Anti-Carnegie: Scraps and Comments, by M. F. and J. C. Campbell

Anti-Carnegie: Scraps and Comments

By M. F. and J. C. Campbell

(Pittsburg, 1899).

Preface

This little volume is a veritable history of the anti-imperial craze, which was started in Pittsburg, November, 1898, by Andrew Carnegie. The writers noted it from the first ripple, and the source from whence it came.

Does Andrew Carnegie stand by the flag of this country? He has expressed sympathy for and given encouragement to the armed bands of Filipinos, but he has neither for our American soldiers who are now engaged in the final conquest of the Philippines, to prevent our flag from being "hauled down" from where it has been planted. The flag that only waves over the land of the free.
THE AUTHORS.

To present facts plainly a writer must be fearless and independent; not prejudiced, but impressed with what he knows of the subject of which he treats. The subject of this book is Andrew Carnegie, born in Dunfermline, Scotland, over sixty years ago, and emigrated to America fifty years ago. Is he to-day a loyal citizen of the United States? Is he an anti-expansionist and extremist? Is he a bundle of inconsistencies and contradictions? After reading this book the public may answer these queries. The writer will simply follow Mr. Carnegie's example of freedom of speech, and show him as much respect as he has shown President McKinley--dabble in his affairs as he has dabbled in the affairs of state. Agitate him as he has agitated the people. Condemn his principles as he has condemned the principles and policy of the President--quote as he quotes that it is "well sometimes" "to see oursel's as others see us." We bow neither to his wealth nor to himself, but will treat him as a problem to be solved, as hard maybe as the Philippine problem.

The nineteenth century about to close has been productive of mighty changes. England has advanced her conquests in every quarter of the globe. The Christian powers of Europe have been marking new boundaries and seizing upon the territories of half-civilized or barbarous races, and America has grown from its feeble colonial state to that of a mighty Nation--"a nation among nations." Among the changes of the nineteenth century, and by no means the least, is the humiliation of Spain. At the beginning she still swayed her sceptre over an extent of territory nearly equal to the whole of South America. As it was in the old Roman dominion, her proconsuls and their dependents were enriched by the plunder of the provinces, which, in turn, set up the standard of rebellion. The Cubans struggled long to shake off the galling yoke, but it was left for Weyler to bring matters to a crisis. His policy was to shut up the population in the towns, where they were rapidly wasted by famine and disease. We sympathized with them, but the spirit of our people was not aroused to active interference until Spanish treachery blew up one of our Government vessels, the Maine, and thereby destroyed many lives. Our country was quick to act; the struggle was short and decisive; victory was ours; the Maine was avenged, and Cuba is free.

Partyism had been hushed during the war, and the President of the United States was loyally supported by men of all parties and creeds. But when the war was over and the white-robed angel of peace seemed to abide with us again, and the thousand isles, more or less, whose inhabitants had been in a chronic state of insurrection were also free from the tyranny of Spain--at this crisis, before the peace treaty could be ratified, a faction started up who proclaimed themselves anti-imperialists. These boding owls would, if they could, delay the development of the Philippine Islands for a whole generation. In destroying the supremacy of Spain in her colonies we incurred a grave responsibility and the starry flag would be disgraced in the sight of all the world if we should follow the advice of the anti-imperialists, by leaving the Philippines a prey to civil wars, or foreign aggression, instead of establishing over them a government adequate for their protection against anarchy, and training them in the paths of civilization and peace. The Filipinos must be subdued. But in the meantime their aiders and abettors, the anti-imperialists, must not be forgotten.

