PROPOSITION 23.--The amative and propagative functions are distinct

from each other, and may be separated practically. They are confounded

in the world, both in the theories of physiologists and in universal

practice. The amative function is regarded merely as a bait to the

propagative, and is merged in it. But if amativeness is, as we have

seen, the first and noblest of the social affections, and if the

propagative part of the sexual relation was originally secondary, and

became paramount by the subversion of order in the fall, we are bound

to raise the amative office of the sexual organs into a distinct and

paramount function. [Here follows a full exposition of the doctrine of

self-control or Male Continence, which is an essential part of the

Oneida theory, but may properly be omitted in this history.]

CHAPTER V.--_Showing that Shame, instead of being one of the prime

virtues, is a part of original Sin and belongs to the Apostasy._

PROPOSITION 24.--Sexual shame was the consequence of the fall, and is

factitious and irrational. Gen. 2: 25; compare 3: 7. Adam and Eve,

while innocent, had no shame; little children have none; other animals

have none.

CHAPTER VI.--_Showing the bearings of the preceding views on

Socialism, Political Economy, Manners and Customs, etc._

PROPOSITION 25.--The foregoing principles concerning the sexual

relation, open the way for Association. 1. They furnish motives. They

apply to larger partnerships the same attractions that draw and bind

together pairs in the worldly partnership of marriage. A Community

home in which each is married to all, and where love is honored and

cultivated, will be as much more attractive than an ordinary home, as

the Community out-numbers a pair. 2. These principles remove the

principal obstructions in the way of Association. There is plenty of

tendency to crossing love and adultery, even in the system of isolated

households. Association increases this tendency. Amalgamation of

interests, frequency of interview, and companionship in labor,

inevitably give activity and intensity to the social attractions in

which amativeness is the strongest element. The tendency to

extra-matrimonial love will be proportioned to the condensation of

interests produced by any given form of Association; that is, if the

ordinary principles of exclusiveness are preserved, Association will

be a worse school of temptation to unlawful love than the world is, in

proportion to its social advantages. Love, in the exclusive form, has

jealousy for its complement; and jealousy brings on strife and

division. Association, therefore, if it retains one-love

exclusiveness, contains the seeds of dissolution; and those seeds will

be hastened to their harvest by the warmth of associate life. An

Association of States with custom-house lines around each, is sure to

be quarrelsome. The further States in that situation are apart, and

the more their interests are isolated, the better. The only way to

prevent smuggling and strife in a confederation of contiguous States,

is to abolish custom-house lines from the interior, and declare

free-trade and free transit, collecting revenues and fostering home

products by one custom-house line around the whole. This is the policy

of the heavenly system--'that they _all_ [not two and two] may be

one.'

26.--In vital society, strength will be increased and the necessity of

labor diminished, till work will become sport, as it would have been

in the original Eden state. Gen. 2: 15; compare 3: 17-19. Here we come

to the field of the Fourierists--the third link of the chain of evil.

And here we shall doubtless ultimately avail ourselves of many of the

economical and industrial discoveries of Fourier. But as the

fundamental principle of our system differs entirely from that of

Fourier, (our foundation being his superstructure, and _vice versa_,)

and as every system necessarily has its own complement of external

arrangements, conformed to its own genius, we will pursue our

investigations for the present independently, and with special

reference to our peculiar principles.--Labor is sport or drudgery

according to the proportion between strength and the work to be done.

Work that overtasks a child, is easy to a man. The amount of work

remaining the same, if man's strength were doubled, the result would

be the same as if the amount of work were diminished one-half. To make

labor sport, therefore, we must seek, first, increase of strength, and

secondly, diminution of work: or, (as in the former problem relating

to the curse on woman), first, enlargement of income, and secondly,

diminution of expenses. Vital society secures both of these objects.

It increases strength, by placing the individual in a vital

organization, which is in communication with the source of life, and

which distributes and circulates life with the highest activity; and

at the same time, by its compound economies, it reduces the work to

be done to a minimum.

27.--In vital society labor will become attractive. Loving

companionship in labor, and especially the mingling of the sexes,

makes labor attractive. The present division of labor between the

sexes separates them entirely. The woman keeps house, and the man

labors abroad. Instead of this, in vital society men and women will

mingle in both of their peculiar departments of work. It will be

economically as well as spiritually profitable, to marry them in-doors

and out, by day as well as by night. When the partition between the

sexes is taken away, and man ceases to make woman a propagative

drudge, when love takes the place of shame, and fashion follows nature

in dress and business, men and women will be able to mingle in all

their employments, as boys and girls mingle in their sports; and then

labor will be attractive.

28.--We can now see our way to victory over death. Reconciliation with

God opens the way for the reconciliation of the sexes. Reconciliation

of the sexes emancipates woman, and opens the way for vital society.

Vital society increases strength, diminishes work, and makes labor

attractive, thus removing the antecedents of death. First we abolish

sin; then shame; then the curse on woman of exhausting child-bearing;

then the curse on man of exhausting labor; and so we arrive regularly

at the tree of life.

CHAPTER VII.--_A concluding Caveat, that ought to be noted by every

Reader of the foregoing Argument._

PROPOSITION 29.--The will of God is done in heaven, and of course will

be done in his kingdom on earth, not merely by general obedience to

constitutional principles, but by specific obedience to the

administration of his Spirit. The constitution of a nation is one

thing, and the living administration of government is another.

Ordinary theology directs attention chiefly, and almost exclusively,

to the constitutional principles of God's government; and the same may

be said of Fourierism, and all schemes of reform based on the

development of "natural laws." But as loyal subjects of God, we must

give and call attention to his actual administration; i.e., to his

will directly manifested by his Spirit and the agents of his Spirit,

viz., his officers and representatives. We must look to God, not only

for a Constitution, but for Presidential outlook and counsel; for a

cabinet and corps of officers; for national aims and plans; for

direction, not only in regard to principles to be carried out, but in

regard to time and circumstance in carrying them out. In other words,

the men who are called to usher in the Kingdom of God, will be guided,

not merely by theoretical truth, but by the Spirit of God and specific

manifestations of his will and policy, as were Abraham, Moses, David,

Jesus Christ, Paul, &c. This will be called a fanatical principle,

because it requires _bona fide_ communication with the heavens, and

displaces the sanctified maxim that the "age of miracles and

inspiration is past." But it is clearly a Bible principle; and we must

place it on high, above all others, as the palladium of conservatism

in the introduction of the new social order.

* * * * *

Two expressions occur in the foregoing summaries which need some

explanation; viz., in the first, the word _Spiritualist_; and in the

second, the term _Free Love_. Without explanation, the modern reader

might suppose these expressions to be used in the sense commonly

attached to them at the present time. But if he will consider that the

articles in _The Berean_ were first published long before the birth of

Modern Spiritualism, and that _Bible Communism_ was published long

before the birth of Free Love among Spiritualists, he will see that

these expressions do not mean in the above documents, what they mean

in popular usage, and do not in any way connect the Oneida Community

with Modern Spiritualists, or with their system of Free Love. The

simple truth is, that the Putney school invented the term

_Spiritualist_ to designate all believers in immediate communication

with the spiritual world, referring at the time specially to

Perfectionists and Revivalists, and marking the distinction between

them and the legalists of the churches; and they invented the term

_Free Love_ to designate the social state of the Kingdom of Heaven as

defined in _Bible Communism_. Afterward these terms were appropriated

and specialized by the followers of Andrew Jackson Davis and Thomas L.

Nichols. The Oneida Communists have for many years printed and

re-printed in their various publications the following protest, which

may fitly close this account of their religious and social theories:

FREE LOVE.

[From the _Hand-Book_ of the Oneida Community.]

"This terrible combination of two very good ideas--freedom and

love--was first used by the writers of the Oneida Community

about twenty-one years ago, and probably originated with them.

It was however soon taken up by a very different class of

speculators scattered about the country, and has come to be the

name of a form of socialism with which we have but little

affinity. Still it is sometimes applied to our Communities; and

as we are certainly responsible for starting it into

circulation, it seems to be our duty to tell what meaning we

attach to it, and in what sense we are willing to accept it as a

designation of our social system.

"The obvious and essential difference between marriage and

licentious connections may be stated thus:

"Marriage is permanent union. Licentiousness deals in temporary

flirtations.

"In marriage, Communism of property goes with Communism of

persons. In licentiousness, love is paid for as hired labor.

"Marriage makes a man responsible for the consequences of his

acts of love to a woman. In licentiousness, a man imposes on a

woman the heavy burdens of maternity, ruining perhaps her

reputation and her health, and then goes his way without

responsibility.

"Marriage provides for the maintenance and education of

children. Licentiousness ignores children as nuisances, and

leaves them to chance.

"Now in respect to every one of these points of difference

between marriage and licentiousness, _we stand with marriage_.

Free Love with us does _not_ mean freedom to love to-day and

leave to-morrow; nor freedom to take a woman's person and keep

our property to ourselves; nor freedom to freight a woman with

our offspring and send her down stream without care or help; nor

freedom to beget children and leave them to the street and the

poor-house. Our Communities are _families_, as distinctly

bounded and separated from promiscuous society as ordinary

households. The tie that binds us together is as permanent and

sacred, to say the least, as that of marriage, for it is our

religion. We receive no members (except by deception or

mistake), who do not give heart and hand to the family interest

for life and forever. Community of property extends just as far

as freedom of love. Every man's care and every dollar of the

common property is pledged for the maintenance and protection of

the women, and the education of the children of the Community.

Bastardy, in any disastrous sense of the word, is simply

impossible in such a social state. Whoever will take the trouble

to follow our track from the beginning, will find no forsaken

women or children by the way. In this respect we claim to be in

advance of marriage and common civilization.

"We are not sure how far the class of socialists called 'Free

Lovers' would claim for themselves any thing like the above

defense from the charge of reckless and cruel freedom; but our

impression is that their position, scattered as they are,

without organization or definite separation from surrounding

society, makes it impossible for them to follow and care for the

consequences of their freedom, and thus exposes them to the just

charge of licentiousness. At all events their platform is

entirely different from ours, and they must answer for

themselves. _We_ are not 'Free Lovers' in any sense that makes

love less binding or responsible than it is in marriage."[C]

_Material Results._

The concrete results of Communism at Oneida, have been made public

from time to time in the _Circular_, the weekly paper of the

Community. The "journal" columns of this sheet, in which are given the

ups and downs of Community progress, with much of the gossip of its

home life, would fill several volumes. Referring the inquisitive

reader to these for details, we shall limit our present sketch to the

main outlines:

The Oneida Community has two hundred and two members, and two

affiliated societies, one of forty members at Wallingford,

Connecticut, and one of thirty-five members at Willow Place, on

a detached part of the Oneida domain. This domain consists of

six hundred and sixty-four acres of choice land, and three

excellent water-powers. The manufacturing interest here created

is valued at over $200,000. The Wallingford domain consists of

two hundred and twenty-eight acres, with a water-power, a

printing-office and a silk-factory. The three Community families

(in all two hundred and seventy-seven persons) are financially

and socially a unit.

The main dwelling of the Community is a brick structure consisting of

a center and two wings, the whole one hundred and eighty-seven feet in

length, by seventy in breadth. It has towers at either end and

irregular extensions reaching one hundred feet in the rear. This is

the Community Home. It contains the chapel, library, reception-room,

museum, principal drawing-rooms, and many private apartments. The

other buildings of the group are the "old mansion," containing the

kitchen and dining-room, the Tontine, which is a work-building, the

fruit-house, the store, etc. The manufacturing buildings in

connection with the water-powers are large, and mostly of brick. The

organic principle of Communism in industry and domestic life, is seen

in the common roof, the common table, and the daily meetings of all

the members.

The extent and variety of industrial operations at the Oneida

Community may be seen in part by the following statistics from the

report of last year, (1868.)

No. of steel traps manufactured during the year, 278,000.

" " packages of preserved fruits, 104,458.

Amount of raw silk manufactured, 4,664 lbs.

Iron cast at the foundry, 227,000 do.

Lumber manufactured at saw-mill, 305,000 feet.

Product of milk from the dairy, 31,143 gallons.

" " hay on the domain, 300 tons.

" " potatoes, 800 bushels.

" " strawberries, 740 do.

" " apples, 1,450 do.

" " grapes, 9,631 lbs.

Stock on the farm, 93 cattle and 25 horses. Amount of teaming done,

valued at $6,260.

In addition to these, many branches of industry necessary for the

convenience of the family are pursued, such as shoemaking, tailoring,

dentistry, etc. The cash business of the Community during the year, as

represented by its receipts and disbursements, was about $575,000.

Amount paid for hired labor $34,000. Family expenses (exclusive of

domestic labor by the members, teaching, and work in the printing

office), $41,533.43.

The amount of labor performed by the Community members during the

year, was found to be approximately as follows:

Number. Amount of labor per day.

Able-bodied men. 80 7 hours

" women. 84 6 " 40 min.

Invalid and aged men 6 3 " 40 "

Boys 4 3 " 40 "

Invalid and aged women 9 1 " 20 "

Girls 2 1 " 20 "

This is exclusive of care of children, school-teaching, printing and

editing the _Circular_, and much head-work in all departments.

Taking 304 days for the working year, we have, as a product of the

above figures, a total of 35,568 days' work at ten hours each.

Supposing this labor to be paid at the rate of $1.50 per day, the

aggregate sum for the year would be $53,352.00. By comparing this with

the amount of family expenses, $41,533.43, we find, at the given rate

of wages, a surplus of profit amounting to $11,818.57, or 33 cents

profit for each person per day. This represents the saving which

ordinary unskilled labor would make by means of the mere economy of

Association. Were it possible for a skillful mechanic to live in

co-operation with others, so that his wife and elder children could

spend some time at productive labor, and his family could secure the

economies of combined households, their wages at present rates would

be more than double the cost of living. Labor in the Community being

principally of the higher class, is proportionately rewarded, and in

fact earns much more than $1.50 per day.

The entire financial history of the Community in brief is the

following: It commenced business at its present location in 1848, but

did not adopt the practice of taking annual inventories till 1857. Of

the period between these dates we can give but a general account. The

Community in the course of that period had five or six branches with

common interests, scattered in several States. The "Property

Register," kept from the beginning, shows that the amount of property

brought in by the members of all the Communities, up to January 1,

1857, was $107,706.45. The amount held at Oneida at that date, as

stated in the first regular inventory, was only $41,740. The branch

Communities at Putney, Wallingford and elsewhere, at the same time had

property valued at $25,532.22. So that the total assets of the

associated Communities were $67,272.22, or $40,434.23 less than the

amount brought in by the members. In other words between the years

1848 and 1857, the associated Communities sunk (in round numbers)

$40,000. Various causes may be assigned for this, such as

inexperience, lack of established business, persecutions and

extortions, the burning of the Community store, the sinking of the

sloop Rebecca Ford in the Hudson River, the maintenance of an

expensive printing family at Brooklyn, the publication of a free

paper, etc.

In the course of several years previous to 1857, the Community

abandoned the policy of working in scattered detachments, and

concentrated its forces at Oneida and Wallingford. From the first of

January 1857, when its capital was $41,740, to the present time, the

progress of its money-matters is recorded in the following statistics,

drawn from its annual inventories:

In 1857, net earnings, $5,470.11

" 1858, " " 1,763.60

" 1859, " " 10,278.38

" 1860, " " 15,611.03

" 1861, " " 5,877.89

" 1862, " " 9,859.78

" 1863, " " 44.755.30

" 1864, " " 61,382.62

" 1865, " " 12,382.81

" 1866, " " 13,198.74

Total net earnings in ten years, $180,580.26; being a yearly average

income of $18,058.02, above all expenses. The succeeding inventories

show the following result:

Net earnings in 1867, $21,416.02.

Net earnings in 1868, $55,100.83.

being an average for the last two years of over $38,000 per annum.

During the year 1869 the following steps forward have been taken: 1,

an entire wing has been added to the brick Mansion House, for the use

of the children; 2, apparatus for heating the whole by steam has been

introduced; 3, a building has been erected for an Academy, and

systematic home-education has commenced; 4, silk-weaving has been

introduced at Willow Place; 5, the manufacture of silk-twist has been

established at Wallingford; 6, the Communities at Oneida and

Wallingford have been more thoroughly consolidated than heretofore; 7,

this book on _American Socialisms_ has been prepared at Oneida and

printed at Wallingford.

FOOTNOTES:

[C] We observe that the account of the Oneida Community given in the

Supplement to Chambers' Encyclopaedia, begins thus: "_Perfectionists_ or

_Bible Communists_; popularly known as Free Lovers or preachers of Free

Love." The whole article, covering several pages, is very careless in

its geographical and other details, and not altogether reliable in its

statements of the doctrines and morals of the Communists. As materials

that get into Encyclopaedias may be presumed to be crystallizing for

final history, it is to be hoped that the Messrs. Chambers will at least

get this article corrected by some intelligent American, for future

editions.

CHAPTER XLVII.

REVIEW AND RESULTS.

Looking back now over the entire course of this history, we discover a

remarkable similarity in the symptoms that manifested themselves in

the transitory Communities, and almost entire unanimity in the

witnesses who testify as to the causes of their failure. GENERAL

DEPRAVITY, all say, is the villain of the whole story.

