It is not true that "one of the unwritten mottoes of our business morals seem to say in the plainest phraseology possible: "Successful wrong is right."" Men in this country are not esteemed simply because they are rich; inquiries are made as to how they made their money, as to how they use it. The American people do not fall upon their knees before the golden calf; the worst that can be said is that they think too much of the gold of the calf--and this distinction is seen by the calves themselves.
Nowhere in the world is honesty in business esteemed more highly than here. There are millions of business men--merchants, bankers, and men engaged in all trades and professions--to whom reputation is as dear as life.
There is one thing in the article "Brutality and Avarice Triumphant"
that seems even more objectionable than the rest, and that is the statement, or, rather, the insinuation, that all the crimes and the shortcomings of the American people can be accounted for by the fact that our Government is a Republic. We are told that not long ago a French official complained to a friend that he was compelled to employ twenty clerks to do the work done by four under the empire, and on being asked the reason answered: "It is the Republic." He was told that, as he was the head of the bureau, he could prevent the abuse, to which he replied: "I know I have the power; but I have been in this position for more than thirty years, and am now too old to learn another occupation, and I _must_ make places for the friends of the deputies." And then it is added by General Hawkins: "_And so it is here_."
It seems to me that it cannot be fairly urged that we have abused the Indians because we contend that all men have equal rights before the law, or because we insist that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. The probability is that a careful reading of the history of the world will show that nations under the control of kings and emperors have been guilty of some cruelty. To account for the bad we do by the good we believe, is hardly logical. Our virtues should not be made responsible for our vices.
Is it possible that free inst.i.tutions tend to the demoralization of men?
Is a man dishonest because he is a man and maintains the rights of men?
In order to be a moral nation must we be controlled by king or emperor?
Is human liberty a mistake? Is it possible that a citizen of the great Republic attacks the liberty of his fellow-citizens? Is he willing to abdicate? Is he willing to admit that his rights are not equal to the rights of others? Is he, for the sake of what he calls morality, willing to become a serf, a servant or a slave?
Is it possible that "high character is impracticable" in this Republic?
Is this the experience of the author of "Brutality and Avarice Triumphant"? Is it true that "intellectual achievement pays no dividends"? Is it not a fact that America is to-day the best market in the world for books, for music, and for art?
There is in our country no real foundation for these wide and sweeping slanders. This, in my judgment, is the best Government, the best country, in the world. The citizens of this Republic are, on the average, better clothed and fed and educated than any other people. They are fuller of life, more progressive, quicker to take advantage of the forces of nature, than any other of the children of men. Here the burdens of government are lightest, the responsibilities of the individual greatest, and here, in my judgment, are to be worked out the most important problems of social science.
Here in America is a finer sense of what is due from man to man than you will find in other lands. We do not cringe to those whom chance has crowned; we stand erect.
Our sympathies are strong and quick. Generosity is almost a national failing. The hand of honest want is rarely left unfilled. Great calamities open the hearts and hands of all.
Here you will find democracy in the family--republicanism by the fireside. Say what you will, the family is apt to be patterned after the government. If a king is at the head of the nation, the husband imagines himself the monarch of the home. In this country we have carried into the family the idea on which the Government is based. Here husbands and wives are beginning to be equals.
The highest test of civilization is the treatment of women and children.
By this standard America stands first among nations.
There is a magnitude, a scope, a grandeur, about this country--an amplitude--that satisfies the heart and the imagination. We have our faults, we have our virtues, but our country is the best.
No American should ever write a line that can be sneeringly quoted by an enemy of the great Republic.
Robert G. Ingersoll.
A REPLY TO THE CINCINNATI GAZETTE AND CATHOLIC TELEGRAPH.
* The Cincinnati Gazette, 1878. An Interview.
_Question_. Colonel, have you noticed the criticisms made on your lectures by the _Cincinnati Gazette_ and the _Catholic Telegraph_?
_Answer._ I have read portions of the articles.
_Question_. What do you think of them?
_Answer._ Well, they are hardly of importance enough to form a distinct subject of thought.
_Question_. Well, what do you think of the attempted argument of the _Gazette_ against your lecture on Moses?
_Answer._ The writer endeavors to show that considering the ignorance prevalent four thousand years ago, G.o.d did as well as one could reasonably expect; that G.o.d at that time did not have the advantage of telescope, microscope, and spectrum, and that for this reason a few mistakes need not excite our special wonder. He also shows that, although G.o.d was in favor of slavery he introduced some reforms; but whether the reforms were intended to perpetuate slavery or to help the slave is not stated. The article has nothing to do with my position. I am perfectly willing to admit that there is a land called Egypt; that the Jews were once slaves; that they got away and started a little country of their own. All this may be true without proving that they were miraculously fed in the wilderness, or that water ran up hill, or that G.o.d went into partnership with hornets or snakes. There may have been a man by the name of Moses without proving that sticks were turned into snakes.
A while ago a missionary addressed a Sunday school. In the course of his remarks he said that he had been to Mount Ararat, and had brought a stone from the mountain. He requested the children to pa.s.s in line before him so that they could all get a look at this wonderful stone.
After they had all seen it he said: "You will as you grow up meet people who will deny that there ever was a flood, or that G.o.d saved Noah and the animals in the ark, and then you can tell them that you know better, because you saw a stone from the very mountain where the ark rested."
That is precisely the kind of argument used in the _Gazette_. The article was written by some one who does not quite believe in the inspiration of the Scriptures himself, and were it not for the fear of h.e.l.l, would probably say so.
