces toward the dawn—toward the ever-coming day.</p> +<p>—<i>New York Sun</i>, April, 1898.</p> +<a name="link0128" id="link0128"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>JOHN RUSSELL YOUNG AND EXPANSION.</h2> +<h3><i>Question</i>. You knew John Russell Young, Colonel?</h3> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Yes, I knew him well and we were friends for many +years. He was a wonderfully intelligent man—knew something +about everything, had read most books worth reading. He was one of +the truest friends. He had a genius for friendship. He never failed +to do a favor when he could, and he never forgot a favor. He had +the genius of gratitude. His mind was keen, smooth, clear, and he +really loved to think. I had the greatest admiration for his +character and I was shocked when I read of his death. I did not +know that he had been ill. All my heart goes out to his +wife—a lovely woman, now left alone with her boy. After all, +life is a fearful thing at best. The brighter the sunshine the +deeper the shadow.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Are you in favor of expansion?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Yes, I have always wanted more—I love to +see the Republic grow. I wanted the Sandwich Islands, wanted Porto +Rico, and I want Cuba if the Cubans want us. I want the Philippines +if the Filipinos want us—I do not want to conquer and enslave +those people. The war on the Filipinos is a great mistake—a +blunder—almost a crime.</p> +<p>If the President had declared his policy, then, if his policy +was right, there was no need of war. The President should have told +the Filipinos just exactly what he wanted. It is a small business, +after Dewey covered Manila Bay with glory, to murder a lot of half- +armed savages. We had no right to buy, because Spain had no right +to sell the Philippines. We acquired no rights on those islands by +whipping Spain.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you think the President should have stated +his policy in Boston the other day?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Yes, I think it would be better if he would +unpack his little budget—I like McKinley, but I liked him +just as well before he was President. He is a good man, not because +he is President, but because he is a man—you know that real +honor must be earned— people cannot give honor—honor is +not alms—it is wages. So, when a man is elected President the +best thing he can do is to remain a natural man. Yes, I wish +McKinley would brush all his advisers to one side and say his say; +I believe his say would be right.</p> +<p>Now, don't change this interview and make me say something mean +about McKinley, because I like him. The other day, in Chicago, I +had an interview and I wrote it out. In that "interview" I said a +few things about the position of Senator Hoar. I tried to show that +he was wrong—but I took pains to express by admiration for +Senator Hoar. When the interview was published I was made to say +that Senator Hoar was a mud-head. I never said or thought anything +of the kind. Don't treat me as that Chicago reporter did.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think of Atkinson's speech?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Well, some of it is good—but I never want +to see the soldiers of the Republic whipped. I am always on our +side.</p> +<p>—<i>The Press</i>, Philadelphia, February 20, 1899.</p> +<a name="link0129" id="link0129"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>PSYCHICAL RESEARCH AND THE BIBLE.*</h2> +<pre> + [* As an incident in the life of any one favored with the + privilege, a visit to the home of Col. Robert G. Ingersoll + is certain to be recalled as a most pleasant and profitable + experience. Although not a sympathizer with the great + Agnostic's religious views, yet I have long admired his + ability, his humor, his intellectual honesty and courage. + And it was with gratification that I accepted the good + offices of a common friend who recently offered to introduce + me to the Ingersoll domestic circle in Gramercy Park. Here + I found the genial Colonel, surrounded by his children, his + grandchildren, and his amiable wife, whose smiling greeting + dispelled formality and breathed "Welcome" in every + syllable. The family relationship seemed absolutely ideal— + the very walls emitting an atmosphere of art and music, of + contentment and companionship, of mutual trust, happiness + and generosity. + + But my chief desire was to elicit Colonel Ingersoll's + personal views on questions related to the New Thought and + its attitude on matters on which he is known to have very + decided opinions. My request for a private chat was + cordially granted. During the conversation that ensued—(the + substance of which is presented to the readers of <i>Mind</i> in + the following paragraphs, with the Colonel's consent)—I was + impressed most deeply, not by the force of his arguments, + but by the sincerity of his convictions. Among some of his + more violent opponents, who presumably lack other + opportunities of becoming known, it is the fashion to accuse + Ingersoll of having really no belief in his own opinions. + But, if he convinced me of little else, he