_Question_. What is your opinion of the effect of the multiplicity of women"s clubs as regards the intellectual, moral and domestic status of their members?
_Answer_. I think that women should have clubs and societies, that they should get together and exchange ideas. Women, as a rule, are provincial and conservative. They keep alive all the sentimental mistakes and superst.i.tions. Now, if they can only get away from these, and get abreast with the tide of the times, and think as well as feel, it will be better for them and their children. You know St. Paul tells women that if they want to know anything they must ask their husbands. For many centuries they have followed this orthodox advice, and of course they have not learned a great deal, because their husbands could not answer their questions.
Husbands, as a rule, do not know a great deal, and it will not do for every wife to depend on the ignorance of her worst half. The women of to-day are the great readers, and no book is a great success unless it pleases the women.
As a result of this, all the literature of the world has changed, so that now in all departments the thoughts of women are taken into consideration, and women have thoughts, because they are the intellectual equals of men.
There are no statesmen in this country the equals of Harriet Martineau; probably no novelists the equals of George Eliot or George Sand, and I think Ouida the greatest living novelist. I think her "Ariadne" is one of the greatest novels in the English language. There are few novels better than "Consuelo," few poems better than "Mother and Poet."
So in all departments women are advancing; some of them have taken the highest honors at medical colleges; others are prominent in the sciences, some are great artists, and there are several very fine sculptors, &c., &c.
So you can readily see what my opinion is on that point.
I am in favor of giving woman all the domain she conquers, and as the world becomes civilized the domain that she can conquer will steadily increase.
_Question_. But, Colonel, is there no danger of greatly interfering with a woman"s duties as wife and mother?
_Answer_. I do not think that it is dangerous to think, or that thought interferes with love or the duties of wife or mother. I think the contrary is the truth; the greater the brain the greater the power to love, the greater the power to discharge all duties and obligations, so I have no fear for the future. About women voting I don"t care; whatever they want to do they have my consent.
--_The Democrat_, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1894.
PROFESSOR SWING.
_Question_. Since you were last in this city, Colonel, a distinguished man has pa.s.sed away in the person of Professor Swing. The public will be interested to have your opinion of him.
_Answer_. I think Professor Swing did a great amount of good. He helped to civilize the church and to humanize the people. His influence was in the right direction--toward the light. In his youth he was acquainted with toil, poverty, and hardship; his road was filled with thorns, and yet he lived and scattered flowers in the paths of many people. At first his soul was in the dungeon of a savage creed, where the windows were very small and closely grated, and though which struggled only a few rays of light. He longed for more light and for more liberty, and at last his fellow- prisoners drove him forth, and from that time until his death he did what he could to give light and liberty to the souls of men.
He was a lover of nature, poetic in his temperament, charitable and merciful. As an orator he may have lacked presence, pose and voice, but he did not lack force of statement or beauty of expression.
He was a man of wide learning, of great admiration of the heroic and tender. He did what he could to raise the standard of character, to make his fellow-men just and n.o.ble. He lost the provincialism of his youth and became in a very n.o.ble sense a citizen of the world. He understood that all the good is not in our race or in our religion--that in every land there are good and n.o.ble men, self- denying and lovely women, and that in most respects other religions are as good as ours, and in many respects better. This gave him breadth of intellectual horizon and enlarged his sympathy for the failures of the world. I regard his death as a great loss, and his life as a lesson and inspiration.
--_Inter-Ocean_, Chicago, October 13, 1894.
SENATOR SHERMAN AND HIS BOOK.*
[* No one is better qualified than Robert G. Ingersoll to talk about Senator Sherman"s book and the questions it raises in political history. Mr. Ingersoll was for years a resident of Washington and a next-door neighbor to Mr.
Sherman; he was for an even longer period the intimate personal friend of James G. Blaine; he knew Garfield from almost daily contact, and of the Republican National Conventions concerning which Senator Sherman has raised points of controversy Mr. Ingersoll can say, as the North Carolinian said of the Confederacy: "Part of whom I am which."
