{
  "schema": "tga.work.v1",
  "identifier": "dresden:vol-7:suicide-of-judge-normile",
  "slug": "suicide-of-judge-normile",
  "title": "Suicide of Judge Normile",
  "subtitle": "Reply to the Western Watchman.",
  "excerpt": "A public reply to a St. Louis Catholic paper's attack on Ingersoll over the suicide of Judge Normile — and a sober, humane discussion of the ethics of suicide itself.",
  "year": 1892,
  "volume": 7,
  "category": "Reply",
  "author": {
    "name": "Robert G. Ingersoll",
    "wikidata": "Q360326",
    "viaf": "44331023"
  },
  "isPartOf": {
    "title": "The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll",
    "edition": "Dresden Edition",
    "publisher": "C. P. Farrell",
    "year": 1900
  },
  "license": "https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/",
  "url": "https://thegreatagnostic.com/works/suicide-of-judge-normile/",
  "wordCount": 17287,
  "body": "*A reply to the Western Watchman, published in the St. Louis\n    Globe Democrat, Sept. 1, 1892.\n\nQuestion. Have you read an article in the Western Watchman, entitled\n\"Suicide of Judge Normile\"? If so, what is your opinion of it?\n\nAnswer. I have read the article, and I think the spirit in which it\nis written is in exact accord with the creed, with the belief, that\nprompted it.\n\nIn this article the writer speaks not only of Judge Normile, but of\nHenry D'Arcy, and begins by saying that a Catholic community had been\nshocked, but that as a matter of fact the Catholics had no right \"to\nfeel special concern in the life or death of either,\" for the reason,\n\"that both had ceased to be Catholics, and had lived as infidels and\nscoffers.\"\n\nAccording to the Catholic creed all infidels and scoffers are on\nthe direct road to eternal pain; and yet, if the Watchman is to be\nbelieved, Catholics have no right to have special concern for the fate\nof such people, even after their death.\n\nThe church has always proclaimed that it was seeking the lost—that\nit was trying in every way to convert the infidels and save the\nscoffers—that it cared less for the ninety-nine sheep safe in the fold\nthan for the one that had strayed. We have been told that God so loved\ninfidels and scoffers, that he came to this poor world and gave his life\nthat they might be saved. But now we are told by the Western Watchman\nthat the church, said to have been founded by Christ, has no right to\nfeel any special concern about the fate of infidels and scoffers.\n\nPossibly the Watchman only refers to the infidels and scoffers who\nwere once Catholics.\n\nIf the New Testament is true, St. Peter was at one time a Christian;\nthat is to say, a good Catholic, and yet he fell from grace and not only\ndenied his Master, but went to the extent of swearing that he did not\nknow him; that he never had made his acquaintance. And yet, this same\nPeter was taken back and became the rock on which the Catholic Church is\nsupposed to rest.\n\nAre the Catholics of St. Louis following the example of Christ, when\nthey publicly declare that they care nothing for the fate of one who\nleft the church and who died in his sins?\n\nThe Watchman, in order to show that it was simply doing its duty, and\nwas not actuated by hatred or malice, assures us as follows: \"A warm\npersonal friendship existed between D'Arcy and Normile and the managers\nof this paper.\" What would the Watchman have said if these men had\nbeen the personal enemies of the managers of that paper? Two warm\npersonal friends, once Catholics, had gone to hell; but the managers\nof the Watchman, \"warm personal friends\" of the dead, had no right to\nfeel any special concern about these friends in the flames of perdition.\nOne would think that pity had changed to piety.\n\nAnother wonderful statement is that \"both of these men determined to go\nto hell, if there was a hell, and to forego the joys of heaven, if there\nwas a heaven.\"\n\nAdmitting that heaven and hell exist, that heaven is a good place, and\nthat hell, to say the least, is, and eternally will be, unpleasant, why\nshould any sane man unalterably determine to go to hell? It is hard to\nthink of any reason, unless he was afraid of meeting those Catholics in\nheaven who had been his \"warm personal friends\" in this world. The truth\nis that no one wishes to be unhappy in this or any other country. The\ntruth is that Henry D'Arcy and Judge Normile both became convinced that\nthe Catholic Church is of human origin, that its creed is not true, that\nit is the enemy of progress, and the foe of freedom. It may be that\nthey were in part led to these conclusions by the conduct of their \"warm\npersonal friends.\"\n\nIt is claimed that these men, Henry D'Arcy and Judge Normile \"studied\"\nto convince themselves \"that there was no God, that they went back to\nPaganism and lived among the ancients,\" and \"that they soon revelled\nin the grossness of Paganism.\" If they went back to Paganism, they\ncertainly found plenty of gods. The Pagans filled heaven and earth with\ndeities. The Catholics have only three, while the Pagans had hundreds.\nAnd yet there were some very good Pagans. By associating with Socrates\nand Plato one would not necessarily become a groveling wretch. Zeno was\nnot altogether abominable. He would compare favorably, at least, with\nthe average pope. Aristotle was not entirely despicable, although wrong,\nit may be, in many things. Epicurus was temperate, frugal and serene. He\nperceived the beauty of use, and celebrated the marriage of virtue and\njoy. He did not teach his disciples to revel in grossness, although his\nmaligners have made this charge. Cicero was a Pagan, and yet he uttered\nsome very sublime and generous sentiments. Among other things, he said\nthis: \"When we say that we should love Romans, but not foreigners, we\ndestroy the bond of universal brotherhood and drive from our hearts\ncharity and justice.\"\n\nSuppose a Pagan had written about \"two warm personal friends\" of his,\nwho had joined the Catholic Church, and suppose he had said this:\n\"Although our two warm personal friends have both died by their own\nhands, and although both have gone to the lowest hell, and are now\nsuffering inconceivable agonies, we have no right to feel any special\nconcern about them or about their sufferings; and, to speak frankly, we\ncare nothing for their agonies, nothing for their tears, and we mention\nthem only to keep other Pagans from joining that blasphemous and\nignorant church. Both of our friends were raised as Pagans, both were\neducated in our holy religion, and both had read the works of our\ngreatest and wisest authors, and yet they fell into apostasy, and\nstudied day and night, in season and out of season, to convince\nthemselves that a young carpenter of Palestine was in fact, Jupiter,\nwhom we call Stator, the creator, the sustainer and governor of all.\"\n\nIt is probable that the editor of the Watchman was perfectly\nconscientious in his attack on the dead. Nothing but a sense of\nreligious duty could induce any man to attack the character of a \"warm\npersonal friend,\" and to say that although the friend was in hell, he\nfelt no special concern as to his fate.\n\nThe Watchman seems to think that it is hardly probable or possible\nthat a sane Catholic should become an infidel. People of every religion\nfeel substantially in this way. It is probable that the Mohammedan is\nof the opinion that no sane believer in the religion of Islam could\npossibly become a Catholic. Probably there are no sane Mohammedans. I do\nnot know.\n\nNow, it seems to me, that when a sane Catholic reads the history of\nhis church, of the Inquisition, of centuries of flame and sword, of\nphilosophers and thinkers tortured, flayed and burned by the \"Bride of\nGod,\" and of all the cruelties of Christian years, he may reasonably\ncome to the conclusion that the Church of Rome is not the best possible\nchurch in this, the best possible of all worlds.\n\nIt would hardly impeach his sanity if, after reading the history of\nsuperstition, he should denounce the Hierarchy, from priest to pope. The\ntruth is, the real opinions of all men are perfectly honest no matter\nwhether they are for or against the Catholic creed. All intelligent\npeople are intellectually hospitable. Every man who knows something of\nthe operations of his own mind is absolutely certain that his wish has\nnot, to his knowledge, influenced his judgment. He may admit that his\nwish has influenced his speech, but he must certainly know that it has\nnot affected his judgment.\n\nIn other words, a man cannot cheat himself in a game of solitaire and\nreally believe that he has won the game. No matter what the appearance\nof the cards may be, he knows whether the game was lost or won. So, men\nmay say that their judgment is a certain way, and they may so affirm in\naccordance with their wish, but neither the wish, nor the declaration\ncan affect the real judgment. So, a man must know whether he believes a\ncertain creed or not, or, at least, what the real state of his mind\nis. When a man tells me that he believes in the supernatural, in the\nmiraculous, and in the inspiration of the Scriptures, I take it for\ngranted that he is telling the truth, although it seems impossible to me\nthat the man could reach that conclusion. When another tells me that he\ndoes not know whether there is a Supreme Being or not, but that he does\nnot believe in the supernatural, and is perfectly satisfied that the\nScriptures are for the most part false and barbarous, I implicitly\nbelieve every word he says.\n\nI admit cheerfully that there are many millions of men and women who\nbelieve what to me seems impossible and infinitely absurd; and,\nundoubtedly, what I believe seems to them equally impossible.\n\nLet us give to others the liberty which we claim for ourselves.\n\nThe Watchman seems to think that unbelief, especially when coupled\nwith what they call \"the sins of the flesh,\" is the lowest possible\ndepth, and tells us that \"robbers may be devout,\" \"murderers penitent,\"\nand \"drunkards reverential.\"\n\nIn some of these statements the Watchman is probably correct. There\nhave been \"devout robbers.\" There have been gentlemen of the highway,\nagents of the road, who carried sacred images, who bowed, at holy\nshrines for the purpose of securing success. For many centuries the\ndevout Catholics robbed the Jews. The devout Ferdinand and Isabella\nwere great robbers. A great many popes have indulged in this theological\npastime, not to speak of the rank and file. Yes, the Watchman is\nright. There is nothing in robbery that necessarily interferes with\ndevotion.\n\nThere have been penitent murderers, and most murderers, unless impelled\nby a religious sense of duty to God, have been penitent. David, with\ndying breath, advised his son to murder the old friends of his father.\nHe certainly was not penitent. Undoubtedly Torquemada murdered without\nremorse, and Calvin burned his \"warm personal friend\" to gain the\napplause of God. Philip the Second was a murderer, not penitent, because\nhe deemed it his duty. The same may be said of the Duke of Alva, and of\nthousands of others.\n\nRobert Burns was not, according to his own account, strictly virtuous,\nand yet I like him better than I do those who planned and carried into\nbloody execution the massacre of St. Bartholomew.\n\nUndoubtedly murderers have been penitent. A man in California cut the\nthroat of a woman, although she begged for mercy, saying at the same\ntime that she was not prepared to die. He cared nothing for her prayers.\nHe was tried, convicted and sentenced to death. He made a motion for\na new trial. This was denied. He appealed to the governor, but the\nexecutive refused to interfere. Then he became penitent and experienced\nreligion. On the scaffold he remarked that he was going to heaven; that\nhis only regret was that he would not meet the woman he had murdered,\nas she was not a Christian when she died. Undoubtedly murderers can be\npenitent.\n\nAn old Spaniard was dying. He sent for a priest to administer the last\nsacraments of the church. The priest told him that he must forgive all\nhis enemies. \"I have no enemies,\" said the dying man, \"I killed the last\none three weeks ago.\" Undoubtedly murderers can be penitent.