money-lenders as we would be. They are willing that they shall be eased
down from the vast height to which they have attained. They say they
shall have three per cent. interest instead of six, seven, eight and
ten, or as much more as they can steal out of the necessities of the
case, by the circumstances and discounts. But they shall be limited to
three per cent., and in a way that they cannot evade, as they now evade,
lawful interest. It is proposed that government shall issue this money,
but that it shall be convertible into a three per cent. interest-bearing
bond; so that when money shall be so plenty that it will be worth less
than three per cent. in business, it can be invested in bonds drawing
three per cent.; and the bonds to also be reconvertible into money, so
that the moment business shall demand more money than there should be in
circulation—which would increase the value of money to more than three
per cent.—the bonds would be converted into money again; and when there
should be no more bonds to convert, and money still worth more than
three per cent., then the Government shall issue more money to restore
the equilibrium. In this way money would always be worth just three per
cent. No more nor less, and there would always be just enough; or, in
other words, money would be measured, as it never has been, and which
has been the cause of all our financial troubles. What would you say to
a person who should talk to you about measuring your corn in a bushel
that had itself never been measured? But you complacently talk of money
being a measure of values, and money has never had a measure regulating
its own value.
But this consideration is only a stepping-stone to what shall be. Money
must be made free from interest. In fact, I do not know but people who
have money should pay something to have it securely loaned, the same as
you must pay your Safe Deposit Companies for safely keeping bonds,
jewels and other valuables. I think people ought to be made to pay for
the safe keeping of money upon the same principle. Money under our
present system is the only thing which we possess that does not
depreciate in value by use. The more money is used, the more it
increases; a proof complete of the fallacy and its despotism.
The Government now pay the banks thirty millions dollars per year for
the privilege of loaning them about three hundred millions national
currency, which the banks reloan to the people at an average of ten per
cent. It seems to me that is almost too good a thing to last long. If
the Government can afford to do this thing, why can’t they better afford
to loan directly to the people for nothing, and save thirty millions
dollars annually? Do you think the people would object? Oh, no; but the
bankers would. But for all that the cry of “Down with the tyrant” is
raised, and it will never cease until interest shall be among the things
that were.
I also desire to call attention to the reduction of the Public Debt, and
to the means by which this reduction has been accomplished. The
Administration hangs almost all of its hopes upon this fact, while if it
were thoroughly understood it would prove its condemnation. It has paid
three hundred millions of the debt, they say. Who has paid it? we
inquire. It fails to answer. We say that that entire payment has been
made by the producing classes of the country, while the capitalists have
not reduced their cash balances in the least. In other words, the
producers have got no more money now than they had before the debt was
paid, while the capitalists have had their bonds changed into money.
Now, who have paid that three hundred millions dollars? I repeat the
laboring people have done it, just as they pay all public debts and all
public expenses, besides constantly adding to the wealth of the
capitalists themselves. Can such a state of things continue? Again I
tell you nay.
This wrong must be remedied by a system of progressive taxation. If
persons having a hundred thousand dollars pay one-half per cent. tax,
let those having a million pay ten per cent., or two millions
twenty-five per cent. Let there be a penalty placed upon monopolizing
the common property, and it will soon cease and equality come in its
place. Now, the poorest woman who buys the cheapest calico pays a tax to
the Government, while the rich appropriate her labor to pay their dues.
Truly said Jesus, “The poor ye have with you always.”
Another mode of remedying the existing ills in industry and the
distribution of wealth, must be in giving employees an actual interest
in the products of their labors, so that ultimately co-operation will be
the source of all production, its results being justly distributed among
all those who assist in the production. First, pay the employer the same
rate of interest for his capital that Government shall charge for loans
made to the people; next, the general expenses, including salaries to
himself and all employees, the remainder to be equitably divided among
all who have an interest in it. Do you not see what a revolution in
industrial production such a constitutional provision would effect? And
do you not suppose if the workingmen and women of this country
understood the justice of it, that they would have it? I intend that
they shall have the required information. Already there have been half a
million tracts upon these subjects sent broadcast over this land, and
the present year shall see double as many more, until every laborer,
male and female, shall hold in his or her own hands the method of
deliverance from this great oppression.