He placed Blaine"s name before the convention at Cincinnati in 1876. He made the first of the three great nominating speeches in convention history, Conkling and Garfield making the others in 1880.
The figure of the Plumed Knight which Mr. Ingersoll created to characterize Mr. Blaine is part of the latter"s memory.
At Chicago, four years later, when Garfield, dazed by the irresistible doubt of the convention, was on the point of refusing that in the acceptance of which he had no voluntary part, Ingersoll was the adviser who showed him that duty to Sherman required no such action.]
_Question_. What do you think of Senator Sherman"s book--especially the part about Garfield?
_Answer_. Of course, I have only read a few extracts from Mr.
Sherman"s reminiscences, but I am perfectly satisfied that the Senator is mistaken about Garfield"s course. The truth is that Garfield captured the convention by his course from day to day, and especially by the speech he made for Sherman. After that speech, and it was a good one, the best Garfield ever made, the convention said, "Speak for yourself, John."
It was perfectly apparent that if the Blaine and Sherman forces should try to unite, Grant would be nominated. It had to be Grant or a new man, and that man was Garfield. It all came about without Garfield"s help, except in the way I have said. Garfield even went so far as to declare that under no circ.u.mstances could he accept, because he was for Sherman, and honestly for him. He told me that he would not allow his name to go before the convention. Just before he was nominated I wrote him a note in which I said he was about to be nominated, and that he must not decline. I am perfectly satisfied that he acted with perfect honor, and that he did his best for Sherman.
_Question_. Mr. Sherman expresses the opinion that if he had had the "moral strength" of the Ohio delegation in his support he would have been nominated?
_Answer_. We all know that while Senator Sherman had many friends, and that while many thought he would make an excellent President, still there was but little enthusiasm among his followers. Sherman had the respect of the party, but hardly the love.
_Question_. In his book the Senator expresses the opinion that he was quite close to the nomination in 1888, when Mr. Quay was for him. Do you think that is so, Mr. Ingersoll?
_Answer_. I think Mr. Sherman had a much better chance in 1888 than in 1880, but as a matter of fact, he never came within hailing distance of success at any time. He is not of the nature to sway great bodies of men. He lacks the power to impress himself upon others to such an extent as to make friends of enemies and devotees of friends. Mr. Sherman has had a remarkable career, and I think that he ought to be satisfied with what he has achieved.
_Question_. Mr. Ingersoll, what do you think defeated Blaine for the nomination in 1876?
_Answer_. On the first day of the convention at Cincinnati it was known that Blaine was the leading candidate. All of the enthusiasm was for him. It was soon known that Conkling, Bristow or Morton could not be nominated, and that in all probability Blaine would succeed. The fact that Blaine had been attacked by vertigo, or had suffered from a stroke of apoplexy, gave an argument to those who opposed him, and this was used with great effect. After Blaine was put in nomination, and before any vote was taken, the convention adjourned, and during the night a great deal of work was done.
The Michigan delegation was turned inside out and the Blaine forces raided in several States. Hayes, the dark horse, suddenly developed speed, and the scattered forces rallied to his support. I have always thought that if a ballot could have been taken on the day Blaine was put in nomination he would have succeeded, and yet he might have been defeated for the nomination anyway.
Blaine had the warmest friends and the bitterest enemies of any man in the party. People either loved or hated him. He had no milk-and-water friends and no milk-and-water enemies.
_Question_. If Blaine had been nominated at Cincinnati in 1876 would he have made a stronger candidate than Hayes did?
_Answer_. If he had been nominated then, I believe that he would have been triumphantly elected. Mr. Blaine"s worst enemies would not have supported Tilden, and thousands of moderate Democrats would have given their votes to Blaine.
_Question_. Mr. Ingersoll, do you think that Mr. Blaine wanted the nomination in 1884, when he got it?
_Answer_. In 1883, Mr. Blaine told me that he did not want the nomination. I said to him: "Is that honest?" He replied that he did not want it, that he was tired of the whole business. I said: "If you do not want it; if you have really reached that conclusion, then I think you will get it." He laughed, and again said: "I do not want it." I believe that he spoke exactly as he then felt.
