THE AVARICIOUSLY LIKE-MINDED ARE BONDED TOGETHER
Generally about avarice, greed, American History hopefully still relevant
I wished to address the machinations of so many in the goal of destruction of American democracy, primarily as financial gain for a motive, in my estimation. I forever struggle over the direction of the country due to extreme insatiable avarice readily on display anywhere one might wish to look. I will find a few quotes, and I found an essay on avarice written in 1832, by the American Seth Luther. I found it interesting, and thought some excerpts from it might be of interest to the reader. I found myself understanding the America of 1830 much better from skimming this document. Hopefully you will as well. The story of Seth Luther in itself is quite interesting, I’ve included part of it. I’ve included writings from Andrew Carnegie on wealth, Shakespeare and Woody Guthrie. I end with a little poem. I veer off course a time or two, but generally stick to the subject at hand. First for my verse below.
Quotes as promised:
“What must be the wealth that avarice, aided by power, cannot exhaust!”
— James Otis.
James Otis Jr. (February 5, 1725 – May 23, 1783) was an American lawyer, political activist, colonial legislator, and early supporter of patriotic causes in Massachusetts Bay Colony at the beginning of the Revolutionary Era. Otis was a fervent opponent of the writs of assistance imposed by Great Britain on the American colonies in the early 1760s which allowed law enforcement officials to search private property without cause. He later expanded his criticism of British authority to include tax measures that were being enacted by Parliament. As a result, Otis is often incorrectly credited with coining the slogan "taxation without representation is tyranny".
“When avarice takes the lead in a state, it is commonly the forerunner of its fall.”
― Alexander Hamilton
Alexander Hamilton (January 11, 1755 or 1757 – July 12, 1804) was an American military officer, statesman, and Founding Father who served as the first Secretary of Treasury from 1789 to 1795 during George Washington's presidency. Scholars generally regard Hamilton as an astute and intellectually brilliant administrator, politician, and financier who was sometimes impetuous. His ideas are credited with laying the foundation for American government and finance.
“The objects of avarice and ambition differ only in their greatness; a miser is as furious about a halfpenny, as the man of ambition about the conquest of a kingdom.”
— Adam Smith.
Adam Smith FRSA (baptised 16 June 1723 - 17 July 1790) was a Scottish economist and philosopher who was a pioneer in the thinking of political economy and key figure during the Scottish Enlightenment. Seen by some as "The Father of Economics" or "The Father of Capitalism", he wrote two classic works, The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759) and An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776). The latter, often abbreviated as The Wealth of Nations, is considered his magnum opus and the first modern work that treats economics as a comprehensive system and as an academic discipline. Smith refuses to explain the distribution of wealth and power in terms of God's will and instead appeals to natural, political, social, economic and technological factors and the interactions between them. Among other economic theories, the work introduced Smith's idea of absolute advantage.
“The sin of avarice appears in its most abject and degrading form in the practice of hoarding up money, exclusively for the love of accumulation; a man under the control of this vice is injurious to society, an enemy of God, and suicidal of his own happiness.
— C. G. Low.
C. G. Low (no birthdate found) was an American miscellaneous writer.
“An avaricious man will be little affected by the arguments of reason, philosophy, or religion; he is born and framed to a sordid love of money, which first appears when he is very young, grows up with him, and increases in the middle age; and when he is old, and all the rest of his passions have subsided, wholly engrosses him; the greatest endowments of the mind, the greatest abilities in a profession, and even the quiet possession of an immense treasure, will never prevail against avarice.”
— H. King.
Henry King (1592 – 30 September 1669) was an English poet who served as Bishop of Chichester. King wrote many elegies on royal persons and on his private friends, who included John Donne and Ben Jonson. A selection from his Poems and Psalms was published in 1843.
Seth Luther in a writing from 1832. Measure addressing the measures to address avarice of the 1830s: a) a system of universal equal education, by means of manual labor schools, supported at the public expense, open alike to the children of the poor as well in as the rich, b) abolition of capital punishment, c) abolition of imprisonment for debt, c) an entire revision, or total abolition of the militia system, d) a less expensive law system, e) equal taxation on property and f) an effective lien law on building of all kinds.