I admit that there was such a man as Mohammed, such a city as Mecca, such a general as Omar, but I do not admit that G.o.d made known his will to Mohammed in any substantial manner. Of course the _Gazette_ would answer all this by saying that Mohammed did exist, and that therefore G.o.d must have talked with him. I admit that there was such a general as Washington, but I do not admit that G.o.d kept him from being shot. I admit that there is a portrait of the Virgin Mary in Rome, but I do not admit that it shed tears. I admit that there was such a man as Moses, but I do not admit that G.o.d hunted for him in a tavern to kill him. I admit that there was such a priest as St. Denis, but I do not admit that he carried his head in his hand, after it was cut off, and swam the river, and put his head on again and eventually recovered. I admit that the article appeared in the _Gazette_, but I do not admit that it amounted to anything whatever.
_Question_. Did you notice what the _Catholic Telegraph_ said about your lecture being ungrammatical?
_Answer._ Yes; I saw an extract from it. In the _Catholic Telegraph_ occurs the following: "The lecture was a failure as brilliant as Ingersoll"s flashes of ungrammatical rhetoric." After making this statement with the hereditary arrogance of a priest, after finding fault with my "ungrammatical rhetoric" he then writes the following sentence: "It could not boast neither of novelty in argument or of attractive language." After this, nothing should be noticed that this gentleman says on the subject of grammar.
In this connection it may be proper for me to say that nothing is more remarkable than the fact that Christianity destroys manners. With one exception, no priest has ever written about me, so far as I know, except in an arrogant and insolent manner. They seem utterly devoid of the usual amenities of life. Every one who differs with them is vile, ignorant and malicious. But, after all, what can you expect of a gentleman who worships a G.o.d who will d.a.m.n dimpled babes to an eternity of fire, simply because they were not baptized.
_Question_. This Catholic writer says that the oldest page of history and the newest page of science are nothing more than commentaries on the Mosaic Record. He says the Cosmogony of Moses has been believed in, and has been received as the highest truth by the very brightest names in science. What do you think of that statement?
_Answer._ I think it is without the least foundation in fact, and is substantially like the gentleman"s theology, depending simply upon persistent a.s.sertion.
I see he quotes Cuvier as great authority. Cuvier denied that the fossil animals were in any way related to the animals now living, and believed that G.o.d had frequently destroyed all life upon the earth and then produced other forms. Aga.s.siz was the last scientist of any standing who ventured to throw a crumb of comfort to this idea.
_Question_. Do you mean to say that all the great living scientists regard the Cosmogony of Moses as a myth?
_Answer._ I do. I say this: All men of science and men of sense look upon the Mosaic account as a simple myth. Humboldt, who stands in the same relation to science that Shakespeare did to the drama, held this opinion. The same is held by the best minds in Germany, by Huxley, Tyndall and Herbert Spencer in England, by John W. Draper and others in the United States. Whoever agrees with Moses is some poor frightened orthodox gentleman afraid of losing his soul or his salary, and as a rule, both are exceedingly small.
_Question_. Some people say that you slander the Bible in saying that G.o.d went into partnership with hornets, and declare that there is no such pa.s.sage in the Bible.
_Answer._ Well, let them read the twenty-eighth verse of the twenty-third chapter of Exodus, "And I will send hornets before thee, which shall drive out the Hivite, the Canaanite and the Hitt.i.te from before thee."
_Question_. Do you find in lecturing through the country that your ideas are generally received with favor?
_Answer._ Astonishingly so. There are ten times as many freethinkers as there were five years ago. In five years more we will be in the majority.
_Question_. Is it true that the churches, as a general thing, make strong efforts, as I have seen it stated, to prevent people from going to hear you?
_Answer._ Yes; in many places ministers have advised their congregations to keep away, telling them I was an exceedingly dangerous man. The result has generally been a full house, and I have hardly ever failed to publicly return my thanks to the clergy for acting as my advance agents.
_Question_. Do you ever meet Christian people who try to convert you?
_Answer._ Not often. But I do receive a great many anonymous letters, threatening me with the wrath of G.o.d, and calling my attention to the uncertainty of life and the certainty of d.a.m.nation. These letters are nearly all written in the ordinary Christian spirit; that is to say, full of hatred and impertinence.
_Question_. Don"t you think it remarkable that the _Telegraph_, a Catholic paper, should quote with extravagant praise, an article from such an orthodox sheet as the _Gazette_?
_Answer._ I do not. All the churches must make common cause. All superst.i.tions lead to Rome; all facts lead to science. In a few years all the churches will be united. This will unite all forms of liberalism. When that is done the days of superst.i.tion, of arrogance, of theology, will be numbered. It is very laughable to see a Catholic quoting scientific men in favor of Moses, when the same men would have taken great pleasure in swearing that the Catholic Church was the worst possible organization. That church should forever hold its peace.
Wherever it has had authority it has destroyed human liberty. It reduced Italy to a hand organ, Spain to a guitar, Ireland to exile, Portugal to contempt. Catholicism is the upas tree in whose shade the intellect of man has withered. The recollection of the ma.s.sacre of St. Bartholomew should make a priest silent, and the recollection of the same ma.s.sacre should make a Protestant careful.
I can afford to be maligned by a priest, when the same party denounces Garibaldi, the hero of Italy, as a "pet tiger" to Victor Emmanuel. I could not afford to be praised by such a man. I thank him for his abuse.