And right here, I take the position and shall ever contend, that the United States (of all countries in the world) is no place for Socialism. Let us never forget that it was founded by the wisdom and patriotism of the Fathers of the Revolution, and that it is blessed with a Constitution, framed by men who loved individual freedom and national liberty, and who risked their lives and sacrificed their property in the struggle to overthrow injustice and oppression and achieve independence and individual equality. Let us not forget its past one hundred and thirty years of eventful history, replete as they are with many chapters of severe trial, over all of which it has ever risen superior. This splendid history has placed our system of government beyond the line of experiment, and raised it to such an elevation of recognition and respect, that it now ranks as the highest among all the nations of the earth.
Born of the spirit of resistance to oppression, with the broadest and freest constitution that the world has ever known—a land of freedom and equality in the best and most liberal sense of the term—it would seem that the sincere lover of liberty and equality could ask no better home than this democracy of ours—whose glorious flag floats over eighty-four millions of prosperous and enlightened people.
To further add, the term “contented people” might, perhaps, not be a strictly true assertion, and neither would it, in my opinion, be a desirable one to use; for to the spirit of discontent and ambition, so predominant in the American character, are due largely the grand achievements and the remarkable progress and advancement of our nation in all things that make for greatness, strength, and public welfare. However, we must be careful to draw a plain line of contradistinction between that discontent which is really the mainspring of human activity, and which, appreciating the solidity and soundness of our foundation, aspires to build thereon to the highest ideals of perfection and success—and that misguided or malicious discontent of Socialism which arrays itself as an enemy of all civilized forms of government and seeks their utter destruction.
We can well understand and appreciate, in a country ruled by a despot, whose heel of oppression and tyranny is ever on the necks of the down-trodden people, the feeling of the masses who, desiring some measure of free action and equality, would revolt against such conditions, and seek a reorganization of society. They would, naturally, look as far away as they could from such a government of despotism—the only one they had ever known—to the other extreme—a country where the State should own all the land and capital, employ all the people, and divide everything, share and share alike, among the community.
But the spirit of revolt, which in that case may be patriotism, becomes ridiculous and open to the charge of insincerity when the tenets of its doctrine are transplanted and cultivated upon American soil by our foreign population.
With further reason, also, must we question the sincerity of the Socialist, who, leaving oppression behind, emigrates to this country, where tyranny and despotism are unknown, and yet who continues to echo that war cry of destruction wrung from his heart by the cruelty of his old-time oppressors.
He comes here from a land of want and thraldom to a land of plenty and freedom. He may come without name, fame, or property, and he is received with open arms. After a brief residence he is entitled to full citizenship, and is then a part of the government, enjoying all the rights and privileges of the native born. Besides the active or public equality—the equality possessed by all, the right to share in the government, such as the electoral franchise and eligibility to public office—he has the rights of private equality. He is possessed of legal equality—the equal possession of private civil rights enjoyed by all citizens. Then there is the equality of material conditions—that is, the right to acquire wealth and all that wealth implies.
Every opportunity to achieve success and happiness abounds on every hand, and every incentive to industry and accomplishment awaits him; and if he is energetic and skilful, there is nothing to hinder him from becoming prosperous, or, in other words, successful in whatever vocation in life he may pursue. With qualities that commend themselves to his fellow men, there is no limit to the possibilities of his achievements, and very soon (as has been very often the case) he may become a leader of men. If, therefore, he is sincere, surely he must agree with me that, in view of these conditions, this is no place for the Socialist. And does it not sound like a paradox to hear this cry of Socialism still rending the air—while every avenue of fortune lies open to every one?
D G Reid