The following images are excerpts from a 42 page document found online from Yale. of his essay on the problems he saw related to avarice. I found it interesting enough to include a rather large portion from his writings, some of which are readily identifiable to the America of 2023.
I wished to find out more about the Scottish-American philanthropist Andrew Carnegie on his possible ideas of avarice. I found a book he had written addressing wealth, taxation and the evils of Socialism, for which I have included below. I found it worthwhile to read, keeping in mind the wealth inequality we face today. I’m interpretation is that he was a solid capitalist who seemed to think that the ultra-wealthy of the day were capable of self regulating as they would be miserable in their wealth, and they would somehow be willing to be highly charitable with their fortunes. He was a strong supporter of estate taxation upon the death of the multi-millionaire of his day, and generational wealth was not an intrinsic motivator for them. I found this quite disingenuous, and naive. And he clearly was strictly against any type of socialism placed into law, not surprisingly so. Carnegie and Theodore Roosevelt had a close association according to what I have read. I’ve included below two Roosevelt quotes on greed, plus the friction between Roosevelt and Carnegie over the the imperialism of the day, of which Roosevelt was a proponent of.
Andrew Carnegie (November 25, 1835 – August 11, 1919) was a Scottish-American industrialist and philanthropist. Carnegie led the expansion of the American steel industry in the late 19th century and became one of the richest Americans in history.[5] He became a leading philanthropist in the United States, Great Britain, and the British Empire. During the last 18 years of his life, he gave away around $350 million (roughly $5.9 billion in 2022), almost 90 percent of his fortune, to charities, foundations and universities. His 1889 article proclaiming "The Gospel of Wealth" called on the rich to use their wealth to improve society, expressed support for progressive taxation and an estate tax, and stimulated a wave of philanthropy. He befriended the English poet Matthew Arnold, the English philosopher Herbert Spencer, and the American humorist Mark Twain, as well as being in correspondence and acquaintance with most of the U.S. Presidents, statesmen, and notable writers.
According to *David Nasaw, after 1898, when the United States entered a war with Spain, Carnegie increasingly devoted his energy to supporting pacifism. He strongly opposed the war and the subsequent imperialistic American takeover of the Philippines. When Theodore Roosevelt became president in 1901, Carnegie and Roosevelt were in frequent contact. Roosevelt systematically deceived and manipulated Carnegie, and held the elderly man in contempt. Nasaw quotes a private letter Roosevelt wrote to Whitelaw Reid in 1905:
[I have] tried hard to like Carnegie, but it is pretty difficult. There is no type of man for whom I feel a more contemptuous abhorrence than for the one who makes a God of mere money-making and at the same time is always yelling out that kind of utterly stupid condemnation of war which in almost every case springs from a combination of defective physical courage, of unmanly shrinking from pain and effort, and of hopelessly twisted ideals. All the suffering from Spanish war comes far short of the suffering, preventable and non-preventable, among the operators of the Carnegie steel works, and among the small investors, during the time that Carnegie was making his fortune…. It is as noxious folly to denounce war per se as it is to denounce business per se. Unrighteous war is a hideous evil; but I am not at all sure that it is worse evil than business unrighteousness.
*David Nasaw is an American author, biographer and historian who specializes in the cultural, social and business history of early 20th Century America. Nasaw is on the faculty of the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, where he is the Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. Professor of History.
“The dull, purblind folly of the very rich men, their greed and arrogance, and the corruption in business and politics, have tended to produce a very unhealthy condition.”
— Theodore Roosevelt
“Short-sighted men who in their greed and selfishness will, if permitted, rob our country of half its charm by their reckless extermination of all useful and beautiful wild things.”
— Theodore Roosevelt
Theodore Roosevelt Jr. (October 27, 1858 – January 6, 1919), often referred to as Teddy or by his initials, T. R., was an American politician, statesman, soldier, conservationist, naturalist, historian, and writer who served as the 26th president of the United States from 1901 to 1909. He previously served as the 25th vice president under President William McKinley from March to September 1901 and as the 33rd governor of New York from 1899 to 1900. Assuming the presidency after McKinley's assassination, Roosevelt emerged as a leader of the Republican Party and became a driving force for anti-trust and Progressive policies.