\n\nSo, I admit that drunkards have been pious and reverential, and I might\nadd, honest and generous.\n\nSome good Catholics and some good Protestants have enjoyed a hospitable\nglass, and there have been priests who used the blood of the grape for\nother than a sacramental purpose. Even Luther, a good Catholic in his\nday, a reformer, a Doctor of Divinity, gave to the world this couplet:\n    \"Who loves not woman, wine and song,\n    Will live a fool his whole life long.\"\n\nThe Watchman, in effect, says that a devout robber is better than an\ninfidel; that a penitent murderer is superior to a freethinker, in the\nsight of God.\n\nAnother curious thing in this article is that after sending both men to\nhell, the Watchman says: \"As to their moral habits we know nothing.\"\n\nIt may then be taken for granted, if these \"warm personal friends\" knew\nnothing against the dead, that their lives were, at least, what the\nchurch calls moral. We know, if we know anything, that there is no\nnecessary connection between what is called religion and morality.\nCertainly there were millions of moral people, those who loved mercy\nand dealt honestly, before the Catholic Church existed. The virtues were\nwell known, and practiced, before a triple crown surrounded the cunning\nbrain of an Italian Vicar of God, and before the flames of the _Auto da\nfe_ delighted the hearts of a Christian mob. Thousands of people died\nfor the right, before the wrong organized the infallible church.\n\nBut why should any man deem it his duty or feel it a pleasure to say\nharsh and cruel things of the dead? Why pierce the brow of death with\nthe thorns of hatred? Suppose the editor of the Watchman had died, and\nJudge Normile had been the survivor, would the infidel and scoffer have\nattacked the unreplying dead?\n\nHenry D'Arcy I did not know; but Judge Normile was my friend and I\nwas his. Although we met but a few times, he excited my admiration and\nrespect. He impressed me as being an exceedingly intelligent man, well\ninformed on many subjects, of varied reading, possessed of a clear and\nlogical mind, a poetic temperament, enjoying the beautiful things in\nliterature and art, and the noble things in life. He gave his opinions\nfreely, but without the least arrogance, and seemed perfectly willing\nthat others should enjoy the privilege of differing with him. He was, so\nfar as I could perceive, a gentleman, tender of the feelings of others,\nfree and manly in his bearing, \"of most excellent fancy,\" and a most\ncharming and agreeable companion.\n\nAccording, however, to the Watchman, such a man is far below a \"devout\nrobber\" or a \"penitent murderer.\" Is it possible that an assassin like\nRavillac is far better than a philosopher like Voltaire; and that all\nthe Catholic robbers and murderers who retain their faith, give greater\ndelight to God than the Humboldts, Haeckels and Darwins who have filled\nthe world with intellectual light?\n\nPossibly the Catholic Church is mistaken. Possibly the Watchman is in\nerror, and possibly there may be for the erring, even in another world,\nsome asylum besides hell.\n\nJudge Normile died by his own hand. Certainly he was not afraid of\nthe future. He was not appalled by death. He died by his own hand. Can\nanything be more pitiful—more terrible? How can a man in the flowing\ntide and noon of life destroy himself? What storms there must have\nbeen within the brain; what tempests must have raved and wrecked; what\nlightnings blinded and revealed; what hurrying clouds obscured and hid\nthe stars; what monstrous shapes emerged from gloom; what darkness fell\nupon the day; what visions filled the night; how the light failed; how\npaths were lost; how highways disappeared; how chasms yawned; until one\nthought—the thought of death—swift, compassionate and endless—became\nthe insane monarch of the mind.\n\nStanding by the prostrate form of one who thus found death, it is far\nbetter to pity than to revile—to kiss the clay than curse the man.\n\nThe editor of the Watchman has done himself injustice. He has not\ninjured the dead, but the living.\n\nI am an infidel—an unbeliever—and yet I hope that all the children of\nmen may find peace and joy. No matter how they leave this world, from\naltar or from scaffold, crowned with virtue or stained with crime, I\nhope that good may come to all.\n\nR. G. Ingersoll.\n\nIs Suicide a Sin\n  • These letters were published in the New York World, 1894.\n\nCol. Ingersoll's First Letter.\n\nI DO not know whether self-killing is on the increase or not. If it\nis, then there must be, on the average, more trouble, more sorrow,\nmore failure, and, consequently, more people are driven to despair. In\ncivilized life there is a great struggle, great competition, and many\nfail. To fail in a great city is like being wrecked at sea. In the\ncountry a man has friends; he can get a little credit, a little help,\nbut in the city it is different. The man is lost in the multitude. In\nthe roar of the streets, his cry is not heard. Death becomes his only\nfriend. Death promises release from want, from hunger and pain, and so\nthe poor wretch lays down his burden, dashes it from his shoulders and\nfalls asleep.\n\nTo me all this seems very natural. The wonder is that so many endure and\nsuffer to the natural end, that so many nurse the spark of life in huts\nand prisons, keep it and guard it through years of misery and want;\nsupport it by beggary, by eating the crust found in the gutter, and to\nwhom it only gives days of weariness and nights of fear and dread. Why\nshould the man, sitting amid the wreck of all he had, the loved ones\ndead, friends lost, seek to lengthen, to preserve his life? What can the\nfuture have for him?\n\nUnder many circumstances a man has the right to kill himself. When life\nis of no value to him, when he can be of no real assistance to others,\nwhy should a man continue? When he is of no benefit, when he is a burden\nto those he loves, why should he remain? The old idea was that God made\nus and placed us here for a purpose and that it was our duty to remain\nuntil he called us. The world is outgrowing this absurdity. What\npleasure can it give God to see a man devoured by a cancer; to see the\nquivering flesh slowly eaten; to see the nerves throbbing with pain? Is\nthis a festival for God? Why should the poor wretch stay and suffer? A\nlittle morphine would give him sleep—the agony would be forgotten and\nhe would pass unconsciously from happy dreams to painless death.\n\nIf God determines all births and deaths, of what use is medicine and why\nshould doctors defy with pills and powders, the decrees of God? No one,\nexcept a few insane, act now according to this childish superstition.\nWhy should a man, surrounded by flames, in the midst of a burning\nbuilding, from which there is no escape, hesitate to put a bullet\nthrough his brain or a dagger in his heart? Would it give God pleasure\nto see him burn? When did the man lose the right of self-defence?\n\nSo, when a man has committed some awful crime, why should he stay and\nruin his family and friends? Why should he add to the injury? Why should\nhe live, filling his days and nights, and the days and nights of others,\nwith grief and pain, with agony and tears?\n\nWhy should a man sentenced to imprisonment for life hesitate to still\nhis heart? The grave is better than the cell. Sleep is sweeter than the\nache of toil. The dead have no masters.\n\nSo the poor girl, betrayed and deserted, the door of home closed against\nher, the faces of friends averted, no hand that will help, no eye that\nwill soften with pity, the future an abyss filled with monstrous shapes\nof dread and fear, her mind racked by fragments of thoughts like clouds\nbroken by storm, pursued, surrounded by the serpents of remorse, flying\nfrom horrors too great to bear, rushes with joy through the welcome door\nof death.\n\nUndoubtedly there are many cases of perfectly justifiable suicide—cases\nin which not to end life would be a mistake, sometimes almost a crime.\n\nAs to the necessity of death, each must decide for himself. And if a man\nhonestly decides that death is best—best for him and others—and acts\nupon the decision, why should he be blamed?\n\nCertainly the man who kills himself is not a physical coward. He may\nhave lacked moral courage, but not physical. It may be said that some\nmen fight duels because they are afraid to decline. They are between two\nfires—the chance of death and the certainty of dishonor, and they take\nthe chance of death. So the Christian martyrs were, according to their\nbelief, between two fires—the flames of the fagot that could burn but\nfor a few moments, and the fires of God, that were eternal. And they\nchose the flames of the fagot.\n\nMen who fear death to that degree that they will bear all the pains and\npangs that nerves can feel, rather than die, cannot afford to call the\nsuicide a coward. It does not seem to me that Brutus was a coward or\nthat Seneca was. Surely Antony had nothing left to live for. Cato was\nnot a craven. He acted on his judgment. So with hundreds of others who\nfelt that they had reached the end—-that the journey was done, the\nvoyage was over, and, so feeling, stopped. It seems certain that the man\nwho commits suicide, who \"does the thing that ends all other deeds,\nthat shackles accident and bolts up change\" is not lacking in physical\ncourage.\n\nIf men had the courage, they would not linger in prisons, in almshouses,\nin hospitals; they would not bear the pangs of incurable disease, the\nstains of dishonor; they would not live in filth and want, in poverty\nand hunger, neither would they wear the chain of slavery. All this can\nbe accounted for only by the fear of death or \"of something after.\"\n\nSeneca, knowing that Nero intended to take his life, had no fear. He\nknew that he could defeat the Emperor. He knew that \"at the bottom of\nevery river, in the coil of every rope, on the point of every dagger,\nLiberty sat and smiled.\" He knew that it was his own fault if he allowed\nhimself to be tortured to death by his enemy. He said: \"There is\nthis blessing, that while life has but one entrance, it has exits\ninnumerable, and as I choose the house in which I live, the ship in\nwhich I will sail, so will I choose the time and manner of my death.\"\n\nTo me this is not cowardly, but manly and noble. Under the Roman law\npersons found guilty of certain offences were not only destroyed,\nbut their blood was polluted and their children became outcasts. If,\nhowever, they died before conviction their children were saved. Many\ncommitted suicide to save their babes. Certainly they were not cowards.\nAlthough guilty of great crimes they had enough of honor, of manhood,\nleft to save their innocent children. This was not cowardice.\n\nWithout doubt many suicides are caused by insanity. Men lose their\nproperty. The fear of the future overpowers them. Things lose\nproportion, they lose poise and balance, and in a flash, a gleam of\nfrenzy, kill themselves. The disappointed in love, broken in heart—the\nlight fading from their lives—seek the refuge of death.\n\nThose who take their lives in painful, barbarous ways—who mangle their\nthroats with broken glass, dash themselves from towers and roofs, take\npoisons that torture like the rack—such persons must be insane. But\nthose who take the facts into account, who weigh the arguments for and\nagainst, and who decide that death is best—the only good—and then\nresort to reasonable means, may be, so far as I can see, in full\npossession of their minds.\n\nLife is not the same to all—to some a blessing, to some a curse, to\nsome not much in any way. Some leave it with unspeakable regret, some\nwith the keenest joy and some with indifference.\n\nReligion, or the decadence of religion, has a bearing upon the number\nof suicides. The fear of God, of judgment, of eternal pain will stay the\nhand, and people so believing will suffer here until relieved by natural\ndeath. A belief in eternal agony beyond the grave will cause such\nbelievers to suffer the pangs of this life. When there is no fear of the\nfuture, when death is believed to be a dreamless sleep, men have\nless hesitation about ending their lives. On the other hand, orthodox\nreligion has driven millions to insanity. It has caused parents to\nmurder their children and many thousands to destroy themselves and\nothers.