Publication information |
Source: Worker Source type: newspaper Document type: editorial Document title: “The Lesson of the Attempted Assassination” Author(s): anonymous City of publication: New York, New York Date of publication: 15 September 1901 Volume number: 11 Issue number: 24 Pagination: 2 |
Citation |
“The Lesson of the Attempted Assassination.” Worker 15 Sept. 1901 v11n24: p. 2. |
Transcription |
full text |
Keywords |
McKinley assassination (personal response: socialists); William McKinley (criticism); McKinley presidency (criticism); McKinley assassination (public response: criticism); McKinley assassination (news coverage: criticism); freedom of speech (restrictions on); McKinley assassination (sympathizers). |
Named persons |
Otto von Bismarck; Leon Czolgosz; William McKinley; Valeriano Weyler y Nicolau. |
Document |
The Lesson of the Attempted Assassination
There can be but one opinion among clear-thinking
Socialists in regard to the attempt upon the life of President McKinley—that
the man who committed it played the part, both of a criminal and of a fool.
No man who understands the social system in which
we live and who is capable of reasoning from cause to effect could suppose that
the killing of the head of the government or of any number of public officials
or even of the great capitalists who dictate the actions of those officials
could right the wrongs of this system or give liberty to those whom the capitalists
and their official agents exploit. On the contrary, such attempts can only put
off the day of the social revolution which is to bring Labor’s emancipation.
It is surely not necessary for us further to emphasize
our condemnation of the crime, for the public is rapidly learning that the Socialist
movement has no toleration for the assassination policy, that it represents
the very opposite of Anarchism.
As men and women who look forward with hope to
the end of violence and needless suffering, we sympathize with the man William
McKinley in his pain and with his wife in her grief. Our opposition to the principles
he represents and our utter condemnation of his whole political career should
not deter us from feeling or expressing such human sympathy.
But in the storm of hysterical talk that has been
raised, in the midst of the unthinking condemnation which has been carried to
the point of rant and the often insincere condolence which has been carried
to the point of gush—it is right that the sane and the sincere should speak
certain words of protest and of comment.
We are sorry for the man who has lain a week between
life and death.
But we do not forget that this same man is the
responsible head of the administration which supplied rotten meat to its enlisted
soldiers and allowed men suffering from dysentery and typhoid fever to go without
medicine, without proper food, without nurses—while army contractors, supporters
of that administration, were counting their profits in the millions.
We do not forget that this same man is the chief
executive of the nation, charged with the enforcement of the laws; that among
those laws was one relating to the use of safety appliances on railroads; that
this president has allowed that law to go unenforced through the five years
that he has been in office; and that, owing to his criminal negligence, thousands
of poor widows and orphans weep over railway workers’ graves and tens of thousands
of workingmen have suffered needless pain and danger as great as he feels now—while
the railroad capitalists, who contributed to his election, have swelled their
dividends by this manifold murder.
We do not forget that this man, as president,
of his own personal and uncompelled volition, sent troops (negro troops, carefully
chosen for the purpose) into the Cœur d’Alenes to crush the miners’ strike,
to overturn all civil laws, to re-enact at the Bull Pen the horrors of Weyler’s
Cuban campaign, to railroad innocent men to prison, and to establish for the
benefit of the Standard Oil Company, a system of military despotism hateful
to all the American traditions he professed to hold so dear.
All these are historic [sic] facts, as well attested
as Czolgosz’ [sic] act of last week; and we see no reason why we should forget
them now. If we sympathize with him as a man in mortal pain, we sympathize a
thousand times more deeply with the fever stricken soldiers in those “hospital”
corps, with the maimed and slaughtered railway toilers, with the miners hounded
from their homes in Idaho.
The public has, not unnaturally, grown hysterical
over this crime; and the capitalist newspapers have (with a few honorable exceptions)
done their utmost to lash this hysteria into madness.
The New York “Herald” (a paper too cowardly to
express an opinion save when it is sure of being on the popular side) has been
loudly clamoring for the re-establishment of the tortures of the inquisition;
and the gilt-edged “Commercial Advertiser” seconds the demand. Others, while
not going to this ridiculous excess, are still demanding the enactment of special
laws against “dangerous agitators,” like the famous exception laws of Germany.
If they would but have learned from history they
would know that cruel punishments never prevent crime, but always provoke it.
And the history of the Socialist movement in Germany, growing from year to year
in spite of Bismarck’s “blood and iron” policy should teach them the suicidal
folly of their plans. But it is always the fate of a ruling class to suffer
from its own foolish cowardice. They are afraid of free speech; and when they
begin to curb free speech their cause for fear is trebled.
If they were wise—if the agents of class rule
ever could be wise—instead of talking about repressive laws, they would be asking
for the causes of such crimes and trying to remove them.
There is no considerable class or group of the
American people that seriously approves of assassination. It is highly improbable
that Czolgosz’ [sic] act was even the result of a conspiracy—though the police
will do their best, now as in 1885, to prove or to manufacture such a conspiracy.
But it is remarkable that even the news of the
capitalist press shows how little real indignation or sorrow has been stirred
among the people. And all over the country, in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania,
Ohio, Illinois, and elsewhere, individuals or groups of men—native Americans,
and by no means revolutionists—have impulsively expressed joy at the attempt.
What does this mean? It means that there is a
most wide-spread and deep-seated discontent in the land, a feeling that injustice
prevails and that the government is its agent, a feeling of blind antagonism
to the ruling class. This discontent will express itself in violence only in
the case of some unbalanced “crank” like Czolgosz. On the other hand, it has
not yet learned to express itself in peaceful, intelligent, and organized action.
The Socialists are teaching it that.
But the capitalists cannot or will not learn that
such crimes as this always have their cause in justified social unrest—that
the real guilt lies finally at the door of those who have disinherited their
fellowmen and would make of them mere hewers of wood and drawers of water.
There is one way and only one of guarding against
the repetition of such wild and disastrous outbreaks as this. That was is to
establish social justice, to inaugurate real freedom and equality, to create
genuine social content and fraternity by the overthrow of capitalism and the
building up of the Socialist Commonwealth.