1
10
7
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/02d149e4b46a01ce2721927a636a1539.pdf?Expires=1777507200&Signature=aQ6l657wcS4NXmapmK9koW6gThGG9jeDgLabixMrd1unker1LAn2KtjtI5RSLI3w81SkHN4AAMVLW8Kc0y911ung%7EfHNjPuJ0JoDMCNKBiDAyHvKdHQZAw4MU9cPDPFsCxr%7EZR1W1SkMf0TlEiDBQtGb%7EFOExcax4hnxl2v9Z%7Ee4i2Lj7gq0Of9GjKwD6Ot1zJba2YVgovL5lew7TonCQGYiyf2WsHTW5DSo0cHinB1-Kc2ikIo0SeRv7Cj8sdphrVaMKPgQE%7EEX913veGFppv09rBO088ZbQxHaoaHC3Y73G4-72CqqabofrxhP6Z7AfYGRhZouzPvCqM1bUrbxMg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
800de3b0bbc3fa1d55cb3c0f363a1699
PDF Text
Text
��������������������������������������������������������
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Free religion: report of addresses at a meeting held Boston, May 30,1867, to consider the conditions, wants, and prospects of free religion in America together with the constitution of the Free Religious Association there organized
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Free Religious Association
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Boston, Mass.
Collation: 55 p. ; 23 cm.
Notes: Printed by W.F. Brown & Co. Includes list of officers. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Adams & Co.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1867]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5172
Subject
The topic of the resource
Free thought
Religion
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Free religion: report of addresses at a meeting held Boston, May 30,1867, to consider the conditions, wants, and prospects of free religion in America together with the constitution of the Free Religious Association there organized), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Conway Tracts
Free Thought
Freedom of Religion
United States of America
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/52a4309cd87d381f1468954ca02302be.pdf?Expires=1777507200&Signature=BfCv8oqCTsuAz8bwI-cFIF-KsTpDI6DMT-NTcpT4Qgs3jMeKmiJTriN575Y5MlOGbhyYb%7E420rScyC-8CTf5CBF2RqnR7aDtX43gcm9XPtLdEIP3f9ZuG2dIu0J-2R7gbnyW5QutTl42582kmd52mYk%7Ek8WhhTrF7mteJ3249ITmBilX1lJOErjpTP9O10BVyY%7EuvxfkgNn4eYt7s9MN9BODknpfdg-GaxAlDoFLmAzM1P3YzXhCvGBUJSdmPOg9gz1gXZYSzy3aNe3PocPzC6%7ESttOxX%7EIJrXXGj2%7EBgZ9F7T0Shwo11u-XCGFg50XhkyCpi2NjINZlDX5wMv2g2w__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
b9c34375ff2eb8f7bfe75c9ee952c53d
PDF Text
Text
KING WEALTH COMING.
BY D.
GOODMAN.
HE following article was published by the writer in the Gal
axy for November, 1869. It sets forth briefly what he believes
to be the solution of the political problem in this country.
We live in an industrial age, of which the natural leaders are
the bankers, manufacturers, and merchants. We all complain of the
demoralization and corruption of our political life; what we mean is
that wealth is becoming as powerful in politics as it is in industry.
The great corporations, or rather the wealthy men who control them,
are the real rulers, and not the characterless lawyers and politicians
whom universal suffrage sends to our legislative halls. There is not a
State in the Union through which runs a great railroad, but what is
practically in the power of the corporation which controls it. The
manufacturers could do what they please with any Congress that has
sat for the last eight years, and it is quite safe to predict that for the
next fifteen years the owners of the Pacific Railroad and the giant con
solidated roads which feed it, will be the real masters of the American
people. That is to say, no Congress can by any possibility be elected
which they will not be able to control.
To this state of affairs no complete Positivist objects. We submit
to the inevitable, and can only hope to modify it by a sound philoso
phy, and the wise, practical activity it enforces. What is needed is the
moralization of wealth, and to effect this it must become personal and
responsible.
But here is the article:
T
Nearly all the evils connected with our system of government ean oe traced to
one primary cause, to wit: the influence of wealthy corporations and individuals in
controlling legislation and executive action for purely selfish ends. In other words,
in modern civilization, wealth has become an enormous power, while in this coun
try at least, it has no recognized political responsibility or well-defined public
duties. The lobby notoriously controls legislation—wealth controls the lobby, but
what controls wealth ? Nothing but the purely selfish aims of its possessor.
How is this difficulty to be met ? Shall we organize against wealth ; bind it in
fetters, legislate it out of existence, or exile its influence to some sphere outside of
political action ? We are entering upon an era when all this will be attempted;
'but, however well meant, every scheme to limit the power of wealth will inevitably
fail, and, in the opinion of the writer, ought to fail.
For we must remember that the capitalist is the true king of the industrial era
�46
KING
WEALTH COMING
When war was the normal condition of the race, the great warrior was the ruler,
and all the honors in the State were based upon military merit ; but among the
advanced natives of Christendom, industry, and not war, is now the absorbing
business of the mass of the population, and hence the banker and the manufacturer
are destined to be—nay, are the real rulers of the people. This may seem to be a
preposterous statement, in this age of equal rights and the sovereignty of the
people ; but it is nevertheless true. Who to-day is supreme in the financial, com
mercial, and manufacturing world ? Who owns the telegraph, the railway, the
manufactory, the newspaper, the land ? The capitalist, of course. He is our boss
in the shop, our employer in the field, our landlord, out care-taker on the railroad
and steamship ; he keeps our money in his bank, and looks after our souls in his
churches ; for the church of to-day, of all denominations, is the church of the capi
talist. People are under the curious hallucination that the only power which con
trols them is that exercised by the State or the nation, whereas they touch us
scarcely at all in the most intimate relations of life.
But the capitalists, the owners of the wealth, are not content with all this recog
nized authority ; they desire to control also the political power of the State and
the nation. Well, they are right. They ought to have it. There will be a
struggle against it, and the most impassioned protests will be made when their
right to rule is formally recognized ; but recognized it will be in time. While the
struggle is going on, the capitalist will rule all the same. Our legislators are
nearly all lawyers ; now, the lawyer is a creature of the capitalist. He is trained
by him, and his wit and tongue are at the service of his employer in the court, and
his vote is at his command in the législative body. Wealth, as a power unrecog
nized, without responsibility or moral accountability, is simply another name for
hideous corruption. Hence the lobby, and the sickening legislative history of our
City, State and National Government for the last fifteen years.
Now wealth, and the enormous social and political power it wields by its very
existence, is one of those facts which cannot be ignored. We must accept it, and
see what can be done about it. To destroy wealth, or take away the power it
naturally gives its possessor, is impossible. If it could be done, civilization would
perish.
What, then, are we to do ?
Accept the inevitable. Capital has the power. Make it personal, responsible.
Put the capitalist in authority instead of his creatures, the lawyers and politicians,
and then—
What then ?
Hold him responsible. The next greatest power in modern civilization, after
wealth, is public opinion. As yet it is unmoralized, unorganized ; but its influence,
even now, is mighty. When this spiritual power has its. proper recognized organs,
which it will have under Positivism—then will we be able to control wealth.
Public opinion cannot be brought to bear upon corporate bodies ; “ They have
neither bodies to be kicked nor souls to be damned.” What does the ring or the
lobby care for public opinion ? Once install the individual who is the soul of the
lobby into some recognized public position, and he is sensitive enough. Abuse the
Erie Railroad Company, and who cares ? Attack Jim Fiske, Jr., and he is after you
with a sheriff’s posse or a libel suit.
Here, then, is the Positivist’s solution of our political and industrial problems.
Wealth, under the foul shapes of the ring or lobby, controls our legislation. We
say, Put the holders of this wealth in authority. Make this irresponsible power
responsible. You cannot get rid of the power ; it is one of the most enormous facts
of modern times. It exists, and will control, whether we like it or not, and hence
we must make the best of it.
The capitalist has his excuse for using the ring and the lobby. He says, “ What
else can I do? There are certain great industrial enterprises to be undertaken,
�KING
WEALTH COMING.
47
which cannot even be begun without legislative authority. The lawyers and small
politicians, who form the great bulk of the assemblies and senates, cannot rise to
the height of the great schemes which I have on foot; they oppose me ; but the
work must be done—the times demand it; and so I hire the lobby, who buy those
fellows up. I am in the habit of employing lawyers to do my business, and when
you can hire a man’s brains with money, his vote follows, as a matter of course.
Take the case of the great railway consolidations, which are so necessary: why, I
am compelled to buy the legislators outright, or these essential changes could not
be made.”
So there are two sides to the story. The capitalist has his excuse for making
our legislators scoundrels.
But how is this change to be brought about ?
The writer gives that conundrum up at once. He really does not see how it is
possible to change our republican representative system without a political con
vulsion. Hence he looks for years of grievous misrule ; of future legislative con
duct worse than any in the past. A possible solution of the trouble is a bold seizure
of the government by some representative of the capitalist class. The very men
who have made our legislative bodies dens of thieves, are just the ones to make
that corruption an excuse for seizing the government themselves ; for be it remem
bered, it is not the kings of the lobby who will be held responsible, but the politi
cians—the legislators whom they have debauched.
Our government, from natural and inevitable causes, has got to be one of exces
sive powers. The maladministration of the federal power under Adams or Jackson
was not of much account, so little were the people at large affected by its action;
but now it is very different. The authority of the central government has grown
so enormously large, that its action upon the business of the country has become
vital. Hence the necessity of a more scientific government than that we had before
the rebellion.
Let it be distinctly understood, then, that there is a class of thinkers in this
country who are profound disbelievers in the whole republican or democratic theory
of government. But we are not, therefore, either Imperialists or Monarchists. We
do not advocate going back to any obsolete political institutions. Progress is our
motto. There is something in the future as much better than republicanism as
republicanism is better than monarchy, and that is the rule of wealth controlled by
moral considerations; in other words, the capitalist in responsible authority, and he
under the dominion of a wise, all-powerful public opinion.
Our King has come. He rules already, but it is in such hideous shapes as the
Lobby—the Ring. Let us recognize, tame, ennoble him, so that he may serve the
highest interests of humanity.
�48
THE
SOCIAL
EVIL.
SERIES of articles on Prostitution in the Westminster Re
view have deservedly attracted a good deal of attention.
Without containing anything very new, they sum up the
results of past inquiries, and seemingly set at rest several
vexed social questions. Among the most important of the points
brought out by Dr. Chapman, the writer, are the following:
1. Each new crop of prostitutes does not die out in from four to
seven years, as is generally supposed. While it is true that the personnel
of that class is replaced in that time, the women do not, as a rule, die
of their riotous living, but are absorbed back into the community.
2. The amount of disease engendered by the illicit relation of the
sexes is appalling. This is one of the most serious perils of modern
civilization. While the danger to the women themselves in the matter
of longevity has been absurdly overrated, the damage done to the
health of the community by the prevalence of prostitution has scarcely
been suspected.
3. Governments from time to time have attempted to suppress and
limit prostitution, but have invariably failed. Every possible expedient
has been resorted to, but the history of legislation and government
action, though it extends over centuries, is a record not only of disap
pointment but disaster. Nor have they fared any better when recog
nizing and regulating prostitution. Notwithstanding the encomiums
which have been passed upon the French and continental systems, it
seems now to be tolerably well settled that recognition has led to wide
spread immorality, while as a check to the spread of disease, it has
bad less than no effect at all.
The remedy proposed by Dr. Chapman will hardly be deemed
satisfactory. He says the public should get rid of the notion of sin
or disgrace in connection with the illicit relations of the sexes or
the diseases they entail, and that those sick of syphilis should have the
same care and consideration as if the disease was typhus fever or dysen
tery. The best hospitals are now closed to persons afflicted with sexual
disorders, and the woman who would readily seek medical advice for
an ordinary illness, such as diarrhoea or rheumatism, is deterred from
doing so when the disorder is venereal. So she punishes society for its
non-recognition of the legitimacy of her business and its inhumanity
to her in her affliction by plying her wretched trade when diseased,
thus propagating to the innocent as well as to the guilty the most cruel
contagion known to our civilization.
It is all very well to say that society ought to recognize prostitu
tion as a legitimate because necessary business, and should treat the
strumpet with the same consideration it does the decent women, but
the difficulty is that society won’t do anything of the kind. The truth
is, prostitution is a part of the great sexual problem which science
must yet solve ; all we can do at present is to furnish the data for the
final settlement.—D. G.
A
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
King wealth coming
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Goodman, D.
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [New York]
Collation: [45]-47 p. ; 26 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. The article was first published in Galaxy, November, 1869 and later published in Modern Thinker, no. 1, 1870.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[American News Company]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1870]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5427
Subject
The topic of the resource
Industrialisation
USA
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (King wealth coming), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Conway Tracts
Industrialization
United States of America
Wealth
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/3996d4047b360026bf50aa13c5df6f7c.pdf?Expires=1777507200&Signature=oMfzphi6uKtvcff0vecZRBcUaXQbOnJMzDrSL8iQhuEPm4D1pXQm-rp8luFEtLemTAmkLoLPnCTImB45TgkvmKGmzLYVGpmVVp0rKzN-fp%7E4HM1MM0kDTuDVPgYhwWguEpKHUbjyzjuZflKOSz-3ZVuLW5m5D58RzNgNM8L0luMahv6w%7E6jyVRsbe7H49P1BIky45zdqVIfSSP2xnQuRnQ6b4VPAYDjL3ry1XDIlclc-itBC4%7EMJU9c7eIEd1OBXiCnWaYHhH5GVxG7J7CGeM65qa085MGIZjFiwRd9OpMvaAxGilKUWVzfPeyr6gsTs429vN%7EI0DcfoBR2pSNuc%7Ew__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
19ff62c4a0a6c208d1e77dc82755754f
PDF Text
Text
THE CHICAGO RIOTS
THE CLASS WAR IN THE UNITED STATES,
(A Reprint from “
BY
H. M. HYNDMAN.
LONDON:
SWAN SONNENSCHEIN, LOWREY & CO-,
PATERNOSTER SQUARE.
1886.
PRICE ONE PENNY.
��THE CHICAGO BIOTS AND THE CLASS WAR
IN THE UNITED STATES.
The recent fatal conflictjbetween the Anarchists and the police at
Chicago has served to direct public attention, for the moment, to
the growing social difficulties in the United States. It is unfor
tunate that American affairs are not more closely watched by
Englishmen of all classes. There is a great deal to be learnt in
many ways from the struggle which has begun in earnest between
labour and capital on the other side of the Atlantic; and it
is at least possible that careful consideration of the manifest
antagonism between different classes of men of our own race may
help us to a peaceful solution of our own still more complicated
and dangerous social problems here at home. Both countries
have reached the same stage of economical and social develop
ment ; in both the traditions of free speech and a free press have
been accepted as the most valuable legacy we have received from
our forefathers; alike there and here the system of government
by party has lasted for several generations, though now being
undermined; and, in the United States as in the United
Kingdom, conscription is unknown, and the military caste is held
in no special esteem. Nor are the contrasts less instructive than
the similarities. America is a Republic. England is a Monarchy.
Americans have no aristocracy, House of Lords, or Established
Church. Englishmen have the misfortune to possess, or be
possessed by, all three. Americans have universal suffrage, pay
ment of members, free education in many States, and a wide
Home Rule Federation. We are still behindhand in these
respects. The United States cover a vast and sparsely-peopled
territory; the United Kingdom is a small but densely-populated
group of islands. Lastly, the United States support protection;
the United Kingdom has for forty years accepted free trade.
But beneath the political forms and fiscal arrangements of the
two countries, notwithstanding the widely divergent conditions
of existence for the two peoples, all are now driven to admit that
the same class struggle is going on under the guise of nominal
peace and freedom. The bloody encounter in Haymarket Square,
like the far less serious rioting in Pall Mall, Piccadilly, and South
Audley Street, is a symptom of uneasiness and discontent below
�2
i
THE CHICAGO RIOTS AND
which the governing classes on both sides of the Atlantic must
take account of.
For this reason, if for no other, it is much to be regretted that
nearly the whole of the information which has been suffered to
reach the general public in England, with regard to the great
labour movement in America, has come from capitalist sources.
The cables themselves are in the hands of the very men against
whom the workers are combining and striking; the New York
newspapers, which are chiefly quoted here, belong, most of them,
to the same people, and are supported by the advertisements of
the class whose interests are attacked; the correspondents and
the telegraph agencies are also connected with, and dependent
upon, the dominant class. Thus, whatever the various labour
organisations may do against the capitalists, be their action legal
or illegal, peaceful or violent, their conduct, as well as the
opinions of their leaders, are liable to constant misrepresentation.
Men of the educated classes have been brought up to look at the
problems of society from a totally different point of view from
that at which the workers necessarily take their stand. Knights
of Labour, Trade Unionists, Social Democrats, and Anarchists,
however deep may be their differences among themselves, are
alike in this, that they have no hope of a good word from the
cable agencies. The movements in America have, therefore, been
presented to the people of England with about as much fairness as
if a shopkeeper in Piccadilly had cabled to New York his view of
the Social-Democratic Federation and its leaders last February.
Well-to-do Americans, until lately, have tried to shut their
eyes to the danger arising from the bitter class antagonism
growing up around them, and to persuade themselves that it
would all die down if let alone. This has been displayed even
with reference to the recent riots, in the anxiety to show that no
native-born Americans had anything to do with them. Person
ally, I am perhaps as strongly opposed to Anarchist tactics as
many of the capitalist class themselves, regarding as I do such
individual outrages and unorganised outbreaks as aids to reaction,
rather than helps to the great organised Social Revolution which
Social Democrats strive for. But no one can deny that Parsons
and Fielden, the two principal orators on the occasion, are not
possessed of German or Bohemian surnames. When, too, I
ventured to predict more than five years ago in the Fortnightly
Review that a conflict between labour and capital would certainly
occur in America which might attain to the dimensions of a civil
war, the New York Tribune, Mr. Jay Gould’s own paper,
extracted some passages and headed them with the remark,
“ England sends many fool travellers to the United States, but
never before such a fool as this one.” Yet it was even then quite
clear to an impartial observer that a very bitter feeling existed
between the two sections of the community, while drilling and
i
If
�THE CLASS WAR IN THE UNITED STATES.
3
arming were going on vigorously on both sides in all the great
cities.
In the year 1880 Mr. Powderly, now the chief of the Knights
of Labour, thus expressed himself about strikes: “ I am anxious
that each of our lodges should be provided with powder and
shot, bullets and Winchester rifles, when we intend to strike. If
you strike the troops are called out to put you down. You
cannot fight with bare hands. You must consider the matter
very seriously, and if we anticipate strikes we must prepare to
fight and to use arms against the forces brought against us.”
This was, at any rate, very plain speaking, by a native-born
American citizen, just six years ago; and it is scarcely to be
wondered at that men of a hotter temper, such as these fanatics
of the Arbeiter Zeitung of Chicago and their American allies,
took Mr. Powderly at his word, and made ready for the coming
conflict, which he so clearly foreshadowed as one to be determined
by appeals to force.
The riot in Chicago itself was but the climax to a long series
of troubles which have been going on in that city. That the
Anarchists went beyond what is reasonable or even sane in their
proposals there is no doubt whatever. The journal named above,
of which the weekly edition, the Vorbote, has a wide circulation
outside Chicago, is an important, and in many respects welledited German newspaper; but it has recommended direct attacks
upon individual capitalists, and given directions in its columns
how to make dynamite bombs for personal use. It was, indeed,
not excluding Johann Most’s Freiheit, by far the largest and most
vigorous Anarchist paper in the world, advocating the propaganda
of deed as opposed to the Social-Democratic propaganda of theory
and education; and individual resort to force, or attack by groups
as against the collective political, or, failing political, forcible action.
There is, however, good reason why Chicago, even more than
New York or the other cities of the Atlantic coast, should be the
headquarters of a propaganda of this kind. Capitalists in America
are by no means the most considerate people in the world, as a
rule. When the late W. H. Vanderbilt said, “ The public be
d—d,” he but expressed the general sentiment of his “ order,” in
the same way that his father, the old Commodore, when remon
strated with for treating the passengers on his railways as if they
were hogs, answered, “ By G—, sir, I wish they was hogs;” No
where, I say, is this feeling of contempt for the general interest, as
well as for the mean white who has failed to make money, stronger
than in Chicago; in no American city is the division between the
working class and the capitalist class more marked, nor, it may
be added, does the press anywhere more furiously uphold, to the
extremest point, the rights of property. The Chicago Times and
the Chicago Tribune, differ as they may in other respects, agree
in maintaining the claims of the employers to the fullest extent.
�4
r
THE CHICAGO RIOTS AND
Nay, last winter, when the tramps throughout the States were more
numerous than usual, the former paper, I think it was, suggested,
in all seriousness,—it would have been a ghastly joke in any case,
—that the farmers who were pestered with those unfortunate and
sometimes desperate wayfarers, should poison them with strych
nine in the food provided them. Where this sort of talk is
indulged in by those who have the wealth and power, the oppo
site party soon begins to use strong language in turn.
Moreover, Chicago is, to put it mildly, not a moral city. That
even the most ardent admirers of its go-aheadedness would admit.
So notorious is the character of the rich there for good and evil
living, for gluttony and debauchery, that is, that when the city
was burnt down a few years ago the more sanctimonious, if
not more continent, persons dwelling in godly Boston and pious
Philadelphia declared, with one voice, that this plague of fire
was another judgment from on high upon a modern city of
the plain. However that may be, the conflagration did not in
this case influence for the better the morals of the inhabitants,
who took up their abode in their rapidly-rebuilt dwellings, and
continued their enjoyments as before. The wealthy did so, at
any rate ; and the great number of German workers who believed
more or less in Socialism, as well as the ordinary artisans and
labourers who can contrive to be bitterly discontented when
out of work and starving without, strange as it may seem, the
help of any guiding theory, had the satisfaction of seeing men
who, but yesterday, were even as they themselves, with no
superiority of education, refinement, or intelligence, revelling, as
they said, at their expense, in the most wanton debauchery and
excess—debauchery veiled by no decency, excess unvarnished
with any pretence to taste. Naturally enough, in such a winter
of hard times as that which Chicago has felt, like other industrial
centres in America and elsewhere, the workers who were thrown
out of employment, and had not even the workhouse to fly to, as
with us, listened only too readily to the furious incitements to an
immediate attack upon the well-to-do which were poured forth
by the Spies’ Parsons, and their friends.
The poverty-stricken .people paraded with their black flags
through the city, on many occasions, to no purpose; encounters
with the police became more frequent, temper rose on both sides.
While, also, the city authorities, headed by the mayor, though not
ready to organise relief works for the unemployed, were dis
inclined, for political reasons, to interfere with the extremists, the
police were by no means so considerate as the politicians. It is
safe to say that just as the wealthy classes of Chicago are the most
self-indulgent in America, so the police is the most brutal. I
have myself seen them behave, without provocation, in a manner
which in England would provoke a riot. No doubt they have
a rough and dangerous population to deal with, but they are
�THE CLASS WAR IN THE UNITED STATES.
5
rough and dangerous too. Of the general reasons which tend to
make the class conflict in America so readily take the shape of
violence I shall speak later; but injustice to the misguided men
who are now awaiting their trial, for resisting the demand of the
police to disperse with dynamite and revolvers, it should be
remembered that in the strikes which had preceded the meeting
in Haymarket Square, the police had acted with great cruelty;
that in the deputation to M’Cormick’s factory and in the attack
which followed, they are accused of having clubbed, not only
grown men but young girls to death; and that the speech of
Fielden, which was the occasion of the arrival of the police and
the demand for dispersal, was not more violent in tone towards the
upper classes than many speeches which have been delivered in
this country of late to large audiences by politicians of recognised
standing and undeniable sobriety of conduct.
The mistake which the Anarchists of Chicago made is the same
which the Anarchists of every country have so far made. They
talk big about their power to do this, that, and the other by main
force, when they are really a mere handful of men, and then they
allow themselves to be taunted into open fighting by accusations
of cowardice. It was absurd to suppose that the insignificant
meeting of 1,500 men (the cable despatches said 15,000) could
stand against the forces of the State and Federal Government;
and still more absurd to imagine that the explosion of dynamite
bombs in the face of the advancing police would solve the
economical questions at issue. There can be little doubt, indeed,
that the tendency of this encounter has been to throw back, for
the time being, the general Socialist and Labour Movement in
America, by driving into the opposing camp the waverers who
would be glad enough to support the workers in an organised
and reasoned effort such as that for the Eight Hours Bill Just,
however, as the Anarchists in Germany brought on the anti
Socialist Law, so, in America, by their mad talk and madder
rashness, they have checked the advance of Social-Democracy
among many thinking men. So manifest is this, that it is
impossible not to see that by risking an encounter at that junc
ture, even supposing it were risked to protect the right of public
meeting and free speech, the Anarchist leaders endangered the
cause of the people.
But, whatever view may be taken of the Chicago proceedings,
and however difficult it may be for non-students of labour ques
tions to distinguish between Anarchists and Social Democrats,—
Most is kind enough to denounce the present writer whenever he
gets a chance,—it is beyond question that the organisation of
the labouring classes in the United States is advancing by leaps
and bounds. This is shown even by the latest intelligence which
has come across the Atlantic. In city after city the capitalists in
different trades have surrendered on the eight hour question.
�6
THE CHICAGO RIOTS AND
True, it has not been a complete victory for the workers; but as
the actual returns in the labour papers show, the proportion of
successes to failures has been most encouraging to them. More
over, the simultaneous movement in all parts of the country has
taught the workers the force of union, and has given them confi
dence in themselves which nothing but such experience could have
given. When the record of the first fortnight of the great Eight
Hours Labour movement comes to be written it will, I think, be
quite clear that, in spite of the deplorable occurrence at Chicago,
a great step was then taken in the organisation of the workers
for the peaceful attainment of an economical victory. The posters
issued by the Knights of Labour prior to the struggle, calling upon
the troops and the militia not to fire upon the people, showed that
this organisation, which has been growing at the rate of a thousand
a week during the present year, and which, with all its fanciful
trickeries and secrecy, is probably the most powerful working
class organisation in the world, is obliged to recognise that,
however peaceful its objects, force will be used by the dominant
class against the people, and this force they must either meet or
undermine.
But the most formidable weapon yet used by the workers has
been boycotting; and the mere fact that arrests should have been
made for adopting a method of class warfare which, under the
existing law of the United States, is perfectly legal, confirms the
reports of the success with which it has been used. That boy
cotting is liable to abuse is quite obvious, but, once admit the
right of combination for any purpose, and it is difficult to see how
boycotting itself can be stopped. The process, of course, could
not have been effectively carried out without a complete organi
sation, thorough discipline, and a certain amount of secrecy.
Strange to say, Mr. Powderly, the chief of the Knights of Labour,
has openly declared against boycotting, as he did against the
strike on Jay Gould’s railways, and against the Eight Hour move
ment. But the boycotting has been done by the Knights of
Labour all the same. As also it will probably be introduced here
as well as on the Continent of Europe, it may not be out of place
to describe the course taken, which differs a good deal from the
simpler variety of the same process in Ireland.
A capitalist, say an ironmaster, a tobacco manufacturer, a type
founder, or a cotton-spinner, has a dispute with his hands, and
refuses to come to terms with them. At once a " boycott ” is
ordained against him and his goods. First, all the Knights of
Labour and working-class organisations in his neighbourhood are
instructed to refuse to buy his goods, if they are of a kind which
the workers have need of, and to persuade the store-keepers with
whom they deal to give up taking them. Next, the newspapers
which advertise the goods are called upon, and their managers
are informed that if the advertisement is continued, the workers
�THE CLASS WAR IN THE UNITED STATES.
7
will be enjoined no longer to buy, or in any way to support, that
newspaper. Then those who supply the manufacturer with raw
material are interviewed, and efforts are made to induce them to
stop dealing with him. In this way, by degrees, a complete
cordon is formed round the obnoxious individual or company, for
few can afford, especially in cities of the second rank, to offend
what is, on the whole, the largest spending class; and gradually
he or they are forced to surrender or be ruined.
So powerful has this boycott become, and so well understood
is it by the workers, even those who belong to no actual organi
sation, that the mere threat of its operation has, in numberless
instances, gained them the day. The case of the baking
establishment belonging to the so-called “Widow Gray,” who
has, however, another husband, a “ boss ” plumber, was quite
exceptional; and any one who knows, as I do, how the bakeries
in New York are managed, or how, for that matter, they are
managed here, will have very little sympathy left to spare for the
employer, after reflecting upon the fearful overwork of the men,
for a pitiful wage. At any rate, the boycott has, as a rule, been
successful, and it is very improbable that the Federal or State
Government will be able to check it by arrests, unless they go
much farther and attempt to suppress labour organisations
altogether,—a step which would simply force all champions of
the labouring classes into desperate secret conspiracies, and tend
eventually to as bloody a struggle as ever devastated a great
country.
Whichever way we look, in fact, we can see that the outbreak in
Chicago was but a sputter of the hot volcanic lava below. The
long, dangerous, bitter strike of the railway men in Missouri
against Jay Gould, leading to violence on both sides; the strikes
of the tram-car men in New York, and the open encounters with
the authorities there; the serious troubles in the Schuylkill and
Hocking Valley coal districts; the threatening attitude of the
workers in Cincinnati and Milwaukee; the great gatherings of
the unemployed in San Francisco and other cities; the armed
encounters with reference to the employment of Chinese labour
in Seattle and Portland, Oregon; the almost infinite number of
smaller strikes and boycotts in all parts of the country, recorded
only by the local prints and labour papers, but frequently leading
to violence; the open advertisement of Pinkerton’s Agency, that
its directors are ready to provide capitalists with armed men, in
organised bands, to put down strikes, at the rate of seven or eight
dollars a day, as well as detectives to get in among the hands—
all these and many more facts which I could point to prove
beyond dispute that the two sides to the struggle are ranging
themselves in battle order from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean;
and from the Canadian frontier to the Gulf of Mexico. Even in
a new state like Texas some of the bitterest feuds have been
�8
THE CHICAGO RIOTS AND
stirred up. To talk of this widespread trouble as due simply to
a few foreigners, who do not understand American institutions,
or to be stopped by checking immigration, is absurd. At Chicago,
St. Louis, Cincinnati, and New York the Germans have a good
deal of influence no doubt; but even in those cities it will be
found that Americans are now taking the lead in the agitation,
as turns out to be the case in Chicago. It is true also that few
native-born Americans are as yet avowed Socialists; but the
ideas of Socialism are in among the trade unions and Knights
of Labour to a much greater extent than here, and many of their
branches have already been captured by the more advanced party.
Passing, therefore, from the exciting incidents of the moment,
and disregarding whether the workers will or will not come
victorious in the main out of the present conflict, we may fairly
consider the permanent elements involved, and why it is that
in the great republic of the United States, where the Radical
ideal, as understood in this country, is almost completely realised,
the prospect of class warfare should be almost more threatening
chan in older countries where the danger has long been recognised.
I. The workers are, on the whole, much better educated in
America than in Europe, and more readily spend what money
they have upon “ reading matter.” Hence they are more easily
informed as to what is going on among their class, and, where
they have leisure, they take a more active interest in politics and
social matters. The habit of going to lectures and public meetings
is also in favour of the spread of an organised agitation. Nothing
has been more remarkable than the sudden appearance of labour
papers in all parts of the country of late years, where formerly
they were almost unknown, and in towns of a size in which in
this country they certainly could not be maintained.
*
All these
* Saginaw Valley Daily Star (K. of L.),
advanced.
Cleveland Chronicle (Labour; com
mercial speculation).
Labour Record, Louisville (organ Trades
Assembly).
Paterson Labour Standard (organ Trades
Assembly; commercial speculation).
Cincinnati Unionist (English and Ger
man ; K. of L.), advanced.
Baltimore Free Press (K. of L.), mode
rate.
Southern Industry, New Orleans (organ
Trades Assembly), moderate.
Labour Advocate, Lewistown (organ
Trades Assembly), moderate.
Houston Labour Echo. Advanced.
Craftsman, Washington (organ Typo
graphical Union), Advanced.
Palladium of Labour, Hamilton, Ontario
(K. of L.), Socialistic.
Alarm Chicago. English organ. I.W.P.A.
Socialistic and Anarchistic.
Labour Inquirer, Denver (Socialist).
John Swinton’s Paper, New York.
Workman’s Advocate (organ New
Haven Trades Assembly), Socialist.
Detroit Labour Leaf (Typographical
organ), Socialist.
Tocsin, Philadelphia (Typographical
organ), advanced.
Labour Union, New York (commercial
speculation), moderate.
Dayton Workman (K. of L), advanced.
Voice of Labour (K. of L.), moderate,
commercial speculation.
St. Joseph Leader (K. of L.), moderate.
Jersey Knight, Somerville,-------- .
Working Man’s Advocate, Creston (K.
of L.).
Pittsburg Labour Tribune,-------- .
Labour Union, Sedalia (Socialistic).
New Jersey Unionist (K. of L. and
organ Trades Assembly), advanced.
Workman, Durham, N.C.
Providence, People (K. of L.),advanced.
�THE CLASS WAR IN THE UNITED STATES.
9
sheets, however they may begin, tend steadily towards Socialism
as they go on; and the English organs quote Justice with a per
sistence which has quite astonished those who, like myself,
thought it would take some time for our ideas to make way
among the individualist American workers.
II. The facts and figures relating to the trades and industries
of the United States are tabulated with very much greater
accuracy, and are much more easily accessible to the workers,
than they are here or in any European country. Hence the
artisans and labourers in any special branch can see clearly what
proportion of the total product goes to the labourers in that de
partment, and how much is taken as a return to capital. No
dispute as to whether wages are or are not rising, relatively to
the cost of living, could be carried on in America in the same
blind fashion as is too often the case here. The champions of
the working classes can see for themselves how they fare with
their employers, and neither side can delude the other as to the
main facts.
III. The evidence taken before the Committee of the Senate on
the condition of the wage-earning class in the United States
proved clearly that when the high rents and other points are
taken into the account the workers in America do not get wages
which command a standard of life in excess of what can be
Labour Lance. Tewk House (K. of L.),
moderate.
Co-operator, Seattle.
Memphis Weekly Record (organ Trades
Assembly and Typographical).
Ohio Valley Boycotter (Boycotting
specially).
Independent Citizen, Albany.
Petersburg Vice Exponent (K. of L.)
Journal of Industry, Quincey.
Truth, Rochester.
Buffalo Sunday Truth. Advanced com
mercial speculation.
Labourer, Haverhill.
Minersville Free Press.
Richmond (Va.) Herald.
Pittsburg Herald.
St. Paul’s (Miss.) Herald.
Louisville Labour Post.
St. Louis Champion.
Grand Rapid’s Workman. Moderate.
Labour Siftings, Fort Worth. Advanced.
Atlanta Working World.
Portland, Oregon, Ala. Revolutionary.
Topeka (Kan.) Citizen.
The following form the “ Associated
Labour Press” :—
Cleveland Chronicle.
Paterson Labour Standard.
Cincinnati Unionist.
Baltimore Free Press.
Southern Industry.
Leicester Labour Advocate.
Houston Labour Echo.
Washington Craftsman.
Palladium of Labour, Hamilton, Ont.
Denver Labour Inquirer.
John Swinton’s Paper.
Philadelphia Tocsin.
Ohio Valley Boycotter.
Independent Citizen, Albany.
Rochester Truth.
Buffalo Truth.
Haverhill Labourer.
Minersville Free Press.
Richmond (Va.) Herald.
Pittsburg Herald.
St. Paul’s (Mis.) Herald.
Louisville Labour Post.
St. Louis Champion.
German.
Baacker Zeitung, New York. (Organ of
Bakers’ Union.)
Arbeiter Zeitung.
New York Volkszeitung.
Der Sozialist. (Organ Socialist Labour
Party.)
Die Parole. (Organ I. W. P. A., St. Louis
Groups.)
L’Union Ouvri&re, Montreal.
Labour Paper..
French
�10
THE CHICAGO RIOTS AND
obtained in England. This was not what had been anticipated,
and the revelation produced a very great effect; for Americans
have always been led to believe, and did believe, that the labour
ing classes were far better paid, worked shorter hours, and
altogether had a " good time ” as compared with similar workers,
male and female, in the old country. The exposure of the bad
housing and “ sweating ” that were too common in all the great
cities gave the agitators many texts on which they could preach
with great effect, having official testimony behind them.
IV. The increasing difficulty for a man to rise out of the wage
earning class, which I have myself noticed in a casual way at
every visit since I landed in San Francisco at the end of 1870, is
felt as a distinct grievance by the workers. Men in America,
whether native-born or immigrants, all expect to " rise in the
world,” if they are industrious, thrifty, and sober. They are now
finding that this is a less and less easy matter, while the uncer
tainty of getting any employment at all, even by skilled artisans,
has become a great hardship. According to the North American
Review and trustworthy local statistics no fewer than 2,000,000
of people were out of work a few months ago.
V. There is no personal relation between employer and
employed, and the cold pecuniary bargaining appears even in a
more unpleasant shape than it does in Europe. Tramps also are
treated with great cruelty, and the laws against them in some
States are of a character which tends to foster outrages and drive
them to desperation.
VI. The capitalist class consists for the most part of men who
are merely rich, and who have risen above the level of the workers
by operations which are scarcely likely to win respect. They are
not absorbed into an old class whose wealth is hereditary, nor is
there a large professional or easy class, with their dependents, to
shade off the antagonism. Jay Gould, for instance, against whom
some of the more desperate of the recent strikes have been
aimed, is a man who has qualified for his present position as a
“ Napoleon of Finance ” by a series of transactions which even the
laxest moralists denounce as closely akin to fraud. Five-andtwenty years ago he was a needy punter in gold options ; to
day he controls railways, telegraphs, news-agencies, legislatures,
and the whole existence of the thousands of men who work on
his various lines. And he is only a sample of plenty of others
who act with the completest disregard to the welfare of the
workers, the - interests of the public, or the commonest rules of
human decency. The feeling against the great corporations and
their “bosses,” with regard to the wholesale manner in which
they have plundered the State of its lands, the trading com
munity of cheap transit in many cases, and the mass of the
people of honest representation, is shared by thousands who are
not actually wage-earners, and helps on the general movement.
�THE CLASS WAR IN THE UNITED STATES.
11
No attempt is made by the capitalists, as already noted, to dis
guise their contempt for the human counters with which they
play their game.
VII. The contrast between the nominal social and political
equality and the real disparity which exists between the rich and
the poor man—the utter helplessness of the latter, though he is
told that he is all-powerful, when he sees himself juggled out of
any real influence—increases the bitterness in times of pressure.
There is a growing appreciation of the irony of the situation at
the very time when, owing to economical causes, the gap between
the extremely wealthy and the wretchedly poor is widening every
day. What is the use, men say, of being a citizen of the United
States, when I can barely keep body and soul together, while these
employers and capitalists control the whole machine ? The tone of
the political literature, from the Declaration of Independence down
wards, is one continuous satire upon the economical and social
conditions of to-day. Formerly, when all felt they had a chance,
this was not so much noticed; now it is felt and commented upon
daily.
VIII. The political issues themselves are really played out for
the most part. These used to serve in the United States, as they
still serve in older countries, to obscure the actual conflict of class
interest which underlies them all. That is now at an end. So
far as political matters go there is little to choose between the
Democratic and Republican parties; and the people begin to lose
their interest in the mere grabbing for place, which is thinly
veneered over, if veneered it is, by a pretence of patriotism. This,
among a nation so intensely political hitherto as the Americans,
is in itself a serious matter. The social question rises in an in
teresting if a threatening shape just as people at large have
become wearied of the “ bloody shirt,” and have wakened to the
hollowness of nine-tenths of the political discussions. That the
labouring classes are almost entirely unrepresented in the political
arena by no means lessens the significance of this point.
IX. Americans are far more ready to resort to arms than we
are. Just as it is said that a coward who goes west of the Rocky
Mountains comes back a brave man, so any one who goes to the
United States learns to look upon the probability of street fight
ing as by no means small, though perhaps he would find it
difficult to give reasons for this feeling. At any rate, now and for
some years past the possibility of such a collision has been felt
among the workers, and when once bloodshed has begun, as it has
in Chicago and St. Louis, it is very difficult to secure a peaceful
issue, where those who hold the power fail to recognise that the
class which is striving for better conditions of existence, has
powers of organisation and secret action which might be used
with fearful effect. There is no better preparation for a peaceful
settlement than the establishment of mutual respect. This does
�12
THE CHICAGO RIOTS AND
not exist between the two classes in America, and both are more
or less accustomed to the use of arms.
X. The corruption of the State Legislatures and the Munici
palities, the hopelessness of getting any matters attended to
which affect the welfare of great masses of men, but which
conflict with the interests of the great monopolists, are steadily
driving the intelligent workers to the conviction that, if the
present attitude is maintained, an appeal to downright force is
the only possible solution of the question. Time after time
reformers have seen their nominee or nominees bought, as it were,
over their heads, after having given the most thorough pledges at
the polls. Confidence is thus shaken among the people, not only
in this or that party, but in the whole machinery of government;
nor can I deny that this has had a tendency to strengthen the
Anarchists who declaim against the childishness of all political
action.
XI. The constitution of the United States is built up upon the
principles of the most complete individual liberty for all free men.
This, of course, has not been fully maintained in practice, but
these are the principles to which appeal is always made in cases
of difficulty. No provisions, however, were made or contemplated
against the tremendous power over others which this unlimited
freedom might give to individuals in the field of industry and
trade. Thus, though protection is kept up against foreign goods,
protection by the State, or organised community, of the native
workers seems unconstitutional as well as grandmotherly.
Twenty, thirty, fifty years ago the danger had scarcely arisen.
Now that it has Americans, who are essentially lawyers and
constitutionalists, find no precedents which will hold water for
direct interference. This at least has been urged as a reason for
non-intervention, and there seems a sound basis for the contention.
Nevertheless, as I observed five years ago:—“Full individual
freedom leads'in present economical conditions to monopoly; that
monopoly speedily develops into oppression and tryanny; and
then the common sense of society, as a whole, has to step in to
correct the:mischief which has been allowed to spring up.” It is
upon the capacity of American statesmen, politicians, and pub
licists to grasp this truth and to modify their political constitution
so that it may deal vigorously and firmly with social abuses, that
the probability of a peaceful solution of the class struggle rests in
the United States.
Happily signs are not wanting that, notwithstanding the raving
of the capitalist press against the workers and their organisations,
a change is taking place in the mind of influential men which may
have a great effect in the direction which all must hope for.
That the main question in the recent conflict should be the
reduction of the working day to eight hours—a concession which
the workers in our Australian Colonies have already secured—
�THE CLASS WAR IN THE UNITED STATES.
13
gives a reasonable look to the demands of the labourers, seeing
that nobody can work a horse eight hours a day without killing
him very soon. The tone of President Cleveland’s message, in
which he attributes the difficulties of the situation to the grasping
rapacity of capitalists, rather than to the undue demands of the
labourers, is the more significant when we remember that as
Governor of the State of New York, Mr. Cleveland actually vetoed
a Bill, which had passed both Houses of the Legislature, in favour
of a great reduction of the hours of labour on tramways. Clearly
the facts brought before him since his election as President have
considerably modified his opinions, or pressure has been brought
to bear upon him—which is perhaps more likely, for he is not a
man of great ability or foresight—by stronger men than himself.
