Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Architectural glass patents of Ingalls and Hyatt

Among the records of the Architectural Glass Patent Index, you'll find several patents by Joshua King Ingalls, as well as a much greater number by his friend, associate, and fellow reformer, Thaddeus Hyatt. The illustration (taken from the site) is of a design by Ingalls, Patent 146,074, Dec. 30, 1873, for "Improvement in Illuminating Vault-Covers."

S. B. Brittan, "J. K. Ingalls" (1873)

Samuel Byron Brittan included this notice of his friend, Joshua King Ingalls, in Brittan’s Journal, Vol. II, No. 2, (1874) pp. 275-6.

J. K. Ingalls

This representative of the Land Reform was born in Swanzey, Mass., July 21st, 1816, and is now in his fifty-seventh year. He was the youngest of six children, and at the age of four years lost his father. His mother, being a woman of decided energy, contrived to keep her little brood together until, one after another, they were able to go out into the great world and make places for themselves. At the age of twelve years our subject had commenced to seek employment abroad during the summer season, but spent his winters at home in going to school, occupying the hours not employed in study doing whatever was most necessary about the homestead.

Subsequently the boy went to trade; but soon after completing his apprenticeship he met with Rev. William S. Balch—of the Universalist denomination—who seems to have changed the current of the young man’s life. He immediately commenced the study of theology, Mr. Balch rendering him such assistance as he was able. Mr. Ingalls’ first settlement was in 1840 at Southold, L. I., where he remained until the New York Association of Universalists—alarmed at the growing liberalism of the younger ministers—reduced the theological platform to such narrow dimensions that our friend fell off, with several of his brethren. Ecclesiastical councils have very little to do in making and unmaking such men as Ingalls, who found outside the church standing ground so broad and firm that he never troubled himself to so much as attempt the recovery of his old footing in the sectarian institution. [276]

Of late years, Mr. Ingalls has distinguished himself by his uncompromising hostility to Land Monopoly, and for the warmth, earnestness, and intelligence with which he has defended the just claims of Labor against the unrighteous exactions of Capital. In this service he has labored with uncommon zeal and great disinterestedness, and has made himself a place in the minds and hearts of many of his toiling countrymen. It will be inferred from the subjoined embodiment of his cardinal idea—expressed for this special purpose—that Mr. Ingalls looks in this particular direction for the incipient developments in the process of social regeneration.

In person Mr. Ingalls is rather below the average stature, but well organized and capable of great endurance. His temperament is nervous sanguineous; and his large front brain indicates an unusual preponderance of the reflective faculties. He is self-centered, and never disturbed by trifles; his manners are simple and free from the slightest appearance of ostentation; and his voice, which is well modulated and musical, never suggests the presence of the destructive passions. Though not especially prepossessing at first sight, Mr. Ingalls has a very transparent face—constantly illuminated by a benign expression—that never fails to inspire implicit confidence in the purity of his motives and the integrity of his nature.


“An effective limitation of the right of private property in the soil, and in the crude material gratuitously supplied by Nature—out of which all wealth is developed—must constitute the initial step in any rational solution of the social problem.”

Joshua King Ingalls, The Exodus of Labor (1852)

This essay originally appeared in The Shekinah, Vol. 1 (1852), p. 363-369. The Shekinah was one of several periodicals edited by S. B. Brittan, a spiritualist, reformer, and friend of J. K. Ingalls. Ingalls seems to have contributed something to nearly all of Brittan's projects. I'll be posting other material by and about Ingalls in the near future, as I start to finalize the forthcoming print collection.


Through long, long ages has labor sighed and toiled under a worse than Egyptian bondage. Its utmost stretch of memory can scarce recall its pastoral days, when it frolicked and gamboled with the herd upon the plain or mountain side. Enslaved by the gold of civilization, which itself has mined and coined, it is no less oppresssed in the middle of the Nineteenth Century, than it was in the days of ancient barbarism, or more recent feudalism. Nor has it scarce other hope than the oppressed Hebrew felt, when his demand for freedom was met by an increase of task, while at the same time he was compelled to furnish his own material.

But it is not our intention to dwell on the fearful picture, where a background of darkness is only relieved by the gaunt forms of human beings, yoked to ceaseless and unrequited toil; our object is to inquire whether these bondmen and bondwomen have another and more powerful prospect in the future; whether, indeed, an Exodus be possible, and what must be its character and direction.

And, first of all, it would seem necessary to settle this important question: Do the existing relations which labor sustains to its own production, wealth, admit of any possible emancipation of the laborer from his present acknowledged wrongs? The point at issue has nothing to do with the question whether certain persons, favorably endowed or suited, may not work themselves out of the oppressed condition; because under every system of tyranny, individuals have risen from the lowest to superior estates. In doing so, however, they have not changed the condition of the classes to which they formerly belonged, and may indeed have been instrumental in heaping new burdons upon [362] the already overtasked slave. The simple fact that under existing conditions, the power of increase in wealth is "as the squares of the periods," while labor is only awarded in proportion to the "addition of periods"—and that at such rates as fail to furnish suitable sustenance and means of advancement—demonstrates that under such a system labor has no hope, that while it lives and rules, labor must starve and die.

However shocking this declaration may be to the conservative rich or poor, to the worshiper of gold, on the throne or in the ditch, it must be made; for, until this truth is proclaimed and received by prince and peasant, the millionaire and the common laborer, there is no hope of reconciliation for mankind, no redemption of humanity from bondage, no reign of justice, and no adequate reward for the industry of the toiling. To vary and amend that system, will avail nothing; the inhuman falsehood which underlies our financial and commercial systems, which places money before man, and enables the former to assert dominion over his personal liberty, his right to home, to the earth, to the products of his own industry, however modified and disguised, will work out its own ungodly and terrible results. To express in a concise manner what is meant, it is enough to say, that for the slave to be free, it is necessary that slavery should die; for the people to enjoy liberty, that absolutism be extinguished; and for labor to enjoy it own productions, that the claims and exactions of capital be utterly abrogated and annulled.

But as the writer’s views on these subjects are already before the public, let us address ourselves to the method of transition that must ensue, unless the race have already progressed to the culminating point, and their future history is to be but a backward march through the ages from which they have slowly and painfully emerged. Two measure, earth-wide from each other, have principally been insisted on. First, revolution; embracing the death of tyrants, and the destruction of wealth. The second, mediation, conciliation and compromise between the oppressed and the tyrant, between labor and wealth, between God and Mammon. Whether either of these can effect any salutary result, it is not difficult to decide. The records of blood [363] give no reliable testimony to the efficacy of revolt. A tyrant, no longer endurable, or too weak to maintain his reign of injustice, is made to give place to one more moderate or cunning, but no less dangerous. Destruction of caste and rank can do little to secure any people against tyranny; for the same elements of ignorance, selfishness, and worse than childish reverence for name, the outward show and display of power, will soon create a new order of nobility, and establish an empire from the relics of the monarchy. We use these terms in their widest sense, allowing the absolutist principle, signified by tyranny, to comprehend all domination of the thing over the man, whether it be a rule of legitimacy or usurpation, of a monarchy, hierarchy, aristocracy, or democracy. That which exalts form, rank, or wealth above the human soul, and claims that man was made for these, and not these for man, is equally dangerous to all freedom, especially freedom of labor, whether in despotic or republican systems. As it was a questionable expedient which demolished the pagan idols, idolatry being thereby ingrafted on Christianity, so to destroy the world' despots, who are only upheld by a strange semi-superstition of the people, would only be to give that feeling a different object of exercise. It is questionable, indeed, whether it be not more legitimate to acknowledge and reverence the rule of a man than the dominion of gold. The servile or ambitious mind, actuated by blind selfishness, will have some emblem of power to worship; if it be not a monarch by right divine, it will be the dollar of divine might. And never, until a higher position is assumed, and the thoughts and affections of men become more expanded—so that fraternal love shall have control where self-love predominates, and the human spirit be reverenced in every human form—will any radical change be even so much as possible.

While men will seek isolated and conflicting interests, by competition and hazardous speculation, the results consequent on such procedure will inevitably be experienced. Plethoric wealth, idleness, extravagance, extortion, oppression and dissipation, will develop themselves at one extreme, and squalid poverty, vagrancy, dependence, servility and disorder, at the other. Nor is help for this result any where to be found, but in [364] striking at the foundation of evil. No political measure, yet proposed by any party, can so much as delay the terrible catastrophe, which is already casting its dark shadow over us. The fragmentary efforts at association, based upon the same false ground that money may share the awards of human toil, have thus far proved only able to benefit a few, at the expense of many, as the competition of the world must necessarily affect all organizations, in proportion as they acknowledge the principle of man’s subserviency to wealth.

Nor does it seem possible to effect any permanent good by organizations for building or for manufacturing. The result is to build up, more and more, the populous places, and thus concentrate the evils of monopoly and speculation which exhibit themselves in the cities and larger towns of our country. For though it may increase the proportions of those who have homes and wealth, it can not change the dependence nor lessen the toil of those who have not. To succeed truly, a movement toward social and industrial regulation must begin with the cultivation of the earth; not, however, to the exclusion of any useful trade or art. It should produce as far as possible every thing needed for consumption. Thus it would be enabled to avoid subjection to the exactions of the business system without, and yet be enabled, by its position, to exert a favorable influence abroad, as it could dictate terms to such as needed its surplus productions.