certainly, + without effort, satisfied my mind that this accusation is a + slander. Utterly mistaken in his views he may be; but if so, + his errors are more honest than many of those he points out + in the King James version of the Bible. If his pulpit + enemies could talk with this man by his own fireside, they + would pay less attention to Ingersoll himself and more to + what he says. They would consider his <i>meaning</i>, rather than + his motive. + + As the Colonel is the most conspicuous denunciator of + intolerance and bigotry in America, he has been inevitably + the greatest victim of these obstacles to mental freedom. + "To answer Ingersoll" is the pet ambition of many a young + clergyman—the older ones have either acquired prudence or + are broad enough to concede the utility of even Agnostics in + the economy of evolution. It was with the very subject that + we began our talk—the uncharitableness of men, otherwise + good, in their treatment of those whose religious views + differ from their own.] +</pre> +<p><i>Question</i>. What is your conception of true intellectual +hospitality? As Truth can brook no compromises, has it not the same +limitations that surround social and domestic hospitality?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. In the republic of mind we are all equals. Each +one is sceptered and crowned. Each one is the monarch of his own +realm. By "intellectual hospitality" I mean the right of every one +to think and to express his thought. It makes no difference whether +his thought is right or wrong. If you are intellectually hospitable +you will admit the right of every human being to see for himself; +to hear with his own ears, see with his own eyes, and think with +his own brain. You will not try to change his thought by force, by +persecution, or by slander. You will not threaten him with +punishment—here or hereafter. You will give him your thought, +your reasons, your facts; and there you will stop. This is +intellectual hospitality. You do not give up what you believe to be +the truth; you do not compromise. You simply give him the liberty +you claim for yourself. The truth is not affected by your opinion +or by his. Both may be wrong. For many years the church has claimed +to have the "truth," and has also insisted that it is the duty of +every man to believe it, whether it is reasonable to him or not. +This is bigotry in its basest form. Every man should be guided by +his reason; should be true to himself; should preserve the veracity +of his soul. Each human being should judge for himself. The man +that believes that all men have this right is intellectually +hospitable.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. In the sharp distinction between theology and +religion that is now recognized by many theologians, and in the +liberalizing of the church that has marked the last two decades, +are not most of your contentions already granted? Is not the "lake +of fire and brimstone" an obsolete issue?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. There has been in the last few years a great +advance. The orthodox creeds have been growing vulgar and cruel. +Civilized people are shocked at the dogma of eternal pain, and the +belief in hell has mostly faded away. The churches have not changed +their creeds. They still pretend to believe as they always +have—but they have changed their tone. God is now a +father—a friend. He is no longer the monster, the savage, +described in the Bible. He has become somewhat civilized. He no +longer claims the right to damn us because he made us. But in spite +of all the errors and contradictions, in spite of the cruelties and +absurdities found in the Scriptures, the churches still insist that +the Bible is <i>inspired</i>. The educated ministers admit that the +Pentateuch was not written by Moses; that the Psalms were not +written by David; that Isaiah was the work of at least three; that +Daniel was not written until after the prophecies mentioned in that +book had been fulfilled; that Ecclesiastes was not written until +the second century after Christ; that Solomon's Song was not +written by Solomon; that the book of Esther is of no importance; +and that no one knows, or pretends to know, who were the authors of +Kings, Samuel, Chronicles, or Job. And yet these same gentlemen +still cling to the dogma of inspiration! It is no longer claimed +that the Bible is true—but <i>inspired</i>.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Yet the sacred volume, no matter who wrote it, +is a mine of wealth to the student and the philosopher, is it not? +Would you have us discard it altogether?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Inspiration must be abandoned, and the Bible must +take its place among the books of the world. It contains some good +passages, a little poetry, some good sense, and some kindness; but +its philosophy is frightful. In fact, if the book had never existed +I think it would have been far better for mankind. It is not enough +to give up the Bible; that is only the beginning. The +<i>supernatural</i> must be given up. It must be admitted that +Nature has no master; that there never has been any interference +from without; that man has received no help from heaven; and that +all the prayers that have ever been uttered have died unanswered in +the heedless air. The religion of the supernatural has been a +curse. We want the religion of usefulness.