The position of the Democratic Party, whose man President
Cleveland is, with reference to the Labour question, is indeed
worthy of brief consideration.
The Republican Party is
essentially, and of its nature, the party of the bourgeoisie. The
Democratic Party has always claimed to be, though it must be
confessed with very little reason, the party of the people. Now
it has a chance of justifying its name and its claim, and the wiser
heads are anxious that an attempt should at once be made in
this direction. Hence the President’s favourable message just
before the Chicago outbreak. On the other hand, there are worse
influences! at work in the direction of the monopolists. Mr.
Whitney, the Secretary of the Navy, has, it is said, great weight
with. Mr. Cleveland, and he has married the only daughter of
Senator Payne, of Ohio, who is the head of the notorious Standard
Oil Company. It is to be noted, therefore, that Senator Payne
was the only Democratic Senator who voted in favour of the
increase of the United States army and its employment in the
suppression of strikes.
Personal considerations are, as a rule, hardly to be taken into
account in a matter of such wide importance as this, which will
long outlive Presidents and Cabinets, politicians and wire-pullers.
But Mr. Cleveland and the Democratic Party—of which, by the
way, Mr. Henry George is an active member—stand in a very
peculiar position with reference to the transition period which
America has entered upon. Having attained office after an
exclusion of a quarter of a century the Democrats are at once
brought face to face with an internal contest, in comparison with
which, unless great care is taken, the Civil War between North
and South may yet seem mere child’s play. It is scarcely too
much to say that, accordingly as the present executive shows
judgment and capacity, inasmuch as it sees that the interests of a
people should be considered before those of a class, just in so far
will the immediate future of the United States be a history of
beneficial development or anarchical disturbance. Hence the
influences which bend Mr. Cleveland in a capitalist direction are
�14
THE CHICAGO RIOTS AND
wholly harmful to the interests of the Great Republic at the
present juncture ; and the worst service of all the bad services
the Standard Oil Company has done the American community,
would be that its chief should indirectly twist the principal
officers of the Federal Government against the legitimate
demands of the working people.
The better class of Republicans also, men who but yesterday
were protesting against the corruption of their own party, and
were largely instrumental in bringing abeut Cleveland’s election,
are beginning to see that buying cheap and selling dear is not
the ideal of human existence. Mr. Henry Ward Beecher,
essentially a man of the times, has found it advisable to abandon
his old denunciations of the labouring classes, and to advocate
something better for the people than to remain at the absolute
disposal of owners of property. Mr. Newton, Professor Ely, the
Chaplain of the House of Assembly, and many more, have been
trying hard to reconcile Socialism and Christianity, rivalling
even the Social Democrats in their denunciations of the un
scrupulous money-getting, which has hitherto been the main
consideration of the well-to-do classes in the United States.
The agitation for Land Nationalisation, which Mr. Henry George
has carried on with so much vigour and self-sacrificing persist
ence, has necessarily spread ideas of collective management far
and wide; the growing determination to limit the power of the
railway kings and great corporations, has a direct tendency to
help on still wider proposals; while even the Free Trade discus
sion, like the Fair Trade agitation here, has drawn attention to
economical and social as distinguished from mere political
issues.
Till within the last two or three years, however, the reply of
sober Americans to all who called attention to the dangers arising
from the growing disaffection of the working class in the great
cities was to point to their great agricultural population, and the
increasing number of independent farmers as the backbone of the
nation certain to oppose all subversionary attempts. The figures
of the last census are indeed astonishing, showing, as they do, that
whereas in 1870 there were 5,922,471 persons engaged in agricul
ture in the United States, of whom 2,889,605 were dependents of
some sort; in 1880 there were 7,670,493 thus engaged—an in
crease of 1,700,000 in the ten years—and of these but 3,326,982
were dependents. Thus the independent farmers had increased
from 3,033,866 in 1870 to 4,343,511 in 1880, and the number
has grown since then considerably. Here then is what, in all
ordinary circumstances, would be a strongly conservative element,
opposing a dead resistance to the agitation of the great cities,
similar to, but even more formidable than, that offered by the
French small proprietors to the Radicals and Socialists of Paris,
Lyons, etc. But economical causes have stirred the agriculturists
�THE CLASS WAR IN THE UNITED STATES.
15
too, farmers and labourers together. The great fall in the price
of all agricultural produce, the impossibility, it may be said, of
disposing of their grain at a profit, has literally crushed many of
the farmers, while the foreclosure on mortgages, or the increase
of debt, has brought home the pressure of capitalism even to the
most industrious and thrifty. The outcry against the railways
by the employes finds, therefore, an echo among the farmers who
cry out for lower than the already low rates ; such combinations
as the “ Grangers ” denounce railway monopoly and landgrabbing
with almost the same vehemence as the more extreme men in the
cities. At the same time those dependent upon the farmers, find
more difficulty in getting work, and have to accept in many in
stances lower wages. Thus, though the agriculturists may take
a somewhat different line from the city workers, they also are at
the present time by no means as a whole in a contented frame
of mind, or likely to play the reactionary part which was but
now assigned to them.
Speaking generally, the tendency in the United States, as it is
here, is for the workers who are better educated, more apt to com
bine, more ready to see the antagonism between their interests
and that of the capitalists, to be asked to accept a lower standard
of life, just when they have made up their minds that they are
entitled to demand a higher. Can this be enforced ? I say most
distinctly, No. To see this it is not necessary to be a Social Demo
crat. Mr. Jefferson Davis, an old and presumably cool observer,
practically says “ No,” too. He notes, as all unprejudiced men must
note, that not only do’ the workers not share proportionately in
the relative improvement of society, due to the improved methods
of production of wealth, but that they are being educated to ask
why this should be. Yet, even as I write, an official report reaches
this country from the United States, which shows that the con
dition of the “ sweaters’ hacks,” and of others of the lower grades
of labour, is perhaps worse than it is in England with regard to
food, clothing, and lodging accommodation. I do not deny that
there is more general well-being in the United States than in
England, but I am also convinced that the relative superiority
now scarcely affects the working classes, and that the tendency
is ever downwards in their lot. This, while the big fortunes are
growing constantly bigger, and luxury is carried to a higher
pitch than ever before.
Thus then the Chicago Riots, the unprovoked shooting at St.
Louis, the other smaller outbreaks of which we hear little of, are
symptoms of a deep discontent throughout the United States,
which it will need the highest ability and coolness of her states
men to deal with. We are now apparently at the beginning of
a rising cycle of trade in that great country. Now, therefore, is
the time to act. To wait until “ bad times ” come again before
steps are taken to deal with the great social problem, means,
�16
r
' Sk
THE CHICAGO RIOTS.
sooner or later, civil war. The respect for law, which De
Tocqueville and other writers have remarked upon as so obvious
a trait in the American character, will not long survive a state of
society in which the law is used to protect a vast system of social
oppression. Moderate as are the demands of the Knights of
Labour, the Federated Trades, and similar organisations, the idea
of collective action is, as I have shown, already growing among
them; and Socialism has taken root to such an extent that it can
never again be neglected in any calculations as to the future
action of the workers in the United States. A great opportunity
lies before the men now in power. They can either bitterly
exacerbate, and therefore render dangerous to peace the natural
desire of the producing class for a rapid improvement of their
lot; or they can give it a gradual and beneficial outlet by an
organised endeavour to meet their demands in a calm and equit
able spirit. All men, even Anarchists, would prefer a peaceful
solution; sober observers know that violence is apt to breed
reaction. But in America, as in England and on the continent
of Europe, the question of the immediate future is, How are the
workers to obtain control over production without a cataclysm
which will sweep all before it ?
The seventh industrial crisis of the century is slowly passing
away on the other side of the Atlantic. Will the eighth find the
governing classes as incapable of grasping the causes or dealing
with the effects of these periods of social anarchy as they are
to-day ? Upon the answer to that question it is not too much to
say depends the future of the American Republic.
Note.—Since the above paper was in type, direct evidence has been
received that the great meeting and procession of Socialists and Anarchists
on May 1st, attended by fully 20,000 men, was perfectly quiet and orderly ;
that the numbers present on the occasion when the actual conflict took
place did not exceed 1,500 instead of 15,000 ; and that the police had no
legal right whatever, under the State Law, to call upon the people to
disperse. This, of course, does not justify the throwing of the dynamite
bomb; but, taken in connection with the clubbing of girls to death and
the shooting of men when the crowd went to M’Cormick’s factory, it puts
a very different complexion on the matter to that given it by the capitalist
press.
H. M. h.
May 24th,
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The Chicago riots and the class war in the United States
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Hyndman, H. M. (Henry Mayers) [1842-1921.]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 16 p. ; 23 cm.
Notes: A reprint from 'Time'.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Swan Sonnenschein, Lowrey & Co.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1886
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G4972
Subject
The topic of the resource
Anarchism
Socialism
USA
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The Chicago riots and the class war in the United States), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Anarchism
Chicago
Riots
Socialism
United States of America
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/ff94ae82cfa93bc62cb6231f5266c5b7.pdf?Expires=1777507200&Signature=mwl-gHGyky4cq05KxSG6mhcbGAs7MSnYU6da1X9qM%7EYwY4M-ByB7zmyEkNET57ZmFnz5btP0jfkWYST4Yn%7EHuW0H6%7EdP91jzYekCJuTnbfNEl-Teb3UoXeX3aCwCRiJzGFfMZXL0pyePKxVEg5CFRVcQARsen9vY6SiqCt-P5s8wc2t0jocfClMJBewxgsVUOHYlLzve1QlU8XFtaGE2Dy-RnKvqMWIa4AED15Izm%7EroUpqhNy4s4vhX8sh0Hxt2-yekvRfMhZjNGXoNKQKV4eEcwxYCxk%7EL5v-FpnJc4iRDJIsfwgtexT1bzU5F1TaAA77NR2Sl%7EsLIFdaL%7EXzzug__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
28987daa3c73222b47ee2ec0cd3870ce
PDF Text
Text
hj STA
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
TO
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE,
ON
CHRISTIANITY AND THE SABBATH,
BY
HORATIO PRATER, Esq.
“ Religious insincerity—commonly called cant—is one of
our special vices.”—Cox’s Sabbath Laws, $c., p. 214.
Les Maws, qui regnent aussi imperieusement que les lois.”
Montesquieu.
Although faith and hope abide in the human mind, yet
greater than these is charity—and greater far than this favourite
sentiment of the Apostle, is justice.”—E. P. Hurlbut, Coun
sellor at Law, New York, Of Constitutional Limitations, p. 26.
“ Thou shalt not entertain, much less enforce any religious
dogmas, which divide mankind into distinct classes, and create
animosities between them.”—Lewis Gompertz, Esq., Tract,
War Considered.
LONDON:
J. CI.AYTON AND SON, 223, PICCADILLY ; HOLYOAKE AND CO.,
147. fleet street; truelove, 240, strand,
TEMPLE BAR ; FARRER, 21, JOHN STREET,
FITZROY SQUARE.
1856.
�iv
ADVERTISEMENT.
by many first rate authors. I have consequently
endeavoured to show what this change should be,
and thus attempted also the work of reconstruc
tion ; hereby endeavouring to make my book
conservative. T beg the evangelical reader, there
fore, to turn towards the close of Letter IV., to
see what these propositions are, when fatigued or
annoyed, he asks, “ What have you put in its
place ?"
I have referred once or twice to my Historical
Sketches of some of the Roman Emperors, but
this Essay is at present in M.S.; nor is it neces
sary to read the passages referred to in this
M.S. Essay, in order to understand any part of
the present work. They are merely facts or de
tails on which my opinions rest.
In conclusion, I feel that in this publication, I
address only the few; but shall, like the eloquent
Beccaria, consider myself fortunate, if I obtain
even their secret thanks. “ Me fortunato, si potro
ottenere, com’esso(Montesquieu),i segretiringraziamenti degli oscuri et pacifici seguaci della ragione I” (Dei Delitti, Sect If
22, Beaumont Street,
Marylebone, Nov.,
th, 1855.
�TO THE MEMORY
OF
THE
EMPEROR
JULIAN,
THE
LAST OF THE ROMAN EMPERORS,
WHO RESTORED
THE POETICAL AND SO HIGHLY TOLERANT
PAGAN RELIGION :
THIS
WORK
HUMBLY RECOGNIZING THE SUPERIORITY OF THIS
WORSHIP,
—ALL NATURE PERSONIFIED—
BOTH FOR ITS TRUTH AS WELL AS FOR ITS BEAUTY OVER
EVERY OTHER RELIGION THAT HAS EVER
YET
IS
EXISTED,
INSCRIBED.
�il
�ANALYTICAL TABLE OF CONTENTS.
LEITER I.
As English divines and laymen have now for some years
written in favour of the Sabbath being not of divine in
stitution, and as Puritanical Christianity is the estab
lished religion of Great Britain, the American people are
addressed on the subject.
Quotations from Mr. Hurlbut’s work, showing, as he says,
the “ infant state of religious freedom in the cradle of
libertv.”
.
Should a Republic enforce natural religion as the paid re
ligion of the State, or not? answered in the affirmative.
Hunbut on the Sabbath in the United States, with the
author's remarks.—Pages 1 to 16.
LETTER n.
Christianity not a useful creed.—Reasons.—1st.—The great
uncertainty as to its real meaning.
2ndly.—Christianity enslaves the immortal mind ; since
its mode of “ purifying the thoughts,” is on every point to
set up faith before reason.
3rdly.—The scriptures may induce savages to murder inno
cent people, while such positive commands as—u Thou
shalt not suffer a witch to live,” remain in them. Mis
sionary labours of Christians, therefore, deprecated,
particularly among ignorant nations, and Theism com
bined with physical science, preferred as a means of
civilization.
4thly.—~The belief in Christianity, existing as it does in
the United States, under the most favourable circum
stances, is not conducive to human happiness.
�vili
contents.
Sthlv.—Reasons for considering the Rev. Theodore Parker's
liberal view of Unitarianism, not so beneficial to the
world, as mere natural Theism.
fithly.-—The belief of Christianity is at the bottom of the
very strict observance of the' Sabbath in the United
States and Britain. This puritanical view is fraught with
the practical injustice of allowing debtors to escap'e on the
Sabbath—ot preventing the poor man doing that work
on a Sunday, which the fatigue or want of time pre
vents him doing on a week day, and also of avoiding to
take measures to suppress syphilis, which being heredi
tary, causes the innocent to suffer for the guilty. Theism
adopted by Penn. The.injustice to Catholics residing in
Protestant States, to leave no theatre open on Sunday
evenings.—Pages 17 to 34.
LETTER HI.
The good that Christianity, with the greatest show of
reason, may be said to have done in the world.
1st.—Its influence on despotic power, comparison of the
reign of Henry VIII., with that of some of the worst
Roman Emperors, and the good influence of Christianity
in this respect, though acknowledged, considered to be
greatly over-rated.
Its exhorting to “ obey the powers that be,” and forbidding
tyrannicide, has caused it to be supported byTyrants, and
has given such tyrants a sort of justification, when they
themselves were disposed to evil.
2ndly.—The assertion that it has tended to abolish animal
and even human sacrifice ; and to introduce a more hu
mane treatment to captives taken in war.
Quotation from the Middle Ages, showing that Paley has
over-rated the influence of Christianity on this latter
point.
Also in reference to polygamy, and its having “ pro
duced a greater regard to moral obligations.”
Paley’s sophistry when lie attempts to show that Chris
tianity has not added to the intolerance of human nature.
Religious fanaticism more unjustifiable than political fanati
cism, in reference to the first French revolution.
Paley’s observations on a day of rest.
'The certainty with which a future state is advocated bv
Christianity would be an excellent effect were it not
vitiated by promising too great reward to “ faith.”
�CONTENTS.
IX
Its denunciation of war also good, but altogether vitiated
by its reprobating even defensive war.
Commentary on Lord Brougham’s opinions on religious
establishments, and attempted refutation of his view that
these “ secure instruction,” at least while Christianty is
the established religion of a country. Beccaria a freer
writer on religion than Brougham.—Pages 35 to 64.
LEITER IV.
Examination of the question whether the commencement
of the first French revolution was to be ascribed to the
diminution in the belief of Christianity by the influence
of the writings of Voltaire and Rousseau.
Decided by the author in the negative, with a quotation
from Lord Byron to the same effect : the most potent
causes of the outbreak being famine, national bankruptcy,
political tyranny of the bastile, &c., and the return of
a successful revolutionary army from the United States
under Lafayette.
Question, whether the legal suppression of Christianity
after the revolution had fairly begun, was the cause of the
wanton atrocities in question, also answered in the nega
tive. Long quotations from Lord Brougham’s Political
Philosophy in reference to the French Revolution.
The suppression of Christianity does not appear to be con
sidered by him as connected with these atrocities: they
are ascribed to the too democratic form of constitution,
that of ’93 being much more so than that of ’95.
Extracts from Brougham’s life of Carnot, in support of the
position that this defect rendered increased severity and
despotism necessary.
Details from Sir A. Alison’s work, in which, generally
speaking, the same view is taken. His chapter on the
war in the Vendee in parts not favourable to this position,
examined, and refutation attempted.
His previous censure of the slaughter of 40,000 unresisting
inhabitants of Jerusalem by order of Godfrey de Bouillon
(in his own view a pious Christian), totally incompatible
with some passages in the chapter alluded to, and such mur
der more unjustifiable than the slaughter in the Vendee,
since, in this case, the opposition was “most determined."
Evidence that a great number of Republicans were put to
death in cold blood, when at times the Royalists were suc
cessful in the struggle ; that at the very commencement.
�CON I E NTS.
the former tried ineffectually means of conciliation, and
at all events did not resort to the horrors of the “ Bap
tisms, Marriages, &c.,” till, goaded almost to madness
by the approach of foreign armies, extreme severity
seemed absolutely necessary for the safety of the Re
public.
The above atrocities, however, were the sole work of Car
rier, whose “ authority,” Alison admits, “ was un
bounded ” in the Vendee; and he was subsequently
justly guillotined for these crimes, though, I admit, not
till Robespierre’s fall. No evidence, however, to show
that Robespierre would have recommended the putting
of women and children to death by wholesale, or any
cruelty (torture, &c., so prevalent in the Christian mid
dle ages) in the mode of death to men, seeing the guil
lotine was expressly adopted, as apparently the quickest
and easiest mode of execution for the real or supposed
criminal.
Increased humanity commenced in 1795, not because
Christianity was then allowed by law, but because the
constitution also was made less democratic, and because of
the reaction which always takes place in such circum
stances. Humanity, however, only gained full force
when the supreme power of the state became still more
secure, by being placed in the hands of military leaders,
viz., Barras and Napoleon.
Outward forms of any new Theistic church should be simi
lar rather to those of the Catholic than the Protestant,
as suggested by Sir T. More, who, in his Utopia, obvi
ously prefers Theism and Plato to Christianity.
Extracts from the work proving this curious point in re
ference to the distinguished Chancellor under Henry VIII.
A brief outline of some general changes in the laws, which
appear necessary or expedient if a government substitute
Theism for Christianity.
Thus a reply found to the ignorant question—“ TFZmf are
ice to put in its place ?” and, in the author’s opinion, a far
more just and useful code proposed.
Necessity for the use of moral restraint, or other “ checks”
on population, according to the views of Malthus, Mill,
and others, before the condition of the poor can be
greatly ameliorated ; and of some alteration of opinion
generally on the sexual question, before the amount of
female prostitution can be diminished. Christianity has
done no good on this subject, or that of infanticide.
Pages 65 to 119.
�CONTENTS.
xi
NOTES.
-A--—Vindication of Roman toleration even as regards the
Druids. That Hume gives no solid reason why natural
Theism could not be a religion of the state. Religious
toleration probably less at Rome under the Republic'than
under the Empire.
B-—That the imprisonment of Richard Carlile and others
contributed to the freedom of the press rather on poli
tical than on religious matters ; but that Hartley’s Will
case, &c., &c., shows, that government retains still even
a legal power to punish the authors of writings against
Christianity.
” °
C. —Details as to the punishment of death for witchcraft.
D. —Details as to the so-called Reformation. Vast supe
riority of Gibbon in this respect to Luther and Calvin,
yet still does not go far enough. Charles V. and the
Reformation ; bad effect of Christianity on his mind.
Luther’s absurd doctrine of justification by faith, without
works. D’Aubigne’s and Scott’s false views. The true,
vet remarkable confession of the latter, that infidel phi
losophy and not Christianity diminished the number of the
victims of the Inquisition. The Reformation succeeded
because Henry VIII., Albert of Prussia, and others in
power chanced to advocate it; and though it effected
some useful increase of civil liberty, it was no reforma
tion in religion. Sir T. C. Morgan in 1822 justly wrote
the same.
E. —-Remarks on the passages in Suetonius, Tacitus, and
Pliny, in reference to Christianity.
F- State of debtor and creditor, and of lawyers, under the
ancient Roman government.
�il
�LETTERS
TO
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
LETTER I.
ft It is not possible to destroy political servitude while
allowing religious servitude to remain ; the political springs
by necessity from religious slavery. In that place where
the priest may say to an entire people, ‘ Surrender to me
your reason without conditions,’ the Prince, by an infallible
logic, may repeat also, ‘ Surrender to me your liberty with
out control.’ ”—Quinet.
Citizens,—After having read the laborious
and learned work of Robert Cox On Sabbath
Laws and Sabbath Duties, and observed therein
that Dr. Arnold, in 1834, and Archbishop Whately,
so late as 1849, have both given their opinion
*
* Cox, p. 22L It is now a long while (viz., from Sep
tember, 1853,) since Cox’s admirable book has been pub
lished , and I am sorry to say that, although written in
such a spirit of moderation, that the author nowhere directly
puts scripture authority aside, yet scarcely one of our quar
terly or monthly journals has ever mentioned the book ! !
In consequence of this disposition to treat scripture with
respect, Cox has been often forced into those same ambi
guous views, which we see in the scripture itself: and this
B
�2
LETTERS TO
that Sunclav is a holiday, not by divine, but only
by ecclesiastical institution—an opinion amply
confirmed by others as well as by Cox himself—
it is, I think, useless to anticipate for the present
any change in the puritanical mode of keeping
that day in England ; or otherwise the writings
of men of such influence as Arnold and Wbately
would long ago have tended to make it with Eng
lish Protestants what it actually is with German
Protestants (their theatres being open on the Sab
bath), a day of innocent recreation and amuse
ment, as well as of rest.
*
The day, however, reis the great fault of his book. He, like most of us, has
been obliged to sacrifice to “ conventional hypocrisy.”
(p. 390.) Surely, then, if such amiable objections to our
creed are no better received by the press, it is time to
speak out the full truth.
* It is also to be remembered that George Combe’s
Constitution of Man and also the Vestiges of Creation have
now been published many years, and both sold to the ex
tent of many thousand copies, and though Deistical, have
m»t diminished clerical influence among us, or in the
slightest degree altered our gloomy Sunday. Chapman,
AV atson, and Holyoake have also, for many years, sold
thousands of copies of free-thinking books and tracts (still
more confessedly Deistical and revolting to opinion than
the above,) without effecting an acknowledged and open
avowal of Deistical views in even what is worthy to be
called a minority of our population. Thousands, no doubt,
in this country are merely Deists in reality ; but as the
public confession of such views injures their reception in
society, they feel obliged to keep their views private. While
I admit, therefore, that the freedom of the press in these
matters, is now, and has been since the death of Carlile
(a martyr to the cause,) the “glory of England,” I still
see no hopes of o»?/ great practical change in religion
among ourselves. We are. of course, in a “ false position”
on account of our Established Church : so, indeed, I think
are you Americans, even without any national church esta
blishment, solely on account of the public opinion in your
country being too favourable to, at all events, some form of
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
o
O
mains still ■with us a “ heavy day ” as even
Wilberforce, {Evidences of Christianity,) called
it, the Calvinistic moral gloom adding tenfold to
the physical gloom of our London fogs.
Under such circumstances, 1 propose to address
the “pars altera” of the Anglo-Saxon race on
this subject; I mean the American people, who,
having wisely separated Church and State, are
in a better position than ourselves to effect ecclesi
astical reforms. And should they wisely attempt
such, I doubt not that the spirit of rivalry between
the two nations, will soon induce ourselves to
strive to follow their example—at least, indeed, I
should hope such would be the effect.
One of yourselves, my friends, in his Treatise
on the Philosophy of Evil, (Philadelphia, 1845,)
has a section on The Mischief of our Gloomy
Sunday ; and yet, though written so lately, has
produced no change in your Sabbath. Indeed,
Lyman Coleman publishes years afterwards, (in
1852,) in the same city of Philadelphia, his
Ancient Christianity, and says, “ The whole
English race, wherever found, alone have a SabChristianity. But the difference between us is, that it
seems far easier for you to effect reforms in this matter
than it is for us.
In vain again did the Edinburgh Preview, for 1850, say
that free discussion on religion “ is discountenanced on all
sides, and branded with reproachful names.” It is the
same still; though it is some years since a journal of swcA
great influence wrote as above! In 1852 the Sabbath
Alliance boasted of our superiority over other countries, on
account of the ‘ freedom with order,” attributing this
chiefly to our Puritanical observance of the Sabbath. But
The Edinburgh states what is still a fact. I deny our
“ freedom” in reality. It also appears, that a reprehensible
pride, (viz., to be different from the continental people,
whether they be right or wrong,) is concerned in this strict
Sabbath observance.
�4
LETTERS TO
bath, a Christian Sabbath, holy unto the Lord.
With all else, throughout Christendom, the Sab
bath is a holy day, a festival.” (Quoted in Cox,
p. 536.)
Coleman rightly gives the Puritans “ the im
mortal honour,” as he calls it, of introducing this
austerity into the “States,” -which, no doubt, is
their due ; for Cox shows that even Knox and
Calvin could only have indirectly influenced the
custom. Of course Luther was too wise (though
not a liberal-minded man in reality) ever to have
given sanction to such a movement, and seems in
stinctively to have adopted Burke’s wise maxim,
viz., “That lawful enjoyment is the surest way to
prevent unlawful gratification.” (Cox, p. 448.)
Accordingly, as already observed, the Lutheran
Protestants have at this day their places of amuse
ment open on Sunday evenings: by which means
no doubt, in accordance with Burke’s maxim, they
prevent much of the drunkenness that vitiates a
little the sanctity of our English and American
Sabbath. Poor hard-worked wretches ! what re
mains for them on a Sunday evening in a dense
London fog, but to dissipate the vast moral and
physical gloom by a little gin or more beer; and
no wonder in such circumstances, after once feel
ing the exhiliration, if they almost instinctively
take too much and retire to the new world of sleep
wholly or partially intoxicated ; and, of course, in
either case with more or less injury to their health.
Hence it is, all in accordance with this view,
that Cox has wisely put the following in succession
in his Table of Contents (p. xviii.) “Knowledge
of Human Nature needs to be diffused. Causes
of the comparative sobriety of lhe French. Im
portance of recreation as a means of demolishing
intemperance. Gloomy religious views foster this
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
5
vice. Religious Insanity. Drunkenness can be
cured only in accordance with the maxim : Sublatd causa, tollitur effectus”
In the work itself the reader will find these
points fully elucidated, and will, I think, come to
the conclusion that “ Temperance Societies ” are
perfectly or nearly useless, while our “heavy
Sunday” is suffered to remain.
Drunkenness and illicit intercourse of the sexes,
and increased tendency to suicide and madness,
are the bad effects of Calvinistic austerity, and
perhaps the only shadow of any good in its favour
is, its supposed tendency to increase respect for
rational religion.
But while I acknowledge any institution that
has this effect is useful, I maintain that the auste
rity in question overshoots the mark, and more
often produces mere national hypocrisy, or abso
lute disgust, than additional respect for religious
worship. It may, to a certain extent, increase the
outward respect of religion in all classes, but this
is almost always purchased at the too dear price of
increased aversion to practice the moral duties of
life. It actually becomes a sort of substitute for
the same, as the Hon. W. Pitt says in his Letter
on Superstition “by setting up something as
*
religion which shall atone and commute for the
want of virtue.” It renders hypocrisy in fact
fashionable—no more. It affects the life, not the
heart; and certainly has a tendency to produce
that most odious spectacle—a nation of sanctified
cheats. And. for my own part, I cannot help re
garding the man who cheats you under the mask
of religion as a far greater villain than he who
* Holyoake, 147, Fleet Street. An unanswerable pro
duction, and worthy the man who favoured the liberalminded Frederick the Great.
�6
LETTERS TO
discards religion before he plunders his prey ; since
in the former case he is truly “ taking God’s name
in vain ” in the strictest sense, and then adds one
sin to another.
As in England we have a national religion,
there is with us, my friends, perhaps more excuse
than with you for upholding our Puritanical Sab
bath. Our very sovereign cannot turn Catholic
without acting illegally and risking her throne;
and our saints would be sure to construe any re
laxation of Sabbatarian discipline on her part,
into a secret leaning towards Catholicism. With
probably, therefore, the most liberal tendency in
this respect, Her Majesty feels herself compelled
to wear the gilded fetter in order to prevent any
thing like civil commotion.
*
And as in Monar
chies, the Sovereign is naturally enough, “ the
fountain of honour,” few of consideration in the
country feel inclined to do that which the Sove
reign forbids herself to do. Our aristocracy, too,
here, cling to religion as to the firmest support of
the State; and while reluctantly yielding to the
Corn Law Bill, they still refuse Jewish Emanci
pation ; as if even the slightest alteration in the
Constitution, as regards religion, were a change
more to be deprecated than one which—as the
Corn Law Bill—more decidedly affected their
material interests. This prejudice extends—in a
feebler degree certainly—to the Commons, and
* We must also not forget that it was, in great part, for
attempting to do the very same thing, viz., promote rational
recreation for the Sunday, that Charles I. was beheaded.
Therefore, in Britain, any Sovereign who even indirectly
appeared to aid in such a change would, by the masses,
who seldom reason justly on nice moral points, be consi
dered as wishing to restore Despotism. Yet, in reality,
such Sovereign would be acting just the contrary now.
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
throughout the country generally ; and as a proof
of it, I may state that playing on the piano, or at
chess or draughts, on a Sunday is almost as much
in general abhorrence, in strict Protestant families,
as going to the theatre or a ball on the same day.
Now this shows the great influence of mere opinion
on the subject, (see Sir Robert Peel’s speech, 1835
—quoted in Cox, p. 348,) as there is no actual
law to prevent such amusements in private. The
suppression of Sunday trains for passengers be
tween Edinburgh and Glasgow (which caused
Cox's book to be written) was also effected by the
influence of opinion only, (the law itself rather in
clining the opposite way,) which opinion has been
formed chiefly by the constant repetition in our
churches of the Jewish inscription: “Remember
thou keep holy the Sabbath day.” Yet Sunday is
not the Sabbath day ! /
*
Although in this latter respect, you Protestants
of the States are probably in the same predicament
as ourselves, this is not the case as regards your
temporary Sovereign or President. He, at least,
is free from all religious shackle; and can conse
quently exert little or no influence in that respect
on American society generally. He may be a
Catholic, he may be a Jew, Unitarian, or even
disguised Theist ;f and you wisely enough cou* Cox shows this clearly enough; yet half our popula
tion, not daring to think for themselves on religious matters
conceive they really keep the Sabbath day. But the day
has been changed from Saturday to Sunday, without God's
command or permission. Now this in mortals, is as bad as
blasphemy. The Jews are much wiser on this point; they
distinguish labour from amusement, and allow music, but
do not permit even Jewish servants to work.
f Such were the illustrious Washington and Jefferson ;
and I use the word ‘-disguised” advisedly, as we shall see
�8
LETTERS TO
side? him none the worse for that, or incapable,
from such circumstance, of holding the first office
in the State. In this, I must acknowledge, you
are far before us ; as also in many of the men you
send out as Ministers, being professed Unitarians,
and sometimes even professed Theists or Pantheists.
Show, then, I beseech you, that you are nationally
above any illiberal prejudices of being thought too
Catholic in your tastes, on a point in which reli
gion is, in reality, not at all concerned ; I mean
the opening places of amusement and recreation
for the people on the Sabbath.
The real reason why these are closed among
you, is doubtless the same which has caused them
to be closed among us ; I mean a desire to “ keep
holy the Sabbath day but I have already briefly
stated that this reason is untenable, and must refer
you to Cox’s large work itself for more ample
details and quotations on both sides of the
question.
But as man is the slave of habit and prejudice
much cftener than of reason, it seems not impos
sible that with many of you, even Cox’s arguments
may be considered inadequate ; and if you ask me
why, allow me say, that the real cause at the bot
tom of this will be, that Christianity has gained an
undue and actually unjust ascendency over pure
natural Religion, or Deism, in your Republic.
This has been the invariable tendency of Christianity
whenever it has been in competition with other
religions; alike at its origin with the graceful
mythology of the ancients —under the Roman em*
hereafter, that religion is not perfectly free even in the
United States.
* All other religions, were content with the toleration—
far superior to our own Protestant so-called toleration—of
the state religion of Rome ; and naturally enough; for
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
9
perors, as under your Republic. It is in vain,
therefore, that your constitution says, all religions
are equal in the eye of the law, for all revealed
religions are necessarily intolerant, and will never
be contented with what they ought to be, viz ,
just equality. I shall proceed to elucidate this
proposition by extracts from Human Rights and
their Political Guarantees by your countryman.
*
Mr. Counsellor Hurlbut; and I shall then fol
low up this Letter by an examination of the utility
of Christianity to Government, for the belief in
this opinion I doubt not is also at the bottom of
your great external respect for that religion, and
consequently concerned in keeping up your gloomy
Sunday.
“ The constitution of North Carolina,” savs
Mr. Hurlbut, “was amended in 1836, the word
Christian being substituted for the word Pro
testant, in the following sentence : — “ No person
who shall deny the truth of the Protestant Reli
gion, shall be capable of holding any office, or
place of trust, or profit, in the civil department of
the state.' It is also stated in the same, that—
‘ All men have a natural and unalienable right to
worship Almighty God according to the dictates of
their conscience.’ — Thus,” says Mr. H., “ they
may worship and the state will not interrupt them ;
but it will inquire as to the divinity they adore—
and if it be not the constitutional Jehovah, the
they had their niches in the Pantheon, and seemed placed
on actual equality with the heathen gods themselves. But
Christianity was not content until it could dethrone, so to
speak, those who were so liberal. Surely here was yusi
reason for persecuting it, especially since it was itself a dan
gerous fiction.
* With notes by George Combe.—Edinburgh, 1847
Maclachlan.
B 2
�10
LETTERS TO
unlawful worshippers will be excluded from civil
offices. They may, however, hold military offices—
the state being content to have heathens bleed in
its defence,” (Of Constitutional Limitations,
p. 21.)
In Massachusetts again, the government has
the power to require, “ Protestant teachers of
piety to be supported by the parishes, when provi
sion shall not be made for them voluntarily.”
Every Christian sect is to be equally protected by
the laws.
“ This portrays," fcontinues Mr. H., justly,)
i( the infant state of religious freedom in the cradle
of liberty)’—to wit—“ A species of religious es
tablishment and its compulsory support." Mr. H.
rightly says “ a species,” for equally, as in North
Carolina, some form of Christianity is obligatory,
or the penalty of what is really persecution by law,
as well as by opinion, must be borne.
It is consolatory to observe by an amendment
adopted in 1820, that the chief officers of
state are now not required to declare that they be
lieve in Christianity : but the above regulations
*
remain unchanged.
In New York too, “ the legislature may interfere
with the rights of opinion—and the courts in the
administration of the common law, may punish a
man for speaking against the prevailing religion
(/. e. Christianity) of the country ! !” {Ibid. 27.)
“ But if,” continues Mr. H., “ law take into
* The revised constitution for New York for 1846, pro
vides, “ that no person shall be rendered incompetent to
be a witness on account of his religious belief.” (Combe,
note, p. 81.) Thus perfect religious liberty is slowly but
happily progressing, though Combe does not know if the
above has passed the legislature. See also further on for confir
mation of this reflection in reference to the State of New York
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
11
favour the religion of the majority, it tyrannizes
over the minority ; ifit establishes the religion of the
Christian, it offends the Infidel, the Jew, and the
Heathen.’’ As the majority make the laws, it was
to be expected that one like that of New York,
would sooner or later be made ; but while it exists,
let our worthy American friends confess, that reli
gious liberty or equality is a mere hypocritical
farce among them. The punishment by opinion
was constitutional and not actually unjust in such
cases ; but when the majority go further and make
actual law on the subject, they then clearly become
tyrannical, and if they do not violate the constitu
tion, they certainly violate the laws of eternal and
immutable justice.
Mr. Hurlbut mentions the statute of the State
of New York on common school education, enacted
only in 1844, in which we find, that if “books
containing sectarian doctrine of any particular
Christian or other religious sect are used in such
schools, these shall not be entitled to monies from
the school fund of the State ; yet it continues,
“ nothing herein contained shall authorize th^
exclusion of the Holy Scriptures icitliout note or
comment ! !”* (p. 28.) Mr. H., says, “ 1 do not
perceive how the legislature obtained any idea as
to what Scriptures are holy and what are not—
* All this shows (even in its disguise), the inherent in
tolerance of Christianity, which induced Justinian to put
dowii even the venerable schools of Athens: ‘'That,” says
Gibbon, “ which even Gothic arms did not do, was done bv
a religion, whose ministry superseded the exercise of reason,
resolved every question by an article of faith, and con
demned the sceptic to eternal fames!" (Chap. 40, Justinian.)
Paganism was in some degree compensated for its utter
downfall through the influence of Christianity, by Gibbon s
statement, “ That its introduction, or, at least, abuse, had
some influence on the fall of the Roman Empire.” * * *
�12
LETTERS TO
•what are with, and what are without note and
comment.”
“It would seem that we need further constitu
tional provisions, such as will render it impossible
for the religionist of any sect whatever to obtain
the least legal recognition, the adoption of his
sacred books, or any other favour from the state.
Until the State takes the position of perfect indif
ference and impartiality, the rights of conscience
will not be secure, and that religious freedom so
much boasted of in America will rest upon an in
secure foundation.”
“ While several of the States punish blasphemy,
declaring Sunday to be holy time, require officers
to believe in the Christian religion, the clergy who
teach all these things are disfranchised.” (In New
York, for instance,, they can hold no civil office
or place within the state.”)
“ Democracy,” he adds, “ cuts an awkward
figure in coquetting with religion. It had better
assume at once an air of perfect indifference.”
“ But, it is inquired,” says he, “ can a State
exist which recognises no religion ? I answer that
it can as well as if it do not recognise music.”
(p. 28.)
I may observe in reference to this point, that if
we leave the mind perfectly free, as believing or
not in a future state of rewards and punishments,
we ought to increase the severity of the laws, and
also, as Beccariat suggested, establish institutions
for rewarding virtue. In a republic some form of
“ Under it,” says he, “the Roman world was oppressed by
a aeit’ species of tyranny.” Yet, with philosophic impartiality
he admits further on, that it tended to diminish the ferocious
barbarity of the barbarians who conquered Home. (Chap.
38—end.)
* Dei Dclitti xli.—Come si prevengono i delitti.
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
13
religion (pure Theism better than any) seems al
most necessary, and has existed in all ancient
republics. Athens had too much superstition and per
secuted those of true religion, viz., the philosophers,
including Socrates. Venice too was a very reli
gious republic ; so at present is Switzerland. They
all seem to err, not in having respect for religion
itself—blit in having had, and still having respect
for an intolerant and false religion. The Religion
of Nature is clearly the only true religion ; and as
it existed before Christianity, so it will exist
after it.
I observe Mr. Combe, in his note on religious
education, ftp. Cit., p. 83), asks:—“ Would not
Mr. Hurlbut’s views tend to convert schools into
seminaries of Calvinism, Catholicism, and So
cialism, &c., according to the opinions of the ma
jority, and so to rear sects filled with inveterate
hostility to each other? The government may
legitimately and beneficially aid, and sometimes
enforce, the active obedience of its subjects to the
natural laws. * * * ‘ Man has no right to be dirty or
grossly ignorant (because by being so, he justly
injures or offends those near him) and, if so, has no
right to relief from the parish. He ought to be
forced to change.’ * * * If we suppose a government
to possess a code of really pure morality and reli
gion, clearly expressed and practically elucidated,
would not a people be in better condition at the
end of two centuries of teaching of this code by
force of law, than that in which they would be
found after the same period of sectarian teaching,
such as they would receive if left to the uncon
trolled guidance of their clergy. After instancing
Prussia, (which though the best practical example,
is not to his point as being exclusively Christian),
he adds :—“ If government be supposed in the
�u
LETTERS TO
right, is not the practice of right always be
neficial ?”
I am inclined to believe these views of Combe
to be just: they were those of two sincere Repub
licans living in different ages, Plato and Rousseau,
on this subject: they thought that Republicanism
might with justice try and enslave the mind’to
virtue, by compelling sound religious belief, if it
left the laws otherwise free. We have only to look
at the United States now (the best educated
country in the world)—we have onlv, I say, to
reflect on her Quakers, Shakers, Rappites, Mor
mans, and Spirit Rappers, and we may rationally
enough come to the conclusion, that the multitude
ought not to be left perfectly free as regards their
religious belief; since the state of that country
shows clearly enough, that a man’s religion de
pends far less on his reason, than on his hopes and
fears and prejudices, and the opinion of the
country : so that, in truth, he is enslaved on the
subject, when appearing to be left free. The false
opinions on this subject to which he is thus forced,
increase the natural intolerance of human nature,
as no man can possibly be a sincere believer in
Christianity, and not feel more or less horror or
detestation of all “Jews, Turks, and Infidels.’’ If
any Republic would make natural religion the re
ligion of the State, and enforce payment to this,
it would be nothing else than diminishing the
temptation to adopt any other of the revealed re
ligions, (always necessarily intolerant), and con
sequently would be indirectly diminishing the
strong temptation to injustice which naturally
exists in human nature.
“ As regards the observance of a day of rest,”
says Mr. H., “ the State has an undoubted authority
to abstain from all action on such a day ; but it
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
15
cannot rightfully compel any manto keep Sunday
as a religious institution ; nor can it require him
to cease from labour or recreation on that day,
since it cannot be shown that the ordinary exercise
of the human faculties on that day is in aDy way
an infringement on the rights of mankind.”
(p. 28.)
Combe, (in his Note F., p. 83,) says—“ In the
recent discussions in Scotland, the Sabbatarian
party has strongly overlooked the right of those
who take a different view of the matter from theirs,
to act upon that view if they please.’’
But supposing they do “ act upon it,” they are
still punished, as I conceive unjustly, though by
opinion onlv, as such opinion is founded on a
falsehood,—by which the multitude is in many cases
led involuntarily,—I mean that the scriptures are
the word of God, and that they inculcate the pu
ritanical observance of Sunday, as a positive duty.
