HON. JOHN BRISBEN WALKER, ON HOMESTEAD.
It is the good fortune of only a few to be possessed of the remarkable
genius and imbued with the spirit of prophecy to predict coming events
with the certainty and accuracy of the Hon. J. Brisben Walker, who,
in an article published in the _Cosmopolitan_ for September, 1892,
foretold, with wonderful force, the rock upon which the Republican bark
was drifting. It was not until the manuscript of this volume was almost
completed that attention was called to Mr. Walker’s article. To the
credit of journalists, and writers generally, be it said that no class
or profession are as willing to recognize the ability of their brothers
as are the members of that profession whose aim it is to foretell the
future, to weigh the evidence of public opinion, prognosticate as to
the result thereof, and record the events that transpire, either in
accordance with their prophecies or contrary thereto. To Mr. Walker be
accorded the honor of justly appreciating the suppressed indignation
of the people, and of sounding the warning note to the wealthy, prior
to November 8, 1892. To the writer of this volume little credit is due
for merely recording that which, since the result of the election is
known, is perfectly apparent. Had Mr. Walker looked into the future
and been blessed with prophetic vision, he could not have told, more
clearly than he has, the forces that were operating in September, and
which produced the results so surprising to many in November.
[Illustration: HENRY C. FRICK,
MANAGER CARNEGIE WORKS, HOMESTEAD, PA.]
While Mr. Walker has taken Homestead for his text, the application of
his article to the condition of the people of the Union generally is
so apparent that each man for himself may shift the scene and make
it applicable to his own little community. In every village, town,
city, or county in the Union, is some one man, or some set of men,
who arrogate to themselves a certain superiority resulting from the
accumulation of wealth in their hands; this accumulation, having arisen
from the inequality in the distribution of the increased wealth of
the nation, being in many cases purely accidental, and in others the
result of the phenomenal development of the resources of this country,
coupled with the wonderful spirit of invention shown in the land in
the last thirty years. Mr. Walker takes Carnegie and Frick as types of
the class to which the people object so strenuously. The building of a
church, or the founding of a library, is but a small price to pay, in
the opinion of the American people, for the right to assume privileges
detrimental to the growth and continuance of that doctrine so dear to
the hearts of the masses--the equality of man. Mr. Walker entitles his
article, “The Homestead Object Lesson,” and begins by saying:--
“An affair like that at Homestead educates the public mind
rapidly; more rapidly in a month than ten years of books and
pamphlets. In the face of death, men stop to think. What led to
this? What does it mean? What is the remedy? And when the daily
journal gives in one column the picture of Cluny Castle, or the
magnificent pile from which the Lyttons have gone out to admit
partner Phipps from the Homestead mills, and in another sketches
showing the dead and dying upon the banks of the Monongahela, the
contrast is so sharp that one draws a quick breath of discomfort,
and even the most conservative, whose manhood is stronger than his
love of dollars, admits that something is wrong.”
If a man in the walk of life of Mr. Walker shall “draw a quick breath
of discomfort” at the scene he pictures, because his “manhood is
stronger than his love of dollars,” how utterly obvious it ought to
have appeared, and should now appear, to those possessed of wealth,
that an appeal for the support of that class who, as American citizens,
not only possess an abundance of manhood, but, in addition thereto, are
sufferers by the wrongs or conditions written of by Mr. Walker, was and
is useless.
“Lovers of the Republic may well tremble at this exhibition, so
closely resembling the evil days when rich Romans surrounded
themselves by hired bands of fighting bullies. True, our
modern rich man does not parade the streets, surrounded by his
gladiators. He sits in a secret office, removed from danger,
and, in communication with the telegraph wires, orders his army
concentrated from many States by rapid transit, and moves it
unexpectedly upon his private foes. There is lacking that personal
courage which gave a half-way excuse to the Roman who, sword
in hand, shared the dangers of the fight. But the risk to the
Republic is all the greater from these modern methods. For, if a
man may hire 300 poor devils ready to shoot down their brothers in
misery, there is no reason why he may not hire 10,000.”
