Ernest Untermann, the American Socialist who translated Engel"s work into English, writes on page 7 of the preface of the 1907 edition: "The monogamic family, so far from being a divinely inst.i.tuted union of souls, is seen to be the product of a series of material, and in the last a.n.a.lysis, of the most sordid motives."

Rives La Monte, in "Socialism Positive and Negative," tells his readers that "from the point of view of this Socialist materialism, the monogamous family, the present economic unit of society, ceases to be a divine inst.i.tution, and becomes the historical product of certain definite economic conditions. In the judgment of such Socialists as Fredrick Engels and August Bebel, we shall probably remain monogamous, but monogamy will cease to be compulsorily permanent." ["Socialism, Positive and Negative," by Rives La Monte, page 98 of the 1907 edition.]

In the "International Socialist Review," February, 1909, there appears on page 628 a notice which reads as follows:

"The "Review" lately returned to a contributor a clever and readable article in which he emphasized certain absurdities and miseries of the present marriage system. His letter in the reply to us raises some interesting questions, and we are glad to publish it: ... "It is disappointing to be advised to frankly discuss subjects of such importance as religion and marriage only in hushed whispers behind closed doors. In the fear of offending conservative prejudice on these topics, some Socialists become more conservative than the bourgeois themselves.... Of course, the main stream and most important phase of Socialism is the political-economic agitation, but at the same time the Socialist movement inevitably brings into being, at least for a great part of its adherents, a new culture, a new literature, a new art, a new att.i.tude toward s.e.x relations and religion and individual freedom, a new conception of life as a whole. In face of this fact it is sickening to see individuals, whom one knows to be atheists, defending Socialism as the will of G.o.d and the fulfilment of Christianity; and other individuals, whom one knows to be free-lovers, going out of their way to defend the home and family against the inroads of capitalism. Nevertheless such things are seen.... There are thousands of women who are worn out with the bearing of unwelcome children on account of ignorance of proper ways of preventing conception.... If s.e.x life, the personal heart life, of revolutionists were more free and joyous, if they breathed an atmosphere of liberty and spontaneity, free from religious and moral superst.i.tions, if they became now as much like the free people of the future as possible, would they not be that much more ardent and joyous and unceasing workers of the Great Revolution?

And if former non-Socialists, especially women who had suffered grievously from the evils of the marriage system, or been intellectually blindfolded by religious teaching, were first led into the light of more emanc.i.p.ated ideas by some of us Socialists, would not they serve and glorify Socialism forever?... If the Christian Socialists have a right to their G.o.d, and monogamists to their eternal marriage, then surely in a revolutionary movement like ours, the complete revolutionists have, to say the least, an equal right to their agnosticism and their free union."

Clarence M. Meily, before speaking explicitly of free-love, praises l.u.s.t and sensuality in the highest terms on page 129 of his book, "Puritanism": "Freed from the privation of millenniums of unrequited toil, with the wealth and wonders of the world at its command, it is fairly certain that the emanc.i.p.ated working cla.s.s, still wan from its centuries of service and sacrifice, will take great joy in repudiating, finally and forever, the fallacies and aberration of asceticism.... Not the denial of life, but the laudation and triumph of life, will be the keynote of the new ethics. The l.u.s.ts of the flesh, the l.u.s.ts of the eye, the pride of life, will become new formulas, holy and pure in the light of the perfect development of the whole man, and of all men, to which the race will dedicate itself."

Meily then approaches the marriage question and says: "The question of the status of marriage in the new society is one of extreme importance, since it is here that reactionaries of all sorts center their opposition to social reconstruction. It is both idle and disingenuous to a.s.sert that marriage as a legal and civil inst.i.tution is not likely to undergo profound modification.... The artificial perpetuation of the marriage tie, in the face of the disinclination of the parties involved to continue the relation, will cease to be a matter of public concern, or the occasion of state interference. The dissolution of the marriage relation will become as purely a personal and private affair as is the a.s.sumption of the relation now. Some sort of registration may be required for the purpose of vital statistics."