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. But have you no use whatever for +prayer—even in the sense of aspiration—or for faith, in +the sense of confidence in the ultimate triumph of the right?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. There is a difference between wishing, hoping, +believing, and—knowing. We can wish without evidence or +probability, and we can wish for the impossible—for what we +believe can never be. We cannot hope unless there is in the mind a +possibility that the thing hoped for can happen. We can believe +only in accordance with evidence, and we know only that which has +been demonstrated. I have no use for prayer; but I do a good deal +of wishing and hoping. I hope that some time the right will +triumph—that Truth will gain the victory; but I have no faith +in gaining the assistance of any god, or of any supernatural power. +I never pray.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. However fully materialism, as a philosophy, may +accord with the merely human <i>reason</i>, is it not wholly +antagonistic to the instinctive faculties of the mind?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Human reason is the final arbiter. Any system +that does not commend itself to the reason must fall. I do not know +exactly what you mean by <i>materialism</i>. I do not know what +matter is. I am satisfied, however, that without matter there can +be no force, no life, no thought, no reason. It seems to me that +mind is a form of force, and force cannot exist apart from matter. +If it is said that God created the universe, then there must have +been a time when he commenced to create. If at that time there was +nothing in existence but himself, how could he have exerted any +force? Force cannot be exerted except in opposition to force. If +God was the only existence, force could not have been exerted.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. But don't you think, Colonel, that the +materialistic philosophy, even in the light of your own +interpretation, is essentially pessimistic?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I do not consider it so. I believe that the +pessimists and the optimists are both right. This is the worst +possible world, and this is the best possible world—because +it is as it must be. The present is the child, and the necessary +child, of all the past.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What have you to say concerning the operations +of the Society for Psychical Research? Do not its facts and +conclusions prove, if not immortality, at least the continuity of +life beyond the grave? Are the millions of Spiritualists +deluded?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Of course I have heard and read a great deal +about the doings of the Society; so, I have some knowledge as to +what is claimed by Spiritualists, by Theosophists, and by all other +believers in what are called "spiritual manifestations." Thousands +of wonderful tings have been established by what is called +"evidence" —the testimony of good men and women. I have seen +things done that I could not explain, both by mediums and +magicians. I also know that it is easy to deceive the senses, and +that the old saying "that seeing is believing" is subject to many +exceptions. I am perfectly satisfied that there is, and can be, no +force without matter; that everything that is—all +phenomena—all actions and thoughts, all exhibitions of force, +have a material basis—that nothing exists,—ever did, or +ever will exist, apart from matter. So I am satisfied that no +matter ever existed, or ever will, apart from force.</p> +<p>We think with the same force with which we walk. For every +action and for every thought, we draw upon the store of force that +we have gained from air and food. We create no force; we borrow it +all. As force cannot exist apart from matter, it must be used +<i>with</i> matter. It travels only on material roads. It is +impossible to convey a thought to another without the assistance of +matter. No one can conceive of the use of one of our senses without +substance. No one can conceive of a thought in the absence of the +senses. With these conclusions in my mind—in my brain—I +have not the slightest confidence in "spiritual manifestations," +and do not believe that any message has ever been received from the +dead. The testimony that I have heard—that I have +read—coming even from men of science—has not the +slightest weight with me. I do not pretend to see beyond the grave. +I do not say that man is, or is not, immortal. All I say is that +there is no evidence that we live again, and no demonstration that +we do not. It is better ignorantly to hope than dishonestly to +affirm.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. And what do you think of the modern development +of metaphysics—as expressed outside of the emotional and +semi- ecclesiastical schools? I refer especially to the power of +mind in the curing of disease—as demonstrated by scores of +drugless healers.