Milledgeville, Georgia, December 18, 1905.Hon. Thomas E. Watson, Thompson, Ga.Dear Sir:Tom Watson’s Magazinecontains more sound principles and good common horse sense, (just what the people need) than any other paper published in the United States, and I wish you would answer the following questions, to wit:(1) Does it not look like the North, East and West are determined to adhere to their hellish, reconstruction policy to the end of time?(2) What material difference does it make to Georgia, or the Common people in her limits whether she has six or eleven representatives in Congress?(3) Is it not true that the only material benefit in being represented at all in these times, accrues to the fellow who draws the five or six thousand salary annually?(4) Is it not true that the Northern, Eastern and Western Democrats vote as a unit with the Republicans whenever any question affects the South is the issue?(5) Why is it that the Southern Democrats do not stand as a unit and vote for whatever is best for the whole country, regardless of party, and thereby hold the balance of power in the Government?(6) How can the North, East and West be convinced and made to understand that the negro lives in the South, is part of the South, and that the white people of the South are going to say and dictate what the negro’s political and social status shall be while he remains in the South?(7) Are there not thousands of white people in every State of the Union who are as incompetent to cast a vote intelligently as the negro is, and why not reduce the representatives in Congress from each State accordingly?
Milledgeville, Georgia, December 18, 1905.
Hon. Thomas E. Watson, Thompson, Ga.
Dear Sir:Tom Watson’s Magazinecontains more sound principles and good common horse sense, (just what the people need) than any other paper published in the United States, and I wish you would answer the following questions, to wit:
(1) Does it not look like the North, East and West are determined to adhere to their hellish, reconstruction policy to the end of time?
(2) What material difference does it make to Georgia, or the Common people in her limits whether she has six or eleven representatives in Congress?
(3) Is it not true that the only material benefit in being represented at all in these times, accrues to the fellow who draws the five or six thousand salary annually?
(4) Is it not true that the Northern, Eastern and Western Democrats vote as a unit with the Republicans whenever any question affects the South is the issue?
(5) Why is it that the Southern Democrats do not stand as a unit and vote for whatever is best for the whole country, regardless of party, and thereby hold the balance of power in the Government?
(6) How can the North, East and West be convinced and made to understand that the negro lives in the South, is part of the South, and that the white people of the South are going to say and dictate what the negro’s political and social status shall be while he remains in the South?
(7) Are there not thousands of white people in every State of the Union who are as incompetent to cast a vote intelligently as the negro is, and why not reduce the representatives in Congress from each State accordingly?
ANSWER
My opinion is that a majority of the people of the North, East and West have become satisfied to let the South exercise the same right to settle her domestic affairs that they practice in settling theirs.
Only a minority—some members of which try to make up in noise what it lacks in numbers—cling to the old prejudices, passions, and policy of interference. Mr. Ernest Crosby—a hot partisan for negro rights—has recently published a “Life of Garrison,” and very boldly admits that while Slavery was wrong the war which was waged upon the South was also wrong.
Ten years ago such a sentiment would have drawn volleys of protest from the North, the East and the West.
There are no protests now; and I shouldn’t wonder if a majority of the intelligent people of those sections would admit that while Slavery was a moral wrong, that it had been practiced by both sections, given a solemn Constitutional sanction as a condition precedent to the Union, that the South had a right to withdraw from a voluntary compact whose terms had not been kept, and that the war which was made upon her to force her back into the Union was a colossal mistake and wrong.
(2) None whatever.
(3) It is.
(4) If it is a question where sectional interest or feeling is aroused—yes.
(5) Because of the tyranny of party name and party organization. Southern Democrats dare not vote independently.
(6) I think they begin to understand it. The more they see of the negroin Mass, the better they will realize our problem. As long as they seem to think that all the Southern negroes are as nice and wise as Booker Washington, they will, of course, find it difficult to get our point of view of the race question. But they will gradually come to see that there is only one Booker Washington and thatheisn’t doing anything more than running a large school which any ordinary white College President could run on one half the money which Doctor Washington rakes in—why opinion will change. The doings of the negroes in San Domingo—where there are no mean Southern whites to beat, cheat, or lynch them—will also have influence in opening the eyes of the world as to what the negro,in Mass, actually is.