But there is another consideration, which, more forcibly than any other,
shows the suicidal policy which we pursue. If the present rates of
interest are continued to be paid upon only the present banking capital
and bonds of the country, for twenty-five years to come, the interest,
with the principal added, will have absorbed the total present wealth,
as well as its perspective increase. And such a consummation as this are
the European capitalists now preparing for this country. Europe holds
not less than three thousand millions of bonded indebtedness of this
country, which is being augmented every month by additional railroad
bonds, or some syndicate operation. So do you not see that European
capital is gradually, but nevertheless inevitably, absorbing not only
all of our annually produced wealth, but also acquiring an increased
mortgage every year upon our accumulated wealth? There is no escaping
these facts. Figures don’t lie. Mathematics is an absolute science from
whose edicts there is no escape. And mathematics inform us that we are
year by year mortgaging ourselves to European capitalists, who will
ultimately step in and foreclose their mortgages, and possess themselves
of our all, just as we foreclose our smaller mortgages, when there is no
hope of a further increase from interest.
Besides the monopoly of land, money and public conveniences, there is
another kind of monopoly still, which may appear rather strange and new
to be thus classed, but it is nevertheless a terrible tyrant. I refer to
the monopoly of education. I hold that a just government is in duty
bound to see to it that all its children of both sexes have the same and
equal opportunities for acquiring education, and that every person of
adult age shall have graduated in the highest departments of learning,
as well as in the arts, sciences and practical mechanics. Every person
should be compelled to acquire a practical knowledge of some productive
branch of labor, because the time will come when all people will be
obliged to produce at least as much as they consume, or earn what they
consume, as the paid agents of producers. What a revolution would that
accomplish? If every person in the world was to work at production two
hours a day there would be a larger aggregate produced than there is
now. Therefore every person must learn the art of production, and thus
be equal in resources to any other person, and Government must undertake
the compulsory industrial education of all its children.
Thus I could continue analysis upon analysis, until not a stone in the
foundations of our social structure would be left unturned, and all
would be found unworthy of our civilization—our boasted Christian
civilization. I think Christianity has been preached at, long enough. I
go for making a practical application of it at the very foundations of
society. I believe in recognizing the broad principle of all
religion—that we are all children of one great common parent, God,
which, since it disproves the propositions of the Church, that at least
a large portion of us are the children of the devil, and renders the
services of the clergy to save us from that inheritance unnecessary,
will abolish our present system of a licensed and paid ministry.
Thirty-five thousand ministers are paid twenty-five millions dollars
annually for preaching the gospel in cathedrals costing two hundred and
fifty millions dollars; and how many of them ever teach any fact other
than that Jesus was crucified, just as though that would save us from
the sloughs of ignorance in which we are sunk? Which one of them dare
tell his congregation the truth, as he, if he be not a blockhead, knows
it? I here and now impeach the clergy of the United States as dishonest
and hypocritical, since the best of them acknowledge that they do not
dare to preach the whole truth, for, if they should, they would have to
preach to empty seats—an admission sufficiently damnable to consign them
to the contempt of the world and to the hell of which they prate so
knowingly, but whose location they have not been able to determine, and
to light the torch which shall fire the last one of these palatial
mockeries of true religion.
Why, should Christ appear among these godly Christians as he did among
the Jews, he would be arrested as a vagrant, or sent to jail for
stealing corn; and in Connecticut, perhaps, for Sabbath-breaking, or for
telling the maid at the well “_all she had ever done_,” which is now
called fortune-telling, or for healing the sick by laying on of hands,
which they denominate charlatanry. Christ and his Disciples and the
multitude which he gathered together had all things in common. But every
pulpit and every paper in this Christian country launch the thunders of
their denunciations when that damnable doctrine is now advanced. Now,
Christ was a Communist of the strictest sort, and so am I, and of the
most extreme kind. I believe that God is the Father of all humanity and
that we are brothers and sisters; and that it is not merely a
theoretical or hypothetical nothing but a stern reality, to be reduced
to a practical recognition. And they who cannot accept and practice this
doctrine of Christ, and who still profess to be his followers, are
simply stealing the livery of Christ in which to serve the devil in
their own souls.
I do not care to what length Christians may stretch their faces of a
Sunday, nor how much they pay to support their ministers; nor do I care
how long prayers they may make, nor what sermons preach, when they
denounce the fundamental principles of the teachings of Christ, I will
turn upon and, in his language, utter their own condemnation: “Inasmuch
as ye have not done it unto the least of these, ye have not done it
unto” Christ. And they may make all the fuss, call me all the hard
names, they please; but they can’t escape the judgment. And I don’t
intend they shall have a chance to escape it. I am going to strip the
masks of hypocrisy from their faces, and let the world see them as they
are. They have had preaching without practice long enough. The people
want practice now, and when they get it, they can even afford to do
without the preaching.
These privileged classes of the people have an enduring hatred for me,
and I am glad they have. I am the friend not only of freedom in all
things, and in every form, but also for equality and justice as well.
These cannot be inaugurated except through revolution. I am denounced as
desiring to precipitate revolution. I acknowledge it. I am for
revolution, if to get equality and justice it is required. I only want
the people to have what it is their right to have—what the religion of
humanity, what Christ, were he the arbiter, would give them. If, in
getting that, the people find bayonets opposing them, it will not be
their fault if they make their way through them by the aid of bayonets.
And these persons who possess the monopolies and who guard them by
bayonets, need not comfort themselves with the idea that the people
won’t fight for their rights. Did they not spring to arms from every
quarter to fight for the negro? And will you say they will not do the
same against this other slavery, compared to which the former is as a
gentle shower to a raging tempest?
Don’t flatter yourselves, gentlemen despots, that you are going to
escape under that assumption. You will have to yield, and it will be
best for you to do it gracefully. You are but as one to seven against
them. Numbers will win. It will be your own obduracy if they are goaded
on to madness. Do not rely upon their ignorance of the true condition.
Upon that you have anchored your hopes as long as it is safe. There are
too many reform newspapers in circulation. And though the columns of all
our great dailies are shut to their truths, still there are channels
through which they flow to the people—aye, even to those who delve in
the coal mines of Pennsylvania, seldom seeing the joyous sunshine. And
this education shall continue until every person who contributes to the
maintenance of another in luxurious idleness shall know how such a
result is rendered possible.
Hence, I say, it lies in the hands of those who have maintained this
despotism over the common people to yield it up to them and recognize
their just relations.
And remember what I say to you to-night: If this that is claimed is not
granted—if, beside freedom, equality is not made possible by your giving
up this power, by which the laborer is robbed of the results of his
labor, before our next centennial birthday, July 4th, 1876, you will
have precipitated the most terrible war that the earth has yet known.
For three years before the breaking out of the slavery rebellion I saw
and heard with my spiritual senses the marching of armies, the rattle of
musketry, and the roar of cannon; and I already hear and see the
approach of this more terrible contest. I know it is coming. There is
but one way in which it can be averted. There was one way by which the
slave war could have been avoided—the abolition of slavery. But the
slave oligarchy would not listen to our Garrisons, Sumners, Tiltons and
Douglases. They tried the arbitration of war, but they lost their slaves
at last. Now, will not these later oligarchies—the land, the railroad,
the money aristocracies—learn a lesson from their terrible fate? Will
they not listen to the abolitionists—to the Garrisons, the Sumners, the
Tiltons and the Douglases—of to-day? Will they try the arbitration of
war, which will result as did the last, in the loss of that for which
they fight? I would that they should learn wisdom by experience. The
slaveholders could have obtained compensation for their negroes. They
refused it and lost all. Ponder that lesson well, and do not neglect to
give it its true application. You can compromise now, and the same
general end be arrived at without the baptism of blood. It shall not be
my fault if that baptism comes. Nevertheless, equality and justice are
on the march, and they cannot be hindered. They must and will attain
their journey’s end. The people shall be delivered.
I have several times referred to the methods by which these things may
be accomplished. They are impossible under our present Constitution. It
is too restricted, too narrow, to admit even an idea of a common
humanity. True, its text is complete, but its framework does not carry
out the original design. Even George Washington, himself, was accused of
treachery for countenancing so great a departure as was made; and the
late war justified the grounds upon which that accusation was founded.
The text of the Constitution held these truths to be self-evident, “That
all men (and women) are born equal and entitled to certain inalienable
rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
The Constitution should have been erected in harmony with those
declarations. It was not. There is no such thing as equality provided
for. Life and liberty have not been held inalienable under it; the
pursuit of happiness has been outrageously interfered with, and the
government has been made to exist without the consent of the governed;
and exists to-day against the protests of a large number of its
subjects.
Is it to be expected that anything so false as that is to its basic
propositions can be made enduring? It is against the constitution of
nature itself that it should be so. Nature is always true to itself, and
will always vindicate itself. If hedged in and obstructed, it will burst
through or find its way around. The needle is not truer to the pole than
is Nature to the truth. And Nature is always just. Those propositions
were deduced from human rights, regardless of any authority or
despotism. Had they been elucidated—had their principles guided the
construction of the Constitution itself, all would have been well. What
our fathers failed to do is left for this generation to perform; and it
must not shirk the duty. It must look the condition squarely in the
face, and meet the issue as squarely.
What issues must be met and provided for in order that human rights may
be respected and protected? I have already referred to the monopolies
that must be abolished. But there are also many other things. I will
call attention first to minority representation, which lies at the base
of a representative government. The State of Massachusetts has eleven
representatives in Congress, and they are all Republicans. Justice would
infer that there are no Democrats in the State. But such is not the
fact. There are a large body of Democrats. They are not represented.