In the first place Macdonald himself, after "seeing stern reality,"

confesses that in his previous hopes of Socialism he "had imagined

mankind better than they are."

Then Owen, accounting for the failure at New Harmony, says, "he wanted

honesty, and he got dishonesty; he wanted temperance, and instead he

was continually troubled with the intemperate; he wanted cleanliness,

and he found dirt," and so on.

The Yellow Spring Community, though composed of "a very superior

class," found in the short space of three months, that "self-love was

a spirit that would not be exorcised. Individual happiness was the law

of nature, and it could not be obliterated; and before a single year

had passed, this law had scattered the members of that society which

had come together so earnestly and under such favorable circumstances,

back into the selfish world from which they came."

The trustees of the Nashoba Community, in abandoning Frances Wright's

original plan of common property, acknowledge their conviction that

such a system can not succeed "without the members composing it are

superior beings. That which produces in the world only common-place

jealousies and every-day squabbles, is sufficient to destroy a

Community."

The spokesman of the Haverstraw Community at first attributes their

failure to the "dishonesty of the managers;" but afterward settles

down into the more general complaint that they lacked "men and women

of skillful industry, sober and honest, with a knowledge of themselves

and a disposition to command and be commanded," and intimates that

"the sole occupation of the men and women they had, was parade and

talk."

The historian of the Coxsackie Community says "they had many persons

engaged in talking and law-making, who did not work at any useful

employment. The consequences were, that after struggling on for

between one and two years, the experiment came to an end. There were

few good men to steer things right."

Warren found that the friction that spoiled his experiments was "the

want of common honesty."

Ballou complained that "the timber he got together was not suitable

for building a Community. The men and women that joined him were very

enthusiastic and commenced with great zeal; their devotion to the

cause seemed to be sincere; but they did not know themselves."

At the meetings that dissolved the Northampton Community, "some spoke

of the want of that harmony and brotherly feeling, which were

indispensable to success; others spoke of the unwillingness to make

sacrifices on the part of some of the members; also of the lack of

industry and the right appropriation of time."

Collins lived in a quarrel with a rival during nearly the whole life

of his Community, and finally gave up the experiment from "a

conviction that the theory of Communism could not be carried out in

practice; that the attempt was premature, the time had not yet

arrived, and the necessary conditions did not yet exist." His

experience led him to the conclusion that "there is floating upon the

surface of society, a body of restless, disappointed, jealous,

indolent spirits, disgusted with our present social system, not

because it enchains the masses to poverty, ignorance, vice, and

endless servitude; but because they can not render it subservient to

their private ends. Experience shows that this class stands ready to

mount every new movement that promises ease, abundance, and individual

freedom; and that when such an enterprise refuses to interpret license

for freedom, and insists that every member shall make their strength,

skill and talent, subservient to the movement, then the cry of tyranny

and oppression is raised against those who advocate such industry and

self-denial; then the enterprise must become a scape-goat, to bear the

fickleness, indolence, selfishness, and envy of this class."

The testimony in regard to the Sylvania Association is, that "young

men wasted the good things at the commencement of the experiment; and

besides victuals, dry-goods supplied by the Association were unequally

obtained. Idle and greedy people find their way into such attempts,

and soon show forth their character by burdening others with too much

labor, and, in times of scarcity, supplying themselves with more than

their allowance of various necessaries, instead of taking less."

The failure of the One Mentian Community is attributed to "ignorance

and disagreements," and that of the Social Reform Unity to "lack of

wisdom and general preparation."

The Leraysville Phalanx went to pieces in a grumble about the

management.

Of the Clarkson Association a writer in the _Phalanx_ says that they

were "ignorant of Fourier's principles, and without plan or purpose,

save to fly from the ills they had already experienced in

civilization. Thus they assembled together such elements of discord,

as naturally in a short time led to their dissolution."

The Sodus Bay Socialists quarreled about religion, and when they broke

up, some decamped in the night, with as much of the common property as

they could lay hands on. Whereupon Macdonald sententiously

remarks--"The fact that mankind do not like to have their faults and

failings made public, will probably account for the difficulty in

obtaining particulars of such experiments."

The Bloomfield Association went to wreck in a quarrel about

land-titles.

Of the Jefferson County Association, Macdonald says, "After a few

months, disagreements became general. Their means were totally

inadequate; they were too ignorant of the principles of Association;

were too much crowded together, and had too many idlers among them.

There was bad management on the part of the officers, and some were

suspected of dishonesty."

The Moorhouse Union appears to have been almost wholly a gathering of

worthless adventurers.

Mr. Moore, in his _Post Mortem_ on the Marlboro Association, very

delicately observes that "the failure of the experiment may be traced

to the fact that the minds of its originators were not homogeneous."

Macdonald, after studying the Prairie Home Community, says, "From all

I saw I judged that it was too loosely put together, and that the

members had not entire confidence in each other."

The malcontent who gives an account of the Trumbull Phalanx says:

"Some came with the idea that they could live in idleness at the

expense of the purchasers of the estate, and these ideas they

practically carried out; while others came with good hearts for the

cause. There were one or two designing persons, who came with no other

intent than to push themselves into situations in which they could

impose upon their fellow members; and this, to a certain extent, they

succeeded in doing." And again: "I think most persons came there for a

mere shift. Their poverty and their quarreling about what they called

religion (for there were many notions as to which was the right way to

heaven), were great drawbacks to success."

There were rival leaders in the Ohio Phalanx, and their respective

parties quarreled about constitutions till they got into a lawsuit

which broke them up. The member who gave the account of this

Association says: "The most important causes of failure were said to

be the deficiency of wealth, wisdom and goodness."

The Clermont Phalanx had jealousies among its women that led to a

lawsuit; and a difficulty with one of its leading members about

land-titles.

The story of the Alphadelphia Phalanx is briefly told thus: "The

disagreement with Mr. Tubbs about a mill-race at the commencement of

the experiment, threw a damper on it, from which it never recovered.

All lived in clover so long as a ton of sugar or any other such luxury

lasted. The officers made bad bargains. Laborers became discouraged.

In the winter some of the influential members went away temporarily,

and thus left the real friends of the Association in the minority; and

when they returned after two or three months absence, every thing was

turned up-side-down. There was a manifest lack of good management and

foresight. The old settlers accused the majority of this, and were

themselves elected officers; but they managed no better, and finally

broke up the concern."

The Wisconsin Phalanx kept its quarrels below lawsuit point, but the

leading member who gives account of it, says that the habit of the

members was to "scold and work, and work and scold;" and that "they

had among their number a few men of leading intellect who always

doubted the success of the experiment, and hence determined to

accumulate property individually by any and every means called fair in

competitive society. These would occasionally gain some important

positions in the society, and representing it in part at home and

abroad, caused much trouble. By some they were accounted the principal

cause of the final failure."

Mr. Daniels, a gentleman who saw the whole progress of the Wisconsin

Phalanx, says that "the cause of its breaking up was speculation, the

love of money and the want of love for Association. Their property

becoming valuable, they sold it for the purpose of making money out of

it."

The North American was evidently shattered by secessions, resulting

partly from religious dissensions and partly from differences about

business.

Brook Farm alone is reported as harmonious to the end.

It should be observed that the foregoing disclosures of disintegrating

infirmities were generally made reluctantly, and are necessarily very

imperfect. Large departments of dangerous passion are entirely

ignored. For instance, in all the memoirs of the Owen and Fourier

Associations, not a word is said on the "Woman Question!" Among all

the disagreements and complaints, not a hint occurs of any jealousies

and quarrels about love matters. In fact women are rarely mentioned;

and the terrible passions connected with distinction of sex, which the

Shakers, Rappites, Oneidians, and all the rest of the religious

Communities have had so much trouble with, and have taken so much

pains to provide for or against, are absolutely left out of sight.

Owen, it is true, named marriage as one of the trinity of man's

oppressors: and it is generally understood that Owenism and Fourierism

both gave considerable latitude to affinities and divorces; but this

makes it all the more strange that there was no trouble worth

mentioning, in any of these Communities, about crossing love-claims.

Can it be, we ask ourselves, that Owen had such conflicts with

whiskey-tippling, but never a fight with the love-mania? that all

through the Fourier experiments, men and women, young men and maidens,

by scores and hundreds were tumbled together into unitary homes, and

sometimes into log-cabins seventeen feet by twenty-five, and yet no

sexual jostlings of any account disturbed the domestic circle? The

only conclusion we can come to is, that some of the most important

experiences of the transitory Communities have not been surrendered to

history.

Nevertheless the troubles that do come to the surface show, as we have

said, that human depravity is the dread "Dweller of the Threshold,"

that lies in wait at every entrance to the mysteries of Socialism.