I believe with Mr. H., that the State cannot
rightfully compel any man to keep Sunday in this
way. But unjust as punishment by opinion only
is in such cases, government has still increased
the injustice in England, and the States by making
actual law on the subject, and compelling all
public places of amusement to be closed on a
Sunday evening.
Hurlbut very justly says, “ there is in this
country, viz , the States, a species of religious
establishment, notwithstanding the constitu
tional provisions, for the free exercise of religious
belief’' (p. 26.)
Now I would beg to enquire whether such a
state of things may not be called actually illegal ?
Legal or illegal—this hermaphrodite condition in
reference to religion—fostering as it does through
the whole population a state of hypocrisy—which
�1G
LETTERS TO
is necessarily carried in a greater or less degree
into all the affairs of life, and is continually
prompting to actual lying, and consequently to
dishonesty, is very disgusting to a candid and
honourable mind; and must be inwardly so to
many of yourselves, American citizens.
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
17
LETTER II.
Citizens,—I shall begin this letter by some con
siderations as to the utility of Christianity to go
vernment, being convinced it is the belief in its
supposed utility, far more than in the actual truth
of the religion, that causes it to remain still so
much respected even by some enlightened statesmen.
When I find such men as Frederick the Great
of Prussia, your late President, the illustrious
Jefferson, and I may, perhaps, add the late Lord
Chesterfield, holding such opinions as regards its
utility, I approach this topic with respect, but still
with the firm conviction'that these distinguished
men were mistaken.
1st.—In the first place, an irremediable fault in
it is, the great uncertainty as to uliat it really
teaches; for by its endless contradictions, the
mind feels greater difficulty in seizing its real
tenets than those of mere natural religion for these
are written by nature herself in the consciences of
all mankind.
Hence it is, “that religious wars among Chris
tians, and deaths from the inquisition, have cost
the lives of 67,000,000 human beings
whereas
“ the variety of religions and gods in the heathen
world neither produced wars, nor dissentions
among the different nations.”*
I admit, that by a wise separation of church
and state, you have prevented in a great measure
* Mosheim’s Ecclesiastical History quoted in Trevelyan’s
pamphlet, (p. 6.,) on the Insanity of Mankind. (Bailliere.)
�18
LETTERS TO
religious wars; but you have not been able to
effect impossibilities, and to eradicate the inherent
intolerant spirit from the Christian creed, as Mr.
Hurlbut’s remarks just quoted show. You only
suffer from this, less than other nations. The flame
of opinion, increased by the hopes and fears of the
Christian s death, obliges the “ pious’’ among vou
to persecute socially
In consequence of preaching the eternity of
punishments, Christianity teaches intolerance more
clearly perhaps, than any other tenet; and yet
leaving its meaning, as to the trinity or unitv,
election, justification by faith, real presence, &c.,
&c., debateable points, itself tends to foster end
less disputes between Catholics, Protestants, and
Unitarians. We have just seen what slaughter'
it has caused in the world, and much undoubtedly
remains for unborn ayes, who will have to go
through the same phases before they arrive at the
same civilisation, and consequently indifference
on the subject. In this respect, so "far from sur
passing the Romans, we are only now gradually
coming near them in real civilisation. Let it,
however, be remembered, that there is even now
only one nation of any strength in the world—
(viz., your own), where all actual persecution by
law is difficult, and you will be convinced how
much misery is yet in store for mankind from such
uncertainty as to the meaning of this supposed
revelation. A Republic, with Church and State
separate, is the only means of completely taking
away the power of persecution from Christianity by
law,—I wish I could say also by opinion. To the end
of the Chapter there will likewise be Catholic Mis
sionaries, as well as Protestant, anxious from the
mere spirit of selfishness to secure, as they conceive
their own salvation, by interfering with other
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
19
people’s business, or, in fact, trying to make con
verts among savage tribes. In consequence among
these real converts and believers, there will always
be war and discord; for the odium theoloyicum
(among Christian Sects) cannot die, though it
may sleep for a time.
2ndly.—Christianity tends to enslave the immortal
mind, bv assuming, as it does, a power over the
thoughts, (since even “ looking on a woman to lust
after her,” is absurdly enough put down in this
creed, as the same as actually committing adultery,
whereas it is clear that though a man “ lust after
a woman,” yet still, by considerations of duty, he
might be prevented from desiring carnal knowledge
of her.) Thus, I say, under the profound cant of
purifying the mind, and censuring what none can
prevent, (for who can prevent mere desire for the
opposite sex ?) Christianity fosters the worst form
of slavery—that of the mind. We see this fea
ture in taking other aspects of it, for it everywhere
puts faith before reason; and consistently fol
lowed, would lead all again to become ignorant
monks.
That it also sanctions bodily slavery is clear
enough ; and it is only by an advance in civilisa
tion that the feeling against slavery has increased
of late years, for it existed for centuries after the
introduction of Christianity, and no one dreamt
that it was censured by this faith. Indeed, how
can it be, for the faith itself makes some of the
greatest virtues to consist in a base humility I
Slavery is the essence of all real Christianity.
But on earth we have only a mock and spurious—
because really impracticable scheme. If born in
Heaven, it should have kept there, for it never has
been, and never can be acted on by tlie inhabitants
�20
LETTERS TO
of earth. And the attempt to keep up even the
appearance of being Christian, has been the secret
cause of all the cant which so eminently distin
guishes the Anglo-Saxon race ; since it tends to
make all of us found our opinions of real virtue
on the false standard contained in this system.
Consequently, no man among us is what he really
seems, or wishes to seem, for we are naturally
under the circumstances, anxious to have the merit
of “piety and chastity,” (I wish I could add
“ poverty’' and thus complete the Christian vow,)
that scarcely any of us merit.
All this it is that has produced such a difference
in our literature from that of the Greeks and
Bomans. These men spoke out on all subjects,
especially those relating to the intercourse of the
sexes, and show mankind as it really is; while to
read our literature one would go away with the
false idea that we were the most moral and modest
of people. But, as Voltaire says, this sort of
modesty often extends no farther than our lips. It
is really a pleasure to read the works of this
writer, Bavle, Rousseau, Gibbon, or Hume, in
comparison with the works of our very Christian
historians or philosophers—for it is like reading the
ancients instead of the moderns.
Christianity,
you will say, has therefore elevated our literature ;
I rather think it has debased it by a perfectly un
natural spirit of cant. Hume himself justly savs,
hinting perhaps also to this point. “ In general
there is more candour in ancient historians.
Our
speculative factions, especially those of religion,
throw such an illusion over our minds, that men
seem to regard impartiality to their adversaries and
t.o heretics, as a vice or weakness.” A man so lost
to all sense of natural religion as to regard “ impar-
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
21
tialitv as a weakness,” is a perfect disgrace to any
free government.
*
I have censured the Anglo-Saxon race more
particularly on this point, because somehow or
another, abroad, Protestant, or Boman Catholic
writers (especially the French) do not carry pru
dery so far. We may witness this in our English
translations. Some time ago I bought two—one
of Faust, and one of Herodotus,—and it was not
until I had read the preface that I perceived that
many passages in each had been omitted, as im
proper for English translation. Now as this was
not stated on the title page, it became something
* Essays, Vol. I., note EE., page 552. The probable
reason of this difference is, that we wish to be thought
more eminently Christian than the other church sects do ;
so we are striving after Christian appearances. Hence our
proverbial cant. Cox has some good observations which
will apply, though indirectly, to this point, and show how
it is that there is more of this religious pretension (cant)
among Protestants than among Catholics, for such I think
is the case.
“ There is no essential difference betwen a
claim of infallibility honestly expressed in words, and a
tacit assumption of infallibility, by our conduct towards
those who differing from us, commit precisely the offence
and no more, which we commit in differing from them.
That we may really be the Protestants we call ourselves, it is
not enough to abuse the Pope, and assert against him the
right of private judgement in religion, we must acknowledge
and respect in all others (whether Jews, Roman Catholics,
Deists, or even Atheists) the rights which in our own case we
hold so precious.” (Op- Cit., p. 376.) The fact is, our En
glish Protestantism is only a sort of half toleration, so that a
man who only goes as far as Unitarianism, is held—by Protes
tants too—not to be a Christian, and of course to be a
Deist is to expose oneself to o/>en persecution. Now the
Pope, admitting no dissent prevents all this cant which
among Protestants flourishes because Protestantism is now
our state religion, and because full toleration is not in
reality allowed by public opinion or even by law.
�22
LETTERS TO
more than a mere
pious fraud/’ and with all the
sanctity of religion, amounted to actual dishonesty.
That the same spirit of prudery animates Christi
anity on the other side of the Atlantic is clear
from various facts, and though it mavuotbe true that
the legs of pianos are not allowed to be seen, still
I find it stated only in to-day’s paper, that adver
tisements occur in which shirt and chemise are
called men’s and women’s “ under vests.” There
is little harm in all this certainly, and only as far
as it seems to lead to actual falsehood and dishonestv, as mentioned at the end of Letter I., is it
reprehensible. But I cannot help thinking that
the tendency of a really impracticable code which
necessarily leads to dishonesty in words, is to pro
duce the same in acts. For it is in vain I look all
through the New Testament for that constant ex
hortation to fair-dealing in business and the common
affairs of life, which is so admirably insisted on in
Plato’s last and greatest work on government, viz.,
his Laics. “ The foundation of virtue,” justice,as
Mr. Hurlbut well insinuates, is completely forgot
ten in the constant exhortation to an unreasonable,
and if I may so speak, often unjust “ charity.”*
* The philosopher will also remark, that after asserting
that “ looking on a woman to lust after her,” is committing
adultery with her, we find that Christ dismissed a woman
actually taken in adultery without punishment or even sta
ting that she deserved any ! A specimen this of “ uncertainty
of meaning.” There is also no scale of punishment, but
sins of the most unequal magnitude are all grouped toge
ther as if of equal magnitude. Witness, for instance, the
expression, “ Whoremongers and adulterers God will
judge,” and another where “ fornication and unnatural
lust” are put on the very same category. Cox says, “ for
nication, in the abstract, was not forbidden to the Jews,”
and quotes Bishop Horsley, who says, “ In the heathen
world it was never thought a crime, except it was accom
panied by injury to a virgin's honour, or the violation of
�THE AMERICAN PEUPLE.
23
3rdly.—By the progress of the arts and sciences
among us, we have gradually come to make the
science, as taught in scripture, totally untenable.
Galileo long ago suffered for that absurd passage
which makes the sun turn round the earth ; and at
the present day, Dr. Buckland among ourselves
was persecuted by opinion, because he attempted
to show that geology is totally at variance with the
recent formation of the earth, as asserted in Scrip
ture.
Other absurdities in respect to science still, how
ever, remain almost unnoticed; such, for instance,
as, “ Thou slialt not suffer a witch to live.” But
as modern science has shown that “ animal ma?netism” is for the most part an absurdity, so it will
reasonably declare the same of witchcraft. Yet
the numbers who have been put to death all over
Europe for this purely imaginary crime, are almost
inconceivable
Now, I would beg to ask, what is to prevent the
same murder again, when our missionaries have
introduced the Scriptures among savages ? Many
of these “ religious” men still believe in this in
fernal art, notwithstanding its absurdity ; and even
the marriage bed.” Horsley praises the Christian religion
for making it a breach of natural morality. (Cox, p. 515.)
But Christianity has no practical effect in diminishing it,
(witness our London streets at night,) and even now the
vast proportion of men of sense secretly (at all events) con
sider this “ heathen” view the only rational one on the
subject. I do not by these remarks attempt to justify even
mere fornication, but what I say is, that with the present sys
tem of society it is a necessity as the world itself shows.
Under such circumstances, when our Litany couples it with
all other “ deadly sin," we at once see the lamentable reign
of Anglo-Saxon cant. If the woman is well provided for, it
is often, even now, no sin at all, especially when married
parties cannot agree well enough to live together, and being
Catholics, cannot marry again.
�21
LETTERS TO
suppose none of them did, savages are sure to do
so long after the introduction of the Scriptures.
And there in the holy book is the command of
death to all witches. The consequence is clear,
viz., that as the intensity of faith is always greater
at first, and particularly among barbarous, ignorant
nations, the mischief of introducing Scriptures
containing such commands among such a people
*
is obvious.
* One of the most frequent vices among savages, and
even among civilised nations, is dishonesty or fraud. But
that religion which says, “ Let not your right hand know
what your left doeth,” and also exhorts us to be “ mild as
doves, and cunning as serpents,” is surely not the school for
teaching fair dealing.
Again, Paley says it does not forbid war. But if it did
certainly do so, it would, in this respect, be a benefactor to
mankind. But here, as elsewhere, its ambiguity is a con
stant curse to its beneficial effects.
Instead of having
“ brought life and immortality to light,” it has enveloped
them in double darkness when its whole narration is con
sidered.
There is no doubt that the best religion that can be
preached to savages is Theism, and at the same time such a
degree of physical science as shall prevent that fear of su
pernatural agency which has been a principal cause of human
sacrifices, and other abominable religious rites. The nature
of thunder and lightning should be most especially explained
to them in reference to diminishing all fear of this being
sent to punish sin by an offended God.
This seems a far better way of creating an opinion in a
savage country against human sacrifices than by preaching
Christianity. Such opinion will eventually cause a law to
be made against such abominations ; and it is in reality law
that puts down such enormities with the great majority,
for religion acts on the consciences of the few, its rewards
and punishments being so remote.
I may take this opportunity to state that I have recom
mended physical science to be taught to savages at the same
time with Theism, chiefly in consequence of the many
proofs of superstition found in the otherwise pure system
of religion enounced by Plato in his Republic and Laws.
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
25
4tbly.—As to the question, whether or not the
belief in Christianity is conducive to human hap
piness (always supposing the power of any great
degree of persecution is as effectually suppressed
as it is by the constitution of the United States.)
there may be difference of opinion. The ground
for supporting such opinion will principally be
that the Christian faith teaches the certainty of a
future life, in which we shall be sure to meet our
departed relatives and friends again. But against
this good point, we may place the following, which
will make us decide that the belief in Christianity
(even under such a favourable government, for its
most beneficial operation as the “ States,”) is not
desirable for human happiness.
This opinion is grounded on the fact, that it is
impossible, on account of the uncertainty of its
doctrines as above stated, to separate only the
good from the bad, that it seems to teach—the
sins or faults, as some people saj», of its professors,
from the “ pure doctrine” itself.
Thus, for instance, we find that even in the
States what may be called the most rational and
purest forms of the creed (viz., Unitarianism and
In this latter work, for instance, (p. 351, Traduction de
Grou, 1851,) Plato recommends that whoever is well
skilled in Divination, &c., &c., and would use such arts to
hurt any one should be put to death ! Had Plato studied
physical science more, he would have seen the fallacy of
“ the occult sciences,” and consequently never would have
made such a barbarous law. The fault was however in the
age in which he lived, for Plato knew as much as most men
on such points. Neither should the Theism preached to
savage tribes inculcate more than remotely G-od’s provi
dence, and that virtue and vice are to be punished hereafter,
and not now, and also in another world ; for it was from
teaching God’s constant interference in human affairs, that
the barbarous “ trial by combat” of the middle ages arose.
c
�26
letters to
Universalism) are still very unfashionable, to say
the least; so that, strangely enough, opinion
punishes the sects much in proportion as they
attempt to set reason above “ faith,” and that too
in the most educated country in the world ! You
need only read Theodore Parker’s sermon, Some
Account of my Ministry, to be convinced of the
*
great social persecution he has had to undergo,
for attempting to proceed a few steps further than
common Unitarianism, though be still upholds his
creed as Christian. His sect is still much smaller
than that of Unitarians in general, because it (is
still more reasonable ; but (I use the expression
with great respect) he dare not openly advocate
pure Deism, or he would probably have no congre
gation at all.
The Trinitarians then, and that abominable
form of them the Calvinistic, constitute the decided
majority of Christians in the States. Thus the
doctrine that “ sins committed against an infinite
Being deserve infinite punishment,” is uppermost
there—a doctrine which, as Mrs. Barbauld justly
says, “ no persons can have often in their thoughts
and be cheerful.”!
The celebrated Pinel said, “ Nothing is more
common in hospitals than madness, produced by
* Theism, &c., &c. pp. 256-278. (Chapman, London.
1853.)
f Cox, p. 230-2. He rightly adds : “ Such views intro
duce a standard of moral feeling, totally different from
those ideas of praise or blame, upon which we do, and must
act, in our commerce with our fellow-creatures.” (p. 232.)
It is by such ideas, that men have come to the belief that
sins against God deserve greater human punishment than
those committed against their fellow-creatures—a most
monstrous doctrine. It were far better to be of no religion
at all, than believe in such a creed.
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
27
too exalted devotion, or by religious terrors.”*
The truth of these remarks is fully borne out by
the madness produced by Calvinism some years
back, which appeared under the guise of the “ un
known tongues
and latterly in the “ States” the
journals assert that a species of frenzy, often ac
companied by suicide, has arisen from too vivid a
belief in revealed, religion, and supposed “ spirit
rappings,” as if the old fallacious belief, taught
by Christ himself, and which contributed much to
the spread of Christianity, that the destruction of
the world was at hand ! was reviving on the other
side the Atlantic.
I say, as it is impossible to separate the idea of
“ eternity of punishments, the existence of a
devil, and that Jesus should before long come
back in the clouds of Heaven,” from the belief of
Christianity itself, that the idea that this religion
gives, and will always continue to give, to a great
proportion of those who believe in it of a future
state, is not, on the whole, conducive to human
happiness.
Theodore Parker, from whom the above quota
tion is taken, says, “ I do not accept such belief
on the authority of Jesus ; yet I am ready to be
lieve lie taught it'’\ If, then, Parker was obliged
to believe (no doubt contrary to his own wish) that
Christ taught the above doctrines, of course those
who almost wholly put aside reason, when they
take up scripture, cannot for a moment doubt that
such is really scriptural doctrine; and “a very
comfortable creed,” (as Lord Byron says,) this
indeed for our missionaries to teach savages. The
belief of a future state, as taught by the ancients,!
* Cox, p. 418.
t Op. Cit., p. 264.
j I observe that Sir C. Lyell (2nd Visit to the United
�LETTERS TO
has something far less repulsive about it than that
of our Orthodox Christian, as the reading of the
6th book of Virgil’s JEneid will show. Yet the
species of “purgatory” therein described was a
real and equally effectual punishment for sin ; and
gives a far more favourable idea of the justice,
as well as the mercy, of God.
5thlv.—But, it may be asked, is not Theodore
Parker’s very liberal form of Unitarianism—re
jecting as lie does the belief in miracles, eternity
of punishments, and even the Divinity of Christ
to a further extent (if I may so express myself)
than Unitarians generally —better than rejecting
*
it in toto, and confessing at once to a belief in
Deism only ? I think it is not; and for the following reasons. Because it is tending to keep up
that hypocritical spirit in the States to which I
have before alluded, as disposing to lead to actual
States) says, speaking of “the absence of genuine religious
liberty-’ there, in which Cox justly agrees with him (^Sab
bath Laws, ;S’c., p. 394,) “ that this can only be reformed
by educating the millions and dispelling their ignorance,
prejudices, and bigotry.” This will be insufficient, as Sir
C. should well know ; for America is now the best educated
country in the world. Xo amelioration ever can take place
on this subject, until the influence of Christianity is re
strained, anil Deism put in the place it is entitled to, and
in which it would be put, if the laws were properly carried
out, or at least not made null by opinion. Cox has come
very far nearer the mark, when he says, (p. 396,) “ the
fetters of the clergy must be struck off." Now, of course
they are bound to say they believe Christianity, whether
thev do or not; and being some of the best educated
people in the States, it is much by their influence that a
belief in Christianity is kept up in the country.
* “ Christ is not without errors, not without the stain of
his times, and, I presume, of course, not without sins."
(P; irker on Deism, &c., &c. p. 264.) This last expression
is indeed a “clencher” for our pious Trinitarians.
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
29
dishonesty in the affairs of life ; for it is pretty
*
clear that, though Air. Parker thinks it a fit, or
perhaps necessary, sacrifice to public opinion to
put a scripture text to the head of each of his
Sermons, he puts little or no belief in the book
from which such texts are taken, any further than
as he conceives he finds in it better morality than
in the writings of the heathen philosophers. “ I
reverence the Christian Church,” says he, “ for
the great good it has done for mankind. So the
Mahomedan, for a far less good. I reverence the
scriptures for every word of truth they teach.”
{Op. Cit.,p. 264.)
Now mark the words. “ every word of truth
they teach,” and we shall be convinced he thinks
they teach a great deal that is not true. Indeed
he admits this by implication, and, to a certain
exteut, by open confession, as we have already
seen.
* A good illustration of this is seen at p. 64 of Air.
Parker’s work. He says : “ A man of property in Boston
dishonestly failed,” and yet legally secured considerable
property to himself, after having paid only sixpence or a
shilling on the dollar ; one creditor only not giving him a
discharge. Our bankrupt afterwards turned very religious,
and when, in consequence, was applied to again by the creditor
for payment, replied, “ Business is business, and is for the
week,” and “Religion for Sunday;” and “paid him not
a cent.”
Truly, in the States, as with us, more religion is wanted
behind the counter, and it should not be shut up six days
in the week with our churches.
Jesus told a rich man to sell all he had, to give to the
poor. Now the consideration of this fact, as it is called in
Christian history, will show equally as the above anecdote,
what profound hypocrisy is at the bottom of all the socalled belief in Christianity. What rich man among our
most pious professing Christians does this? Yet he will
still presume to call himself a Christian !
�30
LETTERS TO
Now, under such circumstances, mav we not
reasonably ask, if Christ be wrong once or twice,
why may he not also be wrong in that most im
portant doctrine of all that he teaches; I mean a
state of future rewards and punishments ? Mr,
Parker’s view, therefore, makes the authority of
Plato quite as great, as a teacher of a future state
of rewards and punishments, as that of Christ ;
and as, on the whole, I find a much better view
of justice in the “ Laws ” of Plato than in the
Old or New Testament, I prefer setting these aside
altogether, and at once stating that I think man
kind in general would be happier in following the
same course; since, either on Mr. Parker’s view of
*
Christianity or mine, a future state of being is
reduced only to & probability.
So far we are equal; but I conceive I have an
infinite advantage over him, because in adopting
the Natural Religion of Plato, I get free in toto
of that latent spirit of persecution, which we have
already seen, attaches always more or less to a
belief in any form of Christianity.f In this re
spect, while I give Mr. Parker’s system credit for
* Another point on which I cannot exactly agree with
Mr. Parker is in his estimate of human nature. I am
afraid he thinks too highly of this. (See introduction,
p. xxv., and p. 77.)
t Philosophically considered, this makes Christianity the
inveterate and incurably mad foe of justice; and thus its
advocacy even of charity becomes really pernicious, instead
of being (as it is considered by superficial thinkers) its
great merit. You need only look at the tendency many
children, and also grown up persons, have to begin injustice,
and when we consider that Christianity would have us be
charitable to these, its tendency actually to increase the
amount of injustice in the world is clear.
Perhaps the account of the Devil’s entering “the herd
of swine,” by which means a man lost his property, may be
justly cited as evidence that Christianity tends actually to
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
31
less evil than any other view, I cannot exonerate
it altogether, since his followers will always, no
doubt, be comparatively few, and missionaries—
whether Protestant or Catholic—who go among
ignorant and barbarous savages, will ever, no
doubt, continue to do as they have already done,
viz., to preach the scriptures as the inspired word
of God.
In reading Mr. Parker’s Sermon on Practical
Theism, (Op Cit., pp. 125-149,J I find not one
word about the superiority that his view of Chris
tianity possesses over this of mere Natural Pvdigion. I confess I am induced to regard such
silence as a proof, or least a presumption, that Mr.
Parker is, in reality, himself only a Theist; and
that, like his distinguished predecessors—Wash
ington and Jefferson—he thinks the scriptures
should not be put aside altogether, as the belief in
them by the multitude may be a public good.
With great respect for Mr. Parker, it is because I
cannot share in this opinion that I have written as
I have done.
*
/arour injustice and dishonesty. Particularly as no where
does it exhort to justice, but only to charity.
Again, unfortunately as Christians should return good
for evil, they too often determine to be beforehand, and
give evil unprovoked ! Our holy religion scarcely notices
this gross injustice as sin. Before being injured, annoyance
or injury is nothing ; ’tis after ! that we must turn meekly
our cheek.
* I ooserve at p. 281 of his work, that Mr. Parker con
siders the idea of a finite God as an injurious tenet; and
his reason for this is, that it has commonly caused priests
to make the Devil a more powerful being. But if we be
lieve in the Devil only as a fable, then it seems rather advi
sable to believe in a finite God; for, unless we do this,
(and with Plato regard matter as a sort of Devil offering
obstruction to a perfect creation,) we can scarcely make out
by reason a truly benevolent deity—in fact, a Moral Power.
�32
LETTERS TO
6thly. — In reviewing the pros and cons in
favour of Christianity, as useful to the world, the
annoyance or inconvenience caused by the strict
observance of the Sabbath is, perhaps, a matter of
secondary consideration to many. But it must be
remembered, that the absence of Sunday amuse
ments, and also of slight Sunday labour (see
note below since added in reference to the labourer
fined), FALLS hardest on the poor man, and that
this hardship, so to call it, may be considered, as
at all events, an indirect consequence of a belief
in the scriptures, since on account of the ambi*
* But a most important objection to our puritanical ob
servance of this day is, as the Times lately said, fwithout
censure of course), that “ the debtor walks free on a
Sunday, and on that day, no corn is carted, though it may
possibly be very wet on the Monday.” In accordance with
this, I observe that an old labouring man is fined 12s. Gd.
formowing his own field on that day. (Observer, Sept., 1855.)
So under the cant of religion, even our government per
mits an actual injustice to creditors ; clearly imbued with
the bad spirit of the religion adverted to lately in a note,
that it prefers “charity” — (i. e., a perversion of real
charity) to justice. If there was any really good religion as
to our Sabbath law, why are spirits and beer allowed to be
sold on a Sunday evening ? They no doubt, bring a revenue
to government; but of course, in many cases, cause
drunkenness. And while all this is permitted, “ by the
21 of George III., it is enacted, that no house be open for
entertainment or amusement, or publicly debating on any
subject.” (Cox, p. 334.) So that even quiet rational
debate “ De Officiis ”—on the moral duties of life,—or
on the nature of justice—is illegal in what we call our free
and religious country! More strictly “ religious” than
moral, no doubt. Ye glorious shades of the ancients, who
spent your whole lives in the search after the honest and
the just, and found even these too short for your enquiries,
what must ye think of this separation of religion and
morality! Modern civilisation, indeed ! it consists only in
our steam engines and railroads. I may conclude this
note by adverting to another positive injury, that this puri-
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
33
guity in the meaning of these, Puritanical or Calvinistic Christians will probably always exist, and
will attempt to show by scripture, that the puri
tanical observance of the Sabbath is the Christian's
duty.
When in 1681, Penn was made sovereign of the
settlement in the United States, by Charles II, he
required that the inhabitants should only acknow
ledge their belief in the existence of God, and
fulfil all the duties of civil society, aud that they
were left at liberty to join in public worship or
not. (Voltaire’s Phil. Diet., Art., Church.)
It is singular, that in a colony belonging to a
monarchv with an established church, perhaps
more toleration in religion was then allowed by
opinion, than at present under a Republic.
Voltaire properly prefers such toleration to that
allowed by Locke in his constitution for Carolina,
tanical Christianity has inflicted on mankind, and conse
quently, I may also put this evil along with those which
Christianity itself has inflicted, since while it exists, there
will no doubt always exist some sects who will embrace
such puritanical view of it.
I allude to our refusing in Britain, equally as they do in
the “States,” to have medical examinations of the public
women. Religion, as it is called, is at the bottom of
this false delicacy with us no doubt; for since even for
nication is such “ deadly sin,” and as the existence of
sipliilitic disease may tend in a degree to stop fornication, our
government being founded on such views of religion, will
not sanction the examination in question, as they do on the
continent, where there is less prq/hssmn of religion. I al
lude to this point chiefly, because the disease in question
being more or less hereditary as all medical men know, the
innocent are made by such false religion to suffer lor the
guilty, (see Lancet, 1847.)
Again—without pretending to justify Lord Nelson in toto.
it is clear the country was unjust to his innocent daughter,
chiefly in consequence of our Christianity.
c 2
�34
LETTERS TO
In this, “ no public religions, but such as were
approved of by seven fathers of families, were to
be permitted.” (Op. cit. idem.)
Religious toleration, (if changed ) lias probably
rather diminished, than increased in the United
States since the time of Penn—since the theatres
remain closed on Sundays in all the Protestant
States. As this depends on a majority of votes,
it seems strictly constitutional in this sense; but
in point of religious justice, it may be fairly con
sidered, that the Catholic part of the population—
though of course in the minority—should have the
power of keeping one theatre open for themselves,
otherwise all religions are not equal in the United
States. If it be said on this principle, Mahomedanism and its polygamy might be admitted as
equal to Christianity; I reply no; because poly
gamy is contrary to the civil laic of the country,
and besides, this would be altering the idea of
duty between the sexes. But merely giving a re
ligious community the power to pass the Sabbath
according to tlieir interpretation of scripture,
when such interpretation does not alter the idea
of duty or justice among the sexes, is altogether
different, since theatrical representation does not
infringe upon any of the practical duties of life
between man and man, or man and woman.
Besides, be it remembered, that the Protestants
of Germany, (the country where Luther arose),
have their theatres and public ball-rooms open on
the Sabbath evenings, when divine service is over.
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
35
LETTER III.
Citizens,—I shall now proceed to consider the
good that Christianity, with the greatest show of
reason, may be considered to have done in the
world, and weigh this against the evil already
spoken of.
1st.—As despotism or a government nearly
allied to it, must always be that of the vast ma
jority of mankind, does not Christianity exercise
a salutary influence in checking the licentiousness
of absolute power ?
2ndlv.—Has not Christianity tended to abolish
animal and even human sacrifices ? and has it not.
as Paley (Evidences, Chap, vii.) says—tended
to diminish the horrors of war by increasing hu
manity to captives ? And has it in reality produced
some other good effects he mentions ?
3rdly—Is not the inculcation of the certainty
of a future state of rewards and punishments, one
good it has done ?
In reference to the first point, it may be ob
served, that when we consider the atrocities of
Nero, Caligula, and id genus omne, of Roman
Emperors, and compare such conduct with the
course of life of the Emperors of Russia and
Austria at the present day, the advantage on some
points is so much in favour of these latter, that at
first sight, we are apt to say this difference can
onlv be owing to the Christianity of our days.
�LETTERS TO
Some years back, I took this view myself ; but
that it is not the correct one is shown when we
reflect that the atrocities of our own “most Chris
tian” Henry VIII. rival those of the Roman
Emperors alluded to. At the present day, then,
we have no more Henry VIII. s in England, nor
even in Russia or Austria, on account, not of the
Christianity of Europe, but because of the spirit
of the aye dependant on the progress the arts
and sciences ¡tare made—those real and true
civilisers of mankind.
That mere Christianity
cannot civilise, is shown by the barbarism of the
Abyssinians of the present day, who have long
been Christians ; it is shown also by the barbarism
of the “ Middle Ages,” still more eminentlv
Christian. Nobodv doubts the Christianity of
V
«.
Calvin ; yet we find a follower of the lowly Jesus
ordering Servetus to be burnt, because he differed
from him merely in the interpretation of the
scriptures. In like manner, as in the Spanish In
quisition, we have evidence of atrocious murders
committed by Catholics on Protestants : so even
under the Protestant Elizabeth, we have similar,
though less numerous instances, as the Rev.
Sidney Smith (a Protestant) justly says, of Pro
*
testants ordering' the death, or expatriation and
confiscation of the goods of Catholics. These,
no doubt, are deaths and persecutions on account
of differences in religious opinions; but as the
* Letter on the Catholic question—quoted in Cox's
work, from p. 462 to 467. The whole number of Catholics
who have suffered death in England, for the exercise of
their rdigion ! since the reformation, he makes to be 319,
204 of these being under the reign of Elizabeth, so that
Lord Brougham in his Political Philosophy, p. 263, vol. Ill
justly says, this is proof how little real progress in'“ con
stitutional liberty” was made even in her rei<<n.
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
37
whole of the criminal jurisprudence of these ages
still Christian, was equally despotic and severe,
*
it is a proof that it is not Christianity but the
spirit of the age, that makes the despotic power of
the Emperors of Russia and Austria at the present
dav, less formidable than was that of the Roman
Emperors.
Another cause for this, still quite independant of
Christianity is, that in modern times, despotic
power is restrained by the division of Europe into
different States, some like Erance, Switzerland, and
our own countrv, governed with a greater or less
degree of liberty. The consequence is, that
public opinion emanating from these, influences or
restrains ttnv disposition to very gross acts of
tyranny and injustice in the more purely despotic
Empires. But, as Gibbon says—since Rome, under
the Emperors comprised the whole of the known
civilised world, the despotism of a Nero could
receive no salutary check from the opinion of
foreign and independent States.
Lord Brougham (Political Philosophy. Vol. III.,
p. 1G4. London, 1816.) says, in reference to this
point, (and mark he does not place Christianity
among the causes), “ It is quite impossible that
in anv government, however despotically framed,
the sciences, the arts, the learning, the moral and
political knowledge of the people should increase,
and with these their comforts, possessions, and
enjoyments, without the wish being communicated
to them of bettering their conditions politically.
* * To imagine that if Turkey were completely
civilised, and men possessed the^wealth and the
knowledge! that bless Western Europe even under
* Torture and death were common for comparatively
slight offences.
f We find here he says “ knowledge,” and justly ; for
�3y
LETTERS TO
its most absolute monarchies, a Bashaw could be
sent into any province to enrich himself by plunder
and confiscation, securing impunity by suffering
the common master to pillage him in turn, is
wholly absurd. * * It is not going too far to
affirm that the Sultan, it is certain that the
Bashaw of Egypt, rules by himself and his officers
very different from the Tamerlanes of a former age.
Compare the mild reign of the present Prussian
sovereign with that of his predecessors a century
ago, aud you will be satisfied that however little
the form of that great military monarchy has
changed, no prince royal could now be called forth
to see his favourite strangled beneath his window
for the gratification of a father’s splenetic humour.
No Baron Trenck could be immured in a dungeon
I have always maintained, although their polygamy is
an evil, that the main cause of the decline of the Turkish
Empire, is in their not having favoured the progress of the
sciences; for now the art of war depends more on chemistry
and mathematics than it did formerly. Religion has had
nothing to do with it farther than that Christianity, ia. re
commending as it does, ignorance and self-abasement, has
never been followed by Protestant Christians, or even by
Catholic Christians in France. Had Christianity been fol
lowed to the letter it would have kept mankind in a worse
state than the Mahomedan religion has kept it. The Em
peror of Russia has encouraged the progress of the sciences,
and well I remember meeting at Constantinople a professor
sent out by him to explore and write about the unknown
parts of Asia Minor. So that no doubt this gentleman re
turned home with more information about the country than
the Turks themselves who lived there. “ Ignorance is the
mother of devotion,” and though I don’t think the Koran
is more inimical to knowledge than our Scriptures are, still,
in consequence of liieir ignorance, the Turks having had
stronger faith in it, have followed their religion more to the
letter, and, consequently, to their own disadvantage. The
absolute Russian Emperor's religion, like our own, is fol
lowed only so far as interest or expediency dictates, though,
of course, professed to be followed to the letter.
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
39
for twenty years because he found favour in the
eyes of a princess. Russia is as despotically go
verned as anv European prince could now venture
to rule his people ; yet there is no possibility of a
Czar beheading his mutinous guards with his own
hand, or of a prime minister being sent in the
night to Siberia with his family, because a new
cabinet had been called into office.
“ The first step in the general and inevitable
change has been made in all these countries. The
government generally remains the same, but the
exercise of absolute power is tempered and re
strained by the improved spirit of the age, by the
force of opinion abroad as well as at home, and
above all, by the great improvement in the know
ledge, manners, and character of the people over
whom those governments are established.”
I may observe that the father of Frederick the
Great, who ordered the unjust execution alluded to,
was so pious a Christian, that he obliged a Unitarian
to be imprisoned for his heresy ; yet Nero him
*
self could hardly have behaved more brutally or
unjustly than the Prussian king in ordering the
execution in question.
Further on in the same volume, Lord Brougham,
after noticing the abominable murders (so to call
them) committed by order of Henry VIII., viz., of
Bishop Fisher, Sir Thomas More, Hr. Barnes,
Cromwell, and others, male and female—makes
the following statements, which will fully bear us
out in our argument, viz., that the atrocities com
mitted by some Christian kings, often in reality
for causes quite independent of differences in reli
gious faith, have been quite as unjustifiable and
* See Zf/e and Times of Frederick the Great, in 4 vols
edited by Thomas Campbell. (Shoberl, London.)
�40
LETTERS TO
*
criminal, as many of the acts of the worst of the
Pagan emperors of Rome. Hence, whatever ame
lioration there is now, must not be ascribed, as is
insidiously and falsely done by most writers, to
Christianity, that religion having existed in even
stronger force then, than it does at present.
“ The king,” says Brougham, (p. 255), “ by
proclamation, might make any opinion heretical,
and niiylit denounce death as the penalty of hold
ing it.” And to increase this infamy, Cromwell
and Barnes were “ allowed no hearing
the imimputed “ treason and heresy ” of the former only
beginning to appear when Henry VIII. got tired
* Under the tyranny of the Norman governors, “ the
Saxons in 1124, particularly, were despoiled of their pos
sessions, then butchered. Whoever had any property lost
it by heavy taxes and unjust decrees.” (Hallam’s Middle
Ages, Chap, viii., p. 31.). So “Peter the Cruel of Spain,
(1350.) is said to have murdered his wife, most of his brothers
and sisters, with Eleonor Gusman their mother, many Casti
lian nobles, and multitudes of the commonalty.” (Hallam's
Middle Ages, chap, iv., p. 277).
So “ Charlemagne,
(a. d. 800), ordered 4000 Saxons to be beheaded in one
dav ; and (to recur to the
effects of Christianity), pro
nounced pain of death against those who refused baptism,
or who ate flesh during lent.” (Do. p. 9.) A proof that
force of the strongest kind was used at that time to convert
to Christianity. We find too that the sovereign, “ rather
encouraged, and the clergy for the most part approved,” of
that gross injustice, trial by combat. (Do. p. 134, note.)
“ During the time that a crusader bore the cross, he was
free from suit for liis debts, and the interest of them was
entirely abolished. He could not be impleaded, except on
criminal charges.” Such was the spirit of legislation due to
Christianity; not much restraining murder in these ages, and
greatly (p. 24.) encmz/’ugbig such injustice as would not for a
moment have been tolerated by the good Pagan emperors,
neither would dispensations from oaths; and we find
Edward I. seeking such from Clement V., who grants the
king power not to observe his oath in reference to arbitrary
taxation. (Chap. vii., p. 111.) So also Henry III., chap. viii.
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
41
of Anne of Cleves, whom Cromwell had recom
mended him to marry. This word “ heresy,” so
misused indeed, gave the hypocritical tyrant a
show of reason on his side with the ignorant mul
titude, which might contribute to strengthen his
power with them—the most numerous class, and
which moral power, the Roman emperors neither
got, nor tried to get on their side * Accordingly
we find this monster, quietly having his own way
to the last, (above thirty years,) and dying a na
tural death ! while some of the worst of the Roman
emperors—as Caligula, Nero,Tiberius,f Domitian,
* The Romans saw, afterthe murder of Caligula, how diffi
cult it was to produce that unanimity essential to a republic,
and accordingly Claudius was almost forced against his
will, to succeed as emperor. (Suetonius. Claudius.) The
army, generally speaking, prefered the “ Empirethey
elected those they pleased, and if the new emperor became
very bad, he was assassinated. Doubtless the army in this,
had too much power ; but still it was a system of wild
justice ; and being in some little degree elective kept up the
idea of liberty, (and men are governed by words), which
idea was supported by their assumed right, if he proved bad,
of putting him aside by death.
t This emperor reigned, indeed, twenty-three years,
living seventy-eight years ; and was smothered by Macro.
But even Taci ms says, that “ he was amiable when a private
man, and esteemed under the reign of Augustus.” (Annals
vi. end.) It is also to be observed, that for many years,
(at least nine), after he became emperor, he governed with
great moderation, and assumed humility, refusing twice the
title of emperor. One of the worst laws in his reign, (but
acted on slightly towards the close of the reign of Augustus,)
as far as the great majority of the people were concerned,
was the system of “ informing,” whereby a person might be
arrested for mere words of disrespect towards the emperor.
But even in this case, Gibbon tells us (chap, xliv.) that,
“ when they committed suicide to escape capital punish
ment, their wills were valid, and their act was applauded.”
These reflections will account in a measure for so long a
reign ; and without attempting to justify many of the acts
�42
LETTERS TO
and Commodus, at least suffered a just death by the
hands of their oppressed subjects. I maintain,
therefore, that since these monsters were made to
suffer for their crimes on earth, the Roman popuof the latter part of this emperor’s reign, it is obvious that
his suspicion and hatred of mankind, began on the solid
grounds of the poisoning of his worthy and innocent son,
and was subsequently strengthened by the conspiracy of
Sejanus (the man whom he had loaded with honours)
against him. As he was sixty-six or sixty seven when he
went to live at Capri, it may also be asked, whether the
accounts of his licentiousness there, were not a little (to say
the least) exaggerated ?
It is worthy of observation, that Pliny the younger, and
the moral Tacitus himself lived during the whole reign of
Domitian, (fifteen years), we may almost say at court; for
Murphy observes, (p. viii.) both of them “ rose to emi
nence” under him. It may, therefore be asked, whether
the crimes, even of this man, have not rather been over
charged, or would it have been possible for a person like
Tacitus especially, to suffer “ his fortune to be advanced”
(Murphy) by him ? (See my remarks on the reign of
Domitian.—Roman Emperors). On this subject we must never
forget, that even under the worst emperors, there was no reli
gious despotism. Tacitus complains, in reference to “ infor
mers,” (book i., sec. 72), that “ till the latter part of the reign
of Augustus, men were arraigned for their actions, but
their thoughts were free." But these “ informers” were not
anything like so intolerable as “ inquisitors," and much more
justifiable, since they arose from the natural tendency of all
power to wish to keep so. The ancients then were free even
from the milder inquisition by opinion of Protestantism.
Besides, we have already seen, that the natural liberty of
man in regard to suicide was respected; and it is singular,
that there was a mixture of quasi generosity, even with the
very crimes of Tiberius and Nero, in this respect, for says
Tacitus, (An. vi.—29.) “ those who waited incurred a for
feiture, and were deprived of sepulture, while to such as
died by their own hand, funeral ceremonies were allowed,
(in my late quotation from Gibbon, this favour is not named
by him, yet it should have been), and wills were valid."
Such,” adds Tacitus, (in the spirit of an ancient Roman,
applauding such liberty), “ was the reward of despatch.”
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
43
lation was not as a whole so oppressed by them as
our population was under the Christian Henry the
VIII. This view again, is generally completely
overlooked by our ex-parte Christian historians.