In the place of violent revolution, or a half and half compromise with tyranny, by joint-stock association or otherwise, I would then recommend emigration to the victims of oppression, both in the old and in the new world, of whatever nation, race, or color. A great portion of the continent and of Africa is open to colonization. If the despotism of courts or of coffers will not raise its yoke from the neck of labor, why then let labor slip from under the yoke; for this alternative it always has. Tyranny and wealth think labor can not get on without them. Let us see, then, how they will get on without labor. Is the desolation of those ancient seats of despotism and of riches a lesson which can only be learned by constant repetition?

There is no truth in history more clear than that the most [365] important changes to nations or races have been intimately connected with emigrations. The Exodus of the Hebrews but typifies what has been the experiences of all the historic or prominent races. Had not the propher-voice of Moses aroused that people to action, and infused into them a desire to go up and “possess the land which the Lord their God had given them,” they never would have attained any higher condition than that of a servile and dependent race. Our forefathers would have failed to become the free and independent people they were had they remained in oppressed and corrupted Europe. The impetus to all modern civilization and refinement was given to each European nation itself by emigration, so that scarce a relic remains of ancient European nationalities or institutions as they existed in the times of the Cæsars.

In all systems based on partial and unequal principles, corruption and oppression develop more and more with the duration and stability of institutions. Whether there is good enough in our Anglo-American institutions to combat effectually the evil we have ingrafted in our system from the European stock, or otherwise, it is evident that a comprehensive movement looking toward the possession of the land, yet unappropriated, would do much to strengthen the bands of justice and of right in the Atlantic States, and greatly weaken the power of wealth which now exacts the moiety of all labor’s productions.

Developments at the seat of government seem to indicate that a systematic effort to people the public lands would not be opposed, if it was not encouraged in that quarter. And it might be well, if, while the savans there are discussing this proposition, the people would decide it for them by actual occupation, and rely upon the best and only true claim—that they need the land, and use it.

There are various reasons why any comprehensive and successful experiment must look to the occupation and cultivation of the soil; the principal of which is, that by so doing, all competition and conflict of labor with itself will be avoided. The soil is the source of all sustenance and of all needful wealth. Its monopoly severs labor from its most natural province, and compels it to seek servile employment, and to underbid itself in [366] the mart where merchandise of limbs and bodies, and of heads and hearts, is made. Moreover, agriculture is the basis of all other trades and forms of business whatever, and where that is first well established, or being established, all other useful occupations can be securely followed. The great obstacle to be encountered in all this movement is the antagonism of jealousy, envy, and lack of harmony and good will among the industrious classes themselves. And no employment can be so well carried on by people individually as the cultivation of the earth. There is the least in it to excite feelings of prejudice or antagonism, and the most to develop the elements of mutual assistance and cooperation.

I do not look for any sudden change and combination in the social elements. Happy, indeed, if, after forty years wandering in the wilderness, we arrive at a true condition. Unless the experience of the last four hundred years, not to say eighteen, have no lesson, the design of Providence is to develop now the self-reliance, self-control, and real identity of the individual. Submission, then, to communal authority, arbitrarily imposed, is no more a part of the Divine plan than the authority of Cæsar or of Mammon. Man must be MAN; not a slave, not a wheel or lever, in some nicely constructed machine. He is the offspring of Deity, and his birthright must be maintained and respected. Nothing to my mind is so calculated to infuse self-respect and to give an elevated tone to labor, as the consciousness of being dependent only on the cooperation of Nature, and of toiling with her for the supply of those wants which only indicate her bounteous provision.

If there is a portion of the laboring class which more especially need an Exodus, for them I see no other hope than that connected with emigration and independent municipal arrangements. Emancipation, in the place, and under the influence of existing prejudices and institutions, would scarcely be regarded as an individual benefit; and not the slavery, but only the kind would be changed. The chattel would, and, as a general thing, must become the hireling. While if he emigrates, especially to a country where such prejudices do not exist, or, still better, to the land of his forefathers' and is enabled to get possession of [367] the soil he at once becomes an independent and self-relying freeman, in the truest and best sense. The subject of colonization has long been opposed by those who have claimed exclusive friendship for the colored man. A hopeful sign of the times is, that both they and he are coming to think more favorably of it, and to act for its promotion. The exercise of a due degree of wisdom will make that movement one of momentous import to the race and to the world.

It has been denounced as a scheme of singular turpitude, intended to increase rather than lessen the evils of slavery; but even if such had been the aim of its first founders, and of many now engaged in it, it should not prevent those from giving it encouragement who see clearly its potency to develop and elevate the race to which it more especially refers. It should certainly not prevent colored persons from taking advantage of its facilities, who are qualified and ready to take upon themselves the responsibilities as well as the privileges of independence.

It is also a promising indication, that attempts are already making to organize the emigration which is so rapidly filling the Western States. Associations have recently been formed, for the purpose of settling in towns and villages, where the ruggedness and isolation of frontier life is superseded at once by the enjoyments and advantages of society, schools, churches, stores, and markets; and by having the different trades represented, Bo as to furnish the agriculturist with the manufactures he requires, and an opportunity to dispose of his surplus products near home. These efforts must not only prove of great benefit to those directly interested, but are sure to be followed by comprehensive movements for the realization of a more true and beautiful life, while they will make more easy the transition from competitory to coöperative labor.

This transition must, in the very nature of things, be gradual. Prejudice, personal pride and selfishness, and habits of life which stand in the way of progress, must slowly wear away, and give place to love of humanity, and a spiritual reverence for the rights and possessions of all. The reform must be both spiritual and practical. Mere spiritual development, as the history of all sects bears witness, will end in asceticism or [368] fanatical partisanship, while mere temporal improvement will only beget penuriousness, and worldly pride and ostentation. In each of these directions the experience already attained ought to be sufficient. A movement, then, both deeply religious and thoroughly practical, is required, that oppressed and imbruted labor may arise to its natural position, and assume its divine prerogatives. Nothing short of this can save. Patent systems of divinity or politics are all futile now, and worse than useless. The devotion of the patriarchs; the patience and heroism of the martyrs; the untiring industry of the miser, with the diffusive spirit of unbounded charity; the stern determination of the Puritans to put down all wrong; with the deep reverence which love and religion inspire toward every being in human form; and the union of love, wisdom, and practical executive force;—these are the requisites to form an organization, and to give shape and direction to this anarchy of transition, which, with terror, is overwhelming alike earth’s tyrants and earth’s slaves, by its clamor for solution, and the establishment of true order.

In the spread of more exalted sentiments, the development of fraternal and universal love, combined with untiring effort to make practical the great idea of Republican Christianity, I see the future of labor to be hopeful beyond the utmost stretch of its present conceptions, divine, indeed, as it once was in the Type of enfranchised humanity, whose motives were disclosed in these words: “My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.” Labor, unconscious of it divinity, its godlike and creative force, shall soon awake—is even now awaking—to a sense of its own power, its duties, and its rights, and emancipation is sure. Its imperative demand for the land which God hath given, and which the powers of tyranny and wrong scarce dare longer deny, indicates that its progress will be at last in the right direction, and that its prospects and destiny will be no longer uncertain. It needs no prophet’s vision, no poet’s imagination, to portray the promised land to which it tends, “flowing with milk and honey.” For what has not labor done, even when shackled in chains, pinched with cold and want, with every hope crushed, and every noble aspiration withered? What will it not do, when accorded its divine rights, and moved by an enlightened and world-[369]-embracing love? Nor has earth a power to stay for a moment its enfranchisement. Only its own blindness, and servility, and antagonism can retard the Exodus; and even these will be conquered, yet not, it may be feared, until they shall have so far favored tyranny, that only through a Red Sea a passage will be found possible, and weary days of wandering be made to precede the advent of Universal Peace, and Right, and Brotherhood, the dawning light proclaims to be very, very near.

Wednesday, February 14, 2007

JK Ingalls bibliography

Just posted, but down the page, due to some 11th-hour revisions. A work-in-progress, but coming along nicely.

Saturday, February 10, 2007

Guess WTO's Coming to Dinner

An earlier (2000) lo-fi video project, put together in the midst of a redevelopment project in the downtown where my now-defunct bookstore was located. Pre-Podcast Era commentary and construction-zone ambience.

Wednesday, February 07, 2007

Voltairine de Cleyre: two articles on communism

My work in the files of the Twentieth Century keeps dredging up gems, including a handful of pieces by Voltairine de Cleyre. Here are two connected items. I'll post the sequel before the original, in part because it gives some context and clarification. From the February 9, 1893 issue:


"Cast thy bread upon the waters,
Find it after many days."

Two years ago, in a little uptown parlor, the home of a Philadelphia weaver, a group of inquirers after truth were wont to assemble bi-weekly for the discussion of "Communism vs. Individualism." There were generally present some fifteen Communists and five or six Individualists. Let it be here admitted that while all were earnestly seeking truth, each side was pretty thoroughly convinced that the other was searching in the wrong direction, and as near as I am able to ascertain we are all of the same opinion still. However, in the course of a year some crumbs of the bread floated into sight in the shape of a dialogue presenting the substance of those discussions, which appeared in the TWENTIETH CENTURY. Many more days again passed, and now a new fragment, in the shape of a criticism of the dialogue by M. Zametkin in the "People" of July 17, drifts in with the tide.