In July 2, 1901, "The Haverhill Social Democrat," apparently without fear of offending its subscribers, asked: "What is there sacred in the modern home? Can anything be sacred which is based on a lie or on impurity, or on ignorance? The marriage system today is based on impurity, on ignorance and on a big lie."

"The Call," New York, December 4, 1910, tells its readers to "give all women the vote, and they will strike off the rusty chains that hold them still in marriage as the property of the man."

That the same paper is very lax as regards the divorce evil, so closely allied to free-love, is evidenced from the following quotation taken from the edition of March 30, 1913: "Among the many encouraging signs of woman"s growing strength--of her determination to be at last the captain of her soul and the master of her faith--are recent divorce statistics....

"Far from being a sign of moral decadence, the large number of divorces granted to women is one of the healthiest portents of the regeneration of the body social....

"The divorced woman is today the connecting link between the non-resisting, ignorant victim of the past and the self-reliant, enlightened, eugenically minded woman of the future. The divorce statistics of the present are perfectly logical and the divorced woman is a cheering omen, as she fulfils her historic mission."

"The Little Catechism" for the use of the children of Bohemian Socialists, a book from which we have already had occasion to quote in the previous chapter, shows us the exceedingly low standard of morality that is taught to the youthful Revolutionists; for in answer to the question, "Is adultery a sin?" we are astounded by the boldness of the reply, "It is not a sin."

We shall finally corroborate our charge that the Revolutionists advocate free-love by quoting the words of no less an authority than Morris Hillquit, who concedes in "Everybody"s," February, 1914, page 233, that "Most Socialists stand for dissolubility of the marriage ties at the pleasure of the contracting parties."

As many Socialist books on free-love have attained a high circulation, and as they have not been repudiated by the party, but have been praised and advertised in its newspapers, and, moreover, since these very books have been sold as standard works both at the National Office of the party and at the leading Socialist book-stores of America, the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn is that the number of party members who openly advocate free-love, or at least tacitly approve of its propaganda, must be in the majority, for otherwise the party would never tolerate such a condition of affairs within its ranks.

Once the Socialists gain control of a country, as in the case of Russia, laws legalizing free-love are very soon pa.s.sed. In the No. 2 edition of the Los Angeles magazine, "More Truth About Russia," its radical editor mentions many of the Bolshevist laws on marriage, divorce, etc., in vogue in Russia. Among them is one fully legalizing free-love, making it possible for married parties to change partners whenever they wish and for no other reason than their mutual or individual desire to do so:

"1. Marriage is annulled by the pet.i.tion of both parties or even one of them.

"2. The pet.i.tion is submitted, according to the rules of local jurisdiction, to the local court.

"Note: A declaration of annulment of marriage by mutual consent may be filed directly with the department of registration of marriages in which a record of that marriage is kept, which department makes an entry of the annulment of the marriage in the record and issues a certificate.

"3. On the day appointed for the examination of the pet.i.tion for the annulment of marriage, the local judge summons both parties or their solicitors.

"4. Having convinced himself that the pet.i.tion for the annulment of the marriage really comes from both parties or from one of them, the judge personally and singly renders the decision of the annulment of the marriage and issues a certificate thereof to the parties."

This chapter shows that free-love filth, to corrupt and demoralize our people, is being propagated by the Socialist Party of America through its National Headquarters in Chicago, Berger"s publication company in Milwaukee, Hillquit"s "New York Call," and other publishing houses and papers affiliated with the party. Yet, because the question of the qualifications of five representatives of this system of abomination to make laws for the State of New York was so much as raised by a judicial inquiry in the New York a.s.sembly, that body of legislators has been a.s.sailed and falsely charged with undermining the fundamental principles of representative government. The ignorance concerning the true character of the Socialist Party of America is startling.

Is it not time for the American people to awake? Should not every decent American pet.i.tion all our legislative bodies, state and national, to outlaw the Socialist Party of America and curb its iniquitous propaganda?

CHAPTER XXI

THE CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE RACE

To most persons it will certainly be a surprise to hear that race suicide has been openly advocated in the columns of leading Socialist publications. True it is that the number of individuals endeavoring to spread this practice by their writings is comparatively[21] small; still, as the articles have continued to appear for years at more or less regular intervals, without exciting anything like serious opposition, we are forced to conclude that advocacy of race suicide is looked upon by a very large number of the Revolutionists as one of their characteristic virtues.

Though many vile articles advocating race suicide were published in the 1910 and the 1911 editions of "The New York Call," we shall pa.s.s them over, and discuss those of a more recent date.

In the Sunday editions of "The Call," Anita C. Block has for years been editing a page called "Woman"s Sphere." This section of the paper on the 24th of March, 1912, contained an editorial comment under the caption "Enforced Motherhood and the Law," in which the practice of base and criminal race suicide is encouraged:

"Within a s.p.a.ce covering not much more than a month, six letters have been received by us, containing in substance about what is contained in the following letter:

""Mrs. A. C. Block, New York City:

""Dear Comrade Block.--I have been a reader of "The Call" since December 1, 1911. I do not know whether you can give me any information as to what I wish to know....

""I have three children, 3 years, 2 years, and a baby 9 months.

Now, you cannot blame me if I do not care for more for some time to come....

""Could you give any information? Dr.... in "..." [We suppress the author"s name and the t.i.tle of his work.] and "..." by ... contain the sentence, "Every woman should know prevention of conception." I should be thankful for any advice.

""Yours for the Co-operative Commonwealth.""

The editorial comment then goes on to say:

"Four of these letters we answered personally, stating the impossibility of imparting this information under our present laws.

But when letters continued to come, we felt that any subject that indeed meant everything in the world to the wives of the working cla.s.s, was ent.i.tled to publicity in these columns.

"These women ought to know exactly what the laws are that make the giving of this terribly needed information--A Felony. And so we print below the Federal or United States law on this subject."

The law is then given in all its details, after which the New York State law on the same subject is also quoted.

We are then told that "such are some of the laws on this grave subject, and, of course, no sane person would endeavor to violate them, openly at any rate. But as Dr.... states elsewhere in this page, we cannot be prevented from agitating for their repeal. Nor can we be prevented from educating the people wherever possible to an understanding that a knowledge of the means of preventing conception is a knowledge of one of the means of regenerating the race.

"Moreover even under Socialism, where economic conditions will be such that every woman can support a dozen children in comfort if she wants to, the volitional limitation of offspring will be completely justifiable. For even parents in the most comfortable circ.u.mstances should have the right to determine how many children they want. Of all things in the world this is a matter for the individual and not for society to determine."

Dr...., to whom reference was made in the above editorial comment, is also the author of another work advertised as follows in "Woman"s Sphere" of "The Call," March 24, 1912:

"The three most important measures for the improvement of the human race from a eugenic standpoint. What are they? I suppose everybody who has given the subject any thought has his remedies. I have studied the subject for years and my answer is:

"1. Teaching the people the proper means of the prevention of conception so that the people may have only as many children as they can afford to have, and to have them when they want to have them.

"2.....

"3.....

"Of the three measures the first one is the most important and still it will be the last one to come, because our prudes think it would lead to immorality. And nevertheless I will repeat what I said several times before, that there is no single measure that would so positively, so immediately contribute toward the happiness and progress of the human race as teaching the people the proper means of regulating reproduction. This has been my sincerest and deepest conviction since I have learned to think rationally. It is the conviction of thousands of others, but they are too careful of their standing to express it in public. I am happy, however, to be able to state that my teachings have converted thousands; many of our readers who were at first shocked by our plain talk on this important subject are now expressing their full agreement with our ideas. And Congress may pa.s.s draconian laws, the discussion of this subject cannot, must not, be stopped."

On April 13, 1913, another article on the subject of race suicide, by Clara G. Stillman, appeared in "Woman"s Sphere" of "The Call" under the caption, "The Right to Prevent Conception." Only part of the foul composition is here given: