UC-NRLF 
 
 SB 273 fiflE 
 
GIFT OF 
 
 Class of 1900 
 
TRUTH ABOUT 
 SOCIALISM 
 
 JAMES B. OSBORNE 
 
 COPYRIGHTED. 1812 
 JAMES B. OSBORNE. OAKLAND, Ci 
 
H E 
 
 TRUTH ABOUT 
 SOCIALISM 
 
 Jin Analysis of the Philosophy Enunciated in 
 
 the ^Declaration ofj4merican Independence, 
 
 as Compared with the Philosophy 
 
 of Social -Democracy 
 
 JAMES 3- OSBORNE 
 
 THE INTERNATIONAL PRESS 
 
 OAKLAND. CAL. 
 
 1912 
 
- 
 
 .' . 
 
PREFACE 
 
 The purpose of this little pamphlet is to remove the objection now 
 in the minds of millions of people toward Socialism on the ground that 
 Socialism is un-American. 
 
 Socialism is not incompatible with Americanism when Americanism 
 is measured by the standard of the American Revolutionists. On the 
 contrary, the Socialists are the only defenders in America to-day of that 
 spirit in which this nation was born. 
 
 This pamphlet does not deal in any way whatsoever with the under- 
 lying economic causes of the American Revolution. Anyone desiring 
 to take up this phase of the subject will be amply repaid by reading 
 "Stcia/ forces in American History," by A. M. Simons. 
 
 JAMES B. OSBORNE 
 
 June 10, 1912. Rice Institute-, O.kUnd, Cal. 
 
THE DECLARATION OF 
 INDEPENDENCE 
 
 In Congress, July 4 t 1776. 
 The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen States of America. 
 
 When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one 
 people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with 
 another, and to assure, among the powers of the earth, the separate and 
 equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle 
 them, a decent respect for the opinions of mankind requires that they 
 should declare the causes which impel them to separation. 
 
 We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created 
 equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable 
 rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 
 That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, de- 
 riving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever 
 any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right 
 of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, 
 laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in 
 such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and 
 happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long estab- 
 lished, should not be changed for light and transient causes ; and. accord- 
 ingly, all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suf- 
 fer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the 
 forms to which they are accustomed. But, when a long train of abuses 
 and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to 
 reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right it is their duty 
 to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future 
 security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and 
 such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former 
 systems of government 
 
INTRODUCTORY PARAGRAPH 
 
 For many generations the Old World has looked to the 
 United States with this question on all liberty-loving lips: "What is 
 Americanism?" 
 
 Chapter I. 
 
 AMERICANISM 
 
 The best interpretation of Amii&illlti was sxp'essed in the tidal 
 wave of democracy which s\yept the colonies, j'jst prior to and during 
 the American Revolution, resultijig iji the lx> -de st ( < \.icl most sweeping 
 declaration of human rights and the highest ideals of popular govern- 
 ment ever before proclaimed by any nation or any people. 
 
 Shortly after the American Revolution Dr. Benjamin Fanklin was 
 dining with a distinguished Englishman and a well known Frenchman. 
 It was proposed that each give a toast to his respective country. The 
 Englishman spoke first: "Here's to Great Britain, the sun that gives 
 light to all nations of the earth." The Frenchman responded: "And J. 
 toast France, ze moon that shines over half ze world where ze sun is not 
 and whose magic rays move ze tides of all ze shores." Dr. Franklin 
 added: "Here's to George Washington, the Joshua of America, who 
 commanded the sun and moon to stand still, and they stood still." 
 
 As a matter of fact, however, Mr. Edmund Randolph, secretary 
 to Mr. Washington during the War of the Revolution, said that "the 
 pen of Thomas Paine was a greater power to the Revolution than the 
 s%vord of Mr. Washington." (Conway's Life and Writings / Thomas 
 Paine.) Thomas Paine produced mo'-t of the revolutionary literature 
 during the period preceding the Revolution and no publication ever be- 
 fore had such widespread circulation or such effect upon the public mind. 
 Five hundred thousand copies of "Common Sense" alone were printed 
 and distributed among the colonists. The idea was common among 
 the American Revolutionists that their action in establishing independ- 
 ence for the colonies would be a blow against slavery, monarchy, aris- 
 tocracy and privileged classes in all countries. They confidently ex- 
 pected that their example of revolt would point the path of power to the 
 oppressed and struggling people of all nations of tie world. And it 
 is evident thaf the influence pf the /Vneric^n Revolution in proclaiming 
 
8 AMERICANISM 
 
 and promulgating the doctrine of democracy was felt all over the world, 
 and profoundly so in France and England. 
 
 This idea is very forcibly expressed by Thomas Paine in "Common 
 Sense" as follows: "It is not the concern of a day, a year, or an age. 
 Posterity is virtually involved in the contest and will be more or less af- 
 fected, even to the end of time, by these proceedings. Now is the Seed 
 time of continental union, faith and honor. The least fracture now 
 will be like a name engraved with the point of a pin on the tender rind 
 of a young oak ; the wound will enlarge with the tree, and posterity will 
 read it in full grown characters." Thomas Paine was the first man in 
 America to advocate the abolition of chattel slavery, who at the same 
 time proposed a plan for the solution of the slave problem. He not 
 only advocated the abolition of chattel slavery, but advocated justice to 
 woman in such an able manner that his arguments are today unanswerable 
 by all of the opponents of ecjual suffrage. "Common Sense" by 
 Thomas Paine v.'as translated into many foreign languages and even more 
 copies were sold, in Francs and England than in the American colonies. 
 His fearless philosophy had tremendous influence from New England 
 to the Carolina? in moulding the opinions of patriots and awakening the 
 social consciousness of the colonists. Washington placed Paine's 
 "sound doctrine and unanswerable reasoning" on a level of importance 
 with the "flaring arguments" which went up from the burning houses of 
 Falmouth and Norfolk. "My countrymen" he wrote "will come 
 reluctantly into the idea of Independence, but time and persecution 
 bring wonderful things to pass and by letters which I have lately received 
 from Virginia, I find Common Sense is working a powerful change in 
 the minds of many." (From George Travillon's History of the Amer- 
 ican Revolution.) Undoubtedly the writings of Thomas Paine and 
 his familiar acquaintance with Jefferson had considerable influence on 
 the boldness of style of the Declaration of Independence written by 
 Jefferson, but neither Paine nor Jefferson cared for credit or reward for 
 their contributions to American Independence, and Jefferson showed 
 that he was conscious of the fact that intelligence was social rather than 
 individual in its nature, as will be seen by his reply to a criticism by 
 John Adam*. "The stock charge against the Declaration of Inde- 
 pendence repeated in a hundred shapes ever since it appeared in 
 print had been that it lacked originality, and that its author was a 
 plagiarist. It was imitated, so we are informed, from the state papers of 
 the Long parliament; it owed much to Locke, and much to Milton, and 
 still more to Rousseau. More recent sources on which Jefferson had 
 largely drawn were detected in a charge delivered to the Grand Jury of 
 Charlestown in .the Virginia Declaration of Rights. . Jo|in Adams., 
 great at great moments, but with a- mind too Active and uneasy for the 
 
AMERICANISM 
 
 prolonged leisure of his latter days, six and forty years afterwards ex- 
 plained to a correspondent that there was nothing new in Jefferson's 
 paper. Jefferson lived to see the letter of his colleague and his re- 
 marks on it were as sensible as they were good tempered and dignified. 
 "I did not," he said, "consider it any part of my charge to invent new 
 ideas and to offer no sentiment which had ever been expressed before." 
 Had Mr. Adams been so restrained, congress would have lost the bene- 
 fit of his bold and impressive advocations of the rights of the Revolution. 
 For no man's fervid addresses more than his, encouraged and supported 
 us through the difficulties which, like the ceaseless action of gravity, 
 weighed on us by night and by day. Yet, on the same ground, we 
 may ask which of his elevated thoughts were new, or can be affirmed 
 never before to have entered the conceptions of man." 
 