There are not a few of us who will recall the natural indignation
aroused in our bosoms while witnessing that noble impersonator of
_Virginius_, John B. McCullough; the idea of the degradation to
which we were drifting, by the possibility of the existence of an
aristocracy, whose hired bullies and parasitical clients acted as
panders to the worst passions of man. If it be possible to adopt the
old Roman method of hiring bullies and assassins, and maintaining paid
private armies, how very possible to come to a condition similar to
that so powerfully portrayed in _Virginius_! Lovers of the Republic,
of honor, and virtue, may well tremble, at the bare possibility,
vaguely imagined, but evidently more vivid to the minds of the masses,
than was contemplated by those autocratic gentlemen who ordered their
mercenaries to Homestead.
“There is another side to this matter. Raised up under the system
which declares that any man has a right to control, without limit,
the earth’s surface and its productions, or the labor of his
fellow-men, Mr. Frick, doubtless, feels that he is performing a
sacred duty in protecting his property at Homestead, by any means
that the law permits. Thousands of good men held the same thought
regarding their slaves, before and during the war. It really
seemed to them a divine right of property, and all classes of the
community to-day--learned ministers and professors, intelligent
merchants, and high-minded men of all professions--hold that our
system of distribution is not only legal, but fair, and authorized
by the teachings of the Gospel.”
In the most lucid manner, Mr. Walker continues to give the causes of
the existence of conditions conducive to the results which have been
produced by the accumulation of wealth, and, in consequence, assumption
of a superior social position by the possessors thereof:--
“Less than half a century ago the people of the United States were
comparatively poor and the wealth of the country distributed with
a near approach to equality, less than a dozen individuals having
fortunes approaching the million mark. The laws had been made
for the existing conditions of labor, and were, as a whole, of a
satisfactory character. No one had yet dreamed of the marvelous
inventions and discoveries of natural wealth which were to upset
all the conditions of production, and make the succeeding fifty
years a wealth-giving period, unprecedented in the history of the
world. Anthracite and bituminous coals, petroleum, the cotton gin,
the reaper, steam and electricity, with their thousand marvels,
were suddenly emptied upon a community whose laws had been made
for conditions the very opposite of those now existing.
“It is not to be wondered at that the American mind should seize
upon the possibilities which old laws gave to individuals for
grabbing these newfound treasures. They would have been more than
human if they could have resisted the temptation, and besides,
it must be recollected that the Christianity practised was of a
perfunctory character, formal and nominal rather than real, and
civilization just beyond the period of wild beast skin wearing.
In fifty years the creation of wealth has become prodigious; the
distribution of wealth has become frightful in its inequalities.
The laws, which were beneficent for an agricultural and pastoral
people, worked degradation and infamy in a manufacturing
community. They permitted the few to grab the greater part of
this new wealth. With great fortunes are coming upon the scene
an unparalleled luxury upon the one hand, and a poverty upon the
other, scarcely surpassed in the days when production did not
equal one-tenth the present output. In the strife for wealth
the law-making power was found to be a useful auxiliary. Judges
were bought, senatorships were sold in the interests of railways
and the great corporations; and within the last ten years we
find wealth--not contented with the advantages which the laws,
confessedly in its favor, give it--hiring private armies to give
force to edicts allotting to the laborer a lesser share of the
product.”
Experience and observation force the conviction upon our minds, that
Mr. Walker is correct in his assumption that even the ministers believe
that the distribution of wealth among the masses is not only legal, but
fair, and authorized by the teachings of the Gospel. A little strange,
however, is it for the teachers of the doctrine of Christianity to
maintain principles so utterly at variance with those expressed by
their divine Master: “If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou
hast, and give to the poor.”