In allusion to the Star Chamber under this mo
narch, Brougham justly observes ;—“ Not only
did the Plantagenets and Tudors commit to prison,
or ransom for heavy fines, those against whom
they conceived an ill will, thus signally violating
the most remarkable provisions of the Great
Charter; but they exercised a like control over
Members of Parliament who had offended them,
and jurors who had given verdicts displeasing to
them. A capital jurisdiction was never exercised
by them, at least, directly ; but it really amounted
to the same thing, whether they sentenced ob
noxious men to death, or compelled timid jurors
to find them guilty through dread of personal con
sequences.” {Op. Cit., p. 258).
No doubt, it amounted to the same thing. Even
after the monster had reigned thirty years! and
separated from Rome, as he called it, five years,
“ his submissive parliament,” enabled him to pass
the “ bloody act,” in which it was stated, that
“ if any person once denied the real presence,
though he afterwards confessed his error and re
canted, he was liable to be burnt.”* {Op. Cit.
p. 262.)
I may observe, that bad as such “ informing1’ was, it still
tended, as respects suicide, to keep up the Roman
courage. “ That act was never ” (says Murphy) “ punished
by law, or opinion, among the Romans.” Antoninus, how
ever, in the case of a convicted criminal, punished it by
confiscation ; and if a man had been guilty of murder, &c.,
this was a wise audjust check on it.
*. Voltaire’s opinion of the Parliament of Henry VUL,
and the king himself, is similar to that of Brougham. “ He
had his brother beheaded,” says he, “ for incest, when
�44
LETTERS TO
The “ submissive parliament,” in such a case,
was, as already hinted at, an advantage to a bloody
despot, which the Roman emperors had not, since
it gave a certain degree of moral support to
the greatest villany. Men are far better off un
der an absolute despotism, than under a hypocri
tical mixed monarchy, in which the parliament
has in reality no power; for in the former ease,
even the most ignorant know at once the origin of
their ills, and can sooner or later find time or op
portunity to strike accordingly, as we find they
did under some of the worst of the Roman empe
rors. Nay, as the impunity with which this English
monster reigned, was probably much more owing to
the influence of the Christian priesthood in the
country, than to actual fear of his subjects to
revolt, we have here an instance probably of the
baneful effects of this religion on a despotism,
rather than the contrary. It was the duty of the
clergy, no doubt, to read as the direct command of
God—“Thou shalt do no murder,” and also
(Romans xiii., c. 2.) '‘be subject to the higher
powers ; for the powers that be are ordained of
God, * * and they that resist shall receive to them
selves damnation.” So that under such circum
stances, an ignorant population might actually
have the desire to injure the crowned monster,
taken away or diminished, even if it had the
courage.
“ The experience or the humanity of the last
century.” savs Professor F. W. Newman, “ has
*
there was not Me ZeasZ proof of guilt.” (Essai sur les
Mceurs. Henry VIII.)
* Contrasts of Ancient and Modern History, p. 79.—
Taylor, Gower Street; and Holyoake, Fleet Street, 1847.
For my part, I will “ contrast” Henry VIII. with any of
the worst of the Pagan Roman emperors, and of the two. I
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
45
led moralists and all educated persons, heartily to
renounce the ancient and once current doctrine of
Tyrannicide, and upon this has followed the
adoption of milder measures towards unconstitu
tional statesmen. Men possessed of arbitrary
power are no longer driven to despair: and even
the unprincipled become less dangerous.”
Although Professor Newman does not mention
Christianity, yet it seems probable that this has,
in the case in question, really had an influence ;
for surely Tyrannicide is anti-scriptural, and it has
not been so common for only “ one century,” but
for many, as it was under Paganism. But when
reflecting on the conduct of Henry VIII., I cannot
agree with the learned Professor, that the change
in opinion on this matter is an advantage to the
*
community.
Probably be is right in the Pioman
think should have preferred their rule. Under such go
vernment, I should at least have avoided that most disgust
ing and annoying spectacle of every day occurrence, viz., the
sight of people really or only hypocritically religious, and
whose religion taught them that it was right to “ obey a
ruler,” however great a villain he might be ! The Pagans,
at least, were free from such insensate cant. “ The dis
tinction of spiritual and temporal powers,” says Gibbon,
(Chap. xx.). “ which had never been imposed on the free
spirit of Greece and Rome, was introduced by the legal
establishment of Christianity.” According to the same his
torian, (Chap, xvi.) even the Jews, (even after their fre
quent rebellions), were probably still better off than they
are now under our government, since under Antoninus
Pius, they “ could enjoy municipal honours, &c., &c.,”
whereas a Jew cannot sit in our parliament.
* As since 1847, the Professor seems to have become
less inclined to adopt even the Unitarian view of Chris
tianity, it is not impossible, that if the work quoted reap
pears in a second edition, he will modify this and many
other opinions in it, which appears to me inseparable from
even the Unitarian belief of Christianity.
�46
LETTERS TO
and Greek tyrants having been driven “ to (the
ferocity of) despair” by it; but still, as I apprehend,
the crimes of Henry VIII., (though necessarily on
a smaller scale as being in a smaller country), are
fully equal to those of the worst of the Pagan
Roman emperors, I think as the English people
could not have suffered much more by such
“ despair ” they would have been better off in
not having regarded Tyrannicide in such a case,
as a heinous sin.
On this point then, again, I insist that Chris
tianity lias, in reality, been actually disadvantageous
to the world ; though I would by no means be
understood as considering lyranuicide justifiable,
except in such extreme cases as those of a
Henry VIII., a Nero, or Caligula
*
Nor even,
* Another point that suggests itself is, the very short
time, (as likewise Elagabalus after him), that this emperor
was allowed to pursue his enormities, viz., only four years,
being killed at the age of twenty-nine; and even the first
years of this short reign were passed in doing good,
viz., suppressing “ informers,” and by repealing some of
the unjust convictions produced by the suspicion that poi
soned the mind of Tiberius in his latter years. Again—
though Nero, at the age of thirty-three, was forced to
suicide, and reigned (like Domitian) 14 or 15 years, yet
all agree that the first years of both these emperors also,
were passed in doing good to the empire. It was the same
with Commodus, who only reigned fourteen years before he
was k’dled, and probably would not have been tolerated so
long, had he not been the son of Marcus Aurelius, for his
unprovoked cruelty was abominable. I assert then, that the
reign ofall the really had Roman emperors was, comparatively
speaking, short; and even the one (Tiberius), who reigned
like our Ilenry VIII., above thirty years, did not, like him,
die quietly in bed. To be sure, now and then, some of the
good emperors (as Pertinax and Aurelian) were assassi
nated ; but not more frequently than happens in Christian times
and the long reigns of Augustus, the Antonines, Trajan,
Adrian, Septimius Severus, and Diocletian, show, that the
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
47
indeed, with such characters as these, if the go
vernment be sufficiently strong to punish them by
exile, as the French government proved itself to be
in the case of Charles X. and Louis Philippe, and
subsequently (in reference to the people) under
Napoleon III., in the case of the exiles to Cayenne.
Professor Newman’s opinion, then, and my own;
on this head, may not be different, supposing by
“ milder measures,” he means exile; but not so,
if he would advocate the Christian system taken
literally, viz., unconditional submission as a duty.
It is fair, however, to state in reference to this
point, that as some degree of good seems inevitably
mixed with the bad in all sublunary things—in all
schemes of government, and in all religions—so it
must be admitted, that the same Christian influ
ence which has diminished Tyrannicide, has also
been far more beneficial in rendering it more diffi
cult for a despotic ruler to take away the life of an
innocent man, than it was formerly under the
Pagan system. He must at present pursue the
more round-about plan, and often be obliged to
diminish the number of his victims. I do not,
however, apprehend, that this good can be put in
competition with the evil produced by the very
same influence, viz., the prohibition of Tyrannicide,
under any circumstance whatever, and also of
Infanticide, where infants are born even in a state
of deformity. On the whole, I must decidedly
place the greater respect to preserving human life
among the evil effects of Christianity.
Turning now to the question, whether Chris
tianity has not effected good by abolishing animal
assassination of the good was perhaps even still less com
mon than under Christianity. Had Charles I. and Louis
XVI., been less humane, they would probably not have
been killed.
�48
LETTERS TO
and even human sacrifice, I am inclined to reply
in the affirmative, considering the world generally,
and not the Roman empire in particular. Faley,
*
on this point, merely says :—“ Ithas suppressed the
combats of gladiators, and the impurities of reli
gious rites.” He does not advert in any other
words to the abominable human sacrifices that pre
vailed, more or less, all over the world before its
introduction. At Carthage, among the Druids, the
Hindoos, &c., the introduction of such a religious
system as prohibited these sacrifices was obviously
a benefit, and though Mahomedanism did the same,
it was after Christianity, and perhaps borrowed
from it. But unfortunately Spain in introducing
Christianity into the new world, proceeded by a
svstem of butchery which was as bad, or worse,
than the human sacrifices the new religion put down.
In admitting the utility of Christianity as a
general principle on this point, I have excluded,
as just stated, all reference to the Roman Empire ;
and as the object of this Essay was more especi
ally to compare Pagan with Christian civilization,
this is equivalent to admitting that the introduc
tion of Christianity in the Roman Empire did, in
reality, little good on this point, and lor the
simple reason, that the Romans scarcely ever re
sorted to such barbarities, and even when they did,
prisoners of war (who would otherwise have been
put to death) were used. As, however, wThen a
* (Supposed Effects of Christianity.—Chap, vii.) As
gladiators, generally speaking, were criminals condemned
to death, some of them probably preferred , to perish
during the excitement of fighting rather than await a passive
execution. This system likewise afforded amusement to the
people, and perhaps tended to keep up the courage, more
essential at that period before the use of fire arms. I am
not inclined, therefore, to consider that Christianity was of
service to the world in putting down this custom.
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
49
somewhat superstitious Emperor, as Aurelian for
instance, came to the throne, human sacrifices
might be ordered on a severe occasion, Christianity
has the merit of having attacked the very idea,
as unjust or injurious. However, Aurelian only
ordered “some prisoners of war” to be sacrificed.
(See my Remarks on Roman History.}
Although I am inclined to agree with Paley,
that Christianity has had a beneficial influence in
tending to humanize war; yet even this has been
over-rated ; for a change in the spirit of the age
has been very influential, and also for some time,
the fact mentioned by Hallam, viz., the existence
of “ companies of adventure, who, in expectation
of enriching themselves by the ransom of prisoners,
were anxious to save their lives.” He adds:
“ Much of the humanity of modern warfare was
originally due to this motive.”* Thus he informs
us that, in the battle of Zagonara (1423), and
Mohnilla (1467,) not half a dozen! lives were
lost.
This statement of facts will enable us to judge
of the value of Paley’s off-hand assertion on this
point, viz., “ that it has mitigated the treatment
of captives ;”f and “ ex uno, disce ommesf in re
ference also to—“ It has abolished polygamy.”
Now polygamy did not exist under the Roman
* Middle Ages. Chapter III. p. 246.
t Paley, towards the end of Chapter VH., “Finally,
&c., &c.,” introduces “perhaps,” in reference to its having
“ mitigated the conduct of war.” His assertion, shortly
afterwards, that “ it hath ceased to excite wars,” is not
true, as the late religious wars between Catholics and Pro
testants in Switzerland prove. lie had better not have
alluded to this subject, as the less frequency of such wars
now depends on 'faith having evaporated,” as Valerj
says.
D
�50
LETTERS TO
government, either before the introduction of
Christianity, more than after; and Luther himself
seemed inclined to sanction it as not inconsistent
with the Christian faith. Here, then, as well as
in the above case, other causes have assisted more
or less in the present system of monogamy.
But some of Paley’s assertions are altogether
false; such as his quotation from Clarke, stating
that “ Christianity has produced a greater regard
to moral obligations.” He had previously himself
said, “ It begets a general probity in the transac
tion of business
altogether forgetting “Roman
faith,” before its introduction. I have already
said enough to show that it has produced, by
its hypocrisy, exactly the contrary effect.
He puts down, “ The influence of Christianity
is not to be sought in the conduct of governments
towards their subjects * * * but in the silent
course of private and domestic life.” Certainly,
it from the beginning always seemed to “ support
the powers that be,” even under Nero; but it was
secretly trying to upset them. But the truth is,
it has vastly influenced “ the conduct of govern
ments
for, when Constantine was converted, we
find great changes in all the Roman laws, and
often less value put on probity and good faith.
Again: “ Christianity is charged with many
consequences for which it is not responsible. I
believe that religious motives have had no more to
do in the formation of nine-tenths of the intole
rant and persecuting laws, which in different coun
tries have been established on the subject of reli
gion, than they have had to do in England with
the making of the game-laws.” He then proceeds
to say, that “ Christianity did not plant ” the
principle which is at the bottom of all persecu
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
51
tion, viz., that “ they who are in possession of
power do what they can to keep it.”*
No—but Christianity has increased and strength'
ened, though-it has not planted, the intolerant
principle. I no more deny than Paley that some
little of this principle does good (just as does that
of anger or pride) ; but what I contend for is that,
in regard to these two principles of human
nature, the business of the philosopher is to ap
prove of a system that tends to diminish rather
than increase them. He, therefore, cannot approve
of Christianity on this point.
But, though agreeing with Paley, that some
degree of intolerance “is not universally wrong,”
still I must continue to censure the degree of per
plexity which he still further on infuses into this
subject, in order to try and make out that there is
no intolerant spirit in the Christian creed. He
continues: “Believing certain articles of faith to
be highly conducive, or perhaps essential, to salva
tion, they thought themselves bound to bring all
they could, by every means, into them. * * *
Had there been in the New Testament precepts
authorizing coercion in the propagation of the
religion, and the use of violence towards unbe
lievers, this distinction could not have been taken,
nor this defence made.”
Now the Catholics, or any others that believe
* This mode of expression is very objectionable in refe
rence to the intolerant principle, for it would tend to make
out, that all persons, or at least parties, are equally intole
rant, which is certainly not the case. Even when in power,
some certainly are far more disposed than others to princi
ples of justice and toleration, But such way of putting the
case shows an ex-parte lawyer, rather than an impartial
philosopher. It seems written with the intention to intro
duce perplexity into the argument, and to draw from such
perplexity, advantage to his side of the question.
�52
LETTERS TO
the scriptures, must believe that “ certain articles
of faith are essential to salvationand this
underhand attempt of Paley to say they do not
find such doctrine there, is unworthy of him.
Moreover, Christians are “ bound to bring all they
could” into them, for they are commanded to
preach the gospel to the Heathen, and directly or
indirectly made to believe that they themselves will
benefit hereafter, by every such conversion they
make. I do not say scripture exhorts them to do
this “ by every means,” by “ the use of violence
yet it most decidedly advocates mental, though
not bodily, coercion on this point. But this Paley
says nothing about. It suits his side of the argu
ment to forget that ideas govern the material world,
and that when the strongest of all motives, viz.,
eternal happiness hereafter, is inseparably attached
to such ideas, these must sooner or later, some
where or somehow, enforce “ the use of violence ”
Indeed, the Spanish Inquisition was not only
logical, but sincerely and piously Christian, in
attempting to enforce belief by “ the use of vio
lence,” even though this should not be found in
direct terms in the scriptures; for as God, in
these, commands all to believe or to “ perish
hereafter,” it is the duty of man as His creature
to believe; and consequently, if he does not, it
seems that a Christian government, to be conse
quent, should punish him, at all events, by im
prisonment—perhaps even by torture—till he be
lieved. As to actually taking away his life, even
this would seem to be as justifiable as it ever can
be in a truly Christian government, even for the
crimes of robbery or murder.
*
* As one of the chief peculiarities of Christianity is its
greater regard for human life generally than Paganism, I
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
53
Again—Paley remarking and justly, that poli
tical fanaticism, even under Paganism, produced
an immense amount of intolerance that led to
much injustice and bloodshed, says, this was not
due to religious fanaticism, and adds, “ if the
malevolent passions are there, the world will never
want occasions.”
This, too, is a fallacious argument. The ques
tion is still, whether Christianity has not added,
“ by the distinction of spiritual and temporal
powers,” (Gibbon,) a new element of fanaticism,
and that, too, without diminishing the old one.
As it has, it has vastly added to the amount of
that pernicious element—intolerant fanaticism—
“planted in the mind to be diminished rather
than increased, as the Romans wisely observed
when they allowed no such spiritual element in
their institutions. Paley’s argument, then, here
again falls to the ground, though he finishes with
the following passage of great beauty, the reason
ing in which is answered by the above reflections:
“Hath Poland fallen by a Christian crusade ?
Hath the overthrow in France, of civil order and
security, been effected by the votaries of our reli
gion or the foes ? Amongst the awful lessons
winch the crimes and miseries of that country
afford to mankind, this is one ; that in order to be
a persecutor, it is not necessary to be a bigot;
that in rage and cruelty, in mischief and destruc
tion, fanaticism itself can be outdone by infidelity.”
conceive that no truly Christian government is authorized
to use capital punishments, for any offence or crime what
ever. So called Christian governments have acted no doubt
in this case from what t7ze?/ consider motives of actual neces
sity for the good of society. But, perhaps, the more perfect
Christian should not even recognize this as an adequate
reason, for “ his kingdom is not of tliis world.”
�54
LETTERS TO
As the reader will find this assertion, that the
French Revolution, and the crimes that attended
it, depended on a want of faith in Christianity,
refuted I think fully in my next Letter, I shall
only now state, that religious “ fanaticism was
not outdone in this case by infidelitybecause,
though the atrocities committed seemed as great
as in some of the religious wars, yet there is this
essential distinction between them, viz., that they
seemed necessary, in the opinion of those in power,
for the very existence of the republic; and, con
sequently, to the improvement which was at least
attempted in the condition of the great mass of
the people by this change of government; whereas
all the atrocities committed in the religious wars
of Christians, have, of course, never had the
praiseworthy motive of an attempt to benefit the
temporal interests of the masses for their cause :
no, it has, even in the best way of viewing it, been
a desire to benefit their supposed eternal and
spiritual interests. Now, as the possibility of
this is mere matter of conjecture—however much
to be wished—it is clear that there is less reason
than eloquence in the passage of Paley last quoted.
“ Christianity,” says Paley, “ has greatly me
liorated the condition of the mass of every com
munity, by procuring for them a day of weekly
rest.”
I have already said enough to show that the
way in which the British and American govern
ments enforce the observance of this day, render
it little advantage to the labouring classes, com
pared with what it is in Roman Catholic, and even
the Lutheran countries on the continent. Paley,
himself, ought to have said this even as a Protes
tant; on the contrary, his way of writing might
almost induce an ignorant person to conceive that
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
55
our government gave the populace wages on this
day, in order to live without work. Compared
with Paganism, it did no good in this respect, for
Pagans had their fixed festas.
Although Paley notices the certainty of a future
state, among the benefits promised by Christianity,
yet he does not state it so pointedly as might have
been expected from him.
For my own part, I should have placed this
among its very greatest benefits, if, instead of re
wards for mere faith, it had promised with certainty
rewards for virtuous deeds. And it is singular
that this otherwise useful doctrine should be
preached with such certainty in the New Testa
ment, when almost every other point, which might
be useful, is left in so much ambiguity, that it
loses its value as a divine command. This doctrine
is vitiated, then, in another way, viz., by the pre
sumed merit of mere faith.
When I reflect on this, I must prefer the future
state proclaimed by Paganism, notwithstanding its
defect of not having apparently been so certainly
set forth as a means of rewarding virtue or punish
ing crime. Christianity, in this case, errs, by
making that virtue, which is not so; and the
same in regard to vice.
I have already been obliged to remark on the
great disadvantage the ambiyuity in the meaning
of the scriptures has occasioned to the world.
This has, in a great measure, been the cause of
the enormous amount of slaughter between Chris
tian sects. And, in closing these remarks on
Paley, I feel myself called on again to state ano
ther evil occasioned by this ambiguity; I allude
to the opposite opinions whether Christianity
forbids war altogether, only in some degree, or
not at all.
�56
LETTERS TO
Paley, finding that Jesus Christ dismisses the
Roman Centurion without censuring his profession
as a soldier, embraces the opinion commonly held
by Christians on this point, viz., that Christianity
does not forbid war.
For my own part, I think he might, with the
Quakers, more reasonably have embraced the
opposite view. At all events, had he placed the
denunciation of all but defensive war among the
doctrines of Christianity, he would have added a
point in its favour, greater perhaps than any of
those he has mentioned in such an off-hand way,
as though clearly preached by it, when in reality
they admit of as much, or even more, doubt than
this in regard to war.
Perhaps Paley, however, justly omitted it; for
he could not but observe, that had he taken the
literal interpretation of scripture (as a mere theo
logical writer is bound to do) he would find on
this point, equally as I have said in regard to a
future state, a radical defect, viz., that it would
not even allow mere defensive war. Surely no
one can doubt that this is a fair inference, when a
man struck on one cheek is commanded to turn
the other also.
I shall terminate this third Letter by some re
marks on a writer who has written after Paley,
and “illustrated” him.
Lord Brougham’s Chapter on Religious Estab
*
lishments comprises only about nine pages. In
it we find the heads “ Established Religion In
compatible with Democracy,” and that “ Estab
lished Religion secures Instruction.” In reference
to this last point, I may observe, that no doubt it
does, but not always that kind of instruction which
* Political Philosophy, vol. iii., p. 125.
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
57
is most desirable for the good of the community,
as I shall presently show more in detail.
I shall now proceed to make some extracts
which will give an idea of his opinions on this
most important subject, annexing thereto my own
humble comments.
1. —“ Experience proves that religion is a sub
ject on "which the bulk of men feel, and do not
reason.”* (128.) We have found, and shall find
further on, proofs enough of the truth of this
maxim ; and I am sorry to add in Lord Brougham’s
own case. It is perhaps in consequence of a belief
in this melancholy truth, that Lord B. has always
laid aside his reason, for the time, when he has
ventured to speak on the subject of religion.
2. —None of Brougham’s three objections to a
church establishment (and which, be it observed,
he himself refutes)! will apply to Deism, consi
dered as the religion of the state. Itistobeobserved
that he does not place among the objections the
Dissenter having to contribute to a church estab
lishment in which he has no faith, because this
may be supposed applicable to a purely voluntary
system ; “ for the dissenters,” says he, “ pav if
they choose, and the persons who do pay, (sup
posing there is no establishment) pay by so much
the more than those who do not'' (p. 129.)
3. —“In several of the American Commonwealths
every one was obliged to pay his tax to the state,
which gave it over to the minister of whose sect the
* And the worst feature in our “ Protestantism” is, that
it has pretended to use full reason on the subject, yet has
only gone half way, and hence increased the amount of
cant and self-importance with us, and in reality contributed
little to the freedom of the mind.
t I say “ refutes,” because, as he puts the case, he does
refute them, but not so in reality. It is all sophistry.
D 2
�58
LETTERS TO
contributor was a member.” This Brougham con
*
siders the only state religion possible in a Demo
cracy. But as it compels every man to choose a
sect, it might, says he, be objected to by advocates
of a pure Democracy.
Brougham finds the same injustice in the perfectly voluntary principle (No. 2) that has been
attributed to church establishments, viz., that
“ whoever wishes to save his money, will be able
to benefit by the churches which his more liberal
neighbour supports.” (p. 130.)
But as I do not approve of a perfectly volun
tary system, neither this objection nor the one
mentioned in the last page (2) will apply to that
still voluntary system (so to call it) in which a
man is only obliged to pay to the form of religion
in which he believes, or if he confess himself an
Atheist, let him pay to the professors of morality in
the university, whose teachings benefit him as well
as the community at large. Brougham, finding tha.t
the voluntary svstem (No. 3) cannot be attacked on
the same grounds, has, in his feeble defence of
church establishments, quite left this out of his
argument!
One would think on reading this section, that
there could be no other form of Christianity than
Trinitarian Protestantism, and, of course, no other
religion than Christianity itself. Deism, or at
least Unitarianism, (which yet is probably the
religion of Lord Brougham, as it always lias been
of the leading thinkers in all ages,) is not even
alluded to. Now, I maintain that his argument
would have been much stronger had he said a
rational religion should be the religion of the
state, for then, as every person must, or ought to
* Political Philosophy, vol. iii., p. 127.
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
59
believe in it, he will be only paying to a religion
in which he has, or ought to have, faith. Every
man—even an Atheist—must, in a certain sense,
be a Deist, for he must acknowledge the existence
of a Power he cannot wholly comprehend, or else
he is mad. But when Christianity, and above all,
Trinitarianism, is made the state religion, and we
are required to believe in this, and also that the
morality Christianity teaches is always more just
and pure than that of natural religion, and to
pay for such church establishment because it con
fers an advantage on us, the case is perfectly
altered. The doctrine of the most heinous sins
being expiated by repentance, and that uncon
ditional submission is virtue, are tenets which tend
to increase the mass of crime in the world, as Lord
Brougham would no doubt admit, did his position
as a peer allow him to do so. His words, then,
“ religious instruction, and the moral instruction
that always accompanies it,” (p. 129,) area mere
specimen of the cant in matters of religion that per
vades his class, and which even he—bold thinker
as he is in political matters—is not bold enough
to oppose. It is the same with Cobden and others
— all fear to attack the Christian religion more than
other grievances, for this is the foundation one.
We must, however, mark with care his conclud
ing passage on this subject. “ In the deductions
which we have stated * * we have made no allow
ance for the ultimate effects of education. In no
respect are these more fit to be considered than in
their connection with religion. * * But this forms
a separate subject, and as yet we have been through
out considering the state of society as we at pre
sent find it.” (p. 134.)
This extract will prepare us for the following,
which is perhaps the most truly eloquent passage
�GO
LETTERS TO
in the volume. It is at the close of this that his
real views seem almost unconsciously forced out
by the momentary fervour of his soul.
*
Looking forward, like Condorcet, to the future,
when “popular education” shall have done its
utmost, he says, it is pleasing to anticipate that
period, in which “ graceless zealots should con
tend no more for useless forms of faith, nor
political fanatics for forms of government; when
devotion to the Creator should cease to be testified
by discharity towards His creatures, and wretched
abstract dogmas to obstruct the progress of all the
* A truly Ciceronian passage, which should be read from
the beginning. I am glad also to be able to agree with
Lord Brougham in the following, where he calls bribery
“ the pest of corruption, which now threatens our national
morals, as well as the purity of our parliamentary system,
and the existence of our free constitution; nay, which
makes many good men, in balancing the advantages of a
free and an absolute government, hesitate which to prefer,
while they find that a popular constitution can only be pur
chased by the ruin of all morals." (Vol. III., p. 318.)
These remarks were written in 1846 ; and our recent elec
tions show that we are just as bad in respect to bribery
now, viz., in 1854. Writers may talk as they please of the
dishonesty pervading the United States ; it cannot well be
worse than among ourselves, including all ranks, classes,
and sexes ; there being of course many honourable excep
tions in both countries. And yet with all this, the American
population and ourselves are ostensibly the most demure
and pious Christians in the world! This consideration
should have induced Lord Brougham to make some free
remarks on the connexion of the Christian religion with
morality, instead of writing down, as we have seen he has
done, The established religion secures instruction!” I
apprehend he could have found (strange to say) very little
in it which tended to forbid cheating (or bribery) or false
hood of any kind. Charity and chastity and faith, are no
doubt eulogised; but justice—the “queen of virtues ”—
is forgotten! Surely, after this, no candid man will say
reform is not wanted in religion.
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
Cl
light that most improves, refines, and exalts our
species.” (p. 170.)
Now, I will put it to any impartial person,
whether the passages which I have purposely
marked in italics, do not lead to the belief that,
in his sincere and reasonable moments, when un
oppressed by the conventionalisms around him,
the noble Lord acknowledges only the sublime
religion of the Deist; and that he embraces the
absurdity of the Trinity himself, and recommends
it as a religion for the multitude, only so long as
popular ignorance continues.
Although, therefore, he has not said so, it
appears he may be regarded as considering Chris
tianity a salutary “check” on our mixed govern
ment, under which great ignorance prevails among
the masses, and great knowledge among isolated
individuals. In this view he may be conscientious,
but I think wrong ; but it is certain, that the state
of public opinion on matters of religion in Britain,
has made him far too concise, ambiguous, and I
might add insincere, on this subject generally.
But as education has been so widely diffused
among the Americans, the remark just made will
not apply to them; and their leading men ought
at once boldly to confess their true religious senti
ments to the masses of the people.
In confirmation of what was said above, I ob
serve the following passage, which tends also to
show what Lord Brougham’s real opinions are on
the subject.
“ The existence of a state church may therefore
become much less indispensable when the people
are so much improved (by education) as to remove
those mischiefs and dangers, which we had occa
sion to contemplate.” (p. 171.) He alludes to
pages 125, &c.
�62
LETTERS TO
But if a nation is to improve gradually in such
matters, it is surely high time that our form of
Christianity for the State should be Unitarian,
and that Lord Brougham himself advocate this
change (or reform} ; supposing him to hold the
opinion that Deism is at present too metaphysical
a religion for a people even perfectly educated.
Our populace were spurred, in a great measure,
to the revolution under Charles the First, and
also to that of 1G88, by a fear of the return of
Popery (Brougham, p. 277-291); it remains to
*
be seen how they would receive a religion of
reason in reality, for the present Protestantism is
only so in appearance, and that only to the most
superficial thinkers.
I cannot close this Letter better than by a re
flection, drawn fairly I think from the preceding
summary of Lord Brougham’s printed opinions on
Religious Establishments. It is this, viz., that
with all our boasted freedom of the press in this
a Protestant country, as compared with Catholic
countries, we are still wrong in holding the opinion
without admitting the exception of members of
the House of Lords and of the Commons, and
also the vast majority of the British nation.
I say it with no disrespect to Lord Brougham,
but it is clear from the guarded and almost ambi
guous way in which this writer ventures his very
freest views on religion, that opinion has not
* “Religious fury." So much for the blessing of Chris
tianity to Britain. It had a great share in our two revolu
tions, and in its practical operation as regards the people
and their amusements, the conquered form of Christianity
(viz., Catholicism) was the most rational and liberal.
Witness also the wars between Catholics and Protestants
in Switzerland, caused, however, partly by faults in the
constitution. (Brougham, p. 402.)
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
63
allowed him in this Protestant country to write as
freely as Beccaria did in a Catholic country. To
give only two or three examples.
“ Il suicidio e un delitto die sembra non potere
ammettere una pena propriamente detta” i.e.,
that suicide does not justly appear to admit of
punishment. To showing this he devotes Sect,
xxxv., Dei Delitti.
Again—“ Allora religione, dec , de." i.e., “ the
Christian religion, by holding up to the criminal
such an easy repentance, tends to diminish the
power of human laws to punish crime.” (Sect,
xvi.) This is clearly his meaning.
Again, in his preface—“ Non tutto cio, de.,” i.e.,
natural religion does not require all that revealed
religion does.
Again—he objects to the discretionary power of
the sovereign to pardon crimes. {Idem., Sect,
xx.)
But, above all, to show the admirable frankness
and honesty of the Catholic above the Protestant
writer, I would refer to Sect, xxxvii. “ Ma gli
nomini, de., de.," i.e., “but reasonable men will
see that the place, the age, and the subject, do
not permit me to speak plainly.” He is speaking
“ against all attempts to use force on the mind in
matters of religion, of wrhich the sole effects, says
he, are first dissimulation, then base avilement.”
These words were written so long ago, in “ a des
potic and Catholic country,” and apparently too
without injury to Beccaria, (who, be it also re
membered, belonged like Brougham to the upper
class,) even by opinion, as he died at Milan, and
a statue has been placed to his honour on the
staircase of the public Library there. They
apply equally even now to the Christian oath re
quired bv our House of Commons, as the Jews
�64
LETTERS TO
know too well. On the contrary, Lord Brougham,
who could not have written as freely as the above,
never hints a word about opinion not allowing him
to speak out! This again comes from our selfsufficiency and Protestant cant—this real mockery
of real liberty!
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
65
LETTER IV.
Citizens,—If, in the heat of composition, I have
let a few expressions drop that may appear wanting
in courtesy, I beg you now not to take the same in
bad part, since I am well aware that you drew your
religion from the “ Old Mother Country,” and
that your separation from it was very shortly
afterwards followed by the French Revolution, in
which some of the leaders openly denounced
religion of every description.
Now, it is natural for us all to respect the reli
gion of our parents, be it right or wrong ; and as
it was the fashion of many writers, both here and
in America, to attribute the unjustifiable scenes in
France to the writings of the Deists and Atheists,
who preceded the outbreak, (but as I shall show
presently without foundation,) it was no wonder
that during the Presidency of Washington and
Adams, your more just and virtuous citizens, in
sisted on the recognition—at least by opinion—of
some form or other of Christianity, as absolutely
necessary to the foundation of your Republic.
But I beg you to remember that, supposing this
reasoning were just in 1794, it will not at all
events be so to the same extent now. At that
time there was a well grounded fear that the Re
public itself, even with this supposed assistance
from Christianity, was impossible ; now it is esta
blished beyond any fear of its falling, at all events
�66
LEITERS TO
from external foes. Consequently, now seems the
time for the nation which has done so much to
wards establishing a system of political justice, to
attempt a real advancement in the same direction
in matters of religious liberty.
*
On this subject Cox justly says, that in some
respects “ our Sabbath sanctity ” took its rise
about sixty years ago, when the atrocities and
follies of the French Revolution, and especially
the abolition for a time of the hebdomadal festival
of Christians, gave an impulse in this country to
unwonted strictness in the observance of religious
ordinances. (Cox, p. 335.)
Again—George Combe to the same effect, (p.
338,) “ People at that time thought that by such
Puritanical conduct they tended to give greater
security to property by preventing revolution;”
and, adds Combe, “ one or probably two genera
tions must pass, before reason will again exert
any salutary influence over religious opinion in
Scotland.”
Bishop Watson also was prevented by this re
vulsion in public feeling from introducing “ a
Bill for Expunging the Athanasian Creed from
our Liturgy,” {Op. Cit., p. 338 ;) and so it re
mains there unheeded still—an example of the
slowness with which reason always marches in the
* The misunderstanding between Thomas Paine and
Washington was also to be deplored for the interests of
rational Theism ; since the Americans naturally enough
take the side of the latter, (as the great man who emanci
pated them,) and as he at least publicly (though not pri
vately) supported Christianity, this increases the disposition
of Americans to do the same, and make them think this
hypocrisy is really for the public good. Although pious
Christians will, of course, dislike the style of Paine’s Age
of Reason, there is no doubt of its literary merit or its
.reason.
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
67
world. Cox furnishes three or four pages, show
ing the prevalence of the same feeling, until at
last we find the Scotch Assembly actually wished
to prevent the population “ from wandering in the
fields or frequenting scenes of recreation ” on the
Sabbath, (p. 341,) and that too so late as 1834!
What would the rational Catholicism of France,
and let me now add Piedmont, (at least in many
practical points,) think of such twattie ? I
consider, Protestants as we call ourselves, we are
in very to any respects behind Catholics like these.
It is clear, then, that Britain, even at ^pre
sent time, has scarcely got free from the effects on
her religion of that nightmare—the first French
Revolution; and no doubt the same may be said
of the United States. But, at all events, it is
time they both should; and the late immense asso
ciation (1855) in Hyde Park on a Sunday, to pro
test against all such barbarous cant, was a good
omen, and an honour to the British public.
I shall now proceed to show briefly the errone
ousness and short-sightedness of the view which
attributes the revolution in question to the writings
of Montesquieu, Rousseau, Diderot, Voltaire, and
others.
And, in the first place, I would ask,—if these
writings induced men to act as well as to think,—
how is it that the writings of Bolinbroke, Hume,
Gibbon, Earl of Chatham, George Combe, the
*
* His Letter on Superstition, (already alluded to, p. 5,)
and he too with his vast influence, as Prime Minister ! As
I see no notice of this Letter in Lord Brougham’s States
men, and as one of his last speeches contains thoughts at
least rather favourable to Christianity than otherwise, it
seems right to consider this Letter as private ; or written
for posthumous publication. Would that all the Peers and
Commons, who thought like him, did the same! and then
what volumes on volumes we should have!
�68
LETTERS TO
author of the Vestiges, (and others, as Paine’s in
a more offensive style to orthodox Christians,)
though in circulation to the extent of thousands
of thousands of copies for very many years past,
have not been sufficient to produce any change
whatever in the laws affecting Christianity in this
country, or hardly even in those usages which
depend on opinion only ? A revolution in reli
gion indeed !—why they have not sufficed, even in
those who are converts to the rational and just
views of these writers ! to make the majority of
such people, or even the minority, change the
hypocritical system of considering music, draughts,
or chess on the Sunday improper.
*
The common
cry with such men (in private) is, our religion is
no doubt not of divine origin, but what harm does
it do ? Let us, therefore, follow it, and respect
all the prejudices of the vulgar as regards the
Sabbath.
I will venture to say that this
is still the reasoning, of at least ninety out
of every hundred of confirmed unbelievers in
Britain, such great penalties are attached socially
to disbelief. As already observed, the same views
Posthumous confessions are better than none at all; and
become a man’s duty, when opinion forces us to live in
such miserable hypocrisy. Volume of truth after volume
would surely at last conquer even opinion !
“ Gutta cavat lapidem, non vi, sed sage cadendo."
My chief motive for publishing this Work is to add a
drop or mite, fully satisfied that thousands more will be
wanting.
* In the prospectus of the St. James’s Club, opened
about three years ago in St. James’s Square, was printed:—
No games (including the above) allowed on Sunday. On
meeting one of the members some time after, I was sur
prised to find the house shut up, but not so surprised at
the cause of it, which was, that the saintly manager who
penned, or was concerned in penning, the above, was off
with all the funds lie could collect.
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
69
prevail in the States—upheld too by opinion
only !
Now all this shows that the Anglo-Saxons are,
as Parker says—in opposition to the Germans—
a practical people. They have hitherto had an
idea that Christianity does good, as the unbelievers
Frederick the Great, Washington, and perhaps
Jefferson had ; and, consequently, that it is for
the public benefit, that such religion should be
dominant.
Even Voltaire, in comparing the Stoicism of
the Ancients with primitive Christianity, speaks
favourably of the latter ; and Rousseau does the
same in his Emile. Voltaire’s satire was aimed
chiefly at the Catholics ; and Rousseau’s eloquence
directed rather against the truth than the utility
of the creed. Accordingly, his apostle Robespierre
was very tolerant to Christians, and all who pro
fessed religion of some sort, even when himself
advocating the Deistic form -of worship. The
massacres which took place while he was in power
and cast such a blot on his name, seem the off
spring of fear and suspicion, in consequence of
the want of confidence in the strength of his own
government. Certainly religion was scarcely at
all concerned in them.
*
* Lewis’s Zz/e of Robespierre, (with my commentary
M.S.) Robespierre’s hatred was directed only against the
Atheistic party—the party who had, in 1793, so shamelessly
set up the u Goddess of Reason ” in the shape of a beau
tiful woman crowned with evergreens, and in apparent
mockery of all religious service, as well also as of Reason
itself, and consequently of themselves, made it a part of
this religious service! for the President publicly to embrace
her. This blasphemy fortunately only lasted a few months ;
and I must consider that D'flolbac, Diderot, and Meslier,
whose writings probably led to it, would, as conscientious
Atheists, have been as much disgusted at such an indirect
�70
LETTERS TO
Thus much by way of showing that in France
as in Britain, Christianity was not, even by its
most determined opponents, regarded with aversion
as doing actual harm; for these men naturally
enough, blinded by the force of opinion of the
age, could not see it as Tacitus could in its true
colours, when he called it a “ pernicious super
stition.” {Exitiabilis Superstitio.} {Ann., Book
xv.) Suetonius too speaks of it in a similar spirit
of reprobation, and calls it malefica, and seems
by such term to think it merited either punish
ment or contempt. {Life of Nero, Sect. 16.)
These writers had clearly scarcely heard of Christ,
and as Tacitus puts down the supposed miracles
*
of Vespasian, he was the man to have inserted
those of Jesus, had they been known to the edu
cated.
Our French neighbours, though less practical
than ourselves, would never have been inclined to
fight to put down a mere opinion, especially when
their great literary champions, Voltaire and Rous
seau, told them such opinion did no harm. All
in accordance with this, we find it was rather the
large sums they had to pay such Christian priests
than the Theology of these men, that most in
mockery of their system, as the Deists themselves were at
such scoffing at all religion; since they wrote in earnest,
and were men of conviction, who at least saw nothing
ridiculous in Deism. Thiers, justly therefore, considers it
was a great change for the better when the inscription on
the churches “ To Reason ” was effaced, and that to “ The
Supreme Being ” substituted. But Robespierre himself
fell very soon after this change, (in July, 1794,) hated and
plotted against, by this Atheistic party, to the last—a proof
of the great intolerance in human nature, and that Chris
tianity does not cause it, though it vastly increases it.
* He clearly believed in Divination, {Ann. vi., 22,)
hence probably in Prophecy.
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
71
creased the discontent, as Mignet properly says in
his History of this French Revolution. In con
sequence, ameliorations were made in this respect
even before Louis XVI. was beheaded; and we
also find before that event, that “ a majority of
the clergy, chiefly parish priests, joined the nation
or the tiers etatf
*
It is true we find lower down
in the same page, that “ a minority of the clerical
chamber chiefly bishops, and high benefced
clergy,” refused to do so, and opposed the King,
whom Paine calls “ a man of a good heart,” when
he attempted to promote “ fusion ” between the
higher, middle, and lower classes. This took
place in 1 789-90, and shows that the majority of
the clergy were favourable to a free constitution ;f
and that the part which opposed it, did so for the
same reason that some of the nobles opposed it,
and quite irrespective of the question of religion'
As the bulk of the clergy, then, joined the tiers
etat or the popular side, at the very beginning of
the revolution, this must naturally have disposed
the revolutionary leaders, if not to friendship, at
all events to a sort of indifference or non-hostility
to them. And, consequently, a desire to upset
the Christian religion and to establish another in
its place, cannot be numbered among the actual
causes of the revolution.
I have admitted that the more material question
(to the populace always so) of the pay of the
clergy, might have been so concerned. The other
causes concerned were, like this, of a completely
* Vales’s Life of Paine. {Steps to the French Revolution.)
p. 87.
7
t The clergy who had proved themselves the earliest
and steadiest friends of freedom,” (viz., by junction with
the Tiers-Etat.) Sir A. Alison’s History of Europe, chap.
�72
LETTERS TO
practical character, and still less connected with
the philosophy of Rousseau or Voltaire. They
were, 1 and 2, the great scarcity of bread, and
the embarrassed state of the government finances ;
*
so that while the lower classes could not get food,
the higher classes could not get money—the
money owed to them by government. Add to
these the Sovereign’s power of sending parties to
the bastile without trial, the fact that all classes
considered themselves over-taxed, and that
Lafayette with victorious troops had just arrived
from a successful revolutionary war in America,
and we shall have adequate causes for revolution,
in any country, and still more so in the military
and highly susceptible French nation.