\n\nIt seems probable that all real, genuine orthodox believers who kill\nthemselves must be insane, and to such a degree that their belief is\nforgotten. God and hell are out of their minds.\n\nI am satisfied that many who commit suicide are insane, many are in the\ntwilight or dusk of insanity, and many are perfectly sane.\n\nThe law we have in this State making it a crime to attempt suicide is\ncruel and absurd and calculated to increase the number of successful\nsuicides. When a man has suffered so much, when he has been so\npersecuted and pursued by disaster that he seeks the rest and sleep of\ndeath, why should the State add to the sufferings of that man? A man\nseeking death, knowing that he will be punished if he fails, will take\nextra pains and precautions to make death certain.\n\nThis law was born of superstition, passed by thoughtlessness and\nenforced by ignorance and cruelty.\n\nWhen the house of life becomes a prison, when the horizon has shrunk and\nnarrowed to a cell, and when the convict longs for the liberty of death,\nwhy should the effort to escape be regarded as a crime?\n\nOf course, I regard life from a natural point of view. I do not take\ngods, heavens or hells into account. My horizon is the known, and my\nestimate of life is based upon what I know of life here in this world.\nPeople should not suffer for the sake of supernatural beings or for\nother worlds or the hopes and fears of some future state. Our joys, our\nsufferings and our duties are here.\n\nThe law of New York about the attempt to commit suicide and the law\nas to divorce are about equal. Both are idiotic. Law cannot prevent\nsuicide. Those who have lost all fear of death, care nothing for law and\nits penalties. Death is liberty, absolute and eternal.\n\nWe should remember that nothing happens but the natural. Back of every\nsuicide and every attempt to commit suicide is the natural and efficient\ncause. Nothing happens by chance. In this world the facts touch each\nother. There is no space between—no room for chance. Given a certain\nheart and brain, certain conditions, and suicide is the necessary\nresult. If we wish to prevent suicide we must change conditions. We must\nby education, by invention, by art, by civilization, add to the value\nof the average life. We must cultivate the brain and heart—do away with\nfalse pride and false modesty. We must become generous enough to help\nour fellows without degrading them. We must make industry—useful work\nof all kinds—honorable. We must mingle a little affection with our\ncharity—a little fellowship. We should allow those who have sinned to\nreally reform. We should not think only of what the wicked have done,\nbut we should think of what we have wanted to do. People do not hate the\nsick. Why should they despise the mentally weak—the diseased in brain?\n\nOur actions are the fruit, the result, of circumstances—of\nconditions—and we do as we must.\n\nThis great truth should fill the heart with pity for the failures of our\nrace.\n\nSometimes I have wondered that Christians denounced the suicide; that\nin olden times they buried him where the roads crossed, drove a stake\nthrough his body, and then took his property from his children and gave\nit to the State.\n\nIf Christians would only think, they would see that orthodox religion\nrests upon suicide—that man was redeemed by suicide, and that without\nsuicide the whole world would have been lost.\n\nIf Christ were God, then he had the power to protect himself from the\nJews without hurting them. But instead of using his power he allowed\nthem to take his life.\n\nIf a strong man should allow a few little children to hack him to death\nwith knives when he could easily have brushed them aside, would we not\nsay that he committed suicide?\n\nThere is no escape. If Christ were, in fact, God, and allowed the\nJews to kill him, then he consented to his own death—refused, though\nperfectly able, to defend and protect himself, and was, in fact, a\nsuicide.\n\nWe cannot reform the world by law or by superstition. As long as there\nshall be pain and failure, want and sorrow, agony and crime, men and\nwomen will untie life's knot and seek the peace of death.\n\nTo the hopelessly imprisoned—to the dishonored and despised—to those\nwho have failed, who have no future, no hope—to the abandoned, the\nbrokenhearted, to those who are only remnants and fragments of men and\nwomen—how consoling, how enchanting is the thought of death!\n\nAnd even to the most fortunate, death at last is a welcome deliverer.\nDeath is as natural and as merciful as life. When we have journeyed\nlong—when we are weary—when we wish for the twilight, for the dusk,\nfor the cool kisses of the night—when the senses are dull—when\nthe pulse is faint and low—when the mists gather on the mirror\nof memory—when the past is almost forgotten, the present hardly\nperceived—when the future has but empty hands—death is as welcome as a\nstrain of music.\n\nAfter all, death is not so terrible as joyless life. Next to eternal\nhappiness is to sleep in the soft clasp of the cool earth, disturbed by\nno dream, by no thought, by no pain, by no fear, unconscious of all and\nforever.\n\nThe wonder is that so many live, that in spite of rags and want, in\nspite of tenement and gutter, of filth and pain, they, limp and stagger\nand crawl beneath their burdens to the natural end. The wonder is\nthat so few of the miserable are brave enough to die—that so many are\nterrified by the \"something after death\"—by the spectres and phantoms\nof superstition.\n\nMost people are in love with life. How they cling to it in the arctic\nsnows—how they struggle in the waves and currents of the sea—how they\nlinger in famine—how they fight disaster and despair! On the crumbling\nedge of death they keep the flag flying and go down at last full of hope\nand courage.\n\nBut many have not such natures. They cannot bear defeat. They are\ndisheartened by disaster. They lie down on the field of conflict and\ngive the earth their blood.\n\nThey are our unfortunate brothers and sisters. We should not curse or\nblame—we should pity. On their pallid faces our tears should fall.\n\nOne of the best men I ever knew, with an affectionate wife, a charming\nand loving daughter, committed suicide. He was a man of generous\nimpulses. His heart was loving and tender. He was conscientious, and\nso sensitive that he blamed himself for having done what at the time he\nthought was wise and best. He was the victim of his virtues. Let us be\nmerciful in our judgments.\n\nAll we can say is that the good and the bad, the loving and the\nmalignant, the conscientious and the vicious, the educated and the\nignorant, actuated by many motives, urged and pushed by circumstances\nand conditions—sometimes in the calm of judgment, sometimes in\npassion's storm and stress, sometimes in whirl and tempest of\ninsanity—raise their hands against themselves and desperately put out\nthe light of life.\n\nThose who attempt suicide should not be punished. If they are insane\nthey should if possible be restored to reason; if sane, they should be\nreasoned with, calmed and assisted.\n\nR. G. Ingersoll.\n\nCol. Ingersoll's Reply to His Critics\n\nIN the article written by me about suicide the ground was taken that\n\"under many circumstances a man has the right to kill himself.\"\n\nThis has been attacked with great fury by clergymen, editors and\nthe writers of letters. These people contend that the right of\nself-destruction does not and cannot exist. They insist that life is the\ngift of God, and that he only has the right to end the days of men; that\nit is our duty to bear the sorrows that he sends with grateful patience.\nSome have denounced suicide as the worst of crimes—worse than the\nmurder of another.\n\nThe first question, then, is:\n\nHas a man under any circumstances the right to kill himself?\n\nA man is being slowly devoured by a cancer—his agony is intense—his\nsuffering all that nerves can feel. His life is slowly being taken.\nIs this the work of the good God? Did the compassionate God create the\ncancer so that it might feed on the quiverering flesh of this victim?\n\nThis man, suffering agonies beyond the imagination to conceive, is of no\nuse to himself. His life is but a succession of pangs. He is of no use\nto his wife, his children, his friends or society. Day after day he is\nrendered unconscious by drugs that numb the nerves and put the brain to\nsleep.\n\nHas he the right to render himself unconscious? Is it proper for him to\ntake refuge in sleep?\n\nIf there be a good God I cannot believe that he takes pleasure in the\nsufferings of men—that he gloats over the agonies of his children. If\nthere be a good God, he will, to the extent of his power, lessen the\nevils of life.\n\nSo I insist that the man being eaten by the cancer—a burden to himself\nand others, useless in every way—has the right to end his pain and pass\nthrough happy sleep to dreamless rest.\n\nBut those who have answered me would say to this man: \"It is your duty\nto be devoured. The good God wishes you to suffer. Your life is the gift\nof God. You hold it in trust and you have no right to end it. The cancer\nis the creation of God and it is your duty to furnish it with food.\"\n\nTake another case: A man is on a burning ship, the crew and the rest\nof the passengers have escaped—gone in the lifeboats—and he is left\nalone. In the wide horizon there is no sail, no sign of help. He cannot\nswim. If he leaps into the sea he drowns, if he remains on the ship he\nburns. In any event he can live but a few moments.\n\nThose who have answered me, those who insist that under no circumstances\na man has the right to take his life, would say to this man on the deck,\n\"Remain where you are. It is the desire of your loving, heavenly Father\nthat you be clothed in flame—that you slowly roast—that your eyes be\nscorched to blindness and that you die insane with pain. Your life is\nnot your own, only the agony is yours.\"\n\nI would say to this man: Do as you wish. If you prefer drowning to\nburning, leap into the sea. Between inevitable evils you have the right\nof choice. You can help no one, not even God, by allowing yourself to be\nburned, and you can injure no one, not even God, by choosing the easier\ndeath.\n\nLet us suppose another case:\n\nA man has been captured by savages in Central Africa. He is about to\nbe tortured to death. His captors are going to thrust splinters of pine\ninto his flesh and then set them on fire. He watches them as they make\nthe preparations. He knows what they are about to do and what he is\nabout to suffer. There is no hope of rescue, of help. He has a vial of\npoison. He knows that he can take it and in one moment pass beyond their\npower, leaving to them only the dead body.\n\nIs this man under obligation to keep his life because God gave it, until\nthe savages by torture take it? Are the savages the agents of the good\nGod? Are they the servants of the Infinite? Is it the duty of this man\nto allow them to wrap his body in a garment of flame? Has he no right to\ndefend himself? Is it the will of God that he die by torture? What would\nany man of ordinary intelligence do in a case like this? Is there room\nfor discussion?\n\nIf the man took the poison, shortened his life a few moments, escaped\nthe tortures of the savages, is it possible that he would in another\nworld be tortured forever by an infinite savage?\n\nSuppose another case: In the good old days, when the Inquisition\nflourished, when men loved their enemies and murdered their friends,\nmany frightful and ingenious ways were devised to touch the nerves of\npain.\n\nThose who loved God, who had been \"born twice,\" would take a fellow-man\nwho had been convicted of \"heresy,\" lay him upon the floor of a dungeon,\nsecure his arms and legs with chains, fasten him to the earth so that\nhe could not move, put an iron vessel, the opening downward, on his\nstomach, place in the vessel several rats, then tie it securely to his\nbody. Then these worshipers of God would wait until the rats, seeking\nfood and liberty, would gnaw through the body of the victim.