That is the fault of the system of arriving at representation. While it
is true that majorities must rule, that is not equal to saying that
minorities shall have no voice. But the practice in Massachusetts does
say just that. I suspect if it were possible for all the real
differences, politically, to be represented, that the Congressmen would
stand something as follows: The Democrats would have, say, four out of
the eleven, the Republicans, say, three, while the remainder would be
divided between the Labor and Temperance Reformers and Woman
Suffragists. Indeed, I am not certain if the door were to be opened that
there would be any straight Republicans left, since all reformers are,
under the present system, compelled to congregate together in this
party, so as not to entirely throw away their votes. The Democrats are
always Democrats. Like the hard-shell Baptists, you always know where to
find them.
They are always on hand to vote early, and often also, if opportunity
permit. Admit minority representation, and the Republican party in
Massachusetts would be abolished, except that part who carry the loaves
and eat the fishes. They are as certain to be found “right there” as the
Democrats are. I think the Woman Suffragists cover about one-half the
Republican party. But a large body of them are Spiritualists and
Temperance men, while as many more are Labor Reformers. But those who
are more Labor Reformers than anything else, are perhaps two-sevenths;
who are more Woman Suffragists than anything else, are perhaps
two-sevenths; who are more Spiritualists than anything else, perhaps
two-sevenths; and who are more Temperance men than anything else,
one-seventh; therefore, if the delegation were elected by the
representation of minorities, it would stand four Democrats, two
Spiritualists, two Labor Reformers, two Woman Suffragists, and one
Temperance man. But all of these, however, would be again swallowed up
whenever a Human Rights party should be evolved, and that will be the
party of the near future, in whose all embracing arms the people, long
suffering and long waiting, will at last find repose, while the Goddess
of Liberty, with her scales of equality, shall find no more of her
subjects to whom justice is not measured out. Then will partisan
politics have received its death warrant; then will the people become
one in heart, one in soul and one in common purpose—the general good of
the general whole. The “greatest good of the greatest number” will be
supplanted by: “the general welfare, is best maintained when individual
interests are best protected.” The new government, then, must be the
result of minority representation, and all legislative bodies, and,
where possible, all executive officers, be so elected, while the people
shall retain the appointing as well as the veto power. Our lawmakers
must be made law proposers, who shall construct law to be submitted to
the people for their approval, in the same manner as our public
conventions appoint committees to draft resolutions, which are afterward
adopted or rejected by the convention itself. This will make every
person a legislator, having a direct interest in every law. The people
will then no longer elect representatives to make laws by which they
must be bound whether they approve or disapprove. The referendum is the
desired end. The referendum is what the people require, and it is what
the new Constitution must provide. So that in all future time the people
themselves will be their own lawmakers—will be the government.
The people must appoint all their officers, heads of departments and
bureaus at regular intervals, and all under assistants, during faithful
performance of duty. We want no Civil Service Commissions. Every person
who shall be eligible to office under the new government will be
competent; and when once familiar with the duties, will not be removed
to give room for the friend of some politician belonging to the party in
power, since it would be the people in power at all times.
Another matter which must have attention is the sweeping away of that
_jeu d’esprit_, our courts of justice, by making all kinds of contracts
stand upon the honor and capacity of the contracting parties. All
individual matters must be settled by the individuals themselves without
appeal to the public. Our present system of enforced collection of debts
costs every year more than is realized, and besides maintains a vast
army of lawyers, constables and court officers in unproductive employ.
All this is wrong, entailing almost untold exactions upon the producing
community, who in the end are made to pay all these things.
Further, our system of oaths and bonds must be abolished. This swearing
people to tell the truth, and binding them to perform their duty,
presupposes that they will lie and neglect their duty. People are always
placed upon the side of force and compulsion—never upon that of personal
rectitude and honor. The results are what might be expected. It plunges
us into the very things we would avoid. There is a philosophy, too, in
all these things; since in freedom only can purity exist. Anything that
is not free is not pure. Anything that is accompanied by compulsion is
no proof of individual honesty.
The new government must also take immediate steps for the abolition of
pauperism and beggary. It is an infamous reproach upon this country that
there are hundreds of thousands of people who subsist themselves upon
individual charity. I do not care whether this is from choice or
necessity. I say it is a burning shame, requiring immediate curative
steps. The indigent and helpless classes are just as much a part of our
social body as the protected and the rich are, and they are entitled to
its recognition. Society must no longer punish and compel suffering and
death for its own wrongs. It must evolve such a social system as shall
leave no single member of the common body to suffer. When one member of
the body suffers, the whole body sympathizes. So, also, when a member of
the social body suffers, does the whole body suffer. And yet we have
pretended philanthropists and Christians who have never grasped that
truth.