The idea that the negro is merely a white gentleman whom the Almighty inadvertently painted black will disappear, in time.
(7) The “suppressed vote” in some of the states of the Union appears to be quite large and the number of illiterate, criminal and incompetent voters is likewise great. A square deal would demand that whatever rule is applied to the South should be applied to the others.
Idalia, Colo., December 29, 1905.Hon. Thomas E. Watson, New York.Dear Sir: Will you kindly print in your next issue of your Magazine the names of Presidential candidates of the Democratic and People’s party of 1896 and 1900.Most respectfully,⸺ ⸺.
Idalia, Colo., December 29, 1905.
Hon. Thomas E. Watson, New York.
Dear Sir: Will you kindly print in your next issue of your Magazine the names of Presidential candidates of the Democratic and People’s party of 1896 and 1900.
Most respectfully,
⸺ ⸺.
ANSWER
1896, Democratic Candidates, Bryan and Sewall. People’s Party Candidates: Bryan and Watson.
1900, Democratic Candidates: Bryan and Stevenson. People’s Party Candidates: Barker and Donnelly.
Gilmore City, Mo., December 2, 1905.Hon. Thomas E. Watson.Dear Sir: I am a reader of your Magazine and am highly entertained by its editorials especially, also by its Educational Department. Am a member of the Old Guard and I take the liberty to ask you a few questions in the line of Populism.(1.) Does England call her navy to a certain point from thousands of miles distant to fire a salute on George Washington’s Birthday, or that of any of our noted Presidents, as we did eighteen vessels a month ago for King Edward? How ridiculous for a republic!(2.) Why has not the Census of 1900 been given to the public, as were former ones, within two years after being taken? It was the disclosures of the 1890 Census that tripled the Populist vote in ’92.(3.) Has the $900,000,000 of farm mortgage indebtedness been increased or diminished in the ten years following 1890?(4.) Are the free holdings of the people increasing on a ratio with the increase of population in these U. S.?Yours very truly,⸺ ⸺.
Gilmore City, Mo., December 2, 1905.
Hon. Thomas E. Watson.
Dear Sir: I am a reader of your Magazine and am highly entertained by its editorials especially, also by its Educational Department. Am a member of the Old Guard and I take the liberty to ask you a few questions in the line of Populism.
(1.) Does England call her navy to a certain point from thousands of miles distant to fire a salute on George Washington’s Birthday, or that of any of our noted Presidents, as we did eighteen vessels a month ago for King Edward? How ridiculous for a republic!
(2.) Why has not the Census of 1900 been given to the public, as were former ones, within two years after being taken? It was the disclosures of the 1890 Census that tripled the Populist vote in ’92.
(3.) Has the $900,000,000 of farm mortgage indebtedness been increased or diminished in the ten years following 1890?
(4.) Are the free holdings of the people increasing on a ratio with the increase of population in these U. S.?
Yours very truly,
⸺ ⸺.
ANSWER
(1) No.
(2) You can get the Census Reports of 1900, by spurring up your Congressman.
(3) The “encumbered” homes show an increase, as do the “hired” homes.
(4) No. Concentration of wealth in the hands of a few goes on at a more frightful rate than ever.Five thousand mennow own one-sixth of the entire wealth of the Union. One man, J. D. Rockefeller, could buy the State of Georgia, give it away, and then have enough to buy it back.
Cooledge, Texas.Hon. Thomas E. Watson.Dear Sir: I received your August number of Magazine. I don’t know exactly what it is you propose. It is perhaps the dull apprehension of an old hayseed from down at the fork of the Creek.(1.) Is the money you propose for the Government to issue to be redeemable Treasury Notes, or is it to be absolute Fiat money?(2.) Do you propose the free and unlimited coinage of gold and silver at 16 to 1? If not at that ratio, what ratio do you propose?(3.) Is it not a fact that from 1792 to 1834 we were practically on the silver standard and that after 1834 we were practically on the gold standard, and that this change was the effect of the change of ratio, made by the act of 1834? Why was it that in 1853 the Government coined fractional silver of lighter weight in proportion to value than the standard dollar?(4.) You claim for the Government the power to create money. If that be so, why clamor for gold and silver only? Let us suppose that the United States Treasury is now full of such money as you propose, Gold, Silver or Fiat. I want some of it. How am I to get it?I agree with you heartily that the making of our Federal Government is all out of joint, and I think that it is the unwarranted meddling with affairs over which it has no rightful control. The remedy, as I think, isnotin enlarging and extending its powers, for every step taken in that direction makes worse conditions possible. Let us say to her in plain language: “Thus farshalt thou go, and no farther. Get back to the track marked out for you and stay there.”What is here written is in all honesty and in a controversial spirit and should you see fit to refer to them, I will be glad to have the number.I am not a subscriber now. May be soon.Best wishes.
Cooledge, Texas.
Hon. Thomas E. Watson.
Dear Sir: I received your August number of Magazine. I don’t know exactly what it is you propose. It is perhaps the dull apprehension of an old hayseed from down at the fork of the Creek.
(1.) Is the money you propose for the Government to issue to be redeemable Treasury Notes, or is it to be absolute Fiat money?
(2.) Do you propose the free and unlimited coinage of gold and silver at 16 to 1? If not at that ratio, what ratio do you propose?
(3.) Is it not a fact that from 1792 to 1834 we were practically on the silver standard and that after 1834 we were practically on the gold standard, and that this change was the effect of the change of ratio, made by the act of 1834? Why was it that in 1853 the Government coined fractional silver of lighter weight in proportion to value than the standard dollar?
(4.) You claim for the Government the power to create money. If that be so, why clamor for gold and silver only? Let us suppose that the United States Treasury is now full of such money as you propose, Gold, Silver or Fiat. I want some of it. How am I to get it?
I agree with you heartily that the making of our Federal Government is all out of joint, and I think that it is the unwarranted meddling with affairs over which it has no rightful control. The remedy, as I think, isnotin enlarging and extending its powers, for every step taken in that direction makes worse conditions possible. Let us say to her in plain language: “Thus farshalt thou go, and no farther. Get back to the track marked out for you and stay there.”
What is here written is in all honesty and in a controversial spirit and should you see fit to refer to them, I will be glad to have the number.
I am not a subscriber now. May be soon.
Best wishes.
ANSWER
(1) Money that is “redeemable” in other money is not my idea of money. A dollar is not redeemed by swapping another dollar for it. The only redemption of the dollar which amounts to anything beneficial is when a debt, public or private, is redeemed by paying it off in legal tender. I redeem my promissory note by paying the amount of money it calls for: I redeem all my other dues and debts in the same way. Nothing is redeemed when a gold dollar is given for a silver dollar, or a metallic dollar exchanged for a paper dollar. That method of fooling the people will go out of fashion as the people become educated. All money is absolute fiat money. That is, the law makes the money. God made no money. Nature made no money. Evolution made no money. The law takes raw material and makes money out of it, just as the lumberman takes a log and makes plank or shingles out of it.
The Government fiat makes gold money, makes silver money, makes nickel money, makes copper money. It would with equal ease and certainty make iron or papermoney.
Wheneverthe lawsays that a paper dollar shall go just as far, asa legal tender, as the gold dollar goes, the paper will suit me and you just as well as the gold.
(2) Yes.
(3) No. See page 275, January issue of this Magazine.
(4) I do not clamor for gold and silver only. We demand the money of the Constitution which has been taken away from us by venal Congressmen who were bribed by Wall Street and the European financiers.
How could you get some of the fiat money?
This is but another form of the old question of getting the paper money into circulation.
There are several ways.
(1) The Government could pay off the National debt.
(2) The Government could build new railroads, or buy those already built.
(3) The Government could pay current expenses with it.
(4) Could build the Panama Canal with it.
(5) Could establish a Department which would lend it to the people, direct, at a low interest, as is done in Europe.
In Norway and Sweden the Government lends money to the farmers on their land, on long time, at low interest. These banks have been most beneficial and successful.
In France and in Russia the Government makes loans upon produce.
In Germany the Government bank lends money on land security, directly to the land-owner.
In Greece, the farmers can get money from the Government banks.
In Great Britain, the Government lends money to the citizen to buy land.
The only reason in the world why our people cannot secure similar advantages, is that we are cruelly oppressed by corporation tyranny and greed.