“There is only one class to dispute this proposition. They are the
toilers, whose labor is the immediate cause of the production of
our wealth. We may say that there must be intelligence to direct,
and that to the intelligence which takes advantage should come
the gains. But Mr. Carnegie and Mr. Frick are proofs that in
the ranks of labor itself there is intelligence to direct. Many
Carnegies and many Fricks would spring up to-morrow if opportunity
permitted. If one would study the justice of a system of political
economy, let him surrender his vested rights of property and take
his place among those whom the system crushes, whose labor it
devours, and whose reward for labor is a bare, joyless existence.
We who have the money can reason speciously regarding the justice
of our laws, the excellence of our system of government. The
laboring man can only groan in spirit. He has not hitherto had
the power of his vote, notwithstanding our boasted representative
government, because his brothers, in the agony which poverty
brings, in their effort to relieve the hand-to-mouth miseries of
their existence, have sold at each election this birthright for
the merest taste of pottage.”
Fortunately, under the Australian system of voting, it was
impracticable to buy Esau’s birthright with a delusive mess of pottage
held out by the protected, wealth-accumulating, sham aristocrats.
“Everyone knows that this has been true, that the labor vote has
never been a unit, that its purchasability has been one of the
well-understood factors in ward politics, that there has been
no combination, no united effort, no intelligent direction, no
willingness to submit to leadership, and that there is to-day no
probability of the vote of these people being cast at an early
election for the objects in which they are so deeply concerned.
The issues that are before the public in either of the great
political parties for whose candidates the votes will be cast,
are very largely those which concern the people of means and
influence. Platforms are dictated with reference to Wall street,
and the great corporations and the rich men who supply the sinews
of political war.”
Fortunately, Mr. Walker’s prophecy has proved incorrect. There was a
time in the very near future when the objects so sacred to them would
outweigh any possible advantage that might accrue to their pocketbooks
by voting with those who would impose the yoke of a class distinction
upon our country. It was nearer the day of retribution than even Mr.
Walker, farseeing as he has demonstrated himself to be, supposed.
The 8th of November was to witness the vindication upon the part of
the workman of his inherent right to exercise his prerogative as an
American citizen, uninfluenced by mercenary motives. Almost without
an error has Mr. Walker gauged the public feeling. It is pardonable,
in one who is so much nearer right than the majority, to make one
single error. None of us appreciated how full were the hearts of the
workingmen, the poor, and those oppressed by wealth and stung by an
attempted exhibition of the privileges accorded to “caste.”
“Nevertheless, there is a ground-current steadily moving
across the continent. Workmen, who were wholly ignorant thirty
years ago, are partly educated to-day. Within fifteen years,
a highly-intelligent class has sprung up among the workmen
themselves, and there are a few really able men who have been
making efforts for their advancement. That man Powderly, for
instance, is a statesman of a high order. He has capacity for
organization, he has singleness of purpose, he has determination,
and he has courage. And he is only one of a number. They have been
educating their followers, and teaching them to unite upon certain
simple propositions. It is like the fencing-master, who puts in
the hands of his pupil the single-stick, before he confides to
him the glittering rapier. There is talent enough among them to
organize a movement more formidable than that of Spartacus. Thank
God, they are men who love the Republic, and who hope for the
elevation of their people through the evolution of the law.”
Mr. Walker could have gone on and called the attention of the wealthy
to the fact that, while these men loved the Republic, they did not love
the foreign spirit that pervaded the would-be upper classes. It is well
that a man of Mr. Walker’s position should feel it incumbent upon him
to compliment, or, more properly speaking, to duly appreciate, a man
like Powderly. Mr. Powderly, were he not a statesman and a patriot,
is possessed of dangerous powers; were it not for the great amount of
virtue, honesty, and common-sense that resides in the bosoms of the
masses, some dangerous, daring, and magnetic leader might spring into
prominence and cause the overturning which Mr. Walker so ably depicts
later in his article. Mr. Powderly, and men of his kind, have ever
acted as the governing-power on this tremendous engine, called Labor,
in this country. They have exhibited a degree of conservatism and
consideration for the rights of the wealthy, as well as the rights of
the laborer, which entitles them to the respect of all sound-minded
Americans.