Let us compare the present state of affairs with that which prevailed a few short months ago, when peace prevailed. To-day intrigue, deep and mysterious, is paving the way for serious complications. The trouble is not between Republican and Democratic politicians, but there is something deeper, a strong undercurrent that is drawing in many unwary ones. The situation to-day has given that undercurrent an opportunity to work not only in the dark but in the open. Does Andrew Carnegie advocate and support legitimate authority? Does he follow God's precepts? Some years ago he said, "What a man owns is already subordinate in America to what he knows, but in the final aristocracy the question will not be either of these." It will not be asked, "Where has he shown generosity or self-abnegation--when has he been a father to the fatherless--where has he searched them out? How has he worshipped God?" But the question on that day will be, "What has he done for his fellows, how has he served man?" The end of aristocracy appears to be a foregone conclusion. Andrew Carnegie is certainly carrying his anti-imperialism very far when he prefers to serve man rather than God. Is it because God is a Sovereign, King of kings, and has appointed kings and rulers over man, to which Carnegie and his following are opposed?

For months we have been obliged to read and re-read Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. To read and re-read Carnegie in the speeches of Hoar, Mason, Bryan, and other lights. We have been confronted with the sayings of long-ago dead Presidents and statesmen, many of whose sayings were vague and uncertain. And it is these sayings the anti-expansionists quote and twist to suit themselves.

What is the state of the Filipinos to-day? Is it the savage state? Do the anti-imperialists object to their being brought into a civilized state? Mr. Carnegie is upholding the views held nearly two hundred years ago by Jean Jacques Rousseau, who maintained that the "natural and proper state of man is the savage state, when he possesses complete liberty," that "all men are born equal." Rousseau's views on the subject paved the way for the first French Revolution.

How the words "all men are created equal" are used to mislead the masses! No one explains to them that in this free land it means that all are born with equal rights, and if they have intelligence, ambition, and ability, they can aspire to any goal and attain it. The majority of the masses look upon it as social equality to which they aspire, and are thereby misled by agitators and Socialists who never would practise what they preach, but they want to draw the masses to vote as they desire.

What are the imported anti-monarchists doing for or against this country to-day? They are arrayed in opposition to legitimate established government authority. The Socialists of to-day are organizing on the ruins of the Populist party, and are paving the way for revolution. Socialists are in the Senate and standing at the door waiting to grasp power to advance Socialism and destroy representative government. Why are Carnegie and Bryan so opposed to militarism?--insisting that the Government depend on the people in time of need rather than to any extent on the "professional soldier"? Why? In time of need the Government can always depend on the professional soldier and loyal citizens; the Socialists depend on the masses, therefore they are opposed to a large standing army.

In another article written by Andrew Carnegie and published in the North American Review, March, 1899, he insults our brave American soldiers. Mr. Carnegie should not presage and contemplate, and by these tactics force others to contemplate, what he imagines the conduct of the American soldiers will be. He seems to think the army quite immoral. He says that "soldiers in foreign camps require missionaries themselves more than the natives." What a fine opinion he has of American soldiers. But he cannot understand how men can be brave, true, unselfish, and love their country enough to serve it--such feelings are foreign to his nature. But there is a freedom, cruelty and liberty about the savage state that appeals to his nature. He says "the Filipinos have just the same feelings we have." If they have the same feelings we have why do they not want civilization? In the March number of the North American Review Carnegie writes: "Traveling in Southern India one day I was taken into the country. The adults working in a grove, men and women, had each a rag round their loins, but the boys and girls, with their black, glossy skins, were free of all encumbrance. This happy people wondered why we did not come and enjoy life in their favored clime," and adds, "It is just so with the Filipinos to-day. It is astonishing how much all human beings the world round are alike in their essentials." He says "the Filipinos prefer their own civilization." Are they civilized? They are not, and could not be under Spanish rule and tyranny, and although that yoke has been lifted, read what Carnegie says in the North American Review, March number:

"Are the broad liberty-loving and noble liberty-giving principles of Americanism as proclaimed by President Lincoln to be discarded for the narrow liberty-denying, race-subjecting, imperialism of President McKinley? Never had this nation greater cause to extol Abraham Lincoln than on this ninetieth anniversary of his birth, and never till to-day had it cause to lament that a successor in the Presidential chair should attempt to subvert his teaching."

Is it any wonder that blood is being shed to-day, when the Filipinos are thus led to believe that President McKinley wants to make slaves of them? But the war, with its wide-spreading desolation, we hope will soon be over. But many human beings, the Christian soldiers, and the ignorant half-civilized braves, are lying in their graves; many mothers are mourning for their sons, husbands, and brothers, and why ? Because the Filipinos believed the lie that their false friends, the anti-imperialist leaders, told them, that they were to be made slaves, and they fought for the freedom that they knew not was theirs. The Filipinos issued a proclamation in which are these words: "We will fight to the death. Coming generations will pray over our graves, shedding tears of gratitude for their freedom." No one believes that Andrew Carnegie for one instant believes what he asserts about the Filipinos being made slaves. There is not a sane man in America ignorant enough to believe such a thing.

A man to be consistent should in every way conform to his proclaimed principles. What difference is there in outward pomp and show between Andrew Carnegie and a king? What belongs to one by heritage the other acquires by purchase. Andrew Carnegie calls himself an anti-imperialist. But Skibo Castle and town of Skibo belong to him by purchase; he imitates in every way what he condemns and buys all he can of it. In Pittsburg on Founders Day, November 3, 1898, he played sovereign behind closed doors. Every door of the building "free to the people" was guarded by police to keep out the people. One of the people managed to pass the police. She wanted

"To watch the symptoms o' the Great,
The gentle pride, the lordly state,
The arrogant assuming."

But she was quickly ejected by the police inside. Only a woman had the courage to attempt such a feat. It was "high treason," and she had cause to be thankful that she was not punished for contempt of police. Late in the afternoon the people were permitted to enter the presence of Mr. Carnegie for a short time, after the police had seen the aristocrats safely into their carriages. Mr. Carnegie, without their knowledge, had guarded them from the people. The crowd of people on that occasion was not so great, but the number of police was. Every step you took they glared at you, they trod upon your heels. Was it a bodyguard or lack of confidence in the people to conduct themselves properly? With his proclaimed ideas on equality he should not, particularly on Founders' Day, have made any distinction, but should alike have received the general public. Some parties passing through Pittsburg on that day had remained over to see the famed picture presented by Mr. Frick to the Carnegie Art Gallery. They stood outside with the people. On gaining admittance they hastened to find the picture, but on reaching the spot Mr. Carnegie was in evidence. He stood before the picture of Christ, and was receiving the people there.

Many workingmen at Carnegie's mills complain and protest against being compelled to work on the Sabbath day. They hear the music from the Carnegie organs, while click, clack, click, clack go the mills, grinding out wealth for Carnegie, grinding the very life and joy out of the hearts of the brave toilers. Andrew Carnegie's sympathies are so occupied with the Filipinos, and his aggressiveness towards President McKinley is so great, that he has forgotten the assertion he made that "charity should begin at home and also end at home."

Who are the "fellows" he claims he is doing so much for? Who are the "men" he claims to serve? Surely he is not doing anything for our respected citizens, the workingmen. He is not giving the mill men an opportunity to cultivate their talents, among whom are many diamonds in the rough. With Carnegie's superfluous wealth, why does he not show some appreciation of them rather than waste his "time, means" and sympathies on the Filipinos, who have a champion in our humane and Christian President? What time have the mill men to benefit by the Carnegie libraries? What time have they on Saturdays, before the evening meal, to change their soiled garments for fresh apparel, which is so essential to health and comfort? They need rest, they have home duties, and should have some pleasure and recreation also. Let Andrew Carnegie set the example, and be content to make less money. Let the mills close on Saturdays at noon. On God's day let the noisy wheels be still. Let the men be paid so they will not feel that Sunday is a day lost, but a day gained. How can men who are only half fed on poor food have brain power and strength to endure constant toil? Constant motion wears out machinery, even when well oiled. As miasma arises from low, swampy land, so a dangerous element arises from poverty, hunger, and want. Some good and true articles have recently been written by some Populists who are really and truly sincere in their appeals for their "fellow men." But organized charity and combines have greatly increased their bitterness. They sneer at the philanthropy that rears magnificent edifices with money that should rather be paid in good living wages to the toilers. "The philanthropy of vanity and egotism that builds its monuments while it lives," that lacks even the politeness of the posthumous Tartuffe, whose etiquette bade him wait till he was dead before he became offensive.