\n\nNow, if a man about to be subjected to this torture, had within his hand\na dagger, would it excite the wrath of the \"good God,\" if with one quick\nstroke he found the protection of death?\n\nTo this question there can be but one answer.\n\nIn the cases I have supposed it seems to me that each person would have\nthe right to destroy himself. It does not seem possible that the man was\nunder obligation to be devoured by a cancer; to remain upon the ship and\nperish in flame; to throw away the poison and be tortured to death by\nsavages; to drop the dagger and endure the \"mercies\" of the church.\n\nIf, in the cases I have supposed, men would have the right to take their\nlives, then I was right when I said that \"under many circumstances a man\nhas a right to kill himself.\"\n\nSecond.—I denied that persons who killed themselves were physical\ncowards. They may lack moral courage; they may exaggerate their\nmisfortunes, lose the sense of proportion, but the man who plunges the\ndagger in his heart, who sends the bullet through his brain, who leaps\nfrom some roof and dashes himself against the stones beneath, is not and\ncannot be a physical coward.\n\nThe basis of cowardice is the fear of injury or the fear of death, and\nwhen that fear is not only gone, but in its place is the desire to die,\nno matter by what means, it is impossible that cowardice should exist.\nThe suicide wants the very thing that a coward fears. He seeks the very\nthing that cowardice endeavors to escape.\n\nSo, the man, forced to a choice of evils, choosing the less is not a\ncoward, but a reasonable man.\n\nIt must be admitted that the suicide is honest with himself. He is to\nbear the injury; if it be one. Certainly there is no hypocrisy, and just\nas certainly there is no physical cowardice.\n\nIs the man who takes morphine rather than be eaten to death by a cancer\na coward?\n\nIs the man who leaps into the sea rather than be burned a coward? Is\nthe man that takes poison rather than be tortured to death by savages or\n\"Christians\" a coward?\n\nThird.—I also took the position that some suicides were sane; that\nthey acted on their best judgment, and that they were in full possession\nof their minds. Now, if under some circumstances, a man has the right to\ntake his life, and, if, under such circumstances, he does take his life,\nthen it cannot be said that he was insane.\n\nMost of the persons who have tried to answer me have taken the ground\nthat suicide is not only a crime, but some of them have said that it\nis the greatest of crimes. Now, if it be a crime, then the suicide must\nhave been sane. So all persons who denounce the suicide as a criminal\nadmit that he was sane. Under the law, an insane person is incapable of\ncommitting a crime. All the clergymen who have answered me, and who have\npassionately asserted that suicide is a crime, have by that assertion\nadmitted that those who killed themselves were sane.\n\nThey agree with me, and not only admit, but assert that \"some who have\ncommitted suicide were sane and in the full possession of their minds.\"\n\nIt seems to me that these three propositions have been demonstrated to\nbe true: First, that under some circumstances a man has the right\nto take his life; second, that the man who commits suicide is not a\nphysical coward, and, third, that some who have committed suicide were\nat the time sane and in full possession of their minds.\n\nFourth.—I insisted, and still insist, that suicide was and is the\nfoundation of the Christian religion.\n\nI still insist that if Christ were God he had the power to protect\nhimself without injuring his assailants—that having that power it was\nhis duty to use it, and that failing to use it he consented to his own\ndeath and was guilty of suicide.\n\nTo this the clergy answer that it was self-sacrifice for the redemption\nof man, that he made an atonement for the sins of believers. These ideas\nabout redemption and atonement are born of a belief in the \"fall\nof man,\" on account of the sins of our first \"parents,\" and of the\ndeclaration that \"without the shedding of blood there is no remission of\nsin.\" The foundation has crumbled. No intelligent person now believes in\nthe \"fall of man\"—that our first parents were perfect, and that their\ndescendants grew worse and worse, at least until the coming of Christ.\n\nIntelligent men now believe that ages and ages before the dawn of\nhistory, man was a poor, naked, cruel, ignorant and degraded savage,\nwhose language consisted of a few sounds of terror, of hatred and\ndelight; that he devoured his fellow-man, having all the vices, but\nnot all the virtues of the beasts; that the journey from the den to the\nhome, the palace, has been long and painful, through many centuries\nof suffering, of cruelty and war; through many ages of discovery,\ninvention, self-sacrifice and thought.\n\nRedemption and atonement are left without a fact on which to rest. The\nidea that an infinite God, creator of all worlds, came to this grain\nof sand, learned the trade of a carpenter, discussed with Pharisees and\nscribes, and allowed a few infuriated Hebrews to put him to death that\nhe might atone for the sins of men and redeem a few believers from\nthe consequences of his own wrath, can find no lodgment in a good and\nnatural brain.\n\nIn no mythology can anything more monstrously unbelievable be found.\n\nBut if Christ were a man and attacked the religion of his times because\nit was cruel and absurd; if he endeavored to found a religion of\nkindness, of good deeds, to take the place of heartlessness and\nceremony, and if, rather than to deny what he believed to be right and\ntrue, he suffered death, then he was a noble man—a benefactor of his\nrace. But if he were God there was no need of this. The Jews did not\nwish to kill God. If he had only made himself known all knees would have\ntouched the ground. If he were God it required no heroism to die. He\nknew that what we call death is but the opening of the gates of eternal\nlife. If he were God there was no self-sacrifice. He had no need to\nsuffer pain. He could have changed the crucifixion to a joy.\n\nEven the editors of religious weeklies see that there is no escape from\nthese conclusions—from these arguments—and so, instead of attacking\nthe arguments, they attack the man who makes them.\n\nFifth.—I denounced the law of New York that makes an attempt to\ncommit suicide a crime.\n\nIt seems to me that one who has suffered so much that he passionately\nlongs for death should be pitied, instead of punished—helped rather\nthan imprisoned.\n\nA despairing woman who had vainly sought for leave to toil, a woman\nwithout home, without friends, without bread, with clasped hands, with\ntear-filled eyes, with broken words of prayer, in the darkness of night\nleaps from the dock, hoping, longing for the tearless sleep of\ndeath. She is rescued by a kind, courageous man, handed over to the\nauthorities, indicted, tried, convicted, clothed in a convict's garb and\nlocked in a felon's cell.\n\nTo me this law seems barbarous and absurd, a law that only savages would\nenforce.\n\nSixth.—In this discussion a curious thing has happened. For several\ncenturies the clergy have declared that while infidelity is a very good\nthing to live by, it is a bad support, a wretched consolation, in the\nhour of death. They have in spite of the truth, declared that all\nthe great unbelievers died trembling with fear, asking God for mercy,\nsurrounded by fiends, in the torments of despair. Think of the thousands\nand thousands of clergymen who have described the last agonies of\nVoltaire, who died as peacefully as a happy child smilingly passes from\nplay to slumber; the final anguish of Hume, who fell into his last sleep\nas serenely as a river, running between green and shaded banks, reaches\nthe sea; the despair of Thomas Paine, one of the bravest, one of the\nnoblest men, who met the night of death untroubled as a star that meets\nthe morning.\n\nAt the same time these ministers admitted that the average murderer\ncould meet death on the scaffold with perfect serenity, and could\nsmilingly ask the people who had gathered to see him killed to meet him\nin heaven.\n\nBut the honest man who had expressed his honest thoughts against the\ncreed of the church in power could not die in peace. God would see to it\nthat his last moments should be filled with the insanity of fear—that\nwith his last breath he should utter the shriek of remorse, the cry for\npardon.\n\nThis has all changed, and now the clergy, in their sermons answering me,\ndeclare that the atheists, the freethinkers, have no fear of death—that\nto avoid some little annoyance, a passing inconvenience, they gladly\nand cheerfully put out the light of life. It is now said that infidels\nbelieve that death is the end—that it is a dreamless sleep—that it is\nwithout pain—that therefore they have no fear, care nothing for gods,\nor heavens or hells, nothing for the threats of the pulpit, nothing for\nthe day of judgment, and that when life becomes a burden they carelessly\nthrow it down.\n\nThe infidels are so afraid of death that they commit suicide.\n\nThis certainly is a great change, and I congratulate myself on having\nforced the clergy to contradict themselves.\n\nSeventh.—The clergy take the position that the atheist, the\nunbeliever, has no standard of morality—that he can have no real\nconception of right and wrong. They are of the opinion that it is\nimpossible for one to be moral or good unless he believes in some Being\nfar above himself.\n\nIn this connection we might ask how God can be moral or good unless he\nbelieves in some Being superior to himself?\n\nWhat is morality? It is the best thing to do under the circumstances.\nWhat is the best thing to do under the circumstances? That which will\nincrease the sum of human happiness—or lessen it the least. Happiness\nin its highest, noblest form, is the only good; that which increases\nor preserves or creates happiness is moral—that which decreases it, or\nputs it in peril, is immoral.\n\nIt is not hard for an atheist—for an unbeliever—to keep his hands\nout of the fire. He knows that burning his hands will not increase his\nwell-being, and he is moral enough to keep them out of the flames.\n\nSo it may be said that each man acts according to his intelligence—so\nfar as what he considers his own good is concerned. Sometimes he is\nswayed by passion, by prejudice, by ignorance—but when he is really\nintelligent, master of himself, he does what he believes is best for\nhim. If he is intelligent enough he knows that what is really good for\nhim is good for others—for all the world.\n\nIt is impossible for me to see' why any belief in the supernatural is\nnecessary to have a keen perception of right and wrong. Every man who\nhas the capacity to suffer and enjoy, and has imagination enough to give\nthe same capacity to others, has within himself the natural basis of\nall morality. The idea of morality was born here, in this world, of the\nexperience, the intelligence of mankind. Morality is not of supernatural\norigin. It did not fall from the clouds, and it needs no belief in\nthe supernatural, no supernatural promises or threats, no supernatural\nheavens or hells to give it force and life. Subjects who are governed\nby the threats and promises of a king are merely slaves. They are not\ngoverned by the ideal, by noble views of right and wrong. They are\nobedient cowards, controlled by fear, or beggars governed by rewards—by\nalms.\n\nRight and wrong exist in the nature of things. Murder was just as\ncriminal before as after the promulgation of the Ten Commandments.\n\nEighth.—The clergy take the position that the atheist, the\nunbeliever, has no standard of morality—that he can have no real\nconception of right and wrong. They are of the opinion that it is\nimpossible for one to be moral or good unless he believes in some Being\nfar above himself.\n\nIn this connection we might ask how God can be moral or good unless he\nbelieves in some Being superior to himself?\n\nWhat is morality? It is the best thing to do under the circumstances.\nWhat is the best thing to do under the circumstances? That which will\nincrease the sum of human happiness—or lessen it the least. Happiness\nin its highest, noblest form, is the only good; that which increases\nor preserves or creates happiness is moral—that which decreases it, or\nputs it in peril, is immoral.