In attempting a brief reply to this criticism I do not presume to answer for my co-writer, Miss Slobodinsky. Being an Individualist of the ex-quoted stamp myself, I am in nowise authorized to speak for the "school." That is the advantage I possess over my critic. Individualism (without quotes) may very comfortably be interpreted as a general name for persons bound to agree upon only one thing, which is that they are not bound to agree on anything else. But when one adds Communist one begins to represent a creed common to a good many others; and if one doesn't represent it correctly, one must immediately recant or—be excommunicated. I suspect the arguments presented by "the imaginary Communist," which were really a condensation of those given by fifteen actual Communists in the discussions before mentioned, would be deemed heretical by M, Zametkin (in which case he must take to quotation marks), for it is well known that Communism itself has two individuals within its folds known as the State Communist and the Free Communist. Now, my friends, of whom the imaginary Communist was a composite, and who will be much surprised to learn on good Communistic authority that they are only straw men, belong to the latter variety sometimes called Anarchist-Communists. An Anarchist-Communist is a person who is a man first and a Communist afterward. He generally gets into a great many irreconcilable situations at once, believes that property and competition must die yet admits he has no authority to kill them, contends for equality and in the same breath denies its possibility, hates charity and yet wishes to make society one vast Sheltering Arms, and, in short, very generally rides two horses going in opposite directions at the same time. He is not usually amenable to logic; but he has a heart forty or fifty times too large for nineteenth century environments, and in my opinion is worth just that many cold logicians who examine society as a naturalist does a beetle, and impale it on their syllogisms in the same manner as the Emperor Domitian impaled flies on a bodkin for his own amusement. Besides, a free Communist when driven into a corner always holds to freedom first. The State Communist, on the other hand, is logical. He believes in authority, and says so. He ridicules a freedom for the individual which he believes inimical to the interests of the majority. He cries: "Down with property and competition," and means it. For the one he prescribes "take it" and for the other "suppress it." That is very frank.

Now to the "one point" of criticism, viz: the ill-adjustment of supply to demand in the case of free competition, resulting in a deficiency once in a thousand cases, and over-production the rest of the time—either of which is bad economy. Communism, I infer, would create a general supervisory board, with branch offices everywhere, which should proceed with a general kind of census-taking regarding the demand for every possible product of manufacture, of agriculture, of lumber, of minerals, for every improvement in education, amusement or religion. "Madam, about how many balls do your boys lose annually over the neighbors' fence? How many buttons do your little girls tear off their frocks? Sir, how many bottles of beer do you stow away in your cellar weekly for Sunday use? Miss, have you a lover? If so, how often do you write him, and how many sheets of paper do you use for each letter? How many gallons of oil do you use in the parlor lamp when you sit up late? This is not intended as personal, but merely to obtain correct statistics upon which to base next year's output of balls, buttons,: beer, paper, oil, etc. Mr. Storekeeper, show me your books, that the government may make sure you sell no more than the prescribed quantity.' Mr. Gatekeeper, how many people were admitted to the Zoological Garden last week? Two thousand? At the present ratio of increase the government will supply a new animal in six months. Mr. Preacher, your audiences are decreasing. We must inquire into the matter. If the demand is not sufficient, we must abolish you." Just what means would be taken by the Commune in case of a natural deficiency, as, for instance, the partial failure of the West Pennsylvania gas wells, to compel the obstreperous element to yield the "prescribed quantity," I can only conjecture. It might officially order an invention to take the place of the required commodity. Failing this, I do not know what plan would be adopted to preserve the equivalence of labor costs in exchange and have everybody satisfied. Omniscience, however, might provide a way. The competitive law is that the price of a shortened commodity goes up. Free competition would prevent artificial shortening; but if nature went into the business the commodity would certainly exact a premium in exchange, until some substitute had diminished the demand for it. "Ah," cries Communism, "injustice." To whom? "The fellows who were robbed in exchange." And you, what will you do? Exchange labor equivalents to the first comers, and let the rest go without? But what then becomes of the equal right of the others, who may have been very anxious to give more In this last case where is the injustice? As our critic observes, however, deficiency is not the greatest trouble, especially natural deficiency. The main thing is, must we be licensed, protected, regulated, labeled, taxed, confiscated, spied upon, and generally meddled with, in order that correct statistics may be obtained and a "quantity prescribed;" or may we trust to the producers to look out for their own interests sufficiently to avoid under-stocked and overstocked markets ? Whether we may expect provision and order from those concerned, or be condemned to accept a governmental bill of fare from those not concerned. For my part, sooner than have a meddlesome bureaucracy sniffing around in my kitchen, my laundry, my dining-room, my study, to find out what I eat, what I wear, how my table is set, how many times I wash myself, how many books I have, whether my pictures are "moral" or "immoral," what I waste, etc., ad nauseam, after the manner of ancient Peru and Egypt, I had rather a few thousand cabbages should rot, even if they happened to be my cabbages.

It is possible I might learn something from that.
Philadelphia, Pa.

It would be nice to see the Zametkin letter, but we can guess at least some of what was probably in it. De Cleyre and Slobodinsky were a bit hard on communists in the "Dialogue," a fact which de Cleyre seems aware of in this somewhat more nuanced follow-up. Her critic seems to be the same M. Zametkin who argued with Benjamin Tucker in the pages of Liberty. We can also probably predict the sorts of debates that posting this piece, which flirts—briefly, and clearly facetiously—with the language of "capitalistic Anarchism," will precipitate in places like Wikipedia talk-pages. But both pieces are vintage Voltairine—sharp, striking, and a bit opinionated—a kind of fun that even the Wikipediasts may find hard to spoil.

INDIVIDUALIST: "Our host is engaged and requests that I introduce myself to—I beg your pardon, sir, but have I not the pleasure of meeting the Communist speaker who addressed the meeting on Blank street last evening?"

COMMUNIST: "Your face seems familiar to me, too."

INDV.: "Doubtless you may have seen me there, or at some kindred place. I am glad at the opportunity to talk with you as your speech proved you to be somewhat of a thinker. Perhaps—"

COM.: "Ah, indeed, I recognize you now. You are the apostle of capitalistic Anarchism!"

INDV.: " Capitalistic Anarchism ? Oh, yes, if you choose to call it so. Names are indifferent to me; I am not afraid of bugaboos. Let it be so, then, capitalistic Anarchism."

COM: "Well, I will listen to you. I don't think your arguments will have much effect, however. With which member of your Holy Trinity will you begin: free land, free money, or free competition?"

INDV.: "Whichever you prefer."

COM.: "Then free competition. Why do you make that demand? Isn't competition froe now ?"

INDV.: '. No. But one of the three factors in production is free. Laborers are free to compete among themselves, and so are capitalists to a certain extent. But between laborers and capitalists there is no competition whatever, because through governmental privilege granted to capital, whence the volume of the currency and the rate of interest is regulated, the owners of it are enabled to keep the laborers dependent on them for employment, so making the condition of wage-subjection perpetual. So long as one man, or class of men, are able to prevent others from working for themselves because they cannot obtain the means of production or capitalize their own products, so long those others are not free to compete freely with those to whom privilege gives the means. For instance, can you see any competition between the farmer and his hired man? Don't you think he would prefer to work for himself? Why does the farmer employ him? Is it not to make some profit from his labor? And does the hired man give him that profit out of pure good nature? Would he not rather have the full product of his labor at his own disposal?"

COM.: "And what of that? What does that prove?"

INDV.: "I am coming to that directly. Now, does this relation between the farmer and his man in any way resemble a cooperative affair between equals, free to compete, but choosing to work together for mutual benefit? You know it does not. Can't you see that since the hired man does not willingly resign a large share of his product to his employer (and it is out of human nature to say he does), there must be something which forces him to do it? Can't you see that the necessity of an employer is forced upon him by his lack of ability to command the means of production? He cannot employ himself, therefore he must sell his labor at a disadvantage to him who controls the land and capital. Hence he is not free to compete with his employer any more than a prisoner is free to compete with his jailer for fresh air.

COM.: "Well, I admit that much. Certainly the employé cannot compete with his employer."

INDV.: "Then you admit that there is not free competition in the present state of society. In other words, you admit that the laboring class are not free to compete with the holders of capital, because they have not, and cannot get, the means of production. Now for your 'what of that?' It follows that if they had access to land and opportunity to capitalize the product of their labor they would either employ themselves, or, if employed by others, their wages, or remuneration, would rise to the full product of their toil, since no one would work for another for less than he could obtain by working for himself."

COM.: "But your object is identical with that of Communism! Why all this to convince me that the means of production must be taken from the hands of the few and given to all? Communists believe that; it is precisely what we are fighting for."

INDV.: "You misunderstand me if you think we wish to take from or give to any one. We have no scheme for regulating distribution. We substitute nothing, make no plans. We trust to the unfailing balance of supply and demand. We say that with equal opportunity to produce, the division of product will necessarily approach equitable distribution, but we have no method of 'enacting' such equalization."

Com.: ''But will not some be strong and skillful, others weak and unskillful? Will not one-deprive the other because he is more shrewd?"

INDV.: "Impossible! Have I not just shown you that the reason one man controls another's manner of living is because he controls the opportunities to produce? He does this through a special governmental privilege. Now, if this privilege is abolished, land becomes free, and ability to capitalize products removing interest, and one man is stronger or shrewder than another, he nevertheless can make no profit from that other's labor, because he cannot stop him from employing himself The cause of subjection is removed."

COM.: "YOU call that equality! That one man shall have more than others simply because he is stronger or smarter? Your system is no better than the present. What are we struggling against but that very inequality in people's possessions?"

INDV.: "But what is equality? Does equality mean that I shall enjoy what you have produced? By no means. Equality simply means the freedom of every individual to develop all his being, without hindrance from another, be he stronger or weaker."

COM.: "What! You will have the weak person suffer because he is weak? He may need as much, or more, than a strong one, but if he is not able to produce it what becomes of his equality?"

INDV.: "I have nothing against your dividing your product with the weaker man if you desire to do so."

COM.: "There you are with charity again. Communism wants no charity."

INDV.: I have often marveled on the singularity of Communistic mathematics. My act you call charity, our act is not charity. If one person does a kind act you stigmatize it; if one plus one, summed up and called a commune, does the same thing, you laud it By some species of alchemy akin to the transmutation of metals, the arsenic of charity becomes the gold of justice! Strange calculation! Can you not see that you are running from a bugaboo again? You change the name, but the character of an action is not altered by the number of people participating in it."

COM.: "But it is not the same action. For me to assist you out of pity is the charity of superior possession to the inferior. But to base society upon the principle: 'From each according to his capacity, and to each according to his needs' is not charity in any sense."

INDV.: "That is a finer discrimination than logic can find any basis for. But suppose that, for the present, we drop the discussion of charity, which is really a minor point, as a further discussion will show."

COM.: "But I say it is very important. See! Here are two workmen. One can make five pair of shoes a day; the other, perhaps, not more than three. According to you, the less rapid workmen will be deprived of the enjoyments of life, or at any rate will not be able to get as much as the other, because of a natural inability, a thing not his fault, to produce as much as his competitor."

INDV.: "It is true that under our present conditions, there are such differences in productive power. But these, to a large extent, would be annihilated by the development of machinery and the ability to use it in the absence of privilege. Today the majority of trade-people are working at uncongenial occupations. Why? Because they have neither the chance for finding out for what they are adapted, nor the opportunity of devoting themselves to it if they had. They would starve to death while searching; or, finding it, would only bear the disappointment of being kept outside the ranks of an already overcrowded pathway of life. Trades are, by force of circumstances, what formerly they were by law, matters of inheritance. I am a tailor because by father was a tailor, and it was easier for him to introduce me to that mode of making a living than any other, although I have no special adaptation for it. But postulating equal chances, that is free access and non-interest bearing capital, when a man finds himself unable to make shoes as well or as rapidly as his co-worker, he would speedily seek a more congenial occupation."

COM.: "And he will be traveling from one trade to another like a tramp after lodgings!"

INDV: "Oh no; his lodgings will be secure! When you admitted that competition is not now free, did I not say to you that when it becomes so, one of two things must happen: either the laborer will employ himself, or the contractor must pay him the full value of his product. The result would be increased demand for labor. Able to employ himself, the producer will get the full measure of his production, whether working independently, by contract, or cooperatively, since the competition of opportunities, if I may so present it, would destroy the possibility of profits. With the reward of labor raised to its entire result, a higher standard of living will necessarily follow; people will want more in proportion to their intellectual development; with the gratification of desires come new wants, all of which guarantees constant labor-demand. Therefore, even your trades-tramp will be sure of his existence.

"But you must consider further that the business of changing trades is no longer the difficult affair it was formerly. Years ago, a mechanic, or laborer, was expected to serve from four to seven years' apprenticeship. No one was a thorough workman until he knew all the various departments of his trade. Today the whole system of production is revolutionized. Men become specialists. A shoemaker, for instance, spends his days in sewing one particular seam. The result is great rapidity and proficiency in a comparatively short apace of time. No great amount of strength or skill is required; the machine furnishes both. Now, you will readily see that, even supposing an individual changes his vocation half a dozen times, he will not travel very long before he finds that to which he is adapted, and in which he can successfully compete with others."

COM.: "But admitting this, don't you believe there will always be some who can produce more than their brothers? What is to prevent their obtaining advantages over the less fortunate?"

INDV.: "Certainly I do believe there are such differences in ability, but that they will lead to the iniquity you fear I deny. Suppose A does produce more than B, does he in anyway injure the latter so long as he does not prevent B from applying his own labor to exploit nature, with equal facilities as himself, either by self-employment or by contract with others?"'

COM.: "Is that what you call right? Will that produce mutual fellowship among human beings? When I see that you are enjoying things which I cannot hope to get, what think you will be my feelings toward you? Shall I not envy and hate you, as the poor do the rich today."

INDV.: "Why, will you hate a man because he has finer eyes or better health than you? Do you want to demolish a person's manuscript because he excels you in penmanship? Would you cut the extra length from Samson's hair, and divide it around equally among al short-haired people? Will you share a slice from the poet's genius and put it in the common storehouse so everybody can go and take some? If there happened to be a handsome woman in your neighborhood who devotes her smiles to your brother, shall you get angry and insist that they be 'distributed according to the needs' of the Commune? The differences in natural ability are not, in freedom, great enough to injure any one or disturb the social equilibrium. No one man can produce more than three others; and even granting that much you can see that it would never create the chasm which lies between Vanderbilt and the switchman on his tracks."

COM.: "But in establishing equal justice, Communism would prevent even the possibility of injustice."

INDV,: "Is it justice to take from talent to reward incompetency? Is it justice to virtually say that the tool is not to the toiler, nor the product to the producer, but to others? Is it justice to rob toil of incentive? The justice you seek lies not in such injustice, where material equality could only be attained at the dead level of mediocrity. As freedom of contract enlarges, the nobler sentiments and sympathies invariably widen. With freedom of access to land and to capital, no glaring inequality in distribution could result. No workman rises far above or sinks much below the average day's labor. Nothing but the power to enslave through controlling opportunity to utilize labor force could ever create such wide differences as we now witness."

COM.: "Then you hold that your system will practically result in the same equality Communism demands. Yet, granting that, it will take a hundred years, or a thousand, perhaps, to bring it about. Meanwhile people are starving. Communism doesn't propose to wait. It proposes to adjust things here and now; to arrange matters more equitably while we are here to see it, and not wait till the sweet impossible sometime that our great, great grand children may see the dawn of. Why can't you join in with us and help us to do something?"

INDV.: "Yea, we hold that comparative equality will obtain, but pre-arrangement, institution, 'direction' can never bring the desired result—free society. Waving the point that any arrangement is a blow at progress, it really is an impossible thing to do. Thoughts, like things, grow. You cannot jump from the germ to perfect tree in a moment. No system of society can be instituted today which will apply to the demands of the future; that, under freedom will adjust itself. This is the essential difference between Communism and cooperation. The one fixes, adjusts, arranges things, and tends to the rigidity which characterizes the cast off shells of past societies; the other trusts to the unfailing survival of the fittest, and the broadening of human sympathies with freedom; the surety that that which is in the line of progress tending toward the industrial ideal, will, in a free field, obtain by force of its superior attraction. Now, you must admit, either that there will be under freedom, different social arrangements in different societies, some Communistic, others quite the reverse, and that competition will necessarily rise between them, leaving to results to determine which is the best, or you must crush competition, institute Communism, deny freedom, and fly in the face of progress. What the world needs, my friend, is not new methods of instituting things, but abolition of restrictions upon opportunity."

I'll be updating my Voltairine de Cleyre bibliography and getting that posted within the next week or so.

Monday, February 05, 2007

Joshua King Ingalls, bibliography update

[NOTE: The most current version of the Joshua King Ingalls bibliography can be found at the Libertarian Labyrinth archive.]

Here's an updated bibliography of works by, about and in response to Joshua King Ingalls, consisting primarily of items I have in hand. I'm sharing this more as an indication of progress being made on the first Ingalls Lab Report volume than as a finished project. It is far from finished, which is fairly good news, given the quality of Ingalls' contributions to the literature. I have yet to begin with his contributions to The Word, Fair Play, the Univercoelum, Social Science, Irish World, or any of a number of lesser-known papers to which he scattered contributions. Expect another update soon.

I've highlighted in blue a couple of items I have not yet tracked down.
  • [material in The Landmark, 1848]
  • Joshua King Ingalls, [review of Edward Kellogg, Labor and Other Capital, pt. 1], The Univercoelum, April 21, 1849.
  • Joshua King Ingalls, [review of Edward Kellogg, Labor and Other Capital, pt. 2], The Univercoelum, April 28, 1849.
  • J. K. I., "Creed," Spirit of the Age, I, 1 (July15, 1849), 11-12.
  • J. K. I., "Grave of the Landless," Spirit of the Age, I, 8 (August 25, 1849), 113.
  • Joshua King Ingalls, "Man and Property, their Rights and Relations," Spirit of the Age, I, 8 (August 25, 1849), 114-116.
  • Joshua King Ingalls, "Man and His Rights," Spirit of the Age, I, 9 (September 1, 1849), 130-131.
  • Joshua King Ingalls, "Property and Its Rights," Spirit of the Age, I, 10 (September 8, 1849), 146-8.
  • Joshua King Ingalls, "Relations, Existing and Natural, between Man and Property," Spirit of the Age, I, 16 (October 20, 1849), 243-246.
  • J. K. Ingalls, "Books—Their Sphere and Influence," Spirit of the Age, I, 24 (December 15, 1849), 369-371.
  • ---, ---, [reproduced in a letter from John Cushing], Liberator, Apr 16, 1852, 6.
  • Joshua King Ingalls, "Method of Transition for the Consideration of the True Friends of Human Rights and Human Progress," Spirit of the Age, I, 25 (December 22, 1849), 385-387.
  • Joshua King Ingalls, "Motives to Duty," Spirit of the Age, II, 3 (January 19, 1850), 42-43.
  • Joshua King Ingalls, "The Co-operative Brotherhood," Spirit of the Age, II, 4 (January 26, 1850), 56-7.
  • Joshua King Ingalls, "A Practical Movement for Transition," Spirit of the Age, II, 13 (March 30, 1850), p. 202-4.
  • Joshua King Ingalls, "Photography," American People's Journal of Science, Literature, and Art, Jan 1850; 1, 1; pg. 42-44.
  • J. K. Ingalls, "The Exodus of Labor," The Shekinah, Vol. 1, 1852, p. 363-369.
  • Joshua King Ingalls, "The Power of Right," The Spiritual Age, I (September 12, 1857), 77-78. [date given incorrectly in Martin as 1875]
  • Francis Barry, "From Francis Barry to J. K. Ingalls," The Optimist, and Kingdom of Heaven, 3 (June 1867), 3.
  • Joshua King Ingalls, "The Power of Money to Acumulate Value by Interest," The Revolution, December 24, 1868, 396-7.
  • "Labor, Wages, And Capital. Division Of Profits Scientifically Considered," Brittan's Quarterly Journal, I (1873), 66-79.
  • Joshua King Ingalls, ???, The Word, II (May, 1873), 3;
  • Joshua King Ingalls, ???, The Word, II (September, 1873), 1-2.
  • S. B. Brittan, "J. K. Ingalls," Brittan’s Quarterly Journal, Vol. II (1874), No. 2, pp. 275-6.
  • Joshua King Ingalls, ???, The Word, V (July, 1876) 1-2.
  • Joshua King Ingalls, "Land Reform: the Only Logical Solution to the Labor Question," The Word, V (August, 1876), 1.
  • Joshua King Ingalls, "Labor, Land, and Finance Reforms," The Word, V (December, 1876), 1.
  • Joshua King Ingalls, "More About the Liberal Club," The American Socialist, May 24, 1877; 2, 21; 163
  • Joshua King Ingalls, "The Wage Question," The American Socialist, Sep 20, 1877; 2, 38; 298.
  • editor, "Reply To Mr. Ingalls," The American Socialist, Sep 20, 1877; 2, 38; 300.
  • National Reform Association, Land and labor, their relations in nature how violated by monopoly, Princeton MA, 1877. [ILL]
  • Joshua King Ingalls, Periodical business crises. New York : Liberator (Co-operative) Print. and Pub. Co., 1878. 12 pages. [LOC, AAS]
  • Joshua King Ingalls, Work and wealth. Reprinted from "The Radical Review". New York, the Author, 1878(?). 13 pages.
  • ---, ---. Boston, B.R. Tucker, 1881. 13 pages.
  • The Proceedings and Addresses at the Freethinkers’ Convention Held at Watkins, N. Y., August 22d, 23d, 24th, and 25th, ‘78 (New York: D. M. Bennett, 1878): 5-25.
  • Ezra H. Heywood, ???, The Word, VII (April, 1880), 2.
  • Ezra H. Heywood, ???, The Word, VII (May, 1880), 3 [possibly 5/1882]
  • Joshua King Ingalls, Work and wealth : an essay on the economics of socialism. London : International Pub. Co., 1881. 12 pages.
  • Joshua King Ingalls, "Positive Limitation of Property," The Word, IX (March, 1881), 1.
  • Joshua King Ingalls, "Henry George Examined," Liberty, Oct 14, 1882; 2, 1; 5.
  • Joshua King Ingalls, Henry George examined : should land be nationalized or individualized? New York City : Published by the author, 1882. [reprint from Liberty, ] 16 pages.
  • Joshua King Ingalls, "Land Limitation and Taxation," Liberty, Nov 25, 1882; 2, 4; pg. 3.
  • [The Word, X (October, 1882), 1.]
  • Joshua King Ingalls, Social wealth: the sole factors and exact ratios in its acquirement and apportionment. New York : Social Science Pub. Co., 1885. 320 pages.
  • ---, ---. New York, The Truth Seeker Company, 1885. vi, [7]-320 pages.
  • Edgeworth, "Economic Fallacies," Liberty, Dec 26, 1885; 3, 20; pg. 8.
  • Edgeworth, "Land Nationalization," Liberty, Jan 23, 1886; 3, 22; pg. 8.
  • Benjamin R. Tucker, "On Picket Duty," Liberty, Jul 17, 1886; 4, 6; pg. 1. [William Rowe obit]
  • Joshua King Ingalls, Economic equities : a compend of the natural laws of industrial production and exchange. New York : Truth Seeker Co., 1887. 63 pages.
  • ???, [biographical sketch], Social Science, I (September 28, 1887), 2-3.
  • Joshua King Ingalls, "The Productivity of Capital," Social Science, I (October 5, 1887),12-13.
  • Joshua King Ingalls, "Social Science," Social Science, I, 39 (October 19, 1887), 8.
  • J. K. I., "Was this George’s doing?" Liberty, Dec 3, 1887; 5, 9; pg. 5.
  • Joshua King Ingalls, ["Land Reform" - see Liberty entry below], The Truth Seeker, April 28, 1888, p. 258.
  • Joshua King Ingalls, ["Land Reform" - see Liberty entry below], The Truth Seeker, May 5, 1888, p. 278.
  • Joshua King Ingalls, "Land Reform in 1848 and 1888," Liberty, Jun 9, 1888; 5, 22; pg. 5 [excerpts from 2-part article in the Truth Seeker]
  • Benjamin R. Tucker, [editorial note], Liberty, Jun 23, 1888; 5, 23; pg. 5 [JKI announces "Industrial Economy Lectures, lives in Glenora, NY]
  • J. K. Ingalls, "An Open Letter," The Woman's Tribune, Vol. 5, No. 50, November 3, 1888, p. 2-3. [to Francis E. Willard, W.C.T.U. Editorial note on p. 4]
  • [Fair Play, I (January 19, 1889),4.]
  • J. K. Ingalls, "Woman's Industrial Subjection.—No. 1.—Its Origin," The Woman's Tribune, February 23, 1889, p. 82.
  • J. K. Ingalls, "Woman's Industrial Subjection.—No. 2.—Its Gradual Development Under Governments of Force," The Woman's Tribune, March 23, 1889, p. 114-5.
  • J. K. Ingalls, "Woman's Industrial Subjection.—No. 3.—In Relation to Land Ownership," The Woman's Tribune, April 20, 1889, p. 147.
  • J. K. Ingalls, "Woman's Industrial Subjection.—No. 4.—In Exchanges of Labor and its Product," The Woman's Tribune, May 18, 1889, p. 174.
  • J. K. Ingalls, "Land and Taxation," The Woman's Tribune, June 1, 1889, p. 186-7.
  • J. K. Ingalls, "Are We Lazy?" The Woman's Tribune, September 7, 1889, p. 241.
  • J. K. Ingalls, [letter], The Woman's Tribune, September 21, 1889, p. 255.
  • Joshua King Ingalls, "Increase: Economic or Tributary," Liberty, Oct 5, 1889; 6, 21; 6
  • Benjamin R. Tucker, "On Picket Duty," Liberty, Jun 7, 1890; 7, 3; 1
  • J. K. Ingalls, "Money Reform without Land Reform," Twentieth Century, October 16, 1890, 5-6.
  • J. K. Ingalls, "Radical Social Science," Twentieth Century, November 13, 1890, 6-7.
  • J. K. Ingalls, "Government Protection," Twentieth Century, December 25, 1890, 13.
  • [Fair Play, II (March 2,1890), 64-65; Fair Play, III (March 1891), 182-184; Fair Play, III (March, 1891), 211-214.]
  • J. K. Ingalls, Social industry, or, The sole source of increase. Sioux City, Iowa : Printed for the Author by Fair Play Pub. Co., 1891. 11 pages.
  • J. K. Ingalls, The unrevealed religion : an address delivered in Union Hall, Glenora, New York, January, 1891. Sioux City, Iowa : Printed for the author by Fair Play Pub. Co., 1891. 24 pages.
  • J. K. Ingalls, "Earned and Unearned Increase," Twentieth Century, January 8, 1891, 6-7.
  • "Land Reform and Money Reform," Liberty, February 7, 1891; 7, 21; 1
  • Benjamin R. Tucker, "On Picket Duty," Liberty, Feb 7, 1891; 7, 21; 1
  • Benjamin R. Tucker, "On Picket Duty," Liberty, February 21, 1891; 7, 22; 1
  • Joshua King Ingalls, "Another Consistent Anti-Monopolist," Liberty, February 21, 1891; 7, 22; 3
  • J. K. Ingalls, "Economic Equivoques," Twentieth Century, March 5, 1891, 5.
  • J. K. Ingalls, "Reminiscences of Francis M. Smith," Twentieth Century, April 16, 1891, 13-14.
  • J. W. S[ullivan]., [notice of J. K. Ingalls, The Unrevealed Religion], Twentieth Century, May 28, 1891, 15.
  • J. K. Ingalls, "A Plain Demand," Twentieth Century, June 11, 1891, 14.
  • J. K. Ingalls, "Terms with Many Meanings," Twentieth Century, June 15, 1891, 5.
  • J. K. Ingalls, review of J. Wilson, "Radical Wrongs, in the Practices and Precepts of Civilized Man," Twentieth Century, December 10, 1891, 16.
  • J. K. Ingalls, "What Is Economic Rent?" Twentieth Century, Vol. 9, No. 26, December 29, 1892, p. 6-8.
  • J. K. Ingalls, “The Two Rents Contrasted,” Twentieth Century, February 9, 1893, p. 5-6.
  • "The Sociological Index," Liberty, Feb 18, 1893; 9, 25; pg. 4 [notice of JKI, “The Two Rents Contrasted,” Twentieth Century, Feb 9, 1893.
  • J. K. Ingalls, "Shifting the Land Value Tax," Twentieth Century, March 9, 1893, p. 7-9.
  • J. K. Ingalls, "Taxation, What it Is and on Whom it Falls," Twentieth Century, April 6, 1893, p. 4-5.
  • Joshua King Ingalls, "Two Object Lessons in Equity," Liberty, May 20, 1893; 9, 38; pg. 3
  • T, "A New Conception of Interest," Liberty, Jun 10, 1893; 9, 41; pg. 3
  • Joshua King Ingalls, "Interest Just and Unjust," Liberty, Jun 10, 1893; 9, 41; pg. 1
  • Joshua King Ingalls, "Forecasts of the Land Question," Twentieth Century, August 3, 1893, 4-7.
  • Joshua King Ingalls, "Paper Money," Twentieth Century, September 14, 1893.
  • Joshua King Ingalls, "The Laborer and the Capitalist," Twentieth Century, August 3, 1893, 7-8.
  • Joshua King Ingalls, "Finance and Legislation," Twentieth Century, December 14, 1893, 8-9.
  • Joshua King Ingalls, "Can Economic Factors Be Exchanged?" Twentieth Century, January 4, 1894, 8-9.
  • Joshua King Ingalls, "Facts and Fallacies in Finance," Twentieth Century, January 18, 1894, 4-7.
  • Hugo Bilgram, "Interest is Unjust," Liberty, Mar 10, 1894; 9, 48; pg. 11
  • Joshua King Ingalls, "Property Rights in Debt and Contract," Twentieth Century, April 12, 1894, 8-9.
  • I. K. Ingalls [sic], [letter], The Woman's Tribune, Vol. 11, No. 23, May 12, 1894, p. 91.
  • Joshua King Ingalls, "Legal Enforcement of Contracts," Twentieth Century, May 17, 1894, 9-10.
  • I. K. Ingalls [sic], "Legal Enforcement of Contracts," Union Pacific Employes Magazine, Vol. IX, No. 9, June, 1894, p. 142-3. [reprint from Twentieth Century]
  • Joshua King Ingalls, [letter], Twentieth Century, XII, 24 (June 7, 1894), 13-14.
  • Benjamin R. Tucker, "On Picket Duty," Liberty, Nov 17, 1894; 10, 14; pg. 1 [JKI on Lucifer]
  • T, "Narrowing the Issue," Liberty, Dec 15, 1894; 10, 16; pg. 2
  • Joshua King Ingalls, "Unescapable Interest," Liberty, Dec 15, 1894; 10, 16; pg. 4
  • T, "Narrowing the Interest Issue," Liberty, Jan 26, 1895; 10, 19; pg. 4
  • J. K. I., "Judicial Encroachment," Liberty, Jan 26, 1895; 10, 19; 6.
    Joshua King Ingalls, "The Interest Question Narrowed to a Point," Liberty, Mar 9, 1895; 10, 22; pg. 4
  • T, "The Vanishing Point Reached," Liberty, May 4, 1895; 10, 26; pg. 4
  • Joshua King Ingalls, "Point of the Interest Question," Liberty, May 4, 1895; 10, 26; pg. 6
  • Benjamin R. Tucker, [editorial note], Liberty, Mar 21, 1896; 11, 23; pg. 4. [final, derisive mention of Ingalls in Liberty]
  • Joshua King Ingalls, Reminiscences of an octogenarian in the fields of industrial and social reform. New York : M.L. Holbrook ; London : L.N. Fowler, 1897. viii, [3]-198 pages.
  • [16 letters in Joseph Ishill collection, Harvard]
  • 8,487, Nov 4, 1851, Radiating-Surface (Steam-Heater)
  • 11,227, July 4, 1854, Catch for Vault-Covers
  • 14,456, March 18, 1856, Illuminating-Grating
  • 15,113, June 10, 1856, Metal Beam (Bridge Girder)
  • 53,829, April 10, 1866, Improvement in Oil-Tanks
  • ?????, May 7, 1872, Metallic Grating
  • 134,062, December 17, 1872, Improvement in Vault-Covers
  • 146,074, December 30, 1873, Improvement in Illuminating Vault-Covers
  • 170,567, November 30, 1875, Improvement in Vault-Covers
  • 226, 615, April 20, 1880, Game-Board
  • 258,232, May 23, 1882, Illuminating Tile
  • 261,720, July 25, 1882, Illuminating Tile
  • 271,854, February 6, 1883, Illuminating Roofs, &c.
  • assignee of Seth H. Ingalls, 39446, August 4, 1863, Improvement in Oil-Tanks
  • witness to William Turton, 8811, March 16, 1852, Hot-Air Register
  • witness to Michael J. McCormick, 38788, June 2, 1863, Improvement in Mode of Ventillating and Illuminating Risers

Josiah Warren's debt to Robert Owen

The extent to which the individualist anarchists remained suprisingly orthodox students of the so-called "utopian socialists" is a question that interests me quite a bit. I recently suggested a sort of division between "post-Fourierists" and "post-Saint-Simonians" (or "post-Comteans") among the early individualists. (See also my follow-up here.) Here is some additional, if circumstantial, evidence. The first piece is by Josiah Warren, from the Boston Investigator in the early 1860s. Defending himself against inclusion among the proponents of the "Community System," he also defends Robert Owen, Robert Dale Owen, and Frances Wright against a variety of charges. But he also takes the time to include this tribute to the elder Owen:

I cannot close this without saying that I am indebted to Robert Owen for all the value that life is to me, and all that it may be worth to others. It was he who first untrammelled my mind, and enable me to think to any purpose, and I never hear or see his name without a thrill of profound reverence that no other name commands.
That's pretty strong stuff, although there is a great deal in Warren's writings that certainly suggests a continuing commitment to much of the philosophical basis of Owenism. This later piece may also help us determine the authorship of a much earlier testament to Owen's influence, from the New Harmony Gazette (Sep 10, 1828, p. 365). The "march of mind" was a common phrase during the period, and the title of at least two oft-reprinted poems, but it was also the name of a newspaper published Cincinnati, Ohio, in 1828, which was cited from time to time in the Gazette. There is no particular reason to believe that the "J. W." who authored this earlier tribute to Owen was Josiah Warren, although there are plenty of reasons to suspect that it might be. Warren is largely absent from the pages of the Gazette, despite his involvement at New Harmony. We do know, from the 1827 poem by "Philanthropos" on the "Time-Magazine" (or Time Store), that his activities were still of interest to members of the community. Here's one that calls for some additional research.

From the March of Mind.

The acquisition of any new fact, always produces in my mind a feeling of pleasure, especially when I perceive that it will in any manner promote my future happiness; and the more does it increase my happiness if I can make it subservient to the happiness of others. This will be sufficient apology to the reader for my observations, when it is considered that they are not obtruded upon him as rules for his own conduct, but that they are here placed for his consideration, to be accepted or rejected as his own judgment shall determine.

It is now about three years, since a gentleman by the name of Robert Owen, promulgated in the most unequivocal, and in the most public manner, the proposition that "MAN IS THE CREATURE OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT SURROUND HIM," and he also stated, that "THIS IS A FACT OVER WHICH MAN HAS NO CONTROL." Mr. Owen after having made these statements to the government of Great Britain and Ireland, to all the heads of departments, and to what are called the leading men of those countries; came to America, proceeded to Washington, and in the presence of the assembled legislators of the American people, openly avowed and explained the above proposition; and invited a cool and candid examination into the subject which if true, was of too much importance to Americans and to the world, to remain hidden and unknown. He has delivered his sentiments in almost all the important towns and cities, on this, as well as on the old continent.—He has courted investigation.—He has repeatedly urged the importance of examining and scrutinizing this proposition. He has offered to take on himself the fatigue and labor of reasoning upon the subject either with committees appointed by the governments or by the people, or with individuals in private or in public.—He has entreated the teachers of the public, whether speakers or writers to become acquainted with this subject, and for the present and future happiness of mankind, to declare publicly the result of their investigations, and the reasons upon which their decisions were founded. Now, not withstanding that all this has been done in an earnest, and at the same time in the most courteous and inoffensive manner; and although I perceive that my happiness as well at that of all others is deeply involved in the truth or utility of this principle or proposition, I have never seen nor heard any serious or candid attempt to prove it false, either from any one of the governments of the old or new continent, or from any of the teachers of the people, whether speakers or writers, or from any other individual, although Mr. Owen offered five thousand dollars as a reward for any effectual refutation of those statements.

Now, therefore, having examined the statement made by Mr. Owen as far as my own power of comparison will permit, and not being able to discover in it any thing contrary to, or disagreeing with any facts within my knowledge; and having for three years looked in the public prints, and to public teachers, who as guardians of the public good should protect us against imposition, and having seen from them no attempt to prove this proposition untrue, I as one individual am induced to conclude, that Mr. Owen has developed to us A GREAT AND IMPORTANT TRUTH.

I shall therefore in future, make this fact, the basis of my judgment and my conduct, as far as my previous erroneous instruction and other circumstances will permit. Being subject to the influence of the circumstances around me, and being liable to be moulded by them, whether true or false, right or wrong, and having nothing to protect me from error and misery, but the knowledge which I may require of these circumstances, and the use I may make of this knowledge, I shall begin to analyze the circumstances around me and learn to distinguish the good from the evil; and as I have heretofore been misled by false instruction and by bad example, I shall claim the free exercise of my own judgment with regard to my own opinions and my own conduct.

I shall do that which I perceive will produce the greatest amount of happiness to myself and others, without any more regard to the examples or habits of others than this rule will point out.

In selecting my companions I shall choose those that are most agreeable to myself. Those who make no attempt to deceive, or mislead me, who make no attempt to take advantage of my ignorance, for their own aggrandizement; but if they deal me fair and equal justice—if they be ready to treat me with kindness and my errors with forbearance, if they exhibit no disposition to inflict pain upon me or others but I may feel secure and happy in their company, them will I choose for my companions, whether they be born in the eastern or western states—whether their dresses he made of fine or coarse cloth—whether in opinion, they be Infidel, Jew, Christian, or Mahometan, or whatever peculiarities they may have which produce no pain to me or others But those who are induced, whether by false instruction, or from other circumstances, to take from me more than fair and equal justice will allow, or to take advantage of my weakness or my ignorance, or to deceive me by my false instruction, whereby I may be led into error, or who are disposed to abridge my freedom in the pursuit of happiness, or who arc disposed to indict pain of mind or body upon me or others,—them will I avoid, and will not, dare not trust myself in their company; but will remove if possible out of their reach, whether their dresses be made of fine or coarse cloth—whether they be born in the eastern or western states, or upon the new or old continent; or whether in opinion, they be Infidel Jew, Christian or Mahometan, or whatever names, parentage, manners or customs, may be peculiar to them. And this choice will I exercise, without regard to any public or private prejudices, as they are produced by surrounding circumstances and will disappear as real knowledge increases.

In choosing my dress, I shall analyze the various circumstances connected with it, and shall choose that which will give me more pleasure than pain. If I wish for a dress which costs much pain and labor to obtain, and if I perceive that I can apply my time to more advantage than to the obtaining of such a dress, I shall wear a less costly dress, without any other regard to the examples around me, than regret that I can not please their tastes consistently with my own happiness. And I shall endeavor to examine into, and reason upon all things with which I find myself connected, all shall endeavor to estimate them by their real intrinsic worth, according to the amount of happiness or unhappiness which I find them capable of producing, always reserving freedom to change with increasing knowledge; and no further than this will I be governed by the customs and manners which surround me: as I perceive that some of them are merely the production of the most whimsical and injurious practices of my fellow beings, which have been created by the whimsical and injurious circumstances in which they are placed.

J. W.

Practical application of the cost principle in Massachusetts, 1863

Lots of material on Josiah Warren and equitable commerce has surfaced in the Boston Investigator, while I've been looking for material by Lewis Masquerier. This is a particularly interesting account of an equity store being opened in Massachusetts in 1863. The note at the end might go some distance in clarifying the terms under which at least some of the Warren-inspired businesses actually traded with suppliers. Some critics have fixated on the labor note and "corn standard" as the central points of Warren's scheme, which, I think, confuses two projects: the implementation of the "cost principle" and "labor for labor exchange."
For the Boston Investigator
A Novel Step in Business
Is about to be taken, which will interest the public generally.

The leading idea is, that it is more for the interest of each citizen to do a reason able amount of useful labor, and have a permanent, steady and uniform income sufficient for all his legitimate purposes, and to be at peace with the public, rather than to be at war with the public, and labor all the time in a degrading scramble for bread, in which all are victimized or disappointed in one form or another,

A little beginning, ("no bigger than a man's hand") now about being made, will serve as a text for explanations.

The keeper of a store, will, himself, voluntarily set a LIMIT TO HIS INCOME, or wages (as the working classes general do.) This limit to be made as public as possible, by every practicable means, going to show that the limit once set, it cannot be exceeded without detection and exposure.

Bills of all purchases are to be immediately exposed on the Bulletin Board and regular percentage will be added to first cost to pay all expenses of mending; including, say, three dollars per day for the labor of the keeper, and all the rest of the per centage going to pay rent, insurance, and all other contingent expenses, and to create a fund as security against unforeseen losses.

This contingent fund not to exceed twenty per cent. on the capital owned or risked by the keeper. Which fund though controlled by him is not to be appropriated to his private purposes.

To render all as secure as possible against losses and unnecessary expenses, everything will be paid for at the time of purchase.

We can sometimes best explain a thing by showing what it is not. It is not buying up the necessaries of life to make them scarce, for the purpose of raising their prices in proportion to "the Demand" or distress, thereby created.

The first public step (in this part of the country,) is about being taken at 189 Main St., Charlestown, beginning with some of the first necessaries, with a view of extending the same regulation power to all branches of business as fast as persons are found to undertake them.

The store is to be open to all the public without exception; and all persons who want anything or have anything to dispose of are invited to go there (at present) as a centre of general intelligence or OFFICE OF SUPPLY AND DEMAND, so that the keeper of the store may know what to purchase, and persons wanting business may know what to engage in.

When this branch will sustain the expenses of an office, there will be one appropriated solely to receiving and communicating such necessary intelligence, for a publicly limited income to its keeper, so that he cannot make money by giving false information.

It is not until the public have absolute and indisputable proof that the keeper's income is faithfully kept within the professed limit, that he is entitled to any confidence. If the point is not gained, nothing is gained. If it is satisfactorily established the ruinous fluctuations and uncertainties in prices and in business, will, sometime, come to an end. The public cannot compel a man to conduct public business publicly, but they can patronizes those who prefer to do so, and thus establish and maintain a regulating power, perfectly irresistible, and one which will have no enemies, when once its far-reaching and immense benefits are understood.

For more elaborate explanations, see the work entitled TRUE CIVILIZATION, for sale at the store, and at the INVESTIGATOR Office.
A Socialist

The undersigned, (keeper of the store above mentioned,) would like to hold correspondence with farmers for the purpose of buying their products; such as flour, butter, cheese, potatoes, lard, eggs, dried apples, beans, &c.

Farmers that have any of the above name articles for sale, will confer a favor upon me by writing the lowest cash process, delivered on the cars.
Nath'l G. Simonds,
No. 189 Main St., Charlestown.
[Boston Investigator, Vol. XXXII, No. 50, April 15, 1863, p. 393]

The Anarchist View of Money, Benjamin R. Tucker, 1896

The following essay, which appeared in The Independent, Sept. 10, 1896 (p. 9), is a particularly nice presentation of Benjamin R. Tucker's views during the heyday of Liberty. Tucker hardly spoke for all anarchists, of course, or even all individualist anarchists. His statements on the "standard of value" question reflect his own side of an argument that was at that point still raging through the pages of anarchist papers, including his own.

The Anarchist View of Money.


Editor of "Liberty."

I am asked by THE. INDEPENDENT to give my views on the financial question. At the outset, therefore, I must give my definition of the term "money."

Col. William B. Greene, the author of "Mutual Banking" (which represents my views on finance perhaps more thoroughly than any other work), was accustomed to say that "that is money which does the work of the tool, money"; and the work of the tool, money, is that of mediating exchange. Anything, therefore, that is used as a medium of exchange is money to the extent that it is so used.

Of course there is a narrower sense in which you can use the term "money," and in which the economists generally use it—that of a standard of value. And in discussing the financial question it is necessary to keep these two ideas in mind, and properly distinguish between them; and yet, at the same time, it is almost absolutely necessary to use this term "money" for both of them. So that in one sentence I might speak of "money," having in mind only the standard of value, and in another sentence I might speak of "money," having in mind the entire circulating medium.

I think the great evil of all our financial systems has been in the legal restriction of the monetary function— i. e., the function of serving us currency, or a basis of currency—to some one or two commodities. And, in accordance with this idea, I think that true financial reform consists in the extension of the monetary function —i. e., the function of serving as a basis of currency—to all forms of wealth that have a sufficiently stable market value. I mean to say that we should have entire freedom of banking, individuals and associations being as free to start banks of issue as to manufacture hats.

The notes of banks issued under such a system would be secured by the actual property put up by the borrowers as collateral, and the credit of these banks among the public would be guaranteed by the standing of the bank in the chain of banks of which it was a part, through the Clearing House and other financial devices characteristic of modern times.

It might be said right here that there is nothing in this scheme that militates against the theory of a standard of value. Indeed, without a standard of value money is unthinkable. The question of what constitutes the best standard is a subsidiary question; but whatever is chosen as a standard, that standard simply constitutes a unit of value in terms of which bank notes will be issued against the property pledged. The standard must be fixed by common agreement. There must be no law to prevent another chain of banks from adopting a separate standard if they prefer and find it convenient to do so; and, undoubtedly, the necessities of commerce would lead to a common agreement among all the banks. The very fact that there were different standards and that they would be cumbersome would compel all banks that wanted to deal with one another to adopt a common standard.

It would not be necessary to have an elaborate bank-note reporter to keep track of the standing of the banks and the property on which they were founded, because there would be but a few systems of banks in operation through the country—a few chains of financial institutions; and, even if all the systems did not unite in some common method by which all the notes should be printed on paper coming from a single source, and exactly alike in appearance, why, each system, at any rate, would have to have its own, and, as a result, there would be no more different kinds of money in principal use than there are now. We have today the Treasury note, the greenback, the National bank note, the silver certificate, the gold dollar, the silver dollar, etc. Under such a system as we propose there would be no more kinds of money in active and extensive use than there are now.

The principal defect of our present financial system is that one or two species of property are endowed with the sole privilege of serving as a basis of currency which results in a scarcity of money at an enormous rate of interest. Under the financial system that we advocate I believe interest will be abolished—i. e., it will reduce the rate of interest to the mere cost of banking, which statistics show to be less than one-half of one per cent.

Many of our opponents are not familiar with our position in regard to interest. It is true that what men wish to get is capital, the agencies of production; and it is precisely because money is a means for the transfer of these that the ability to issue money secured by their own property would make it unnecessary for them to borrow these agencies by enabling them to buy them. This raises a question which I have asked hundreds of times of defenders of interest and which I have not yet had answered. A is a farmer, owning a farm. He mortgages his farm to a bank for $1,000, giving the bank a mortgage note for that sum and receiving in exchange the bank's notes for the same sum, which are secured by the mortgage. With the bank notes A buys farming tools of B. The next day B uses the notes to buy of C the materials used in the manufacture of tools. The day after C in turn pays them to D in exchange for something that he needs. At the end of a year, after a constant succession of exchanges, the notes are in the hands of Z, a dealer in farm produce. He pays them to A, who gives, in return, $1,000 worth of farm products which he has raised during the year. Then A carries the notes to the bank, receives in exchange for them his mortgage note, and the bank cancels the mortgage. Now in this circle of transactions, has there been any lending of capital? If so, who was the lender? If not, who is entitled to any interest?

As to the question of gold and silver as between the two leading political parties, I think that the single standard is more scientific, from the standpoint of pure financial principle, than the double standard. But I do not think, however that the adoption of the somewhat unscientific double standard would lead to all the horrors that the single-standard men say it would. The claim of the silver men that gold was enhanced in value and silver lowered in value by the demonetization of silver is a perfectly sound one. And if silver were to be remonetized the result would be that gold would somewhat fall in value, silver would considerably rise in value, the value of the current dollar would be somewhat less than at present, and prices would be somewhat higher, but by no means double what they are now. There would be an impetus given to business for a time, and wages. while not rising as rapidly as prices at first would in consequence of the increased volume of business, rise in the end more than prices. But, even then the benefit would be limited and temporary. Before the demonetization of silver we had a money monopoly, because the function of serving as a basis of currency was confined to two commodities. The demonetization Act confined it still further to one commodity, which made the stringency and the pressure on the people more severe than before. To go back now and remonetize silver would lessen that stringency but would still preserve the old monopoly of a less stringent character that was in vogue when the two standards were in use.

I think if Mr. McKinley were elected President his experience with the financial question would be very much the same as Mr. Cleveland's.

I might say right here that the whole error in the reasoning of such of the gold men as are honest lies in the failure to understand the fact that the monetary function is a useful function, and that any product that is endowed with it exclusively thereby gets a value in addition to its commodity value: that, as long as money monopoly exists the commodities exclusively endowed with the monopoly enjoy an artificial value which does not belong to them as mere products. For this reason it is absurd to say, as for instance Secretary Morton says, that Government cannot create an artificial value in silver. He asks: "If the silver dollar containing only 53 cents' worth of bullion can be made to float at a parity with the gold dollar, why cannot a silver watch be made by statute just as valuable as a gold watch?" The answer to that is that it can. It the Government were to be so foolish as to enact and enforce a law forbidding watches and spoons, and cups, and forks and all similar articles to be made out of any material but silver, the value of all the forbidden materials would fall, and the value of silver would manifestly rise. Therefore, it is in the power of the Government to give silver an artificial value. And in the same way, if the Government enacts and enforces a law that only one commodity shall serve as a basis of currency then the prohibited commodities fall and the single privileged commodity rises. The failure to recognize this is the central error in the minds of the gold men.

These views that I have here given were first propounded by Proudhon, recognized as the first avowed anarchist, and were first defended in his country by Col. William B. Greene, of Boston, and Charles A. Dana, the editor of the New York Sun, whose articles in favor thereof have recently been published in pamphlet form.

The anarchists, in this as in all other political campaigns, are mere lookers-on. In the matter of real indorsement of the platforms they see little more to commend in one than in the other. The expression in the Democratic platform upon the right of trial by jury, as opposed to government by injunction, is about the only plank in either of the platforms which they approve. In all economic measures proposed by Republicans, Democrats or Populists, the element of authority and paternalism is uppermost. None of them accord with that principle of equal liberty which is the central idea of anarchism.

The anarchists desire that all the affairs of men should be managed by individuals or voluntary associations, and that the State should be abolished. There are class monopolies that now prevail to which we are specially opposed—to wit, the money monopoly, the land monopoly, the tariff monopoly, and the patent monopoly.

The money monopoly consists in the privilege given by the Government to certain individuals, or to individuals holding certain kinds of property, of issuing the circulating medium. The land monopoly consists in the enforcement by Government of land titles which do not rest upon personal occupancy and use. The tariff monopoly consists in fostering production at high prices and under unfavorable conditions, by visiting with the penalty of taxation those who patronize production at low prices and under favorable conditions. The patent monopoly consists in protecting inventors and authors against competition for a period long enough to enable them to extort from the people a reward enormously in excess of the labor measure of their services—in other words, in giving certain people a right of property for a term of years in laws and facts of nature, and thereby the power to exclude others from the use of this natural wealth, which should be open to all.

New York City.

Friday, February 02, 2007

Socialism in Massachusetts, the Palladium version

You can look at this wiki page for a comparison of the Worcester Palladium and Equality versions of William B. Greene's essay, "Socialism in Massachusetts," both from late 1849. MediaWiki's ability to collate versions should be a very useful tool for demonstrating the development or aguments in archived texts.

For those unfamiliar with the publishing history involved, you can start with my comments on the 1870 Mutual Banking.

An embarrassment of riches, redux

This the sort of problem we should have—so much new, interesting anarchist material coming out of the archives that it's nearly impossible to keep track of it all. I've been trying to work through roughly a roll of microfilmed periodicals each day this past couple of weeks, and I can't think when I have been so pleasantly overwhelmed. Specifically, with regard to the J. K. Ingalls volume, I'm running a little behind, largely because of some difficulties with interlibrary loan, but I will be able to add a series on "Women's Industrial Subjection," from the Woman's Tribune and a debate with Hugo Bilgram from Twentieth Century. In the meantime, material by Alfred Westrup, William Henry Van Ornum, Calvin Blanchard, Lewis Maquerier, Voltairine De Cleyre, W. C. Owen, Josiah Warren (etc., etc.) is piling up. When I reach the 1890s over on Travelling in Liberty, I'll be able to supplement the material from Liberty with related debates from the Twentieth Century. Check back regularly.

Thursday, February 01, 2007

At last, "Omega"!

There are quite a number of things I didn't find in my searches through the Boston Investigator this week, but one of the things I did find was "Capital and Labor: Socialism in Massachusetts," by OMEGA—one of the essays by William Batchelder Greene that was incorporated into his Equality (1849), reprinted from the Worcester Palladium. For some time, I have been wrestling with the question whether or not I could justify research travel to track down these articles, since they, and the book they were turned into, all appear to have been written in a matter of months, late in 1849, and it has been uncertain how much difference there was likely to be between the forms. The question is at least partially answered now—there are real and interesting differences.