Enter a name, company, place or keywords to search across this item. Then click "Search" (or hit Enter).
Volume 3 (1858-1859) (592 pages)
Go to the Archive Home
Go to Thumbnail View of this Item
Go to Single Page View of this Item
Download the Page Image
Copy the Page Text to the Clipboard
Don't highlight the search terms on the Image
Show the Page Image
Show the Image Page Text
Reset View and Center Image
Zoom Out
Zoom In
Rotate Left
Rotate Right
Toggle Full Page View
Flip Image Horizontally
More Information About this Image
Get a Citation for Page or Image - Copy to the Clipboard
Go to the Previous Page (or Left Arrow key)
Go to the Next Page (or Right Arrow key)
Page: of 592
MORAL POWER OF THE FAMILY HEARTHSTONE. 229
as to leave the family ties untouched and
uninvaded. And, moreover, as I do not
see that any of the social evils which exist around us, and of which we may so
Justly complain, have their origin in the
family relation ; so, therefore, I do not
see why the old family organization
should be attacked and brokenup. But,
if it can be proved that our social evils
result from the division of society into
separate families—which, I think, can
not be shown—then I should say, at
once, that our social evils are incurable
and Providential: that they are ordained
and necessary, and their source perennial
and exhaustless, and I should give over
all hope of reformation m despair.
One class of reformers are seeking to
pull down the existing forms of society,
remove the old landmarks and bury the
old lines of policy; to sweep-away the
present order of things, good and bad
together, and from a clean foundation to
construct a new organization. Another
class, less confident of their ability to
originate a better general order of things
—knowing that it is far easier to tear
down than to build up—and believing
that much of the present mechanism of
society results from Providential arrangements, are willing to attempt reform
through existing institutions, and think
it better to aim the truth at men’s convictions than at their institutions, hoping
first to reform ideas, and then customs,
more effectively and thoroughly.
Which of these two modes of reform,
or classes of reformers, is the wisest and
the best, will depend very much upon
the nature and circumstances of the evil
to be remedied. If the social evil to be
removed were such as could be met by
direct action, and such as were more or
less under the control of legislation, I
should say that the most searching,
speedy and radical means should be resorted to, and that the evil should be cut
up by the roots.
But, if the social evil proposed to be
met were poverty, would it be wise to
recommend an instant and equal division
of property—to lay out agrarian plans of
relief? Or would it be wise to direct
whole communities to throw their wealth
into a common stock—to disturb the
whole order of society—to break up settled and harmless customs—to innovate
upon the wise regulations of domestic
life, and invite all to one common table
—to the enjoyment of one indiscriminate
bounty? Would the radical and destructive method meet the case, and provide a permanent cure? Let it be remembered that poverty has a great variety
of causes: misfortune, mis-management,
incapacity, vice, indolence and, in this
country, it has chiefly a personal origin.
Indolence and vice are the main sources
of poverty in this country. As-everybody knows, our prisons and our almshouses are filled with those who have
come to want or crime through the dramshop, gambling-house and. brothel.
Now, would an equal division of property so much as touch the causes of this
evil? Would socialism, in any of its
forms yet known ; would even the bright
dream of Fourier—suppose it could ever
be brought to a fair, scientific and practical test—remedy the evil of poverty in
its sources? Is socialism, or the community system, in any of its manifold
shapes, equal to the task of performing
miracles for human society? Can you
heal the diseases and supply the defects
of human nature by any outward or visible appliances? Will the cunning devices of any new organizations of society
save men from misfortune—from the rayages of fire and sinking ships—from inability—from indolence and the sway of
over-mastering passions? There is reason to think that this cannot be. No
mere outward, radical movement, it is
reasonable to believe, would effect the
permanent remoyal of poverty, supposing