And now, after all the trouble Andrew Carnegie has caused by remaining in Washington and has had his wish gratified, that the American soldiers would be shot by the insurgents, he proposes to rear to himself a monument, a free library, in Washington, where he has carried on warfare against the President of the United States, and he asks that a site be furnished, and that Congress appropriate $10,000 a year to maintain it. That means taxation for the people. But in these days, when education is compulsory and books are so cheap that they are within the reach of all who wish to read, why does Mr. Carnegie put such vast sums in magnificent buildings and speak against the expenditure of money in behalf of human beings whom God has cast at our very feet, that they may be lifted up from degradation to civilization, that they may become a higher order of beings? But if we must have free libraries let them be revised and improved. Let a certain number of books be given to applicants each year, books that will cultivate and improve the mind. From a sanitary point of view the promiscuous circulation of books should be condemned, and in time will be. Only the few know what unwholesome quarters the books go to and return from. On visiting at the house of a poor family the first thing that caught the eye, on entering the bare, cheerless room, was a bunch of flowers from the Phipps Conservatory; an old broken pitcher held the flowers, the only bright thing in the room. A kind neighbor who was employed at the conservatory had brought them to a young girl who was suffering from tuberculosis. On her lap lay a book brought by another friend from the Carnegie Library. The girl's cold moist hands lay on the open book. But enough!

Many taxpayers do not know what a large amount they have to pay for Carnegie's free libraries. The citizens of Atlanta, Ga., were much surprised when Mr. Carnegie offered them a library. In speaking of that gift, he said: "I have been pleased no little lately to notice the public spirit of that community; how strongly in support of the American Constitution those people are, and how in accord with the sentiments of Washington's farewell address warning us against entanglements with foreign nations. The patriotism displayed by the people of the South at the Atlanta peace jubilee was notable. I have observed these things, and I felt that I would like to help those people if I could. I had some correspondence with our agent at Atlanta concerning the library there. Then I determined to give a building for their library if the city would agree to appropriate $5,000 annually for its maintenance. I never give anything for nothing. It is my faith to help those who help themselves. The Atlanta people agreed to do this, and I went into copartnership with the city of Atlanta...."

Carnegie's motive in giving a library to Atlanta is patent. President McKinley's speech to the people of Atlanta made such a favorable impression that Carnegie hoped by the gift to counteract it. He conveys to them the impression that they are and must be anti-imperialists. That is what he requires of them for the gift.

"I heard not only Admiral Dewey and Major-General Otis, but Generals MacArthur, Anderson, Hale, Lawton, Brigadier-General Otis and Colonels Smith and Summers use terms as strong as I have on this unhappy feature of the war."

Andrew Carnegie has announced his intention of interesting himself in politics the coming fall. It is to be hoped his doing so will not prove as disastrous as his interest in the Philippine question.

The presidential campaign of 1900 promises to be an exciting one. The disturbing element in this country who do not appreciate the prosperous condition of affairs to-day will make a fierce fight to change them by electing another President. Let all loyal citizens, irrespective of party, take an active interest in the coming campaign, and defeat the enemies of representative government. We should also be careful to elect only good, honest, loyal men to represent us in Congress, as the machinations of traitors in the House have done and can do a deal of mischief.

This book is a waif. It never can enter the doors of the Carnegie libraries. But those who pity the poor, for whose benefit it is written, will take it to their homes. And those who do not, will take it also -- so either way the waif will find a home.

THE END.

Excerpted from:
Citation: Campbell, M. F. and J. C. "Anti-Carnegie: Scraps and Comments." (Pittsburg, 1899). http://www.boondocksnet.com/reaction/anti-carnegie.html In Jim Zwick, ed., Anti-Imperialism in the United States, 1898-1935. http://www.boondocksnet.com/ail98-35.html (Nov. 26, 1999).