</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I have no doubt that the condition of the mind +has some effect upon the health. The blood, the heart, the lungs +answer— respond to—emotion. There is no mind without +body, and the body is affected by thought—by passion, by +cheerfulness, by depression. Still, I have not the slightest +confidence in what is called "mind cure." I do not believe that +thought, or any set of ideas, can cure a cancer, or prevent the +hair from falling out, or remove a tumor, or even freckles. At the +same time, I admit that cheerfulness is good and depression bad. +But I have no confidence in what you call "drugless healers." If +the stomach is sour, soda is better than thinking. If one is in +great pain, opium will beat meditation. I am a believer in what you +call "drugs," and when I am sick I send for a physician. I have no +confidence in the supernatural. Magic is not medicine.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. One great object of this movement, is to make +religion scientific—an aid to intellectual as well as +spiritual progress. Is it not thus to be encouraged, and destined +to succeed—even though it prove the reality and supremacy of +the spirit and the secondary importance of the flesh?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. When religion becomes scientific, it ceases to be +religion and becomes science. Religion is not intellectual—it +is emotional. It does not appeal to the reason. The founder of a +religion has always said: "Let him that hath ears to hear, hear!" +No founder has said: "Let him that hath brains to think, think!" +Besides, we need not trouble ourselves about "spirit" and "flesh." +We know that we know of no spirit—without flesh. We have no +evidence that spirit ever did or ever will exist apart from flesh. +Such existence is absolutely inconceivable. If we are going to +construct what you call a "religion," it must be founded on +observed and known facts. Theories, to be of value, must be in +accord with all the facts that are known; otherwise they are +worthless. We need not try to get back of facts or behind the +truth. The <i>why</i> will forever elude us. You cannot move your +hand quickly enough to grasp your image back of the mirror.</p> +<p>—<i>Mind</i>, New York, March, 1899.</p> +<a name="link0130" id="link0130"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>THIS CENTURY'S GLORIES.</h2> +<p>The laurel of the nineteenth century is on Darwin's brow. This +century has been the greatest of all. The inventions, the +discoveries, the victories on the fields of thought, the advances +in nearly every direction of human effort are without parallel in +human history. In only two directions have the achievements of this +century been excelled. The marbles of Greece have not been +equalled. They still occupy the niches dedicated to perfection. +They sculptors of our century stand before the miracles of the +Greeks in impotent wonder. They cannot even copy. They cannot give +the breath of life to stone and make the marble feel and think. The +plays of Shakespeare have never been approached. He reached the +summit, filled the horizon. In the direction of the dramatic, the +poetic, the human mind, in my judgment, in Shakespeare's plays +reached its limit. The field was harvested, all the secrets of the +heart were told. The buds of all hopes blossomed, all seas were +crossed and all the shores were touched.</p> +<p>With these two exceptions, the Grecian marbles and the +Shakespeare plays, the nineteenth century has produced more for the +benefit of man than all the centuries of the past. In this century, +in one direction, I think the mind has reached the limit. I do not +believe the music of Wagner will ever be excelled. He changed all +passions, longing, memories and aspirations into tones, and with +subtle harmonies wove tapestries of sound, whereon were pictured +the past and future, the history and prophecy of the human heart. +Of course Copernicus, Galileo, Newton and Kepler laid the +foundations of astronomy. It may be that the three laws of Kepler +mark the highest point in that direction that the mind has +reached.</p> +<p>In the other centuries there is now and then a peak, but through +ours there runs a mountain range with Alp on Alp—the +steamship that has conquered all the seas; the railway, with its +steeds of steel with breath of flame, covers the land; the cables +and telegraphs, along which lightning is the carrier of thought, +have made the nations neighbors and brought the world to every +home; the making of paper from wood, the printing presses that made +it possible to give the history of the human race each day; the +reapers, mowers and threshers that superseded the cradles, scythes +and flails; the lighting of streets and houses with gas and +incandescent lamps, changing night into day; the invention of +matches that made fire the companion of man; the process of making +steel, invented by Bessemer, saving for the world hundreds of +millions a year; the discovery of anesthetics, changing pain to +happy dreams and making surgery a science; the spectrum analysis, +that told us the secrets of the suns; the telephone, that +transports speech, uniting lips and ears; the phonograph, that +holds in dots and marks the echoes of our words; the marvelous +machines that spin and weave, that manufacture the countless things +of use, the marvelous machines, whose wheels and levers seem to +think; the discoveries in chemistry, the wave theory of light, the +indestructibility of matter and force; the discovery of microbes +and bacilli, so that now the plague can be stayed without the +assistance of priests.</p> +<p>The art of photography became known, the sun became an artist, +gave us the faces of our friends, copies of the great paintings and +statues, pictures of the world's wonders, and enriched the eyes of +poverty with the spoil of travel, the wealth of art. The cell +theory was advanced, embryology was studied and science entered the +secret house of life. The biologists, guided by fossil forms, +followed the paths of life from protoplasm up to man. Then came +Darwin with the "Origin of Species," "Natural Selection," and the +"Survival of the Fittest." From his brain there came a flood of +light. The old theories grew foolish and absurd. The temple of +every science was rebuilt. That which had been called philosophy +became childish superstition. The prison doors were opened and +millions of convicts, of unconscious slaves, roved with joy over +the fenceless fields of freedom. Darwin and Haeckel and Huxley and +their fellow-workers filled the night of ignorance with the +glittering stars of truth. This is Darwin's victory. He gained the +greatest victory, the grandest triumph. The laurel of the +nineteenth century is on his brow.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. How does the literature of to-day compare with +that of the first half of the century, in your opinion?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. There is now no poet of laughter and tears, of +comedy and pathos, the equal of Hood. There is none with the subtle +delicacy, the aerial footstep, the flame-like motion of Shelley; +none with the amplitude, sweep and passion, with the strength and +beauty, the courage and royal recklessness of Byron. The novelists +of our day are not the equals of Dickens. In my judgment, Dickens +wrote the greatest of all novels. "The Tale of Two Cities" is the +supreme work of fiction. Its philosophy is perfect. The characters +stand out like living statues. In its pages you find the blood and +flame, the ferocity and self-sacrifice of the French Revolution. In +the bosom of the Vengeance is the heart of the horror. In 105, +North Tower, sits one whom sorrow drove beyond the verge, rescued +from death by insanity, and we see the spirit of Dr. Manette +tremblingly cross the great gulf that lies between the night of +dreams and the blessed day, where things are as they seem, as a +tress of golden hair, while on his hands and cheeks fall Lucie's +blessed tears. The story is filled with lights and shadows, with +the tragic and grotesque. While the woman knits, while the heads +fall, Jerry Cruncher gnaws his rusty nails and his poor wife +"flops" against his business, and prim Miss Pross, who in the +desperation and terror of love held Mme. Defarge in her arms and +who in the flash and crash found that her burden was dead, is drawn +by the hand of a master. And what shall I say of Sidney Carton? Of +his last walk? Of his last ride, holding the poor girl by the hand? +Is there a more wonderful character in all the realm of fiction? +Sidney Carton, the perfect lover, going to his death for the love +of one who loves another. To me the three greatest novels are "The +Tale of Two Cities," by Dickens, "Les Miserables," by Hugo, and +"Ariadne," by Ouida.</p> +<p>"Les Miserables" is full of faults and perfections. The tragic +is sometimes pushed to the grotesque, but from the depths it brings +the pearls of truth. A convict becomes holier than the saint, a +prostitute purer than the nun. This book fills the gutter with the +glory of heaven, while the waters of the sewer reflect the +stars.</p> +<p>In "Ariadne" you find the aroma of all art. It is a classic +dream. And there, too, you find the hot blood of full and ample +life. Ouida is the greatest living writer of fiction. Some of her +books I do not like. If you wish to know what Ouida really is, read +"Wanda," "The Dog of Flanders," "The Leaf in a Storm." In these you +will hear the beating of her heart.</p> +<p>Most of the novelists of our time write good stories. They are +ingenious, the characters are well drawn, but they lack life, +energy. They do not appear to act for themselves, impelled by inner +force. They seem to be pushed and pulled. The same may be said of +the poets. Tennyson belongs to the latter half of our century. He +was undoubtedly a great writer. He had no flame or storm, no tidal +wave, nothing volcanic. He never overflowed the banks. He wrote +nothing as intense, as noble and pathetic as the "Prisoner of +Chillon;" nothing as purely poetic as "The Skylark;" nothing as +perfect as the "Grecian Urn," and yet he was one of the greatest of +poets. Viewed from all sides he was far greater than Shelley, far +nobler than Keats. In a few poems Shelley reached almost the +perfect, but many are weak, feeble, fragmentary, almost +meaningless. So Keats in three poems reached a great +height—in "St. Agnes' Eve," "The Grecian Urn," and "The +Nightingale"—but most of his poetry is insipid, without +thought, beauty or sincerity.