Lieutenant-General and live west of the Mississippi, than to be General, or President and live in Washington. We cannot account for tastes, but such is mine. The duties of no officer is clearly defined by law, and it is impossible to get a legal opinion of the Attorney General, or any other law officer until after the fact, and until the newspapers enact the judgment. This ought not to be, but is.

66

The officer, General Lorenzo Thomas, whom the President has chosen to test the law, is not over well qualified. At the beginning of the war he came near being arrested because of his leaning to Slavery. Later he turned so Black" that he revealed a conversation with me had in Louisville by Secretary Cameron, under the express injunction of secrecy, and still later he came down to Vicksburg and in an address to my own troops he spoke of his power from President Lincoln to remove any officer who did not coöperate with him in raising negro troops, a threat which everybody who heard him interpreted as directed against me. I don't care at all, but I cannot form an alliance with such men as against my old comrades in

arms....

I do respect the President, and the law, as much as is possible, and rather than stand in the way of its just execution will do anything else in my power: but voluntarily I don't choose to place myself where the law officers of the Government will not advise, or where the President is powerless to protect. I think the issue will satisfy you I am right. . . .

[To Mrs. Sherman.]

SANTA FÉ, N. M., June 7, 1868.
Sunday.

... I do not know yet if Grant's nomination and acceptance will make any changes in our arrangements for the summer, think not. Unless he wants me otherwise I will stay west till he is not only elected, but actually vacates, and even then some slip may occur in promotion. My succession is not a matter of course, as the politicians consider me an impracticable and dangerous man. I don't think there can be any doubt of Grant's election, for no candidate thus far named can beat him. Dix is the best, but he is too old. Chase

and Hancock have too many old charges to carry, and Pendleton was an out and out copperhead, and surely we of the War could not rest easy with him as a President. My own opinion is that considering the state of the country, Grant will make the best President we can get. What we want in national politics is quiet, harmony and stability, and these are more likely with Grant than any politician I know of...

The moment a person is established in Washington friends begin to cool off and fall away, slander is let loose and is paraded in capital letters, and underhand meanness is set to work to effect change. I saw these influences at work in Macomb's time, General Scott's and General Grant's. We may suppose this will not be the case in future, but it will always be as long as human nature remains as now. You have realized some of the annoyances even in Saint Louis, but when you come to have the newspaper publishing every time you go to church, every slander that may be started, every neglect to entertain to suit the demand of an exacting public, you will regret the day you ever got to Washington. I know the place may be pleasant enough to persons in a private station, but when the people, collectively and singly, consider every public officer their servant and menial there can be no privacy, no satisfaction.

Yet this station may be forced on us, and we may have to endure it, because we have no choice, but I know we are far better off as we are now, than we can be at Washington.

...

ST. Louis, Mo., July 11, 1868. I was out last evening to Grant's farm where they are comfortably settled for the summer, almost as plainly as before the War. He has a horse and borrowed buggy, a pair of mules and ambulance borrowed of the Quarter Master, and I have loaned Buck, the horse I bought for Minnie, which he likes very much.

Next Wednesday he and I will go to Leavenworth and out on the road as far as Fort Wallace and back, be absent from here about ten days.

In Washington it is all talk, talk, and do nothing. The Republican Congress has shown little talent in governing, but it would be dangerous to commit the Government to Seymour and Blair. Blair is

reckless, especially in money matters, and Seymour was a pure copperhead during the war. Still I will do or say nothing in public. . . .

I believe Grant will be elected in November, and that I will be called to Washington to command the Army in that month or before congress meets, viz. after he makes his annual report. But he would not resign his commission till the 4th of March, when if the office of General be not abrogated I would be promoted and confirmed. But I will not be surprised if the office be abrogated so that his vacancy may not be filled, and that my rank would be as

now. . .

To the uncertainties expressed in this last paragraph, time soon brought its answers, and Sherman in his "Memoirs" recorded them: "On the 4th of March General Grant was duly inaugurated President of the United States, and I was nominated and confirmed as General of the Army." It was primarily an army of peace which he was to command-the peace which he had fought so hard to bring to his country. The civil peace was not so

quickly gained as the military. Now that all the errors of the reconstruction period have taken their place in history, it is comparatively easy to point out the things which should have been done differently, or not at all. But from all the opinions delivered at the time it would be hard to choose a wiser sentence than one which the careful reader of this paper will have noted for himself. The surgeon who has done his work without flinching stands aside when it is done, and yields to the healing power of nature its ancient way. The soldier is the surgeon of national ills, and the thought to which Sherman gave expression in these words is the thought of a surgeon whose intrepidity is followed by a no less needful moderation. "I do want peace," he said, "and do say if all hands would stop talking, and writing, and let the sun shine, and the rains fall for two or three years, we would be nearer reconstruction than we are likely to be with the three or four hundred statesmen trying to legislate amid the prejudices begotten for four centuries." The Sherman of peace deserves to be as clearly remembered as the Sherman of war.

P

I

ERSONS disposed to exaggerate not infrequently tell us that we are living on a volcano; and that an upheaval more destructive than the French Revolution is close upon us, unless we set to and change the present conditions under which some have unlimited expenditure for their slightest desire, while masses of others struggle for a miserable existence only with pain and grinding labor. Certainly, in the whole problem of improving the economic status of mankind, the one phase which appeals most to us all is the one which concerns the lower class of unskilled workers. With those who have already won something,

and who have already risen a round or two on the industrial ladder, we are not so deeply interested as with those at the bottom who are unskilled, the sport of every change of industrial demand, and ignorant of means of betterment. It is the beggarly sums received by those in uncertain and overcrowded employments-and too often the unemployment itself-which ought to stir our sympathies and set us to thinking. What have we to offer? If economics has nothing to present as an offset to the vague, and often injurious schemes of the untrained sentimentalists, then it should retire to the limbo of useless and abandoned studies. In brief, what has it to say as to the elevation of a race, or class, in the scale of living? Has it any practical advice to offer for the abolition of extreme poverty?

If we can offer even partial solutions of the problem, we may help those who come after us to get nearer the whole truth.

In this particular field, however, there is a deal of feeling and passion to be found, to say nothing of prejudice, narrowness, ignorance and intolerance. In matters touching everyday comfort and satisfaction, where misery and bitterness are often present, it is inevitable that there should be much feeling. Moreover, at the very time of fierce agitation—perhaps the cause of much of it-we have the rise of large fortunes, and as a consequence the striking contrasts presented between the very poor and the very rich. As if this were not enough, we have, as in the ancien régime, an exhibition of arrogance and show of wealth which, to say the least, is thoughtless and provocative of heart-burning and discontent. Thus, if masses of men are untrained in economic analysis, is it anything but natural that they should often believe that inequality of wealth is the result of despoiling the poor? And when unjust privilege has been shown-as in the past, or under foreign absolutism of to-day-to be the means of enrichment at the expense of others, it is right that the banner of revolt should be raised. There is no defence for special privilege. Nevertheless, in free institutions like ours, where public opinion rules, what is the case? We have, also, the very rich and the very poor. How can this be? Unfortunately for our progress in clear thinking, the sentimentalists have had almost the whole stage to themselves in the exposition of causes before the general public; and, worst of all, some of them have seen gain in telling the masses the things which it is believed would be agreeable, rather than in explaining the truth in its entirety no matter how disagreeable it may be. A half-baked economics has been given as food quite too long; indeed, the public has for some time felt the pains of indigestion from such diet.

It is the existing state of discontent which has given the socialists their greatest opportunity. No doubt, the contrasts in possession of wealth form the best soil for the socialist propaganda. Inequality of wealth is by the discontented taken as ipso facto the proof of injustice; and the appearance of the red flag in our streets is the measure of the numbers of those who feel deeply but

VOL. XLV.-81

who may be unable to give any economic justification of their hostility to existing institutions. It is fair to assume that the great majority of men are honest in their beliefs, and that they really wish to arrive at the truth. Therefore, whatever may be our preconceptions, it will not be amiss to try to discuss with candor the problem of improving the condition of the very poor. Whether one carries conviction to every one is not of first importance; but it is of first importance that there should be a fair field and a free discussion from all points of view, before we fly into a passion. Of socialism per se we have discoursed at another place ;* but here and now we propose to ask directly: How can the wages of the poorest class be increased, and their level of material comfort be raised? The answer to this question touches all those engaged in the administration of our charities, as well as those who are face to face with the employment of unskilled labor. It touches all of us everywhere who wish to make bad things better.

II

IT is to the credit of the heart of man that his mind has long been dwelling on a diversity of schemes for banishing poverty. It would please us all to have some Utopia come true; but each one in turn has been rolled under the heavy car of unsentimental fact, and has expired. Yet we keep at the task of searching for a solution which may have its justification in the elemental forces of human nature working in conjunction with the actual world about us. Certainly no plan will be worth the candle which is not based on some accepted economic analysis. It is a matter for a life-study; and the emotional, kindly enthusiast must give way to the cold scientific student-at least to the point of a successful diagnosis, and before social nursing is called upon.

Besides socialism, many wonderful remedies have come and gone. Anarchism, in its fury at the wrongs of the world, would like to destroy everything; and yet the poor human race would have to take up its burden of organizing society again, and tramp the same old road of mingled discouragement and progress to the point where we are to-day. Society and government will never be perfect until human beings are *SCRIBNER'S MAGAZINE, May, 1909.

perfect. Anarchism proposes nothing constructive. It is a passion, not a remedy.

In the train of socialism are found many minor remedies of which governmental interference is the main constituent. It is assumed somehow or other that bureaucracy can order the conduct of others in such a way as to permanently improve the material condition of the poor. How can it raise wages? Under political pressure the State may fix a rate of wages for those in its employment; but can it regulate the market price of labor? If so, it must control not only the demand, but the supply-including the birth-rate-in all areas where immigration is possible. This would be a heavier task than to regulate the price of wheat; yet the State would hardly attempt that. But municipal ownership of various public services sometimes appeals to the wage-earners on the ground that wages higher than the market rate can be enforced. For the purpose of getting the labor vote this hope may be held out; but it can affect but a very small number of competitors for employment. And, if men who could not obtain high wages in the competitive field are favored by the State, then we have a case of special privilege for a few -rewards paid independently of efficiency -against which system no vituperation has hitherto seemed excessive. Just as soon as special favors are allowed, then the strong, the wily and the men with the longest purse are certain to win. Such methods of raising wages are impossible; "in this way mad

ness lies."

To many minds it has seemed possible to reconstruct society and increase wages by the nationalization of land. Henry George's theory assumes that the industrial product is divided, in crucial instances, between labor and land thus excluding capital. To the extent that rent is paid for land, to that extent, they say, it is subtracted from what should go to labor. George's conclusion is, in reality, based upon a system of distribution which has never been given much attention by critics. The absence of logic in his jointing of the theory of population, capital and labor is one which would be a treasure-trove for a student of logical fallacies in economics. Taken apart from his system of distribution, however, the question of the unearned increment was not original with George. The proposal to wipe

out payments for unearned increments is at least as old as John Stuart Mill. Unless the remedy carry with it the abolition of private property-pure socialism, which George resented-it was clear that the State must become responsible for losses as well as gains in the value of land; and, with the purpose to eliminate value based on future gains, no practicable plan has ever been presented by which innocent investors in land can be equitably treated. Nor is attention given to what society would inevitably lose by thus giving up some part of the existing forms of property. But grant all the theory demands: How can nationalization of land raise the wages of the very poor?

If land is nationalized, the unearned increment would go to the State. Then how, as a consequence, are the very poor to have their wages raised? If made the basis for remission of taxes, the very poor who pay no taxes to speak of are not much benefited. Will the nationalization of land lead to the employment of more persons? Will the officials open a bureau where applicants may get a supplement to market wages? Who will decide what should be given a street-sweeper, what to a locomotive-driver? Or, if the State gets control of this magnificent fund, will politics be purer than they are now, and will the grafters or the laborers get the most? In such a game, will not the clever and unscrupulous get the lion's share; and where will the inexperienced workingman come in? George's scheme is one which misses the central point of attack; it deals with external rather than with vital things affecting wages. To emphasize the question of land is to draw attention away from an essential reason for higher wages-the improvement in the productive capacity of the man. It is theory, pure theory; and a nationalization of land, no matter how strongly it appeals to many high-minded enthusiasts, offers us no definite means for getting higher wages for the very poor.

Next, quite distinct from the idealistic plans of the socialists, we have the immediate business demands of the labor unions for higher wages, less hours of labor, and some control over the industry in which they work. Here is a direct object, to be gained, as explained elsewhere,* by the method of monopolizing the supply of la*SCRIBNER'S MAGAZINE, November, 1905.

bor permitted to compete. The non-union man is left outside the breastworks. In all strikes, it seems to have been generally admitted that unions composed of unskilled labor, such as the teamsters, are easily beaten by the unlimited supply of unskilled labor which can be brought into competition at any point; and that the only means of success in that grade of labor is by the use of force against non-union men.

But it is this very class of the unskilled that we are most concerned with. Can the unions provide a plan for giving them regular employment, and raising their wages? Can they abolish poverty? Obviously, the principle of monopoly, under which unionism works, cannot regulate the demand of employers for all of the unskilled labor in existence; nor can it control the supply of competitors for it is in this class that the birth-rate is the highest and immigration the most considerable. Whatever may be done by the unions which include perhaps seven to ten per cent. of the so-called laboring classes in our country-they are least effective in the problem of helping the very poor. Then, we are offered the aid of coöperation, profit-sharing, and minor proposals like consumers' leagues. Their help is not to be despised; they add to the sum total of gains for many classes; but coöperation and profit-sharing are for those who already have made progress up the industrial ladder, and who are in a position to go higher. And consumers' leagues are more sanitary than economic; they may assure us that goods will not be produced in pest-breeding sweatshops, but they cannot pretend to control the supply of labor, or the demand for it, and thus raise the wages of the worst paid labor.

III

In default of success in solving the riddle by the various schemes thus proposed, we are obliged to resort to the constructive proposals which follow from the results at tained by economic science. An economic analysis of the forces influencing changes in the conditions of the worst paid laboring classes, while presented with due regard to one's personal shortcomings, ought, however, to be received as an honest attempt to treat the inquiry from a serious point of view. The outcome may not satisfy those whose convictions are already immutable, but it

may force the thinking along lines different from those in the plans above examined.

Nor is our objective-which is ascertaining the means of raising the level of comfort of the very poor-much different in kind from that which the statesman must face in studying how to elevate an inferior race. It involves an investigation into the psychological and educative processes by which human nature may be led to create an increased amount of economic satisfactions. The problem which confronts Booker T. Washington at Tuskegee is practically the same which confronts us, when we wish to raise the level of economic satisfactions obtained by the worst paid classes in existing society. With this problem economics has long been familiar. It is a truism to recite that an increase in the production of material wealth has its stimulus in the creation, or greater intensity, of human wants. A people without ambition, without a desire for improvement, without a wish for a product strong enough to overcome the obstacles nature presents to its growth or manufacture, cannot increase its economic well-being. Sloth, idleness, indifference, and lack of self-control enough to endure a present sacrifice for the sake of a future gain, will block economic progress for the class we have in mind. At Tuskegee, Mr. Washington reports that his pupils already have the intensity of wants which makes them ready for the learning of practical methods for producing that which will supply their wants. If wants, however, do not exist in a class long submerged in misery, poverty, and hopelessness, the very first step is to excite their wants even if only for better clothing, food and primary necessities. Perhaps this point may seem to the well-fed, self-sufficient members of our community as rather academic. But the facts cannot be blinked. Only too many of those we are now concerned with have come to believe that the world is against them, that their lot is unchangeable by individual effort, and that help can come only from outside themselves. This is the reason why socialism, or paternalism, appeals to them so

strongly; the cause why their material satisfactions are so small is agreeably placed upon the forms, or upon the action, of the State, rather than upon their own productive inefficiency. Therefore, without spinning fine webs of theory, we find ourselves