\n\nIt is not hard for an atheist—for an unbeliever—to keep his hands\nout of the fire. He knows that burning his hands will not increase his\nwell-being, and he is moral enough to keep them out of the flames.\n\nSo it may be said that each man acts according to his intelligence—so\nfar as what he Considers his own good is concerned. Sometimes he is\nswayed by passion, by prejudice, by ignorance—but when he is really\nintelligent, master of himself, he does what he believes is best for\nhim. If he is intelligent enough he knows that what is really good for\nhim is food for others—for all the world.\n\nIt is impossible for me to see why any belief in the supernatural is\nnecessary to have a keen perception of right and wrong. Every man who\nhas the capacity to suffer and enjoy, and has imagination enough to give\nthe same capacity to others, has within himself the natural basis of\nall morality. The idea of morality was born here, in this world, of the\nexperience, the intelligence of mankind. Morality is not of supernatural\norigin. It did not fall from the clouds, and it needs no belief in\nthe supernatural, no supernatural promises or threats, no supernatural\nheavens or hells to give it force and life. Subjects who are governed\nby the threats and promises of a king are merely slaves. They are not\ngoverned by the ideal, by noble views of right and wrong. They are\nobedient cowards, controlled by fear, or beggars governed by rewards—by\nalms.\n\nRight and wrong exist in the nature of things.\n\nMurder was just as criminal before as after the promulgation of the Ten\nCommandments.\n\nEighth.—Many of the clergy, some editors and some writers of\nletters who have answered me, have said that suicide is the worst of\ncrimes—that a man had better murder somebody else than himself. One\nclergyman gives as a reason for this statement that the suicide dies in\nan act of sin, and therefore he had better kill another person. Probably\nhe would commit a less crime if he would murder his wife or mother.\n\nI do not see that it is any worse to die than to live in sin. To say\nthat it is not as wicked to murder another as yourself seems absurd.\nThe man about to kill himself wishes to die. Why is it better for him to\nkill another man, who wishes to live?\n\nTo my mind it seems clear that you had better injure yourself than\nanother. Better be a spendthrift than a thief. Better throw away your\nown money than steal the money of another—better kill yourself if you\nwish to die than murder one whose life is full of joy.\n\nThe clergy tell us that God is everywhere, and that it is one of the\ngreatest possible crimes to rush into his presence. It is wonderful\nhow much they know about God and how little about their fellow-men.\nWonderful the amount of their information about other worlds and how\nlimited their knowledge is of this.\n\nThere may or may not be an infinite Being. I neither affirm nor deny. I\nam honest enough to say that I do not know. I am candid enough to admit\nthat the question is beyond the limitations of my mind. Yet I think I\nknow as much on that subject as any human being knows or ever knew, and\nthat is—nothing. I do not say that there is not another world, another\nlife; neither do I say that there is. I say that I do not know. It seems\nto me that every sane and honest man must say the same. But if there is\nan infinitely good God and another world, then the infinitely good\nGod will be just as good to us in that world as he is in this. If this\ninfinitely good God loves his children in this world, he will love them\nin another. If he loves a man when he is alive, he will not hate him the\ninstant he is dead.\n\nIf we are the children of an infinitely wise and powerful God, he knew\nexactly what we would do—the temptations that we could and could not\nwithstand—knew exactly the effect that everything would have upon us,\nknew under what circumstances we would take our lives—and produced\nsuch circumstances himself. It is perfectly apparent that there are many\npeople incapable by nature of bearing the burdens of life, incapable of\npreserving their mental poise in stress and strain of disaster, disease\nand loss, and who by failure, by misfortune and want, are driven to\ndespair and insanity, in whose darkened minds there comes like a flash\nof lightning in the night, the thought of death, a thought so strong,\nso vivid, that all fear is lost, all ties broken, all duties, all\nobligations, all hopes forgotten, and naught remains except a fierce and\nwild desire to die. Thousands and thousands become moody, melancholy,\nbrood upon loss of money, of position, of friends, until reason\nabdicates and frenzy takes possession of the soul. If there be an\ninfinitely wise and powerful God, all this was known to him from the\nbeginning, and he so created things, established relations, put in\noperation causes and effects, that all that has happened was the\nnecessary result of his own acts.\n\nNinth.—Nearly all who have tried to answer what I said have been\nexceedingly careful to misquote me, and then answer something that I\nnever uttered. They have declared that I have advised people who were in\ntrouble, somewhat annoyed, to kill themselves; that I have told men who\nhave lost their money, who had failed in business, who were not good in\nhealth, to kill themselves at once, without taking into consideration\nany duty that they owed to wives, children, friends, or society.\n\nNo man has a right to leave his wife to fight the battle alone if he\nis able to help. No man has a right to desert his children if he can\npossibly be of use. As long as he can add to the comfort of those he\nloves, as long as he can stand between wife and misery, between child\nand want, as long as he can be of any use, it is his duty to remain.\n\nI believe in the cheerful view, in looking at the sunny side of things,\nin bearing with fortitude the evils of life, in struggling against\nadversity, in finding the fuel of laughter even in disaster, in having\nconfidence in to-morrow, in finding the pearl of joy among the flints\nand shards, and in changing by the alchemy of patience even evil things\nto good. I believe in the gospel of cheerfulness, of courage and good\nnature.\n\nOf the future I have no fear. My fate is the fate of the world—of\nall that live. My anxieties are about this life, this world. About the\nphantoms called gods and their impossible hells, I have no care, no\nfear.\n\nThe existence of God I neither affirm nor deny, I wait. The immortality\nof the soul I neither affirm nor deny. I hope—hope for all of the\nchildren of men. I have never denied the existence of another world, nor\nthe immortality of the soul. For many years I have said that the idea\nof immortality, that like a sea has ebbed and flowed in the human heart,\nwith its countless waves of hope and fear beating against the shores and\nrocks of time and fate, was not born of any book, nor of any creed, nor\nof any religion. It was born of human affection, and it will continue to\nebb and flow beneath the mists and clouds of doubt and darkness as long\nas love kisses the lips of death.\n\nWhat I deny is the immortality of pain, the eternity of torture.\n\nAfter all, the instinct of self-preservation is strong. People do not\nkill themselves on the advice of friends or enemies. All wish to be\nhappy, to enjoy life; all wish for food and roof and raiment, for\nfriends, and as long as life gives joy, the idea of self-destruction\nnever enters the human mind.\n\nThe oppressors, the tyrants, those who trample on the rights of others,\nthe robbers of the poor, those who put wages below the living point, the\nministers who make people insane by preaching the dogma of eternal pain;\nthese are the men who drive the weak, the suffering and the helpless\ndown to death.\n\nIt will not do to say that God has appointed a time for each to die. Of\nthis there is, and there can be, no evidence. There is no evidence that\nany god takes any interest in the affairs of men—that any sides with\nthe right or helps the weak, protects the innocent or rescues the\noppressed. Even the clergy admit that their God, through all ages, has\nallowed his friends, his worshipers, to be imprisoned, tortured and\nmurdered by his enemies. Such is the protection of God. Billions of\nprayers have been uttered; has one been answered? Who sends plague,\npestilence and famine? Who bids the earthquake devour and the volcano to\noverwhelm?\n\nTenth.—Again, I say that it is wonderful to me that so many men, so\nmany women endure and carry their burdens to the natural end; that so\nmany, in spite of \"age, ache and penury,\" guard with trembling hands the\nspark of life; that prisoners for life toil and suffer to the last; that\nthe helpless wretches in poorhouses and asylums cling to life; that the\nexiles in Siberia, loaded with chains, scarred with the knout, live\non; that the incurables, whose every breath is a pang, and for whom the\nfuture has only pain, should fear the merciful touch and clasp of death.\n\nIt is but a few steps at most from the cradle to the grave; a short\njourney. The suicide hastens, shortens the path, loses the afternoon,\nthe twilight, the dusk of life's day; loses what he does not want, what\nhe cannot bear. In the tempest of despair, in the blind fury of madness,\nor in the calm of thought and choice, the beleaguered soul finds the\nserenity of death.\n\nLet us leave the dead where nature leaves them. We know nothing of any\nrealm that lies beyond the horizon of the known, beyond the end of life.\nLet us be honest with ourselves and others. Let us pity the suffering,\nthe despairing, the men and women hunted and pursued by grief and shame,\nby misery and want, by chance and fate until their only friend is death.\n\nRobert G. Ingersoll.\n\nSuicide a Sin\n  • New York Journal, 1805. An Interview.\n\nQuestion. Do you think that what you have written about suicide has\ncaused people to take their lives?\n\nAnswer. No, I do not. People do not kill themselves because of the\nideas of others. They are the victims of misfortune.\n\nQuestion. What do you consider the chief cause of suicide?\n\nAnswer. There are many causes. Some individuals are crossed in love,\nothers are bankrupt in estate or reputation, still others are diseased\nin body and frequently in mind. There are a thousand and one causes that\nlead up to the final act.\n\nQuestion. Do you consider that nationality plays a part in these\ntragedies?\n\nAnswer. No, it is a question of individuals. There are those whose\nsorrows are greater than they can bear. These sufferers seek the peace\nof death.\n\nQuestion. Do you, then, advise suicide?\n\nAnswer. No, I have never done so, but I have said, and still say, that\nthere are circumstances under which it is justifiable for a person to\ntake his life.\n\nQuestion. What do you think of the law which prohibits\nself-destruction?\n\nAnswer. That it is absurd and ridiculous. The other day a man was\ntried before Judge Goff for having tried to kill himself. I think he\npleaded guilty, and the Judge, after speaking of the terrible crime of\nthe poor wretch, sentenced him to the penitentiary for two years.\nThis was an outrage; infamous in every way, and a disgrace to our\ncivilization.\n\nQuestion. Do you believe that such a law will prevent the frequency of\nsuicides?\n\nAnswer. By no means. After this, persons in New York who have made up\ntheir minds to commit suicide will see to it that they succeed.\n\nQuestion. Have your opinions been in any way modified since your first\nannouncement of them?\n\nAnswer. No, I feel now as I have felt for many years. No one can\nanswer my articles on suicide, because no one can satisfactorily refute\nthem. Every man of sense knows that a person being devoured by a cancer\nhas the right to take morphine, and pass from agony to dreamless sleep.\nSo, too, there are circumstances under which a man has the right to end\nhis pain of mind.\n\nQuestion. Have you seen in the papers that many who have killed\nthemselves have had on their persons some article of yours on suicide?\n\nAnswer. Yes, I have read such accounts, but I repeat that I do not\nthink these persons were led to kill themselves by reading the articles.\nMany people who have killed themselves were found to have Bibles or\ntracts in their pockets.\n\nQuestion. How do you account for the presence of the latter?\n\nAnswer. The reason of this is that the theologians know nothing.\nThe pious imagine that their God has placed us here for some wise and\ninscrutable purpose, and that he will call for us when he wants us. All\nthis is idiotic. When a man is of no use to himself or to others, when\nhis days and nights are filled with pain and sorrow, why should he\nremain to endure them longer?\n\nSuicide a Sin\n  • New York Herald, 1897. An Interview.\n\nCOL. ROBERT G. INGERSOLL was seen at his house and asked if he had read\nthe Rev. Merle St. Croix Wright's sermon.\n\nAnswer. Yes. I have read the sermon, and also an interview had with\nthe reverend gentleman.\n\nLong ago I gave my views about suicide, and I entertain the same views\nstill. Mr. Wright's sermon has stirred up quite a commotion among the\northodox ministers. This commotion may always be expected when anything\nsensible comes from a pulpit. Mr. Wright has mixed a little common\nsense with his theology, and, of course this has displeased the truly\northodox.\n\nSense is the bitterest foe that theology has. No system of supernatural\nreligion can outlive a good dose of real good sense. The orthodox\nministers take the ground that an infinite Being created man, put him\non the earth and determined his days. They say that God desires every\nperson to live until he, God, calls for his soul. They insist that\nwe are all on guard and must remain so until relieved by a higher\npower—the superior officer.\n\nThe trouble with this doctrine is that it proves too much. It proves\nthat God kills every person who dies as we say, \"according to nature.\"\nIt proves that we ought to say, \"according to God.\" It proves that God\nsends the earthquake, the cyclone, the pestilence, for the purpose of\nkilling people. It proves that all diseases and all accidents are his\nmessengers, and that all who do not kill themselves, die by the act,\nand in accordance with the will of God. It also shows that when a man is\nmurdered, it is in harmony with, and a part of the divine plan. When God\ncreated the man who was murdered, he knew that he would be murdered, and\nwhen he made the man who committed the murder, he knew exactly what he\nwould do. So that the murder was the act of God.\n\nCan it be said that God intended that thousands should die of famine and\nthat he, to accomplish his purpose, withheld the rain? Can we say that\nhe intended that thousands of innocent men should die in dungeons and on\nscaffolds?\n\nIs it possible that a man, \"slowly being devoured by a cancer,\" whose\ndays and nights are filled with torture, who is useless to himself and\na burden to others, is carrying out the will of God? Does God enjoy\nhis agony? Is God thrilled by the music of his moans—the melody of his\nshrieks?\n\nThis frightful doctrine makes God an infinite monster, and every human\nbeing a slave; a victim. This doctrine is not only infamous but it is\nidiotic. It makes God the only criminal in the universe.\n\nNow, if we are governed by reason, if we use our senses and our minds,\nand have courage enough to be honest; if we know a little of the world's\nhistory, then we know—if we know anything—that man has taken his\nchances, precisely the same as other animals. He has been destroyed\nby heat and cold, by flood and fire, by storm and famine, by countless\ndiseases, by numberless accidents. By his intelligence, his cunning, his\nstrength, his foresight, he has managed to escape utter destruction. He\nhas defended himself. He has received no supernatural aid. Neither has\nhe been attacked by any supernatural power. Nothing has ever happened in\nnature as the result of a purpose to benefit or injure the human race.\n\nConsequently the question of the right or wrong of suicide is not in any\nway affected by a supposed obligation to the Infinite.\n\nAll theological considerations must be thrown aside because we see and\nknow that the laws of life are the same for all living things—that when\nthe conditions are favorable, the living multiply and life lengthens,\nand when the conditions are unfavorable, the living decrease and life\nshortens. We have no evidence of any interference of any power superior\nto nature. Taking into consideration the fact that all the duties and\nobligations of man must be to his fellows, to sentient beings, here in\nthis world, and that he owes no duty and is under no obligation to any\nphantoms of the air, then it is easy to determine whether a man under\ncertain circumstances has the right to end his life.\n\nIf he can be of no use to others—if he is of no use to himself—if\nhe is a burden to others—a curse to himself—why should he remain? By\nending his life he ends his sufferings and adds to the well-being\nof others. He lessens misery and increases happiness. Under such\ncircumstances undoubtedly a man has the right to stop the pulse of pain\nand woo the sleep that has no dream.\n\nI do not think that the discussion of this question is of much\nimportance, but I am glad that a clergyman has taken a natural and a\nsensible position, and that he has reasoned not like a minister, but\nlike a man.\n\nWhen wisdom comes from the pulpit I am delighted and surprised. I feel\nthen that there is a little light in the East, possibly the dawn of a\nbetter day.\n\nI congratulate the Rev. Mr. Wright, and thank him for his brave and\nphilosophic words.\n\nThere is still another thing. Certainly a man has the right to avoid\ndeath, to save himself from accident and disease. If he has this right,\nthen the theologians must admit that God, in making his decrees, took\ninto consideration the result of such actions. Now, if God knew that\nwhile most men would avoid death, some would seek it, and if his decrees\nwere so made that they would harmonize with the acts of those who would\navoid death, can we say that he did not, in making his decrees, take\ninto consideration the acts of those who would seek death? Let us\nremember that all actions, good, bad and indifferent, are the necessary\nchildren of conditions—that there is no chance in the natural world in\nwhich we live.\n\nSo, we must keep in mind that all real opinions are honest, and that all\nhave the same right to express their thoughts. Let us be charitable.\n\nWhen some suffering wretch, wild with pain, crazed with regret, frenzied\nwith fear, with desperate hand unties the knot of life, let us have\npity—Let us be generous.\n\nSuicide and Sanity\n  • New York Press, 1897. An Interview.\n\nQuestion. Is a suicide necessarily insane? was the first question, to\nwhich Colonel Ingersoll replied:\n\nAnswer. No. At the same time I believe that a great majority of\nsuicides are insane. There are circumstances under which suicide is\nnatural, sensible and right. When a man is of no use to himself, when he\ncan be of no use to others, when his life is filled with agony, when the\nfuture has no promise of relief, then I think he has the right to cast\nthe burden of life away and seek the repose of death.\n\nQuestion. Is a suicide necessarily a coward?\n\nAnswer. I cannot conceive of cowardice in connection with suicide. Of\nnearly all things death is the most feared. And the man who voluntarily\nenters the realm of death cannot properly be called a coward. Many men\nwho kill themselves forget the duties they owe to others—forget their\nwives and children. Such men are heartless, wicked, brutal; but they are\nnot cowards.\n\nQuestion. When is the suicide of the sane justifiable?\n\nAnswer. To escape death by torture; to avoid being devoured by a\ncancer; to prevent being a burden on those you love; when you can be of\nno use to others or to yourself; when life is unbearable; when in all\nthe horizon of the future there is no star of hope.\n\nQuestion. Do you believe that any suicides have been caused or\nencouraged by your declaration three years ago that suicide sometimes\nwas justifiable?\n\nAnswer. Many preachers talk as though I had inaugurated, invented,\nsuicide, as though no one who had not read my ideas on suicide had ever\ntaken his own life. Talk as long as language lasts, you cannot induce\na man to kill himself. The man who takes his own life does not go to\nothers to find reasons or excuses.\n\nQuestion. On the whole is the world made better or worse by suicides?\n\nAnswer. Better by some and poorer by others.\n\nQuestion. Why is it that Germany, said to be the most educated of\ncivilized nations, leads the world in suicides?\n\nAnswer. I do not know that Germany is the most educated; neither do I\nknow that suicide is more frequent there than in all other countries. I\nknow that the struggle for life is severe in Germany, that the laws\nare unjust, that the government is oppressive, that the people are\nsentimental, that they brood over their troubles and easily become\nhopeless.\n\nQuestion. If suicide is sometimes justifiable, is not killing of born\nidiots and infants hopelessly handicapped at birth equally so?\n\nAnswer. There is no relation between the questions—between suicides\nand killing idiots. Suicide may, under certain circumstances, be right\nand killing idiots may be wrong; killing idiots may be right and suicide\nmay be wrong. When we look about us, when we read interviews with\npreachers about Jonah, we know that all the idiots have not been killed.\n\nQuestion. Should suicide be forbidden by law?\n\nAnswer. No. A law that provides for the punishment of those who\nattempt to commit suicide is idiotic. Those who are willing to meet\ndeath are not afraid of law. The only effect of such a law would be to\nmake the person who had concluded to kill himself a little more careful\nto succeed.\n\nQuestion. What is your belief about virtue, morality and religion?\n\nAnswer. I believe that all actions that tend to the well-being of\nsentient beings are virtuous and moral. I believe that real religion\nconsists in doing good. I do not believe in phantoms. I believe in\nthe uniformity of nature; that matter will forever attract matter in\nproportion to mass and distance; that, under the same circumstances,\nfalling bodies will attain the same speed, increasing in exact\nproportion to distance; that light will always, under the same\ncircumstances, be reflected at the same angle; that it will always\ntravel with the same velocity; that air will forever be lighter than\nwater, and gold heavier than iron; that all substances will be true\nto their natures; that a certain degree of heat will always expand the\nmetals and change water into steam; that a certain degree of cold will\ncause the metals to shrink and change water into ice; that all atoms\nwill forever be in motion; that like causes will forever produce like\neffects, that force will be overcome only by force; that no atom\nof matter will ever be created or destroyed; that the energy in the\nuniverse will forever remain the same, nothing lost, nothing gained;\nthat all that has been possible has happened, and that all that will be\npossible will happen; that the seeds and causes of all thoughts, dreams,\nfancies and actions, of all virtues and all vices, of all successes\nand all failures, are in nature; that there is in the universe no power\nsuperior to nature; that man is under no obligation to the imaginary\ngods; that all his obligations and duties are to be discharged and done\nin this world; that right and wrong do not depend on the will of an\ninfinite Being, but on the consequences of actions, and that these\nconsequences necessarily flow from the nature of things. I believe that\nthe universe is natural.\n\nIs Avarice Triumphant\n    *A reply to General Rush Hawkins' article, \"Brutality and\n    Avarice Triumphant,\" published in the North American Review,\n    June, 1891.\n\nTHERE are many people, in all countries, who seem to enjoy individual\nand national decay. They love to prophesy the triumph of evil. They\nmistake the afternoon of their own lives for the evening of the world.\nTo them everything has changed. Men are no longer honest or brave, and\nwomen have ceased to be beautiful. They are dyspeptic, and it gives them\nthe greatest pleasure to say that the art of cooking has been lost.