</p> +<p>We have had some poets ourselves. Emerson wrote many poetic and +philosophic lines. He never violated any rule. He kept his passions +under control and generally "kept off the grass." But he uttered +some great and splendid truths and sowed countless seeds of +suggestion. When we remember that he came of a line of New England +preachers we are amazed at the breadth, the depth and the freedom +of his thought.</p> +<p>Walt Whitman wrote a few great poems, elemental, +natural—poems that seem to be a part of nature, ample as the +sky, having the rhythm of the tides, the swing of a planet.</p> +<p>Whitcomb Riley has written poems of hearth and home, of love and +labor worthy of Robert Burns. He is the sweetest, strongest singer +in our country and I do not know his equal in any land.</p> +<p>But when we compare the literature of the first half of this +century with that of the last, we are compelled to say that the +last, taken as a whole, is best. Think of the volumes that science +has given to the world. In the first half of this century, sermons, +orthodox sermons, were published and read. Now reading sermons is +one of the lost habits. Taken as a whole, the literature of the +latter half of our century is better than the first. I like the +essays of Prof. Clifford. They are so clear, so logical that they +are poetic. Herbert Spencer is not simply instructive, he is +charming. He is full of true imagination. He is not the slave of +imagination. Imagination is his servant. Huxley wrote like a +trained swordsman. His thrusts were never parried. He had superb +courage. He never apologized for having an opinion. There was never +on his soul the stain of evasion. He was as candid as the truth. +Haeckel is a great writer because he reveres a fact, and would not +for his life deny or misinterpret one. He tells what he knows with +the candor of a child and defends his conclusions like a scientist, +a philosopher. He stands next to Darwin.</p> +<p>Coming back to fiction and poetry, I have great admiration for +Edgar Fawcett. There is in his poetry thought, beauty and +philosophy. He has the courage of his thought. He knows our +language, the energy of verbs, the color of adjectives. He is in +the highest sense an artist.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think of Hall Caine's recent +efforts to bring about a closer union between the stage and +pulpit?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Of course, I am not certain as to the intentions +of Mr. Caine. I saw "The Christian," and it did not seem to me that +the author was trying to catch the clergy.</p> +<p>There is certainly nothing in the play calculated to please the +pulpit. There is a clergyman who is pious and heartless. John Storm +is the only Christian, and he is crazy. When Glory accepts him at +last, you not only feel, but you know she has acted the fool. The +lord in the piece is a dog, and the real gentleman is the chap that +runs the music hall. How the play can please the pulpit I do not +see. Storm's whole career is a failure. His followers turn on him +like wild beasts. His religion is a divine and diabolical dream. +With him murder is one of the means of salvation. Mr. Caine has +struck Christianity a stinging blow between the eyes. He has put +two preachers on the stage, one a heartless hypocrite and the other +a madman. Certainly I am not prejudiced in favor of Christianity, +and yet I enjoyed the play. If Mr. Caine says he is trying to bring +the stage and the pulpit together, then he is a humorist, with the +humor of Rabelais.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do recent exhibitions in this city, of +scenes from the life of Christ, indicate with regard to the +tendencies of modern art?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Nothing. Some artists love the sombre, the +melancholy, the hopeless. They enjoy painting the bowed form, the +tear-filled eyes. To them grief is a festival. There are people who +find pleasure in funerals. They love to watch the mourners. The +falling clods make music. They love the silence, the heavy odors, +the sorrowful hymns and the preacher's remarks. The feelings of +such people do not indicate the general trend of the human mind. +Even a poor artist may hope for success if he represents something +in which many millions are deeply interested, around which their +emotions cling like vines. A man need not be an orator to make a +patriotic speech, a speech that flatters his audience. So, an +artist need not be great in order to satisfy, if his subject +appeals to the prejudice of those who look at his pictures.</p> +<p>I have never seen a good painting of Christ. All the Christs +that I have seen lack strength and character. They look weak and +despairing. They are all unhealthy. They have the attitude of +apology, the sickly smile of non-resistance. I have never seen an +heroic, serene and triumphant Christ. To tell the truth, I never +saw a great religious picture. They lack sincerity. All the angels +look almost idiotic. In their eyes is no thought, only the +innocence of ignorance.</p> +<p>I think that art is leaving the celestial, the angelic, and is +getting in love with the natural, the human. Troyon put more genius +in the representation of cattle than Angelo and Raphael did in +angels. No picture has been painted of heaven that is as beautiful +as a landscape by Corot. The aim of art is to represent the +realities, the highest and noblest, the most beautiful. The Greeks +did not try to make men like gods, but they made gods like men. So +that great artists of our day go to nature.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Is it not strange that, with one exception, the +most notable operas written since Wagner are by Italian composers +instead of German?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. For many years German musicians insisted that +Wagner was not a composer. They declared that he produced only a +succession of discordant noises. I account for this by the fact +that the music of Wagner was not German. His countrymen could not +understand it. They had to be educated. There was no orchestra in +Germany that could really play "Tristan and Isolde." Its eloquence, +its pathos, its shoreless passion was beyond them. There is no +reason to suppose that Germany is to produce another Wagner. Is +England expected to give us another Shakespeare?</p> +<p>—<i>The Sun</i>, New York, March 19, 1899.</p> +<a name="link0131" id="link0131"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>CAPITAL PUNISHMENT AND THE WHIPPING-POST.</h2> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think of Governor Roosevelt's +decision in the case of Mrs. Place?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I think the refusal of Governor Roosevelt to +commute the sentence of Mrs. Place is a disgrace to the State. What +a spectacle of man killing a woman—taking a poor, pallid, +frightened woman, strapping her to a chair and then arranging the +apparatus so she can be shocked to death. Many call this a +Christian country. A good many people who believe in hell would +naturally feel it their duty to kill a wretched, insane woman.</p> +<p>Society has a right to protect itself, but this can be done by +imprisonment, and it is more humane to put a criminal in a cell +than in a grave. Capital punishment degrades and hardens a +community and it is a work of savagery. It is savagery. Capital +punishment does not prevent murder, but sets an example—an +example by the State—that is followed by its citizens. The +State murders its enemies and the citizen murders his. Any +punishment that degrades the punished, must necessarily degrade the +one inflicting the punishment. No punishment should be inflicted by +a human being that could not be inflicted by a gentleman.</p> +<p>For instance, take the whipping-post. Some people are in favor +of flogging because they say that some offences are of such a +frightful nature that flogging is the only punishment. They forget +that the punishment must be inflicted by somebody, and that +somebody is a low and contemptible cur. I understand that John G. +Shortall, president of the Humane Society of Illinois, has had a +bill introduced into the Legislature of the State for the +establishment of the whipping-post.</p> +<p>The shadow of that post would disgrace and darken the whole +State. Nothing could be more infamous, and yet this man is +president of the Humane Society. Now, the question arises, what is +humane about this society? Certainly not its president. Undoubtedly +he is sincere. Certainly no man would take that position unless he +was sincere. Nobody deliberately pretends to be bad, but the idea +of his being president of the Humane Society is simply +preposterous. With his idea about the whipping-post he might join a +society of hyenas for the cultivation of ferocity, for certainly +nothing short of that would do justice to his bill. I have too much +confidence in the legislators of that State, and maybe my +confidence rests in the fact that I do not know them, to think that +the passage of such a bill is possible. If it were passed I think I +would be justified in using the language of the old Marylander, who +said, "I have lived in Maryland fifty years, but I have never +counted them, and my hope is, that God won't."</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What did you think of the late Joseph +Medill?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I was not very well acquainted with Mr. Medill. I +had a good many conversations with him, and I was quite familiar +with his work. I regard him as the greatest editor of the +Northwestern States and I am not sure that there was a greater one +in the country. He was one of the builders of the Republican party. +He was on the right side of the great question of Liberty. He was a +man of strong likes and I may say dislikes. He never surrendered +his personality. The atom called Joseph Medill was never lost in +the aggregation known as the Republican party. He was true to that +party when it was true to him. As a rule he traveled a road of his +own and he never seemed to have any doubt about where the road led. +I think that he was an exceedingly useful man. I think the only +true religion is usefulness. He was a very strong writer, and when +touched by friendship for a man, or a cause, he occasionally wrote +very great paragraphs, and paragraphs full of force and most +admirably expressed.