* * * * *

Shall we then turn back in despair, and give it up that Association on

the large scale is impossible? This seems to have been the reaction of

all the leading Fourierists. Greeley sums up the wisdom he gained from

his socialistic experience in the following invective:

"A serious obstacle to the success of any socialistic experiment

must always be confronted. I allude to the kind of persons who

are naturally attracted to it. Along with many noble and lofty

souls, whose impulses are purely philanthropic, and who are

willing to labor and suffer reproach for any cause that promises

to benefit mankind, there throng scores of whom the world is

quite worthy--the conceited, the crotchety, the selfish, the

headstrong, the pugnacious, the unappreciated, the played-out,

the idle, and the good-for-nothing generally; who, finding

themselves utterly out of place and at a discount in the world

as it is, rashly conclude that they are exactly fitted for the

world as it ought to be. These may have failed again and again,

and been protested at every bank to which they have been

presented; yet they are sure to jump into any new movement as if

they had been born expressly to superintend and direct it,

though they are morally certain to ruin whatever they lay their

hands on. Destitute of means, of practical ability, of prudence,

tact and common sense, they have such a wealth of assurance and

self-confidence, that they clutch the responsible positions

which the capable and worthy modestly shrink from; so

responsibilities that would tax the ablest, are mistakenly

devolved on the blindest and least fit. Many an experiment is

thus wrecked, when, engineered by its best members, it might

have succeeded."

Meeker gloomily concludes that "generally men are not prepared;

Association is for the future."

* * * * *

And yet, to contradict these disheartening persuasions and forbid our

settling into despair, we have a respectable series of successes that

can not be ignored. Mr. Greeley recognizes them, though he hardly

knows how to dispose of them. "The fact," he says, "stares us in the

face that, while hundreds of banks and factories, and thousands of

mercantile concerns managed by shrewd, strong men, have gone into

bankruptcy and perished, Shaker Communities, established more than

sixty years ago, upon a basis of little property and less worldly

wisdom, are living and prosperous to-day. And their experience has

been imitated by the German Communities at Economy, Zoar, the Society

of Ebenezer, etc. Theory, however plausible, must respect the facts."

Let us look again at these exceptional Associations that have not

succumbed to the disorganizing power of general depravity. Jacobi's

record of their duration and fortunes is worth recapitulating.

Assuming that they are all still in existence, their stories may be

epitomized as follows:

Beizel's Community has lasted one hundred and fifty-six years; was at

one time very rich; has money at interest yet; some of its grand old

buildings are still standing.

The Shaker Community, as a whole, is ninety-five years old; consists

of eighteen large societies; many of them very wealthy.

Rapp's Community is sixty-five years old, and very wealthy.

The Zoar Community is fifty-three years old, and wealthy.

The Snowberger Community is forty-nine years old and "well off."

The Ebenezer Community is twenty-three years old; and said to be the

largest and richest Community in the United States.

The Janson Community is twenty-three years old and wealthy.

The Oneida Community (frequently quoted as belonging to this class) is

twenty-one years old, and prosperous.

The one feature which distinguishes these Communities from the

transitory sort, is their religion; which in every case is of the

earnest kind which comes by recognized afflatus, and controls all

external arrangements.

It seems then to be a fair induction from the facts before us that

earnest religion does in some way modify human depravity so as to make

continuous Association possible, and insure to it great material

success. Or if it is doubted whether it does essentially change human

nature, it certainly improves in some way the _conditions_ of human

nature in socialistic experiments. It is to be noted that Mr. Greeley

and other experts in socialism claim that there _is_ a class of "noble

and lofty souls" who are prepared for close Association; but their

attempts have constantly been frustrated by the throng of crotchety

and selfish interlopers that jump on to their movements. Now it may be

that the tests of earnest religion are just what are needed to keep a

discrimination between the "noble and lofty souls" and the scamps of

whom the Socialists complain. On the whole it seems probable that

earnest religion does favorably modify both human depravity and its

conditions, preparing some for Association by making them better, and

shutting off others that would defeat the attempts of the best.

Earnest men of one religious faith are more likely to be respectful to

organized authority and to one another, than men of no religion or men

of many religions held in indifference and mutual counteraction. And

this quality of respect, predisposing to peace and subordination,

however base it may be in the estimation of "Individual Sovereigns,"

and however worthless it may be in ordinary circumstances, is

certainly the indispensable element of success in close Association.

The logic of our facts may be summed up thus: The non-religious party

has tried Association under the lead of Owen, and failed; the

semi-religious party has tried it under the lead of Fourier, and

failed; the thoroughly religious party has not yet tried it; but

sporadic experiments have been made by various religious sects, and so

far as they have gone, they have indicated by their success, that

earnest religion may be relied upon to carry Association through to

the attainment of all its hopes. The world then must wait for this

final trial; and the hope of the triumph of Association can not

rationally be given up, till this trial has been made.

The question for the future is, Will the Revivalists go forward into

Socialism; or will the Socialists go forward into Revivalism? We do

not expect any further advance, till one or the other of these things

shall come to pass; and we do not expect overwhelming victory and

peace till both shall come to pass.

The best outlook for Socialism is in the direction of the local

churches. These are scattered every where, and under a powerful

afflatus might easily be converted into Communities. In that case

Communism would have the advantage of previous religion, previous

acquaintance, and previous rudimental organizations, all assisting in

the tremendous transition from the old world of selfishness, to the

new world of common interest. We believe that a church that is capable

of a genuine revival, could modulate into daily meetings, criticism,

and all the self-denials of Communism, far more easily than any

gathering by general proclamation for the sole purpose of founding a

Community.

If the churches can not be put into this work, we do not see how

Socialism on a large scale is going to be propagated. Exceptional

Associations may be formed here and there by careful selection and

special good fortune; but how general society is to be resolved into

Communities, without some such transformation of existing

organizations, we do not pretend to foresee. Our hope is that churches

of all denominations will by and by be quickened by the Pentecostal

Spirit, and begin to grow and change, and finally, by a process as

natural as the transformation of the chrysalis, burst forth into

Communism.

CHAPTER XLVIII.

DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE SOCIALISMS.

It is well for a theory to be subjected to the test of adverse

criticism. Particularly in matters of contemporaneous history the

public are interested to hear all sides. We have presented in this

book our estimate of the French and English schools of Socialism; but

as the reader may deem a Communist's judgment of the Phalansterian

school necessarily defective, we are happy to insert here a

communication from Mr. Brisbane himself, presenting a partizan's

defence of Fourier. It was received and printed in the _Circular_,

just as the last chapters of our history of Fourierism were preparing,

"FOURIER AND THE ATTEMPTS TO REALIZE HIS THEORY.

"_To the Editor of the Circular_:

"Will you allow me space in your journal to say that no

practical trial, and no approach to one, has as yet been made of

Fourier's theory of Social Organization. A trial of a theory

supposes that the practical test is made in conformity with its

principles; otherwise there is no trial. Let generous minds who

are working for the social redemption of their race, be just to

those who have labored conscientiously for this great end. Let

them be just to Fourier, who, in silence during a long life

strove to solve the great problem of the organization of

society on a scientific basis, neglecting every thing else--the

pursuit of fortune, the avenue to which was more than once open

to him--and position and reputation in society.

"Fourier says: There are certain _Laws of Organisation_ in

nature, which are the source of order and harmony in creation.

These laws human reason must discover and apply in the

organization of society, if a true social order is to be

established on the earth. The moral forces in man, called

sentiments, faculties, passions, etc., are framed or fashioned,

and their action determined, in accordance with these laws. They

tend naturally to act in conformity with them, and would do so,

if not thwarted. If the Social Organization, which is the

external medium in which these forces operate, is based on those

laws, it will, it is evident, be adapted to the forces--to the

nature of man. This will secure their true, natural and

harmonious development, and with it the solution of the

fundamental problem of social order and harmony. In organizing

society on its true basis, begin, says Fourier, with Industry,

which is the primary and material branch of the Social

Organization. By the natural organization of Industry the

productive labors of mankind will be _dignified and rendered

attractive_; wealth will be increased ten-fold, so that

abundance will be secured to all, and with abundance, the means

of education and refinement, and of social equality and unity.

When refinement and intelligence are rendered general, the

superstructure of society will be built under the favorable

circumstances which such a work requires.

"Briefly stated, such is Fourier's view. In his works he

describes in detail the plan of Industrial Organization. He

explains the laws of organization in Nature (as he understands

them), on which Industry is to be based. He takes special pains

to give minute directions in relation to the subject, and warns

those who may undertake the work of organization, to avoid

mistakes--some of which he points out--that may easily be made,

and would vitiate the undertaking.