“Two things must always be borne in mind: First, that the laboring
men have the majority, if they choose to exercise it, not only of
votes, but of physical strength. Intelligence and cunning were,
once upon a time, factors upon which the few rich could count to
keep in subjection the many poor. The time is rapidly approaching
when these will no longer avail. There is a prevailing thought
that this must be a Republic, indeed, where all men shall be equal
before the law; where the law will carefully guard the industrious
man against the greedy man; where cunning will not place labor at
the greatest of disadvantages; where labor will become honorable,
and idleness contemptible; where effort will be expected from
every citizen in the direction of his best talent, and where
the needs of the unfortunate, through disease or inheritance,
will be respected; in a word, the model government in which a
near approach to the ideal Republic will be attained, an example
set which the countries of Europe may well imitate. We have the
opportunities here, with our rich territory, our great natural
resources, and our population yet uncrowded, to do this. If we
fail, the idea of a Republic may well be abandoned for the next
2,000 years.”
Forcefully is it called to the minds of the fortunate possessors of
wealth, by Mr. Walker, that the poor are in possession of a superior
physical force. It would be well for those who enjoy the protection
accorded to them and their property by this vast population, made up
largely of the laboring classes, to consider what a small percentage
the “wealthy” represent in the mass of 65,000,000 people. Their
pronounced minority becomes apparent whenever they oppose the will of
that great majority, the “Common People.” Should it ever be necessary
to arbitrate any question of difference by physical force, how
absolutely unequal are the contending elements! Men like Mr. Powderly
have ever sought to cast oil upon the turbulent waters occasioned
by too much arrogance upon the part of the wealthy. It is not only
equality before the law which the poor man prizes, but that equality
which is rather of a sentimental than a legal nature. He recognizes no
inequality as existing between the woman whom he honors as his wife
and the woman whom men like Messrs. Carnegie and Frick may clothe in
seal-skins and laces, and bedeck with jewels. It is not only before the
law that the poor man desires to be equal. The sentimental portion of
his nature is moved to create a difference, socially, resting only upon
those natural inherent qualities, worth, merit, and virtue, and not
that which has its foundation in the possession of wealth alone.
“That was a curious interview between the commandant of the
militia, the gentleman born and bred--with an inheritance of
belief regarding the rights to accumulate property, even if
in so doing one crowded one’s fellow-mortal to the wall--and
the iron-workers who constituted the Homestead committee.
Gold-spectacled, practised in the art of snubbing and sure of the
physical strength at his back, the officer was more than a match
for the laborer, who in his turn was awed by his inherited respect
for wealth and power. Chilled and overawed, the representatives of
labor went down the hill from this unequal interview. The general
in charge had neither the grace nor the will to recognize a labor
association which embraced a membership large enough, if properly
organized, to sweep out of existence the entire army of the United
States. They must have reflected, as they went down the hill,
these representatives of labor, that if a militia organization
carried such weight, permitted such freezing dignity upon the
part of a citizen towards other citizens, it might possibly be
well for their interests to have a few thousand of their own men
enrolled in this same militia. There is nothing to prevent a body
of American citizens from organizing themselves as a militia
organization with proper arms and equipments. There are enough
workmen in Pittsburg and vicinity to give a hundred regiments of
the full complement of ten companies of seventy men each, with as
many more left over for onlookers at parades. Six months of hard
drill such as the enthusiasm of these men would permit would leave
them equal to the best of the Philadelphia troops. Does anyone
believe for an instant that if there had been a hundred such
regiments among the workingmen of Pittsburg, General Snowden would
have declared that he could not recognize the existence of such a
body of men as the Amalgamated Association?”
We will assume, with Mr. Walker, that the commandant of the troops
sent to Pittsburg by the Governor of Pennsylvania, was a “gentleman
bred.” About a man being _born_ a gentleman, we may hold opinions at
variance with Mr. Walker. Horses may exhibit the fact that they are
thoroughbred, when intelligence in the shape of a jockey is perched
upon their backs; but born gentlemen in America have never, as a rule,
by their scintillating genius and danger-defying patriotism, carved out
names upon the eternal monuments of the nation to rival the names of
Clay, Webster, and Lincoln. We hope that the man put in command of the
Pennsylvania militia was a “gentleman bred,” but the exhibition that he
made of himself, while clothed with that brief authority, would not be
conducive to the formation of such an opinion.
In his meeting with the citizens of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
who were contributing towards the payment of the taxes from which the
expenses incurred by the State were to be defrayed, he did not conduct
himself in a manner such as to make a shining example for those who
shall command, in the future, the citizen-soldiery of the Republic. He
seemed utterly oblivious to the fact that he came, not as a conquering
hero, but as a private citizen, invested with a brief and circumscribed
authority exercised for the greatest good to the greatest number in
the prevention of lawlessness and violence and the peaceful solution
of a local difficulty with which the Sheriff of the county appeared
to be unable to contend. The arrogance assumed by this “gentleman
bred” was not calculated to create any great amount of good feeling
in the breasts of his fellow-citizens, to pacify whom he was sent
by the Governor of his State. There would have been but slight loss
of dignity upon his part to have allayed their anxiety by a little
exercise of that “good breeding,” patience, and consideration for the
feelings of others, which are supposed to be characteristics of the
gentleman the world over. General Ulysses S. Grant, commander of the
armies of the nation, as victor in a contest of four years’ duration,
has set a magnificent example in the treatment of his vanquished but
great opponent, Lee, by his courteous, kindly, and magnanimous behavior
toward Lee and his vanquished legions whom Grant had so long faced and
at last vanquished.
“I choose to ask this question as a _reductio ad absurdum_, in
the hope that it will cause my own class, who have power and
authority, to stop and reflect that perhaps it will be best to
concede something in the way of law, to regulate this one-sided
distribution of wealth, lest it should be regulated through
bloodshed, or, what is more horrible still, should throw into
power, through sheer brute force, elements which will bring our
Republic to anarchy. If there could have been pointed out to the
nobles of Louis XVI. the things which were liable to follow their
arrogance, the children of these French rich would have cause for
congratulation to-day.”
Mr. Walker says that he chooses to ask this of men of his class. He
hardly means that. Men of his class, like himself, would have brains
enough not to require the question. Mr. Walker doubtless refers, in
speaking of men of his own class, to the wealthy, and to them it is
well addressed and worthy of their careful attention. France had its
14th of July, which should have taught Louis XVI. and his nobles the
lesson which it is hoped has been learned thoroughly by the rich of
this country, as taught in the result of the election of November 8,
1892. These are but the premonitory symptoms of a terrible scourge that
might sweep over our country. The poor may be robbed with impunity;
the “Common People” will good-naturedly submit to a lot of snubbing;
but it would be well for men accustomed to exhibit their impudence and
assumption, to forego the snubbing process when brought in contact
with the people, as General Snowden was, while commanding the military
power of the State, as he did at Homestead. General Snowden might well
be taken as a type of the “smart set” of Philadelphia, imitating the
manners of the McAllister “smart set” of New York.
“The fact is, we have two separate worlds in this country. The
man who lives in what is known as the world of society has no
conception of what the world of labor is thinking. Their worlds
are almost as distinct and as completely cut off from each other
as if one had its capital at Kamtchatka, and the other at Terra
del Fuego. The poor do injustice to the kindly-hearted people
whose minds have been warped by the teachings of inheritance
and by their environment of wealth; and the rich do not dream
of the thoughts which fill the minds of the poor. It is a
dangerous ignorance. These two factors are like the nitre and
charcoal of gunpowder. Any stray spark may produce disastrous
results. The laborer believes now that the law is gradually being
altered to suit what he considers the equities of his position.
Let him become fairly convinced that the government is for the
few, that the military is but a means of carrying out schemes
of aggrandizement by the rich, and that votes are bought or
majorities counted out in the same interest, and the crucial hour
of the Republic will at once have arrived.