 The American Revolutionists not only stood for the right of self- 
 government for themselves, but for all men regardless of race and color. 
 Whatever might have been the motive of some individuals participating 
 in the American Revolution, it is unquestionably true that the majority 
 of the American people were not only opposed alike to monarchy and 
 slavery, but gave their approval gladly and enthusiastically to the social 
 philosophy and democatic principle* contained in the Declaration of In- 
 dependence. 
 
 The material conditions, that is the economic and intellectual de- 
 velopment of the American people in 1776, did not make possible the 
 realization of the ideals of democracy held by the founders of the gov- 
 ernment, but many people in America and all over the world have since 
 that time joined in the march of humanity toward democracy, and the 
 economic and intellectual developments of the last century have prepared 
 a material condition for the disappearance of privileged classes and the 
 apearance of social democracy. Dr. Witherspoon, a delegate from 
 New Jersey in the continental congress, said, that in his judgment "the 
 country was not only ripe for Independence, but was in danger of be- 
 coming rotten for want of it." So it may be said to-day, that this 
 country is not only ripe for Socialism, but is even becoming rotten for 
 want of it. 
 
 The philosophies contained in the Declaration of Independence are 
 the best expression of Americanism. It is what the people of 1 776 be- 
 lieved in. It is what they fought for; it is what they thought they were 
 leaving as a heritage to posterity and to the struggling peoples of the 
 world. The original draft of the Declaration of Independence pre- 
 pared by Thomas Jefferson and submitted to the Independence Conven- 
 tion contained a clause in opposition to chattel slavery, and a denun- 
 ciation of the English king for fostering and protecting the slave traffic, 
 and for vetoing bills passed by the colonists to prohibit said traffic. This 
 
10 AMERICANISM 
 
 clause, left out of the original draft of the Declaration of Independence, 
 can be found in Woodrow Wilson's History of the American People, 
 Vol. 2, page 246, an~ Conway's Life and Writings of Thomas Paine, 
 Vol. 1 , page 80. While this clause was not adopted in the Declara- 
 tion of Independence, it is certain that many of the influential men of the 
 convention were in sympathy with it, and perhaps took it for granted 
 that the abolition of slavery would follow as a natural consequence of 
 American Independence. 
 
 Abraham Lincoln was fully aware of the attitude of the American 
 Revolutionists on the slavery question, and in an address on John Brown 
 delivered in Cooper Institute New York, Feb. 27, 1860, and to a de- 
 gree in defense of John Brown's principles, but not his tactics, said: 
 "True, we do. in common with our fathers, who framed the govern- 
 ment under which we live, declare our belief that slavery is wong." 
 
 The Socialists of the United States, as well as in other countries, 
 adhere to the doctrines of the Declaration of Independence. These 
 philosophies are first, freedom and equality; second, the only purpose 
 of government is to st-cure life, liberty and happiness; third, that all just 
 powers of government not derived from the consent of the governed are 
 unjust powers; fourth, the right of revolution when any form of govern- 
 ment becomes destructive of these principles. 
 
 Each of these philosophies will be treated in the following chapters. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 EQUALITY 
 
 The very first doctrine in the Declaration of American In- 
 dependence proclaims the equality of all mankind. Freedom 
 and equality are the essential fundamentals of democracy. It became 
 necessary for the American Revolutionists as promoters of the demo- 
 cratic idea, and opponents of the divine right of kings, to give some 
 reason, some explanation, in justification of their revolutionary course. 
 
 Up to the time of th* American Revolution, the doctrine of the 
 divine right of kings prevailed throughout the nations of the world. The 
 following quotation from the speech of an English king conveys some 
 idea of that doctrine: "That which concerns the mystey of the king's 
 power is not lawful to be disputed; for that is to wade into the weak- 
 nesses of princes, and to take away the mystical reverence that belongs 
 unto them that sit on the throne of God." (James I. in a speech made 
 
EQUALITY 1 1 
 
 in the star chamber on June 20, 1601. Quoted from Lee's Source 
 Book of English //isforp, page 336.) 
 
 The argument or philosophy used in justification of the divine right 
 of kings is an assumption that some people are by nature superior to 
 others; that some have innately superior talents or excellence, and that 
 an all-wise Povidence, on account of the superior mind or ability of a 
 certain individual, selects him to be king, and to rule over the rest of 
 the people; and on account of the inferiority of the great mass of man- 
 kind, they become subjects of the king. This doctrine the American 
 Revolutionists refused to accept, and proclaimed in the most sweeping 
 terms the freedom and equality of all mankind. 
 
 There are but few in America to-day who would acknowledge 
 lhat they believed in the divine right of kings to rule, and yet it is aston- 
 ishing the great influence this doctrine has, even at the present time, upon 
 our political organization. 
 
 The argument used to-day in justification of the ownership of colos- 
 sal wealth by a few individuals is exactly the same in essence as the 
 argument in times past and present in defense of the divine right of kings. 
 
 A few years ago, during a great coal strike in Pennsylvania, and at 
 a time a coal famine ?eemed probable, propositions were made by the 
 government looking to government interference, and. if necessary, govern- 
 ment operation of the mine*. At this juncture. Mr. Baer, representing 
 the coal barons, came to the rescue, and publicly proclaimed that on ac- 
 count of his superior fitness and intelligence, that God Almighty had 
 made him custodian of all the coal fields in the anthracite region. 
 
 The ordinary defender of class ownership of the material resources 
 of social wealth production is seldom as bold or frank as the railway 
 magnate, Mr. Baer. Nevertheless, in a final anaylsis the argument 
 must, by the very nature of things, be based on the same philosophy, a 
 dualist philosophy, out of which can be deduced the proposition that 
 some m<n arc by nature superior to other men, with greater minds and 
 excellence, and, therefore, entitled to greater recognition and greater 
 compensation than the great mass of mankind who, by nature, are inferior. 
 Hence this philosophy of tne divine right of kings used in 1 776 in defense 
 of King George has become the only philosophy used in defense of mod- 
 rrn capitalism. 
 
 The Declaration of American Independence proclaimed a denial of 
 ihis philosophy of the innate superiority of some and the innate inferiority 
 of others, and proclaimed the monistic and democratic philosophy of the 
 ftqualify of all mankind. The doctrine of equality, however, was a 
 new doctrine, based on a new philosophy, a revolutionary philosophy, and 
 ftaa not yet been thoroughly absorbed by thp American people nor by any 
 
12 EQUALITY 
 
 other people. Nevertheless, just in proportion as we march toward de- 
 mocracy, we must accept and apply the doctrine of equality. 
 
 The doctrine of the divine right of kings applies to the nobility, the 
 aristocracy and the ruling class in all countries of the past. Mankind 
 has been taught for centuries and in all countries, the doctrine of supeior- 
 ity and inferiority among men. Perhaps no country has longer or with 
 greater effect taught this doctrine than has the Empire of China. The 
 Chinese have been taught for centuries that they were a superior people, 
 that the humblest Chinaman was superior to persons of other nationalities 
 simply by virtue of being a Chinaman, so the Chinese call themselves 
 "Celestials." 
 
 In England, the people have been taught that England is the great- 
 est country in the world, and that Englishmen have greater excellence 
 than any other people. In America we have been taught the same 
 doctrine, that Americans by virtue of the fact that they were born in the 
 United States, makes them superior to all other people. Here in 
 California we even claim that a native son or daughter has some distin- 
 guishing characteristic5 of superiority over people born in other states 
 
 This doctrine of the ruling class is the only bulwark in defense of 
 class rule, and is the foundation for modern jingoism and false patriotism. 
 If the people of China accept the doctrine of their superiority over the 
 rest of mankind, it then becomes easy for them to accept the rule of the 
 so-called superior class over the great majority. This is equally true 
 of every other great nation. If we accept the doctrine in America 
 that Americans are superior to all other people, then the next step in har- 
 mony with the same view point is the acceptance of the doctine that 
 some Americans are superior to others, and on account of their superiority 
 are entitled to greater recognition and compensation. 
 