\n\nFor many generations many of these people occupied the pulpits. They\nlifted the hand of warning whenever the human race took a step in\nadvance. As wealth increased, they declared that honesty and goodness\nand self-denial and charity were vanishing from the earth. They doubted\nthe morality of well-dressed people—considered it impossible that the\nprosperous should be pious. Like owls sitting on the limbs of a dead\ntree, they hooted the obsequies of spring, believing it would come no\nmore.\n\nThere are some patriots who think it their duty to malign and slander\nthe land of their birth. They feel that they have a kind of Cassandra\nmission, and they really seem to enjoy their work. They honestly believe\nthat every kind of crime is on the increase, that the courts are\nall corrupt, that the legislators are bribed, that the witnesses are\nsuborned, that all holders of office are dishonest; and they feel like a\nmodern Marius sitting amid the ruins of all the virtues.\n\nIt is useless to endeavor to persuade these people that they are wrong.\nThey do not want arguments, because they will not heed them. They need\nmedicine. Their case is not for a philosopher, but for a physician.\n\nGeneral Hawkins is probably right when he says that some fraudulent\nshoes, some useless muskets, and some worn-out vessels were sold to the\nGovernment during the war; but we must remember that there were millions\nand millions of as good shoes as art and honesty could make, millions of\nthe best muskets ever constructed, and hundreds of the most magnificent\nships ever built, sold to the Government during the same period. We must\nnot mistake an eddy for the main stream. We must also remember another\nthing: there were millions of good, brave, and patriotic men to wear the\nshoes, to use the muskets, and to man the ships.\n\nSo it is probably true that Congress was extravagant in land subsidies\nvoted to railroads; but that this legislation was secured by bribery\nis preposterous. It was all done in the light of noon. There is not the\nslightest evidence tending to show that the general policy of hastening\nthe construction of railways through the Territories of the United\nStates was corruptly adopted—not the slightest. At the same time,\nit may be that some members of Congress were induced by personal\nconsiderations to vote for such subsidies. As a matter of fact, the\npolicy was wise, and through the granting of the subsidies thousands\nof miles of railways were built, and these railways have given to\ncivilization vast territories which otherwise would have remained\nsubstantially useless to the world. Where at that time was a wilderness,\nnow are some of the most thriving cities in the United States—a\ngreat, an industrious, and a happy population. The results have\njustified the action of Congress.\n\nIt is also true that some railroads have been \"wrecked\" in the United\nStates, but most of these wrecks have been the result of competition. It\nis the same with corporations as with individuals—the powerful combine\nagainst the weak. In the world of commerce and business is the great\nlaw of the survival of the strongest. Railroads are not eleemosynary\ninstitutions. They have but little regard for the rights of one another.\nSome fortunes have been made by the criminal \"wrecking\" of roads, but\neven in the business of corporations honesty is the best policy, and the\ncompanies that have acted in accordance with the highest standard, other\nthings being equal, have reaped the richest harvest.\n\nMany railways were built in advance of a demand; they had to develop the\ncountry through which they passed. While they waited for immigration,\ninterest accumulated; as a result foreclosure took place; then\nreorganization. By that time the country had been populated; towns were\nspringing up along the line; increased business was the result. On the\nnew bonds and the new stock the company paid interest and dividends.\nThen the ones who first invested and lost their money felt that they had\nbeen defrauded.\n\nSo it is easy to say that certain men are guilty of crimes—easy\nto indict the entire nation, and at the same time impossible to\nsubstantiate one of the charges. Everyone who knows the history of\nthe Star-Route trials knows that nothing was established against the\ndefendants, knows that every effort was made by the Government to\nconvict them, and also knows that an unprejudiced jury of twelve men,\nnever suspected of being improperly influenced, after having heard\nthe entire case, pronounced the defendants not guilty. After this, of\ncourse, any one can say, who knows nothing of the evidence and who cares\nnothing for the facts, that the defendants were all guilty.\n\nIt may also be true that some settlers in the far West have taken timber\nfrom the public lands, and it may be that it was a necessity. Our laws\nand regulations were such that where a settler was entitled to take up a\ncertain amount of land he had to take it all in one place; he could not\ntake a certain number of acres on the plains and a certain number of\nacres in the timber. The consequence was that when he settled upon\nthe land—the land that he could cultivate—he took the timber that he\nneeded from the Government land, and this has been called stealing. So I\nsuppose it may be said that the cattle stole the Government's grass and\npossibly drank the Government's water.\n\nIt will also be admitted with pleasure that stock has been \"watered\" in\nthis country. And what is the crime or practice known as watering stock?\n\nFor instance, you have a railroad one hundred miles long, worth, we will\nsay, $3,000,000—able to pay interest on that sum at the rate of six per\ncent. Now, we all know that the amount of stock issued has nothing to do\nwith the value of the thing represented by the stock. If there was\none share of stock representing this railroad, it would be worth three\nmillion dollars, whether it said on its face it was one dollar or one\nhundred dollars. If there were three million shares of stock issued on\nthis property, they would be worth one dollar apiece, and, no matter\nwhether it said on this stock that each share was a hundred dollars or a\nthousand dollars, the share would be worth one dollar—no more, no less.\nIf any one wishes to find the value of stock, he should find the value\nof the thing represented by the stock. It is perfectly clear that, if a\npie is worth one dollar, and you cut it into four pieces, each piece is\nworth twenty-five cents; and if you cut it in a thousand pieces, you do\nnot increase the value of the pie.\n\nIf, then, you wish to find the value of a share of stock, find its\nrelation to the thing represented by all the stock.\n\nIt can also be safely admitted that trusts have been formed. The reason\nis perfectly clear. Corporations are like individuals—they combine.\nUnfortunate corporations become socialistic, anarchistic, and cry out\nagainst the abuses of trusts. It is natural for corporations to defend\nthemselves—natural for them to stop ruinous competition by a profitable\npool; and when strong corporations combine, little corporations suffer.\nIt is with corporations as with fishes—the large eat the little; and it\nmay be that this will prove a public benefit in the end. When the large\ncorporations have taken possession of the little ones, it may be that\nthe Government will take possession of them—the Government being the\nlargest corporation of them all.\n\nIt is to be regretted that all houses are not fireproof; but certainly\nno one imagines that the people of this country build houses for the\npurpose of having them burned, or that they erect hotels having in view\nthe broiling of guests. Men act as they must; that is to say, according\nto wants and necessities. In a new country the buildings are cheaper\nthan in an old one, money is scarcer, interest higher, and consequently\npeople build cheaply and take the risks of fire. They do not do this\non account of the Constitution of the United States, or the action of\npolitical parties, or the general idea that man is entitled to be free.\nIn the hotels of Europe it may be that there is not as great danger of\nfire as of famine.\n\nThe destruction of game and of the singing birds is to be greatly\nregretted, not only in this country, but in all others. The people\nof America have been too busy felling forests, ploughing fields, and\nbuilding houses, to cultivate, to the highest degree, the aesthetic side\nof their natures. Nature has been somewhat ruthless with us. The storms\nof winter breasted by the Western pioneer, the whirlwinds of summer,\nhave tended, it may be, to harden somewhat the sensibilities; in\nconsequence of which they have allowed their horses and cattle to bear\nthe rigors of the same climate.\n\nIt is also true that the seal-fisheries are being destroyed, in the\ninterest of the present, by those who care nothing for the future. All\nthese things are to be deprecated, are to be spoken against; but we\nmust not hint, provided we are lovers of the Republic, that such things\nare caused by free institutions.\n\nGeneral Hawkins asserts that \"Christianity has neither preached nor\npracticed humanity towards animals,\" while at the same time \"Sunday\nschool children by hundreds of thousands are taught what a terrible\nthing it is to break the Sabbath;\" that \"museum trustees tremble with\npious horror at the suggestion of opening the doors leading to the\ncollections on that day,\" and that no protests have come \"from lawmakers\nor the Christian clergy.\" Few people will suspect me of going out of my\nway to take care of Christianity or of the clergy. At the same time, I\ncan afford to state the truth. While there is not much in the Bible with\nregard to practicing humanity toward animals, there is at least this:\n\"The merciful man is merciful to his beast.\" Of course, I am not\nalluding now to the example set by Jehovah when he destroyed the cattle\nof the Egyptians with hailstones and diseases on account of the sins of\ntheir owners.\n\nIn regard to the treatment of animals Christians have been much like\nother people.\n\nSo, hundreds of lawmakers have not only protested against cruelty to\nanimals, but enough have protested against it to secure the enactment of\nlaws making cruelty toward animals a crime. Henry Bergh, who did as much\ngood as any man who has lived in the nineteenth century, was seconded\nin his efforts by many of the Christian clergy not only, but by hundreds\nand thousands of professing Christians—probably millions. Let us be\nhonest.\n\nIt is true that the clergy are apt to lose the distinction between\noffences and virtues, to regard the little as the important—that is to\nsay, to invert the pyramid.\n\nIt is true that the Indians have been badly treated. It is true that the\nfringe of civilization has been composed of many low and cruel men. It\nis true that the red man has been demoralized by the vices of the white.\nIt is a frightful fact that, when a superior race meets an inferior, the\ninferior imitates only the vices of the superior, and the superior those\nof the inferior. They exchange faults and failings. This is one of the\nmost terrible facts in the history of the human race.\n\nNothing can be said to justify our treatment of the Indians. There is,\nhowever, this shadow of an excuse: In the old times, when we lived along\nthe Atlantic, it hardly occurred to our ancestors that they could ever\ngo beyond the Ohio; so the first treaty with the Indians drove them back\nbut a few miles. In a little while, through immigration, the white race\npassed the line, and another treaty was made, forcing the Indians still\nfurther west; yet the tide of immigration kept on, and in a little while\nagain the line was passed, the treaty violated. Another treaty was\nmade, pushing the Indians still farther toward the Pacific, across the\nIllinois, across the Mississippi, across the Missouri, violating at\nevery step some treaty made; and each treaty born of the incapacity of\nthe white men who made it to foretell the growth of the Republic.\n\nBut the author of \"Brutality and Avarice Triumphant\" made a great\nmistake when he selected the last thirty years of our national life as\nthe period within which the Americans have made a change of the national\nmotto appropriate, and asserted that now there should be in place of the\nold motto the words, \"Plundering Made Easy.