We flatter ourselves with the idea, that no revo
lution takes place in Britain, in consequence, as
* “ Within six months after the revolution broke out,
the revenue had fallen from £24,000,000 to £17,000,000
a year, and that at the very time when the embarassment
of the finances had been the principal cause of the convo
cation of the States-General. No resource could be found
to meet the pressing difficulties of the Exchequer, owt the
confiscation of the property of the church, and subsequently
that of the emigrant nobles.” (Sir A. Alison s History,
chap xv., p. 225.) This confirms what I have before said,
viz., that the state of the finances (conjoined with famine
and general political tyranny) was the cause of the out
break, and at this time the property of the clergy was only
taken, “ because no other resource could be found to
meet the difficulty.
M. Mounier, Lords Jeffrey and Brougham, though diliering on some minor points, may be said to agree as to the
principal causes being those given in the text, and also to
a^ree in considering the writings of Voltaire, Rousseau,
and others, as little; if at all, concerned in the outbreak.
Neither does Lord Brougham, in his notice of Robespierre,
ascribe the subsequent murderous scenes of the revolution
to the want of faith in Christianity of those m power.
(Brougham’s French Revolution and its Leaders, pp. 4, 7.)
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
73
our journalists say, of the “ great national respect
for law,” and some add for religion. Now, all
this is fallacy, as the unsuccessful Kennington
Common Demonstration in 1848 sufficiently
evinced. It is at once refuted by the immense
extent of poverty in this country ; for it would
be absurd to suppose that our labourers and
mechanics would not better by revolution their too
often truly miserable condition—if they thought
they would be able. Here lies the secret of tran
quillity with us. It too is material. It is want
of power. Our British mobs have never been
able to succeed against our disciplined British
military.
Favourable circumstances make revolutions
much oftener than abstract writers. If Lafayette
and his soldiers had not returned victorious to
France, it is not improbable, even with famine and
debt staring them in the face, the French might
have been quiet. But here were means to an end.
And certainly Voltaire and Rousseau might have
written with the same result to France, that our
own philosophical writers, formerly named, have
done to Britain, had not famine and debt arrived
at the same time, and caused much more general
discontent, than a false system of Theology.
Southey was one who considered the toleration
of such writings as those of the French philoso
phers led to the French revolution. But this is
not true, said Lord Byron. “ Every French
writer of any freedom was persecuted. Voltaire
and Rousseau were exiles; Marmontel and Diderot
were sent to the bastile. In the next place, the
French Revolution was not occasioned by any
writings whatever, but must have occurred had no
such writers ever existed. The cause of it is ob
vious—the government exacted too much, and the
E
�71
LETTERS TO
people could neither bear nor give more. Without
this the Encyclopedists might have written their
fingers off, without the slightest alteration. * *
Acts, on the part of government, and not writings
against them, have caused the past convulsions ”*
I have little doubt that neither the religious
writings of Voltaire nor of Rousseau, were con
cerned in this outbreak, as is commonly asserted.
Neither certainly were the political writings of
Voltaire; for, like myself, he seems to have advo
cated a strong government, and perfect equality
of all religions only, and not of men. But as
regards the political writings of Rousseau, I am
not quite so certain. I think his doctrine of the
“ equality of men ” may have tended to produce
the outbreak, as I have admitted further on, Robes
pierre’s very high admiration of these political
writings tended to increase the amount of whole
sale murders and atrocities. But as this doctrine
of equality had been advocated by Lycurgus, by
Plato, by Sir T. More, (Utopia.) and to still fur
ther extent, and still more ably perhaps, by these
men than by Rousseau, we must not put too much
stress even on these political writings : and though
we admit some influence to them, still this does
not affect my argument, which is, that Rousseau
and Voltaire’s religious (or irreligious) writings
were not the cause of it, in other words that it
was not caused by a general disbelief in Chris
tianity.
Having made it appear clear that the theological
writings of the French philosophers did not cause
the revolution, we may now enter more in detail
into that second most important point of inquiry,
viz., whether the suppression of Christianity after
* Notes to the Vision of Judgment.
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
75
the revolution had fairly began, was the cause of
the wholesale murders and atrocities committed.
And, in the first place, that this was not the
cause of Louis the XVI. being so unjustly put to
death, (any more so than in the case of our own
Charles I.,) is clear from the fact, that it was not
till after this period that Christianity was sup
pressed in France.
We come, then, at once to the constitution of
1793. But, as Lord Brougham says, this was far
more Democratic than the one of 1795, which
succeeded it; and both were far more so than the
present constitution of the United States. {Poli
tical Philosophy, vol. iii., p. 105.)
Now, if Legislators can be so absurd as to at
tempt to launch a people into the wildest Demo
cracy immediately after such people have only
been used to a monarchy, does it not follow at once
(setting all change of religion aside for the mo
ment) that such a people, especially those of
so excitable a nature as the French, must at once
launch into the wildest and most criminal ex
cesses ? Jefferson, and all the best writers, have
held the opinion that people should be gradually
accustomed to liberty. Yet in open defiance of
this wise truth, the brench in their revolution of
1793, equally as in the last of 1848 ! attempted
to rush at once from Monarchy to Red Republi
canism, or Socialism ! The consequence has been
they have as signally failed the last as the first
time ; the only difference is, that they have im
proved in humanity by the sad experience of ’93.
*
* I feel that Christian opponents may, with an appear
ance of justice, ascribe this amelioration to the open pro
fession of Catholicism which was made by Lamartine and
some of the other leaders of the Revolution of 1848. But
still we must not forget the improved spirit of the age
�76
LETTERS TO
The bloody murders, then, in this year were the
consequence of a ¿first clumsy experiment in new
government, and the necessary consequence not
of the absence of the Christian religion, but of
the presence of actual anarchy.
In order to consider this point fully, I shall
refer again to the Political Philosophy, (p. 116,)
where we find it asserted that “ the worst effect of
popular government is, that the supreme power is
placed in irresponsible hands. The people exer
cise their office, accountable to no earthly tribunal.
Each individual, too, forms so inconsiderable a
part in the body which decides in any instance,
that he feels little or no responsibility to rest upon
him even as regards his own conscience. As for
public opinion, from the nature of the thing, it
exists not, the people themselves being those
whose sentiments are meant when public cpinion
is spoken of. * * The people can only dread
having their conduct exposed, or made hateful or
despicable in their own eyes, in a moment of calm
reflection. This resembles rather the feeble check
which conscience imposes upon a tyrant or a***
***
already alluded to, and also tlie history of the Republic
of 1795, in which a great improvement took place as re
gards humanity, and which Republic lasted without any
established religion at all for some years, till it was put
down by actual force on the part of Buonaparte. And,
after all, the amelioration in 1848 was not all that could
be wished, for there were many brutal individual murders
committed, and the mass of the Socialists who fought
against the illustrious General Cavaignac, (a moderate,
rational, and honest Republican,) were perhaps in reality
little better than well disciplined robbers, (if they will excuse
me the expression.) Instead of many murders at the
Guillotine, in detail so to speak, in this revolution, there
were many on a wholesale scale, which removes our horror
at them in some respect, as we seem to contemplate two
armies fighting against each other.
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
77
patrician oligarchy, than the restraining voice of
public opinion
*
It would be exactly the same in
its operation, with that shadowy restraint of con
science, were it not that men are prone to suspect
and distrust each other, and that people will
naturally enough look forward to the risk that
some of their own body may reprobate the pro
ceeding in contemplation. But it is not only that
the holders of supreme power in a Democracy are
placed beyond the reach of censure ; they are like
wise secure from all personal risk. * * Their
excesses may prove in the result detrimental to
themselves, but they can never be visited with
vengeance by the victims of their wrong. The
tyrant most fenced about with guards, is always
in proportion to his supremacy subject to fear—
* In p. 118 he applies all this to the “ popular leader.”
“ He is secure of the approval of his own side, and he
looks not beyond it. For him, therefore, there exists no
such tribunal as the public, and no public opinion can have
any influence in controlling liis proceedings."
I consider all this as somewhat inconsistent with what he
says at p. 121, viz., that a Democracy is often unfavourable
to “ free discussion in points of their highest interest.” In
truth, all writers on America, as Brougham admits else
where, say and say justly, that the tyranny of opinion is
the greatest defect of the Republican form of government.
Jefferson himself calls it the “Lord of the Universe.”
The President of the States, far from being too lit tle, is far
too much, under the influence of this power ; by it, he is
often degraded to yield to the most unjust and lowest pre
judices of the mob. The great Jefferson, though a Deist,
could not make public profession beyond Unitarianism ;
and no President could go further in free thought on this
subject, even at the present day. However, this defect is
not confined to a Republic ; it will exist also in any govern
ment that considers itself free. For instance, in England,
the power of opinion is still greater (as the late “ beard
and moustache movement” shows) than in the States on
such minor points as these, equally as on religious
questions.
�78
LETTERS TO
his appointed punishment. Many an act is thus
prevented, and many a pain is thus endured. * *
“ The sufferer who is oppressed by a tyrant or
an oligarchy has the sympathy of the people.
This is withheld from him who is the people’s
victim ; and this has always been felt as an aggra
vation of the wrongs which popular caprices in
flict. * * The cruelty of the Parisian multi
tude, during the reign of Terror, was raised to a
pitch altogether unendurable by their savage
exultation in the destruction of those patriots and
sages who had devoted the best energies of their
lives to the service of the people.
*
*
*
*
“ No man dares breathe a whisper against the
prevailing sentiments, (when one party in a Demo
cracy has been fully established.
)
*
* * The
agitators in the French Revolution were only safe
if they adopted the most violent causes that were
propounded. Robespierre succeeded by going
beyond all others, (Lord Brougham means in
public executions,) in his public life.” (The in
ference from this passage, then, is that Robespierre
was goaded to such excesses by fear of the people.)
* In allusion to this mob despotism, he asks in the next
page, (121,) “Who in England will show the difficulty of
carrying on the government without some nomination
boroughs? No one has dared,—and why? Because
the people, whose highest interests require full and deliberate
discussion (on this point,) will not permit it to be so much
as mentioned.” This remark seems far more applicable to
the question of reform in religion, both in England and
America : yet with his usual caution on this topic, (as we
shall see further on,) it is altogether overlooked by Lord
Brougham. Even he, who alludes to “ nomination
boroughs,” says, like the multitude in general, “ let us
leave the question of religion alone.” I repeat, when we
hear such expressions as these, we are right with Nir.
Arthur Trevelyan to talk of the “ insanity of mankind.”
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
79
Again, at p. 182—“ Nothing can be more certain
than that the worst excesses of the French Revo
lution were occasioned by the interference of the
people with the proceedings of the Legislative
Assembly first, and afterwards of the National
Convention. Hardly a day passed without some
popular commotion ; and it was the ordinary
spectacle to see mobs enter the Hall, and demand
the adoption of certain favourite measures. It
was, I remember, usual to say in those days that
the whole of the mischief arose from suffering the
galleries to interfere with their plaudits or their
hisses. * * The people, both in Paris and the
great provincial towns, had only partially given
over their power to the Assembly or the Conven
tion. * * They accordingly were distributed
in societies or clubs: they had nightly meetings
to discuss the proceedings taken by their deputies
during the morning: they arrogated to themselves
the right of approving or rejecting all that was
done by the constituted authorities: and they
knew their own power from the physical force in
their hands, well enough to rest satisfied with
nothing short of a direct control over those autho
rities.” * * He proceeds to say, these clubs
also communicated through the municipality with
the rabble of the streets, and the control of the
government was thus in their hands. “ The
reign of terror strengthened whatever constitution
succeeded that of ’93 : and the horror of mob
violence continued, not only throughout the
directorial government to prevent all direct inter
ference of the people, but was the main proof of
the consular and then of the imperial regimen,
*
* Brougham had previously, at p. 60, stated the same.
�80
LETTERS TO
in loth of which the people were deprived of all
influence, direct, or indirect.”* (p. 184.)
As neither in the above extracts, nor in any
other part of his work, do I perceive that Lord
Brougham even hints at the suppression of Chris
tianity. as one of the causes of the excesses in
the French Revolution, I presume I may place
him by the side of Lord Byron and others who
do not consider that such excesses arose from any
such cause. Indeed, although in my opinion
Lord Brougham speaks in far too guarded and
ambiguous a manner for an impartial man on the
subject of religion generally, still it is remarkable
that he does not even mention religion even as a
“ check ” upon the Democratic form of govern
ment, although he has a long section showing, in
such case, that “ checks” are absolutely necessary;
and have properly been resorted to at present by
the United States, with the same view that they
were formerly by the turbulent Democracy of
Athens, (pp. 99 to 1G7.) And, indeed, religion
is no doubt "with the masses a much more feeble
“ check” than actual law.
It will result I think from a careful perusal of
the part of Brougham’s work just mentioned, that
he would attribute the excesses in question to the
absence of legal or political checks only. At
p. 101 he tells us, that triennial elections “ seem
most desirable as a protection to representatives
for their in depen dan cef and to the people for
* I have sometimes abridged these quotations, where I
could do so without altering the meaning. Lord Brougham
and all who aim at occasional eloquence, necessarily say more
than the exact sense requires.
f These words of Brougham, which I have put in italics,
sufficiently show that Rousseau was nearly right (at all
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
SI
their powerand that annual elections, bv
making delegates “ mere agents,” do not oppose
a sufficiently strong “ check” to Democracy.
In noticing the Athenian constitution, lie says,
events) when he said the representative system, except
under annual election, was, as regards actual liberty of the
electors, a sort of sham or humbug. The precise words of
Rousseau, indeed, are only during election. (Contrat Social,
quoted by Brougham, p. 60.) Brougham, in reply to this,
says, the people only temporarily lose some power, and not
liberty. Brougham, in this remark, is endeavouring to
alter the meaning that Rousseau attached to the word
liberty. I believe Rousseau to be right in his assertion, at
the same time that with Brougham, I believe that the
people are much better off, and, considering the chances of
anarchy, practically speaking more free, when such checks
as he mentions are put upon their power or liberty, using
these words in the same sense; for it seems to me to be
merely an attempt to humbug the people, by refining too
much on words. Tell them at once, you may lose or you
may not lose, (as the case turns out,) some liberty by the
representative system, but you will be better for it. As
Lord Brougham is very properly for giving the Suffrage to
all who can read and write, and are not under criminal dis
ability, (Op. Cit., pp. 81-2.) I think his work would
have had higher merit if he had been equally liberal in
speaking truth more plainly on this subject, and also on
matters of religion. But, unfortunately, under our pseudoProtestant system, (itself the origin of all our cant,) the
habit we are all more or less obliged to contract of speak
ing only half the truth in matters of religion, insinuates
itself, as in our present author’s case, into other subjects,
and contributes to keep up the actor all through life.
I am not to be understood by the above remarks as
agreeing with all Rousseau’s political opinions. In his
Contrat Social he seems rather inconsistent with his Con
fessions, when, in his chapter Z>e la Censure, he seems to
approve of having a very strong public opinion in a coun
try. And though he seems right in considering that Theism
or “ religion civile," as he calls it, is necessary to all good
government, yet I would not banish those (as he would,
p. 285) who did not believe even in this : still less have
“ those put to death {idem.) who, having sworn they be
�82
LETTERS TO
“ no law inconsistent with an old one could he
proposed without directly repealing the old one;—
an admirable rule for any Legislature.” ip. 103.)
And, I may remark, one which we ourselves should
do well to observe—we, who multiply laws ad in
finitum to the advantage of lawyers, and injury of
the public. Although Lord Brougham censures
the “ check,” which allowed the Athenian to pro
secute the author of a law “ found detrimental on
trial,” (p. 104,) still it may be a debatable point
whether some very slight punishment (such as fine)
should not be inflicted on the authors of some of
our absurd laws, where the mere vanity of wishing
to be known as a new member often prompts the
illiterate man to propose a most unjust, as well as
absurd, change.
Turning to the “ checks” in the United States,
we find that the one House is only elected for
two years, the other is elected for six, (and that
both are paid ;) and that the President is allowed
very great patronage and power. (104.) Further
on (p. 337) the following law is stated, which, if
not a check on the people, is, as Brougham says,
a wise check on the Legislature. The Supreme
Courts have the power to decide whether any pro
position that has passed both Houses, is constitu
tional or not; and if considered not so, is pre
prevented by these judges from becoming a law.
Brougham (at p. 105) enumerates in detail the
“checks” on the French Constitution of 1703,
without saying a word about the suppression of
Christianity. Again—“ That of ’95 was less
purely Democratic,” (p. 105,) with the same
lieved it, acted as if they did not.” This was the unnatural
Theistic intolerance, that caused the Atheistic party to fear
and hate Robespierre so much ; and is too Christian and
tyrannical.
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
83
silence as to religion. In this we find that both
Chambers were only elected for three years, and
the Directors (or Presidents) for five years, (p.
105.) Hence, as in the United States, the Senate
is elected for six years, this constitution of ”95
was still far more Democratic than that of America,
which had the advantage too of an additional
“ check ” against anarchy, viz , the having sepa
rated from a less despotic Monarchy than had
existed in France. The Americans had thus been
gradually accustomed to a certain degree of liberty.
But the good influence even of this constitution
of ’95 (too Democratic as it still wasj over that
of ’93, is shown by the wholesale murders and
other excesses for the most part ceasing after it
came into force.
*
If it be said that shortly after
this, (viz., in 17 95,) Christianity was allowed to
make its appearance again, and this was the cause
of the great diminution in the amount of judicial
* Its faults are pointed out more in detail in Lord
Brougham’s work. (pp. 350-353.) I do not, however,
observe that he passes a very decided opinion on the unity
or divisibility (so to speak) of the Executive. He, how
ever, seems to prefer unity in this case ; and justly, for we
find in 1797 that three of the Directors (the Executive
consisted of five) combined against the other two, Carnot
and Barthélémy, and by the aid of military force succeeded
“ in expelling and transporting" (p. 353) many members of
the Council ; so that, having destroyed this party, they
continued to govern the country for two years more by the
constitution of ’95. The advantage of unity in the Exe
cutive is shown by the present constitution of the United
States; and if calculated to pievent discord among Ame
ricans, was doubly necessary among such an excitable
people as the French. The election of many Royalists
was the chief cause of this outbreak : a cause which will
always continue to render the establishment of a Republic
in France next to impossible. Even America would pro
bably not have continued so stable, if she had at first been
more than a Colony—a distant part of a Monarchy.
�84
LETTERS TO
murders, I reply by admitting the fact that the
people, in consequence of their petition to the new
Convention, were permitted to frequent the Catho
lic churehes, provided they consented to “ main
tain them at their own expense.”* I must admit,
therefore, that at this period there existed on the
part of the government a spirit of indifference in
matters of religion, (since we find they only yielded
to the wishes of the Catholics on this point,) in
which Christianity was tolerated as well as Robes
pierre’s Deism, or Theophilanthropism. But I
cannot attribute the increased humanity, as regards
the bloody scenes in question, to the influence of
Christianity, because this religion was not allowed
to have any power over the others, or to become
the national religion, until its final re-establish
ment to that position by Napoleon, after he became
Emperor. It is quite clear, then, that the bene
ficial change in question, after ’95, arose from the
suppression of the spirit of anarchy among the
masses, by a less Democratic form of government
—in fact, by the direct influence of law, and not
by the ever indirect and uncertain influence of
religion. At the same time, I will admit that,
possibly this less inimical view, with which Chris
tianity was regarded by the government, tended
to make the Christian part of the population less
disposed to change, or to run any chance of
anarchy. Robespierre wished to make Deism the
State Religion ; his successors to raise Christianity
at all events to a level with it. But as I do not
attribute the murderous scenes during Robes
pierre’s tenure of office to his religion, but his too
great fear of the people, in consequence of the
government being too Democratic; so neither do
* Alison’s French Revolution, p. 551. Again in chap. xix.
�TIIE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
85
I attribute the diminution in these massacres in
’95 and the few following years to any great in
*
fluence from Christianity, which was only just be
ginning to show its head again. There are coinci
dences in the moral equally as in the physical
world, which the mass of superficial thinkers are
apt to mistake for connexions; and such has been,
and still is the case, I am sorry to say, on this
subject, both in Britain and the United States.
It is this fallacy, put forth with all the eloquence
of truth, by such men as Burke, that has contri
buted to keep both these nations, as Hurlbut says
of the latter, (and might have said still more truly
of the former,) in such “ an infant state of reli
gious freedom.”
To show the utter absurdity of the above opinion,
it is only necessary to reflect how superior the
government of the Roman Empire was under the
Pagans, Augustus, Trajan, Adrian, the Anto
nines, dec., dec., to what it was under the Christian
Constantine and some of his Christian successors.
Or that of modern Prussia under the "'infidel”
Frederick the Great, to that of his Christian
father. Now, as Christianity did not exist in
these cases just instanced, of course the good
government I allude to was not dependant on any
supposed “ humanising effect” of such religion.
Lord Brougham in bis Lives of Statesmen
passes the warmest eulogy on the character of
* No doubt the principle of re-action operated also.
Even the most Democratic must have perceived that whole
sale murder had been carried much further than the stabi
lity of the Republic required, and that many illustrious,
and at the same time harmless, men had been most unjustly
sacrificed, by (to put the best construction on the case) a
false idea of utility. Accordingly, we find that in the out
break in 1797 Carnot and others were only banished or
transported, and not guillotined. (See late Note.)
�80
LETTERS TO
Carnot, who was at the head of the French army
during the time of Robespierre ; and, as it seems
certain that he opposed no active opposition to
the “judicial murders ” of this individual. I must
here adduce this fact in favour of my argument,
viz., that if not absolutely necessary, they seemed
expedient, in that very critical conjuncture of
affairs, and had nothing whatever to do with the
suppression of Christianity. Carnot’s defence,
says Brougham, that “ he remained in office with
such detestable men as his colleagues ; that he
even signed the orders of execution in his turn,”
&c., &c., is, “ that he began to administer the war
department, and had gained brilliant success,
before his colleagues commenced their reign of
teiror. That had he followed his own inclinations
and opposed this, the country was conquered,
possibly portioned—far more blood spilt—far
more lasting disgrace incurred by the nation—far
more permanent disasters entailed upon all classes
of the people—than all that the terrorist execu
tions and confiscations could produce. Was it
not enough for him to know, that his retirement
would certainly not have stayed the proscription,
while it most probably would have opened the
gates of Paris to the allies ?” (p. 36Ô.)
Such are some of the leading arguments made
use of by Lord Brougham to justify the compara
tively speaking passive part that Carnot took in
the so-called judicial proceedings of the reign of
terror. And when we remember, that “two
Spanish armies attacked the line of the Pyrenees,
that another was advancing from Piedmont ; that
La Vendée was in the hands of the rebels, with
40,000 armed peasantry ; that Marseilles and
Lyons had separated themselves from the re
publican government, and that an English fleet
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
87
rode in the harbour of Toulon ; and nevertheless
that, in less than a year and a half of Carnot’s mi
litary administration, twenty-seven victories had
been gained; 80,000 of the enemy slain, and
91,000 made prisoners, &c., &c.” (Brougham,
p. 369) we must feel inclined to argue that
Carnot required every possible assistance from at
least wholesale banishment—if not from wholesale
slaughter by the guillotine—in order to diminish
the number of internal royalist French foes,
when so many external foreign ones threatened on
all sides.
This assertion is clearly true, since further on,
(p. 371,) Lord Brougham says, “It is believed
that at every period of the Revolution, the great
majority of the French people, except in the ca
pital were averse to republican principles ; and the
elections of 1797, (the first under the new consti
tution,) returned a majority of royalists and mo
derate reformers.” When Pichegru, a royalist was
elected President of the Five Hundred, and Carnot
knew that insurrection was plotting against him
self and the republican party generally, “ he was
still above,” says Brougham, “ all acts that wore
even the semblance of treachery, and became the
sacrifice to his unchangeable integrity,” (being
banished as we have already observed.)
When another revolution destroyed the directo
rial power, and placed Napoleon as First Consul,
Carnot was recalled by him from exile and became
war minister ; but “ he resigned the office,” says
Brougham, “ when he perceived that Napoleon
harboured projects hostile to liberty, having voted
against the Consulship for life and the Imperial
title.” (p. 372.) All this shows the disinterestedness
of the man, and is favourable to the view that the
�88
LETTERS TO
present writer, following Brougham in this re
spect, takes of his indirect support of the reign of
terror ;
he must have regarded it at the time
as a sort of necessary evil.
Sir Archibald Alison, in one of the most elo
quent passages of his History of Europe, (vol. ii.,
p. 144.), supports Lord Brougham in the above
view of Carnot’s character, and concludes this
enlogy on his “ real greatnessby noticing the
fact that should never be lost sight of in attempt
ing to form an impartial judgment of Robespierre,
and all concerned in the government in 1793-4,
viz., that France on this occasion, resisted success
fully a more formidable attack—especially when
the immense opposition of the Vendée is re
membered, than Napoleon, with his “ veterans,”
was able to do in 1815. “ And this,” says Alison,
was due to the ability of the Committee of Public
Safety, “ and the despotic power wielded by
the Convention.” (Op. Cit.,p. 145.J “ Fear be
came the great engine for filling the ranks ; the
bayonets of the allies appeared less formidable,
than the guillotine of the Convention.” (p. 144 )
Alison takes a fairer view of Robespierre’s cha
racter, than a writer so opposed to him in religion
and politics could perhaps, generally speaking,
have been expected to take. “ He and his party
deemed the blood that was spilt essential to the
success of freedom. * * In arriving at this
conclusion, they were doubtless mainly influenced
by the perils of their own situation ; they mas
sacred others, because they were conscious that
death, if vanquished, justly awaited themselves;
but still the weakness of humanity in their, as in
many similar cases, deluded them by the magic of
words, or the supposed influence of power motives,
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
89
and led them to commit the greatest crimes, while
constantly professing the noblest intentions.
*
There is nothing surprising in this; we have only
to recollect, that all France joined in a crusade
against the Albigeois, and that its bravest men
deemed themselves secure from eternal, by con
signing thousands of wretches to temporal, flames :
we have only to go back to Godfrey de Bouillon,
and the Christian warriors putting 40,000 unresist
ing citizens to death on the storming of Jerusalem,
to be convinced that such delusions are not pecu
liar to any particular age or country, but that they
are the universal offspring of fanaticism, whether
in political or religious contests. The writers, who
represent the Jacobins as mere blood thirsty
wretches, are well meaning and amiable, but weak
and ignorant men.” (Op. Cit., p. 209. J In a
note he says, that Napoleon and Cambacérès took
a similar view of Robespierre’s character, “ that
he had not attended the Committees for six weeks
before his fall,” and “ was at last desirous to stop
the executions.” (Las Cases.)
* I believe they actually had also good “ intentions
but Robespierre’s principles obliging him to live in the
humblest manner, (as Lamartine shows,) he, of course,
could create no fear by moraZ means, i.e., by external
pomp. And having not enough physical power at his com
mand, (as he was not a military man,) his position was a
false one, and instead of wholesale slaughter by cannon,
(as used in a subsequent revolution by Napoleon,) he was
driven to the same by the guillotine. The United States
have wisely given great power and patronage to their
president, and hence, although he has little moral power
from the effect of pomp in subduing the mind, he has what
is at the bottom of all good government, much physical
power. The very democratic French government allowing
little or none of this to Robespierre, his intentions, even
when noble, often became useless, and he was driven on by
a sort of desperation^ which, at times, lost sight of justice
entirely.
�90
LETTERS TO
I shall now enter into more details with respect
to the war in the Vendee, and first attempt to show
that Alison’s conclusion against Republicans gene
rally, and more especially against Deism, from the
atrocities committed in this war, is not only erro
neous, hut incompatible with the quotation just
given, in which we find 40,000 unresisting citi
zens were put to death by men, with all their faults,
who were Christians in earnest —inclined to
*
practice, what they at least conceived to be directly
or indirectly commanded by scripture, and not
of the present hypocritical and sanctified class,
(I speak generally!, who make their religion to
consist in mere assertions and appearances, while
their every day conduct is such, that it is obvious
they do not even attempt to practice some of its
very easiest duties.
He says, “ this contest first put the cause of re
volution openly and irrevocably at war with that of
religion ; the friends of real freedom ! (sic.,)
(he should have said slavery) for permanently en
listing on their side, a power which will never be
subdued.” (p. 140).
I may observe here, that by “ religion,” he means
of course Christianity ; for Robespierre’s Deism
seems regarded by him little better than Atheism.
As to Christianity “ never being subdued,” that
remains to be seen when it has lasted as long as
the Egyptian and Pagan religions lasted.
“ Religions take their turns ; ’twas Jove, ’tis Jesus,”
says Lord Byron. Religion itself “ will never be
subdued;” but Christianity is not this eternal
natural religion.
“ From the atrocious severities of the Republi
* “ The faith which then filled the souls of men, says
Valery, (Travels, p. 406,) is evaporated.”
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
91
can’s swav in this province, has arisen the profound
hatred of all the believers in the Christian faith at
their rule.” (idem )
He should, perhaps, have said Deistical Repub
lican sway to make the sense of this passage
clearer; for the Christian world seems to have no
objection to Republicanism as it exists in Switzer
land, and the United States, because the vast ma
jority in both these Republics profess Christianity,
and opinion is against Deism.
Alison, then, clearly means, that all believers
in the Christian faith, ascribe those monstrous
enormities, “ the Republican baptisms and mar
riages’,’ to the proscription of Christianity from
the French Republican government at this time.
As I believe this is the general sentiment, I do
not object to his stating it as such, but to his
appearing to embrace such belief himself, after
having made the statement we see he has done, in
reference to 40,000 unresisting citizens put to
death by pious Christians as they called, and no
doubt thought themselves. He might, moreover,
have added to these, the slaughter by Christian
armies, after the taking of Mexico and Peru, &c.,
&c., &c.
But it is now time to make some statements,
which will show that the slaughter, (I do not mean
by this to include wanton cruelty) in the Vendee was
even more justifiable than that in Jerusalem, for
in the last case, we find the citizens “ unresisting ; ’
whereas in the Vendée, the people were urged on
by the Priests, and resisted with such success, that
they were
near destroying the embryo Re
public itself, as the following extract from Alison’s
chapter on this subject, evinces :—
“ Thus was the invasion of six armies, amount
ing to 100,000 ! Cszc.J regular troops, part of
�92
LETTERS TO
whom were the best soldiers of France defeated,
and losses inflicted on the Republicans, incompara
bly greater than they had suffered from all the allies
put together since the commencement of the war”—
viz., by the Vendéans. ( Op. Cit., Ch. xii., p. 117.)
We find subsequently, that the Republicans were
successful, but the above extract will show the
immense difficulty put in their way by the Ven
déans. (See also p. 139 to same effect.)
But the causes of this war—which subsequently
assumed all the character of a war of Christian fana
ticism against natural religion, and not as formerly
against Mahommedanism—were like those of the
revolution itself, of a far more material character,
than we might be at first inclined to believe.
“ The confiscation of the church property, says
Alison, rendered necessary the laws against the
refractory priests, and thereby lighted the flames
of civil war in La Vendée.” (Op. Cit., p. 225.)
The Christian priests then, when like the curate
of St. Maria de Re, to be noticed presently, with
the cross in their hands, they harangued the ig
norant but loyal peasants about to combat, were
seeking revenge for loss of their property, (in
*
this respect, perhaps justly), as well as to revenge
the attempt that Robespierre, as far as he indivi
dually was concerned, had made, to put Deism
somewhat above Christianity ; for he as already
stated, was not of those who insanely attempted to
drive all religion from the earth.
" My children,” said de Re, “ I will march at
your head with the crucifix in my hands ; let those
who follow me fall on their knees, and I will give
* “ The levy of 300,000 men ordered by the Convention
in February, 1793,” was also greatly concerned, as Alison
informs us. f Op. Cit., p. 98.)
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
93
them, absolution: if they fall, they will be received
into Paradise; but the cowards who betray God
and their families, will be massacred by the blues,
and their souls consigned to hell? (Op. Cit.,
p. 127., Chap. xii.J Above 2,000 men fell on
their knees, received absolution and returned to
battle, the curate at their head, exclaiming—“ Vive
le Roi, nous aliens en Paradis.” (Op. Cit., ib.J
I have purposely marked in italics passages in
this address, similar to those addressed to men in
the earlier times of Mahommedanism, and equally
well calculated to urge them on to far more despe
rate combat, than any words with which an
Atheist, or even conscientious Deist, could possibly
speak to them. But as every impartial man, must
I apprehend regard such words in the light of rank
blasphemy, in which the creature assumes the
power of the Creator, and of obvious fraud, for
*
the sake of taking an advantage of the Republican
enemy, we have, perhaps, some little justification
for the fierce paroxysms of rage—little short of in
sanity—with which they must have filled the bosom
of an almost beaten Republican army, and conse
quently for the subsequent crimes of Carrier in his
“ baptisms and marriages.”
We find that, after the above quoted address of
De Re, the Royalists won the battle, leaving 6,000
killed and wounded on the field ; and that such
was the rancour inspired by fanaticism, that “they
seized each other and tore their bodies with their
hands after the ammunition had ceased.” (Op. Cit.,
p. 127.)
* Yet Alison passes over this address, rather with seem
ing approval than otherwise; so impossible is it for the
most disinterested Christian writer, in the present tyranni
cal state of opinion on the subject, to be as impartial as he
otherwise, no doubt, would be 1
�94
LETTERS TO
Alison, on a former occasion, forgetting, per
haps, what he was afterwards to assert as facts,
p. 96) tai ks about “ this superstition being of so
gentle and holy a kind,” and endeavours through
this chapter to make out that the cruelty was on
the Republican side. Admitting that it was so to
a greater extent, the following passages will show
that the Royalist peasants, with all their “ holy
superstition,” were not always so “ gentle’’ as he
asserts. “ When Machecoul was captured, the
prisons was forced by a furious mob, and above
eighty Republicans massacredin one day.” Again,
“ nearly 500 Republicans fell victims to the rage
of a Royalist Committee.” (Chap, xii., p. 104.)
Again, (chap, xvi., p. 274) “ Charette stormed
three of the intrenched camps, and put their gar
risons to the sword.” Yet this was the very Cha
rette who he says, at p. 104, “ was horror-struck ”
at the murder of the 500 Republicans just men
tioned, and a man who often “ had recourse to the
clergy” to instil obedience into his men, and who
“ took an oath to be faithful to the cause of God
(as he called it) and the throne.” (p. 107.)
Perhaps, from the history of this brave man,
(such he was, certainly,) may be gleaned one of
the best arguments to show that even the Repub
licans tried to begin by being mild, for “ when
he was at the head of only fourteen followers
(he subsequently had 20,000 under him alone) the
Convention offered him a million of francs if he
would retire to England.” (p. 107.) Again, (p. 108)
“ It is painful, said the Republican Commis
sioners, to be obliged to proceed to extremities,
but they cannot be avoided, from the fanaticism of
the peasants, who, in no one instance, have been
known to betray their landlords.”
After the fall of Robespierre, and the just exe
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
95
cution of Carrier, by "whose orders the “ mar
*
riages and baptisms” took place, we find a treaty
(January 1795) was concluded between the Ven
deans and Republican government, in which the
former were allowed the free exercise of Chris
tianity, two millions of francs for their war ex
penses and various indemnities, pardons, almost
total exemption from taxes, &c., &c., and they were
to submit to the Republic. But even this did not
satisfy them, for we find Charette, in the July
following, joining other Royalists ; and they were
scarcely even put down by ïloche and the great
army in 1796 ! (Alison, chap, xviii.,) for we find
them subsequently, in two years or so, breaking
out again. (Idem.)
Thus we observe that, notwithstanding Carrier’s
atrocities, intended to extend the “ reign of terror”
to the Vendée, and only resorted to towards the
close of that reign after other more conciliatory
measures had failed, Charette may still be said to
have beaten Robespierre’s government !
Thus,
though nothing can justify the murder of the
women and children (37,000 according to Alison,
p. 207) and Carrier’s other victims in the Vendée,
still I have said enough to show that these mur
ders, unlike those at Jerusalem, were caused by
most determined opposition on the part of the
Royalists, and consequently were, in this respect,
more justifiable than these and many others that
have taken place in the world.
Moreover, it is clear that the Vendeans were not
murdered because they were fanatical Christians,
and that the Republicans would certainly not have
* fChap. xix., p. 333, &c.) As “his authority was un
bounded,” (p. 333) of course Robespierre had little to do
with the murders in this remote district, any more than his
Deism had.
�03
LETTERS TO
troubled themselves about their exercising their
religion in private (nor perhaps even in public,
*
though their churches had been shut by go
vernment) ; whereas, the 40,000 were murdered by
the Christians in Jerusalem solely on account of
their being of a different religion—viz., Maliommedans !
Th ese reflections will at once show that the brutal
murders in the Vendée were not caused by the
absence of all belief in Christianity in the minds
of the Republicans, as a former quotation from
Alison shows us the world at large, including
himself, inclines to believe ; and, consequently,
were, in reality, not near of so atrocious a cha
racter as those in Jerusalem.
And now let any impartial man go back to the
following quotations, and mark the gross injustice
with which one of the most impartial of the Chris
tian writers is obliged, by his creed, to terminate
his paragraph.
“ After seven years, viz., in 1800, the worship
of Christianity was restored by Napoleon ; but a
great portion of the youth of France had been
brought up, without receiving any religious impres* I set down this as possible, because Robespierre’s object
was merely to put Deism as the state religion in place, of
Christianity, at the same time, as I have observed, evincing
a disposition to tolerate this latter as well as Judaism, &c.
I observe, in Lord Brougham’s Robespierre, (p. 32) that his
lordship says, the effort of Robespierre to introduce Theism
“ was wholly unnecessary for re-establishing religion, and
gained no object but that of exciting distrust, &c., among
the infidel part of the community, without at all reconciling
the votaries of Christianity.” No doubt such was the case
as to these two latter effects, but Lord Brougham, like the
other “ votaries of Christianity,” would probably as soon
see Atheism as any religion except Christianity prevail.
Hence this indifference, amounting to injustice, to the man
on this point.
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
97
sions in early life.’’ • * “ This, has for ever
disqualified the French for the enjoyment of free
dom, because it has extinguished the feelings of
duty, on which alone it can be founded in the
young and influential part of the people.” (Chap, i,
p. 47.)
Where were the “ feelings of duty,” when the
pious Christians murdered the 40,000 at Jeru
salem ? If it had not been for their religion, they
would never have thought this to be a duty. Hence
it is clear, that at least sometimes, Christianity
mav come to make sincere men consider the very
greatest of all human crimes, a positive duty ! !”*
I hold, also, that “ feelings of duty” are necessary
to “ freedom but maintain that Christianity gives
wrong feelings of duty, and that they should be
founded on Theism, or the reason given by God to
correct any errors of conscience. On the contrary,
“ impressions” of Calvinism, instilled “ in early
life,” are the origin of our self-sufficiency, cant,
and really irreligious conduct in the daily affairs of
life, because they cause the intolerance of public
opinion.
I have already observed the Convention of 1795
repealed the law of 1793, which actually prohi
bited Christian worship. This, it must be con
fessed, seems a more equitable system, than the
* Along with the minor vices of this creed may be
noticed the following from Hume’s Dialogues concerning
natural religion. (p. 105.) “ Among ourselves, some
(probably he means the Calvinists) have been guilty of that
atrociousness, unknown to the Egyptian and Greek supersti
tions, of declaiming, in express terms, against morality.”
All Christian sects do more or less, when they place so
much merit in faith.
Another vice in Christianity, unknown to the ancient
superstitions, is the doctrine of repentance atoning for sin
—a doctrine still more probably, “ against morality.”
F
�98
LETTERS TO
mere private sort of toleration of Christianity by
Robespierre ; yet, nevertheless, we can also infer
from what took place after this change, the erro
neousness of Alison’s assertion, that the mildness
of the treatment of the Republican prisoners by
the Royalists in the war of La Vendée, was due
to their strong faith in Christianity , since we find
that just after! the above decree too, some of
this very religious party did not scruple to exercise
their revenge on the Terrorists, and ‘ that eighty
Jacobins only escaped execution, by secreting
themselves.” (Chap, xix., p. 348.) “ At Lyons,
Aix, &c., they (the Royalists) massacred the pri
soners without either trial or discrimination.
“ The re-action was terrible.” (p. 347.) Thus,
by the above words, he contradicts himself.
*
Humanity did not thoroughly begin to reign
till after Napoleon and Barras had secured the
power of the Convention by their victory over the
National Guards towards the end of October, in
1795; and this humanity had little to do with
religion, for many members of the Convention
were Jacobins, Theists, and Atheists, and Chris
* The impartial reader will also observe that I have
taken only the numbers as stated by Alison, (which may be
perfectly correct,) without consulting the opposite, or my
own party, on this particular point.
Another consideration is, that there is somewhat more
excuse for the atrocities of “ infidels ” in this war, because
they saw that the Christian party took advantage of some
of the most bigotted passages in their creed to cause their
party to fight well. Now, perhaps, sometimes this was
from faith ; but as it was also often probably from mere
fraud to increase courage, the Republicans found they had
nothing to oppose to this falsehood, but to endeavour to
inspire terror into the minds of the Royalists by the
severity of die punishments they inflicted on prisoners. 1 e
Mahommedan lie so excited fanaticism, that at hrst this
sect conquered everywhere.
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
99
tianity was only on a sort of level with Theism,
&c., till 1800. A more humane spirit had, indeed,
began to show itself in April, when some Jacobin
insurgents were transported to Cavenne, instead
of being guillotined. The government was, how
ever, hardly yet strong enough for such a measure,
for a successful attempt at rescue was made by
their comrades, and they were not retaken till 300
of the military had been called out. No doubt
Robespierre thought that his government was not
strong enough for such a measure. And such
opinion might have been supported by a subse
quent Jacobin insurrection, which took place on
the 24th of May; for on this occasion we find
the guillotine was again resorted to in the end of
June, 1795, and that “three who tried to stab
themselves were led, still bleeding, to execution''
(Chap, xix., p. 341.) Thus it was only, in fact,
when the government came into the hands of
military men, (Napoleon and Barras,) at the end
of October, '95, that a more lenient mode of
punishment could be judiciously resorted to. Thus
we see that a mild^ yet perfectly Democratic govern
ment (such as under Robespierre) is next to im
possible, unless we give military men a preponde
rance in the rule, and then it is only one remove
from a despotism, and is in the power of such
military men to convert it to such, if it
pleases them. Such did Napoleon shortly after
wards. This reflection will, like former ones,
bring us to the conclusion that Robespierres
cruelty was necessary for such a very Democratic
Constitution to stand its ground ; and not in the
slightest degree dependant on his want of belief
in Christianity.
*
At the same time, I will admit
* Again to the same purpose. From October 1795 to
1800 France existed without Christianity as the established
�100
LETTERS TO
that the attempt to suppress this by force, was
very impolitic, to say the least ; and, if I may
use the expression, an attempt to be as foolishly
Democratic in matters of religion, as they had
been in civil government. Had they begun with
the constitution of ’95, as regarded religion, and
allowed the Vendée peasants to attend Christian
worship in their churches, if they consented to
pay for it, we should not probably have had
De Re addressing them, as we find he did, or a
peasant on another occasion, noticed by Alison,
fighting furiously to the last, though desperately
wounded, and exclaiming to the Republicans
before he fell—“ Restore to me my God.”
Such, at least, would have been the more just
and milder system ; and as it might have prevented
so much opposition on their part at first, might,
as a consequence, have also prevented the “ Bap
tisms and Marriages,” and other atrocities of the
Republicans. I am not, however, prepared to
speak with certainty on this point ; since we find
that under the Roman Empire, Christianity never
was content until it had put all other religions
beneath itself; and since wæ find that even after
1795, when it had acquired this equality with
religion, its belief or profession being voluntary. Yet during
these years the “ atrocities” were not repeated. But why not,
if the absence of Christianity had previously caused these ?
The fact is, the French people acted with more humanity and
justice during this period, than often subsequently when
Napoleon—forgetting somewhat his splendid address, “My
empire ends where that of conscience begins”—restored
Catholicism. Our fanatically or hypocritically Christian
Cromwell, too, sent his prisoners of war to be slaves in
the West Indies. (Guizot’s Cromwell.
1855.) Some
men would have thought this a more severe punishment
than Robespierre’s guillotine. It shows, at all events, that
Christianity in its Puritanical form, is little more humane
than Theism, or than Catholicism.
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
D eism,
101
and the Venddans had, as already men
tioned, obtained a treaty, the most honourable that
could possibly have been granted by any govern
ment which still continued Republican and not
Royalist, they were dissatisfied, and took up arms
again on the first favourable occasion.
Whether, therefore, this more just system would
have succeeded better may be somewhat doubtful;
but we must not probably put the blame on Robes
pierre and the Deists, that it was not introduced
at first; for they took the government as they
found it, and it was no doubt their great enemies
—the Atheistic party—who bad been mainly in
strumental in prohibiting Christian worship by
actual law. Robespierre, probably, would not
have dared to have favoured Christianity thus far,
seeing that his restoring the worship of God only,
met with great opposition from the Atheists, and
was more or less instrumental in his fall.
I may close these remarks on Robespierre by
saying, that while I believe the religious creed he
had taken from Rousseau had nothing to do with
the massacres in question, I cannot perhaps say
the same for Rousseau’s political creed, viz., the
“ equality of men.” Fanaticism on this point
spurred Robespierre on; but, strange to say, this
was Sir T. More’s creed as a Christian.
I have now given my matured and settled
opinion, that the enormities committed in the first
French Revolution did not arise from the suppres
sion of Christianity as the religion of the State.
In a former publication, before I had investigated
this subject, I asked—Was not the slaughter in
question due to this absence of Christianity ?
deeming that it probably was. This query it was
that induced me to investigate the subject fully,
in order to remove one prejudice that still adheres
�102
LETTERS TO
to the minds even of some liberal and intelligent
men on this subject, and is perhaps at the bottom
of the strong respect of the vast unreflecting
multitude in England and America for the Christian
faith. But being fully satisfied I have said enough
to show it is not essential to social order, I now
close this point.
Another seeming objection alone remains. I
allude to the fact that none of the enormities of
the French Revolution took place in the American
Revolution, and as the Americans always respected
Christianity, and public opinion in the country
was in favour of it, was not this the cause of the
difference ? Probably such is still the opinion in
America—indeed, I have heard an American assert
it; but that it is fallacious, is clear, not only from
the example of ancient Rome, already instanced,
but also from the different position France was in
at the time of her revolution from America;/or
here there was no Vendee with its 100,000
Royalists to oppose; nor the foreign armies of
all Europe. Neither had the Americans Red
Republicanism for their government; and conse
quently they had a Democracy more easily
managed. It is no doubt their merit to have fixed
on this less Democratic form of government. But
such choice and the above different position, aided
perhaps also by a less excitable nature, were no
doubt the cause of the far less amount of atrocity
in their revolution. I assert their Christianity
was totally or nearly unconcerned in it.
I have made this solemn appeal chiefly to you,
Citizens of the United States, to know whether the
insanity of mankind as Mr. Trevelyan justly
*
* A man who asserts that mankind in general are mad,
doubtless will be considered to be so himself; but I agree
with Mr. Trevelyan that they are so, and for this simple
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
103
designates it, is to continue for ever, and to re
main incurable ? In consequence of the universal
diffusion of education among you, you are prepared
for a really rational form of religion, I mean pure
Theism; and if you cannot get a majority of your
citizens to confess, what they must I think now
really believe on religious matters, cannot you, at
all events, get a law enacted for making this a
state religion, to which every one of you should be
obliged to contribute ? I think the intelligent
among you would not consider this an abridge
ment of rational liberty any more than Plato or
Rousseau (those well-known apostles of political
liberty) did formerly. I see that a Mr. Russell of
*
Cincinnati, thinks you would be better for some
state religion, as the poorer classes could then
attend a place of worship with more satisfaction to
themselves. I conjure you, then, in case of any
change in your system, to make that religion a
religion of state, which alone is worthy to be so
among a really sane and intellectual people.
As outward forms and ceremonies in religion
ever have been, and ever will be of importance as
influencing the imagination, and by this the feeling
of veneration inherent in the human soul, I shall
here state that I think the establishment of the
Theistic form of worship should by no means be
accompanied with the simplicity and tyrannical
spirit of order and separation of poor and rich,
reason, viz., that, compared with custom and fashion, reason
has little or no power over their actions. Such madness
in lesser matters is not of much consequence; but when it
shows itself, as it does now, among the most civilised
nations existing, in regard to religion, the case is. altered.
Lord Byron said, “ Turn Bedlam outand this playful
instinct of the poet seems almost approved by reason.
* England and America Compared. Watson. Holyoake
147, Fleet Street.
�104
LETTERS TO
which prevails especially in Calvinistic Protestant
ism, but, on the contrary, with all the externals
of Roman Catholicism. In this respect, I hold
this religion to be perfect; and when also accom
panied with the toleration that existed perhaps
in still more perfection under the reign of Louis
Philippe than it does even at present in France,
I could even subscribe to its mysteries, taken in a
very general sense. It was, and still is, or ought to
be, far more tolerant than our Protestantism.
I observe that the author of Quinquenergia,
*
while proposing the Theistic form of worship—
which is the only true part of any “ revealed ”
religion—also seems in favour of the externals
of Catholicism, in which much of the classical
Pagan system is very properly followed. Pro
cessions, incense, splendid cathedrals,—open, too,
every day,—in order to afford the poor and weary
man an asylum and better home than his own,
and where he can pray in peace, whether the priest
be there or not,—such are some of the outlines
for “ Deo erexit Voltaire" establishments.
I feel the more confidence in proposing the
Theistic form of worship, as the same may be said
to have been done by Sir Thomas More in his
Utopia, who seems, even at that period, to have
thought it preferable to literal Christianity, and
who, doubtless, had he lived to see the subsequent
massacres caused by this, would have considered
it doubly so afterwards.
It was probably the advantage that many pas
sages in scripture gave to those who say that into
lerance is the basis of Christianity, that led More
to prefer Theism,! for he says, p. 173, “ one
* Chapman, London. 1854.
f I know that the charge of intolerance in practice has
been brought against More, and perhaps justly ; but when
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
105
Christian was punished by the Utopians because
he cried out that ‘ they were impious and damned
to everlasting burnings.’’’ He was “banished”
for thus attempting to inflame the people to
“ sedition
and in this case I do not perceive
any intolerant feeling in More, for the Christian
in question uttered words without solid evidence
ot their truth, and which were well calculated to
cause civil discord and revolution. Had the
ancient Roman government punished fanaticism
in this summary way, Christianity would probably
never have upset Paganism. Occasionally, no
doubt, it was too severe to those professing Chris
tianity, but taken in its whole course too tolerant.
More would have the priests elected by ballot,
and required to preach only the doctrines of Pro
vidence and a future state. He tolerates all reli
gions, and Christianity among them, because,
says he, this favours “ community of goods,”
which he, like Plato, thought should exist in every
system of perfect justice. Thanks to the ambi
*
guity of the creed, scarcely a single Christian has
ever adopted such view ! Yet I think with More,
that the general tenor of scripturef is to support
the passions are excited, a man is sometimes led to acts his
reason condemns. This, then, is no argument against the
views of his cooler moments.
°
* I also hold this opinion as far as abstract justice is
concerned; but maintain that such pure justice cannot be
put in practice on earth on any large scale, and that, con
sequently, perhaps the best form of government is perfect
equality (not mere toleration) of all religions, and strong
executive power—hereditary probably the best. It is sin
gular that this was adopted in Sparta, as regarded their
King, and that even the Senators there were elected for
life. (Plutarch. Polybius.) Thus we find a thorough
aristocratic! principle, even in this very small Social Re
public ; otherwise, probably, it would not have lasted so long.
t It may be said such opinion of equality is incompatible
F 2
�106
LETTERS TO
this said doctrine of the “ natural equality of
man.”
"No prayers are permitted among the Utopians,
hut such as every one (all the different religious
sects) may use without prejudice to his own opi
nions.” (p. 185.) This is admirable, and is the
only manner to unite all the different religions as
far as they can he so; and to reconcile different
sects to worship in the same church. Dr. Arnold,
when he wished to see this in reference to Protes
tants and Catholics, forgot the definite and often
intolerant prayers and creeds which are frequently
repeated in so formal a manner in our Protestant
churches, as if expressly to exclude Unitarians
and Catholics from repeating them. More, on
the contrary, like Pope, prefers a sort of “ univer
sal prayer.”
More would also justly have the different sexes
occupy different parts of the same cathedral, and
the young women in company with the old, to
with the assertion of “damnation” denounced against
those who “resist the powers that be.” No doubt: and
here is another specimen of ambiguity. But I consider this
last as a proof rather of that subservience of Christianity
to the temporal power of the Caesars at the time, which we
observe in the reply, “Render unto Caesar the things
which are Ciesars,” &c.. than to its true and proper charac
ter and meaning. At its origin, property was common
among Christians, and all was real equality among them;
for Christ himself seemed to order this equality, when he
told the rich man “to sell all he had to give to the poor.
It was enab ed to get itself adopted by Emperors, because
it seemed not to interfere with politics, and also because it
seemed to sanction their divine right to power. But once
adopted by Monarchs its doctrines of equality were for
gotten, as being incompatible with those advocating
“ divine” right; and this last doctrine is no doubt the cause
why it has reigned so long on earth, as Monarchs have the
physical force at their disposal.
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
107
keep them serious, (p. 187.) Also incense, as a
sort of sacrifice during worship ; and after prayers,
amusements on the Sunday evening. (Idem.)
To conclude : while he thus makes a liberal
Theism the religion of the State, he may no doubt
be accused of some degree of intolerance in ex
cluding, as he does, Atheists from all public
offices ; but Plato, and after him Rousseau, were
probably still more severe on this point.
Here, then, is the religion I propose as an
answer to the infidel Lord Chesterfield’s question
—“ Madam, what are we Legislators to put in the
place of Christianity ?”
I also allude to the existence of the Roman
Empire—and in its greatest glory too—up to the
time of Constantine without it; and also suggest
the following outlines as auxiliary reforms, premis
ing that the principle of all reforms, where only
natural religion is professed, will be to increase the
power of the government and the police, since
some restraint, though very small, is taken away
when we reject revealed religion.
1.—In consequence—to consider health first—
all provisions and drinks should especially be sub
ject to government supervision previous to their
sale In England lately (1855) many of the
ornaments in cakes and pastry, many fish sauces
and pickles, and, less to be expected, many pre
served fruits, have been found adulterated with
actually poisonous ingredients, to the disgrace of
our trading community ; and I observe in the
*
* Very large quantities of alum also in bread, and
chicory in coffee. Mr. Graham, in stating he did not ob
ject to this last adulteration, totally omitted to advert to
the cases where poisons had been used. (Proceedings of
the British Association.)
�308
LETTERS TO
French journals, that five or six butchers have
been justly punished for selling animals that have
died by diseases, and that, too, at a time when a
malignant diarrhoea prevailed. The power now
proposed ought to extend to punishing numerous
advertisers of food, drinks, or medicines, where
by falsehood they attempt to cheat the public.
The poor, honest, and ignorant man, is at present
often fairly robbed of his property, and often of
his health, by these lying advertisements.
Although it would be well that a similar force
should attempt to prevent fraud in all other trades
and professions, still as in these cases the health
of the public is not endangered, less rigorous
measures will perhaps suffice in such cases.
It appears that our laws against fraudulent
bankrupts are somewhat more severe than formerly;
but some recent cases which have occurred in men
of large property, make still more stringent laws
on this subject desirable.
2. —Rewards for virtue should be instituted as
Beccaria long ago suggested. Under this head
something should be done towards the adequate
remuneration of those who are honest enough to
restore the property &c., &c., they havefound, to the
owners. At present the paltry rewards given by
some individuals are a disgrace to humanity and
an encouragement to theft.
3. —Some form of sumptuary law seems desira
ble to check the immense power of monopoly,
which prevents the poorer men competing suc
cessfully with the large capitalist. “ If laws were
made determining at how great an extent of land,
and at how much money, every man should stop,”
at least some of the evils of the present system
would be diminished, says Sir T. More. (Op.
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
109
Cit., p. 71.J I agree with him, and think thus
far onlv, Communism is desirable.
*
In reference to this point, the effect of fixing
the prices of the necessaries of life, such as bread
and meat, which has just been done by the French
government, should be watched. One plan or
the other ought, in justice to the poor, to be
adopted.
4. —It were good that either the suggestions of
Sir T. More or Lord Bacon, to prevent much of
the mutual deception that often takes place in
marriages, were followed. But as such suggestions
seem only easily practicable in a savage state of
society, we must be content to let custom remain
as it is on such points. The Romans seem to
have obviated the deception in question in a great
measure, by the facility they allowed to divorce ;
and our modern Reformers have done well in
endeavouring to extend this privilege to the lower
classes of both sexes of the community.
5. —Lord John Russell, in his speech on the
Jewish Bill in 1851, observed that Lord Halifax
formerly proposed, or submitted for consideration,
the propriety of compelling the whole of the
population to take an oath never to defraud their
fellow-creatures, observing that, if such were law,
it would not hinder us from bolting our doors at
* With all our profession of Christianity and Christian
charity, it would be desirable to know whether there is not
more abject poverty in this country than in almost any
other in Europe ? and, if so, as appears probable, whether
much at least of it cannot be traced to monopolies ? As
the poor man is also not allowed to do work/’or h imself on
a Sunday, (see Note, end of Letter II.,) it may also be
asked, if this law does not contribute ? The man in this case
justly said he was too tired on a week-day to work in the
evening.
�110
LETTERS TO
night, and taking the same precautions against
theft and fraud as at present.
*
I pause to decide whether or not this suggestion
might not be usefully added to the above, in case
they were found inadequate to supply the place of
a revealed religion.
I have little doubt that unreflecting Whigs and
Democrats will say all the above is rank tyranny.
Perhaps so ; but never mind, so that it is not rank
injustice; and I maintain such regulations would
tend to cause the practice of a much greater
amount of justice than we find at present existing
perhaps under any government, Republican or
Monarchical. As Plato said formerly, so I say
now, that no existing government perfectly satisfies
* I observe that Beccaria is against the setting of much
value on religious oaths, even in a court of justice, urging
justly, like the avowed Pantheist—Meslier—that the fears
and hopes of religion are too remote (troppo remoti) to
have much influence on the actions of the great mass of
mankind. (Sect, xi ) Nevertheless, I do not apprehend
he would have objected to the above suggestion by way of
oath or affirmation for mankind of all religions. His views
were directed against the oath of the Christian as such;
and are sufficiently obvious, and as clear as the age allowed
him to speak.
Polybius justly praises the Romans for their great respect
for their oaths, and also for the punishment they inflicted
on those who either broke or tried to break such oaths.
(Hampton’s Translation. Book vi., pp. 406-410.) The
common soldiers, too, were obliged to take an oath of
obedience to their commanders, (idem, p. 352,) and also
(in reference to Lord Halifax’s suggestion) that “ they
would not steal, or even if they found anything that they
would bring it to the Tribunes.” (p. 369.)
The worst of many of the cases in which oaths are now
required is, that like that “ on the faith of a Christian” the
form is not only useless, but injurious to honesty. How
different that of the Romans ! Our system, too, diminishes
even the value set on an oath.
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
Ill
my mind, (though France in some points and the
United States in others comes nearest;) and like
him I shall console myself, though the present
suggestions never be put in practice, (as they
probably never will be,) that I have at least worked
disinterestedlv for the public good, and that some
share of praise ought to follow, whether it does
or not.
Although in the present bigotted age, this is
out of the question, still as like Gibbon, I wish
to part on good terms not only with the Catholic,
but also with the Protestant clergy, I shall here
state that this work is not intended to censure
them particularly, since, speaking generally, I
consider all of them in a forced and false position.
My pen has only attacked the measures and not
the men, except perhaps in some rare cases, where
these have been able to become more free agents
than usual, and have used such power to the detri
ment of truth and justice, or have given outward
approval to a faith in which they cannot believe.
There is, however, more excuse for the clergy
doing this bv writing their Evidences of Christia
nity and of Prophecy, &c., than for men of science
and letters among laymen doing the same. It is
double hvpocrisv in these men to write in favour
of an obvious fallacy ; and as they are not neces
sarily called upon to do so, they, more especially
of all others, deserve to have their writings keenly
criticised.
As to the clergy—seeing their false position—
though I feel no ill-will towards the quiet part of
them—yet I shall not forget that there are a
number of them roaming about, or settled on the
continent, and who make it a part of their profes
sion to commence their verbal war against Catho
lics, or unbelievers generally. I speak from expe
�112
LETTERS TO
rience, having lately on the continent been drawn
into arguments by two such men, at what might
almost be called a public table, and during which
arguments (as usual) the laymen present took
the side of the church. On one of these occasions
I felt at last obliged to tell my adversary that I
thought it a dishonour to our English government
that such a man as Gibbon {known as an infidel)
could not sit in the “House;” for even the ad
mission of the Jews to Parliament only goes half
way. Our worthy clergyman then called Gibbon
“ an insincere man,” forgetting that not one of
our Legislators is allowed by opinion, or even law,
to be even half as sincere as he !
These are the sort of men, too, that try often
to insinuate, and if that fail, to push themselves
into the sick infidel’s or Dissenter’s room uncalled
for ; an instance of which I knew in the case of
an artist who died rather suddenly in Italy, and
who, in my presence, never expressed more than
a modest doubt on the subject. I see also by the
Advertiser, (October 2nd, 1855,) that this sort of
conduct was attempted ineffectually in the case of
the Lord Chesterfield, whose “infidelity” has been
alluded to in these Letters.
Now, of course, anything like friendship is im
possible with such characters as these, and as at
the serious period in question a man mav not
always, from acquiescence of relatives or friends,
be in a position to keep these possibly well-mean
ing persons at a distance, I consider it right here
to state that these Letters contain mv matured
opinions—after an examination of the “ religious
question ” at different intervals, and with some
what different results for the last twenty years.
I say this now, while, thank God, I feel my intel
lect clear, and as strong as ever. Although phi
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
113
losophers, put little confidence in the change of opi
nions said to have been brought about in several un
believers when on their death-bed, yet the clergy
ever appeal to these cases—where human reason
is almost always injured, often nearly annihilated
—as the best evidence that the man changed his
opinions ! They thus show how weak is their cause.
I, an humble individual, mindful I hope, in the
words of Thomas Carlyle, of the “ Duties of Man”
as well as the “ Rights of Man,” put down this,
out of no spirit of bravado, but merely as a check
on that foolish desire even of “ home conversion”
which animates the great proportion of our clergy.
I am sorry to say that these gentlemen are too
often only thinking of their oun eternal interest,
when, at the serious period in question, they seem
to be thinking alone of that of the sick man. As
believers in the scriptures—when, indeed, they are
so in reality—they do not forget the reward held
out hereafter to those who make converts of the
Heathen.
Since, in the reforms proposed in this Letter, I
have not alluded in a sufficiently clear manner to
the “ population question,” and since a work
*
treating more especially on this topic, has only
fallen into my hands after all the above was
written, I propose here to add a few remarks on
the Chapter, Poverty, its only cause and only
cure, apprising the reader that this is ascribed to
over-population, and, consequently, that its “ only
cure” is the use of some of the “ checks” enume
rated in the work quoted. As I cannot here
discuss this subject at length, I shall content my
self by recommending it to the attention of the
* Physical, Sexual, and Natural Religion, By a Medical
Student, (p. 449. Price 2s. Published by E. Truelove,
240, Strand, Temple-bar. 1855.)
�114
LETTERS TO
poorer part of the public in general, as a work
containing a greater amount of “ free thought”
and general information on these—with us—sacred
subjects, than is probably elsewhere to be found.
Notwithstanding, that “ war, pestilence, and
famine,” have decimated the human race, a philo
sopher cannot but remark, that even these causes
seem hardly to have been considered by nature,
adequate to keep down population, since she has
almost everywhere, at different times of the earth’s
history, prompted legislators to recommend, and
parents to commit, what we now consider so fearful
a crime, viz., that of infanticide. In Sparta alone
—of all civilised antiquity—was it confined more
especially within what might appear the just limits
of humanity, viz., where infants were mal-formed.
Solon recommended infanticide ; Aristotle, abor
tion ; and Plato seems in a great measure to have
anticipated Malthus, for he, also, is for limiting,
as well as improving the physical condition of the
population, of course by one of the above means.
Such general consent among sages and savages
(for infanticide, has prevailed almost always in
barbarous countries,) might well have turned
Malthus’s powerful mind to this subject ; for no
doubt the wise Romans would never have tolerated
it—particularly as in population consisted their
strength for war—had they not considered it some
what in the light of necessary evil fur greater
good.
Of course, neither Malthus, nor any at the pre
sent day, could suggest to a government the legali
sation of a limited amount of abortion produced
artificially, nor of infanticide ; neither probably
would the ancients have permitted anything of the
kind, had what are called “ checks” been known
to them. These are the substitutes for it, and far
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
115
superior, inasmuch of the two. it is better to pre
vent life, than to take it away even before it can
hardly be called life.
Malthus’s check—abstinence from marriage till
a person can support a family—becomes often a
peculiar hardship to the poor man; indeed, it is
almost insulting him under the name of Chris
tianity. No doubt, it is strictly in accordance with
this faith, which makes, as already stated, forni
cation “ deadly sin;” but if it be so, then surely
it is the duty of a government to do something
more towards bettering the condition of the poor,
that they may have it in their power to marry with
out actually bringing additional beggars into the
world.
Doubtless, other checks noticed as efficacious in
the work in question, would not be tolerated as
moral by our religion ; but the author also men
tions that one somewhat recently discovered by Ra •
ciborski, viz., “ abstinence from sexual intercourse,
from the third day before menstruation, till the
eighth day after it,” (p. 348) ; and this might
even be used by married people, who firmly be
lieved in Christianity. Professor Muller, some
few years back, (see Physiology} mentioned this
discovery; and it is right to say, that even now
it seems only highly probable as such, but cer
tainly worth attending to by the religious with
large families, who are in poor circumstances, as
giving a good chance.
As this last check is the only one, the very
strict believer in Christianity would use, and as
this party constitutes at the very least more than
three fourths of our population, we see clearly
that if over-population be the “ only cause” of
poverty, as our author asserts, there is very little
chance in this “ religious country” at least, of his
�116
LETTERS TO
remedy being followed. Indeed, even if all the
checks he suggests were pretty generally followed,
I apprehend, that still the destruction of mono
polies. or the regulation of prices, as already ad
vocated in this Letter, would be requisite to
equalise property to a reasonable extent. 1 however,
admit, that a general use of his “ checks,” would
tend to diminish poverty to a very considerable
extent.
As then, while Christianity is the established
religion, it is in vain to expect any diminution of
poverty by a general use of this author’s checks ;
we have here, again, another injurious effect of
this creed to add to those already mentioned in
this work.
I believe I may also enumerate among these, its
tendency, by its opposition to Burke’s wise maxim,
(see p. 4), to increase the number of the very
worst cases of prostitution, viz., those in which a
woman is left totally without means of support.
The author of the work now noticed, says justly,
“ only by allowing greater sexual freedom, is it
possible to eradicate prostitution." (p. 3G9.) I
have long been of this opinion, and there was an
otherwise good article on the subject in the IFestmister Review some years ago, but it it did not
make the above suggestion. The Turkish Empire,
however, shows its truth, where fornication on the
part of the man and adultery on that of the wo
man or man, is very severely punished. If we
punished adultery by imprisonment and hard
labour, and opinion passed a less severe sentence
on illegitimate connexions, (which nevertheless
exist clandestinely to an enormous extent in this
country), I believe our social liberty would be
vastly improved, and our female population less
often driven to prostitution. Gibbon and Crevier
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
117
both speak of connexions 'without actual marriage
recognised by law among the Romans; and the
former writer says justly of this concubinage (as
it was called in legal terms), that “ in it the two
Antonines, the best of princes and of men, en
joyed the comforts of domestic love.” (Decline
and Fall, ch. xliv.) I may add that Antoninus
Pius was the more justified in such a step as the
Empress Faustina seems to have been unfaithful
to him. This concubine of the Romans was com
monly of the lower classes of life, but she very
properly had legal rights, and her children also,
who were “ capable of succeeding to a sixth part
of the inheritance of their reputed father.”
(Idem.J I observe that the author of the work
very properly published by Mr. Truelove for promo
ting discussion on these sacred matters, says justly,
without indeed alluding to the concubinage above
noticed of the Romans, or “ secondary marriage”
as Gibbon also calls it, and which seems similar
to what our author suggests for Britain,—“ that
all parents should be legally forced to support
their children.” {Op. Cit., p. 368.) The only
objection I can perceive to the utility of the above
suggestions is, that such “ secondary marriages”
might in some cases tend to prevent marriages
justly so called ; but I apprehend only in a very
limited degree, and perhaps it would be unfair to
put this one bad effect in opposition to the nume
rous good ones the author of the work in question
attempts to show would follow were opinion less
severe on all cases of illicit sexual intercourse.
I do not think when the “ population question”
is thus widely considered, not only as to the mere
permission of abortion or infanticide, but also as
regards checks, that Christianity has done any
real good on this subject. At the present day,
�118
LETTERS TO
certainly, infanticide should be put down by severe
law, since checks supply its place; but since Chris
tianity would not consider this as a reason, or in
fluence legislation on any such principle, \ see no
reason to praise Christianity on this point, even
though I freely give it and Judaism the credit, if
any there really be, of having changed the world’s
ideas on this subject. “ Christianity,” says Gibbon,
{chap. xliv.) had been insufficient (till the time of
Valentinian) to eradicate this inhuman practice,
until its gentle influence was fortified by the ter
rors of capital punishment.” Nevertheless, as it
fortified the original Jewish idea, it must, I con
ceive, lay claim to any merit attached to such
change of ideas; though such came near half
a century after the time of Constantine. But, as
Gibbon hints, it was actual law that put down the
practice ; and if there be anything really good in
Christianity, this can always be resorted to by a
government to punish such crime or sin. As law
can always thus seize the kernel, we should do
well to throw the shell with its ambiguity, and
other bad qualities away, i. e., the so-called re
vealed religion itself.
After having suggested what may probably be
called Utopian and impracticable, and too vast
changes in our social system, and that of the
United States, I shall close this letter by referring
to a minor reform that is, at least, not impractica
ble. I allude to the multiplication of places of
accomodation for the relief of the urinary organs,
&c., &c., as Mr. Lewis Gompertz, (the liberalminded originator, along with Mr. Martin, Sir J.
Mackintosh and others of our laws against cruelty
to animals) justly observed in a letter which some
time back he printed and sent to the journals on
this subject, stating that by the absence of the places
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
119
alluded to, disease is often slowly produced in the or
gans in question. In the city during late years there
has been great improvement, but such has not ex
tended to the West End. This neglect is the less jus
tifiable in this country, because we have a law
against “ exposure of person,” and because we
often find convictions under this law printed up
at our park gates. Now it seems very difficult
occasionally to decide whether such “ exposure”
may not have been a case almost of necessity, mis
taken for one of express intention ; and if so, it
shows that prudery, or economy, here sometimes
defeats its object, and becomes a source of injus
tice to the public.
�Note A., page 13.—I find Hume seems to doubt the
utility of Theism as a State Religion. He says, (Natural
History of Religion, p. 468J “If we should suppose, what
never happens, that a popular religion were found, in which it
was declared that nothing but morality could gain the
divine favour ; if an order of priests were instituted to in
culcate this opinion in sermons with all the arts of persua sion ; yet so inveterate are prejudices, that for want of
some other superstition, they would make the very attendance
on these sermons the essentials of religion, rather than place
them in virtue and good morals.”
Again, (p. 469,) “The moral obligation (in the opinion
of the masses) removes all pretension to religious merit.”
Again, in his Idea of a Perfect Commonwealth, (p. 523,)
we find him having so little regard to the religion of this,
that he actually says, “The Presbyterian government is
established.” To be sure, he puts this ecclesiastical court
under the civil magistrate, by giving him “power to try,
depose, or suspend, any Presbyter.” He adds, (p. 528,)
“ Without dependance of the clergy on the civil magis
trates, it is in vain to think that any free government will
have security.” But, though good, this is not enough to
secure “ free government,” since, as the magistrates them
selves, in all Christian countries, must adopt some form
of Christianity, they themselves are under its influence,
almost as much as the clergy are, as the example of Eng
land, and even America, now shows ; and as Jefferson said,
Presbyterians have proved themselves the most intolerant
of the Protestant sects. I think, therefore, we must admit
that on the mere question of religion. Sir T. More, in his
Utopia, is wiser than Hume ; although Hume begins the
present Essay by saying, in reference to More, that “ all
plans of government which suppose great reformation in
the manners of mankind, are plainly imaginary.” (p. 516.)
Hence, perhaps, it was that he thought a revealed and in
�NOTES.
121
tolerant religion was as good as a tolerant one laying no
claims to revelation, supposing the former were dependant
on the civil power.
But, if “ manners cannot be reformed ” by good laws,
what is the use of proposing these ? But that Hume errs
on this point, great as his talents are, I think is proved by
some nations surpassing others in civilisation now, just as
Greece and Rome did formerly. To be sure, Hume says,
“ great reformation,” and perhaps the history of the world
has proved him right in this respect. Still, I must consider
his “ Commonwealth ” very defective as regards religion.
In alluding to Plato, too, on this subject, it is singular that
he only mentions the Republic., (which he classes with the
Utopia) as “imaginary;” while he does not mention the
Laws, the very last work of Plato, and as St • John justly
says, “ a more really practical work.” (Introduction to
More’s Utopia.)
It might have been possible, after recommending Pres
byterianism, to have classed Hume with Frederick the
Great and others, who thought Christianity at least a wseful creed, though they did not believe in it. But in the
following passage he justly enumerates its defects, and
though Catholicism only is alluded to, still the History even
of Elizabeth’s reign shows, as Sydney Smith remarks,
(Edinburgh Review), that Protestantism at times has been
quite as intolerant. “ Virtue, knowledge, love of liberty,
are the qualities which call down the fatal vengeance of
inquisitors.” (p. 445.) And such being the case, he in
this page, most wisely and justly, places the atrocities com
mitted by the followers of the Carthaginian and Mexican
religions in a more excusable light, than those committed
by Catholics. In his Commonwealth Hume forgets that
intolerance is directly preached by Christianity, and that
Catholics and Presbyterians are only more intolerant than
other sects, because they follow Christianity more to the
letter. All revealed religions are always more intolerant
than natural religion, as a matter of course: thus, as
Gibbon shows, the, in some respects, wise religion of
Zoroaster was more intolerant than Deism, because it pro
fessed to be revealed. But as there was not any TEXT in
that religion, which expressly consigned heretics to damnation,
so, of course, even this religion would not be so intolerant
as Christianity, Mahommedanism, and Judaism. In like
manner, the Deism, said to have been revealed to Numa,
was more tolerant than these.
G
�122
NOTES.
In consequence of these reflections, I find myself again
opposed to Hume, “ The intolerance of almost all religions
which have maintained the unity of God, is as remarkable
as the contrary opinion of Polytheists.” (p. 444.) We
have just seen there is a gradation in the tolerance even of
Revealed Religions which proclaim Monotheism: but when
this doctrine is held merely as a consequence of induction
from the phenomena of Nature, it is certainly far more tole
rant even than Polytheism.
In his remarks on toleration, in the Essay On a Parti
cular Providence, (vol. ii., p. 149,) Hume says, “ There
are scarcely any instances to be met with, in Ancient His
tory, of this bigotted jealousy, with which the present age
is so much infested. Epicurus lived at Athens to an ad
vanced age in peace ; Epicureans were even permitted to
officiate at the altar in the most sacred rites of the estab
lished religion : and the public encouragement of pensions
and salaries was afforded equally by the wisest of the
Roman Emperors to the Professors of various sects of
philosophy, says Lucian.”* Hume had just before stated,
that “The death of Socrates proceeded partly from other
motives,” (probably his indulging in irony against powerful
individuals?) than a want of toleration m Polytheism.
But I think it is clear from Diogenes Laertius’s Lives, that
there is a distinction to be made in this respect, and that
the Greeks were far more intolerant than the Romans; for
we find that Stilpo, Protagoras, and Aristotle were
banished, and Theophrastus nearly so; and that Anaxa
goras killed himself to avoid further persecution [for
religion’s sake.
Hume would perhaps have us believe by his Note, (C. C.,
vol. i., p. 535,) that the Romans were as bad in this re
spect, since he mentions the Emperor Claudius abolishing
the superstition of the Druids by penal law. But Gibbon
takes a j uster view of this supposed infringement on their
usual spirit of toleration, by stating that the religion of
the Druids was obviously highly immoral, since it enforced
on certain occasions, human sacrifices; and yet, though
even this was the case, “thepriests themselves, their gods,
and altars, subsisted in peaceful obscurity till the final de
struction of Paganism.” (Decline and Fall. Chap, ii.,
sect. i.)f So that in fact, even in this case, it was Chris
* Hume also, in his History of England, (vol. i.,) calls
the Romans “ tolerating conquerors.”
f Again—Diocletian (a. d. 284) frequently conferred
�NOTES.
123
tianity that may be said to have put down the religion:
Paganism, far more tolerant, left this free, after it had
wisely prohibited the bad moral part of it, viz., human
sacrifices. Gibbon, too, has so fully shown that Paganism
was obliged, for its own existence, to persecute Christianity,
that Hume’s allusion to this case is not in point. Paganism
was still surely too lenient, for we see that in the end it
was actually exterminated by Christianity.
Now, in order to point out an oversight in Hume, I
must beg the reader to refer to my last quotations from his
Essays, and to compare with the following from the same,
placed at the head of his Note C., p. 535, vol. i. “ It is a
vulgar error to imagine that the Ancients were as great
friends to toleration as the English or Dutch are at pre
sent.” But even the Athenians tolerated Epicurus, as he
informed us, and I think by the aid of Gibbon I have
shown these people were far less tolerant than the Romans.
It follows, then, clearly that the toleration at least of the
Romans was greater than that of the English or Dutch ;
and I doubt not, indeed, than even that of the Greeks was,
considered as mere religion. And, in fact, if we refer again
to the Natural History of Religion, p. 444, we shall find
the following passage:—“ If among Christians the English
and Dutch have embraced the principles of toleration, this
has proceeded from the steady resolution of the civil magis
trate, in opposition to the continued efforts of priests and
bigots.” This is in fact saying that Christianity itself is
far more intolerant than Polytheism, which, in truth, is one
of the points for which he wrote his Essay in question,
directly to prove.
We now see the reason why Hume, in his Commonwealth,
makes Presbyterianism under the power of the “ civil
magistratebecause he had seen that such subjection
could diminish its persecuting spirit, as in England and
Holland. But the magistrate can only do this in part, and
that as far as actual law goes. But Hume forgot the per
secution by opinion—the social persecution which must ever
remain while so intolerant a religion is predominant, even
as a religion. Besides, this power of the magistrate only
“ most important offices ” on people of ability, who even
“ avowed Atheism. ” (Chap, xvi., Diocletian.) This fact
alone will induce any impartial person to believe that there
were urgent secular causes for his persecution of the Chris
tians, still much exaggerated. (See Gibbon.)
�J24
NOTES.
remains as long as the laws remain: but as Christianity in
fluences the very making of the laws, such laws stand a
chance of being repealed any day by the influence of some
bigots, or new ones made more in accordance with the strict
spirit of Christianity. Hume admits that priestly influence
has been set aside very judiciously by the civil power ; why,
then, if there must be a religion for the people, has he not
preferred the old Polytheism for his Commonwealth ? he
being a friend of toleration, and himself admitting that
such was the most tolerant form of religion. I say this on
the supposition that he thought pure Theism would not do
for the people. But I cannot think he is right on this point:
for a religion, under the control of the magistrate, may,
in fact, be said to be no religion, except that, to show its
intolerance and power, it will still always continue to per
secute by opinion. Now, pure Theism would not do this.
I do not apprehend that Cicero was so much in favour
of religious toleration, as a consistent Republican should
be, for in his Republic or Laws he merely recommends
every citizen to profess the religion of his country. It
seems, indeed, probable from Adams’s statement, that
under the Emperors, (as a sort of compensation for the
loss of much political liberty,) the spirit of religious tole
ration increased. “ If any one,” says Adams,, “intro
duced foreign rites of himself, they were publicly con
demned by the Senate. But under the Emperors, all
superstition, (even of Isis, Serapis, and Anubis, from
Egypt,) flocked to Rome.”*
We must, however, bear in mind on this subject, that as
“ Nero repealed many of the decrees of Claudius,” (SSuetonius's Nero, sect. 33) ; so one Emperor acted towards the
laws of another. Thus, although Augustus disliked the
Jewish and Egyptian rites, still it was only under Tiberius
we find something at all events like persecution; both
* Roman Antiquities, (p. 56,) quoted from Livy. (Liv.
xxix., 11 and 12,—iv., 30,—xxv., 50.) In proof of this
greater tendency to toleration under the Emperors, I may
quote Cxibbon, (chap, xi., Note,) who says, that “ in the
year of Rome 701, the Temple of Isis was demolished by
order of the Senate: but after the death of Csesar it was
restored at the public expense." {Dion Cassius, 1. xl., p.
252, et. 1. xlvii., p. 501.) These last words speak volumes
in favour of Pagan toleration; and this we observe was
just as the Empire was beginning.
�NOTES.
125
Suetonius (Tiberius, 36,) and TacitHS, (Annafe. s. 11 85,)
agreeing that he made the Jews undergo a sort of banish
ment. But it seems most probable, even at this time, that their
hatred of Paganism (strongly disposing them to actual
revolt) was the cause of this severity, for we know that
Tiberius was indifferent to all religions; and Suetonius
further on, (Life of Claudius, sect 25,) expressly says,
“ this Timperor banished the Jews out of Rome, who were
perpetually making disturbances." But we observe here,
they were banished even a very little way, viz., 44 out of
Borne” only. Vespasian obliged the Jews, after the des
truction of Jerusalem, to pay a slight tribute, and was
otherwise severe. But all this was not on account of Ju
daism, as a religion, but because we see that, even from the
time of Claudius, such religion had 44 caused disturbances"
Under Domitian, (Suetonius, sect 12,) it appears some of
them had their estates confiscated, 44 because they did not
pay the tribute laid upon that nation.”* But before the
Jews forced Vespasian into that war, by which Jerusalem
fell, there seems no evidence that they had any tribute laid
upon themselves as Jews. Rome seems to have left re
ligion, even in this case, free; and the Jews were justly
punished, because they wanted their religion to be above
Paganism.
.
44 The only direct tribute imposed by the Romans, says
Lord Brougham, (Nature of Democracy. Roman Polity,
chap, v., p. 244), “ upon a conquered people, was a tax of
one-twentieth on the sale of all slaves.f * * They were
allowed to retain their own laws, form of government, and
magistrates. No Governor was sent from Rome, and the
Senate and Consuls exercised no authority except in mat
ters of peace, and war, and alliances, except, that the
* 44 Imposita genti tributa, non pependissent." See my
Historical Sketches of some of the Roman Emperors, or
Crevier’s learned French work on the same subject.
f We here observe that Lord Brougham says nothing
about the conquered nations being obliged to pay a tribute
towards the support of a religion they often (as regarded
its details) might not believe in, viz., the state religion of
Rome. Rousseau also says (Contrat Social, liv. iv.) 44 a
crown to Jupiter of the Capitol was often the only tribute
they imposed.”
This was in fact only obliging men to
acknowledge subjection to one Supreme God (D. O. M.)
z>r powe", which all must, or ought, to acknowledge. I find
�126
NOTES.
troops for the wars of the Republic were paid, as well aa
raised, by the conquered districts. * * * The con
quered people were not allowed to intermarry with Romans,
nor to dwell in the city, nor to hold any offices, nor to have
any voice in elections, nor to enjoy any intercourse of sacred
rites."
It is from this last passage, which I have marked in italics,
that we may, I think, infer that Polytheism and Christianity
seemed to have directly opposite tendencies as to the desire
to extend themselves, and, consequently, as to toleration.
Paganism seemed to say, worship your own Gods, we can
not permit you to worship ours, which are either too
good for you, or superior to your comprehension. The
Pagans wisely would have scouted our modern ideas of
“ missionaries,” or our constant attempts even at home
conversion. Under such circumstances, it was not very
likely they would have forced the Jews to pay for the sup
port of the Pagan religion, viz., as religion *
It was not till after the insurrection, A. U. C., 658, that
the whole ofltaly, south of the Arno and Rubicon, was com
prehended in the Roman State, and the above restrictions
were removed. Julius Ca?sar, A. U. C., 705, added Gaul,
and Caracalla all the provinces of the Roman Empire to
the citizenship.
Recurring again more especially to religious toleration,
I may perhaps urge the less amount of this under the
Athenian Republic (already alluded to), than under the
Roman, government generally, whether Republican or Tmperial, in confirmation of my opinion that religious toleranothing in the Empire under Paganism like forcing men to
pay to an “ established church,” in the doctrines of which
they cannot believe. This acme of tyranny (see Ireland
especially) vitiates all the glory of our too highly extolled
civil liberty.
* There can be no doubt that it was only because the
Romans saw that the nature of the Jewish religion was most
intolerant to all other religions, and hence, consequently,
often exciting the Jews to revoZt, that at last they were
obliged to act with great seeming intolerance to them.
Under Trajan again they tried to revolt, and under Adrian
succeeded in keeping up a formidable war against the
Empire two years. (See Crevier’s Adrian.} These remarks
apply also to Christians, who seem at this time to have often
been called Jews.
�NOTES.
127
tion was greater at Rome under the Empire than under the
ReDublic.
The Athenians no doubt found that their
amount of political liberty was so great, that they dared
not, for the safety of the Republic, allow too great religious
liberty.
Probably the Romans, under their Republic,
thought so too ; and the opinion seems wise that a Republic
should not allow such perfect religious toleration as a more
despotic government can well afford to do.
.
__
It is true that the grand Atheistic or Pantheistic poem of
Lucretius was written under the Republic before the. time
of Cicero, and this may seem to go against the opinion ot
the greater amount of religious liberty under the Empire.
But even supposing the poem was circulated as widely as
any other works, and by a similar number of copies under
the Republic, still this would only show that from first to
last, the expression of thought on religious matters was Jree
at Rome (Caesar’s assertions in the open Senate seem to
show the same) ; but under the Empire, religious rites or
practices, (as already stated in regard to Isis) were per
mitted, which the Republic would not tolerate. Freedom
of thought shows great toleration in religious matters no
doubt, but freedom of practice still greater.
Since writing the above, I have re-read Montesquieu s
Dissertation sur la Politique des Romains dans la Religion,
and find in it, on the authority of Cicero, (De Leg., 1. 2, c.
that “ Aimurs could pronounce nothing on public affairs
without the permission of the magistrates ; and that it was so
ordered in the books of the Pontiffs.” As we have already
seen that Hume was in favour of ecclesiastical power being
under civil, he probably adopted this wise view from the
Romans, but he forgot the British people had a far more
intolerant religion to deal with, and this, I think, shouId
have induced him to have wished to have seen the old
Pagan religion back again along with the wise regulation
On much the same principle, I think, Roman Catholics
should do the same, for, strange to say, they also have on y
borrowed half—unfortunately the worst half—and it would
have been well for toleration had they borrowed the whole
We know that their priests object to the Biole being read
generally, and Montesquieu tells us that the Senate did the
same with regard to the sibillyne books, and would not allow
them to be read, except under the pressure of some great
public calamity. Again, like the Catholics, “ all interpretations
of these sacred books were forbid,” and, adds Montesquieu,
�128
NOTES.
“ by so wise a precaution, arms were taEen out of the
hands of fanaticism and sedition.” No doubt any exami
nation of the details of Polytheism would have injured the
stability of the government; and as these details were in
fact the religion of the people—who were too ignorant at
that time to appreciate the generalities—so true—on which
Polytheism is founded, the Senate were wise in making the
above regulations.
I apprehend the Catholics are so too in the present day
in these respects; for they also allow no “interpretations”
of scripture. But the vast superiority of Polytheism over
Catholicism is clear from two considerations—1st, as I just
observed, its generalities are true ; for, as Montesquieu
says, the Pagans thought it mattered little whether we
adored the Divinity itself or the manifestations of the
Divinity; for example, Venus, as the passive generative
power of nature, and the sun as the active power,” &c., &c.
Thus Cicero says (De. Nat. Deorum, b. 2, chap, xxviii.)
the Supreme Power on land is worshipped under the name
of Ceres ; on sea, under that of Neptune. 2ndly, There
was no intolerance in Polytheism.
Now even the generalities of scripture will not bear any
philosophical examination of the above kind ; and of course,
both the Jewish and Christian religions have filled the
world with dissention and bloodshed by their great intoler
ance.
I say, then, I think the Catholics right in allowing little
exammation and no dissent, because, as reasonable men,
they must be convinced that the generalities, as well as the
details of their religion, have no solid foundation ; and,
consequently, that philosophical examination can only lead
to discord, and a fatal development of that intolerent spirit
which is the very essence of all real Christianity. The im
mense number of sects, and the intolerant state of opinion
in the “ States,” although not having led to much blood
shed, will, I think, also favour the wisdom of the Catholics
on these points; and I much query whether the sort of
half-toleration (or even less) of the reformation, admitting
its good in some respects, was worth the immense amount
of bloodshed it has cost the world.
Montesquieu does not say that the Romans imposed any
tax on conquered nations for the support of their (so to call
it) “ established Church.” On the contrary, he asserts
that they found, or always tried to find, their own Gods, but
assuming a different name, in all the conquered districts ; and
�NOTES.
129
thus were enabled to give them the strongest possible claim
to that ACTUAL EQUALITY which, provided they were not
themselves intolerant, they in fact acquired at Rome. JN o w
this system was not only wise and just, but it was TRUE;
for God is everywhere. “ Thus," says Montesquieu, with
real eloquence, “ conquered nations regarded Rome rather
as the SANCTUARY OF religion, than the mistress oi the
To sum up, recurring again to Hume. I think he should
have seen in Paganism itself, that Theism (at all events
when graced with a little poetry, so to call it,) was a possi
ble religion for the people. Lord Brougham (Paleys
Natural Theology Illustrated,'Sotes viu. andix., pp. 2to
to 296) shows well that Plato and Cicero held very ra
tional opinions on a future state, and that these, Strabo, and
I rni-ht add Polybius, regarded Theism as the foundation
of Paganism, (Jupiter was always the chief God,. see Tay
lor’s Diegesis, Pl>. 14-15) ; and that the Mythological fables
were merely added as being more suited to the comprehen
sion of the vulgar—much in the same way as Catholics oi
the present day have by similar embellishments and faction
made their faith, replete with male and female saints, like the
“lesser Deities” of Paganism—more adapted to the devo
tional feelings of the mass of the community. Certainly, the
poet will, also, rather praise such additions, (“ pious frauds
if you like so to call them) for by them Paganism and Catho
licism have both become far more poetical religions than
Protestantism. In consequence, (speaking generally) they
may be said almost to have given birth to poetry, painting,
and sculpture. If the Pope would but separate intolerance,
&c., from Catholicism, I should regard that as. a .system of
pure Theism, and the best of any at present existing.
Note B., page 18.—While laws exist in the statute book,
as they do’still with us in England in favour of Christi
anity, our still very useful martyrs in the cause of free •
thou Hit, can scarcely say they have forced the government
to its present very laudable spirit of toleration in matters
of religion. The government has only given way from
otives of policy, and on emergency could still if it thoug ht
fit resort to its former disgraceful course of persecution,
which, indeed, was only following Christianity m its real
spirit. To-day, the government is wisely,, only nominally
Christian in ignoring (for it cannot be said absolutely to
sanction) the attacks of free-thinkers.
It seems to me a mistake to suppose that Richard Carlile
G 2
�130
NOTES.
(or Robert Taylor,) contributed much to the freedom
of the British Press as regarded Theology, since Hume and
Gibbon had previously found publishers. But Carlile, at
the same time, that he published against Christianity, ad
vocated the freest political theories and practice, (short of
actual communism,) and this was probably very greatly
concerned in the violent government persecutions in this
case, though Messrs. Taylor’s and Holyoake’s imprisonments
show that lecturing against Christianity offended govern
ment much at that time. Thomas Paine commenced writ
ing in favour of Republics, and only years afterwards
attacked Christianity, which attack lost him the friendship
of Dr. Rush, (see Vale’s Life of Paine,) and as Rush was
a most intimate friend of Jeffersons, caused, perhaps, even
this latter great man to regard Paine with less cordiality on
his return to America, than he otherwise would have done.
(See Memoirs of Jefferson, by Randolph, (in four vols.)
It was not till the Throne seemed attacked as well as the
Altar, that our government moved. Be it also remembered,
that America and France had actually succeeded in estab
lishing Republics at the time Paine wrote, and when
Carlile began to reprint his works. Now, as there is no
fear of any party succeeding in establishing a Republic
here, further than on paper, government ignores political
writings that go even farther than Carlile thought desirable.
lie did not advocate communism; but many works now
left free do ; nor are the writers prosecuted. But, I ap
prehend, the government has not lost the power to prose
cute, should a change of circumstances seem to render such
a step desirable. Some old law exists in the statute book,
like the one in reference to Christianity, and like that
could be evoked on emergency. These spectres, too, might
not only “ be called
but would actually “ come,” when
called for. That the British government merely ignores,
and can not in reality be said, even now actually to tolerate
writings against Christianity, the following case among
others, distmctly sbows. It is taken from Cox’s Work, p. p.
477-8.
After stating that from policy, (“ as prohibition tends
rather to increase then diminish circulation,”) the press is
left free, except in some peculiarly offensive cases, Cox
continues, 4b In England the celebrated maxim, that
Christianity is part and parcel of the law,” continues to
operate as a bar to the free propagation of opinion, in a
manner which it is impossible for a moment to defend. On
�NOTES.
131
this principle, Lord Hardwicke in 1743, decided that a
sum of money left to found an institution for reading the
Jewish law, could not legally be so applied ; and so late as
June, L1855! a similar decision was given by the ViceChancellor, and the following bequest was declared to be
null, as being “ repugnant to revealed religion.
.
W. J. Hartley, by will, dated 1843, “ gave to Major
General Bri^s £300 as a remuneration, for the best ori
ginal essay on Natural Theology, treating it as a science.
&c. ; also demonstrating the adequacy of this, wlieu so
treated and taught as a science, to constitute a true, perfect,
and philosophical system of universal religion, founded on
immutable facts, and the works of creation, and beautifully
adapted to man’s reason, and tending as other sciences o,
but in a higher degree, to improve and elevate his nature,
*
and render him a wise, happy, and exalted being.
The Vice-Chancellor said, that in bis opinion, the above
words which the testator had chosen to adopt, could not
mean anything that was at all consistent with Christianity .
In this respect, no doubt, he was right; but his decision
shows, that even now, as Cox justly says, ^supposed non
belief in Christianity operates on a person s interest in a
“ manner which it is impossible to defend.
For here we
see, that although a person uses no disrespect whatever to
the prevailing creed, yet, because Ins views are considered
to be even secrei/y hostile to it, his bequest is made null.
This will be warning enough to those who believe _ only in
the one true religion, (viz., Theism,) to give anything they
wish for its support, during their life-time, since trea
Christianity as respectfully as you may, you cannot anu
late its inherent persecuting spirit. Had Theism, on the
contrary, been the religion of the State as I suggest, it
would have tolerated a bequest of this sort from any sec
tarian to his sect, whether it were Jew, Christian or In
fidel. Cox goes on to say, that the same unjust decision
did not occur in Scotland in 1832 in Taylors case. Iu
here the bequest was “ to the general Unitarian Baptist
Assembly," and as Unitarians are admitted to our Farlianient, as calling themselves Christians, the cases are totally
different ; and besides, this decision was made by Lord
Jeffery, who, as a writer for the Edinburgh Review, was as
* Cox justly praises this as appearing to have' been
the religion of “Socrates, Cicero, Collins, Adam Smith,
‘Franklin, and Jefferson.” (p. 480.)
�J 32
NOTES.
liberal as opinion allowed him to be. Therefore, I appre
hend, Cox to be in error, when he considers Scotland, in
this respect, more free than England. (Op. Cit., p. 479.)
It follows, from all the above, that our free-thinkers
should not consider their victory complete, till they have
got the noxious laws in question out of the statute book. We
see obsolete laws (as we suppose,) almost every week
being attempted to be put in practice again, as for instance,
in reference to the labourer, (p. 32, note) : and though I
am glad to see, that Sir George Grey has reversed the de
cision of those magistrates, it seems still, perhaps, doubt
ful, whether their decision was not strictly legal; and
whether or not, it is to be remembered, that this old man
has been subjected to a vast deal of annoyance, on account
of our bad mode of legislation. This is anything but liberty.
The Athenian custom, noticed, p. 82, is clearly the
proper one ; and Lord Brougham is said to be now occu
pied in endeavouring to get all the useless or injurious laws
ou our statute book repealed. Doubtless, he deserves great
praise for such labour; but time will show whether our
Christian, by necessity, legislature, will tolerate this blow
—which alone can be called the death blow—against bigotry,
or if “things were called by their right names”—actual
IRRELIGION.
Note C., Page 23.—As the Bible expressly commands
death to witches, I have urged this in my third argument
(p. 23) as another objection against even the utility of the
scriptures. I propose here to enter into a few details of the
evils this scripture doctrine has caused.
1. —“ The charge of witchcraft too commonly arose out
of the medical success of the offender.” (Sandby’s Mes
merism, p. 40.) “ The persecutions for witchcraft did not
commence till towards the close of the 15th century, i. e.,
when what are called the dark or middle ages were rapidly
passing away !”
2. —“ This persecution extended all over Europe, and by
it many thousands suffered death.”
3. —“ During the Puritanic supremacy of the famous long
parliament, 3,000 victims perished."
(p. 41.)
“ The
General Assembly passed an act for all ministers to take
note of witches and eharms.”
In pp. 42 and 43, after many instances of the persecu
ting spirit of the Presbyterian clergy on this point, we find
that “ three poor women were executed in 1623 at Perth
for doctoring.” (p. 44.)
�NOTES.
1 QQ
loo
“These charges were generally connected with cures
wrought, or attempted, for some severe disease. The igno
rant prosecutors could not explain what they saw. it was
a paradox how an old woman could by 4 simples cure dis
eases which had resisted the wisdom of the professor.
Hence the charge of sorcery.
I am indebted to Mr. Sandby’s work for the above facts ;
*
but I shall no doubt draw a somewhat different conclusion
from them from what the rev. gentleman has done. .
1st.—They show the danger there is to the public in ad •
mitting that anything like supernatural science is tiue, with
out complete and impartial examination. Here we find
people punished for imaginary crimes. Individuals who
themselves professed to have the power of witchcraft, de
served, no doubt, a lenient punishment (fine) for fraud ;
just as astrologers, and many mesmerists and somnambules
do at the present day. But those who did not themselves
profess to know such art, deserved no punishment.
2ndly._ They show that Protestantism can sometimes be
as intolerant as Catholicism; and that the advantages of a
free form of government may be very materially diminished
by co-existence of superstition, or a pernicious senti
ment which is the offspring of revealed religion. (See No.
3 above quotation.)
3rdly.—They confirm what I have said in this work in
reference to preaching Christianity to “the heathen, and
nations immersed in ignorance—nay perhaps even further
to highly educated nations ; since the reader will ob
serve the curious fact, viz., it was at “ the close of the 15th
century,” just about the time of the spread of knowledge by
printing and the so-called reformation, that believersin Cihristianity began to persecute for witchcraft !
The present religious condition of the highly educated
United States, with its Shakers, Swedenbourgians, and
Spirit Rappers, &c., &c., (I speak with no disrespect) added
to the fact just noted, confirms me more and more in the
belief that every State should have an established religion ;
but also, that that religion should be natural Theism. The
command—“ Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live,” still
exists in the scriptures, nor can any man tell when opinion
* The student should also refer to a No. in the Edinburgh
some years ago for details of still further horrors, and to
mark the vast numbers executed.
�134
NOTES.
or clerical influence may again be powerful enough—at all
events in new and barbarous nations—to cause it to be
obeyed.
Note D., page 57.—As I have often called Protestantism
only a sort of half reformation, I shall here add some de
tails on the subject by way of establishing my points.
Gibbon very justly calls the reformers of the loth and
16th centuries “ a set of fanatics.”* That great historian
contented himself as a reformer in matters of religion, with
showing that Christianity was not altogether of divine
origin ; and as this was a vast step indeed in advance of
Luther and Calvin, he deserves immortal honour, yet is not
likely to get his statue in the “Abbey.” However, he is
still too guarded in his remarks on the tendency of Chris
tianity. In regard to “ unconditional submission,” his
views arc clear enough as he prefers the views of Paganism to
Christianity on this point—the sway of the Antonines to that
of Constantine or Theodosius.
But in different parts we
find him speaking of the “ mild tendency of the gospel,”
as if in approval of its true spirit,! in contradistinction to
the precept and practices of its degenerate professors. But
surely, when noticing the persecutions of Charles the Fifth,
he might justly have said, here we have an instance of its
bad tendency on a man of an enlarged and otherwise liberal
mind.
No doubt, Charles V., began very mildly with Luther
* No doubt they were, and some of the changes they
made were as foolish as they were unjust; witness the
closed pew system, shutting up churches six days in the
week, and building such small ones. It is to be remarked,
too, that every form of Catholicism is of a more cheerful
character than of Calvinistic Protestantism, even to the
sound of the church bell
I have no doubt that ail except
fanatics would be very glad to find this, reminding one of
anything rather than heaven, tolling only ten minutes instead
of twenty minutes, or half an hour twice each Sunday—es
pecially if they lived in the immediate vicinity of the Pro
testant church.
f See end of chap. xvi. I think, too, that Gibbon was
deterred by the unjust clamour raised against this chapter,
from doing full justice afterwards to the life of the Em
peror Julian (ch. xxiii.) Indeed, he almost says so himself
by implication. (See Life by himself.)
�NOTES.
135
when he summoned him to Worms ; but afterwards we
*
find him approving of the punishment of death for heresy,
and asserting that “ it was strange the German nation
should undertake to do what all other nations in the uni
verse, even with the Pope, would not be authorised to do,”
and concluding by censuring “ the new Mahomet,” as he
called Luther, t He did not resort to harsh measures,
certainly, before he found mild ones ineffectual to sup
press the “ movement
but let us reflect that these harsh
measures were the stake, and that during his reign, (from
1545 to 1556) no less 1,320 were burnt alive, and 6,600
sentenced to the galleys or imprisonment for mere heresy.\
Although nothing can justify such barbarity, still it must
be confessed that Charles might have viewed one of Luther's
innovations, viz.—justification by faith, not only as unscriptural, but what is of vast more importance, as highly
immoral; and this too in a man who professed to start a
purer view of Christianity. “ Penance, says he, and such
sort of sacrifice is not wantedwe are led by implication to
infer the sole sacrifice,” Luther considered wanted, was
that of Reason!! This was to be sacrificed to what he
called Faith! (D’Aubigne, vol. 1, p. 73). Let us admit
on this subject, that if the Roman Catholics had pushed the
* D’Aubigne’s History of the Reformation, (by Scott,)
vol. i., pp. 585-636.
f Idem., vol. ii., p. 305.
| Vol. ii., p. 626. The numbers burnt by order of
Torquemada between 1481 and 1498 were 10,220. It is
not till from 1759 till 1788, in the reign of Charles III.,
that we find a very great diminution, the numbers burnt
being only four ; and from 1788 to 1808 none.
After giving the above and the other details, Scott re
marks, “ It is lamentable to think that infidel philosophy, not
evangelical Christianity, has been the grand agent in effecting
the diminution of victims." So much for the blessings, then,
of mere Protestantism to the world! This, for a time,
tended to increase the number of victims, giving indeed
some, but not very great, advantage to mankind for such
vast sacrifice. It was not till Montesquieu, Diderot,
Volney, Voltaire, Rousseau, Hume, Gibbon, and others
began to doubt or deny the truth of Christianity itself, viz.,
from before 1770 to 1788, that this bloody persecution was
changed to the milder form in which we see it exist at the
present, viz., censure by opinion.
�136
notes.
belief in the power of the Pope and their church to pardon
sins (after penance) too far, the Lutherans, on the other
side, insisted to an absurd and prejudicial extent, on the
text:—“ If we confess our sins to God, he is faithful and
just to forgive us our sins.” (p. 40). With the great mass,
this sort of confession is no confession at all; and certainly
confession to a conscientious Roman Catholic priest (and
there are many such) would have been a greater check on
crime, had not that church unfortunately got into the
practice of selling indulgences. Here, I confess, Luther
justly attacked them; but when we find Leo X. making such
good use for the public of the vast sums acquired by the
sale of these, as building St. Peter’s at Rome, and
buying M.S.S. of Livy, (p. 232), Tacitus, {Valery's Tra
vels), and other classical authors,. we must regard even
this abuse with more lenity than otherwise. The fault is
inherent in the creed itself, which tells us that by repen
tance the reddest sins will be forgiven. Such belief will
ever be as much liable to abuse with Luther’s views equally
as with those of the Roman Catholics, as the case (a few
years ago) of the wholesale Norwich murderer Rush—to
all appearance a very sincere Protestant—evinced. “No
man can prove from scripture, that God’s justice requires
any satisfaction (except repentance) from the sinner,” said
Luther, (p. 238), and perhaps he may be right ; but I ap
prehend it would have been better for the community, had
Rush and similar characters, held the belief, that confession
and repentance openly to a priest, and even some payment
or penance, was necessary as a “ satisfaction.” Again,
(p. 599), Luther preaches :—“ We are saved by the works
of Christ, not our own works.” The Pope says something
very different, and he probably says something better,
though whether more strictly scriptural, I apprehend
neither he or any one else can truly decide, seeing how am
biguous every point looks by scripture light. As our own
works cannot save us ; so thought Rush they cannot damn
us, provided we repent, or appear to do so, for (see his
trial) he seemed to expect salvation.
“ People must first be made partakers of life by faith,
if they would do works pleasing to God,” says D’Aubigne’s
commentator, (p. 578,) in which the gross immorality and
injustice of Lutheran “justification by faith” may be said
to be summed up. Again, in Luther's own confession,
‘■'•Faith alone justifies before God, without works!”
(p. 179.) Charles V. must indeed have looked with
�notes.
137
contempt on such pretended reforms in doctrine as these
words imply.
,.
,___
Again/ from one of Luther’s sermons,
We do not
become righteous, as Aristotle pretends, by omg wor s
of righteousness: but having become righteous, we do such
works!! ” (p. 193.) So Luther himself broke his vow as
a Monk and married ; justifying perhaps his falsehood by
his faith. On the same ground Rush might have said,
since I believe, my works must be good. 1 do not by this
mean to put these men in the same category certainly : and
I allow that Luther did good in spite of his doctrine, in
getting permission for priests to marry: but this does not
excuse him personally, for he was a Monk, and had made a
vow; and if men or women (after a certain age and of their
own free choice) like even now to adopt such chastity, 1 do
not see why they should be prevented.
.
The revival of letters, the discovery of printing, and
the magnetic compass in the loth century, preceded
Luther’s Reformation-in the 16th. The Medici family at
Florence, after learned Greek scholars had been forced
into Italy from Constantinople, in consequence of the con
quest of this by the Turks in 1453, countenanced the
revival of the religion contained in Plato s works. ( pCit., p. 71.) It is a great pity for the world they did not
succeed in putting the religion of these in place of that of
the Reformation, which was partly occasioned by the above
discoveries. Mr. Scott, in the preface to D Aubigne, p. 9,
opposes even this writer himself, when he says, as we have
just seen was the case, that the enfranchisement of the
human mind was
by the discoveries of printing, the
compass, &c., &c. The Puritanical Scotch Translator,
however, will not allow these even to have played a minor
part in forwarding the Reformation! He says— take
from philosophy what she owes to the Gospel, and even
France will be found to owe little indeed to the natural
powers of the mind.” Now I may reply, as I have done
before, that the state of the ancient Greek and Koman
Pagan world is a satisfactory answer to Mr. Scott s argu
ment, that civil liberty, and order, and civilisation, cannot
exist without protestantism, and consequently without
Christianity. I am willing to admit, that Protestantism is
somewhat more favourable to civil liberty, than the pure
Catholicism of Italy and Spain is, though not so much so
as the reformed Catholicism, (so to call it,) at least was
under Louis Phillippc of France ; and I am also ready to
�138
NOTES.
allow, that as Luther preached—“ none ought to suffer
constraint, liberty is the essence of the faith," he deserves
*
credit on the score of having in respect to theoretical
toleration made a real improvement. But we must at the
same time remember, that Luther could scarcely attempt
any reform in the church, and preach otherwise ; since his
▼ery object was the liberty of changing. But to say that
he was preaching real Christianity—which expressly com
mands unconditional submission, and was probably adopted
by Constantine and others on this account—when he was
preaching as above, is totally absurd. When we are told
to “ obey the powers which be”—and when St. Paul tells
the fugitive slave to go back to his master—any attempt to
engraft the principles of civil liberty on such a creed, must
be clearly futile. The increase of such liberty, then in
Europe, after the Reformation, was caused in reality by the
Reformers declining to adhere to strict principles of
Christianity. The inventions of the 15th century show that
(contrary to Scott’s view,) the human mind could, without
the assistance of scripture, contribute to civilisation ; and
though, as Mr. Hallam truly says, {Introduction to the
Literature of Europe,) “ the doctrines of Luther, taken
together, are not more rational * * than those of the
church of Rome,” still Luther was obliged to change some
thing for the better to gain converts, and fortunately for
mankind, he preached against the supreme spiritual power
of the Pope—“ the priest having the power to forgive sin,”
(vol. ii, p. 292,) and against the celibacy of the clergy.
Let us add—Although it may be doubtful whether
“ Luther contributed much to take learning out of the
hands of the priests, who had engrossed it to themselves,
as those of ancient Egypt did,” we must, according to
D’Aubigne, give him credit for attempting (vol. ii., p. 331)
to do this. It was printing that did it in reality; and
contrary to Mr. Scott’s opinion, Luther was, therefore, in
* Vol. ii, p. 206.
When Luther preached thus, too, he
was not in power. This consideration takes off much from
the merit of the man ; for, out of power, tolerance is a
much easier virtue. Accordingly, we find that, though
Protestantism at first was more tolerant than its enemy,
still when it got the ascendancy under Elizabeth, it was
sufficiently intolerant, (see p. 36,) and has only become
somewhat less so at present, in consequence of the spirit of
the age.
�NOTES.
139
this respect, much indebted to this recent invention, for
power to carry on the work of the Reformation. But this
and the other inventions of the 15th century would, no
doubt, of themselves, eventually have brought about the
above useful practical changes, and the same increase in
the amount of civil liberty. D’Aubigne, indeed, thinks
not: but he is still far more sensible than his translator
who will not admit they had any influence whatever /in
the work of the Reformation. It is not improbable that
this could not have taken place, even so easily as it did,
without some previous general improvement, in conse
quence of the invention of printing, &c., &c. I his inven
tion, by enabling the middle and poorer class to get books,
would also enable them (after the revival of the study of
Greek and Roman authors) to perceive, that as good
government had existed before the appearance of Chris
tianity, so it might exist with less oj it than Catholicism
required; and such is, in fact, Protestantism, (1 mean it
is a sort of half Christianity,) though of course 1 rotestants will deny such an obvious truth.
But one of the most powerful causes of the success of
the Reformation (1 think omitted by D’Aubigne?) was the
following, viz., that its principles were embraced bysome oj
those in power, viz., Albert, hereditary Duke of Prussia,
the Elector of Saxonv, and partly by our Henry V1U.
Frederick the Great justly said, he owed his ancestors
much for throwing oil this thraldom ; and no doubt some
idea of personal interest contributed to make the above
sovereigns embrace Luther’s views. And without this the
Reformation would probably have stopped ! So much for
Scott attributing the change solely to Divine interposition
Henry VIII.’s adoption of it arose from the very lowest
kind of personal interest.
.
0
I am glad to find that an author, who published in 1822
a bold and excellent reply to the Rev. T. Pennell's Essay
aqainst Scepticism,—and which Essay, supported as it was
by opinion all through the country, may, perhaps, be said
to have forced Mr. Lawrence to a recantation dishonour
able, if not to himself, at all events so to the opinion of
Britain,—-holds the views of the Reformation advocated
in this note. I allude to Sir T. C. Morgan, who says,
(Philosophy of Morals, p. 289, note,—Colburn, 1822,)
“ Notwithstanding the number of sects, there are but three
modifications of opinion at all tenable: Deism, Unitananism, and Catholicism. The doctrines of the Church of
�140
NOTES.
England are too .much like Popery, tinder another name and
head.
Such being the case, we may well, indeed, ask, if
Luther s so-called Reformation was worth even the blood
of the 70,000 Protestants (to name no other victims) it
caused to be butchered in France, on August 24th, 1572,
called the massacre of St. Bartholomew ? (Taylor’s
Diegesis. p. 137. Truelove and Holyoake.) Luther
would certainly have done far more good to humanity had
he at once preached Theism, and, probably, such religion
would have been quite as well received by the Roman
Catholics: the vast extent of the above-named massacre,
shows it could scarcely have been worse received.
Sir C. Morgan, also like myself, has no great opinion of
Christian Missionary labours, anil (p. 180) he calls them
“ill-timed and irrational." In short, his is no doubt the
work of a Theist or Pantheist. Perhaps he speaks almost
as plainly as Gibbon, as to his own faith; and certainly
more so than Mr. Robert Cox. So that the work deserves
to be studied attentively eren noze by all Statesmen, were
it, indeed, only for the following passage as to what the
Reformation, at all events, should have been. “ The
punishment of libel against the established religion, (he
alludes probably to the cases of Paine and Richard Carlile,)
is a flat contradiction to the right of private judgment on
which Protestantism is founded.” (p. 336.) The despotic
opinion of Britain will not even yet admit the truth of this,
but, as usual, is so much the more disposed to punish
socially, because Law at the present period, it seems,
will not imprison the supposed culprit. R’e Auve yet to
learn that political liberty constitutes only a part of real
freedom; and that many nations behind us in this are yet
far before us in social, and, I may add, practical religious
liberty. I conclude this note, then, by referring the
reader to the quotation from Quinet with which I have
begun and by re-asserting that this applies in many re
spects more forcibly to our Puritanical Protestantism than
to Catholicism. The latter is at least the open foe of
liberty ; while the former, by pretending to concede it, in
sinuates its love of monotonous and strict order into our
every-day intercourse, and by its tyrannical influence leaves
us scarcely a vestige of the most valuable perhaps of all
liberty,—I mean social liberty.
Note E, Page 70.—Since the remarks on the passages in
Tacitus and Suetonius were written, I find the Rev. Robert
Taylor in his Duyem (pp. 372-9,) endeavours to make out,
�NOTES.
14 I
1st —that the passage in Tacitus is “a forgery or inter
polation
and, 2ndly ,—that “ there is no reasonable
ground that by Chrestus, Suetonius meant Christus.
✓ 377
In regard to Tacitus, I have only to observe that Gib
bon (chap, xvi.) considers it genuine; and as to its having
been put into the text in order to favour the truth of the
evidences of Christianity as Taylor suggests, (p. 376), it
seems to make Tacitus speak more against the utility and
purity of this religion, than was necessary. Surely a skilfiil interpolator would have been anxious to have got a
testimony of so mnch value as that of the great historian
somewhat less inimical to the very utility of the creed.
Without, therefore, denying merit to Taylor for his at
tempts to get at truth on this point, and recommending
impartial men to read the twenty reasons he gives, I for
the present follow Gibbon on this head.
. .
For similar reasons I follow him in considering that
Chrestus in Suetonius is synonymous with Christus, for
here again Gibbon in a note renders the term malefca (not
magical as he says some have done) but like exitiabilis per
nicious. Surely interpolaters would not have spoken so
decidedly against the very utility of a creed they wished
future generations to adopt.
I now come to what Mr. Taylor says about the passage
in Pliny, who was the personal friend of Tacitus. He ob
serves that, contrary to Dr. Sender, of Leipsic, and others,
he cannot “ admit it to be fairly conquered.” . (p. 383.)
But this passage will tend then to favour the belief that the
foregoing in Tacitus is genuine, for the sentiments of Plmy
on the Christian faith, as I shall now proceed to state, are
very similar, as was to be expected, to those of Tacitus and
Suetonius, though, perhaps, he scarcely speaks so badly of
it as a creed, for, although in one place he calls it ame/ifia,
and in another superstitio prava, (p. 380), yet he had, in a
passage just before, spoken well of its morality, (hut be it
observed, in this latter respect only on the testimony of a
Christian, for he himself, as Gibbon says, (chap, xvi.),
seems to have known little or nothing about it !) Hence,
as the Christian under accusation was naturally enough
*
anxious to make the new religion appear good, we
should not value this testimony too highly; and certainly
not regard it as Pliny's own opinion.
_
In this letter of Pliny we find two assertions that will, 1
think, justify the Roman government in its somewhat harsh
�142
NOTES.
treatment of the Christians on this occasion, 1st,—They
seemed to have objected to recognise the Roman Emperors
as the head of the government, probably because they
were “ required to invoke the image of the Emperor with
wine and frankincense,” and this seemed to them more akin
to divine honours than what he was entitled to. Perhaps
in this they were partly right; and yet they should have re
membered that even such honours did not make the Em
peror equal to Jupiter, the D. O. M., or Supreme God.
2ndly.—As Mr. Taylor observes, they met in societies
"before daylight (ante lucem), and the Romans might well
believe nocturnal meetings of bodies of men plotted
something “ against the welfare and peace of society.”
(p. 381.) Such nocturnal meetings had always been by the
xii tables considered illegal. (Gibbon, chap, xliv.)
I think when these two points are considered, we shall
see in the Roman apparent persecution, nothing more than
a mere political precaution for the safety ofthe state,.andwith
Gibbon “be unable to discover any bigotry in the language
or proceedings of Pliny.” (Note, chap, xvi.) He was only
doing his duty in requiring that the new infatuation
(amentia), as he justly calledit, should not actually jout down
the established divinities of the empire, and that this was
its object, the subsequent suppression of Paganism by force
—by the “ punishment even of death,” (Diegesis, p. 137)—
fully evinced. We can more easily excuse a little severity
of Pliny too, because, (as Gibbon observes), his father,
the naturalist, lived at the time of the supposed darkness
of the crucifixion, yet says nothing about it in his great
work which recorded all such wonders of nature ! The
learned son, then, might well call such creed an “ infatua
tion.”
As to the—at frst sight—more reasonable objection of
the Jews and Christians to pay divine honours to the statue
of the Emperor, Pliny, in another passage, separates, in
some measure, the human and divine, and does not call
the Emperor a Deity. It was merely something on the
same principle as we say—“ Fear God and honour the
King.”
Note F, Page 110.—Having spoken of Roman oaths, I
may here add some remarks on the precautions the Romans
took to favour justice, in case also of debts. I shall with the
same view then allude to the state of lawyers.
In the early time of the Republic, the debtor was re
tained in a state of slavery (Quin., vi., 3, 26) by his ere-
�NOTES.
143
ditor until he found means to discharge his debt. Subse
quently, (A. U. 429), “ the law only required that the
goods of the debtor, and not his person, should be given up
to the creditor.” (Roman Antiquities, p. 40.) Subsequently,
“ only one-fourth part of the debt” required to be paid by
law, which, with some little change, seems to have been in
force at the time of Julius Caesar and afterwards. If the
debtor were actually always obliged sooner or later to pay
even this one-fourth, it seems to have been better than
some of our modern laws, that allow the debtor to escape
without paying any part of his debt.
Lawyers, too, under the Roman government seem to
have been in a better position for the public, though not
perhaps for themselves, than in modern times. _
By the
Cincian law, lawyers were prohibited froni takulg
or
presents from those who consulted them.
.
Hence
the law was studied from a desire of assisting fellow citi
zens, and through their favour of rising to preferments.
(Roman Antiquities, p. 155.) “Afterwards, lawyers were
permitted to take fees, but not above a certain sum. (Idem.)
I apprehend while such laws are in force, there is at least
less temptation than there is at present, to make the worse
appear the better cause, and that no gentleman at that
period had much inducement to make a flaming speech in
favour of a murderer’s innocence, when he had the man s
confession of guilt in his pocket, as one . of our lawyers
(now noted among pious persecutors) is said to have done,
I know not with what truth.
r
I think when the above view as to the state of debtor and
creditor, and lawyers, is considered, and the fact added to
it of a distribution of corn gratuitously at stated periods
to the poorest classes (under Augustus 200,000 received
corn from the public,” Op. Cit., p. 160), we shall be in
clined to think with Adams, that “ the bulk of the people
* * were not more oppressed under the Empire than they
had been under the Republic (Op. Cit., p. 145) and fur
ther, when their high state of religious freedom is added,
that ancient surpasses modern civilization as far as that
most important point, the moral and political state of the
world, is concerned.
I shall close this note by an allusion to a belief that seems
tolhave somewhat increased even while this work has been
passing through the press—I mean “ spirit-rapping. In a
work on Reforms, I am the more bound to notice this, as in
some cases too vivid a belief in this fallacy seems not only
�144
NOTES.
to have impaired the reason, but actually to have led to
suicide. I well know from the sacrifice of time and money
I was obliged to make to satisfy myself that clairvoyance is
a fallacy, that the same will be required as regards spiritrapping, since, of course, our American and other exhibi
tors who come over here are not in general in a position to
work for nothing. But even when their belief is sincere,
and they are known as honest, this is very little more reason
for taking their exhibitions almost on trust, as many do, than
if they were known as pennyless impostors. Although I
do not approve of ridicule in such matters, yet (this apart)
I am glad to observe the “ wizard of the north” is now
showing how all these “ rappings” may be done by merely
natural means. The mysterious lady ” did the same for
merly as regards clairvoyance; and it had a good effect, by
showing that such wonderful feats were not of necessity su
pernatural. When this is clearly seen, men will soon begin
to investigate the matter more strictly, and no longer be
half frightened away from all investigation, as I have known
parties to be in regard to the far less awful pretentions of
clairvoyance.
THE END.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Letters to the American people on Christianity and the sabbath
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Prater, Horatio
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: xi, 144 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Includes bibliographical references. Dedicated to the memory of the Emperor Julian (p.[v]).
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
J. Clayton and Son [etc.]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1856
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N544
Subject
The topic of the resource
Christianity
USA
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Letters to the American people on Christianity and the sabbath), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Christianity
NSS
Rationalism
Religion
United States of America
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/cdc2965bfd8fe08cf1f0a53a14bd85de.pdf?Expires=1777507200&Signature=Pn8h1V9iGFra8qlcB0TKRKSb0K8uJ2tvOHyF87tTjT48ed5fmuyvTOhZrVtWaeBAAhG--r6ewHKP2b1wB8ECBBpeGqmnpnSYv1bIvpe%7ENEL9nar-7cALRwau5%7ExPUc8z6D2C3Tz1KTjG1DebQnZVPgDl2lhSrLEemPESJUolMZyEo-N3Yyn7uCfmgATtB%7ElLzTQvMTlIdTq09rRCPSW%7E49mgECV5%7EwObVmqh8lQrPZJA5RCkvyqUTQorDeRlpfm-RVbYtfkd1CLsae9gbK6XQxyeYo-SoN40p4f3il1EEe44G636aO7eftRHlC6gg9RjsEJX%7EwSbWvFwPc6NtVx6hw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
886288a581847bf131b6db30f68a8de7
PDF Text
Text
Our Indian Relations.
one. The world is all complex to
the child, to the savage. Science
simplifies by formulating laws and
grouping results. Religion needs
to be simplified in like manner.
The Gospel as an abstraction is as
perplexed as other abstractions. Ap
ply it in life, and you will find that it
simplifies itself more and more. Peo
ple may talk as much as they will of
the subtleties which it delights man
kind both to invent and to refute.
This may be a harmless, even a useful
mental gymnastic. But let us seek
more and more for this applied
Gospel, and for such purity of
prescription and stringency of ex
ample as may help us more and
more to its application. And one
word more about simplicity. There
are two opposite views of God, which,
like other oppositions, should illusstrate instead of excluding each
other. God may be considered in
his three-fold aspect, for every true
unity is capable of a three-fold in
terpretation. But the unity of God
remains for Christianity the cardinal
doctrine, the simplest, most scien
tific and practical. So pray let us
hold to this divine unity, which does
not exclude the study of trinity, but
which must preclude any such divi
sion. I think you ought to have
more Unitarian churches in NewYork—more, and other. The want
of centrality makes itself felt in this.
Much thought which orthodoxy
fails to crystallize does not enter
into the faithful combination which
forms a church; and this is the last
place in the world in which such a
concourse of consciences can be dis
pensed with. Here the faithful
should constantly meet, and uphold
each other in the constant, peaceable
warfare against the wrongs that un
dermine society.
OUR INDIAN RELATIONS.
BY
COLONEL
S.
F.
Y?;
TAPPAN.
“ A sound of war is on the western wind ;
The sun, with fiery flame, sweeps down the sky ;
Athwart his breast the crimson shadows fly
Of fearless forms no fetters e’er can bind.
-3
“ The eagle plunges from his mountain nest,
And screaming, soars above the distant plain,
/
Plucking his plumes without a pang of pain,
Though stained with blood from his own beating breast.”
Again is the country startled by
reports of an impending conflict, the
hurrying of troops to the plains, and
active preparations for an armed
contest with the Sioux Indians. The
excitement is temporarily allayed by
an occasional telegram from Wash
ington, that the general of the army
is confident that there is to be no
serious trouble after all. He is
alarmed, and foolishly imagines that,
having raised the storm, he can coni
trol it. He very well knew—for he is
not an idiot—that when he, with his
�Otir Indian Relations.
Meutenant, as early as last October,
deliberately planned the betrayal and
assassination of a small camp of
Piegans, when the winter and small
pox should have rendered them com
pletely helpless ; a conspiracy that
culminated, in January last, in a mas
sacre so atrocious as to fill the coun
try with amazement and horror; that
such a deed of shame would drive
the Indians to make common cause
and retaliate, and a general war
would be the result. Having for
months failed to force the Comanches, Kiowas, Cheyennes, Arrapahoes, and Apaches to open hostilities,
by massacre and the most excessive
cruelties, he made sure work of it by
the destruction of the Piegans. And
now, while making extensive pre
parations for war, and demanding an
increase of the army, he assures the
country that the trouble will soon be
at an end.
War threatens us, which, under the
circumstances, will prove the greatest
of calamities, a calamity not so much
in the loss of life and treasure, as in
the loss of our national honor and
fame. The government, not the
Indians, is at fault; for it refuses
them simple, even-handed justice,
which is all they demand, as a condi
tion of a permanent and honorable
peace. This nation is guilty of a
wanton, persistent violation of sacred
obligations, entered into with the red
men of the west, and thereby forces
them on to the war-path as their
only means of self-preservation and
safety, as their only tribunal for a re
dress of grievance, their only way of
resisting the terrible and infamous
edict proclaimed against them, that
they are to be “ exterminated, men,
women, and childrenthat the
17
dreaded fate of the poor sick Piegans
is to be theirs, whenever an oppor
tunity offers the troops for the con
summation of such transcendent trea
chery and atrocity. They see the
black and piratical flag displayed in
their country by our army, and com
prehend its villainous and bloody
import. They understand fully the
design of their Christian, civilized,
and cowardly enemy who refuses them
quarter, and glories in the massacre
of helpless men, women, and children.
They know very well that if they
submit they are lost; if they rely upon
the plighted faith of the nation, they
are betrayed and assassinated.
The regular army, in its fear of re
duction, becomes a scourge to the
Indians, and to the country as well;
it afflicts them with suffering and
death, while it fastens upon us as
a people dishonor and shame. It
commends them to the eternal sympa
thy of mankind as victims, while we
are doomed to be execrated for all
time to come as the assassins. Of
the two give me the fate of the In
dian. “ Better the victim than the
assassin.” Better leave the world by
the hand of violence, the last of a
noble race more sinned against than
sinning, than to remain forever with
untold wealth, unlimited power and
fame, with the consciousness of hav
ing aided in the destruction of an en
tire people, for no crime, but upon
the miserable, cowardly, and false
assumption, criminal in the ex
treme, that we could not govern or
civilize it.
Believing that all this trouble ori
ginated with men of prominence, for
the purpose of preventing a threaten
ed or anticipated reduction of our
military establishment; that wars with
�78
*
Our Iudiait Relations,
Indians are wholly unnecessary, can
easily be avoided, and are dishonor
able to all connected with them ;
that the children of the wilderness
only demand simple justice as a con
dition of a permanent and honorable
peace ;. the writer enters his earnest
protest against these warlike proceed
ings, and declares that there is no
necessity or justification for them
whatever; 'that under the circum
stances it is not war but massacre,
and, if persisted in, fastens upon our
beloved country a crime more atro
cious and infamous than that of the
St. Bartholomew massacre in France
a few centuries ago.
