Publication information |
Source: Truth Seeker Source type: magazine Document type: letter to the editor Document title: “‘Reds’ vs. Philosophical Anarchists” Author(s): Livesey, Francis B. Date of publication: 19 October 1901 Volume number: 28 Issue number: 42 Pagination: 666 |
Citation |
Livesey, Francis B. “‘Reds’ vs. Philosophical Anarchists.” Truth Seeker 19 Oct. 1901 v28n42: p. 666. |
Transcription |
full text |
Keywords |
Republic [organization]; anarchism (dealing with); anarchism (public response); anarchism; Leon Czolgosz (as anarchist); schools, public; society (criticism); society (impact on Czolgosz); anarchism (Home, WA); anarchism (personal response). |
Named persons |
Kate Austin; William Jennings Bryan; Leon Czolgosz; Francis B. Livesey; James F. Morton, Jr.; David Overmyer [misspelled below]; Leo Tolstoy. |
Notes |
Click here to
view a letter to the editor by Henry Addis written in response to the
letter below.
Click here to
view a letter to the editor by J. A. Wilson written in response to the
letter below.
Click here to view the letter to the editor by Kate Austin referenced below. |
Document |
“Reds” vs. Philosophical Anarchists
Press dispatches state that an organization, to
be known as the “Republic,” is being formed in Chicago to do battle under oath-bound
processes with Anarchists. At the same time it has been declared that men of
the Czolgosz type are not true Anarchists and that true Anarchism is perfectly
peaceable—of the Count Tolstoy type. It is a fact that the philosophic Anarchists
of the Tolstoy type are diametrically opposed to the “reds,” and it is also
a fact that for the past few years they have been exerting a wholesome influence
upon the “reds” by showing them a “more excellent way.” It only needs a little
further work along this line, together with the enforcement of such laws as
we already have, to make of red Anarchy a thing of the past, so far as this
country is concerned, at least.
An organization such as the “Republic” is calculated
to interfere greatly with the pacific work of the philosophic Anarchists, and
throw the reds back to all those detestable resorts for which they have been
famous. When we see converts approaching the mourner’s bench under the peaceable
teaching of some proficients in the line it should be the part of wisdom to
encourage them on to the new, rather than to excite them to go back again to
their past. The country is in no danger from Anarchists. Czolgosz would never
have been heard of had he found the “luck” in life that he expected. He was
an offshoot of our public schools and not of Anarchy. He said: “I received my
education in the public schools of Detroit. I never had much luck at anything,
and this preyed upon me. It made me morose and envious.”
There are thousands of young men in this country
at this minute who say the same as the above. They are to be found everywhere.
They expected to receive “soft snaps” as their portion in life. They were educated
to believe that the work of their fathers was beneath them. In their disappointment,
some take revenge on society in one way and some in another. Socialists tell
us there are 3,500,000 tramps, other authorities say 60,000. They are all the
product of the public schools. Our fathers knew them not. Added to them is the
large number of young men, like Czolgosz, who are drifting around without steady
employment and from whom anything can be expected. If we were educating the
rising generations aright, these tramp and half-employed classes would cease
to exist[.] Czolgosz assumed the role of a red Anarchist; but the philosophical
Anarchists repudiate him, his act, and all who agree with him.
Anarchists of the Tolstoy type seek to live in
perfect harmony with mankind. They want to educate men up to the regenerated
heart condition in which each may be a law unto himself, and, in harmony with
God, man, and nature, live out life without law and without war. As the churchman
says, he wants “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is done in
heaven,” so the philosophic Anarchists would seek the same practical end. Both
should have an equal right to preach their doctrines and work for their goals.
As we do not extirpate a church community because a murderer develops in
its midst, so we should not seek the extirpation of those peaceful Anarchists
who in word and deed show their abhorrence of blood. Many of the philosophic
Anarchists will not take animal life, and there are some who refuse to eat any
flesh that ever had life, or even wear [l]eather that is made from hide.
It is, of course, folly to suppose that in the
present condition of society, life and property would be for a moment secure
without law. The Jacksonville fire and the Galveston flood prove that. We also
know that in no city or hamlet of the land can a man keep one thousand dollars
in his own home and be certain of his life. We should welcome any sect or party
that, however remotely, seriously attempts to remedy human crime either by educating
the mind philosophically or by regenerating the human heart. A precedent for
life without rulers has been furnished by the scriptures. It is found in Judges
xvii, 6: “In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that
which was right in his own eyes.” As men grow into obedience to the law of nature,
or the law of God witten [sic] in the heart, they must become of one mind in
all things, in which “the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man” is recognized,
and it follows that they can live without any human law whatever. But this highest
of attainments is the very opposite of the lowest of vices, and men seeking
either nature’s harmony or God’s image should not be confounded with assassins.
One of these philosophic groups of Anarchists
has heen [sic] in existence for some time at Home, Washington; and since the
assassination they have been visited by a reporter of the News, of Tacoma, and
long accounts are given of them in that paper of Sept. 11 and 12. The editor,
much fairer than the Tacoma Ledger, gave Editor Morton of the Home group a full
hearing, but, yielding to the excitement of the moment, pronounced against the
group and advocated their extermination, or deportation, or suppression in some
form. If these people were “red” Anarchists I would have no word of defense
for them, but as it is, I have sought to defend them in the News and all other
Press-Writers should do the same. Many editors, politicians, and others are
coming forward with quite a change of front toward the Anarchists and are publicly
demanding that the philosophical class, Quaker-like as they are, are not to
be classed with the “reds.”
The Kansas City Times lately gave an article on
this line from the pen of the veteran old Democrat, Hon. David Overmeyer of
Kansas. The same was copied in Bryan’s Commoner of Oct. 4, Mr. Bryan indicating
that he, too, is partial to a distinction being made. Among other things, Mr.
Overmeyer says:
“I have long known that there are people calling
themselves Anarchists who do not believe in murder or violence. The time has
come, however, when these should change their name. Anarchy was always a bad
name for people who want peace and who yearn for a Platonic age. They adopted
that name after it had gained an evil significance. If they look forward to
Utopia or the millennium, they might call themselves ‘Utopians’ or ‘Millennialists.’
If they favor the idea of non-resistance to evil they might be ‘Tolstoians.’
The word Anarchy should be blotted from the vocabulary of civilization.”
My idea was along Mr. Overmeyer’s line before
I heard from him, and I now find that many of the Press-Writers think the same.
We have among our Press-Writers a number of these philosophical Anarchists.
Miss Kate Austin is one of them and she has just appeared in the Baltimore American
in repudiation of assassins and force in every form. In circular 3300 a few
of the Press-Writers are classified as specialists on philosophical Anarchists;
but in all of that circular that I henceforth send out I will substitute “Individualism”
as their specialty, and I trust that others will do the same without equivocation.
“A rose is just as sweet by any other name.”
The bigots of every class are availing of the
present excitement to call for the suppression of every species of Liberalism,
and every Liberal in the country must in one way or another gird himself to
do battle for his liberties. The Boston Banner of Light of Sept. 21, under the
heading of “Danger,” valiantly called upon the Spiritualists to do their duty.
So it must be with all of the Liberal school. The Masons have also come forth
in defense of free speech and free press, and argue that the nation betrays
its imbecility in exhibiting such a terror over a handful of Anarchists as would
jeopard [sic] the very fundamentals upon which the government is founded in
securing power for their extinction. For myself, I say abolish the public schools;
maintain the people’s voice in the press, and apply such laws as we already
have, and these, accompanied with the propaganda of the philosophical Anarchists,
will be all-sufficient to preserve us from the red Anarchists.
F
B. L .Sykesville, Md.