The following are excerpts from Andrew Carnegie’s writing, concentrating on his ideas on wealth:
New York Doubleday, Page & Company C
1908
When President Roosevelt sent his notable message to Congress, three years ago, calling attention to the unequal distribution of wealth, and recommending high, progressive taxes upon estates at the death of the owners, the writer sent him a copy of "The Gospel of Wealth." The President wrote in reply, that he was "greatly struck with the fact that seventeen years ago you had it all." This led the writer to proceed a step further and add another chapter, which appeared in 1906.
The unequal distribution of wealth lies at the root of the present Socialistic activity. This is no surprise to the writer. It was bound to force itself to the front, because, exhibiting extremes unknown before, it has become one of the crying evils of our day.
Multi-millionaires, a new genus, have appeared, laden with fortunes of such magnitude as the past knew nothing of. The extremes in the distribution of wealth have never been so great as they are to-day, although salaries and wages have never been so high. This has naturally attracted the attention of the wage-earners and others not deluged by the golden showers, and the "Socialist's Budget" appears as one of the remedies proposed.
In the "Gospel of Wealth" (1889) the writer advocated graduated taxation upon estates at death of owners, saying:
"The growing disposition to tax more and more heavily large estates left at death is a cheering indication of the growth of a salutary change in public opinion. Of all forms of taxation this seems the wisest. Men who continue hoarding great sums all their lives, the proper use of which for public ends would work good to the community from which it chiefly came, should be made to feel that the community, in the form of the State, cannot thus be deprived of its proper share. By taxing estates heavily at death the State marks its condemnation of the selfish millionaire's unworthy life.
This policy would work powerfully to induce the rich man to attend to the administration of wealth during his life, which is the end that society should always have in view, as being by far the most fruitful for the people. Nor need it be feared that this policy would sap the root of enterprise and render men less anxious to accumulate, for, to the class whose ambition it is to leave great fortunes and be talked about after death, it will be even more attractive, and, indeed, a somewhat nobler ambition to have enormous sums paid over to the State from their fortunes."
Those whose incomes are only sufficient to meet physical wants should not be subjected to taxation at all. Adam Smith's dictum, "The subjects of every State ought to contribute to the support of government as nearly as possible in proportion to their respective abilities, that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the State," should be the rule, especially since there is so much wealth concentrated in the richer classes beyond their most liberal needs. We speak, however, only of the physical needs of men. It should always be remembered by the working-man that neither liquor nor tobacco can be considered as needs. The dire consequences resulting from the use of liquor would justify much higher taxation upon it in the interest of the workers themselves. The greatest single evil in Britain to-day is intemperance. Seven hundred and eighty-five million dollars yearly is the drink bill.
So is it just to exempt from taxation the minimum amount necessary to supply the physical wants of men and their families, just as a minimum is exempt from income tax in Britain, and the modest homestead is from foreclosure under mortgage in America. There is, however, nothing specially Socialistic in this. It is sound Adam Smith doctrine that all should pay taxes only in proportion to their ability to do so, and revolutionary Socialism is successfully to be combated only by promptly conceding the just claims of moderate men.
It is difficult to understand why, at the death of its possessor, great wealth, gathered or created in any of these or in other forms, should not be shared by the community which has been the most potent cause or partner of all in its creation. We have seen that enormous fortunes are dependent upon the community; without great and increasing population, there could be no great wealth. Where wealth accrues honorably, the people are always silent partners.
Those who have not had opportunity to study the operation of wealth in the world are naturally led astray. They see its possessors in their palaces surrounded with every luxury, their gorgeous carriages in the park; they read of their extravagant balls, of riotous living and inordinate expenditure, and, worse than this, of gambling at cards, and upon horses horseracing in Britain unfortunately is still under the highest patronage sights naturally hard to bear by those suffering for the necessaries of life. The writer has no desire to minimise this sad contrast, nor to say one word in its defense. It is one of the saddest and most indefensible of all contrasts presented in life ; but when we proceed to trace the work of wealth as a whole, it is soon found that even these extravagances absorb but a small fraction of it. The millionaire's funds are all at work; only a small sum lies in bank subject to check.