With these convictions, the writer
will attempt, in this and future num
bers of The Standard, to present
the true state of this great cause ; to
write from an experience of years
among the Indians of the plains and
the Rocky Mountains ; first, as an
officer in the military service, in com
mand of troops and posts in their
country, and afterward as a member
of the Indian Peace Commission, cre
ated by unanimous vote of Congress,
by an act approved July 20th, 1867 ;
writing with no other wish or desire
than to deal justly with all, arraigning
before the country the real criminals,
whatever their position may be, and
protecting from misrepresentation
and slander the innocent, under what
soever ban they may exist.
The United States Indian Com
mission was organized some two
years ago, by distinguished and phi
lanthropic gentlemen of New-York,
for the benevolent and statesmanlike
purpose of removing the ban of out
lawry from the Indians, making them
citizens of the United States, pro
tected by and amenable to its laws ;
to prevent the government from
waging wars against its wards and
dependents ; to promote their ad
vancement in the useful arts, pursuits,
and education of civilization, and so
far influence the government and
public opinion as to create a whole
some and humane sentiment con
cerning their rights and privileges;
to publish and circulate the best in
formation, from official and other
sources, concerning the condition and
interests of the unfortunately pro
scribed Indian race ; also to facili
tate the organization of similar asso
ciations throughout the country, and,
by agitating this question, create a
better public sentiment, which would
induce Congress to give it sufficient
prominence to command their atten
tion, and thereby secufe the much
required legislation.
For two years this commission has
existed and labored in various ways,
doing splendid service, sending one
of their number, Mr. Vincent Col
yer, to visit the Indians of the plains
and mountains, to examine into and
report their condition and Wants.
Faithfully and ably was this work
performed by their agent, who, return
ing to this city to make preparations
for a visit, under the auspices of this
commission to the native population
of Alaska, was appointed by Presi
dent Grant, in recognition of his
valuable service on the plains, and
the importance of the New-York as
sociation, as one of the Board of In
dian Commissioners, and sent to our
newly acquired territory of the ex
treme north-west, from which he re
turned a few months later and sub
mitted his able and faithful report,
which, more than any thing else, will
prevent a costly war in that quarter.
�Our Indian Relations.
The military were determined to bring
about a conflict with the Indians
by outrages upon them. Now, the
record so unmistakably vindicates
the peaceful character and intentions
of the natives of Alaska, and so
strongly condemns the conduct and
actions of the troops stationed there,
that trouble is averted.
This commission is still at work,
sustained by the public sentiment of
the country, although that sentiment
does not yet find expression in simi
lar organizations which are so much
needed. At a meeting of the com
mission on the evening of the 26th
of April, at the. Cooper Institute,
presided over by the president of the
society, the distinguished and vene
rable Peter Cooper, Esq., resolu
tions were unanimously adopted, call
ing upon the friends of this great
movement throughout the country
to organize for cooperation with this
association, and to meet with it in
convention on the 18 th of May. A
call that the exigencies of the public
service demand, should be generally
responded to by the American peo
ple.
At the April meeting referred to,
the Indian question was discussed in
its broadest and truest sense. One of
the speakers, Hon. Sidney Clarke,
member of Congress from Kansas,
and Chairman of the House Commit
tee on Indian Affairs, in his adddres
stated an important truth when he
said, “All the government wanted in
this crisis was an Indian policy.”
Now, no well-defined arid understood
policy exists. The President, deter
mined on a radical reform in the ad
ministration of Indian affairs, has
sent well-known peace men as the
representatives of the government to
the Plains Indians, with most favor
able results, even while the nation’s
wards rest under the ban of outlawry
and outrage, and are the victims of
the most violent passions and unjust
prejudices, with the army determined
on war, and Congress refusing its aid.
Even under these adverse circum
stances, the policy of the present ad
ministration has commended itself
to the country as a success. What
would it not be if these obstacles
were removed and the President had
a clear field ? It proves beyond ques
tion that the Indians are not opposed
to a permanent and honorable peace.
During the summer of 1865, after
the Sand Creek massacre, and during
the continuance of a war that fol
lowed as a consequence of that cow
ardly and infamous atrocity, Congress
saw the necessity of a radical change
in the administration of Indian affairs,
and delegated a committee of their
own members—including the then
President pro tern, of the Senate—
to proceed at once to the Indian
country, ascertain the cause of trou
bles, and suggest a remedy. These
distinguished gentlemen faithfully
performed the work assigned them,
reported as the cause of Indian wars
the fact that the Indian was an out
law, and the remedy a very simple
one, namely, the extension of the civil
law over the Indian country. To
secure this, they prepared an act
which passed the Senate by a con
siderable majority, but it was after
ward defeated in the House. This
committee had no difficulty in con
ferring with the then hostile tribe.
The Cheyennes heard of their com
ing, and stood ready to meet, and
did meet them in council, when an
agreement of peace was made and
�8o
Our Indian Relations.
faithfully adhered to by the Indians,
until the burning of their village two
years after.
In 1867, war again existed on the
plains, attended with a fearful loss
of life, a serious interference with
settlement and travel, and an im
mense expense of treasure. The
Indian Peace Commission was cre
ated by act of Congress, approved
by the President on the 20th of
July. This commission was sent
out to meet the hostile Indians, which
was easily done. Council with them
was held, hostilities on their part
stayed, and terms of settlement agreed
upon. After which the commis
sion reported to Congress not only
the causes of Indian wars, but sug
gested the remedy: The ban of
outlawry must be removed from the
Indian, the protection of laws ex
tended over him, civilization, edu
cation, liberty, and a permanent
home guaranteed to him and his
forever. Unfortunately for the coun
try and the peace of the plains, these
recommendations have not yet been
acted upon.
Consequently, Congress is not free
from all guilt in this matter; it has
persistently refused to legislate upon
the subject, as advised by its own
commissions ; but, on the contrary,
has repudiated them in a manner
so treacherous and unjust that the
Secretary of the Interior was im
pelled to send in a special message,
indorsed by the President, defending
the Peace Commission and its deal
ings with the Indians from the un
accountable action of the House of
Representatives.
*
The treatment of the Indians for
centuries, by the government and
people, has made them outcasts and
vagabonds, has fastened upon them
the enslaving and degrading ban of
outlawry, given free license to ruf
fians to murder them as if they were
wolves, has encouraged the army to
betray and massacre them while trust
ing in the plighted faith of the re
public, has robbed them of their right
to the soil, and driven them step by
step, by treachery and atrocity, be
yond the pale of civilization, govern
ment, and law; has outraged them
in every possible way, at one mo-|
ment dealing with them with all the
solemnity and dignity of an indepen
dent power, and then spurning them
as if they were poisonous reptiles.
Even with this system of wrong
and outrage, persevered in for hun
dreds of years, we have not yet suc-l
ceeded in destroying the truly noble
and generous characteristics of their
nature, have not converted them into
fiends; they still retain their virtues,
and are, in the words of the Indian
Peace Commission, “ the very embo
diment of courage •” my experience
among them enables me to add, of
honor as well. They have never
yet, from the earliest settlement of
the continent by their enemies, who
hunted them with bloodhounds, maim
ed and murdered them by hundreds
and thousands, and sold their children
into slavery, until now, equaled the
whites in atrocities upon the living
and the dead, in perfidy and treach
ery—never, to our shame, never.
The Indian race is able to present
for the admiration of the world re
presentative men, men like the Che
yenne chieftain Moke-ta-va-ta,
(Black Kettle,) whose peer for all
the manly heroic virtues does not
exist, and never has existed in our his
tory, or the history of any other na-
�Disbanding of the Pennsylvania Anti-Slavery Society.
The writer, who knew Mokeintimately and well for
years, once told the story of his
■Uft and services, of his magnani
mity, generosity, integrity, and cou
rage, to the celebrated historian,
Mr. Motley, and challenged him
to refer to his equal in any age or
* history; he could not do it. Moketa-va-ta is without a peer, the true
hero, the true man; he sleeps by the
side of his ever faithful and devot
ed wife, Vo-ish-ta, in his bloody
shroud, on the crimson banks of
the Wichata.
tion.
ta-va-ta
“ And thou wert slain. Whoever dared to trace
His name upon the order for thy death
Will wear the sting until his latest breath,
And bind the curse of Cain upon hislrace.”
Betrayed, assassinated, and muti
lated by our troops, in a massacre of
unparalleled atrocity and treachery,
applauded by the commanding gene
rals of the army as a glorious victory.
81
“ Moke-ta-va-ta, thy wrongs shall be redressed,
Thy viewless form fills all the vernal air;
Nor earth’s fair bosom, nor the spring more fair,
Can stay the footsteps of a race oppressed.
Their name is legion, and from mountain slope
And distant plain their fearless forms appear,
All conquering and all potent, without fear
They come with our proud nation now to cope.
And if the rivers shall run red with blood,
And if the plain be strewn with mangled forms,
And cities burned amid the battles' storms,
Ours is the blame—not thine, thou great and good.
Thy name shall live a watchword for all time—
A herald and a beacon-light to all
On whom the tyrant and the despot fall,
Making thy death a heritage sublime.
If of this noble line thou wert the last,
And stood on the extremest ocean verge,
Thy eloquence would all thy people urge,
And in one deadly conflict they would cast
Their gauntlet in our shameful, flaming face,
And then, without a thought of praise or blame.
Would perish to’avenge thy noble name,
And prove that thou wert of a kingly race.
A sound of war is on the western wind;
The sun, with fiery flame, sweeps down the sky;
Athwart his breast the crimson shadows fly,
Of fearless forms no fetters e’er can bind.
Down through the golden gateway they have
The mighty scions of a nation come
In sweeping circles from their shining home.
With weapons from the battle-plains of Go a.
DISBANDING OF THE PENNSYLVANIA ANTI-SLAVERY
. SOCIETY.
BY JOHN K. WILDMAN.
After the consummation of that
act in the progress of liberty which
banished political restrictions on ac
count of color, there seemed to be
nothing left for the anti-slavery so
cieties to do but disband. This be
came a willing service, grateful to
every member. They had witnessed
the fulfillment of the pledge made to
the colored people of the nation, and
saw that the grand purpose of the
anti-slavery movement was thereby
accomplished. All that was essenVol. i.—6
tial in the aim and scope of the con
stitutions of their societies had be
come absorbed in that of the United
States. It was therefore fitting that
they should meet together and ex
change congratulations and fare
wells.
The final meeting of the national
society was followed by that of its
auxiliary of Pennsylvania, which oc
curred on the 5th of May, just a
third of a century from the date of
its organization. Rare indeed was the
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Our Indian relations
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Taffan, Samuel F. [1831-1913]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [Chicago]
Collation: 76-81 p. ; 24 cm.
Notes: Samuel Forster Tappan was an American journalist, military officer, abolitionist and a Native American rights activist. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. From The Standard, Vol. 1, no. 2, June 1870.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[s.n.]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1870]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5442
Subject
The topic of the resource
Indigenous peoples
Human rights
USA
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Our Indian relations), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Conway Tracts
Human Rights
Indigenous Populations
Racism
United States of America
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/7d0e8b77bdbc2259d592588db6f5a8fd.pdf?Expires=1777507200&Signature=LM6CzDBbtI7AFEQAd-hMyyPBxImwvU-%7EBi3BjzjwZDqvb-Y3A%7EG5YATiClNOCICFvt1bSlJPT0Efo9gX2Ph03PEUbcAEQLbJOcKH10hbsI8YtvYc4mPDqeIwwHtfDIDAY6vI19AiaIff0ZTBeQX4XHvlvQpz2tlQJt0QlQceK-ZoVPhfJ9lAWzLmo9iPU4CqNwEhjyBR0P8wGyKFbvXOV3vHVQJ5FvTqRH%7EDMVZW3ZQ1PjrJgOn-%7ETxYoy8xNGQXKU3kjuGotmB00RwHgK6niqYn9AId8Nv70vRjenF1xSASNwBhOz3TJThvYUjUOh2fHuJKxzv3CSFExuDwKc9mSA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
c7885a4ec726c263675b38c1bd225ea3
PDF Text
Text
437
(fhnijrants in America.
BY EOBERT TOMES.
When New York, not many years ago, was “ a handy little town,”
as Irving used to say, “ when, if your friends did not live opposite,
they were sure to live round the corner,” the Battery was a smiling
expanse of verdure, shaded by groves of willow, hickory, and sycamore.
Though the space was small, there was room and verge enough for the
'
whole population of the then little town to congregate and breathe at
ease, the southern wind, as it came, bearing the fresh but soft and
soothing influence of tropical seas. Banned by the gentle breeze, lulled
by the whispering ripple of the waves, and looking through an atmos
phere of hazy indistinctness upon the calm bay, with its anchored fleet
■of great ships and skimming small craft, verdant isles and forest shores,
a past generation here enjoyed a dreamy repose of which its widek awake, restless, and over-busy successors can hardly form a conception.
The willows, sycamores, and hickories are fast disappearing, and
�438
Emigrants itt America*
the green grass has been long since trod by careless and bnsy feet into
bald spots of clay and gravel. The defiant fortress, first changed into
a resort of pleasure, known as the Castle Garden, and which echoed
not many years since with the melodious voice of Jenny Lind, has been
finally turned, by a still happier transformation, into a great hall of
reception for newly-arrived emigrants. Here the first welcome is
given to the thronging Germans, Irish, English, and other people of all
nations whom Europe is emptying into the broad embrace of America.
During the last twenty years nearly four millions of emigrants, about
the number of the combined populations of London and New York,
made their first landing on American ground at this place known as
the Castle Garden. Of these persons one million, four hundred and
eighty-five thousand, and one hundred (1,485,100) were from Ireland]
one million, three hundred and seventeen thousand, and sixty-nine
(1,317,069), from Germany; 435,171, from England; 86,890, from
Scotland ; 68,390, from Erance, and the rest from all the other parte
of the globe. China, during these twenty years, sent three hundred
and thirty-three of its natives, Greece eighty-seven, Turkey eighty-two,
Arabia eight, and Japan seven.
The largest number of arrivals during one year was 319,223, in
1854, and the smallest 65,539, in 1861. The emigrants from Ireland
formerly greatly preponderated, but now the Germans surpass them in
numbers. Of the 233,418 emigrants who arrived during the whole
of 1866, 106,716 were from Germany, 68,147 only from Ireland,
36,186 from England, and 22,469 from other countries.
The first aspect of Castle Garden is certainly not very cheering,
presenting, as it does, with is shabby wooden structures, a dismal con
trast to the bright and beautiful bay of New York. The old stone
fortress, once so picturesque an object, still exists, but its walls are now
hidden from external view by projecting roofs and contiguous build
ings of shingle and pine board, either painted or white-washed.
The scene is a busy one, both inside and out. Crowds are constantly
coming and going. The people are generally young and vigorouslooking, but here and there is an occasional decrepit old man or wo
man, or some more youthful person sapped by disease, showing that the
emigrant in coming to a new world, with all its bright hopes, has not
entirely thrown off the trials and responsibilities of the old. There is
a wonderful silence in all that great crowd and an expression of startled
wonder upon each face, as if all were subdued and even alarmed byJ-he
great event of recommencing life in an untried land.
�Emigrants tn America,
439
The emigrant may at first turn his eyes, filling with tears, away
from the shabby-looking Castle Garden and seemingly inhospitable
structure, and look over the smiling bay longingly towards the ocean
he has just crossed, which separates him from the land of his birth.
He, however, soon ceasing to indulge in sentimental and useless regrets,
and seeking for practical comfort, finds all that he can reasonably ask
for in that ugly but kindly building.
Nothing can be better adapted for the purpose designed than the
New York State Commission of Emigration. The legislature of New
York, in consequence of the impositions to which emigrants from
Europe to the United States were exposed in the course of their long
voyage by sea and by land, passed an Act for the appointment of Com
missioners, to watch over and protect their interests. Six of these Com
missioners are appointed by the Governor, with the consent of the
Senate. The Mayor of New York, the Mayor of Brooklyn, and the
Presidents of the German and Irish Emigrant Societies are ex-officio
members, and make up the full number of ten, who compose the board.
The services of these gentlemen are gratuitous, and they have been
always selected with an exclusive regard to the public welfare, and with
out any consideration of pecuniary or political advantage.
Before the organization of this Commission in 1847, about twenty
years ago, the emigrant was at the mercy of a band of plunderers,
who, scattered along the whole of his lengthened route, so robbed and
maltreated him that he was not only deprived of all his money and
health, but often of life. These highwaymen, disguised as shipping
merchants, boarding-house keepers, ticket-agents, and canal-boat cap
tains, but familiarly known as “ baggage-smashers,” “runners,” and
scalpers,” had in the course of time enriched themselves with the
spoils of the emigrant, and by means of their wealth acquired a corrupt
but vigorous political influence. They resisted with all their might the
appointment of Commissioners, and were only beaten at last after a long
Struggle. “ The warfare, however, did not end here,” says one* who
took a foremost and honourable part in it, “ the ticket-agents trans
ferred themselves to Europe, commencing and successfully carrying on
their depredations on the other side of the Atlantic. Thousands of
emigrants arrived with their rail-road tickets purchased abroad, for
which they had paid not only double and treble the regular fare, but
upon their arrival here [New York] they found themselves with bogus
tickets and bogus drafts. Innocent and unprotected girls came con* The Hon. Thurlow Weed, of New York.
�440
(Emigrants tn America,
signed to houses of prostitution.” These practices became unendurable,
and the Commissioners decided promptly to send to Europe an agent
who succeeded in obtaining the co-operation of its various governments,
and thus breaking up the foreign ticket agencies.
Ever since, the long passage of the emigrant from his old home to
his new destination, guarded by a beneficent care, has been of compa
rative safety, comfort, and enjoyment. He no sooner arrives in Ame
rican waters than he is brought under the protecting influence of the
Commissioners at New York.
Their agents, always on the alert,
board each vessel as it comes up the bay, and take immediate charge
of the poor emigrant passengers, with whom no one else is allowed to
have any intercourse lest their ignorance and inexperience should be
preyed upon by the designing.
As soon as the vessel has anchored and complied with the require
ments of the law, in regard to quarantine and the customs, great barges,
towed by little steamers, are sent to bring off the emigrants and their
luggage. These, on being landed at Castle Garden, are immediately
disposed of. Each article of luggage is “ checked,” that is, a leaden
check or token with a number is attached to it and a similar one given
to the owner, to be returned by him on reclaiming his property.
The emigrant himself, after his luggage has been thus checked and
stowed away in the great “ baggage room,” is ushered into an immense
circular reception hall, which is the eviscerated interior of the old fort,
the embrasures of whose walls, being but partly closed, are still appa
rent. In this large apartment there is always an immense throng of
newly-arrived men, women, and children of all nations, many of whom
find an immediate welcome from friends and relations who are here in
attendance. Here parents and children, husbands and wives, brothers
and sisters, lovers and sweethearts, who had parted in other worlds
with hardly a hope of seeing each other again, meet once more. The
imagination can picture such touching scenes as here daily arise.
In the centre of the great hall there is a circular enclosed
space, occupied by three or four brokers, who, licensed by the com
missioners, are ready to exchange all foreign into United States money;
. projecting from this central enclosure, there is a pulpit, ever and anon
occupied by an energetic speaker, who is listened to with eager atten
tion. His words have a greater effect than ever had the eloquence of
a Chatham or a Webster. He is announcing to his breathless audience
the names and addresses of inquiring friends and relatives in America.
Along the walls of the same circular hall are stretched long refresh*
�Emigrants in America*
441
meat bars, where coffee, tea, fresh milk, bread, pies, and cake, are
for sal®. The quality of the articles and their prices are regulated by
the Commissioners, and the poorest emigrant need hardly deprive him
self of a satisfying morsel or a refreshing drink, when a good large loaf
of bread can be bought for ten cents, and a cup of excellent coffee or
fresh milk for five cents in paper money. From the posts everywhere
hang directions, in all languages, for the guidance of the emigrant;
there are also baths and wash-rooms in convenient proximity.
If the emigrant is sought after and found by his friends, he leaves
with them whatever may be his destination; if not, and he has the
means and desire to go immediately to some place in the interior, he
finds at the receiving depot, where he at first disembarked, railway
agents ready to sell him tickets, and take him and his luggage at once
to the proper station. If the emigrant desires to remain awhile in New
York, he finds boarding-house keepers, licensed by the Commissioners
and wearing their badge, awaiting him, and he is advised to beware of
all others. If the new comer seeks immediate occupation, he will find
it by applying at the “ Labour Exchange,” where the demand for work
is almost always beyond the supply. If he wishes to commnnieate
with his distant friends, and is unable to write himself, he has only to
enter the letter-room, where there are writers prepared to do it for him.
If the emigrant, though passing muster at the quarantine, has some
disease requiring medical or surgical treatment, he is sent at once to
the Commissioners’ hospital on Ward’s Island, a structure which
Florence Nightingale pronounced to be “ an admirable building, and
much better than any civil hospital of the size in this country ” (Eng
land), and added, “ It is a noble thing to do, to build such a building
not for your poor, but for ours.”
If the friends of the expected or arrived emigrant want informa
tion of him, he will get it in what is called the “ Information Ofiice,”
where a register is kept of the names and addresses of the inquirers for
and inquired after.
These various departments supply some curious and interesting
statistics. While a few years ago most of the emigrants came to the
United States in sailing vessels, much the larger number now arrive
in steamers. During the last year, 1866, the latter brought 156,931
steerage passengers, and the former only 74,898. The more rapid
transit by steam produces a very sensible effect upon the mortality.
There were only 816 deaths out of the large number of those
arriving in steamers, and 851 of the comparatively small number who
�442
Emigrants in America,
camft in sailing vessels. The number of steamers arriving in the year
1866 was 401, and that of other craft 349. There were 668 vessels in
all sailing from eighteen different ports. The average number of pas
sengers in each was 345.
Of the whole number of emigrants who arrived in 1866, 97,607
reported their destination to be the State of New York; 32,751
Pennsylvania and New Jersey; 18,743 New England; 5,333 the
various Southern States ; 71,485 the Western States of Ohio, Indiana,
Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, and California; and
2932 Kansas, Nebraska, and Canada.
During the year 1866 there were 2754 letters written for newlyarrived passengers, and 1551 answers were received with remittances,
amounting to 24,383 dollars ; 57,350 dollars were sent by friends and
relations in the United States in advance, to await the arrival of
expected emigrants, and be placed at their disposal; 50,751 dollars in
addition were obtained from the German and Irish emigrant societies
and other sources, to be appropriated to the same purpose.
10,771 persons, of whom much the larger proportion were females,
were provided during the year 1866 with labour at the Castle Garden,
or by the agents of the Commissioners at Albany, Rochester, Buffalo,
and elsewhere in the interior.
In the same year 249 persons were sent back to Europe at their own
request, and 272 were forwarded into the interior, at the expense of
the Commission ; 8783 patients were admitted into the hospital at
Ward’s Island ; 109 lunatics into the insane asylum; and 179 into the
small-pox hospital.
The chief source of the large sums expended annually by the
Commissioners of Emigration, is what is called the commutation-tax.
This amounted in 1866 to 471,008 dollars. The consignee of each
vessel is obliged by law to pay 2 dollars 50 cents (formerly less) per
head for all passengers brought to New York, in lieu of executing a
bond as security against their becoming a burthen to the State,
during the five years subsequent to their arrival. This applies only
to the able-bodied ; for the sick and disabled, a special bond is exacted.
Though the larger proportion of emigrants hasten away immediately
on their arrival, to the interior, a great number remain permanently in
New York. It is thus that this city has such an immense foreign
population, which is now computed to amount to 600,000 inhabitants,
or 200,000 more than the native born.* The Germans count above
* The whole population of the city of New York is about 1,000,000.
�Emigrants in America,
443
300,000, and the Irish nearly the same number. New York is thus,
in fact, the third largest German city in the world, ranking next to
Berlin and Vienna, and the next largest Irish after Dublin.
This large foreign element, of course, reveals itself by its charac
teristic indications. There are, indeed, whole quarters of the city of
New York, and of its suburban towns, Brooklyn, Jersey City, and
Hoboken, almost exclusively inhabited by Germans. Here, with their
breweries and beer-houses, their gardens and dancing-saloons, their
peculiar churches and synagogues, their sauer kraut and sausage
shops, their theatres, music and gymnastic societies, they remain in
as full enjoyment of their Teutonic tastes as if they had never left their
Fatherland. They have as well German newspapers and German
schools, and German aidermen, German tax-receivers, and, in fact,
German representatives in every department of public life.
The Irish, who bating the brogue, speak the same language as the
native Americans, are of course more easily identified with them, but
even they, to some extent, retain certain national peculiarities. These
ar© chiefly manifested by the free use of whiskey and the shillalegh, and
by the Hibernian readiness for a fight or a row. The Irish too have
their newspapers, and their political and other representatives.
The foreign population holding the balance of power in the city of
New York, is much petted by the political demagogue. The Irish and
Germans become as rapidly as possible citizens of the United States ;
but in the State of New York* they cannot vote until five years after
they have declared their intention to become citizens, though in the
meantime they can hold real property and enjoy the other privileges
of citizenship. As most of these foreigners have not been properly
educated, either morally or intellectually for the exercise of the right
of suffrage, they become the leading instruments of the unscrupulous
demagogue. Thus political intriguers have obtained the control of the
municipal government of New York, and made it one of the most
corrupt ever known. They take care not to lose hold of the foreigner,
for upon him depends theix1 political existence. He is accordingly
flattered by petty officers, or bribed by profitable jobs and liberal grants
to the institutions of the religious sect to which he may belong, which
is generally the Roman Catholic,f and his vote thus secured.
* In other States the requirements are much less. In most of the Western
States the alien can become a citizen immediately.
t Of 150,000 dollars granted in one year, 2,500 dollars only were given to
Protestants.
�444
Emigrants in America.
The hereditary puritanism of the American, though he generally
agrees tolerably well with his Teutonic or Celtic neighbour, has brought
him into collision lately with his German fellow-citizens. A law was
passed by the State of Hew York prohibiting the sale of beer, wines,
and liquors of all kinds on the Sunday. This, the German who loves
his lager beer, and does not like to go to church, feels to be a great
hardship, and he is determined to do all in his power to get rid of the
obnoxious law. The Germans have, it is understood, resolved to withhold
all political support from those who refuse to strive to obtain its repeal.
De Tocqueville remarked that while the native Americans formed
the aristocracy of the United States, the foreigners were Vae prolétaires.
It is so ; the labouring portion of the community is almost exclusively
composed of German and Irish. They are the servants and journey
men. It is seldom that an American of mature age is ever seen in any
capacity below that of a master workman.
It must not be supposed, however, that foreigners do not thrive in
the United States. On the contrary, they are among the most success
ful and wealthy of its citizens. John Jacob Aster, who, at the time of
his death, w~as by far the richest person on the American continent,
was born in Germany, and did not leave his native Hesse-Cassel until
he was a full-grown man. Taking London on his way, where he had
a brother, a not very prosperous manufacturer of musical instruments,
he obtained from him, as a present, an old piano. On arriving at New
York this worn out and asthmatic instrument was his sole dependence,
but it became the foundation of his huge fortune. He died leaving
some ten millions of dollars ; his eldest son is supposed to possess nearly
treble that amount, and pays tax upon an income of about a million.*
Stewart, too, the great dry-goods merchant, or haberdasher, who
shows a ledger with one year’s profit of four millions of dollars, and
who pays an annual income-tax amounting to four hundred thousand
dollars, arrived in New York a poor Irish emigrant less than forty years
ago. He is now sixty years old.
Each Irish emigrant cannot expect to become a millionaire, or
rather billionaire like Stewart, but he may be sure of getting every
where in the United States a hearty meal of something more substantial
than potatoes, and what seemed so greatly to surprise Dickens, a whole
coat to his back.
* Another foreigner, Gerard, was long at the head of the rich men of the United
States.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Emigrants in America
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Tomes, Robert
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [s.l.]
Collation: 437-444 p. : ill. (engravings) ; 23 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. From Broadway 1 (1868). Attribution of journal title and date: Virginia Clark catalogue.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[s.n.]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1868]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5342
Subject
The topic of the resource
Migration
USA
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Emigrants in America), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Conway Tracts
Emigration and Immigration-Moral and Ethical Aspects
United States of America
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/1e26e749a979dc55164c766decef6e36.pdf?Expires=1777507200&Signature=hspmmgY1sngw2QWxoyP0ORF22Mv1P9LAR%7E%7EX8N%7EP%7Et9U8REGioxuDVAPFJ1o5qKaJKoR1algdwGFn3aa4OdSsnq0JkcMltbkNx-Mj3If9qlX0rYqHcp2LFIF9AxUlaA7RCZTBmCmKh-zOQjfeHWjSwDstlPh9E5uJttY4DauPCW94gM3l3Cly89sIImBPq-F%7EUWHkOOkfeMPzByUJMDaPUHPx6RKfCusj4R0xBEgyVjUw9rkBYWGittg3Njg1qWJFCjGQuDMNzszBhW5vw9B3cxUt5LTSDZYPj0RtTZ6HUVu33lpXauiX6IaEs5%7EO5HO3y9mTO2vQGSLUatoioLWJw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
418579096bbf242233c45cefb24a960c
PDF Text
Text
Disbanding of the Pennsylvania Anti-Slavery Society.
The writer, who knew Mokeintimately and well for
years, once told the story of his
life and services, of his magnani
mity, generosity, integrity, and courage, to the celebrated historian,
Mr. Motley, and challenged him
to refer to his equal in any age or
’'history; he could not do it. Moketa-va-ta is without a peer, the true
hero, the true man ; he sleeps by the
side of his ever faithful and devot
ed wife, Vo-ish-ta, in his bloody
shroud, on the crimson banks of
the Wichata.
tion.
ta-va-ta
“ And thou wert slain. Whoever dared to trace
His name upon the order for thy death
Will wear the sting until his latest breath,
And bind the curse of Cain upon his*ace.”
Betrayed, assassinated, and muti
lated by our troops, in a massacre of
unparalleled atrocity and treachery,
applauded by the commanding gene
rals of the army as a glorious victory.
81
“ Moke-ta-va-ta, thy wrongs shall be redressed,
Thy viewless form fills all the vernal air;
Nor earth’s fair bosom, nor the spring more fair,
Can stay the footsteps of a race oppressed.
Their name is legion, and from mountain slope
And distant plain their fearless forms appear,
All conquering and all potent, without fear
They come with our proud nation now to cope.
And if the rivers shall run red with blood,
And if the plain be strewn with mangled forms,
And cities burned amid the battles' storms,
Ours is the blame—not thine, thou great and good.
Thy name shall live a watchword for all time—
A herald and a beacon-light to all
On whom the tyrant and the despot fall,
Making thy death a heritage sublime.
If of this noble line thou wert the last,
And stood on the extremest ocean verge,
Thy eloquence would all thy people urge,
And in one deadly conflict they would cast
Their gauntlet in our shameful, flaming face,
And then, without a thought of praise or blame.
Would perish to’avenge thy noble name,
And prove that thou wert of a kingly race.
A sound of war is on the western wind ;
The sun, with fiery flame, sweeps down the sky;
Athwart his breast the crimson shadows fly,
Of fearless forms no fetters e’er can bind.
Down through the golden gateway they have
The mighty scions of a nation come
In sweeping circles from their shining home.
With weapons from the battle-plains of Gc u.
DISBANDING OF THE PENNSYLVANIA ANTI-SLAVERY
. SOCIETY.
BY JOHN K. WILDMAN.
After the consummation of that
act in the progress of liberty which
banished political restrictions on ac
count of color, there seemed to be
nothing left for the anti-slavery so
cieties to do but disband. This be
came a willing service, grateful to
every member. They had witnessed
the fulfillment of the pledge made to
the colored people of the nation, and
saw that the grand purpose of the
anti-slavery movement was thereby
accomplished. All that was essenVol. i.—6
tial in the aim and scope of the con
stitutions of their societies had be
come absorbed in that of the United
States. It was therefore fitting that
they should meet together and ex
change congratulations and fare
wells.
The final meeting of the national
society was followed by that of its
auxiliary of Pennsylvania, which oc
curred on the 5th of May, just a
third of a century from the date of
its organization. Rare indeed was the
�82
Disbanding of the Pennsylvania Anti-Slavery Society.
interest on this occasion, which was
enjoyed by the fraternal multitude
with a zest and enthusiasm peculiar
to such an unwonted event. The
circumstances could not fail to kindle
among many of those present, if not
all, a glow of mingled emotions, an
alliance of gratulation and regret.
They could rejoice with profound
fervor over the brilliant fact that al
most dazzles the imagination, grand
ly conspicuous on the latest page of
our history; but their joy becomes
tinged and tempered with sadness
as they remember that it is the last
time that the society will summon
them together, seeming equivalent to
the dissolution of cherished memo
ries and associations. To some
among that small number still living,
who actively participated at the in
ception of the movement, the events
of to-day must give rise to feelings
of . serene satisfaction. To live to
see successive triumphs of justice
and freedom, and to witness at last
the crowning stroke that grafted
their paramount objects into the su
preme law of the land, is a privilege
that must awaken irresistibly the
deepest gratitude and gladness. ’ But
this experience was not realized by
all the early coworkers in the re
form.
Whittier, who was present at the
formation of the society, in his letter,
read at the meeting, wrote thus con
cerning the reunion : “ So many of
the founders of this society have
fallen by our side contending for the
unpopular truths of freedom, without
the priceless privilege which we en
joy of beholding with our living eyes
what they only saw with those of
faith, that this reunion for the last
time can not but bring with it some-
thing of regret and mournful recol
lections to temper the joy of victory.
Let us, however, believe that these
dear and true ones are yet with us in
the eternal fellowship of the spirit,
‘ Our brethren of all worlds, for, soul with soul
Communes in this vast business, and not one
Gazes down idly.’ ”
Other letters that were read, re*
ceived from Charles Sumner,
John C. Fremont, George W. Juj
lian, Robert Collyer, William D.
Kelley, and John W. Forney, con
tributed their measure of interest.
It was an interesting and remark
able fact that the initial meetings of
the three principal anti-slavery socie
ties of tl^is country—the New-Eng
land, the American, and the Pennsyl
vania—were all represented at this
commemorative meeting of the latter.
Of those twelve men who participat
ed in the formation of the New-Eng
land Society, in January, 1832, which
was parent of all the others, but one
person was present. This was Ben
jamin C. Bacon, who also attended
at the organization of the Pennsyl
vania Society. A paper of marked
interest prepared by him, detailing
his personal reminiscences of thirty
eight years ago, was read on this oc
casion. Three persons were present
who assisted in organizing the Ame
rican Society, namely, Lucretia
Mott, ^Robert Purvis, and Dr.
Bartholomew Fussell. The last
two signed the “ Declaration of Sen
timents” issued by the association 1
but the light of to-day concerning
the immunities of women had not
dawned even upon the liberal minds
of that period, and a woman’s signa
ture to the document would have
been an unusual toleration. . It was
not due to the absence of sympathy
�Disbanding of the Pennsylvania Anti-Slavery Society.
or willingness that Lucretia Mott
Eid not append her name. Robert
Purvis, who has been president of
the society since the death of James
Mott, presided over this meeting to
disband. Those who were present
that went to Harrisburg in January,
1837, to take part in the organization
of the Pennsylvania Anti-Slavery
Society, were Charles C. Burleigh,
Edward M. Davis, Benjamin C.
Bacon, William B. Thomas, Elijah
F. Pennypacker, John P. Bowers,
and Eli Dillin. William B. Tho
mas was one of the secretaries of that
meeting. The only colored man
among the number was John P.
Bowers, who narrated incidents of
the trip showing the prejudice against
color then existing, and which mani
fested itself in supercilious and vio
lent ways.
The name of another may here be
mentioned, one who has done faith
ful and courageous service in behalf
of the slave, now an. old man totter
ing beyond the eightieth mile-stone
of life—John Needles, of Baltimore,
who left his home to attend this final
meeting. It seemed like a dream to
hear him relate that he purchased
the type for Benjamin Lundy’s
Genius of Universal Emancipation
some time before Garrison appear
ed upon the scene as its joint editor.
Two objects of peculiar and re
markable interest, one of them of
rare value, were exhibited to the au
dience. These were well calculated
to quicken into fresh life recollec
tions of thrilling emotions, one of
stirring delight and the other of woe.
One of these, in the possession .of
Edward M. Davis, was the “ origi
nal ” of the original Proclamation of
Emancipation, in the handwriting
83
of John C. Fremont. How vivid
seems the memory of the day when
the light of that heroic act broke
upon the nation ! Robert Purvis
declared that Fremont was the ori
ginal emancipator. The other object
alluded to, which is now in the pos
session of William Still, was an
old walnut chest, large, heavy, and
rude, in which a slave girl escaped
from bondage. Who Gould look
upon such an uncouth and perilous
“ liberator” as this without a shud
der and a pang ? How it suggested
the horrors of slavery, the precious
value of liberty, and the hazards that
were voluntarily risked to flee from
one to gain the other !
Kindred reflections were elicited
by the paper read by William Still,
which possessed a painful interest.
It was the story of Henry Box
Brown, and. a number of others who
contrived to escape from the hated
thralldom, cheerfully accepting the
severest hardships and bidding de
fiance to death itself. The mourn
ful tales thus unfolded were like the
thrilling fantasies of romance, but
more harrowing because of their
reality.
On this occasion the speakers
were numerous. The fertility of re
source was adequate for a rich abun
dance and variety of eloquence.
There was wide scope and multiform
experiences from which to gather
materials, and to the audience it was
an opportunity of entertainment and
instruction. Prominent among those
who spoke was Charles C. Bur
leigh, who has devoted a life to the
work for which the society has exist
ed, and whose earnest and powerful
advocacy of the great truths of free
dom and right, amid all the vicissi-
�84
Disbanding of the Pennsylvania Anti-Slavery Society.
tudes of the strugg le, bravely en-tributary to present entertainment,
countering its worst features of oblo furnishing a rich store of treasured
quy, insult, and violence, has placed events. The incidents related were
his among the names of those cher manifold, and suggestive of the table
ished ones upon whom we bestow of contents of an important unwritten
our highest encomiums. He has history. There was a luxuriant of
been faithful from beginning to end, fering of reminiscences, either serious
and has labored with a zeal and per or diverting, which portrayed the
severance worthy of a cause so temper and aspects of the tragic
grand. This may likewise be said period, and reviving a long list of
of others who spoke at the meeting, gloomy and harassing experiences.
as well as of many more whose The revered names of many of those
voices in public never were heard, who have passed away were men
but who gave the movement their tioned with kindly remembrance,
best support and dutiful help.
whose labors in the good cause were
Mr. Burleigh’s evening speech given at times of urgent need. Some
was a masterpiece of glowing elo of these did not live to witness the
quence. It comprehended a concise red tide of rebellion sweep over the
statement of the conflict between land, while others lived just long
freedom and slavery through its suc enough to behold the breaking of
cessive phases, and gave a philoso that better day which heralded the
phic analysis of the movement from birth of a regenerated nation. The
the beginning down to the time retrospect was a solemn one. It
when the great wrong which over placed in glaring relief the great
shadowed the land received its change that has been wrought with
death-blow. Others spoke with force such marvelous quickness, and the
and impressiveness, and among the contrast between the old and new
’ number were Lucretia Mott, Ro redoubled the joy and gratitude felt
bert Purvis, Aaron M. Powell, to-day.
Frances E. W. Harper, Edward
The admirable series of resolutions
M. Davis, and Mary Grew, repre that were presented in the beginning
senting an honored and unbroken were not finally acted upon until a
record of anti-slavery service. All late hour at night. These were pre
■<of these, except Aaron M. Powell pared and read by Mary Grew.
and Mrs. Harper, have long been Let the impressive words from her
associated in the Pennsylvania Anti lips at the parting moment, the last
Slavery Society, cooperating as mem that were uttered before the society
bers of its executive committee.
disbanded, find a record here :
Of the various speeches it may be
“The vote with which we shall
said, glancing at them with a general respond to these resolutions will be
view, that they teemed with an afflu as the farewell spoken by travelers
ence of personal recollections. There who have journeyed together over
were admonitions in regard to the one pathway from sunrise to evening,
work yet before us, the duties that be sharing its difficulties and dangers,
long to the hour; but chiefly thought and parting at its goal. Friends,
turned to the past, which became our work is done, and there remains
�The Radical Club—Boston.
for us only to look into one another’s
faces for the last time as members
of an anti-slavery society, to clasp
hands once more in mutual congra
tulation and benediction, and to ren
der up to God the trust received
from him, and go our ways to other
work.”
Its mission fulfilled, the society
has passed into history. Those who
were its members are admonished
that the work is not yet complete.
Among the letters read at the meet
ing was one from Charles Sumner,
85
in which these words occur: “ But
all is not yet done. The country
must be lifted in deed and life to
the level of the great truth it has
now adopted as the supreme law of
the land. In this cause it is an
honor and a delight to labor, and I
assure you that I shall persevere to
the end.”
Emulating this noble example,
and inspired by a kindred purpose,
let each aid in what remains to be
accomplished.
THE RADICAL CLUB, BOSTON.
The April meeting of the Club
was held at Dr. Bartol’s, and a pour
ing rain seemed not to diminish the
customary good attendance.
The essay, by Mrs. Ednah D.
Cheney, was on the development
and' organization of religious ideas.
Referring to the beginnings of
things in the material world, she
spoke of the germ and the cell, the
foundation of all vegetable growth
and the commencement of all animal
life. Whence, she asked, comes this
germ power—this life, enabling the
new structure to appropriate to it
self whatever around is fitted to its
inward nature ? The materialist can
not answer this question. He has
to stop short in the chain of cause
and effect, and refer this power to a
source which he may name but can
not understand. The spiritual think
er answers that it is the power of
the divinity within us. It is the
consciousness of this inheritance of
divinity which gives us our innate
faith in immortality. The idea of a
divine heritage is expressed in all
the mythologies, and, however false
in fact, is true as a symbol. Thus
the typical man is the direct child of
God. In all genuine organizations,'
whether of church, state, or commu
nity, there must be a central root
running down to the divine source,
and there must also be a circum
ference, limited by circumstances,
and absolutely requiring from time
to time to be broken up to give place
to new life. And it is not in the
centre but in the circumference that
creeds and nations differ so widely.
In the deepest spiritual communion,
Jew and Greek, Christian and Mo
hammedan, alike draw near to the
divine centre, and meet there.
Every human soul has access to
God, and affinity with him. It is
individual peculiarities which make
sects differ so widely.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Disbanding of the Pennsylvania Anti-Slavery Society
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Wildman, John K.
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [Chicago]
Collation: 81-85 p. ; 24 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. From The Standard, Vol. 1, no. 2., June 1870. Printed in double columns.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[s.n.]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1870]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5443
Subject
The topic of the resource
Slavery
Human rights
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Disbanding of the Pennsylvania Anti-Slavery Society), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Anti-Slavery Movements
Conway Tracts
Slavery
United States of America