\"\n\nMost men believe in a sensible and manly patriotism. No one should be\nblind to the defects in the laws and institutions of his country. He\nshould call attention to abuses, not for the purpose of bringing his\ncountry into disrepute, but that the abuses may cease and the defects\nbe corrected. He should do what he can to make his country great,\nprosperous, just, and free. But it is hardly fair to exaggerate the\nfaults of your country for the purpose of calling attention to your own\nvirtues, or to earn the praise of a nation that hates your own. This is\nwhat might be called wallowing in the gutter of reform.\n\nThe thirty years chosen as the time in which we as a nation have passed\nfrom virtue to the lowest depths of brutality and avarice are, in fact,\nthe most glorious years in the life of this or of any other nation.\n\nIn 1861 slavery was, in a legal sense at least, a national institution.\nIt was firmly imbedded in the Federal Constitution. The Fugitive Slave\nLaw was in full force and effect. In all the Southern and in nearly all\nof the Northern States it was a crime to give food, shelter, or raiment\nto a man or woman seeking liberty by flight. Humanity was illegal,\nhospitality a misdemeanor, and charity a crime. Men and women were sold\nlike beasts. Mothers were robbed of their babes while they stood under\nour flag. All the sacred relations of life were trampled beneath the\nbloody feet of brutality and avarice. Besides, so firmly was slavery\nfixed in law and creed, in statute and Scripture, that the tongues of\nhonest men were imprisoned. Those who spoke for the slave were mobbed by\nNorthern lovers of the \"Union.\"\n\nNow, it seems to me that those were the days when the motto could\nproperly have been, \"Plundering Made Easy.\" Those were the days of\nbrutality, and the brutality was practiced to the end that we might make\nmoney out of the unpaid labor of others.\n\nIt is not necessary to go into details as to the cause of the then\ncondition; it is enough to say that the whole nation, North and South,\nwas responsible. There were many years of compromise, and thousands of\nstatesmen, so-called, through conventions and platforms, did what they\ncould to preserve slavery and keep the Union. These efforts corrupted\npolitics, demoralized our statesmen, polluted our courts, and poisoned\nour literature. The Websters, Bentons, and Clays mistook temporary\nexpedients for principles, and really thought that the progress of\nthe world could be stopped by the resolutions of a packed political\nconvention. Yet these men, mistaken as they really were, worked and\nwrought unconsciously in the cause of human freedom. They believed that\nthe preservation of the Union was the one important thing, and that it\ncould not be preserved unless slavery was protected—unless the North\nwould be faithful to the bargain as written in the Constitution. For\nthe purpose of keeping the nation true to the Union and false to itself,\nthese men exerted every faculty and all their strength. They exhausted\ntheir genius in showing that slavery was not, after all, very bad,\nand that disunion was the most terrible calamity that could by any\npossibility befall the nation, and that the Union, even at the price of\nslavery, was the greatest possible blessing. They did not suspect that\nslavery would finally strike the blow for disunion. But when the time\ncame and the South unsheathed the sword, the teachings of these men as\nto the infinite value of the Union gave to our flag millions of brave\ndefenders.\n\nNow, let us see what has been accomplished during the thirty years of\n\"Brutality and Avarice.\"\n\nThe Republic has been rebuilt and reunited, and we shall remain one\npeople for many centuries to come. The Mississippi is nature's protest\nagainst disunion. The Constitution of the United States is now the\ncharter of human freedom, and all laws inconsistent with the idea that\nall men are entitled to liberty have been repealed. The black man knows\nthat the Constitution is his shield, that the laws protect him, that our\nflag is his, and the black mother feels that her babe belongs to her.\nWhere the slave-pen used to be you will find the schoolhouse. The dealer\nin human flesh is now a teacher; instead of lacerating the back of a\nchild, he develops and illumines the mind of a pupil.\n\nThere is now freedom of speech. Men are allowed to utter their thoughts.\nLips are no longer sealed by mobs. Never before in the history of our\nworld has so much been done for education.\n\nThe amount of business done in a country on credit is the measure of\nconfidence, and confidence is based upon honesty. So it may truthfully\nbe said that, where a vast deal of business is done on credit, an\nexceedingly large per cent. of the people are regarded as honest. In our\ncountry a very large per cent. of contracts are faithfully fulfilled.\nProbably there is no nation in the world where so much business is\ndone on credit as in the United States. The fact that the credit of the\nRepublic is second to that of no other nation on the globe would seem to\nbe at least an indication of a somewhat general diffusion of honesty.\n\nThe author of \"Brutality and Avarice Triumphant\" seems to be of the\nopinion that our country was demoralized by the war. They who fight for\nthe right are not degraded—they are ennobled. When men face death and\nmarch to the mouths of the guns for a principle, they grow great; and if\nthey come out of the conflict, they come with added moral grandeur; they\nbecome better men, better citizens, and they love more intensely than\never the great cause for the success of which they put their lives in\npawn.\n\nThe period of the Revolution produced great men. After the great victory\nthe sons of the heroes degenerated, and some of the greatest principles\ninvolved in the Revolution were almost forgotten.\n\nDuring the Civil war the North grew great and the South was educated.\nNever before in the history of mankind was there such a period of moral\nexaltation. The names that shed the brightest, the whitest light on\nthe pages of our history became famous then. Against the few who were\nactuated by base and unworthy motives let us set the great army that\nfought for the Republic, the millions who bared their breasts to\nthe storm, the hundreds and hundreds of thousands who did their duty\nhonestly, nobly, and went back to their wives and children with no\nthought except to preserve the liberties of themselves and their\nfellow-men.\n\nOf course there were some men who did not do their duty—some men false\nto themselves and to their country. No one expects to find sixty-five\nmillions of saints in America. A few years ago a lady complained to the\npresident of a Western railroad that a brakeman had spoken to her with\ngreat rudeness. The president expressed his regret at the incident, and\nsaid among other things: \"Madam, you have no idea how difficult it is\nfor us to get gentlemen to fill all those places.\"\n\nIt is hardly to be expected that the American people should excel all\nothers in the arts, in poetry, and in fiction. We have been very busy\ntaking possession of the Republic. It is hard to overestimate the\ncourage, the industry, the self-denial it has required to fell the\nforests, to subdue the fields, to construct the roads, and to build the\ncountless homes. What has been done is a certificate of the honesty and\nindustry of our people.\n\nIt is not true that \"one of the unwritten mottoes of our business morals\nseem to say in the plainest phraseology possible: 'Successful wrong is\nright.'\" Men in this country are not esteemed simply because they are\nrich; inquiries are made as to how they made their money, as to how\nthey use it. The American people do not fall upon their knees before the\ngolden calf; the worst that can be said is that they think too much\nof the gold of the calf—and this distinction is seen by the calves\nthemselves.\n\nNowhere in the world is honesty in business esteemed more highly than\nhere. There are millions of business men—merchants, bankers, and men\nengaged in all trades and professions—to whom reputation is as dear as\nlife.\n\nThere is one thing in the article \"Brutality and Avarice Triumphant\"\nthat seems even more objectionable than the rest, and that is the\nstatement, or, rather, the insinuation, that all the crimes and the\nshortcomings of the American people can be accounted for by the fact\nthat our Government is a Republic. We are told that not long ago a\nFrench official complained to a friend that he was compelled to employ\ntwenty clerks to do the work done by four under the empire, and on being\nasked the reason answered: \"It is the Republic.\" He was told that, as\nhe was the head of the bureau, he could prevent the abuse, to which he\nreplied: \"I know I have the power; but I have been in this position for\nmore than thirty years, and am now too old to learn another occupation,\nand I must make places for the friends of the deputies.\" And then it\nis added by General Hawkins: \"And so it is here.\"\n\nIt seems to me that it cannot be fairly urged that we have abused the\nIndians because we contend that all men have equal rights before the\nlaw, or because we insist that governments derive their just powers from\nthe consent of the governed. The probability is that a careful reading\nof the history of the world will show that nations under the control of\nkings and emperors have been guilty of some cruelty. To account for the\nbad we do by the good we believe, is hardly logical. Our virtues should\nnot be made responsible for our vices.\n\nIs it possible that free institutions tend to the demoralization of men?\nIs a man dishonest because he is a man and maintains the rights of men?\nIn order to be a moral nation must we be controlled by king or emperor?\nIs human liberty a mistake? Is it possible that a citizen of the great\nRepublic attacks the liberty of his fellow-citizens? Is he willing to\nabdicate? Is he willing to admit that his rights are not equal to the\nrights of others? Is he, for the sake of what he calls morality, willing\nto become a serf, a servant or a slave?\n\nIs it possible that \"high character is impracticable\" in this Republic?\nIs this the experience of the author of \"Brutality and Avarice\nTriumphant\"? Is it true that \"intellectual achievement pays no\ndividends\"? Is it not a fact that America is to-day the best market in\nthe world for books, for music, and for art?\n\nThere is in our country no real foundation for these wide and sweeping\nslanders. This, in my judgment, is the best Government, the best\ncountry, in the world. The citizens of this Republic are, on the\naverage, better clothed and fed and educated than any other people. They\nare fuller of life, more progressive, quicker to take advantage of\nthe forces of nature, than any other of the children of men. Here\nthe burdens of government are lightest, the responsibilities of the\nindividual greatest, and here, in my judgment, are to be worked out the\nmost important problems of social science.\n\nHere in America is a finer sense of what is due from man to man than\nyou will find in other lands. We do not cringe to those whom chance has\ncrowned; we stand erect.\n\nOur sympathies are strong and quick. Generosity is almost a national\nfailing. The hand of honest want is rarely left unfilled. Great\ncalamities open the hearts and hands of all.\n\nHere you will find democracy in the family—republicanism by the\nfireside. Say what you will, the family is apt to be patterned after the\ngovernment. If a king is at the head of the nation, the husband imagines\nhimself the monarch of the home. In this country we have carried into\nthe family the idea on which the Government is based. Here husbands and\nwives are beginning to be equals.\n\nThe highest test of civilization is the treatment of women and children.\nBy this standard America stands first among nations.\n\nThere is a magnitude, a scope, a grandeur, about this country—an\namplitude—that satisfies the heart and the imagination. We have our\nfaults, we have our virtues, but our country is the best.\n\nNo American should ever write a line that can be sneeringly quoted by an\nenemy of the great Republic.\n\nRobert G. Ingersoll.\n"
}