The millionaire with two, or the new multi-millionaire with twenty, millions sterling, keep only trifling sums lying idle. All else they put to work, much of it employing labor. They cannot escape this unless they turn misers and keep the gold to gloat over, which no rich man does whom the writer knows or has heard of. On the contrary, the millionaire as a rule is both mindful and shrewd, more apt than those of smaller fortune to invest his capital carefully. Besides, he is usually a man of simple tastes and averse to display.
Whatever impressions the workers may receive of the wealthier classes, the fact is indisputable that their surplus money, minus a small fraction, must augment the wage fund, and in some line or other benefit those who labor. Even their extravagances must in their course contribute to the business of many people struggling to obtain a competence, and hence to the employment of labor. Little can be spent by the rich without drawing upon the labor of others, which must be paid for. All that the millionaire can get out of life is superior food, raiment, and shelter. Only a small, a very small, percentage of all his millions can be absolutely wasted. When the Socialist, therefore, speaks of all wealth going back to the State, he proclaims no great change in its mission. The State, sole owner, would use it just as the owners now use all but a fraction of it; that is, invest it in some of the multiform ways leading to the reward of labor. It is simply a question whether State as against Individual control of wealth would prove more productive, which, judging from experience of State and Individual management so far as yet tested, may gravely be doubted. It could not make much difference to the workers whether the title to the wealth rested in the State or in individuals if the State decided, as individuals now do, to recompense labor according to value as determined by demand, the fairest standard.
We hear far too much these days upon the subject of wealth as the main object of life. Only by the manual working man and poorer classes is money regarded as the great idol of our age, before which all fall prostrate, and this simply because it is their one pressing want and its acquisition their life work. True, wealth is displacing hereditary rank, which until our own day held foremost position in Britain. Now the poor, average hereditary Peer seeks its alliance and remains of little consequence unless successful, because compelled to maintain an ostentatious style of living, which without fortune is impossible.
Let this be noted by the workers: none of the professions regard great wealth as the chief prize. Its acquisition is not their aim. Consider the physician : when a man selects that noble career, knowing all its trials, and consecrates himself to the amelioration of human suffering, he knows well fortune is not there to be found. He has a much higher prize than wealth in view. Consider the minister, he who feels that he has a message to deliver to his fellows and, answering, embraces the call. Wealth does not allure him. So with the lawyer. Wealth is not in his mind as the reward of his labors. The Chief Justices of the Supreme Courts are above pecuniary gain. The inventor, the architect, the engineer, and the scientist all have nobler rewards before them than riches. Only a modest competence is the reasonable expectation of all these classes. The great teachers of their fellows, the presidents and professors of our seats of learning, and the teachers of our common schools what thought have they of bowing before the vulgar idol of wealth? Our poets, authors, statesmen, the very highest types of humanity, are above the allurements of money-making. These know of higher satisfactions and nobler lives than those of the mere millionaire. Having their nobler missions, they have no time to waste accumulating dross.
Wealth confers no fame, although it may buy titles where such prevail. Nor are the memories of millionaires as a class fondly cherished. It is a low and vulgar ambition to amass money, which should always be the slave, never the master, of man.
In free lands the children of millionaires and their children may be safely trusted to fulfil the law; to keep a fortune is scarcely less difficult than to acquire it. Wealth is dispersive where unbuttressed by special laws designed to keep it in certain channels, all of which laws should be promptly repealed.
Wealth in America, the land of greatest fortunes, never yet has passed beyond the third generation. It seldom gets so far. We have a few, a very few, families of the third generation now spending the fortunes made by their grandfathers. The two or three greatest fortunes of their day are now being freely distributed among the children and grandchildren, and will be reduced to moderate sums for each when the present children reach maturity; as certain as fate many of their descendants will be found toiling as their able ancestors did in their shirtsleeves. We may safely trust those who have not made the money to prove adepts in squandering it.
Great fortunes are few. The aggregate of wealth embraced in these is small compared with the amount in very moderate fortunes. The former attract attention far beyond their importance.
Gigantic fortunes, in the nature of things, must be fewer and harder to build up in the future than in the past. Most great enterprises are now in the corporate form. The writer knows of but one man now in active business who is likely to have an exceptionally large estate, and the foundation of that was laid more than half a century ago by the purchase of timber lands which have increased enormously in value.