 Every apologist, defender or retainer of the capitalist class defends 
 capitalist class ownership of the wealth of this nation on the one ground 
 of ih? superiority of the capitalist class over all other classes. Ask 
 any of them if they believe that Mr. Morgan, Mr. Carnegie and Mr. 
 Rockefeller are entitled to the great wealth they own? Any one of them 
 will answer, "Yes." Then if yon ask on what ground, the answer 
 will be "on account of their superior minds, their greater excellence." 
 In other words, a billionaire's wealth is just compensation for his superior 
 mind, and that the poverty of the great mass of people is on account of 
 their inferior brain power. 
 
 Notwithstanding this doctrine was denounced by the founders of 
 this republic, it is astonishing the influence that it still has in the minds 
 of the people. It has been taught for centuries; it is taught to-day in 
 the schools, in the churches, in the newspapers, on public platforms, and 
 is still the psychological foundation for class rule. Children are being 
 
EQUALITY 13 
 
 aught to get an education so that they will have an advantage over the 
 meducated and receive greater compensation than their less fortunate 
 ellows. It is generally accepted today that the professional or edu- 
 :ated classes are entitled to greater compensation for their services than 
 he ordinary laborer. It is urged that on account of their education 
 md professional training they are superior, and their services to society of 
 ;reater value than the services of those following so-called menial occu- 
 pations. This is as much of a fallacy as the doctrine of the divine 
 ight of kings, and springs from identically the same foundation. The 
 act is that wealth is a social and not an individual product. Likewise, 
 ye. can. only value service from a social rather than an individual view- 
 *>Jnt 
 
 If we hire a doctor, we think fifty dollars a day a reasonable price, 
 f -we hire a sewer digger, we think three dollars a day exorbitant ; and yet 
 f the people of any community had to decide by popular vote, this 
 luestion; shall we get along without sewer diggers, sewers and sanitary 
 onditions and retain our physicians, or will we dispense with physicians 
 ind retain the sewer diggers and sanitary conditions, the vote would be 
 Jmost unanimous to retain the sewer digger. Fortunately, we do not 
 iave to -decide that question, but since both the physician and the sewer 
 ligger are socially useful, who can determine who should receive the 
 jeater compensation? Herein lies the argument for economic equality, 
 without which, equality of opportunity is a meaningless phrase. Wealth 
 5 a social product ; education is social in its origin as well as in develop-, 
 lent. Thomas Jefferson evidently understood this argument in relation 
 D education. He was criticized in the production of the Declaration 
 f Independence, as has been noted in a previous chapter. But his an-: 
 wer to the criticism of John Adams, that there was nothing new or 
 riginal in the Declaration of Independence is worth reading again 
 i connection with the argument for equality, as it answers all of the 
 rguments that can be made in favor of greater compensation pn the 
 round of greater or superior education. Mr. Jefferson took the position 
 hat if Mr. Adams, or any other man, had to use only ideas, thoughts 
 r intelligence, entirely his own, his service to society would be exceed- 
 igly limited. Emerson says in his Essay on History, "There is one 
 lind common to all individual men. Every man is an inlet to the same 
 ind to all of the same." 
 
 To-day, in the United States, for every man or woman that goes 
 firough-a university, nine hundred and ninety-nine men and women have 
 a stand aside to make the higher education possible for the one, and 
 nder modern conditions the one has an advantage over the nine hundred 
 nd ninety-nine that made the advantage possible. It is easy to see that 
 F the -ftnfir thousand could have Kad the university education, the a^- . 
 
14 EQUALITY 
 
 vantage of the one would not have arisen. If all the people had an 
 equal opportunity to all the education society could afford, this question 
 would solve itself. So, every approach toward economic equality is an 
 approach toward intellectual democracy. 
 
 The argument for human equality is not an argument against hu- 
 man differentiation. Differentiation seems to be a universal law. No 
 two leaves of the forest, so we are told, are just equal, or no two blades 
 of grass just exactly the same length or color, and it is well for mankind 
 that we have so much differentiation in nature. And it is well that we 
 have so much human differentiation. We could not all very well make a 
 living by playing a violin, or piano; yet we greatly appreciate the talents 
 and excellence of a good musician. We could not all make a Irving as 
 orators, yet we are aroused and swayed and made to deeply appreciate 
 thr great orator. We need all talents of all varieties, and we should be 
 thankful foi each variety or gradation of variety. Harriet P. Morse on 
 this point recently said : "We need the agitator, without whom the wa- 
 ters of civilization would become stagnant ; the crank, without whom there 
 would surely be nothing new under the sun ; the peacemaker, who rectifies 
 troubles that he never caused; the musician who lifts us to mightier and 
 loftier realms; the great writer, who provides us with companionship we 
 otherwise could not know; thr artist, who gives us insight; the poet, who 
 calms and soothes us; the teacher, who imparts knowledge and inspira- 
 tion; the orator, who puts great truths into pleasing and lasting forms; the 
 idealist, who gives us glimpses of the new heaven and the new earth which 
 are to be; the organizer, who moulds ineffective parts into an effective 
 whole: thr inventor, who lessons our labors and increases our rewards; 
 the toiler, without whom all the rest could not be." 
 
 Every normal human being has the potentiality of excellence in the per- 
 formance of some necessary social service, and the time is not far distant 
 u-hen we will have social ownership of the entire social product, and 
 when all thr progress made as the result of discovery, invention, science 
 and education, will likewise be appropriated for the benefit of society in- 
 stead of a privileged class. As throwing some light on this point we 
 quote the following from J. Allen Smith (Spirit of American Govern- 
 ment.'* pp. 399-400.): "All new ideas have to be harmonized with 
 much that is old. As at first accepted they are only partially true. A 
 new philosophy requires time before its benefits can be fully realized. 
 It must pass through a process of adaptation by which it is gradually 
 modified, broadened and brought into orderly relations with life in 
 general." 
 
 The theory of industrial freedom has during the nineteenth century 
 been passing through just such a stage of development. The contention 
 pf Adam Smith and his followers that the mere desire for gain would of 
 
EQUALITY 15 
 
 itself insure adequate regulation of industry, is certainly not true under 
 existing conditions. Natural law is not as he assumed, always beneficent 
 in its operation. It is just as liable to produce harm as benefit unless it 
 is regulated, controlled and directed by appropriate human agencies. 
 It needs no argument to convince one that this is true so far as the forces 
 of the physical world are concerned. Gravitation, steam and electricity 
 contributed nothing to human progress until man discovered the means 
 whereby they could be harnessed and controlled. Material civilization 
 means nothing else than the development of control over and the conse- 
 quent utilization of the materials and forces of the physical world. An- 
 other quotation from the same author and the same book shows the 
 foundation for the economic inequalities in modern society. Such eco- 
 nomic inequalities also become the foundation for the intellectual con- 
 ception of the natural superiority of some men over other men. "The 
 material environment is no longer the common possession of the group. 
 It has become private property and has passed under the control of 
 individuals in whose interest the laws and customs of every community, 
 ancient or modern, have been largely modeled. This is a fact which 
 all history attests." 
 