</p> +<p>—<i>The Tribune</i>, Chicago, March 19, 1899.</p> +<a name="link0132" id="link0132"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>EXPANSION AND TRUSTS.*</h2> +<pre> + [* This was Colonel Ingersoll's last interview.] +</pre> +<p>I am an expansionist. The country has the land hunger and +expansion is popular. I want all we can honestly get.</p> +<p>But I do not want the Philippines unless the Filipinos want us, +and I feel exactly the same about the Cubans.</p> +<p>We paid twenty millions of dollars to Spain for the Philippine +Islands, and we knew that Spain had no title to them.</p> +<p>The question with me is not one of trade or convenience; it is a +question of right or wrong. I think the best patriot is the man who +wants his country to do right.</p> +<p>The Philippines would be a very valuable possession to us, in +view of their proximity to China. But, however desirable they may +be, that cuts no figure. We must do right. We must act nobly toward +the Filipinos, whether we get the islands or not.</p> +<p>I would like to see peace between us and the Filipinos; peace +honorable to both; peace based on reason instead of force.</p> +<p>If control had been given to Dewey, if Miles had been sent to +Manila, I do not believe that a shot would have been fired at the +Filipinos, and that they would have welcomed the American flag.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Although you are not in favor of taking the +Philippines by force, how do you regard the administration in its +conduct of the war?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. They have made many mistakes at Washington, and +they are still making many. If it has been decided to conquer the +Filipinos, then conquer them at once. Let the struggle not be drawn +out and the drops of blood multiplied. The Republican party is +being weakened by inaction at the Capital. If the war is not ended +shortly, the party in power will feel the evil effects at the +presidential election.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. In what light do you regard the Philippines as +an addition to the territory of the United States?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Probably in the future, and possibly in the near +future, the value of the islands to this country could hardly be +calculated. The division of China which is bound to come, will open +a market of four hundred millions of people. Naturally a possession +close to the open doors of the East would be of an almost +incalculable value to this country.</p> +<p>It might perhaps take a long time to teach the Chinese that they +need our products. But suppose that the Chinese came to look upon +wheat in the same light that other people look upon wheat and its +product, bread? What an immense amount of grain it would take to +feed four hundred million hungry Chinamen!</p> +<p>The same would be the case with the rest of our products. So you +will perhaps agree with me in my view of the immense value of the +islands if they could but be obtained by honorable means.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. If the Democratic party makes anti-imperialism +the prominent plank in its platform, what effect will it have on +the party's chance for success?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Anti-imperialism, as the Democratic battle-cry, +would greatly weaken a party already very weak. It is the most +unpopular issue of the day. The people want expansion. The country +is infected with patriotic enthusiasm. The party that tries to +resist the tidal wave will be swept away. Anybody who looks can +see.</p> +<p>Let a band at any of the summer resorts or at the suburban +breathing spots play a patriotic air. The listeners are +electrified, and they rise and off go their hats when "The +Star-Spangled Banner" is struck up. Imperialism cannot be fought +with success.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Will the Democratic party have a strong issue +in its anti-trust cry?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. In my opinion, both parties will nail anti-trust +planks in their platforms. But this talk is all bosh with both +parties. Neither one is honest in its cry against trusts. The one +making the more noise in this direction may get the votes of some +unthinking persons, but every one who is capable of reading and +digesting what he reads, knows full well that the leaders of +neither party are sincere and honest in their demonstrations +against the trusts.</p> +<p>Why should the Democratic party lay claim to any anti-trust +glory? Is it not a Republican administration that is at present +investigating the alleged evils of trusts?</p> +<p>—<i>The North American</i>, Philadelphia, June 22, +1899.</p> +<div style="height: 6em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> + +<br /> +<table summary="" border="3" cellpadding="4"> +<tbody> +<tr> +<td><big><big><a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/38813/38813-h/38813-h.htm"> +TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR ALL 12 EBOOKS IN THIS SET</a></big></big></td> +<td></td> +</tr> +</tbody> +</table> +<br /> + +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +</body> +</html> |