“Can science do nothing towards the solution of these
difficulties? Statistics show us that if we were all to labor,
no one would want for anything, neither the necessities of life,
nor reasonable pleasures, nor enjoyments. Again, is there any
intelligent rich man, who would not wish his sons to labor? Who
does not believe that labor, in moderation, brings happiness, if
only that it gives a keener zest for recreation? Who does not
believe that idleness brings mental and physical injury? Who,
then, would wish for his children existence in a community where
idleness is to be their lot? Is there any thinking man who can
feel reasonably comfortable, when only a few blocks distant,
thousands are eking out a dark existence by labor that extends, in
many cases, over double the allotted number of hours, who have few
pleasures, and fewer still of what we call the comforts of life?”
It is not simply that those not possessed of wealth may live within
a few blocks of those who are possessed of wealth; it is not that
their lives may be eked out in darkness; it is the crushing shame to
them that their miserable existence is made still more hard to bear
by the flaunted superiority, socially, of the possessors of wealth,
who live a few blocks away. Poverty, when accompanied by none of the
other and more objectionable features, is not so hard to bear. The
poor man believes in the dignity of labor. He does not feel degraded
by the fact that he may toil with his hands. He only feels a sense of
shame, and his bosom only swells with wrath, when the disdainful dames
of the wealthy class presume to snub or insult his wife, the sharer of
his toil and privations. She is to him the light and life of even his
miserable hovel, only a few blocks away from the wealthy; hence, the
keener pang that he experiences when the one bright spot in his life,
sacred to him, is invaded by snobbery and pretended class distinction.
“Yet wise laws could regulate much of this in the brief period of
one generation. Lighten the burdens of taxation upon the poor,
by letting those whose wealth is protected by the State chiefly
furnish the means of subsistence for the State, at the same
time offering a discouragement to the amassing of great wealth.
The well-known expedient of income-tax would be a step in this
direction. Take out of the control of private individuals the
power to amass great fortunes, at the expense of the public,
through the management of functions like railway, express, and
telegraph, which are purely of a public character. Establish a
system of currency, self-regulated, by means of postal savings
banks; tax highly the unimproved properties which are held for
purposes of speculation. Finally, let it be a recognized principle
that when men employ many laborers, their business ceases to be
purely a private affair, but concerns the State, and that disputes
between proprietor and workmen must be submitted, not to the
brute-force of so many Pinkerton mercenaries, but to arbitration.”
The espousal, by Mr. Walker, of a doctrine which, to most of the
wealthy, is rank heresy,--an income tax,--is a step in the right
direction. A graduated tax, to be regulated by the amount of income
received and enjoyed by the taxpayer, would furnish a speedy,
practicable, and just means, not only of preventing these vast
accumulations in the hands of individuals, by accretions resulting from
that part of their income which they are unable to spend, but it would
also furnish a means whereby the Federal Government might be supported
without the imposition of even the existing internal revenue tax, and
only such protective tariff tax as would prove absolutely necessary to
sustain our manufactures. It was a great step in the right direction,
for the owner of such a prosperous magazine as the _Cosmopolitan_, the
possessor of much of the world’s goods, to propose such an expedient
for the relief of the people; especially when coupled with the
suggestion that corporations, like those of the railroads, telegraph,
_et al._, should not be controlled and managed for the profit of
individuals. We should have fewer strikes, and much less labor trouble,
if the Government controlled the great corporations who employ large
numbers of laboring men.
This article is given prominence and so liberally quoted from--not
alone from the intrinsic merit of the article and discernment of the
writer in predicting the overthrow of plutocracy, and warning the rich
against their insolence to those less-favored brothers, as far as
worldly wealth is concerned,--but also, because of the position of the
writer of the article; a man of brains, enterprise, energy, and wealth.
[Illustration: THE MISTAKE AT HOMESTEAD, PA.--JULY, 1892.]