 In a society like the United States where a few possess greater 
 fortunes than has hitheito been known, and millions of the people live in 
 abject poverty, a society in which we have a thousand economic grada- 
 tions all the way from the billionaire on one end to the hobo on the 
 other, the public mind has been susceptible to the dualist philosophy 
 that the human mind was not of one kind, that the human brain was 
 divided on class lines, on race lines, and on sex lines. Hence we have 
 been taught that the brain of a capitalist was made of different material 
 than that of a workingiRan, and that the brain of a man was made of 
 different material than the brain of a woman; that the mind of a male 
 was superior to that of a female. This doctrine is the foundation of 
 every argument against equal suffrage; likewise it is the only defense of 
 the economic inequalities of modern civilization. 
 
 The American billionaire considers himself in an entirely different 
 class from those who are ordinary millionaires. In his mind he is entirely 
 superior to them. 1 he ordinary millionaire is likewise impressed with 
 his superior excellence in comparison with the man worth only a hundred 
 thousand dollars. The owner of a hundred thousand dollars considers 
 himself entirely above the man worth five thousand dollars, and some of 
 the five thousand dollar men imagine that they are just about the wisest, 
 cutest and most important personages that an all-wise Providence has 
 endowed with guardianship. They imagine themselves entirely superior 
 to. and as belonging to a class different from the best paid wage workers 
 such as bricklayers or locomotive engineers, and in their turn the brick- 
 
16 EQUALITY 
 
 layer and engineer think they are better than the hod carrier or the 
 fireman. Likewise the fireman thinks he is of more importance than 
 the brakeman, and the brakeman on a first-class train thinks he is superior 
 to a brakeman on a second-class train, and the brakeman on a second- 
 class train thinks he is of an entirely different human variety from the 
 porter on the train. The porter sees the section men at work- and his 
 proud bosom swells as he contemplates his superior excellence over that 
 of a section man. The hobo comes along and the section man in hrs-turn 
 is enthused in contemplating his immense wisdom and high station over 
 that of the hobo the fellow that has no job at all, and even among the 
 hoboes, we have varieties or gradation ; the yegg, the gaycat and- the 
 blankeUtiff. The yegg is conscious of his superiority over the -other two 
 varieties, and the gaycat considers himself of an entirely different class 
 from the blanketstiff ; and even among the blanketstiff variety some of 
 them are so stuck-up that they refuse to speak to another blanketstiff when 
 they meet him on the road. Down below these is the man, who, being 
 unable to force recognition from society of his superior mind, opposes 
 equal suffrage in the hope that he will be able to compel his wife to 
 acknowledge the superiority of the male over the female mind. 
 
 The philosophy of social democracy, however, is making tremendous 
 strides and is having a far-reaching effect upon the intellectual develop- 
 ment, and when the Socialist program is applied, establishing the collect- 
 ive ownership and democratic management of all means of social wealth 
 production, we will approach to the realization of that equality pro- 
 claimed by our forefathers in the Declaration of Independence. Every 
 approach toward democracy in its last analysis must be an approach 
 toward economic equality, and modern Socialism is the only tendency in 
 that direction. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT 
 
 The founders of American government declared that the only pur- 
 pose of government was to secure life, liberty, and happiness to all people. 
 Today every AmericaH citizen knows, if he is at all informed, that this is 
 not the purpose of the government of the United States, n6r of the gov- 
 ernments of the states. The government today is practically a committee 
 to execute the will of the propertied classes, big business in the city, state 
 and nation. The ideal of modern capitalistic society is profit dollars 
 
__ PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT [7 
 
 and dimes and this idea has more complete sway in America than in any 
 other country in the world. Capitalism goes marching, burning on, con- 
 suming on its altar of insatiate greed, the ideals of life, liberty and 
 equality, and converts all that has hitherto been sacred, as well as the 
 lives of the majority of men, women and children, into cold, callous cash 
 as profits on vested interest. 
 
 The Declaration of Independence makes life and liberty for all the 
 people more important than consideration of property interests. Cap- 
 italism and capitalist government makes life the cheapest thing in the 
 world, and the protection of property and property interests its only vital 
 consideration. A representative of congress in the state of Washington 
 delivered a Fourth of July oration at Vancouver, in 1 908, supposedly in 
 commemoration of the Declaration of Independence, saying, "You may 
 deny the rights of property to-day, but property will deny your right to 
 life to-morrow." And yet there is not a word in the Declaration of In- 
 dependence about property rights. This public man, like many others, on 
 each Fourth of July makes speeches in denunciation of the ideals of 
 Americanism for which the founders of the republic fought. Such 
 denunciations are received with great pleasure by the owners of great 
 wealth and privilege the dominant economic class who own and control 
 the means of life for the great mass of people. 
 
 When a man owns and controls that which I must have in order to 
 live, he just as completely conlrols my life as if I were his chattel. 
 Under the industrial conditions of today, one man, by his ownership of 
 material instruments of social wealth production, can say to tens of thou- 
 sands, "Go!" and they go; "Come!" and they come; life is becoming 
 a burden lo millions, and the word "liberty" a mere mockery, and the 
 ordinary Fourth of July oration an insult to the memory of those illus- 
 trious Americans who pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred 
 honor for the freedom and equality of all mankind. The only real issue 
 in America to-day is, shall this government be an instrument of protec- 
 tion to colossal wealth and special privilege of American plutocracy, at 
 the expense of the life, liberty and happiness of the majority of the men, 
 women and children of the nation; or, shall this government represent the 
 spirit of 1 776, and secure the life, liberty and happiness of the people, if 
 necessary, even at the expense of wealth and privilege. And the citizens of 
 this country are now called upon to decide on which side of this issue they 
 will stand. There is no middle ground or compromise possible. The 
 wage working class of this country at the present time can be relied upon 
 to be on the side of life and liberty, not because they are better than any 
 other part of society, but because they have no vested interests or profits to 
 protect. By the very nature of their environment, life, full, free and 
 joyous, is their ideal. They are compelled to struggle for life; use, not 
 

 J8 PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT 
 
 profit, is their social maxim; social service instead of social plunder is 
 their shibboleth; manhood and womanhood their goal, because it is all 
 they have, and all of the revolutionary elements in society are now rap- 
 idly joining the working class in the Socialist movement, and will sooner 
 or later overwhelm the forces of reaction now in complete control of the 
 various stales of the nation. 
 
 Likewise, by the very nature of their environment, the class of pro- 
 prietors, or the capitalist class, can be depended upon to oppose every 
 tendency to undermine what they will call the sacred rights of property. 
 They are riding on the backs of labor and will not dismount until invited. 
 They enjoy special privileges and will not relinquish them until forced to 
 do so. No ruling class ever did. All ruling classes have ever been the 
 conservative and reactionary forces in any society opposing progress and 
 every extension of popular rights. The capitalistic class and their 
 spokesman in America today assumes the same attitude towards Social- 
 ism as did King George and the Tories towards American Revolutionists. 
 But humanity has again begun its march; the river of progress, tempo- 
 rarily dammed up, again take? its course. The marvelous power of pro- 
 ductive development of the last century, the unprecedented development 
 of mechanical and inventive genius of man. combined with the general 
 diffusion of scientific knowledge, compulsory education and the amazing 
 increase of the stupendous organization of machine production, have laid 
 a foundation for the abolition of poverty and privilege, and the appear- 
 ance of a Comrade World, and Industrial Democracy, in which an in- 
 jury to one would be the concern of all. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 POWERS OF GOVERNMENT 
 
 -HOW DERIVED 
 
 The principle of self-government as enunciated in the Declaration of 
 Independence is a doctrine of the sovereignty of all the people. That 
 is to say, that the people collectively shall be the supreme authority. 
 That the collective will in city, county, state or national government 
 should be the supreme law. This doctrine is an assumption that the 
 public good and general welfare can be best promoted and protected by 
 the people themselves. This places the will of the majority above that of 
 the representatives, senators, and governors, presidents or judges. Cer- 
 
POWERS OF GOVERNMENT HOW DERIVED 19 
 
 tainly no one could wish for a broader or more complete idea of political 
 democracy than this. 
 
 While the Constitution of the United States, (to be dealt with in 
 a chapter to follow,) was an endeavor to nullify this doctrine of self-gov- 
 ernment, this spiril of democracy has manifested itself from time to time 
 and has always had adherents in every part of the country, and is opposed 
 today only by that part of the people who have inherited the monarchical 
 idea that what is called the better elements in society should rule. 
 Even such well-known American statesmen as Clay, Calhoun and Web- 
 ster, arc represented to have held this view, anJ every spokesman of the 
 ruling class hold and defend it to-day. Ex-President Roosevelt not 
 long ago attacked this philosophy of self-government, and said, in the 
 "Outlook" Magazine, that "the framers of the Declaration of Independ- 
 ence wr.rr mistaken," and President Taft, in his veto message to Congress 
 on the bill granting statehood to Arizona and New Mexico, not only 
 voiced his sentiments in opposition to the right of the people to recall 
 judges, but also repudiated the idea of self-government. 
 
 David .1. Brewer, in World's Best Orations," says: "Webster, 
 Clay and Calhoun occupied common ground in their descent from Ben- 
 ton's theory that the 'better element' of the community is apt to give the 
 woi r t results when it is trusted to govern the rest. This theory was in- 
 volved in Jefferson's teachings, but it did not come into actual and wide 
 collision with the stately patriotism of the gentlemen of the colonial 
 and revolutionary period until such of them as survived in 1828 saw 
 Jackson with Benlon at his back ready to force issues in its behalf, as 
 they had never been forced before in any English-speaking country." 
 
 Andtrw Jack-on was undoubtedly a believe in the democratic 
 principles of the Declaration of Independence, and the turbulent political 
 condition;; o f his administration and the manner in which he was assailed 
 by privileg* is FOTTJC evidence of the truth of his adherence to the prin- 
 cipl-5 of s<lf-govrrnment. About the time of Jackson's administration, 
 the German philosopher. Professor Hegel, very correctly accounted for 
 the democratic appearance of the American government in the early years 
 of its exisiepce, and at the same time gave an interpretation of the reason 
 why we do not have a semblance of democracy to-day. Under the title 
 of Philosophy of History, p. 141, in Collier's edition of Library of 
 Universal Literature, Hegel says: "As to the political condition of 
 North America, the general object of the existence of the state is not 
 yet fixed and determined, and the necessity for a firm combination does 
 not yet exist, for a real state and a real government arrive only after a 
 distinction of classes has arisen, when wealth and poverty become ex- 
 treme, and wheji such a condition of things presents itself that a large 
 
20 POWERS OF GOVERNMENTHOW DERIVED 
 
 portion of the people can no longer satisfy its necessities in the way it 
 has been accustomed to do.'* 
 
 The Socialists favor and use such measures as the referendum, ini- 
 tiative and recall, and all other measures calculated to extend the po- 
 litical power of the people; and at the same time, we point out that a po- 
 litical democracy never existed where a small percentage of the population 
 owned three-fourths of the nation's wealth, and the majority of the people 
 were propertyless. Under such conditions the essential material elements 
 for democracy do not exist. The overwhelming majority of all legisla- 
 
 , decisions of courts, and acts of governments pertain to property. 
 Waldo Emerson, in his Essay on Politics, says: "All laws per- 
 taining <o property will be made by property." Our experience in the 
 United States is ample proof of Emerson's statement. Laws pertaining 
 to the banking business are passed by Congress, but are in reality made 
 by bankers. Railroad legislation passed by State Legislatures or Congress 
 is made by railroads. Insurance law* are made by the insurance com- 
 panies and so on throughout all laws of property interests, and so long as 
 the nation's wealth is within the hands of a few, these few will, in reality, 
 be the government. 
 
 The ideals held by Mr. Roosevelt and Mr. Taft, and all leaders 
 of both democratic and republican parties, who hold that government is in- 
 stituted to protect property regardless of life or liberty are opposed to even 
 an approach to democracy. Adam Smith, in his Wealth of Nations, saysS 
 "Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, 
 is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of 
 those who have some property, against those who have none at all." 
 
 The insurgents, or progressive republicans, propose to solve the 
 problems of domination and supremacy of the trusts and colossal wealth, 
 by passing measures to limit the power to combine, and appointing com- 
 missions to regulate and control stupendous industries and commercial 
 organizations. All such methods will prove worse than useless. The 
 progressive republicans and radical democrats in regard to the problems 
 of to-day occupy about the same position as did the Douglas democrats, 
 and the Missouri Compromise advocates in regard to the slavery question, 
 and the Socialists occupy a similar position to that of the Abolitionists. 
 To-day class ownership of the natural resources, of the material instru- 
 ments of social wealth production, makes at least one-half of the Amer- 
 ican people, men, women and children, wage slaves, just as helpless, but 
 affording greater possibilities of exploitation than did the slaves of the 
 South. 
 
 To say that we will not extend slavedom will not solve the problem, 
 for this slavery will extend as long as the ownership of the means of pro- 
 duction is invested in a class. To say that we will control this slavery 
 
POWERS OF GOVERNMENTHOW DERIVED 21 
 
 will not mitigate it in any way. We can increase the powers of the 
 interstate commerce commission, or the powers of city or state public 
 utilities commissions, and regulate rates as we will; the fact will remain 
 that arising from the ownership of the means of production, the owners 
 have power to appropriate the entire product of labor, all the benefits of 
 progress, discovery, invention and science, and to retain the entire working 
 class as a commodity, yet the traffic in the bodies and souls of men, 
 women and children will still continue, and the reward of labor will be 
 the price of a miserable existence. 
 
 Before we have a government for the people, of the people, and by 
 the people, wage slavery will have to be abolishd. Wage slavery cannot 
 be abolished without the abolition of the class ownership of the material 
 means of production. This the Socialists alone propose to do through the 
 legal political process. This does not mean that we favor the destruction 
 of any wealth. On the other hand, it means that the ownership of prop- 
 erty in the means of social production by the capitalistic class, makes the 
 ownership of property in the product of their labor impossible to the ma- 
 jority of the American people. The transformation of capitalistic prop- 
 erty that wealth used in social poduction into the collective wealth of 
 the people will emancipate labor from wage slavery, and at the same 
 time wipe out all special privilege now enjoyed by the capitalistic class, 
 and make it possible for all citizens to become proprietors, to appropri- 
 ate the full product of their toil, and have an equal chance to appropriate 
 the advantages of an ever-advancing civilization. As the small group 
 of people to-day who, by their ownership of those things that all society 
 must use in order to live, is in reality the government, so, when the 
 people collectively own and control all these things upon which their 
 collective life and well-being depend, the people collectively will be the 
 government. 
 
 This is the Socialistic program, and it is the only program that will 
 make possible the realization of the principle* of self-government, the 
 disappearance of class and class rule, and the realization of the dream 
 of Mr. Jefferson, "equal opportunity to all, special privileges to none." 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 THE RIGHT OF REVOLUTION 
 
 One of the principles of government upon which this nation was 
 founded is the principle of revolution. The foundation of every doctrine 
 taught in the Declaration of Independence is freedom and equality. 
 Upon that doctrine is based the theory that the purpose of government is 
 
22 THE RIGHT OF REVOLUTION 
 
 to secure the life, liberty and happiness of all men, and likewise die 
 theory that every just power of government must be derived from the 
 consent of the people. The principle of revolution was added as a safe- 
 guard to the other principles of government proclaimed in the Declara- 
 tion of Independence. Therefore we are told that whenever any form 
 of government becomes destructive of these principles freedom, equality, 
 Hfe, liberty, happiness, or the authority of the people collectively then 
 it becomes the duty of the people to aker or abolish that form of gov- 
 ernment, and to institute a new government, laying its foundation, and 
 organizing its form in such a manner as seems most likely to effect their 
 safety and happiness. This is the basis of the doctrine of revolution ad- 
 hered to by the American Revolutionists, and still adhered to by every 
 American imbued with the spirit in which this nation was founded. 
 
 Thomas Jefferson defended the right of revolution in his first in- 
 augural address, taking office as president of the United States, speaking 
 ing of certain rights that should be maintained at all coste. He named 
 the following as such: Fret: and fair elections participated in by all 
 the people, and the sword of revolution where peaceful methods are not 
 provided." John Adams, speaking in defense of reyolution, said: "The 
 furnace of affliction produces refinement in states as well as individuals." 
 Daniel Webster, in his debates with Mr. Hayne, of South Carolina, 
 quoted Blackstone to prove that revolution was a civil right. Wendell 
 Phillips and Abraham Lincoln were both champions of the principle of 
 revolution. Mr. Lincoln, on this subject, said: "This country, toith 
 its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they 
 shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their con- 
 stitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember 
 or overthrow it. Why should there not be a patient confidence in the 
 ultimate justice of the people. Is there any better or equal hope in the 
 worlds- 
 Only the Socialists and those in sympathy with them are to-day de- 
 fending this principle, as did Mr. Lincoln, Mr. Jefferson and the early 
 American patriot?. Therefore the Socialists arc opposed by the ruling 
 class to-day as the American Revolutionists were opposed by royalty 
 and ari.'tocracy, and as Lincoln was opposed by the slave owning aris- 
 tocracy. 
 
 Ore of the doctrines of the American Revolutionists was that 
 "when protection is withdrawn, allegiance should cease." Should the 
 American people adopt that rule to-day, that is, give our allegiance to 
 the government orly to the extent that the government affords protection to 
 life, liberty and happiness, the allegiance of a great majority would be 
 withdrawn. I do not intend here to recite in detail the grievances of th'- 
 American people against the clase character qf the American govern- 
 
THE RIGHT OF REVOLUTION 23 
 
 ment. The grievances of the American Revolutionists or the contumely 
 borne by them was practically nothing in comparison to the exploitation, 
 poverty and degradation borne patiently by the working class of the 
 twentieth ctntury. The American Revolutionist did not have to send 
 his children to mill, mine, shop and factory. To-day the number of 
 child laborers in the United States is equal to the entire population at 
 the time of the American Revolution. The American Revolutionist did 
 not have to send his wife out as a wage worker, nor his daughter to 
 work for a pittance in any ckpartme.it store, nor was he called upon 
 to furnish from his fireside five hundred thousand inmates for Louses of 
 ill repute. All of this is borne by the American working class to-day. 
 ITie American Revolutionist had free access to the land. To-day this 
 is denied to three-fourths of the population. The American Revolu- 
 tionist could work for himself or find an employer. To-day there 
 are millions of people unable to find employment at all, and the very 
 nature of capitalistic production piO^Jaces a large army of unemployed, 
 and, to hundreds of thousand's of these life has become a burden, and to 
 millions of them the word "liberty" is a mere mockery-. Therefore the 
 Socialists proclaim a revolution; not a revolution of violence, but a revo- 
 lution just the same. 
 
 Revolution is not something apart from evolution, but is a part of 
 evolution. If you would, by force, open a rose bud before the evolu- 
 tionary process had prepared for the revolutionary cisis of blooming, you 
 would produce a reaction and not a revolution. Likewise, if you were 
 to open an egg in process of hatching several days before the evolutionary 
 process was complete, you would produce a reaction, not a revolution. 
 The revolutionary action in breaking an egg shell or the bursting of a 
 rosebud must be at the time when the evolutionary process has thor- 
 oughly prepared the way for the revolutionary action. 
 
 The Socialists hold that no old society has ever passed away unlil 
 it has developed all the productive forces for which there was room 
 within the old society, and ihat no new society has ever arisen until the 
 material conditions for its existence have been developed out of the womb 
 of the old society. Accordingly the Socialists propose only those 
 changes that are compatible with the economic and intellectual develop- 
 ment of society at the time the change is proposed*; and this is the basis 
 from an evolutionary and scientific standpoint of a social revolu- 
 tion so frequently referred to by the Socialists. 
 
 The material conditions for the disappearance of capitalism and 
 the appearance of a new social order have already developed within 
 capitalist society in the United States. The development of aJl the pro- 
 ductive forces for which there is room within the present society has 
 
24 THE RIGHT OF REVOLUTION 
 
 been more completely accomplished in America than in any other country 
 of the world. 
 
 In the latter part of the eighteenth century, Malthus, an English 
 political economist, pointed out that the population of the earth was in- 
 creasing at a greater ratio than our ability to produce wealth, and that if 
 pestilence did not destroy the lives of millions of the population, that the 
 nations would be compelled to go to war with one another and kill 
 enough of the people in order that the remaining part of the population 
 might have sufficient food, clothing and the necessities of life. The 
 problem of that period was the problem of production, or how to increase 
 the productive forces. The development of the forces of modern pro- 
 duction has not only solved that problem, but is forcing all the great na- 
 tions of the world to-day to grapple with the problem of consumption. 
 "How can we get a market for what we have the ability to produce," 
 is the economic problem which chiefly concerns the statesmanship of 
 every country. This problem cannot be solved by wars of commercial 
 conquest, nor by any kind of tariff legislation; nor can it be solved by any 
 kind of reformed legislation calculated to place limitations upon the 
 power of gigantic corporations. There is only one solution of the great 
 economic problem of our nation the problem of consumption. The 
 solution is to increase the consumptive capacity of the people until the 
 consumptive capacity equals their productive capacity. This can be 
 done by removing the limitations now placed upon the consumptive 
 ability of the great majority of people. To illustrate, out of every five 
 million dollars' worth of wealth produced by the working class in 
 America, ihe working class receive in wages only one million. Hence, 
 they can consume only one-fifth of their total product. The capitalist 
 class, who receive four-fifths of the total wealth production are numer- 
 ically too small to consume very much. The only solution, therefore, 
 to the economic problem of this nation is the abolition of the wage sys- 
 tem, and as the wage system arises from the capitalist class ownership of 
 the means of production, it follows that the social revolution in all coun- 
 tries must mean the abolition of the class ownership of the material in- 
 struments of social wealth production, and a substitution of collective 
 ownership and democratic management of all means of social wealth pro- 
 duction. 
 
 This is the revolution. The program of the Socialist, for its ac- 
 complishment is to unite the working class and all in sympathy with the 
 working class into a political party separate and distinct from all parties 
 of the capitalist class. Thus organized, the working class wages the 
 class struggle in city, county, state and nation. First, the Socialist will 
 take possession of the political power in cities and counties, and this 
 power will be the basis of the conquest of the political power of the states 
 
THE RIGHT OF REVOLUTION 25 
 
 and nation. When the political power of the nation falls into the hands 
 of the Socialist, the Socialist will then transform capitalist property in 
 the means of production into collective wealth. They will then have 
 power to give legal sanction to this act. The Socialist Party, then, is 
 the legal and constitutional program of the revolutionary movement of 
 the twentieth century. Socialism is the only solution of the economic 
 problem of the nations, and is the only road to democracy. All of the 
 economic development of the past, all the forces of social evolution, all 
 the knowledge arising from the development of modern physical science, 
 as well as the dynamic force of the class struggle, makes certain the dis- 
 appearance of class rule forever, and the appearance of social de- 
 mocracy. 
 
 The United States, on account of material conditions, should be the 
 first country in the world to solve this economic problem. It should, 
 therefore be the first country in the world to begin the inauguration of 
 the social revolution that will transform capitalist society into an associ- 
 ated humanity. The founders of this republic were the first to pro- 
 claim the principles of freedom and equality for all mankind. Let the 
 Socialists of America cause this nation to be the first to lead the world 
 in the realization of what was but a dream in the eighteenth century. 
 