"The little Associations started in this country, of which you

have given an account, had for their object the realization of

Fourier's industrial system. Now, instead of avoiding the

mistakes which he warned his followers against making, not one

of those Associations realized _a single one of the conditions_

which he laid down. Not one of them had the tenth, nor the

twentieth part of the means and resources--pecuniary and

scientific--necessary to carry out the organization he proposed.

In a word, no trial, and no approach to a trial of Fourier's

theory has been made. I do not say that his theory is true, or

would succeed, if fairly tried. I simply affirm that _no trial_

of it has been made; so that it is unjust to speak of it, as if

it had been tested. With ample, that is, vast resources, and

some years to prepare the domain, erect buildings, and make all

necessary arrangements, so as to thoroughly prepare the field of

operations before the members or operators entered, then with

men of organizing capacity to test fairly the principles which

he has laid down, a fair trial could be made.

"I repeat, let us be just to those who have labored patiently

and conscientiously for the social elevation of humanity.

Fourier's was a great soul. To a powerful intellect he added

nobility and goodness of heart. Clear, exact, strict and

scientific in thought, he was at the same time kind and

philanthropic in feeling. Impelled by noble motives, he devoted

his intellect to the most important of works, to the discovery

of the natural principles of social organization. Such a man

deserves to be treated with profound respect. Infantile attempts

to realize his ideas should not, in their failure, be charged

upon him, covering him with the ridicule or folly attached to

them. Let him stand on his Theory. That is his intellectual

pedestal. Let those who undertake to judge him, study his

Theory. When they overthrow that they will overthrow him.

"I will close by stating my estimate of Fourier, which is the

result of some reflection.

"Social Science is a creation of the nineteenth century. It has

been developed in a regular form in the present century, as was

Astronomy, for example, in the sixteenth. Men have arisen almost

simultaneously in different countries, who have conceived the

possibility of such a science, and set themselves to work at it.

Fourier took the lead. He began in 1798, and published his first

work in 1806. Krause, in Germany, began to write in 1808. St.

Simon, in France, in 1811. Owen, in England, at a later period

still. Comte, a disciple of St Simon, began in 1824, I think.

Fourier and Comte were the only minds that undertook to base

Social Science on, and to deduce it from, universal laws, having

their source in the infallible wisdom of the universe. Comte,

after laying a broad foundation with the aid of all the known

sciences; after seeking to determine the theory of each special

science, and to construct a _Science of the Sciences_ by which

to guide himself, abandons his scientific construction (reared

in his first work--"Positive Philosophy"), when he comes to

elaborate his plan of practical organization. He deduces his

plan of the Social Order of the future from the historical

past, and especially from the Middle Age _regime_, guided in so

doing by his own personal feelings and views. His Social system

is consequently a compound of historical deduction and personal

sentiment. It is, I think, without practical value. His

scientific demonstration of the possibility and the necessity of

Social Science is of _great value_, and will secure to him

unbounded respect in the future. Fourier, at the outset of his

labors, conceived the necessity of discovering the laws of order

and harmony in the universe--Nature's plan and theory of

organization--and of deducing from them _the Science of Social

Organization_. Leaving aside all secondary considerations, he

set about this great work. The discovery of the laws of order

and organization in creation was his great end. The deduction of

a Social Order from them was an accessory work. He claims to

have succeeded; and claims for his plan of social organization

no value outside of its conformity to Nature's laws. "I give no

theory of my own," he says in a hundred places; "I DEDUCE. If I

have deduced erroneously, let others establish the true

deduction."

"Social Science is a vast and complex science; it can not be

discovered and constituted by the aid of empirical observation

and reasoning: the _Inductive method_ can not do its work here.

The laws of order and organization in nature must be discovered,

and from them the science must be deduced. In astronomy, in

order to solve its higher and more abstruse problems, it is

necessary to deduce from one of the great laws of Nature;

namely, that of gravitation. It is more necessary still in the

case of the involved problems of Social Science.

"Now the merit of Fourier consists in having seen clearly this

great truth; in having sought carefully to discover Nature's

laws of organization; and in having deduced from them with the

greatest patience and fidelity the organization of the Social

System which he has elaborated. His organization of Industry and

of Education are master-pieces of deductive thought.

"If Fourier has failed, if he has not discovered the laws of

natural organization, or has not deduced rightly from them, he

has opened the way and pointed out the true path; he has shown

_what must be done_, and furnished invaluable examples of the

mode in which deduction must take place in Social organization.

He has shown how the human mind is to create a Social Science,

and effect the Social Reconstruction to which this science is to

lead. If he went astray, and could not follow the difficult path

he indicated, he has at least clearly described the ways and

modes of proceeding. Others can now easily follow in his

footsteps.

"If we would compare the pioneers in Social Science to those in

astronomy, I would say that Fourier is the Kepler of the new

science. Possessing, like Kepler, a vast and bold genius, he

has, by far-reaching intuition and close analytic thought,

discovered some of the fundamental principles of Social Science,

enough to place it on a scientific foundation, and to constitute

it regularly, as did Kepler in astronomy. Auguste Comte appears

to me to be the Tycho Brahe of Social Science: learned and

patient, but not original, not a discoverer of new laws and

principles. Other great minds will be required to complete the

science. It will have its Galileo, its Newton, its Laplace, and

even still more all-sided minds; for the science is far more

complex and abstruse than that of astronomy; it is the crowning

intellectual evolution, which human genius is to effect in its

scientific career.

Very truly yours, A. BRISBANE."

This endeavor by a leading Phalansterian to set us right in regard to

the merits of Fourier, is generous to him, and doubtless well meant

for us, but not altogether necessary. The foregoing history bears

witness that we have not held Fourier responsible for the American

experiments made in his name, and have not treated him with ridicule

or disrespect on account of their failures. In our comments on the

Sylvania Association we said:

"It is evident enough that this was not Fourierism. Indeed the

Sylvanian who wrote the account of his Phalanx, frankly admits

for himself and doubtless for his associates, that their doings

had in them no semblance of Fourierism. But then the same may be

said, without much modification, of all the experiments of the

Fourier epoch. Fourier himself, would have utterly disowned

every one of them. *** Here then arises a distinction between

Fourierism as a theory propounded by Fourier, and Fourierism as

a practical movement administered in this country by

Brisbane.*** The value of Fourier's ideas is not determined, nor

the hope of good from them foreclosed, merely by the disasters

of these local experiments. And, to deal fairly all around, it

must further be said, that it is not right to judge Brisbane by

such experiments as that of the Sylvania Association. Let it be

remembered that, with all his enthusiasm, he gave warning from

time to time, in his publications, of the deficiencies and

possible failures of these hybrid ventures; and was cautious

enough to keep himself and his money out of them."

We then proposed a distribution of criticism as follows: "1. Fourier,

though not responsible for Brisbane's administration, _was_

responsible for tantalizing the world with a magnificent theory,

without providing the means of translating it into practice. 2.

Brisbane, though not altogether responsible for the inadequate

attempts of the poor Sylvanians and the rest of the rabble volunteers,

must be blamed for spending all his energy in drumming and recruiting;

while, to insure success, he should have given at least half his time

to drilling the soldiers and leading them in actual battle. 3. The

rank and file as they were strictly volunteers, should have taken

better care of themselves, and not been so ready to follow and even

rush ahead of leaders, who were thus manifestly devoting themselves to

theorizing and propagandism, without experience."

These citations show, and a full reading of the text at page 247 and

afterward, will show still more clearly, that we have not been

inconsiderate in our treatment of the socialistic leaders.

Mr. Brisbane concludes his letter with an analysis of Fourier's claims

as a Philosopher. He does not affirm that Fourier's theory is right,

but only that he has pointed out the right way to discover a right

theory. This, if true, is certainly a valuable service. Fourier's way,

according to Mr. Brisbane, was to work by deduction, instead of

induction. He first discovered certain fundamental laws of the

universe; how he discovered them we are not told; but probably by

intuitive assumption, as nothing is said of induction or proof in

connection with them; then from these laws he deduced his social

theory, without recurrence to observation or experiment. This,

according to Brisbane and Fourier, is the way that all future

discoverers in Social Science must pursue. Is this the right way?

The leaders of modern science say that sound theories in Astronomy and

in every thing else are discovered by induction, and that deduction

follows after, to apply and extend the principles established by

induction. Let us hear one of them:

[From the Introduction to Youmans' New Chemistry.]

"The master minds of our race, by a course of toilsome research

through thousands of years, gradually established the principles

of mechanical force and motion. Facts were raised into

generalities, and these into still higher generalizations, until

at length the genius of NEWTON seized the great principle of

attraction, which controls all bodies on the earth and in the

heavens. He explained the mechanism and motions of the universe

by the grandest induction of the human mind.

"The mighty principle thus established, now became the first

step of the deductive method. Leverrier, in the solitude of his

study, reasoning downward from the universal law through

planetary perturbation, proclaimed the existence, place and

dimensions of a new and hitherto unknown planet in our solar

system. He then called upon the astronomer to verify his

deduction by the telescope. The observation was immediately

made, the planet was discovered, and the immortal prediction of

science was literally fulfilled. Thus induction discovers

principles, while deduction applies them.

"It is not by skillful conjecture that knowledge grows, or it

would have ripened thousands of years ago. It was not till men

had learned to submit their cherished speculations to the

merciless and consuming ordeal of verification, that the great

truths of nature began to be revealed. Kepler tells us that he

made and rejected nineteen hypotheses of the motion of Mars

before he established the true doctrine that it moves in an

ellipse.

"The ancient philosophers, disdaining nature, retired into the

ideal world of pure meditation, and holding that the mind is the

measure of the universe, they believed they could reason out all

truths from the depths of the soul. They would not experiment:

consequently they lacked the first conditions of science,

observation, experiment and induction. Their mistake was perhaps

natural, but it was an error that paralyzed the world. The first

step of progress was impossible."

If Youmans points the right way, Fourier, instead of being the Kepler

of Social Science, was evidently one of the "ancient philosophers."

We frankly avow that we are at issue with Mr. Brisbane on the main

point that he makes for his master. We do not believe that cogitation

without experiment is the right way to a true social theory. With us

induction is first; deduction second; and verification by facts or the

logic of events, always and everywhere the supreme check on both. For

the sake of this principle we have been studying and bringing to light

the lessons of American Socialisms. If Fourier and Brisbane are on the

right track, we are on the wrong. Let science judge between us.

But Mr. Brisbane thinks that social science is exceptional in its

nature, too "vast and complex" to get help from observation and

experiment. All science is vast and complex, reaching out into the

unfathomable; but social science seems to us exceptional, if at all,

as the field that lies nearest home and most open to observation and

experiment. It is not like astronomy, looking away into the

inaccessible regions of the universe, but like navigation or war,

commanding us at our peril to study it in the immediate presence of

its facts.

Mr. Brisbane insists that Fourier's theory has not had a practical

trial: and we have said the same thing before him. Yet we must now say

that in another sense it has had its trial. It was brought before the

world with all the advantages that the most brilliant school of modern

genius could give it; and it did not win the confidence of scientific

men or of capitalists, because they saw, what Mr. Brisbane now

confesses for it, that it came from the closet, and not from the world

of facts. This nineteenth century, which has had thrift and faith

enough to lay the Atlantic cable, would have accepted and realized

Fourierism, if it had been a genuine product of induction. So that the

reason why it never reached the stage of practical trial was, that it

failed on the previous question of its scientific legitimacy. Mr.

Brisbane himself, as a capitalist, never had confidence enough in it

to risk his fortune on it. And poor as the actual experiments were,

_human nature_ had a trial in them, which convinced all rational

observers, that if the numbers and means had been as great as Fourier

required, the failures would have been swifter and worse.

We insist that God's appointed way for man to seek the truth in all

departments, and above all in Social Science, which is really the

science of righteousness, is to combine and alternate thinking with

experiment and practice, and constantly submit all theories, whether

obtained by scientific investigation or by intuition and inspiration,

to the consuming ordeal of practical verification. This is the law

established by all the experience of modern science, and the law that

every loyal disciple of inspiration will affirm and submit to. And

according to this law, the Shakers and Rappites, whom Mr. Brisbane

does not condescend to mention, are really the pioneers of modern

Socialism, whose experiments deserve a great deal more study than all

the speculations of the French schools. By way of offset to Mr.

Brisbane's account of the development of sociology in the nineteenth

century, we here repeat our historical theory. The great facts of

modern Socialism are these: From 1776, the era of our national

Revolution, the Shakers have been established in this country; first

at two places in New York; then at four places in Massachusetts; at

two in New Hampshire; two in Maine; one in Connecticut; and finally at

two in Kentucky, and two in Ohio. In all these places prosperous

religious Communism has been modestly and yet loudly preaching to the

nation and to the world. New England and New York and the Great West

have had actual Phalanxes before their eyes for nearly a century. And

in all this time what has been acted on our American stage, has had

England, France and Germany for its audience. The example of the

Shakers has demonstrated, not merely that successful Communism is

subjectively possible, but that this nation is free enough to let it

grow. Who can doubt that this demonstration was known and watched in

Germany from the beginning; and that it helped the successive

experiments and emigrations of the Rappites, the Zoarites and the

Ebenezers? These experiments, we have seen, were echoes of Shakerism,

growing fainter and fainter, as the time-distance increased. Then the

Shaker movement with its echoes was sounding also in England, when

Robert Owen undertook to convert the world to Communism, and it is

evident enough that he was really a far-off follower of the Rappites.

France also had heard of Shakerism, before St. Simon or Fourier began

to meditate and write Socialism. These men were nearly contemporaneous

with Owen, and all three evidently obeyed a common impulse. That

impulse was the sequel and certainly in part the effect of Shakerism.

Thus it is no more than bare justice to say, that we are indebted to

the Shakers more than to any or all other social architects of modern

times. Their success has been the 'specie basis' that has upheld all

the paper theories, and counteracted the failures, of the French and

English schools. It is very doubtful whether Owenism or Fourierism

would have ever existed, or if they had, whether they would have ever

moved the practical American nation, if the facts of Shakerism had not

existed before them and gone along with them. But to do complete

justice we must go a step further. While we say that the Rappites, the

Zoarites, the Ebenezers, the Owenites, and even the Fourierists are

all echoes of the Shakers, we must also say that the Shakers are the

far-off echoes of the PRIMITIVE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.

What then has been Fourier's function? Surely his vast labors and

their results have not been useless.

His main achievement has been destruction. He was a merciless critic

and scolder of the old civilization. His magnificent imaginations of

good things to come have also served the purpose, in the general

development of sociology, of what rhetoricians call _excitation_. But

his theory of positive construction is, in our opinion, as worthless

as the theories of St. Simon and Compte. And so many socialist

thinkers have been fuddled by it, that it is at this moment the

greatest obstruction to the healthy progress of Social Science.

Practically it says to the world--"The experiments of the Shakers and

other religious Communities, though successful, are unscientific and

worthless; the experiments of the Fourierists that failed so

miserably, were illegitimate and prove nothing; inductions from these

or any other facts are useless; the only thing that can be done to

realize true Association, is to put together eighteen hundred human

beings on a domain three miles square, with a palace and outfit to

match. Then you will see the equilibrium of the passions and

spontaneous order and industry, insuring infinite success." As these

conditions are well known to be impossible, because nobody believes in

the promised equilibrium and success, the upshot of this teaching is

despair. But the nineteenth century is not sitting at the feet of

despair; and it will clear Fourierism out of its way.

THE INDUCTIVE SCHOOL OF SOCIALISM, instead of thus shutting the gates

of mercy on mankind, says to all: The enormous economies and

advantages of combination, which you see in ten thousand joint-stock

companies around you, and in the wealth of the Shakers and other

successful Associations, and even the blessings of magnificent and

permanent HOMES, which you do _not_ see in those combinations, are

prizes offered to AGREEMENT. They require no special number. If two or

three of you shall agree, you can take those prizes; for by agreement

and consequent success, two or three will soon become many. They

require no special amount of capital. If you are poor, by combination

you can become rich. Agreement can make its own fortune, and need not

wait to be endowed. The blessing of heaven is upon it, and it can work

its way from the lowest poverty to all the wealth that Fourier taught

his disciples to beg from capitalists.

Thus demanding equilibrium of the passions and harmony at the outset,

instead of looking for them as the miraculous result of getting

together vast assemblages, we throw to the winds the limitations and

impossible conditions of Fourierism. And the harmony we ask for as

condition precedent, is not chimerical, but already exists. All the

facts we have, indicate that it comes by religion; and the idea is

evidently growing in the public mind that religion is the _only_ bond

of agreement sufficient for family Association. If any dislike this

condition, we say: Seek agreement in some other way, till all doubt on

this point shall be removed by abundant experiment. The lists are

open. We promise nothing to non-religious attempts; but we promise all

things to agreement, let it come as it may. If Paganism or infidelity

or nothingarianism can produce the required agreement, they will win

the prize. But on the other hand if it shall turn out in this great

Olympic of the nineteenth century, that Christianity alone has the

harmonizing power necessary to successful Association, then

Christianity will at last get its crown.

INDEX.

Allen, John, 179, 212, 291, 536.

Alphadelphia Phalanx, 388.

Andrews, Stephen Pearl, 94, 212, 566.

Association, essential requisites of, 57;

its objects defined, 292.

Baker, Rapp's successor, 135.

Ballou, Adin, his sketch of Owen, 88;

founder of Hopedale, 119;

book on Socialism, 127;

Vice President at Boston Convention, 514;

complains of his timber, 647.

Beecher, Dr., revivalist, 103.

Beizel, Conrad, founder of the Ephrata Community, 133.

Belding, Dr. L.C., founder of Leraysville Phalanx, 263.

Bimeler, Joseph, founder of the Zoar Community, 135.

Bloomfield Association, 296.

Blue Springs Community, 73.

Boyle, James, 277.

Brisbane, Albert, introduces Fourierism, 14, 23, 161;

publications, 113, 200, 450, 560;

edits column in _Tribune_, 201, 230;

specimen exposition, 202;

establishes the monthly _Phalanx_, 206;

converts Brook Farm, 209;

lectures, 269;

represents American Association in Europe, 216;

toasts Greeley, 226;

contrasted with Fourier, 249;

relation to Ohio Phalanx, 356;

letter to a Cincinnati Convention, 366;

selects site of North American Phalanx, 452;

inspires A.J. Davis, 566;

responsibility, 248, 250, 665;

his letter on Fourierism, 665.

Brocton Community, 577;

history and description of, by Oliver Dyer, 578;

members of, 580;

religious belief, 580;

Communism, 581;

Internal Respiration, 581;

doctrine of Love and Marriage, 583;

Sense of Chastity, 583;

domestic affairs, 585;

"Will it Succeed?" 586;

Swedenborgianism, its religion, 589;

views of Bible, 593;

land-mania, 594.

Brook Farm, suggested by Dr. Channing, 104;

Emerson's reminiscences of, 104;

its Transcendental origin, 108;

its afflatus, 109;

first notice of in the _Dial_, 109;

original constitution, 113;

conversion to Fourierism, 512;

new constitution, 522;

incorporation as a Phalanx, 527;

propagating Fourierism, 529;

under the lead of W.H. Channing, 530;

propagating Swedenborgianism, 537;

under the lead of John S. Dwight and Charles A. Dana, 546;

its Phalanstery destroyed by fire, 551;

dissolution, 559;

its end virtually the end of Fourierism, 563.

Brooke, Dr. A., 310, 314.

Brooke, Edward, 310.

Buchanan, Dr., 84.

Bureau Co. Phalanx, 409.

Bush, Prof., 539.

Campbell, Dr. Alexander, debates with Owen, 60, 86.

Channings, their connection with Socialism, 103, 516.

Charming, Dr., suggests Brook Farm, 104.

Channing, Wm. H., publishes the _Present_, 118;

at Brook Farm, 106;

speeches, 215, 225, 533;

address at N.A. Phalanx, 468;

letter to Cincinnati Convention, 366;

expounds Fourierism in Boston, 513;

opinion of Fourier, 514;

succeeds Brisbane, 530;

leads Brook Farm in its conversion to Fourierism, 516;

religion of, 228, 562;

subscribes to the Raritan Bay Union, 488;

extols Swedenborg, 544.

Chase, Warren, founder of Wisconsin Phalanx, 411;

letters from, 414, 416, 430;

on associative success, 432.

Clarkson Phalanx, 278.

Clermont Phalanx, 366.

Columbian Phalanx, 404.

Collins, John A., founder of the Skaneateles Community, 162;

his report of the Sodus Bay Phalanx, 288.

Confederation of Associations, 272.

Co-operative Society, 73.

Co-operation not Socialism, 564.

Coxsackie Community, 77.

Curtis, Geo. Wm., at Brook Farm, 106;

writer for the _Harbinger_, 212;

what he says of Brook Farm's lack of history, 108.

Dana, Chas. A., agent of Am. Un. of Associationists, 535;

mission of, 533;

address by, 222;

on Swedenborg, 547;

on Brocton Community, 586.

Davis, A.J., his Harmonial Brotherhood, 11;

rival of Swedenborg, 94, 539;

inspired by Brisbane and Bush, 566.

Deductive and Inductive Socialisms, 658.

_Dial_, The, history of, 105;

extracts from, 109, 113, 512, 513, 517.

Doherty, Hugh, writer for the _Harbinger_, 212;

Swedenborgian Fourierite, 542.

Draper, E.D., extinguishes Hopedale, 132.

Dwight, John S., writer for the _Harbinger_, 212;

on Swedenborg, 546.

Ebenezer Community, 136.

Edger, Henry, 94.

Edwards, Jonathan, father of revivals, 29.

Emerson, R.W., his reminiscences of Brook Farm, 104;

attitude toward Brook Farm, 108;

lecture on Swedenborg, 543;

prevails over W.H. Channing, 562.

Ephrata, 133.

Evans, Elder, 566.

Finney, C.G., revivalist, 25.

Flower, Richard, sells Harmony to Owen, 33.

Forrestville Community, 74.

Fourier, Charles, theoretical, 185;

had before him the example of the Shakers, 192;

birthday celebration, 226;

would disown the Phalanxes, 247;

contrasted with Brisbane, 248;

coupled with Swedenborg, 545;

criticism of, 249, 266, 665, 670.

Fourierism, introduced by Brisbane and Greeley, 14, 23;

preparation for, 102;

compared with Owenism, 193, 199;

account keeping, 276;

its dreams not confirmed by experience, 293;

based on a township, 510;

must be made alive by Christ, 518;

co-incident with Swedenborgianism 541, 546;

gave its strength to Spiritualism, 566, 613.

Franks, J.J., 92.

Franklin Community, 73.

Fuller, Margaret, 105, 106;

edits the _Dial_, 109.

Fundamentals of Socialism, 193.

Garden Grove Community, 409.

Ginal, Rev. George, 252.

Godwin, Parke, expositor of Fourierism, 181;

social architects, 181;

address by, 217, 226;

couples Fourier and Swedenborg, 541.

Goose Pond Community, 259.

Grant, E.P., letter from, 214;

founder and regent of Ohio Phalanx, 354, 356, 363.

Gray, John, at N.A. Phalanx, 478, 484.

Greeley, Horace, introduces Fourierism, 14, 201;

acknowledges the success of the religious Communities, 138;

treasurer of Sylvania Association, 208, 233;

toasted by Brisbane, 226;

his position, 229;

pledges his property to the cause, 232;

relation to Ohio Phalanx, 356, 358;

letter to Cincinnati Convention, 366;

address at N.A. Phalanx, 468;

offers a loan to N.A. Phalanx, 501;

controversy with Raymond, 562;

pronounces the Oneida Community a trade-success, 510;

summary of his socialistic experience, 653, 655.

Greig, John, 271;

historian of Clarkson Phalanx, 278.

Harmonists, 32.

Harris, T.L., leader at Mountain Cove Community, 573;

Scott's estimate of, 575;

career, 578;

Universalist, 593;

Spiritualist, 593;

Swedenborgian, 577;

doctrine of respiration, 590;

leader at Brocton Community, 577.

Haverstraw Community, 74.

Hawthorne, Nathaniel, jilts Brook Farm, 107.

Hempel, J.C., book on Fourier and Swedenborg, 545.

Hopedale, Ballou's exposition of, 120, 127;

causes of failure.

Individual Sovereignty, a reaction from Owenism, 42.

Integral Phalanx, 377.

Iowa Pioneer Phalanx, 409.

Jacobi's Synopsis, 133.

James, Henry, writer for the _Harbinger_, 212;

Swedenborgian, 546.

Janson, Erick, founder of Bishop Hill Colony, 137.

Jansonists, 137.

Jefferson Co. Phalanx, 299.

Johnson, Q.A., 166; opposes Collins, 168.

Joint-Stockism, 195; basis of, 197.

Kendal Community, 78.

La Grange Phalanx, 397.

Lane, Charles, on marriage, 519.

Lazarus, M.E., writes for the _Harbinger_, 212;

at N.A. Phalanx, 481.

Lee, Ann, 134, 598, 599;

communications from, 603, 604, 606, 610.

Leet, H.N., his letters about the Mountain Cove Community, 568, 569.

Leland, T.C., his letter on the volcanic region, 268;

lectures, 271.

Leraysville Phalanx, 259.

Literature of Fourierism, 200.

Longley, Alcander, his perseverance, 91;

criticises Brisbane, 496.

Loofbourrow, Wade, president of Clermont Phalanx, 366, 368.

Macdonald, A.J., account of him and his collections 1-9;

visits New Harmony, 31, 84;

Prairie Home, 317;

N.A. Phalanx, 473, 481, 485;

meets Owen, 88, 90.

Marlboro Association, 309.

McKean Co. Association, 252.

Meacham, Joseph, Shaker Elder, 152.

Meeker, N.C., his letters from Trumbull Phalanx, 329, 337, 344;

_post mortem_ on the N.A. Phalanx, 499.

Metz, Christian, founder of the Ebenezers, 136.

Miller's end of the world, 161.

Mixville Association, 299.

Modern Times, 99.

Moorhouse Union, 304.

Mormonism, origin of, 267;

afflatus, 152.

Mountain Cove Community, 568.

Nashoba, 66.

National experience, theory of, 21.

Nettleton, revivalist, 25.

New Harmony, 30.

New Lanark, factories owned by Owen, 60.

Nichols, Dr. T.L., inaugurates Free Love, 93;

connects Owenism with Spiritualism, 566.

North American Phalanx, 449;

Sears's history of first nine years, 450;

life at, 468;

Ripley's visit to, 469;

Neidharts' visit, 471;

Macdonald's first visit, 473;

second visit, 481;

third visit, 485;

Raritan Bay secession, 487;

religious controversy, 489;

burning of the mill, 495;

end, 499;

Meeker's _post mortem_, 499;

Hamilton's visit to the remains, 508;

Northampton Association, 154.

Noyes, John H., founder of Oneida Community, 614

Ohio Phalanx, 354.

Oneida Community, 614;

religious theory, 617;

social theory, 623;

material results 641.

One Mentian Community, 252.

Ontario Union, 298.

Orvis, John, 179, 212, 291, 536.

Owen, Robert, his American movement, 13;

extent of his labors, 22;

founds New Harmony, 34;

declaration of mental independence, 39;

debate with Alexander Campbell, 60;

a spiritualist, 57, 565;

founder of Yellow Springs Community, 59;

trustee of Nashoba, 69;

father of American Socialism, 81, 91;

success at New Lanark, 81;

Texas Scheme, 87;

in Washington, 87;

before Albany State Convention, 89;

family, 84;

his scheme compared with Fourier's, 194.

Owen, Robert Dale, successor to Robert Owen, 85;

compares New Lanark with New Harmony, 48;

trustee of Nashoba, 69;

edits the _Free Enquirer_, 72;

publishes "Moral Physiology," 85;

career, 85;

a patron of Spiritualism, 84, 86, 565.

Peabody, Elizabeth P., essays in the _Dial_, 109, 113;

article on Fourierism, 512, 517.

Peace Union Settlement, 251.

Personnel of Fourierism, 211.

_Phalanx_, the, 102, 210;

writers for, 212;

editors, 217;

succeeds the _Dial_ and _Present_, 517.

Plato, as practical as Fourier, 187

Prairie Home Community, 316.

Pratt, Minot, active at Brook Farm, 515.

Pratt, John, his observations on Owen, 50.

_Present_, the, 102, 209, 516.

Rapp, George, founder of Harmony, 32.

Rappites, 32, 135.

Raymond, H.J., associated with Greeley, 229;

controversy with Greeley, 562.

Revivalism compared with Socialism, 26;

an American production, 28.

Ripley, George, the soul of Brook Farm, 108;

at Fourier festival, 226;

his description of the N.A. Phalanx, 469;

active in transforming Brook Farm, 515;

defends Swedenborg, 549.

Roe, Daniel, Swedenborgian minister, 61;

fascinated by Owen, 62.

Sargant, Owen's biographer, 50, 58, 87.

Schetterly, H.R., founder of Alphadelphia Phalanx, 388, 391.

Sears, Charles, 477;

his history of the N.A. Phalanx, 450.

Shakers, their principles, 139, 141;

afflatus, 151;

societies, 152;

close their doors, 596;

precursors of Modern Spiritualism, 597, 612;

their conditions of receiving members, 597;

sights of spiritual things, 599;

daily routine, 600;

union meetings, 601;

dancing, 603;

whirling, 604;

taking in Indian spirits, 604;

Shaker hell, 606;

spiritual presents, 606;

spiritual music and bathing, 608;

funeral 609;

purification, 610;

Shaker revival in Hades, 611.

Skaneateles Community, 161.

Smolnikar, A.B., 251.

Snowbergers, 136.

Social Architects, 181.

Social Reform Unity, 256.

Sodus Bay Phalanx, 286.

Spiritualism, derived from Swedenborgianism, 538;

and from various Socialisms, 565, 567, 613.

Spring Farm Association, 407.

Stillman, E.A., 275, 277, 296.

St. Simon, 182, 192.

Swedenborg, his doctrine of internal respiration, 590.

Swedenborgianism, in the Owen movement, 59, 61;

in the Fourier movement, 260, 262;

at Brook Farm, 538;

the complement of Fourierism, 539, 542;

not favorable to Communism, 589, 592.

Sylvania Association, 233.

Time Store, 95.

Transcendentalists, 105, 118.

_Tribune_, New York, Fourieristic phase of, 229.

Trumbull Phalanx, 328.

Tubbs, his quarrel, 394.

Utopia, 98.

Van Amringe, H.H., his letter 214;

at Trumbull Phalanx, 336, 345;

at Ohio Phalanx, 358, 364;

works for Wisconsin Phalanx, 437, 438.

Warren, Josiah, 42, 94;

on New Harmony, 49;

founder of Modern Times, 93, 97, 556;

time store, 95;

at Clermont Phalanx, 374.

Washtenaw Phalanx, 409.

Watson, A.M., 275.

Wattles, John O., at Prairie Home, 316;

at Clermont Phalanx, 376.

White, John, his letter, 214.

Williams, John S., founder of Integral Phalanx, 377.

Williams, Rev. Aaron, D.D., historian of Rappites, 33, 35.

Wisconsin Phalanx, 411;

first fiscal statement 418;

second fiscal statement, 422;

third fiscal statement, 434;

fourth fiscal statement, 439;

history by a member 440.

Wright, Frances, helpmate of the Owens, 66;

visits Rappites and Shakers, 67;

founds Nashoba, 68;

assists on _New Harmony Gazette_ and _Free Enquirer_, 71, 72;

lectures, 72.

Yellow Springs Community, 59.

Zoarites, 135.

* * * * *

+-----------------------------------------------------------+

| Typographical errors corrected in text: |

| |

| Page 26: successfuly replaced with successfully |

| Page 27: famlies replaced with families |

| Page 44: accomodated replaced with accommodated |

| Page 53: employes replaced with employees |

| Page 59: probbly replaced with probably |

| Page 69: aboved-named replaced with above-named |

| Page 84: enthuiasm replaced with enthusiasm |

| Page 88: excusionist replaced with exclusionist |

| Page 91: 'the sweets af Communism' replaced with |

| 'the sweets of Communism' |

| Page 101: intrests replaced with interests |

| Page 118: supfiercial replaced with superficial |

| Page 138: Communites replaced with Communities |

| Page 173: embarassment replaced with embarrassment |

| Page 191: divison replaced with division |

| Page 201: peristence replaced with persistence |

| Page 203: constucting replaced with constructing |

| Page 221: occured replaced with occurred |

| Page 235: devolopment replaced with development |

| Page 253: Pensylvania replaced with Pennsylvania |

| Page 274: begining replaced with beginning |

| Page 283: boldy replaced with boldly |

| Page 305: 'Some of the members were intelligent and moral |

| people; put the majority were very inferior.' |

| replaced with 'Some of the members were |

| intelligent and moral people; but the majority |

| were very inferior.' |

| Page 326: do'nt replaced with don't |

| Page 362: Madconald replaced with Macdonald |

| Page 364: asssignment replaced with assignment |

| Page 366: Februrary replaced with February |

| Page 418: 'have alway failed' replaced with |

| 'have always failed' |

| Page 460: determned replaced with determined |

| Page 531: affiiliated replaced with affiliated |

| Page 541: proceded replaced with proceeded |

| Page 554: probbly replaced with probably |

| Page 564: 'We must must not, however' replaced with |

| 'We must not, however,' |

| Page 569: 'he will 'prent 'em' or or not' replaced with |

| 'he will 'prent 'em' or not' |

| Page 575: unbiassed replaced with unbiased |

| Page 604: 'and not a a word was spoken' replaced with |

| 'and not a word was spoken' |

| Page 605: 'such as would require a Dickens a describe' |

| replaced with |

| 'such as would require a Dickens to describe' |

| Page 627: sytem replaced with system |

| Page 636: divison replaced with division |

| Page 639: consequnces replaced with consequences |

| Page 645: per annnm. replaced with per annum. |

| |

| Note that 'neat stock' (found on page 329) is a New |

| England reference to dairy cattle that was commonly used |

| in the 19th century. |

| |

+-----------------------------------------------------------+