| Publication information | 
|  
       Source: Chicago Sunday Tribune Source type: newspaper Document type: editorial Document title: “Assassinations Increasing in Number” Author(s): Slater, G. City of publication: Chicago, Illinois Date of publication: 15 September 1901 Volume number: 60 Issue number: 258 Part/Section: 2 Pagination: 13  | 
  
| Citation | 
| Slater, G. “Assassinations Increasing in Number.” Chicago Sunday Tribune 15 Sept. 1901 v60n258: part 2, p. 13. | 
| Transcription | 
| full text | 
| Keywords | 
| anarchism; anarchism (criticism); anarchism (personal response). | 
| Named persons | 
| Mikhail Bakunin; Marie François Sadi Carnot; Victoria. | 
| Notes | 
|  
       A photograph of the author accompanies this editorial on the same page. 
      “By G. Slater, English Political Economist.”  | 
  
| Document | 
  Assassinations Increasing in Number
ASSASSINATION has always played its part in politics. Yet it has been reserved 
  to our own times, strange to say, when less depends upon the person on the throne 
  than ever before, to see the greatest development of this crime. Now that the 
  most autocratic have learned that they must bend their will to the people’s 
  when they clash, now that there is little or nothing to be gained by the crime, 
  the assassin is more in evidence than ever.
       Queen Victoria three times had her life attempted. 
  Persia lost her last Shah by his hand. France lost her Carnot, the beauty and 
  the sorrows of the of the Austrian Empress did not prove sufficient defense 
  from his knife. Even the popularly elected President is his victim.
       What is the reason of this intensification of 
  the natural danger attendant on high places? Anarchism, we are told. The assassin, 
  if he lurked anywhere, was in old times to be found in the person of a kinsman, 
  a courtier, a great noble, some one within the inner circle. Religious fanaticism 
  has also at times been an acute source of danger; but this is obsolete, and 
  no religious body is likely ever again to commend assassination as a duty.
       All the old sources of danger have vanished; the 
  masses of the people are loyal, the only danger that threatens is from the small 
  group of Anarchists.
       Anarchism as an intellectual theory is beneath 
  contempt; but as an intellectual theory it is also the mildest, most optimistic 
  creed ever enunciated by man. It is a curious phenomenon that it is the exponents 
  of this milk-and-water theory who have made their name a terror to society. 
  Bakunin first stated the theory; he and his followers believe in the perfection 
  of human nature. All the social evils round us, they say, are due to the restraints 
  of society; abolish the laws and the law-breaking impulses will cease to work; 
  get rid of governments and men will govern themselves wisely and justly. One 
  cannot argue with people like this; one can only marvel at their ignorance of 
  human nature. Under ordinary conditions a theory so in contradiction to human 
  nature could impose on no sane person. Yet this is the creed which gives us 
  the modern political assassin.
       To throw bombs about, kill this or that ruler 
  taken at random, to massacre a handful of deputies here, and a group of ordinary 
  citizens there, seems a senseless proceeding, but it is the sort of thing fanaticism 
  will turn to when it sees no other course available.
       Probably the connection between the theory of 
  anarchism and this terrible practice of it is less intimate than is generally 
  supposed; the corollary of assassination is probably not drawn by all their 
  teachers, and naturally it is only the craziest of their followers who attempt 
  to put it into execution. The whole thing seems entirely crazy at first sight; 
  the way, above all, in which they make enemies of all classes of society, not 
  only of Princes and rulers but of the bourgeoisie, whom they profess to hate 
  even more, and, indeed, of the masses, the workers whom they profess to benefit. 
  All classes would eagerly join hands to extirpate them if only some practicable 
  scheme should be found—all but the few who are Anarchists themselves. Why are 
  these few Anarchists there? The theory and practice of government are both continually 
  alternating between two poles—the poles of individualism and of socialism. Last 
  century legislation had swung nearer to the individualistic pole than it had 
  ever done before; now it is steadily moving towards to other, and all politicians 
  seem to help on the movement. Anarchism is individualism exaggerated, intensified 
  to the point of absurdity; it is the extreme of one side, just as communism 
  is the extreme of the socialistic tendency. If governments are far more just, 
  more merciful, more tolerant than they were, they are also far more all-pervading, 
  their arms stretch farther and grasp firmer. So it comes about that while formerly 
  discontent was most likely to be found in the upper ranks of society, it is 
  now to be found among the lowest and least educated, among whom the monstrous 
  growth of anarchism is now raising its head.