 Judge Gary, Cardinal Gibbons and Governor Woodrow Wilson, 
 each are of the opinion that we are about to have another French revo- 
 lution. Thanks to the Socialists this catastophe will be averted. Any 
 form of violence is incompatible with the intellectual development of the 
 twentieth century. The use of any form of violence in the United 
 States at the present time could only produce reaction, not revolution. 
 
 The Socialist propaganda has been the most potential factor in the 
 development of the social concept, and the social revolution not only 
 includes every country, but the last man in every country. The social 
 revolution liberates the means of life from private ownership and free* the 
 mind as well as the body of all mankind. It will free society from 
 class rule, class struggles, and the acts of violence arising therefrom. 
 
 The social revolution is on now; it is the greatest thing in the 
 world, and to its successful and peaceful accomplishment all Socialists 
 pledge their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. 
 
26 THE CONSTITUTION AND THE REVOLUTION 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 THE CONSTITUTION AND THE 
 REVOLUTION 
 
 "The American Revolution was a supreme effort on the part of the 
 American colonists to establish a democracy a government in which the 
 will of the people would be supreme. And for a time the democratic 
 spirit manifested itself and some of the early town governments were 
 local democracies. Some of the state constitutions adopted prior to the 
 federal constitution, likewise, expressed the same idea of sovereignty of 
 the people without any constitutional checks or curbs. However, the 
 convention which prepared the constitution of the United States came as 
 a reaction of the revolution and was clearly an endeavor on the part of 
 its framers to check, stifle, and nullify all the possibilities of popular 
 government fought for by the American Revolutionists. At the time 
 of the revolution, perhaps one-third of the population were in sympathy 
 \vrth royalty and aristocracy. They were the men in public office under 
 the king, their wealthy and influential friends, Tories, and aristocrats. 
 The fanners, who had fought to make independence possible, at the close 
 of the war found themselves in a deplorable financial condition, and 
 were compelled to set themselves to the task of making a living for 
 themselves and families. At this juncture, the Tory influence became 
 active, and when the conveution was called in 1 787 to amend the 
 Articles of Confederation, the element which had opposed the revolu- 
 tion seemed to be in complete control, and none of the most prominent 
 men of the revolution were delegates. Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, 
 Thomas Paine, and such men were conspicuous only by their absence. 
 The convention, instead of pursuing the business for which it was sp 
 cifically called, assumed, without authority, the task of making a con- 
 stitution for the United States government. The deliberations of said 
 constitutional convention were kept a close secret by the members, and 
 the public kept in total ignorance of the work of the body. This act 
 within itself was not only enough to cast suspicion on the acts of the dele- 
 gates, but was un-American, and unworthy of the men who claimed to 
 represent anything in the semblance of the ideal of popular government, 
 and it was many years -after the acjo^jfion of the Constitution before the 
 public had access to the records of the Constitutional Convention. That 
 the suspicions held, and the accusations hurled against the members of 
 
THE CONSTITUTION AND THE REVOLUTION 27 
 
 the convention at that time are true have been amply attested by over a 
 century's experience. 
 
 The United States Constitution was never ratified by popular vote 
 of the people and it is certain that it would have been rejected if sub- 
 mitted to a popular vote. "Had the decision been left to what is now 
 called the vote of the people, that is, to the mass of citizens all over the 
 country, voting at the polls, the voice of the people would have probably 
 pronounced against the Constitution." (American Commonwealth 
 Bryce.) That there was popular disapproval of the action of the Con- 
 stitutional Convention in conducting its deliberations in secret and as- 
 suming powers not delegated to it is shown by a speech delivered by Mr. 
 James Wilson before the Pennsylvania Convention in favor of the ratifi- 
 cation of the Constitution. It will be seen trfat the only defense he gave 
 of himself and his colleagues was to tell a humorous story to make the 
 people laugh and thus detract their attention from the real issue. The 
 extract from Mr. Wilson's speech referred to is as follows: "The 
 business, we are told, which was entrusted k> the late Convention was 
 merely to amend the present Articles of Confederation. This observa- 
 tion has been frequently made, and has often brought to my mind a 
 story that is related of Mr. Pope, who, as is well known, was not a 
 little deformed. It was customary with him to use this phrase, 'God 
 mend me,' wfien any little accident hapj^ened. One evening a link-boy 
 was lighting him along and coming to a gutter the boy jumped nimbly 
 over it,. Mr. Pope called to him to turn, adding, 'God mend me.' 
 Tte arch-rogue, turning to light him, looked at him, and repeated, 'God 
 mend you! He would sooner make a half doeen new ones.'* This 
 would apply to the present Confederation, for it would be easier to make 
 another than to amend this." (Elliott's Debates. Vol. 2, p. 470.) 
 
 The framers of the United States Constitution did not intend that 
 instrument to provide for a democracy. "It has been common," says a 
 late Justice of the United States Supreme Court, "to designate our 
 form of government as a democracy, but in the true sense of which that 
 term is properly used as defining a government in which all its acts are 
 performed by the people, it is about as far from it as any other of which 
 I am aware." (S. F. Miller, Lectures on the Constitution of the 
 United States, pp. 84-85.) The Constitution, furthermore, did not 
 provide for a republic. A republic is a form of government in which the 
 legislative, executive and judicial powers are exercised by repsesenta- 
 trvee of the people, said representatives being elected by the people and re- 
 sponsible to them. 
 
 The elaborate system of checks and curbs embodied in the Constitu- 
 tion was intended to take the power out of the hands of the people and 
 place it in the hands of a select few who could be relied upon to protect 
 
26 THE CONSTITUTION AND THE REVOLUTION 
 
 the rich and powerful minority against the poor but struggling majority. 
 
 Thus the Constitution has become the citadel of strength and power 
 of corporate greed, public service corporations, and aggregated wealth 
 used in the exploitation of manhood, womanhood, and childhood. 
 
 The Constitutional plan for placing all governmental power in the 
 hands of the few for the protection of the rich is defended to-day by ev- 
 ery apologist of the present social order. Judge William Howard Taft, 
 while speaking before the American Bar Association in 1895, on "Re- 
 cent Criticisms of the Federal Judiciary," spoke in part as follows: 
 "While Socialism, as such, has not obtained much of a foot-hold in this 
 country, schemes which are necessarily Socialistic in their nature are 
 accepted planks in the platform of a large political party. The under- 
 lying principle of such schemes is that it is the duty of the government to 
 equalize the inequalities which the rights of free contract and private 
 property have brought about, and, by enormous outlay, derived as far 
 as possible from the rich, to afford occupation and sustenance to the poor. 
 However disguised such plans of social and governmental reform are, 
 they find their support in the willingness of their advocates to transfer 
 without compensation from one who has acquired a large part of his ac- 
 quisition to those who have been less prudent, enegetic or fortunate. 
 This, of course, involves confiscation, and the destruction of the principle 
 of private property." (American Bar Association, 1895, p. 246.) 
 
