Where is there in all
the English language to-day a word which will stir, and fire the
hearts of all true Americans, as the the [sic] little word
Anarchy? It serves to arouse, to enrage; it acts as a battle cry.
It calls those who love their country to arise and drive out this
monster; to wipe out this canker which is eating its way into the
heart of our nation, and taking away her vitality, yes, even robbing
her of life.
Anarchy is no abstract term. It is
a living, moving, growing force. The word itself comes from the
Greek and means “private government.” The followers wish to enjoy
individual liberty. Proudhon was the first man who made any attempt
to formulate in any scientific way this new idea. In his work, “What
is Property?” he claims that the laws regulating property are the
causes for all the social evils in existence, but he admits that
to destroy the state would cause misery; while to divide would do
away with the expolition of the weak by the strong, but would only
reverse the evil.
Proudhon advocates contract. His plan
is to have every person promise certain things, and to live up to
these promises with out [sic] being bound by law, or the
consequences of law. His is a very high plane; a kind of Utopian
dream. He wants to do away with all money, and to give service for
service, and produce for produce.
The followers of this leader are called
“individualists,” and Boston is their headquarters. The United States
is just as much under this ban as any of the powers. They show contempt
for elections, voting and courts. They claim—
“That laws are like cobwebs, where
the small flies are caught, and the great break through.”
“Laws govern the poor and the rich
men rule the law.”
These individualists have one redeeming
virtue: they do not advocate deeds of violence to accomplish their
ends. They hope, rather, for a peaceful evolution, not by the destruction
of private property, but only of state property.
On Russia falls the stigma of having
given birth to the most malignant form of anarchy. These Russian
anarchists called themselves “men without chiefs.” Their manifesto
declared them to be against all who had, or wished to have power;
such as landowners, capitalists [sic] employers and the state;
and abstractions of authority, such as God and the devil. They promised
aid to all who would deny laws by revolutionary acts. “We reject
all legal methods.” “We spurn the suffrage called universal.” “We
wish to remain our own masters.” “Nevertheless, we know that individual
liberty cannot exist without association with other free comrades.”
So these anarchists call themselves “the free association.” They
are not willing to band together and seek a higher and better manhood,
which would have higher civilization, and a natural elimination
of force as a result, but they demand action at once, and will use
force to gain their ends. They fail to see that—
“Who to himself is law, no law doth need,
“Offends no law and is a king indeed.”
All this is a setting
forth of the history of a people who know no God and recognize no
law. They could read the promise of failure in the Bible, were they
to look, for there we are told that, “The people who know their
God shall be strong.”
Anarchy is a problem and it falls
directly in the line of Sociology to solve it. Sociology can prove
its speedy downfall better than any other science. The socialist
[sic] can prove that the very theory which anarchy advances
and advocates, has never existed and can never exist. History cannot
produce a single example of complete and perfect results brought
about by anarchy, even in small associations. Where is there any
human being perfectly free from external authority or influence?
Anarchists believe in society. Of
what is society composed if not of association and aggregation?
Why is it that our police force always keeps a watchful eye on the
anarchist leaders if there are not such?
Criminal Sociology has no greater
problem to deal with, for anarchy is not a single crime, but all
crime. It is not the breaking of the one commandment, “Thou shalt
not kill,” but it virtually breaks all the other nine. It covets
all that others possess; it knows and recognizes no law.
Is it a disease? It is the worst kind
of a disease, and malignant in its nature, spreading rapidly and
giving a hereditary taint to the unhappy children, which they carry
with them to dishonored graves.
If anarchy is a disease, is it worse
than insanity? Is it worse than leprosy? Does it do more harm than
intemperance? It is worse than any or or all of these. We have a
place for our insane; they pass their wretched lives in confinement.
We can put leprosy so far away from us that there is no danger of
contagion. We cure our drunkards, or send them to jail when they
overstep our just laws, and yet we harbor in our midst the greatest
hot-bed of crime any country has ever produced.
Our nation slept, and as a thief in
the night this power crept and with stealthy steps, and deadly certainty
it stole away our nation’s chief, our well beloved President. And
now the word “anarchy” should ring out as a battle cry, calling
to these mighty free-born men of ours to avenge our wrong. There
should be no division. North and South, blue and gray, should stand
together in this battle against crime.
We look at them, as our minds picture
them. There is our former Presdent [sic], so great, so noble
and so good, leaving this world with a prayer on his lips and the
glory of the hereafter shining on his face, and then we look with
a shudder at the contrast when we place the murderer beside him.
They are both men, but what a difference!
When Czolgosz fired that fatal shot
America awoke, and already a blow has been aimed at anarchy which
will wipe the dark blot from the fair face of our fair country.
She has suffered, she has bled, she has wept, but underneath her
mourning robes we see a glimmer of the stars and stripes, and the
strong right arm of the nation is ready for action, and success
is written in our nation’s motto, “In God We Trust.”