The equal distribution of wealth is one of the loudest cries of the Socialist. Let us suppose that a philanthropist which generally means a man with more money than sense resolved to act upon that idea, and distribute his fortune among the poor of London or New York, went to them one morning, and announced his purpose. He is soon surrounded, and begins the distribution. Each man or woman gets pro rata, say 5 sterling, until many thousands are given away, the crowd still constantly increasing. He returns at night to witness the result, and shudders at the vision that presents itself. Are these indeed men and women, or only degraded wretches in human form? Is it not evident to all that the first and indispensable work of the Socialist is the elevation of humanity to that standard of conduct which would ensure the wise and sober use of benefactions ? We would all agree that when this necessary elevation was reached, the discussion of further steps to relieve distress would be in order. Meanwhile, the foolish distributor would have done more injury to his fellows in one day than he could probably do good all the rest of his life.
It is self-evident that there is at present no foundation upon which wealth can be equally distributed. The soil has not been prepared. Seed sown upon it would be choked by thistles. Meanwhile, our immediate duty is to distribute surplus wealth to the best of our abilities in such forms as we believe best calculated to improve existing conditions, and to secure its more equitable distribution hereafter by heavy progressive death-duties, and by assessing the people in proportion to their ability to support the Government. This policy President Roosevelt is strongly advocating in America. It is much more urgently needed in Britain.
One of the chief objections to present-day Socialism is that while it lends itself to endless talk it is yet doomed to inaction as a system until and unless, human nature itself is changed in the countless ages to come. Earnest and good men, touched to fine issues, should not occupy themselves grasping at distant shadows while the substance, improvement of the present, lies at their feet ready for treatment.
The never-to-be-forgotten truth is that huge fortunes, so far as their owners are concerned, are as useless as the Star and Garter are to their possessors, and not so ornamental; and this truth above all, that these fortunes cannot give their owners more out of life worth having, than is secured by a competence so modest, that men beginning as workers can, with health, ability, and sobriety, win for old age.
We must all learn the great truth that only competence is desirable, almost necessary, wealth non-essential, and when it does come it is only a sacred trust to be administered for the general good.
When this lesson is truly learnt the thirst for wealth will lessen, and it will cease to be the object of keen pursuit by men in general, which it never has been with professional classes. People will soon see that it does not bring happiness to its possessors and is generally injurious to their children. The wise man engaged in business will seek only a moderate competence and then devote himself to public affairs, laboring for the good of others, especially in his own community.
I wished to know some William Shakespeare writing on avaricious and greed, generally I do not find fitting quotations from him when I’m looking in my political presentations, but I did find two among a list that seemed apropos for today.
Lowliness is young ambition's ladder,
Whereto the climber-upward turns his face;
But when he once attains the upmost round.
He then unto the ladder turns his back,
Looks in the clouds, scorning the base degrees
By which he did ascend.
— William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar 2.1.23-7, Brutus
I grant him bloody,
Luxurious, avaricious, false, deceitful,
Sudden, malicious, smacking of every sin
That has a name.
— William Shakespeare, Macbeth 4.3.70-3, Malcolm speaking to Macduff about Macbeth
William Shakespeare (bapt. 26 April 1564 – 23 April 1616) was an English playwright, poet and actor. He is widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language and the world's pre-eminent dramatist. He is often called England's national poet and the "Bard of Avon" (or simply "the Bard"). His extant works, including collaborations, consist of some 39 plays, 154 sonnets, three long narrative poems, and a few other verses, some of uncertain authorship. His plays have been translated into every major living language and are performed more often than those of any other playwright. Shakespeare remains arguably the most influential writer in the English language, and his works continue to be studied and reinterpreted.
I looked for a Woody Guthrie lyric dealing with avarice, and did not readily find one from a very long list at the Woody Guthrie Organization in Oklahoma. But this Charles Lindbergh song piqued my interest enough to include part of the lyrics. The song resonates in 2023 in a MAGA movement, in my opinion and perhaps you might agree.
Words and Music by Woody Guthrie
Contact Publisher - Woody Guthrie Publications/BMG Chrysalis
….
Hitler wrote to Lindy, said "Do your very worst."
Lindy started an outfit that he called America First
In Washington, Washington.
All around the country, Lindbergh he did fly,
Gasoline was paid for by *Hoover, **Clark, and ***Nye
In Washington, Washington.
Lindy said to Hoover: "We'll do the same as France:
Make a deal with Hitler, and then we'll get our chance."
In Washington, Washington.
Then they had a meetin', and all the Firsters come,
Come on a walk and they come on a run,
In Washington, Washington.
Yonder comes Father Coughlin, wearin' the silver chain,
Gas on his stomach and Hitler on the brain.
In Washington, Washington.
Mr. ****John L. Lewis would sit and straddle a fence,
But his daughter signed with Lindbergh, and we ain't seen her since
In Washington, Washington.
Hitler said to Lindy: "Stall 'em all you can,
Gonna bomb Pearl Harbor with the help of old Japan."
In Washington, Washington.
Then on a December mornin', the bombs come from Japan,
Wake Island and Pearl Harbor, kill fifteen hundred men.
In Washington, Washington
Now Lindy tried to join the army, but they wouldn't let him in,
Afraid he'd sell to Hitler a few more million men.
In Washington, Washington
So I'm a-gonna tell you people, if Hitler's gonna be beat,
The common workin' people has got to take the seat
In Washington, Washington.
And I'm gonna tell you workers, 'fore you cash in your checks:
They say "America First," but they mean "America Next!"
In Washington, Washington.
© Copyright 1977 (renewed), 1999 by Woody Guthrie Publications, Inc.
*Herbert Clark Hoover (August 10, 1874 – October 20, 1964) was an American politician who served as the 31st president of the United States from 1929 to 1933. He was a member of the Republican Party, holding office during the onset of the Great Depression in the United States. During a 1938 trip to Europe, Hoover met with Adolf Hitler and stayed at Hermann Göring's hunting lodge. He expressed dismay at the persecution of Jews in Germany and believed that Hitler was mad, but did not present a threat to the U.S. Instead, Hoover believed that Roosevelt posed the biggest threat to peace, holding that Roosevelt's policies provoked Japan and discouraged France and the United Kingdom from reaching an "accommodation" with Germany.
**Joel Bennett Clark (January 8, 1890 – July 13, 1954), better known as Bennett Champ Clark, was a Democratic United States senator from Missouri from 1933 until 1945, and was later a circuit judge of the District of Columbia Circuit. He was a leading isolationist in foreign policy. In domestic policy he was an anti-New Deal Conservative Democrat who helped organize the bipartisan Conservative coalition.
***Gerald Prentice Nye (December 19, 1892 – July 17, 1971) was an American politician who represented North Dakota in the United States Senate from 1925 to 1945. He was a Republican and supporter of World War II-era isolationism, chairing the Nye Committee which studied the causes of United States' involvement in World War I.
****John Llewellyn Lewis (February 12, 1880 – June 11, 1969) was an American leader of organized labor who served as president of the United Mine Workers of America (UMW) from 1920 to 1960. A major player in the history of coal mining, he was the driving force behind the founding of the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO), which established the United Steel Workers of America and helped organize millions of other industrial workers in the 1930s, during the Great Depression. After resigning as head of the CIO in 1941, Lewis took the United Mine Workers out of the CIO in 1942 and in 1944 took the union into the American Federation of Labor (AFL).
Woodrow Wilson Guthrie (July 14, 1912 – October 3, 1967) was an American singer-songwriter and one of the most significant figures in American folk music. His work focused on themes of American socialism and anti-fascism. He inspired several generations both politically and musically with songs such as "This Land Is Your Land".
I end with a little poem, initiated by a call to the Thom Hartmann Show.
As - They…They Have To Be Worse
They’re convinced that the level of corruption is equal or greater,
The Biden family, like the Clinton’s have been up to no good,
For the liberal press is only harassing Trump, they’re only Trump haters,
And within the caper are the Deep State, and they’re only elitist hoods.
The “both-siderism,” is always their defaults setting,
Sure Trump is greedy, but healthily so, they swear,
Therefore - Biden must be worse than Trump, and it’s so very upsetting,
And all of their fellow Republicans must defend their man, as they all care.
This willingness to be led by the reins without any question is so strange,
To want so much to believe all as suckers, are only what they wish to be,
If it fits an internal script, the mind absorbs thus, through every exchange,
For the “Biden crime family,” it rolls off the tongue so well, don’t you agree?
53rd posting, July 19, 2023