_Question_. Mr. Beecher is here. Have you seen him?
_Answer_. 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.
_Question_. Then I assume that you and Mr. Beecher have made up?
_Answer_. 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.
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.
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.
_Question_. What was the real difficulty between you and Moses,
Colonel, a man who has been dead for thousands of years?
_Answer_. 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.
_Question_. What do you think of the Buckner Bill for the colonization
of the negroes in Mexico?
_Answer_. 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?
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.
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.
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.
_Question_. 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?
_Answer_. 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.
--Washington correspondent, _Brooklyn Eagle_, January 31, 1881.