_Question_. What do you think defeated Mr. Blaine at the polls in 1884?
_Answer_. Blaine was a splendid manager for another man, a great natural organizer, and when acting for others made no mistake; but he did not manage his own campaign with ability. He made a succession of mistakes. His suit against the Indianapolis editor; his letter about the ownership of certain stocks; his reply to Burchard and the preachers, in which he said that history showed the church could get along without the state, but the state could not get along without the church, and this in reply to the "Rum, Romanism and Rebellion" nonsense; and last, but not least, his speech to the millionaires in New York--all of these things weakened him. As a matter of fact many Catholics were going to support Blaine, but when they saw him fooling with the Protestant clergy, and accepting the speech of Burchard, they instantly turned against him. If he had never met Burchard, I think he would have been elected. His career was something like that of Mr. Clay; he was the most popular man of his party and yet----
_Question_. How do you account for Mr. Blaine"s action in allowing his name to go before the convention at Minneapolis in 1892?
_Answer_. In 1892, Mr. Blaine was a sick man, almost worn out; he was not his former self, and he was influenced by others. He seemed to have lost his intuition; he was misled, yet in spite of all defeats, no name will create among Republicans greater enthusiasm than that of James G. Blaine. Millions are still his devoted, unselfish and enthusiastic friends and defenders.
--_The Globe-Democrat_, St. Louis, October 27, 1895.
REPLY TO THE CHRISTIAN ENDEAVORERS.
_Question_. How were you affected by the announcement that the united prayers of the Salvationists and Christian Endeavorers were to be offered for your conversion?
_Answer_. The announcement did not affect me to any great extent.
I take it for granted that the people praying for me are sincere and that they have a real interest in my welfare. Of course, I thank them one and all. At the same time I can hardly account for what they did. Certainly they would not ask G.o.d to convert me unless they thought the prayer could be answered. And if their G.o.d can convert me of course he can convert everybody. Then the question arises why he does not do it. Why does he let millions go to h.e.l.l when he can convert them all. Why did he not convert them all before the flood and take them all to heaven instead of drowning them and sending them all to h.e.l.l. Of course these questions can be answered by saying that G.o.d"s ways are not our ways. I am greatly obliged to these people. Still, I feel about the same, so that it would be impossible to get up a striking picture of "before and after." It was good-natured on their part to pray for me, and that act alone leads me to believe that there is still hope for them. The trouble with the Christian Endeavorers is that they don"t give my arguments consideration. If they did they would agree with me. It seemed curious that they would advise divine wisdom what to do, or that they would ask infinite mercy to treat me with kindness. If there be a G.o.d, of course he knows what ought to be done, and will do it without any hints from ignorant human beings. Still, the Endeavorers and the Salvation people may know more about G.o.d than I do. For all I know, this G.o.d may need a little urging. He may be powerful but a little slow; intelligent but sometimes a little drowsy, and it may do good now and then to call his attention to the facts. The prayers did not, so far as I know, do me the least injury or the least good. I was glad to see that the Christians are getting civilized. A few years ago they would have burned me. Now they pray for me.
Suppose G.o.d should answer the prayers and convert me, how would he bring the conversion about? In the first place, he would have to change my brain and give me more credulity--that is, he would be obliged to lessen my reasoning power. Then I would believe not only without evidence, but in spite of evidence. All the miracles would appear perfectly natural. It would then seem as easy to raise the dead as to waken the sleeping. In addition to this, G.o.d would so change my mind that I would hold all reason in contempt and put entire confidence in faith. I would then regard science as the enemy of human happiness, and ignorance as the soil in which virtues grow. Then I would throw away Darwin and Humboldt, and rely on the sermons of orthodox preachers. In other words, I would become a little child and amuse myself with a religious rattle and a Gabriel horn. Then I would rely on a man who has been dead for nearly two thousand years to secure me a seat in Paradise.