 Modern critics of the Supreme Court would give us the impres- 
 sion that the federal judiciary are usurping power that was neither con- 
 ferred nor implied by the framers of the Constitution. It will become 
 apparent, however, to all those who care to investigate the matter that the 
 powers exercised by the Supreme Court are in harmony with the general 
 plan of checks provided in the Constitution for no other reason than to 
 prevent popular government 
 
 The Constitution provides a national House of Representatives, 
 elected directly by the people, but the representatives of the people 
 could not be trusted by the framers of the Constitution, so a United States 
 Senate was provided for, not elected by the people, but by the State 
 Legislatures. The only idea for the establishment of such a body was 
 to place a balance against the will of the people, and, fearful they 
 might occasionally enter into conspiracy with the House of Representa- 
 tives to pass some law in the interests of the people as opposed to special 
 privileges, provided the veto power to be placed in the hands of the 
 president, a power not exercised by the king of England for over one 
 hundred years; and finally, as the ultimate safeguard to protect the 
 wealthy few against the interests of the majority, a Supreme Court was 
 provided, also exercising the veto power in case both the legislative and 
 executive departments of government should enter into said conspiracy, 
 
THE CONSTITUTION AND THE REVOLUTION 29 
 
 and in order to remove thb court entirely out of the reach of the public, 
 they were to be appointed, and appointed for life. Thus the destruction 
 of the spirit in which this nation was born became complete as far as 
 the Constitution could make it. The powers exercised by the Supreme 
 Court of the United States are by far greater than the power exercised 
 by any similar body in any country in the world. Their power does 
 not end in declaring acts of Congress null and void, but reaches out and 
 destroys the principle of democracy in the various state governments as 
 well. The Supreme Court not only passes upon the constitutionality of 
 laws passed by the House of Representatives of the State Legislature 
 concurred in by the Senate, signed by the Governor, and approved by 
 the State Supreme Court, but goes even further, and is now passing upon 
 the constitutionality of an act of the people of Oregon in establishing for 
 themselves direct legislation through the initiative and referendum, con- 
 stitutional amendments made by an overwhelming majority of the popular 
 vote of that State. Thus the Supreme Court in passing its decision on 
 the Oregon case at the same time passes upon the right of the people of 
 every other state to amend their Constitution for the purpose of estab- 
 lishing direct legislation or any other measure decided by popular major- 
 ity within the State. 
 
 (Note Since writing the above paragraph the Supreme Court de- 
 clined to pass upon the Oregon case at all; not because it did not have 
 power to do so under the Constitution, but for the reason it did not care 
 to exercise the powers vested in the Court by the Constitution just at this 
 time when popular sentiment is demanding an extension of the demo- 
 cratic idea.) 
 
 While the United States Supreme Court has power to repress the 
 expression of democracy in State governments, the State Legislatures like- 
 wise have the same power to curb the disposition of municipal democ- 
 racy by the exercise of the veto power on city charters for local self- 
 government. Thus we see the Constitution places all power at the top 
 in order that the power at the bottom may be kept bound and gagged. 
 
 The question is, how long will the people consent to have their voices 
 muffled and their feet manacled by an instrument deliberately framed for 
 that purpose. William Lloyd Garrison, in his Liberator, as early as 
 1 83 1 , said: "The Constitution of the United States was a contract with 
 hell, a compact with infamy." 
 
 J. Allen Smith, in his book. Spirit of the American Government" 
 (p. 104), a book that every advocate of popular government should 
 read ays: "It is easy to see in the exaltation of the federal judiciary 
 a survival of the old mediaeval doctrine that the king can do no wrong. 
 In fact, much the same attitude of mind which made monarchy possible 
 may be seen in this country in our attitude toward the Supreme Court" 
 
30 THE CONSTITUTION AND THE REVOLUTION 
 
 The makers of the Constitution made amendment to it almost im- 
 possible. 
 
 The abolition of the Senate, the withdrawal of the veto power frdrrt 
 the president, the taking from the Supreme Court its unjust and unprece- 
 dented powers of passing upon the constitutionality of the acts of Con- 
 gress or the right of the people to directly amend their State Constitu- 
 tions by popular vote, and making it elective and directly responsible tti 
 the people, are Constitutional amendments that an overwhelming majority 
 of the American people would vote for. But the Constitution cannot bf 
 amended by a majority of the people, nor a majority of the States; the 
 provision to amend requires the action of three-fourths of the States. 
 
 The Constitution of the United States was conceived in secret, born 
 of monarchical influence, and was not only a conspiracy against the lib- 
 erty fought for by the American Revolutionists, but against the liberty of 
 posterity as well, and if it cannot be amended so as to become an instru- 
 ment of popular government and a defense of the majority in their struggle 
 for life and liberty against the aggressions and tyranny of the wealthy 
 few, then the necessities and intelligence of the people of the twentieth 
 century will compel them to interpret the Constitution in the interests of 
 humanity under the conditions of the twentieth century, or, if this is im- 
 possible, the people have the power to abolish it. 
 
 A decision of the State Supreme Court of Wisconsin rendered Nov. 
 16. 1911. passing upon the constitutionality of a workmen's compensation 
 act. passed by the last session of the Legislature, gives expression to a 
 thought that is not only timely, but that should be impressed on the minds 
 of the people of all countries. Said decision was written by Chief Jus- 
 tice Winslow. and from it we quote as follows: 
 
 "When an eighteenth century Constitution forms the charter of 
 liberty of a twentieth century government, must its general provisions be 
 construed and interpreted by an eighteenth century mind, surounded by 
 twentieth century conditions and ideals? Clearly not. This were to 
 command the race to halt in its progress, to stretch the State upon a 
 veritable bed of procrustes." 
 
SOCIALISM AND THE AMERICAN FLAG 31 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 SOCIALISM AND THE AMERICAN FLAG 
 
 An appropriate summary of this little pamphlet could perhaps best 
 be made by a short interpretation of the Stars and Stripes. 
 
 In previous chapters we have attempted to give an interpretation of 
 real Americanism, and the Flag of the United States is emblematic of 
 those principles adhered to by the founders of this government. 
 
 Since the Socialists are to-day th- only real defenders of those 
 principles, they likewise become the real defenders of the flag that rep- 
 resents those principles. 
 
 The capitalist class of the United States do not believe in a single 
 principle represented by the American Flag. But on the other hand, 
 use it to hide behind while they destroy every principle for which the Flag 
 stands. Dr. Samuel Johnson once said: "Patriotism is the last refuge 
 of a scoundrel." Experience in the United States in the last few years 
 has proven this statement to be true. 
 
 The most intelligent Socialist, as well as all other intelligent men 
 and women, are not much given to fetish worship. To-day it is not 
 the emblem of a thing the people want, it is the thing itself; not the 
 shadow, but the substance. The Socialists stand for everything repre- 
 sented by the Stars and Stripes, and will not be satisfied until they have 
 all those things, not in theory merely, but in reality. 
 
 The blue field in the American Flag stands for equality, the stars 
 in this blue field stand for the states; the equality of the states and the 
 equality of all the people of all the states. 
 
 The white in the American Flag stands for the purity of the purpose 
 of government, the purpose of government being life, liberty and the 
 pursuit of happiness for all. 
 
 The red in the American Flag stands for brotherhood and typifies 
 the blood shed by the American Revolutionists in their endeavor to 
 establish liberty, equality and democracy. 
 
 The red Flag of Socialism represents exactly the same thing for 
 all the world that the red in the Stars and Stripes stands for to the 
 American citizen. 
 
 The red of the Stars and Stripes represents brotherhood and equal- 
 ity in the United States; the red flag of Socialism means that the blood 
 of all men is red, and represents the brotherhood and equality of the 
 people of all the world. 
 
 The triumph of Socialism in the United States can alone mak* 
 possible the realization of those conditions of which the American Flag 
 is only an emblem. 
 
THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE 
 STAMPED BELOW 
 
 AN INITIAL FINE OF 25 CENTS 
 
 WILL BE ASSESSED FOR FAILURE TO RETURN 
 THIS BOOK ON THE DATE DUE. THE PENALTY 
 WILL INCREASE TO SO CENTS ON THE FOURTH 
 DAY AND TO S1.OO ON THE SEVENTH DAY 
 OVERDUE. 
 
Photomount 
 
 p amphlet 
 
 Binder 
 
 Gaylord Bros., I nc 
 
 Makers 
 Stockton, Calif 
 
 W.W2I.190B 
 
 886380 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY