Huey Long
 American Populist
      

 

Huey P. Long:
"Share Our Wealth"
   

Delivered via radio broadcast, 7 March 1935, in Washington D.C.



President Roosevelt was elected on November 8, 1932. People look upon an elected President as the President. This is January 1935. We are in our third year of the Roosevelt depression, with the conditions growing worse...
WE must now become awakened! We must know the truth and speak the truth. There is no use to wait three more years. It is not Roosevelt or ruin; it is Roosevelt’s ruin.

Now, my friends, it makes no difference who is President or who is senator. America is for 125 million people and the unborn to come. We ran Mr. Roosevelt for the president of the United States because he promised to us by word of mouth and in writing:

1. That the size of the big man’s fortune would be reduced so as to give the masses at the bottom enough to wipe out all poverty; and
2. That the hours of labor would be so reduced that all would share in the work to be done and in consuming the abundance mankind produced.
Hundreds of words were used by Mr. Roosevelt to make these promises to the people, but they were made over and over again. He reiterated these pledges even after he took his oath as President. Summed up, what these promises meant was: “Share our wealth.”

When I saw him spending all his time of ease and recreation with the business partners of Mr. John D. Rockefeller, Jr., with such men as the Astors, etc., maybe I ought to have had better sense than to have believed the would ever break down their big fortunes to give enough to the masses to end poverty--maybe some will think me weak for ever believing it all, but millions of other people were fooled the same as myself. I was like a drowning man grabbing at a straw, I guess. The face and eyes, the hungry forms of mothers and children, the aching hearts of students denied education were before our eyes, and when Roosevelt promised, we jumped for that ray of hope.

So therefore I call upon the men and women of America to immediately join in our work and movement to share our wealth.
There are thousands of share-our-wealth societies organized in the United States now. We want 100,000 such societies formed for every nook and corner of this country--societies that will meet, talk,, and work, all for the purpose tat the great wealth and abundance of this great land that belongs to us may be shared and enjoyed by all of us.
WE have nothing more for which we should ask the Lord. He ahs allowed this land to have too much of everything that humanity needs.
So in this land of God’s abundance we propose laws, viz.:

   1. The fortunes of the multimillionaires and billionaires shall be reduced so that no one persons shall own more than a few million dollars to the person. We would do this by a capital levy tax. On the first million that a man was worth, we would not impose any tax. We would say, “All right for your first million dollars, but after you get that rich you will have to start helping the balance of us.” So we would not levy and capital levy tax on the first million one owned. But on the second million a man owns, we would tax that 1 percent, so that every year the man owned the second million dollars he would be taxed $10,000. On the third million we would impose a tax of 2 percent. On the fourth million we would impose a tax of 4 percent. On the fifth million we would impose a tax of 16 percent. On the seventh million we would impose a tax of 32 percent. On the eighth million we would impose a tax of 64 percent ; and on all over the eight million we would impose a tax of 100 percent.
What this would mean is tat the annual tax would bring the biggest fortune down to $3 or $4 million to the person because no one could pay taxes very long in the higher brackets. But $3 or $4 million is enough for any one person and his children and his children’s children. We cannot allow one to have more than that because it would not leave enough for the balance to have something.

   2. We propose to limit the amount any one man can earn in one year or inherit to $1 million to the person.

   3. Now, by limiting the size of the fortunes and incomes of the big men, we will throw into the government Treasury the money and property from which we will care for the millions of people who have nothing; and with this money we ill provide a home and the comforts of home, with such common conveniences as radio and automobile, for every family in America, free of debt.

   4. We guarantee food and clothing and employment for everyone who should work by shortening the hours of labor to thirty hours per week, maybe less, and to eleven months per year, maybe less. We would have the hours shortened just so much as would give work to everybody to produce enough for everybody; and if we wee to get them down to where they were too short, then we would lengthen them again. As long as all the people working can produce enough of automobiles, radios, homes, schools, and theatres for everyone to have that kind of comfort and convenience, then let us all have work to do and have that much of heaven on earth.

   5. We would provide education at the expense of the states and the United States for every child, not only through grammar school and high school but through to a college and vocational education. We would simply extend the Louisiana plan to apply to colleges and all people. Yes, we would have to build thousands of more colleges and employ 100,000 more teachers; but we have materials, men, and women who are ready and available for the work. Why have the right to a college education depend upon whether the father or mother is so well-to-do as to send a boy or girl to college? We would give every child the right to education and a living at birth.

   6. We would give a pension to all persons above sixty years of age in an amount sufficient to support them in comfortable circumstances, expecting those who earn $1,000 per year or who are worth $10,000.

   7. Until we could straighten things out--and we can straighten things out in two months under our program--we would grant a moratorium on all debts which people owe that they cannot pay.
And now you have our program, none too big, none too little, but every man a king.

 We owe debts in America today, public and private, amounting to $252 billion. That means that every child is born with a $2,000 debt tied around his neck to hold him down before he gets started. Then, on top of that, the wealth is locked in a vise owned by a few people. We propose that children shall be born in a land of opportunity, guaranteed a home, food, clothes, and the other things that make for living, including the right to education.
Our plan would injure no one. It would not stop us from having millionaires--it would increase them ten-fold, because so many more people could make $1 million if they had the chance our plan gives them. our plan would not break up big concerns. The only difference would be that maybe 10,000 people would own a concern instead of 10 people owning it.
But, my friends, unless we do share our wealth, unless we limit the size of the big man so as to give something to the little man, we can never have a happy or free people. God said so! He ordered it.

 We have everything our people need. Too much of food, clothes, and houses--why not let all have their fill and lie down in the ease and comfort God has given us? Why not? Because a few own everything--the masses own nothing.
I wonder if any of you people who are listening to me were ever at a barbecue! We used to go there--sometimes 1,000 people or more. If there were 1,000 people, we would put enough meat and bread and everything else on the table for 1,000 people. Then everybody would be called and everyone would eat all they wanted. But suppose at one of these barbecues for 1,000 people that one man took 90 percent of the food and ran off with it and ate until he got sick and let the balance rot. Then 999 people would have only enough for 100 to eat and there would be many to starve because of the greed of just one person for something he couldn’t eat himself.

 Well, ladies and gentlemen, America all the people of America, have bee invited to a barbecue. God invited us all to come and eat and drink all we wanted. He smiled on our land we grew crops of plenty to eat and wear. He showed us in the earth the iron and other things to make everything we wanted. he unfolded to us the secrets of science so that our work might be easy. God called: “Come to my feast.”
Then what happened? Rockefeller, Morgan, and their crowd stepped up and took enough for 120 million people and left only enough for 5 million for all the other 125 million to eat. And so many million must go hungry and without these good things God gave us unless we call on them to put some of it back.

 

 

delivered 23 February 1934

Is that a right of life, when the young children of this country are being reared into a sphere which is more owned by 12 men that is by 120,000,000 people?

Ladies and gentlemen, I have only 30 minutes in which to speak to you this evening, and I, therefore, will not be able to discuss in detail so much as I can write when I have all of the time and space that is allowed me for the subjects, but I will undertake to sketch them very briefly without manuscript or preparation, so that you can understand them so well as I can tell them to you tonight.

I contend, my friends, that we have no difficult problem to solve in America, and that is the view of nearly everyone with whom I have discussed the matter here in Washington and elsewhere throughout the United States -- that we have no very difficult problem to solve.

It is not the difficulty of the problem which we have; it is the fact that the rich people of this country -- and by rich people I mean the super-rich -- will not allow us to solve the problems, or rather the one little problem that is afflicting this country, because in order to cure all of our woes it is necessary to scale down the big fortunes, that we may scatter the wealth to be shared by all of the people.

We have a marvelous love for this Government of ours; in fact, it is almost a religion, and it is well that it should be, because we have a splendid form of government and we have a splendid set of laws. We have everything here that we need, except that we have neglected the fundamentals upon which the American Government was principally predicated.

How may of you remember the first thing that the Declaration of Independence said? It said, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that there are certain inalienable rights of the people, and among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"; and it said, further, "We hold the view that all men are created equal."

Now, what did they mean by that? Did they mean, my friends, to say that all me were created equal and that that meant that any one man was born to inherit $10,000,000,000 and that another child was to be born to inherit nothing?

Did that mean, my friends, that someone would come into this world without having had an opportunity, of course, to have hit one lick of work, should be born with more than it and all of its children and children's children could ever dispose of, but that another one would have to be born into a life of starvation?

That was not the meaning of the Declaration of Independence when it said that all men are created equal of "That we hold that all men are created equal."

Now was it the meaning of the Declaration of Independence when it said that they held that there were certain rights that were inalienable -- the right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Is that right of life, my friends, when the young children of this country are being reared into a sphere which is more owned by 12 men than it is by 120,000,000 people?

Is that, my friends, giving them a fair shake of the dice or anything like the inalienable right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, or anything resembling the fact that all people are created equal; when we have today in America thousands and hundreds of thousands and millions of children on the verge of starvation in a land that is overflowing with too much to eat and too much to wear? I do not think you will contend that, and I do not think for a moment that they will contend it.

Now let us see if we cannot return this Government to the Declaration of Independence and see if we are going to do anything regarding it. Why should we hesitate or why should we quibble or why should we quarrel with one another to find out what the difficulty is, when we know what the Lord told us what the difficulty is, and Moses wrote it out so a blind man could see it, then Jesus told us all about it, and it was later written in the Book of James, where everyone could read it?

I refer to the Scriptures, now, my friends, and give you what it says not for the purpose of convincing you of the wisdom of myself, not for the purpose ladies and gentlemen, of convincing you of the fact that I am quoting the Scripture means that I am to be more believed than someone else; but I quote you the Scripture, rather refer you to the Scripture, because whatever you see there you may rely upon will never be disproved so long as you or your children or anyone may live; and you may further depend upon the fact that not one historical fact that the Bible has ever contained has ever yet been disproved by any scientific discovery or by reason of anything that has been disclosed to man through his own individual mind or through the wisdom of the Lord which the Lord has allowed him to have.

But the Scripture says, ladies and gentlemen, that no country can survive, or for a country to survive it is necessary that we keep the wealth scattered among the people, that nothing should be held permanently by any one person, and that 50 years seems to be the year of jubilee in which all property would be scattered about and returned to the sources from which it originally came, and every seventh year debt should be remitted.

Those two things the Almighty said to be necessary -- I should say He knew to be necessary, or else He would not have so prescribed that the property would be kept among the general run of the people and that everyone would continue to share in it; so that no one man would get half of it and hand it down to a son, who takes half of what was left, and that son hand it down to another one, who would take half of what was left, until, like a snowball going downhill, all of the snow was off of the ground except what the snowball had.

I believe that was the judgment and the view and the law of the Lord, that we would have to distribute wealth every so often, in order that there could not be people starving to death in a land of plenty, as there is in America today. We have in American today more wealth, more goods, more food, more clothing, more houses than we have ever had. We have everything in abundance here. We have the farm problem, my friends, because we have too much cotton, because we have too much wheat, and have too much corn, and too much potatoes.

We have a home-loan problem because we have too many houses, and yet nobody can buy them and live in them.

We have trouble, my friends, in the country, because we have too much money owing, the greatest indebtedness that has ever been given to civilization, where it has been shown that we are incapable of distributing to the actual things that are here, because the people have not money enough to supply themselves with them, and because the greed of a few men is such that they think it is necessary that they own everything, and their pleasure consists in the starvation of the masses, and in their possessing things they cannot use, and their children cannot use, but who bask in the splendor of sunlight and wealth, casting darkness and despair and impressing it on everyone else.

"So, therefore," said the Lord, in effect, "if you see these things that now have occurred and exist in this and other countries, there must be a constant scattering of wealth in any country if this country is to survive."

"Then," said the Lord, in effect, "every seventh year there shall be a remission of debts; there will be no debts after 7 years." That was the law.

Now, let us take America today. We have in American today, ladies and gentlemen, $272,000,000,000 of debt. Two hundred and seventy-two thousand millions of dollars of debts are owed by the various people of this country today. Why, my friends, that cannot be paid. It is not possible for that kind of debt to be paid.

The entire currency of the United States is only $6,000,000,000. That is all of the money that we have got in America today. All the actual money you have got in all of your banks, all that you have got in the Government Treasury, is $6,000,000,000; and if you took all that money and paid it out today you would still owe $266,000,000,000; and if you took all that money and paid again you would still owe $260,000,000,000; and if you took it, my friends, 20 times and paid it you would still owe $150,000,000,000.

You would have to have 45 times the entire money supply of the United States today to pay the debts of the people of America, and then they would just have to start out from scratch, without a dime to go on with.

So, my friends, it is impossible to pay all of these debts, and you might as well find out that it cannot be done. The United States Supreme Court has definitely found out that it could not be done, because, in a Minnesota case, it held that when a State has postponed the evil day of collecting a debt it was a valid and constitutional exercise of legislative power.

Now, ladies and gentlemen, if I may proceed to give you some other words that I think you can understand -- I am not going to belabor you by quoting tonight -- I am going to tell you what the wise men of all ages and all times, down even to the present day, have all said: That you must keep the wealth of the country scattered, and you must limit the amount that any one man can own. You cannot let any man own $300,000,000,000 or $400,000,000,000. If you do, one man can own all of the wealth that they United States has in it.

Now, my friends, if you were off on an island where there were 100 lunches, you could not let one man eat up the hundred lunches, or take the hundred lunches and not let anybody else eat any of them. If you did, there would not be anything else for the balance of the people to consume.

So, we have in America today, my friends, a condition by which about 10 men dominate the means of activity in at least 85 percent of the activities that you own. They either own directly everything or they have got some kind of mortgage on it, with a very small percentage to be excepted. They own the banks, they own the steel mills, they own the railroads, they own the bonds, they own the mortgages, they own the stores, and they have chained the country from one end to the other, until there is not any kind of business that a small, independent man could go into today and make a living, and there is not any kind of business that an independent man can go into and make any money to buy an automobile with; and they have finally and gradually and steadily eliminated everybody from the fields in which there is a living to be made, and still they have got little enough sense to think they ought to be able to get more business out of it anyway.

If you reduce a man to the point where he is starving to death and bleeding and dying, how do you expect that man to get hold of any money to spend with you? It is not possible. Then, ladies and gentlemen, how do you expect people to live, when the wherewith cannot be had by the people?

In the beginning I quoted from the Scriptures. I hope you will understand that I am not quoting Scripture to convince you of my goodness personally, because that is a thing between me and my Maker, that is something as to how I stand with my Maker and as to how you stand with your Maker. That is not concerned with this issue, except and unless there are those of you who would be so good as to pray for the souls of some of us. But the Lord gave his law, and in the Book of James they said so, that the rich should weep and howl for the miseries that had come upon them; and, therefore, it was written that when the rich hold goods they could not use and could not consume, you will inflict punishment on them, and nothing but days of woe ahead of them.

Then we have heard of the great Greek philosopher, Socrates, and the greater Greek philosopher, Plato, and we have read the dialog between Plato and Socrates, in which one said that great riches brought on great poverty, and would be destructive of a country. Read what they said. Read what Plato said; that you must not let any one man be too poor, and you must not let any one man be too rich; that the same mill that grinds out the extra rich is the mill that will grind out the extra poor, because, in order that the extra rich can become so affluent, they must necessarily take more of what ordinarily would belong to the average man.

It is a very simple process of mathematics that you do not have to study, and that no one is going to discuss with you.

So that was the view of Socrates and Plato. That was the view of the English statesmen. That was the view of American statesmen. That was the view of American statesmen like Daniel Webster, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, William Jennings Bryan, and Theodore Roosevelt, and even as late as Herbert Hoover and Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Both of these men, Mr. Hoover and Mr. Roosevelt, came out and said there had to be a decentralization of wealth, but neither one of them did anything about it. But, nevertheless, they recognized the principle. The fact that neither one of them ever did anything about it is their own problem that I am not undertaking to criticize; but had Mr. Hoover carried out what he says ought to be done, he would be retiring from the President's office, very probably, 3 years from now, instead of 1 year ago; and had Mr. Roosevelt proceeded along the lines that he stated were necessary for the decentralization of wealth, he would have gone, my friends, a long way already, and within a few months he would have probably reached a solution of all of the problems that afflict this country.

But I wish to warn you now that nothing that has been done up to this date has taken one dime away from these big-fortune holders; they own just as much as they did, and probably a little bit more; they hold just as many of the debts of the common people as they ever held, and probably a little bit more; and unless we, my friends, are going to give the people of this country a fair shake of the dice, by which they will all get something out of the funds of this land, there is not a chance on the topside of this God's eternal earth by which we can rescue this country and rescue the people of this country.

It is necessary to save the Government of the country, but is much more necessary to save the people of America. We love this country. We love this Government. It is a religion, I say. It is a kind of religion people have read of when women, in the name of religion, would take their infant babes and throw them into the burning flame, where they would be instantly devoured by the all-consuming fire, in days gone by; and there probably are some people of the world even today, who, in the name of religion, throw their tear-dimmed eyes into the sad faces of their fathers and mothers, who cannot given them food and clothing they both needed, and which is necessary to sustain them, and that goes on day after day, and night after night, when day gets into darkness and blackness, knowing those children would arise in the morning without being fed, and probably to bed at night without being fed.

Yet in the name of our Government, and all alone, those people undertake and strive as hard as they can to keep a good government alive, and how long they can stand that no one knows. If I were in their place tonight, the place where millions are, I hope that I would have what I might say -- I cannot give you the word to express the kind of fortitude they have; that is the word -- I hope that I might have the fortitude to praise and honor my Government that had allowed me here in this land, where there is too much to eat and too much to wear, to starve in order that a handful of men can have so much more than they can ever eat or they can ever wear.

Now, we have organized a society, and we call it "Share Our Wealth Society," a society with the motto "every man a king."

Every man a king, so there would be no such thing as a man or woman who did not have the necessities of life, who would not be dependent upon the whims and caprices and ipsi dixit of the financial martyrs for a living. What do we propose by this society? We propose to limit the wealth of big men in the country. There is an average of $15,000 in wealth to every family in America. That is right here today.

We do not propose to divide it up equally. We do not propose a division of wealth, but we propose to limit poverty that we will allow to be inflicted upon any man's family. We will not say we are going to try to guarantee any equality, or $15,000 to families. No; but we do say that one third of the average is low enough for any one family to hold, that there should be a guaranty of a family wealth of around $5,000; enough for a home, and automobile, a radio, and the ordinary conveniences, and the opportunity to educate their children; a fair share of the income of this land thereafter to that family so there will be no such thing as merely the select to have those things, and so there will be no such thing as a family living in poverty and distress.

We have to limit fortunes. Our present plan is that we will allow no one man to own more than $50,000,000. We think that with that limit we will be able to carry out the balance of the program. It may be necessary that we limit it to less than $50,000,000. It may be necessary, in working out of the plans, that no man's fortune would be more than $10,000,000 or $15,000,000. But be that as it may, it will still be more than any one man, or any one man and his children and their children, will be able to spend in their lifetimes; and it is not necessary or reasonable to have wealth piled up beyond that point where we cannot prevent poverty among the masses.

Another thing we propose is old-age pension of $30 a month for everyone that is 60 years old. Now, we do not give this pension to a man making $1,000 a year, and we do not give it to him if he has $10,000 in property, but outside of that we do.

We will limit hours of work. There is not any necessity of having over-production. I think all you have got to do, ladies and gentlemen, is just limit the hours of work to such an extent as people will work only so long as is necessary to produce enough for all of the people to have what they need. Why, ladies and gentleman, let us say that all of these labor-saving devices reduce hours down to where you do not have to work but 4 hours a day; that is enough for these people, and then praise be the name of the Lord, if it gets that good. Let it be good and not a curse, and then we will have 5 hours a day and 5 days a week, or even less that that, and we might give a man a whole month off during a year, or give him 2 months; and we might do what other countries have seen fit to do, and what I did in Louisiana, by having schools by which adults could go back and learn the things that have been discovered since they went to school.

We will not have any trouble taking care of the agricultural situation. All you have to do is balance your production with your consumption. You simply have to abandon a particular crop that you have too much of, and all you have to do is store the surplus for the next year, and the Government will take it over. When you have good crops in the area in which the crops that have been planted are sufficient for another year, put in your public works in the particular year when you do not need to raise any more, and by that means you get everybody employed. When the Government has enough of any particular crop to take care of all of the people, that will be all that is necessary; and in order to do all of this, our taxation is going to be to take the billion-dollar fortunes and strip them down to frying size, not to exceed $50,000,000, and it is necessary to come to $10,000,000, we will come to $10,000,000. We have worked the proposition out to guarantee a limit upon property (and no man will own less than one third the average), and guarantee a reduction of fortunes and a reduction of hours to spread wealth throughout this country. We would care for the old people above 60 and take them away from this thriving industry and given them a chance to enjoy the necessities and live in ease, and thereby lift from the market the labor which would probably create a surplus of commodities.

Those are the things we propose to do. "Every man a king." Every man to eat when there is something to eat; all to wear something when there is something to wear. That makes us all sovereign.

You cannot solve these things through these various and sundry alphabetical codes. You can have the N.R.A. and P.W.A. and C.W.A. and the U.U.G. and G.I.N. and any other kind of "dadgummed" lettered code. You can wait until doomsday and see 25 more alphabets, but that is not going to solve this proposition. Why hide? Why quibble? You know what the trouble is. The man that says he does not know what the trouble is is just hiding his face to keep from seeing the sunlight.

God told you what the trouble was. The philosophers told you what the trouble was; and when you have a country where one man owns more than 100,000 people, or a million people, and when you have a country where there are four men, as in America, that have got more control over things than all the 120,000,000 people together, you know what the trouble is.

We had these great incomes in this country; but the farmer, who plowed from sunup to sundown, who labored here from sunup to sundown for 6 days a week, wound up at the end of the with practically nothing.

And we ought to take care of the veterans of the wars in this program. That is a small matter. Suppose it does cost a billion dollars a year -- that means that the money will be scattered throughout this country. We ought to pay them a bonus. We can do it. We ought to take care of every single one of the sick and disabled veterans. I do not care whether a man got sick on the battlefield or did not; every man that wore the uniform of this country is entitled to be taken care of, and there is money enough to do it; and we need to spread the wealth of the country, which you did not do in what you call the N.R.A.

If the N.R.A. has done any good, I can put it all in my eye without having it hurt. All I can see that N.R.A. has done is to put the little man out of business -- the little merchant in his store, the little Dago that is running a fruit stand, or the Greek shoe-shining stand, who has to take hold of a code of 275 pages and study with a spirit level and compass and looking-glass; he has to hire a Philadelphia lawyer to tell him what is in the code; and by the time he learns what the code is, he is in jail or out of business; and they have got a chain code system that has already put him out of business. The N.R.A. is not worth anything, and I said so when they put it through.

Now, my friends, we have got to hit the root with the axe. Centralized power in the hands of a few, with centralized credit in the hands of a few, is the trouble.

Get together in your community tonight or tomorrow and organize one of our Share Our Wealth societies. If you do not understand it, write me and let me send you the platform; let me give you the proof of it.

This is Huey P. Long talking, United States Senator, Washington, D.C. Write me and let me send you the data on this proposition. Enroll with us. Let us make known to the people what we are going to do. I will send you a button, if I have got enough of them left. We have got a little button that some of our friends designed, with our message around the rim of the button, and in the center "Every man a king." Many thousands of them are meeting through the United States, and every day we are getting hundreds and hundreds of letters. Share Our Wealth societies are now being organized, and people have it within their power to relieve themselves from this terrible situation.

Look at what the Mayo brothers announced this week, these greatest scientists of all the world today, who are entitled to have more money than all the Morgans and the Rockefellers, or anyone else, and yet the Mayos turn back their big fortunes to be used for treating the sick, and said they did not want to lay up fortunes in this earth, but wanted to turn them back where they would do some good; but the other big capitalists are not willing to do that, are not willing to do what these men, 10 times more worthy, have already done, and it is going to take a law to require them to do it.

Organize your Share Our Wealth Society and get your people to meet with you, and make known your wishes to your Senators and Representatives in Congress.

Now, my friends, I am going to stop. I thank you for this opportunity to talk to you. I am having to talk under the auspices and by the grace and permission of the National Broadcasting System tonight, and they are letting me talk free. If I had the money, and I wish I had the money, I would like to talk to you more often on this line, but I have not got it, and I cannot expect these people to give it to me free except on some rare instance. But, my friends, I hope to have the opportunity to talk with you, and I am writing to you, and I hope that you will get up and help in the work, because the resolution and bills are before Congress, and we hope to have your help in getting together and organizing your Share Our Wealth society.

Now, that I have but a minute left, I want to say that I suppose my family is listening in on the radio in New Orleans, and I will say to my wife and three children that I am entirely well and hope to be home before many more days, and I hope they have listened to my speech tonight, and I wish them and all their neighbors and friends everything good that may be had.

I thank you, my friends, for your kind attention, and I hope you will enroll with us, take care of your own work in the work of this Government, and share or help in our Share Our Wealth society.

 

            hueypl1.gif (36223 bytes)

 

 

 

  1928 Campaign

 

THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- February 5, 1934

 

Mr. Long: Mr. President, I send to the desk and ask to have printed in the RECORD not a speech but what is more in the nature of an appeal to the people of America.
There being no objection, the paper entitled "Carry Out the Command of the Lord" was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

By Huey P. Long, United States Senator

 
  People of America: In every community get together at once and organize a share-our-wealth society--Motto: Every man a king
Principles and platform:
   1. To limit poverty by providing that every deserving family shall share in the wealth of America for not less than one third of the average wealth, thereby to possess not less than $5,000 free of debt.
 
   2. To limit fortunes to such a few million dollars as will allow the balance of the American people to share in the wealth and profits of the land.
 
   3. Old-age pensions of $30 per month to persons over 60 years of age who do not earn as much as $1,000 per year or who possess less than $10,000 in cash or property, thereby to remove from the field of labor in times of unemployment those who have contributed their share to the public service.
 
   4. To limit the hours of work to such an extent as to prevent overproduction and to give the workers of America some share in the recreations, conveniences, and luxuries of life.
 
   5. To balance agricultural production with what can be sold and consumed according to the laws of God, which have never failed.
 
   6. To care for the veterans of our wars.
 
   7. Taxation to run the Government to be supported, first, by reducing big fortunes from the top, thereby to improve the country and provide employment in public works whenever agricultural surplus is such as to render unnecessary, in whole or in part, any particular crop.
Simple and Concrete--Not an Experiment

 

To share our wealth by providing for every deserving family to have one third of the average wealth would mean that, at the worst, such a family could have a fairly comfortable home, an automobile, and a radio, with other reasonable home conveniences, and a place to educate their children. Through sharing the work, that is, by limiting the hours of toil so that all would share in what is made and produced in the land, every family would have enough coming in every year to feed, clothe, and provide a fair share of the luxuries of life to its members. Such is the result to a family, at the worst.
 
 From the worst to the best there would be no limit to opportunity. One might become a millionaire or more. There would be a chance for talent to make a man big, because enough would be floating in the land to give brains its chance to be used. As it is, no matter how smart a man may be, everything is tied up in so few hands that no amount of energy or talent has a chance to gain any of it.
 
 Would it break up big concerns? No. It would simply mean that, instead of one man getting all the one concern made, that there might be 1,000 or 10,000 persons sharing in such excess fortune, any one of whom, or all of whom, might be millionaires and over.
 
 I ask somebody in every city, town, village, and farm community of America to take this as my personal request to call a meeting of as many neighbors and friends as will come to it to start a share-our-wealth society. Elect a president and a secretary and charge no dues. The meeting can be held at a courthouse, in some town hall or public building, or in the home of someone.
 
 It does not matter how many will come to the first meeting. Get a society organized, if it has only two members. Then let us get to work quick, quick, quick to put an end by law to people starving and going naked in this land of too much to eat and too much to wear. The case is all with us. It is the word and work of the Lord. The Gideons had but two men when they organized. Three tailors of Tooley Street drew the Magna Carta of England. The Lord says: "For where two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of them."
We propose to help our people into the place where the Lord said was their rightful own and no more.
We have waited long enough for these financial masters to do these things. They have promised and promised. Now we find our country $10 billion further in debt on account of the depression, and big lenders even propose to get 90 percent of that out of the hides of the common people in the form of a sales tax.
 
 There is nothing wrong with the United States. We have more food than we can eat. We have more clothes and things out of which to make clothes than we can wear. We have more houses and lands than the whole 120 million can use if they all had good homes. So what is the trouble? Nothing except that a handful of men have everything and the balance of the people have nothing if their debts were paid. There should be every man a king in this land flowing with milk and honey instead of the lords of finance at the top and slaves and peasants at the bottom.
Now be prepared for the slurs and snickers of some high-ups when you start your local spread-our-wealth society. Also when you call your meeting be on your guard for some smart-aleck tool of the interests to come in and ask questions. Refer such to me for an answer to any question, and I will send you a copy. Spend your time getting the people to work to save their children and to save their homes, or to get a home for those who have already lost their own.
 
 To explain the title, motto, and principles of such a society I give the full information, viz:
 
 Title: Share-our-wealth society is simply to mean that God's creatures on this lovely American continent have a right to share in the wealth they have created in this country. They have the right to a living, with the conveniences and some of the luxuries of this life, so long as there are too many or enough for all. They have a right to raise their children in a healthy, wholesome atmosphere and to educate them, rather than to face the dread of their under-nourishment and sadness by being denied a real life.
 
 Motto: "Every man a king" conveys the great plan of God and of the Declaration of Independence, which said: "All men are created equal." It conveys that no one man is the lord of another, but that from the head to the foot of every man is carried his sovereignty.
Now to cover the principles of the share-our-wealth society, I give them in order:

 

1. To limit poverty:
We propose that a deserving family shall share in our wealth of America at least for one third the average. An average family is slightly less than five persons. The number has become less during depression. The United States total wealth in normal times is about $400 billion or about $15,000 to a family. If there were fair distribution of our things in America, our national wealth would be three or four or five times the $400 billion, because a free, circulating wealth is worth many times more than wealth congested and frozen into a few hands as is America's wealth. But, figuring only on the basis of wealth as valued when frozen into a few hands, there is the average of $15,000 to the family. We say that we will limit poverty of the deserving people. One third of the average wealth to the family, or $5,000, is a fair limit to the depths we will allow any one man's family to fall. None too poor, none too rich.

 

2. To limit fortunes:
The wealth of this land is tied up in a few hands. It makes no difference how many years the laborer has worked, nor does it make any difference how many dreary rows the farmer has plowed, the wealth he has created is in the hands of manipulators. They have not worked any more than many other people who have nothing. Now we do not propose to hurt these very rich persons. We simply say that when they reach the place of millionaires they have everything they can use and they ought to let somebody else have something. As it is, 0.1 of 1 percent of the bank depositors nearly half of the money in the banks, leaving 99.9 of bank depositors owning the balance. Then two thirds of the people do not even have a bank account. The lowest estimate is that 4 percent of the people own 85 percent of our wealth. The people cannot ever come to light unless we share our wealth, hence the society to do it.

 

3. Old-age pensions:
Everyone has begun to realize something must be done for our old people who work out their lives, feed and clothe children and are left penniless in their declining years. They should be made to look forward to their mature years for comfort rather than fear. We propose that, at the age of 60, every person should begin to draw a pension from our Government of $30 per month, unless the person of 60 or over has an income of over $1,000 per year or is worth $10,000, which is two thirds of the average wealth in America, even figured on a basis of it being frozen into a few hands. Such a pension would retire from labor those persons who keep the rising generations from finding employment.

 

4. To limit the hours of work:
This applies to all industry. The longer hours the human family can rest from work, the more it can consume. It makes no difference how many labor-saving devices we may invent, just as long as we keep cutting down the hours and sharing what those machines produce, the better we become. Machines can never produce too much if everybody is allowed his share, and if it ever got to the point that the human family could work only 15 hours per week and still produce enough for everybody, then praised be the name of the Lord. Heaven would be coming nearer to earth. All of us could return to school a few months every year to learn some things they have found out since we were there: All could be gentlemen: Every man a king.

 

5. To balance agricultural production with consumption:
About the easiest of all things to do when financial masters and market manipulators step aside and let work the law of the Lord. When we have a supply of anything that is more than we can use for a year or two, just stop planting that particular crop for a year either in all the country or in a part of it. Let the Government take over and store the surplus for the next year. If there is not something else for the farmers to plant or some other work for them to do to live on for the year when the crop is banned, then let that be the year for the public works to be done in the section where the farmers need work. There is plenty of it to do and taxes of the big fortunes at the top will supply plenty of money without hurting anybody. In time we would have the people not struggling to raise so much when all were well fed and clothed. Distribution of wealth almost solves the whole problem without further trouble.

 

6. To care for the veterans of our wars:
A restoration of all rights taken from them by recent laws and further, a complete care of any disabled veteran for any ailment, who has no means of support.

 

7. Taxation:
Taxation is to be levied first at the top for the Governments support and expenses. Swollen fortunes should be reduced principally through taxation. The Government should be run through revenues it derives after allowing persons to become well above millionaires and no more. In this manner the fortunes will be kept down to reasonable size and at the same time all the works of the Government kept on a sound basis, without debts.
Things cannot continue as they now are. America must take one of three choices, viz:
 
 1. A monarchy ruled by financial masters--a modern feudalism.
 2. Communism.
 3. Sharing of the wealth and income of the land among all the people by limiting the hours of toil and limiting the size of fortunes.
The Lord prescribed the last form. It would preserve all our gains, share them among our population, guarantee a greater country and a happy people.
 
 The need for such share-our-wealth society is to spread the truth among the people and to convey their sentiment to their Members of Congress.
Whenever such a local society has been organized, please send me notice of the same, so that I may send statistics and data which such local society can give out in their community, either through word of mouth in meetings, by circulars, or, when possible, in local newspapers.
 
 Please understand that the Wall Street controlled public press will give you as little mention as possible and will condemn and ridicule your efforts. Such makes necessary the organizations to share the wealth of this land among the people, which the financial masters are determined they will not allow to be done. Where possible, I hope those organizing a society in one community will get in touch with their friends in other communities and get them to organize societies in them. Anyone can have copies of this article reprinted in circular form to distribute wherever they may desire, or, if they want me to have them printed for them, I can do so and mail them to any address for 60 cents per hundred or $4 per thousand copies.
 
 I introduced in Congress and supported other measures to bring about the sharing of our wealth when I first reached the United States Senate in January 1932. The main efforts to that effect polled about six votes in the Senate at first. Last spring my plan polled the votes of nearly twenty United States Senators, becoming dangerous in proportions to the financial lords. Since then I have been abused in the newspapers and over the radio for everything under the sun. Now that I am pressing this program, the lies and abuse in the big newspapers and over the radio are a matter of daily occurrence. It will all become greater with this effort. Expect that. Meantime go ahead with the work to organize a share-our-wealth society.

 
Sincerely,
Huey P. Long,
United States Senator.

 

Huey Long -- 1935 Senate Speech and Radio Address
THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD __ January 14, 1935

Every Man A King


MR. LONG. Mr. President, I send to the desk a radio address and a letter by myself which I ask to have inserted in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the address and the letter were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
Ladies and gentlemen, there is a verse which says that the
"Saddest words of tongue or pen Are these: 'It might have been.' "
I must tell you good people of our beloved United States that the saddest words I have to say are:
"I told you so!"
In January 1932 I stood on the floor of the United States Senate and told what would happen in 1933. It all came to pass.
In March 1933, a few days after Mr. Roosevelt had become President and had made a few of his moves, I said what to expect in 1934. That came to pass.
As the Congress met in the early months of 1934 and I had a chance to see the course of events for that year, I again gave my belief on what would happen by the time we met again this January 1935. I am grieved to say to you that this week I had to say on the floor of the United States Senate, "I told you so!"
How I wish tonight that I might say to you that all my fears and beliefs of last year proved untrue! But here are the facts__
1. We have 1 million more men out of work now than 1 year ago.
2. We have had to put 5 million more families on the dole than we had there a year ago.
3. The newspapers report from the Government statistics that this past year we had an increase in the money made by the big men, but a decrease in the money made by the people of average and small means. In other words, still "the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer."
4. The United States Government's Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation reports that it has investigated to see who owns the money in the banks, and they wind up by showing that two_thirds of 1 percent of the people own 67 percent of all the money in the banks, showing again that the average man and the poor man have less than ever of what we have left in this country and that the big man has more of it.
So, without going into more figures, the situation finally presents to us once more the fact that a million more people are out of work: 5 million more are on the dole, and that many more are crying to get on it; the rich earn more, the common people earn less; more and more the rich get hold of what there is in the country, and, in general, America travels on toward its route to__.
Now, what is there to comfort us on this situation? In other words, is there a silver lining? Let's see if there is. I read the following newspaper clipping on what our President of the United States is supposed to think about it. It reads as follows:
(From the New Orleans Morning Tribune, Dec. 18, 1934)
PRESIDENT FORBIDS MORE TAXES ON RICH__TELLS CONGRESSMEN
INCREASES MIGHT MAKE BUSINESS STAMPEDE
By the United Press
WASHINGTON, December 17.__The administration is determined to prevent any considerable increase in taxes on the very rich, many of whom pay no taxes at all, on the ground that such a plan would cause another "stampede" by business. Word has been sent up to Democratic congressional leaders that it is essential nothing be done to injure confidence. The less said about distribution of wealth, limitation of earned income, and taxes on capital, "new dealers" feel, the better.
Repeatedly since the Democrats won a two_thirds majority in both Houses in the congressional elections last month the administration has sought to assure the worker, the taxpayer, and the manufacturer that they had nothing to fear.
Meantime reports reached the Capital that fear of potential increases in inheritance taxes and gift levies at the coming Congress was in part responsible for the failure of private capital to take up a greater share of the recovery burden.
That ends the news article on what President Roosevelt has had to say.
President Roosevelt was elected on November 8, 1932. People look upon an elected President as the President. This is January 1935. We are in our third year of the Roosevelt depression, with the conditions growing worse. That says nothing about the state of our national finances. I do not even bring that in for important mention, except to give the figures:
Our national debt of today has risen to $28.5 billion. When the World War ended we shuddered in our boots because the national debt had climbed to $26 billion. But we consoled ourselves by saying that the foreign countries owed us $11 billion and that in reality the United States national debt was only $15 billion. But say that it was all of the $26 billion today. Without a war our national debt under Mr. Roosevelt has climbed up to $28.5 billion, or more than we owed when the World War ended by 2 1/2 billions of dollars. And in the Budget message of the President he admits that next year the public debt of the United States will go up to $34 billion, or 5 1/2 billion dollars more than we now owe.
Now this big debt would not be so bad if we had something to show for it. If we had ended this depression once and for all we could say that it is worth it all, but at the end of this rainbow of the greatest national debt in all history that must get bigger and bigger, what do we find?
One million more unemployed; S million more families on the dole, and another 5 million trying to get there; the fortunes of the rich becoming bigger and the fortunes of the average and little men getting less and less; the money in the banks nearly all owned by a mere handful of people, and the President of the United States quoted as saying: "Don't touch the rich!"
I begged, I pleaded, and did everything else under the sun for over 2 years to try to get Mr. Roosevelt to keep his word that he gave to us; I hoped against hope that sooner or later he would see the light and come back to his promises on which he was made President. I warned what would happen last year and for this year if he did not keep these promises made to the people.
But going into this third year of Roosevelt's administration, I can hope for nothing further from the Roosevelt policies. And I call back to mind that whatever we have been able to do to try to hold the situation together during the past three years has been forced down the throat of the national administration. I held the floor in the Senate for days until they allowed the bank laws to be amended that permitted the banks in the small cities and towns to reopen. The bank deposit guaranty law and the Frazier_Lemke farm debt moratorium law had to be passed in spite of the Roosevelt administration. I helped to pass them both.
All the time we have pointed to the rising cloud of debt, the increases in unemployment, the gradual slipping away of what money the middle man and the poor man have into the hands of the big masters, all the time we have prayed and shouted, begged and pleaded, and now we hear the message once again from Roosevelt that he cannot touch the big fortunes.
Hope for more through Roosevelt? He has promised and promised, smiled and bowed; he has read fine speeches and told anyone in need to get in touch with him. What has it meant?
We must now become awakened! We must know the truth and speak the truth. There is no use to wait 3 more years. It is not Roosevelt or ruin; it is Roosevelt's ruin.
Now, my friends, it makes no difference who is President or who is Senator. America is for 125 million people and the unborn to come. We ran Mr. Roosevelt for the Presidency of the United States because he promised to us by word of mouth and in writing:

1. That the size of the big man's fortune would be reduced so as to give the masses at the bottom enough to wipe out all poverty; and
2. That the hours of labor would be so reduced that all would share in the work to be done and in consuming the abundance mankind produced.
Hundreds of words were used by Mr. Roosevelt to make these promises to the people, but they were made over and over again. He reiterated these pledges even after he took his oath as President. Summed up, what these promises meant was: "Share our wealth."
When I saw him spending all his time of ease and recreation with the business partners of Mr. John D. Rockefeller, Jr., with such men as the Astors, etc., maybe I ought to have had better sense than to have believed he would ever break down their big fortunes to give enough to the masses to end poverty__maybe some will think me weak for ever believing it all, but millions of other people were fooled the same as myself. I was like a drowning man grabbing at a straw, I guess. The face and eyes, the hungry forms of mothers and children, the aching hearts of students denied education were before our eyes, and when Roosevelt promised, we jumped for that ray of hope.
So therefore I call upon the men and women of America to immediately join in our work and movement to share our wealth.
There are thousands of share_our_wealth societies organized in the United States now. We want a hundred thousand such societies formed for every nook and corner of this country__societies that will meet, talk, and work, all for the purpose that the great wealth and abundance of this great land that belongs to us may be shared and enjoyed by all of us.
We have nothing more for which we should ask the Lord. He has allowed this land to have too much of everything that humanity needs.
So in this land of God's abundance we propose laws, viz:

1. The fortunes of the multimillionaires and billionaires shall be reduced so that no one person shall own more than a few million dollars to the person. We would do this by a capital levy tax. On the first million that a man was worth we would not impose any tax. We would say, "All right for your first million dollars, but after you get that rich you will have to start helping the balance of us." So we would not levy any capital levy tax on the first million one owned. But on the second million a man owns we would tax that 1 percent, so that every year the man owned the second million dollars he would be taxed $10,000. On the third million we would impose a tax of 2 percent. On the fourth million we would impose a tax of 4 percent. On the fifth million we would impose a tax of 8 percent. On the sixth million we would impose a tax of 16 percent. On the seventh million we would impose a tax of 32 percent. On the eighth million we would impose a tax of 64 percent; and on all over the eighth million we would impose a tax of 100 percent. What this would mean is that the annual tax would bring the biggest fortune down to three or four million dollars to the person because no one could pay taxes very long in the higher brackets. But $3 to 4 million is enough for any one person and his children and his children's children. We cannot allow one to have more than that because it would not leave enough for the balance to have something.

2. We propose to limit the amount any one man can earn in 1 year or inherit to $1 million to the person.

3. Now, by limiting the size of the fortunes and incomes of the big men we will throw into the Government Treasury the money and property from which we will care for the millions of people who have nothing; and with this money we will provide a home and the comforts of home, with such common conveniences as radio and automobile, for every family in America, free of debt.

4. We guarantee food and clothing and employment for everyone who should work by shortening the hours of labor to thirty hours per week, maybe less, and to eleven months per year, maybe less. We would have the hours shortened just so much as would give work to everybody to produce enough for everybody; and if we were to get them down to where they were too short, then we would lengthen them again. As long as all the people working can produce enough of automobiles, radios, homes, schools, and theaters for everyone to have that kind of comfort and convenience, then let us all have work to do and have that much of heaven on earth.

5. We would provide education at the expense of the States and the United States for every child, not only through grammar school and high school but through to a college and vocational education. We would simply extend the Louisiana plan to apply to colleges and all people. Yes; we would have to build thousands of more colleges and employ a hundred thousand more teachers; but we have materials, men, and women who are ready and available for the work. Why have the right to a college education depend upon whether the father or mother is so well to do as to send a boy or girl to college? We would give every child the right to education and a living at birth.

6. We would give a pension to all persons above 60 years of age in an amount sufficient to support them in comfortable circumstances, excepting those who earn $1,000 per year or who are worth $10,000.

7. Until we could straighten things out__and we can straighten things out in two months under our program__we would grant a moratorium on all debts which people owe that they cannot pay.

And now you have our program, none too big, none too little,
but every man a king.

We owe debts in America today, public and private, amounting to $252 billion. That means that every child is born with a $2,000 debt tied around his neck to hold him down before he gets started. Then, on top of that, the wealth is locked in a vice owned by a few people. We propose that children shall be born in a land of opportunity, guaranteed a home, food, clothes, and the other things that make for living, including the right to education.
Our plan would injure no one. It would not stop us from having millionaires__it would increase them tenfold, because so many more people could make a million dollars if they had the chance our plan gives them. Our plan would not break up big concerns. The only difference would be that maybe 10,000 people would own a concern instead of 10 people owning it.
But my friends, unless we do share our wealth, unless we limit the size of the big man so as to give something to the little man, we can never have a happy or free people. God said so! He ordered it.
We have everything our people need. Too much of food, clothes, and houses why not let all have their fill and lie down in the ease and comfort God has given us? Why not? Because a few own everything__the masses own nothing.
I wonder if any of you people who are listening to me were ever at a barbecue! We used to go there__sometimes a thousand people or more. If there were 1,000 people we would put enough meat and bread and everything else on the table for 1,000 people. Then everybody would be called and everyone would eat all they wanted. But suppose at one of these barbecues for 1,000 people that one man took 90 percent of the food and ran off with it and ate until he got sick and let the balance rot. Then 999 people would have only enough for 100 to eat and there would be many to starve because of the greed of just one person for something he couldn't eat himself.
Well, ladies and gentlemen, America, all the people of America, have been invited to a barbecue. God invited us all to come and eat and drink all we wanted. He smiled on our land and we grew crops of plenty to eat and wear. He showed us in the earth the iron and other things to make everything we wanted. He unfolded to us the secrets of science so that our work might be easy. God called: "Come to my feast."
Then what happened? Rockefeller, Morgan, and their crowd stepped up and took enough for 120 million people and left only enough for 5 million for all the other 125 million to eat. And so many millions must go hungry and without these good things God gave us unless we call on them to put some of it back.
I call on you to organize share_our_wealth societies. Write to me in Washington if you will help.
Let us dry the eyes of those who suffer; let us lift the hearts of the sad. There is plenty. There is more. Why should we not secure laws to do justice__laws that were promised to us__never should we have quibbled over the soldiers' bonus. We need that money circulating among our people. That is why I offered the amendment to pay it last year. I will do so again this year.


Why weep or slumber, America?
Land of brave and true,
With castles, clothing, and food for all
All belongs to you.
Ev'ry man a king, ev'ry man a king,
For you can be a millionaire;
But there's something belonging to others,
There's enough for all people to share.
When it's sunny June and December, too,
Or in the wintertime or spring,
There'll be peace without end,
Ev'ry neighbor a friend,
With ev'ry man a king.


United States Senate,
Washington, D. C.
 

 

   
 

    
 

 

 

 

The Rebellious Spirit
of Huey Long

by Richard Wall
 

  

The state capitol building in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, is a fine example of the period of Art Deco architecture in America, the age of the Empire State building, the Wall Street crash of 1929, and the Great Depression.

I can imagine parties of today’s schoolchildren being trooped around the building, "the tallest state house in America," there to be subjected to a mind-deadening statistical barrage about how much sand, gravel, limestone, brick, tile, marble, bronze, granite and ornamental iron was used in its construction.

They will also be shown the 35-foot high sculpture in the gardens, on which stands the statue of one who is described on its pedestal as "Louisiana’s greatest son," Huey Pierce Long (1893–1935). As governor of the state in 1930, he was the man responsible for commissioning this huge phallic symbol of a structure, erected to a height of 450 feet in double quick time (14 months) to his unambiguous command: "Build it big and build it quick."

He never did have much time. In September 1935, not even five years after its construction began, he was to be shot in the corridors of that very same building. He died two days later, on September 10th, aged 42. On his deathbed he is reported to have said, "Don’t let me die, I have got so much to do."

As with JFK, assassination puts a convenient lid on all that was yet to be done and what might have been, and allows the state officially to mourn, love and eulogize one of its own. Meanwhile those who suspect foul play and cover-up develop conspiracy theories, and those who had it in for him gloat, first privately and then more brazenly as time goes by, that "he got what was coming to him." Over time a consensus emerges, literally cast in stone, that whatever his faults, "he did a lot for Louisiana."

Or did he really? When superlatives are used for propagating state mythology into the future like this, sooner or later someone is bound to call a halt and say: stop all this golden boy stuff! Camelot was rotten! The pied piper had feet of clay!

The Dictator of Louisiana?

Actually Huey Long has had a bad press for most of his after-life in American political history. It began on September 11, 1935, the very day after he died, with a subtly vicious obituary notice in the New York Times, then as now the mouthpiece of the establishment’s party line. Taking his own words ("If Fascism ever comes to America, it will come wrapped in an American flag") out of his dead mouth and twisting them into a parody of his original meaning, the paper used them to tar him as a dictator in his own patch, comparable to his worst contemporaries – Hitler, Stalin or Mussolini.

"What he did and what he promised to do are full of political instruction and also of warning. In his own State of Louisiana he showed how it is possible to destroy self-government while maintaining its ostensible and legal form. He made himself an unquestioned dictator…. In reality, Senator Long set up a Fascist government in Louisiana. It was disguised, but only thinly. There was no outward appearance of a revolution, no march of Black Shirts upon Baton Rouge, but the effectual result was to lodge all the power of the State in the hands of one man. If Fascism ever comes in the United States it will come in something like that way."

~ The New York Times, September 11, 1935

Paradoxes

This is just one of the infinite number of paradoxes and contradictions surrounding a man who openly believed in using the machinery of state for economic intervention in pursuit of social and political ends, spending in the process money which he had to take from others, and yet has been hailed as a champion of the little man, enfranchiser of the poor and the disadvantaged, defender of those with anti-war views and of the Constitution, and sharp critic of the price-fixing contained in the New Deal and of monopolistic concentration in restraint of trade. The story of Huey Long still exerts a surprising fascination.

Born in the "piney woods" of Winnfield, Northern Louisiana, he grew up poor. At 16 he began to work as a travelling salesman. In 8 months in 1914 he completed a law degree in New Orleans (normally a 3-year course) and then set up his own law practice, at the age of 21. Still in his twenties he entered public office first as a railroad commissioner, then as chairman of the Public Services Commission.

He ran unsuccessfully for governor in 1924, but was successful four years later, running on a similar platform of unabashed state intervention – including road construction, free textbooks for all, greater state support for public schools, and increased taxation on the oil corporations, particularly Louisiana’s biggest, Standard Oil. From 1930 to 1935 he had a seat in the US Senate as representative of the Democratic Party. A month before he was shot, he had announced his intention to run for President in 1936, against the incumbent Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

The Political Machine

The main reason why Long has had a very bad press over the years is the focus on the means he used to consolidate his political power, which brought him a raft of enemies. With the natural gift of cleverness, his proverbial razor-sharp wit, and claimed affinity with the common man, he learned to use and abuse those time-honoured methods for ensuring the absolute supremacy of a political machine: filling virtually every local government post with his own stooges, clamping down on any freedom of expression to criticize what he did, and not hesitating to beat up and silence any who ventured to do so. In 1934, in his overthrow of the old regime of local government in New Orleans, he would resort to even more violent methods, at one point sending in the national guard in his (successful) attempt to oust the "old regular" mayor and replace him with one of his own. Not surprisingly, this permanently soured his relationship with the city.

That, incidentally, did not prevent the dual-purpose road and rail bridge over the Mississippi in New Orleans, completed in December 1935 and only recently widened, being named the Huey P. Long Bridge.

As a consummate political animal, he was in fact in no way exceptional in his use of the political means, as history shows. He was innovative, however, in his use of mailed circulars, automobile stumping, radio speeches, sound trucks, and cruel personal invective designed to appeal to perhaps the baser sentiments of those among the people who were not sitting in the halls and offices of power. What was exceptional, in that it came as an unpleasant surprise to established Louisiana political interests in the late 1920s, was the speed and effectiveness of Long’s consolidation of power: all their theory and prior, untroubled experience indicated that a young populist from the backwoods could be expected to be thoroughly naïve about practical politics, promising the earth to the people and delivering not much. Huey Long was not like this, and they could not forgive him for his uppitiness.

The End of Ideology?

His canny use of the political means is not, however, the only reason for his continuing bad press. It also extends to the ends – his strategies and schemes for dealing with the social problems he identified by redistributing wealth. Details of his schemes are widely available on the Internet and links to them and some of his speeches1 are provided at the end of this article.

Throughout the nearly 70 years which have passed since his death – and this is another of the fascinations of the Huey Long story – the officially sanctioned disapproval of his political tactics, always considered by the liberal press to be at the very least "anti-democratic" (others, like the NYT obituary writer, did not mince their words, and as we have seen, called him a Fascist) has been used to overshadow and smother the actual issues raised by his career, his achievements and his plans, and discussion of their (possible) merits and (very real) defects.

There are three main reasons why discussions of the actual issues surrounding Long’s political career have been effectively suppressed: the first is that his tactics were no different to those used by many "successful" politicians who enlarge the power and scope of government. To criticize them too openly would expose others, possibly in the anti-Long camp, who used – and continue to use – similar methods.

The second reason is that by attributing only base motives to the man it is possible to discredit the substance of those points on which he might actually be right, or be telling the truth. In Huey Long’s case, he was right about certain forms of tyranny which may result if a ruling oligarchy’s disposition to seek ways of keeping the majority of the people in ignorance, poverty or nowadays fear, goes unchecked for a long enough period of time.

A typical example of this is the views of historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, which have long held sway (and can be heard briefly in a clip from an interview for Ken Burns’ 1986 well-regarded PBS documentary film on Long). He actually denied to Long any recognition that his views or aims had ideological content, seeing him as being interested only in the means – power and money. In other words, this view (which is still widely held) could be called the cynical view that Long the politician merely made promises to help poor people because poor people represented the largest number of votes.

The inconsistency (or beauty) of this approach is that if you accuse a man of having no ideology, it is difficult to attribute to him any impact on the minds of men, either way. In other words, his ideas were the far-fetched notions of a power-crazed maniac. Therefore, disregard them.

Thirdly, as is generally recognized, and despite enormous fiscal cost which would burden the state for years to come after his demise, he had actually delivered on many of the promises he made to the people in the form of improved roads (or roads, period), free textbooks for all, etc., hoisting the state of Louisiana out of what some have described as a near-feudal condition and laying the foundations for modernity.

Suppression of the substance of debate on these issues should not surprise us, for here we enter into another paradox: since the state itself was and is active in the business of seizing and actively redistributing wealth, it always was much easier for the state to smother any real debate on these issues by focusing on Long’s "fascist" political methods, condemnation of which was palatable to a much broader constituency – in fact to nearly everyone under the sun.

Fiscal conservatives thought him profligate and irresponsible, the established corporations (including the media) rightly felt that he wanted to take from them, and assorted Communists and Socialists thought him dangerously naïve, believing that he had no idea of the strength and viciousness of the forces of the system of business concentration he was taking on.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, very little has been made of the fact that when confronted by the good advice that his economic schemes would be impracticable and perhaps impossible to implement (despite the fact that they were not as radical as is often suggested), Huey Long is said to have responded quite reasonably that he would have to call in people to help him work things out.

It is in this context of economic policy, particularly at the local level of what is good for Louisiana, that the legacy of intractable argument is even stronger, because it vehemently opposes those who believe in the beneficent power of government against those who believe that government intervention will by its very nature have nefarious political and economic consequences.

Economic intervention, political intervention

These substantive arguments remain topical today, and so keep re-surfacing and re-emerging in new ways. A Baton Rouge business magazine article from June 2002 entitled "Ghost of Huey Long Lives" complains that, at the end of a recent legislative session, "taxes ruled, big business took it on the chin and the people got a chance to "tax the wealthy" at the ballot box," showing that argument still rages between the inheritors of the pro-Long (interventionist) and anti-Long (non-interventionist) factions over what is best for the state:

Business and the wealthy are easy targets but are responsible for most of the jobs in the state – the lifeblood to government, quality of life and the entire economy. If someone has no job, he or she can't pay taxes and their family doesn't eat. Does discouraging new business growth help the poor get jobs?

So why would you want to send a message to those in business and those with money that "you're easy pickins and we are coming after you?" I think that would drive many of them out of the state – and keep others away. When the poor are the only ones left, who will we tax then?

Inevitably, policy dead-ends identical to these, and their advocacy in combination with ruthless power tactics, brought Huey Long into conflict with established interests of the left and right, both public and private, but particularly with corporate interests. In Louisiana at least, those in control of such interests had for years successfully carried on a policy of political intervention in the machinery of state in pursuit of economic and corporate ends, very much geared to maintaining a comfortable and privileged status quo. As T. Harry Williams was to write in his 1969 biography of Long:

[Educational and other services] were poor for the additional reason that the ruling hierarchy was little interested in using what resources the state had available to provide services and was even less interested in employing the power of the state to create new resources so that more services could be supported.... A woman who was a member of the caste described its psychology frankly: "We were secure. We were the old families. We had what we wanted. We didn't bother anybody. All we wanted was to keep it."

~ T. Harry Williams, Huey Long, Bantam, 1969

Of Liberty and Prosperity

The fact is that neither the old conservative "hold on to it at all costs" option nor the "tax tax tax, spend spend spend" option of the populist are conducive to true free markets, to the flowering of individual liberty or to freedom of expression.

Restrictive practices, business concentration, cartels, monopoly power, bidding for "licenses" to operate, lobbying for government subsidies and price or tariff controls are, ipso facto, constraints on the operation of open competition and free markets, and thus reduce both economic freedom and, ultimately, the general prosperity, often preventing outsiders – those without access to membership of the respective monopoly or concentration – from even earning a decent living. Protests against this state of affairs often lead to the suppression of dissent through barely plausible but deceptively reassuring arguments that "national interests" are at stake.

On the other hand, increased state spending to pay for socially ambitious programmes has to be funded from somewhere, and leads to the populist zeal of campaigns to "soak the rich," "clobber the greedy corporations" and increase taxation. Since historically this all goes hand-in-hand with the personal enrichment and growing delusions of grandeur, not to say of immortality, of those who control the distribution of such booty, these policies also require the suppression of dissent regarding the real prospects for the promised collective good which is held out as the ultimate end of such intervention, leading in the long term to the reduction and even elimination of political freedom.

It is in the arguments that these camps use against each other, and in those which they consciously exclude from discourse, that those who strive for human liberty, moral responsibility and financially solid economic well-being find the gaps where political and economic labels such as "left and right" and "laissez-faire vs. dirigiste" are plainly inadequate. It is in those sometimes narrow gaps also that we find the true reasons for the continuing fascination and relevance for political history of the brief but eventful career of Huey Pierce Long.

Assassination conspiracy theory: the silencing of a troublesome prophet?

Was Huey Long assassinated because he was too likely to succeed in his fight against those he called the "a handful of financial slave-owning overlords who make the tyrant of Great Britain seem mild"? He was killed just about a month after declaring his candidacy for the presidency of the United States.

Consider for a moment not just this case, but also that of another Democrat, Robert F. Kennedy (shot while on campaign in Los Angeles 33 years later), the shooting which left candidate George Wallace paralysed in 1972, and the disappearance of John Kennedy Jr., whose plane crashed into the Atlantic in July 1999, it having emerged subsequently that he had discussed plans for declaring himself a presidential candidate in 2000. Would you not be inclined to agree that conspiracy buffs are fully entitled to believe that declaring yourself a candidate for the presidency of the United States, unless you know and cultivate the right people, can be seriously inimical to your survival?

Long was shot outside what is now the Speaker’s office in the state capitol building which he had caused to be built. He was wounded and taken to the hospital. His shooting was blamed on an alleged lone gunman, Dr. Carl Weiss, who was said to bear a personal grudge against Long’s attempts to unseat his father-in-law, Benjamin Pavy, from a judgeship, or perhaps as a result of an alleged racial smear. That remains the official story to this day. Weiss was killed on the spot in a hail of bullets from Long’s bodyguards.

New evidence which emerged in 1991 suggested that Weiss had been unarmed, that a gun had been planted on him to make him look like the lone assassin, that Long was shot by accident rather than design (a bullet fired by one of his bodyguards at the "assailant" apparently ricocheting into Long), and that this latter version of the story had been deliberately covered up.

This new and somewhat implausible version of events does not quell quite legitimate speculation that powerful interests might well have wanted to stop Long in his tracks in his incipient presidential campaign, which gave all the appearance of having the potential to succeed. In this connection some have also charged that proper attention was not given to all Long’s wounds: competent top surgeons may have been prevented from getting to him in time, the doctor who was on hand did not carry out a test for blood in the urine, and fatal damage to the kidneys was accordingly overlooked.

For those who might be interested in greater detail on the assassination and cover-up this is well documented on the Internet, in particular on two websites to which links2 are provided at the end of this article. One of them is called "The Lone Conspirators" (motto: "Only the Paranoid Survive"), and another is a personal website where three main possible theories and various threads of evidence are explored.

Of Diagnoses and Cures

It is rather an axiom of libertarian, anti-state theory that politicians – especially those who show skills in manipulating the mechanisms of power rather than in delivering on substantive policies, are a bunch of crooks interested only in feathering their own nest and accumulating as much power and pelf as possible while in office. Many politicians who have convinced themselves of their good intentions understandably get quite upset by the accusation, because of course it is largely true.

The unspoken danger of this approach is that sometimes you may also throw the baby out with the bathwater.

So are we left with anything more today of Huey Long than the image of the colorful demagogue with wacky notions of economics and a couple of monuments or structures named after him?

I believe we are left with much more than this, but that this has been obscured, because the real issues of freedom, moral responsibility and financially sound economic well-being have not been issues on which those in power, right down to the present day, have encouraged open debate, let alone helped people to think for themselves.

Instead, they have concocted a diet of entertainment, propaganda and easy money precisely so that little thought will be generally given to who is pulling the strings. This has permitted the size and reach of government to be enlarged exponentially since Huey Long’s days, and the continuation of precisely that use of political intervention to secure economic advantage against which he fought. As a result, despite the huge material progress which has been made, many of the disparities and distortions at which Long pointed an accusing finger are still in place and, certainly in times of increased intervention by government in the economy and in the private lives of citizens, have even become exacerbated.

In such a climate, Huey Long’s ideas for forcibly transferring wealth from one group of the population to another continue to have a strong appeal, however misguided they may be as a remedy for the ills he diagnosed, and however much history may have shown that forcible transfers of this kind, based on completely arbitrary judgments as to what is a living wage or a minimum value of a homestead inevitably lead to tyranny by the oligarchy which decides on how the wealth is the distributed. None of those difficulties of practical implementation diminish the liveliness of the spirit of rebellion and idealism in Huey Long’s vision, which was based on a defence of the underdog and his revulsion at the suffering and poverty which he saw around him in Louisiana as he grew up.

Controversial Senator William "Wild Bill" Langer of North Dakota, himself a popular politician accused of diverting moneys to social welfare schemes, said in a speech in 1941:

I doubt whether any other man was so conscious of the plight of the underprivileged or knew better the ruthlessness of those in control. And it was because Huey Long knew how to fight, knew how to fight fire with fire, knew how to combat ruthlessness with ruthlessness, force with force, and because he had the courage to battle unceasingly for what he conceived to be right that he became an inspiration for so many in their own fight for a square deal, and the object of such relentless persecution on the part of his enemies.

The fight he waged was such a desperate one that even in death he has not been immune from attack. So we find that 5 years after his body had been lowered into the grave – that grave which will forever be a shrine for those who love decency, honor, and justice – attempts are still being made to besmirch his character.

This is not fooling the farmer, the worker, the small businessman; it is not fooling the child who can read today because of the free textbooks that Huey Long obtained; it is not fooling the citizen who can vote today because Huey Long abolished poll taxes.

These people know from Huey Long's life that, as they fight for the better things, there will always be the inspiration that fighting with them in spirit will be that tearless, dauntless, unmatchable champion of the common people, Huey P. Long.

Conclusion

The Huey Long story is a genuine tale of the 20th century, an epoch which began with the first machine age and the entrenchment of inflation-generating fiat money (for those non-economists like myself who might appreciate a reminder of what I am talking about here, that is money printed by government as legal tender which is not redeemable and which lacks economic value). These were the advance guard for the harsh forces which would achieve victory when the human obsession with the means and mechanisms of things, rather than with the ends of life, came to dominate almost every area of human existence.

Thus it is that we now pay attention not to the insidious fact of inflation itself, but to changes in the rate of inflation. We have mobile phones, but still we often fail to communicate: without even having exhausted the novelty of a gadget’s multiple functions, we are left with an unsatisfied human need to say and hear meaningful things, all the while using the gadget for its own sake, just because we happen to possess it and it is the latest thing. Likewise we may be induced to discount and deny the energy and life in Huey Long’s true and rebellious spirit, because we are told that he used disapproved, anti-democratic, populist and "fascist" methods.

In an era when the current President’s off-the-cuff remark that things would be so much easier if he were a dictator, supposedly said in jest, is actually not funny at all, many of the problems Huey Long identified, and the original reasons for his substantive rebellion and revolt, remain.


Notes, References and Links

Acknowledgements

For permission to reproduce some of the images contained in this article I am indebted to the following:

Selected Book and Video about Huey Long

Selected Additional Internet Links

  1. Speeches and Books by Huey Long

 

  1. Assassination conspiracy theory:

 

 

December 13, 2003

Richard Wall (send him mail) has a Master's degree in International Relations from the London School of Economics & Political Science, and lives in Estoril, Portugal, where he currently works as a freelance writer and translator.

Copyright © 2003 LewRockwell.com

Richard Wall Archives

      Reproduced  gratefully from www.LewRockwell.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Congressional filibuster

celebrated moments in filibuster history:
The congressional filibuster has a long history. In 1841, the Democrats, then in the minority, were trying to block Henry Clay's bank bill when Clay, a Whig, moved to change Senate rules to limit debate. Thomas Hart Benton accused Clay of limiting the Senate's right to unlimited debate. Such debate remained in place in the Senate until 1917, when Woodrow Wilson suggested, and the Senate agreed, to end a debate with a two-thirds majority vote—a tactic known as "cloture." In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds (67) to three-fifths (60).

Filibusters achieved special fame when Southerners used them to block civil rights legislation, and they've played a major part in wrangles about wealth and the future of oil. A filibuster defeated LBJ in his efforts to make Abe Fortas chief justice of the Supreme Court. A few of the most

 

1935: Huey Long and the National Recovery Act

As a senator, Huey Long carried on a war with President Franklin D. Roosevelt, calling him a "Prince Franklin," whose "court" was the "reigning empire of Saint Vitus," featuring "the lord high chamberlain" Harold Ickes ("the chinch bug of Chicago") and Secretary of Agriculture Henry Wallace ("the ignoramus of Iowa").

Filibustering was second nature to Huey Long. Given the occasion, he would spring to his feet and talk for hours. But he nearly outdid himself on June 12, 1935, when he arose to oppose a section of a bill he thought would give his opponents in Louisiana jobs under an extension of the National Recovery Act.

From the outset, Huey said he would talk on the Constitution, which the New Deal in his view had turned into a collection of "ancient and forgotten lore." He read the document in its entirety, pausing at each section to discuss its origin and meaning. Some senators fell asleep. Others left for the cloakroom. Huey challenged Vice President John Nance Garner to make every senator hear him out, but Garner replied, "That would be unusual cruelty under the Bill of Rights." At 10 p.m., Huey announced, "I seem to have new inspiration," and vowed to speak for another 10 hours. He asked other senators for things to talk about; there were no responses. Then reporters in the press galleries sent down requests. When he exhausted his supply of requests, he introduced topics of his own, according to T. Harry Williams, whose biography of Long is the source for much of this item.

"He put into the record," Williams writes, "a detailed description of how to fry oysters and then demonstrated how to prepare potlikker, holding up a wastebasket to represent a cooking pot. The Senate should print his recipes as public documents and send out several million copies, he declared, and for good measure he threw in another one on how to concoct a Roquefort cheese salad dressing."

Long himself couldn't get a bite to eat lest he lose the floor. The worst problem was that Long hadn't taken a pee in a long time, and at 3:50 a.m. he couldn't hold out any longer. The Kingfish announced he would yield the floor to seek a conference with the leadership, and he ran for the toilet.

 

Who Killed Kingfish Long?

by Bob Feldman

 

Billionaire Ted Turner's "alternative" cable TV network, TNT, recently broadcast a movie about former U.S. Senator Huey P. Long, who was mysteriously assassinated in Louisiana nearly 60 years ago. TNT's 1995 Kingfish movie, starring Roseanne's John Goodman, makes an interesting comparison with a video of All The King's Men, the movie version of Robert Penn Warren's fictionalized biography of Long that won a 1949 Best Picture Oscar.

According to TNT, "...with battles raging about the merits of Big Government, the fairness of taxation, the plight of the disenfranchised and the special treatment accorded Big Business, it is clear that Long's touchstone issues are once again prominent as domestic concerns take the forefront in U.S. politics."

Long's idea of a "Share-the-Wealth Society," which included promises of a minimum income for every American family, gave him nationwide popularity, while at the same time earning him some powerful enemies in politics and business. It looked like the Kingfish would be a strong third-party challenger to FDR, until his untimely death on September 8, 1935 put an end to his political career.

With regard to the assassination specifically, Louisiana historian Mike Wayne states the following: "There are basically three accepted versions of what happened. Version one is that Dr. Weiss shot Huey twice and the bodyguards killed Weiss... The second version is that Weiss did something-either slapped Long or argued with him or pulled a gun... and the bodyguards started firing and accidentally hit Long in the confusion. The third possibility is that he was assassinated by one or more bodyguards planted by anti-Long forces, and Weiss was a convenient scapegoat...We do know that two bullets of two different caliber were removed from Long's body, and neither was the same caliber as Weiss's gun."

Kingfish doesn't show in as convincing or dramatic a way as All The King's Men how a populist politician like Huey P. Long was actually able to rise to power within a state like Louisiana; and it portrays Long as a more cynical politician prior to his rise to power within Louisiana than the Long-type character portrayed in All The King's Men. But what Kingfish does do is reveal how a politician like Long was seen as a threat by Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt once Long began putting forth his "Share Our Wealth" scheme and talking in terms of third-party politics on a national level.

A secret public opinion poll authorized by the Democratic National Committee in the spring of 1935, conducted for the purpose of determining how much of a threat Huey Long posed, found that approximately 11% of America's voters preferred the Kingfish over FDR or a Republican candidate. Democratic National Committee chairman Farley believed that Huey, on a third-party ticket, might garner as many as 6 million votes and thereby "have the balance of power in the 1936 election."

Kingfish mentions that the Roosevelt's Administration used the Internal Revenue Service as a political weapon against Long; and it shows that in the U.S. Senate a month before his murder, Long gave a speech in which he joked that some of his political opponents had held a meeting to discuss his assassination.

As David Zinman recalls in The Day Huey Long Was Shot: "On August 9, 1935, Huey rose and unleashed a blistering, if rambling, tirade against the Roosevelt Administration. In the midst of it, he disclosed that a pro-Roosevelt faction had met in the DeSoto Hotel in New Orleans to plot his murder."

Although the socialists and communists of the 1920s (who are ignored in Kingfish's cinematic portrayal of Great Depression politics) regarded Long as a kind of fascist competitor to their U.S. radical left, Long's Share Our Wealth scheme might interest folks in counter-cultural Ithaca who still need bread in 1995. The Kingfish And His Realm described how Long's Share Our Wealth plan would work:

"Personal and family fortunes above 3 or 4 million dollars would be confiscated. Annual income and inheritance taxes would be steeply raised-up to a flat 100% on anything above 1 million dollars. The national government would transfer this wealth to the poor."

The same book also noted that by 1935 there were 27,431 Share Our Wealth Clubs with over 7 million members in the United States; including many Share Our Wealth Clubs in New York State.

Nearly sixty years after the "Kingfish" was mysteriously killed, the wealth of the United States still has not been shared very equally among people who live here. In fact, the disparity in the wealth possessed by Super-Rich folks and the rest of us is probably even greater now than it was on the day Long was shot in 1935.

Reproduced gratefully from: http://magazine.14850.com/9504/politics.html

 

 

Corporate Influence on the Media
and Perception of History


by Greg Wells


This is a speech I wrote as a sort of fleshed-out outline for a lecture I gave on the dangers of a corporate-influenced media. The hour-long lecture was a moderate success. If you're interested in an other lectures I've done since then (The Prestigious Political Career of LSD, The CIA and Student Activism, etc.) send me an e-mail. [G_Wells_H@Hotmail.com]


Today I'd like to inform anyone who will listen, mainly you guys, considering you have to to get a good grade, of what I, and a precious few others, believe to be a dangerous and largely imperceptible disorder forced upon all Americans, or anyone, in fact, living in a so-called free society.
This disorder takes many forms, many guises, many trojan horses, if you will, to sneak itself into your brain and influence your free will and your actions, thus robbing you of both. I'll start with a few questions. How many of you here have heard of Abe Lincoln? Quite a bit, no? Now tell me, how many of you know who killed Abe Lincoln, and don't say the doctors who attempted to trephinate his brain, we all know that. That's right, John Wilkes Booth.
Now here's a toughie. How many of you have heard of Huey Long? A few, that's to be expected. For those of you who have never heard of him, Huey Long was the senator of Louisiana in the early 1930's. He was a self-proclaimed socialist, and supported many radical programs, focusing on aiding the disenfranchised and those whom society had failed. The landmarks of his policies were several "Share Our Wealth" programs that proposed an income limit and the reduction of the income gap between classes. Obviously he had support, he was running for president. He was assassinated, though, unsurprisingly. One finds that fresh thinkers often end up dead before their times. I cite JFK, Martin Luther King Jr. and John Lennon as perfect examples. But that is not the point of my speech. I've yet more questions for you.
Who killed Huey Long? The official story is that an enraged son-in-law of a competitor gunned Huey Long down with a .38 special Colt revolver, whilst Long was campaigning. For those of you who don't know a .38 special is a medium-sized pistol that holds 6 to 8 bullets. Huey Long's body was riddled with up to sixty-seven bullet impacts, with as little as forty-eight actually found inside his body. The official explanation for this little bit of overkill? Long was caught in the crossfire between his assailant and his body guards. However, for that to be true, Long's bodyguards, who used pistols similar to the assailant's, would have had to reload their pistols twice each. Surely, within the time it takes to reload a revolver, a trained bodyguard would notice that his charge has fallen, within his own gun-sights, no less.
But I digress, I did not come here to indict Long's bodyguards. However, I would like to direct attention to the fact that near none of you have ever heard any of this information. Why not? Several reasons. Perhaps, there simply wasn't time to cover this event in any history classes you've taken. It seems unlikely to me, though, that an event as important as the murder of a presidential candidate who could have changed the face of United States domestic policies would go completely overlooked. Perhaps you're just a moron, and didn't decide to remember this little tidbit. Many people choose to ignore the obvious, because it is too painful to believe. The media supports this type of thinking, and so does mainstream entertainment. I think that people are oppressed by a specific, concerted effort to keep this knowledge away from them. Perhaps the official story isn't the full one, or the true one. I'm going to ask a few more questions.
When was the last time you saw the functions and actions of the Republican Party on television, in the news, or elsewhere? How about the Democrats? Here comes the point-maker. How many times, in the last week, have you seen balanced news reporting displaying the goals and views of the Green party? Or socialists? Or left-wing libertarians? Or right-wing libertarians? What about laissez-faire capitalists? Or Marxists? Or technocrats? What about anarchists? Or anarcho-socialists?
Your television networks are lying to you, every hour, of every day, by leaving out information that anyone in a true democracy should never live without. This doesn't just apply to the news, however. The lessons you're taught in school are riddled with lies and half-truths, because those lies and half-truths serve someone. Be it business, or government, or someone's religious considerations, you are constantly bombarded by PROPAGANDA.
There. I said it. Propaganda. How can one expect fair and direct reporting of the news through a medium that can make money? How can situations which causes go back centuries, be summed up in a four minute audio segment, a sound bite and a frightening image? It is obvious, if one watches network television with a critical mind, that liberties are taken with the truth to make it more marketable, or more beneficial.
For the past thirty-eight years, the function of the news has been to make you feel and think whatever is most beneficial for multi-national corporations and the goverment, as if there was even any delineation left between them. I don't intend to convert you. I don't want you to believe me. Don't believe a single one of my crackpot theories, unless you've actually considered it. All I want you to do is to leave this room with a freer, more open mind. A mind that is critical of the news, and examines information and makes conclusions from it, not just remembers it.
Understand, that for every bit of news you hear and see on television there is a world of truth they've left out. Also understand, that the possibility exists that material on the news is not only truncated, left-out information, but wholly false. Don't allow your world views, your lifestyle, your mind itself, be made up by a twelve-second soundbite.

 

 

Huey Pierce Long, 1893 - 1935


 
Huey Pierce Long, the seventh of nine children, was born in Winnfield, Louisiana, on 30th August, 1893. After leaving school he worked as a salesman in Texas and Tennessee before enrolling in the Tulane University Law School in New Orleans in 1914. He completed the three-year course in eight months and became a lawyer at the age of 21.
Long established his law practice in Winnfield. He soon developed a reputation as a champion of the common people. He later said "my cases in Court were on the side of the small man - the underdog." He added "I have never taken a suit against a poor man."
A member of the Democratic Party, Long supported S. J. Harper in his campaign against limited employers' liability. Long also successfully defended Harper, an opponent of American involvement in the First World War, after his anti-war activities led to him being charged under the Espionage Act.
In 1918 Long won election as state railroad commissioner for the northern district of Louisiana. The following year he supported John M. Parker, in his successful campaign to become Governor of Louisiana. However, in 1919 Long began attacking Governor Parker for failing to increase taxes on Standard Oil.
In 1921 Long became chairman of the Public Services Commission and over the next couple of years successfully achieves lower telephone, gas and electric rates, railroad and streetcar fares and a severance tax on oil.
Long ran for office as Governor of Louisiana in 1928. Education was the main theme of his election campaign. As he pointed out, Louisiana's illiteracy rate of 22 per cent was the highest in the United States. Long's attacks on the utilities industries and the privileges of corporations were popular and he won the election by the largest margin in the state's history (92,941 votes to 3,733).
Once in power Long condemned the state's ruling hierarchy and attempted to replace it with his own supporters. In this way he gained control of the Hospital Board, the Highway Commission, the Levee Board and the Dock Board. He also forced state employees to distribute his newspaper, the Louisiana Progress. Long also attempted to capture the Democratic State Central Committee.
Long's critics accused him of being a dictator but he did introduce important reforms. This included the provision of free school textbooks, free night school courses for adult illiterates and increased expenditure on the state university.
In 1928, Louisiana only had 331 miles of paved roads. When Long gained power he launched an infrastructure programme aimed at building 3,000 miles of roads and establishing schools within walking distance of all the state's white children. To pay for the roads and schools that were built in Louisiana, Long increased taxes on local corporations.
Long also attempted to increase revenues by imposing a new tax on the oil industry. The legislature rejected the measure and attempts were made to impeach Long. He was accused of misappropriating state funds and making illegal loans. However, the Senate failed to convict Long by two votes and afterwards it was claimed he had bribed several senators in order to get the right result.
In 1930 Long was elected to the Senate. To keep full control of Louisiana he installed an old friend, Alvin King, the president of the state senate, to act as governor. In the Senate he was highly critical of President Herbert Hoover and the way his government was dealing with the Great Depression.
In the summer of 1932 Long took on the Democratic Party machine when he decided to support Hattie Caraway, the first women to be elected to Congress, in her bid to hold her seat in the Senate. Joseph T. Robinson and other leaders of the party in Arkansas were opposed to the idea and told her she would not win the party nomination. Caraway approached Long and he agreed to help her in her campaign and she defeated her nearest competitor by two to one.
Long supported the presidential campaign of Franklin D. Roosevelt. However, after his election, he was highly critical of some aspects of the New Deal. He disliked the Emergency Banking Act because it did little to help small, local banks. He bitterly attacked the National Recovery Act for the system of wage and price codes it established. He correctly forecasted that the codes would be written by the leaders of the industries involved and would result in price-fixing. Long told the Senate: "Every fault of socialism is found is this bill, without one of its virtues."
Long also claimed that Roosevelt had done little to redistribute wealth. When Roosevelt refused to introduce legislation to place ceilings on personal incomes, private fortunes and inheritances, Long launched his Share Our Wealth Society. In February 1934. He told the Senate: "Unless we provide for redistribution of wealth in this country, the country is doomed." He added the nation faced a choice, it could limit large fortunes and provide a decent standard of life for its citizens, or it could wait for the inevitable revolution.
Long quoted research that suggested "2% of the people owned 60% of the wealth". In one radio broadcast he told the listeners: "God called: 'Come to my feast.' But what had happened? Rockefeller, Morgan, and their crowd stepped up and took enough for 120,000,000 people and left only enough for 5,000,000 for all the other 125,000,000 to eat. And so many millions must go hungry."
Long's plan involved taxing all incomes over a million dollars. On the second million the capital levy tax would be one per cent. On the third, two per cent, on the fourth, four per cent; and so on. Once a personal fortune exceeded $8 million, the tax would become 100 per cent. Under his plan, the government would confiscate all inheritances of more than one million dollars.
This large fund would then enable the government to guarantee subsistence for everyone in America. Each family would receive a basic household estate of $5,000. There would also be a minimum annual income of $2,000 per year. Other aspects of his Share Our Wealth Plan involved government support for education, old-age pensions, benefits for war veterans and public-works projects.
Some critics pointed out that all wealth was not in the form of money. Most of America's richest people had their wealth in land, buildings, stocks and bonds. It would therefore be very difficult to evaluate and liquidate this wealth. When this was put to Long he replied: "I am going to have to call in some great minds to help me."
Leaders of the Communist Party and Socialist Party also attacked Long's plan. Alex Bittelman, a communist in New York wrote: "Long says he wants to do away with concentration of wealth without doing away with capitalism. This is humbug. This is fascist demagogy." Norman Thomas claimed that Long's Share Our Wealth scheme was insufficient and a dangerous delusion. He added that it was the "sort of talk that Hitler fed the Germans and in my opinion it is positively dangerous because it fools the people."
Long admitted that certain aspects of his scheme was socialistic. He said to a reporter from The Nation: "Will you please tell me what sense there is running on a socialist ticket in America today? What's the use of being right only to be defeated?" On another occasion he argued: "We haven't a Communist or Socialist in Louisiana. Huey P. Long is the greatest enemy that the Communists and Socialists have to deal with."
Some economists claimed that if the Share Our Wealth plan was implemented it would bring an end to the Great Depression. They pointed out that one of the major causes of the economic downturn was the insufficient distribution of purchasing power among the population. If poor families had their incomes increased they would spend this extra money on goods being produced by American industry and agriculture and would therefore stimulate the economy and create more jobs.
Long employed Gerald L. K. Smith, a Louisiana preacher, to travel throughout the South to recruit members for the Share our Wealth Clubs. The campaign was a great success and by 1935 there was 27,000 clubs with a membership of 4,684,000 and a mailing list of over 7,500,000.
Attempts were made to smear Long. One friend wrote that when Long "launched a campaign to limit the size of fortunes a price was set on his head and thugs were employed by big business to rub him from the national picture." Stories began circulating that Long was an alcoholic and to protect himself he gave up drinking and avoided visiting night clubs.
Long's radical ideas did appeal to progressives in the Congress and he gained support from Gerald Nye, William Borah, Henrik Shipstead, Bronson Cutting, Lynn Frazier, Robert LaFollette Jr., John Elmer Thomas, Burton K. Wheeler and George Norris.
In October 1933, he published his autobiography, Every Man a King. One reviewer described the book as "unbalanced, vulgar, in many ways ignorant, and quite reckless." Long also began publishing American Progress. Financed by political contributions from his organization in Louisiana, Long mailed it free to his supporters. Normally 300,000 copies were sold per issue but for special editions 1.5 million were printed.
In 1934 Long convened a special session of the legislature in Louisiana and pushed through bills that placed electoral machinery in the governor's hands, outlawing interference by the courts with his use of national guardsmen, and creating his own secret police.
In May 1935 Long began having talks with Charles Coughlin, Francis Townsend, Gerald L. K. Smith, Milo Reno and Floyd B. Olson about a joint campaign to take on President Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1936 presidential elections. Two months later Long announced that his police had discovered a plot to kill him. He now surrounded himself with six armed bodyguards. In August 1935, Long announced his candidacy for the presidency.
Over the years, Long had been in constant conflict with Judge Benjamin Pavy of St. Landry Parish. Unable to unseat Pavy in St. Landry Parish, Long decided to gain revenge by having two of the judge's daughters dismissed from their teaching jobs. Long also warned Pavy that if he continued to oppose him he would say that his family had "coffee blood". This was based on the story that Pavy's father-in-law, had a black mistress.
On 8th September, 1935, Pavy's son-in-law, Carl Weiss was told that rumours were circulating that his wife was the daughter of a black man. Weiss was furious when he heard the news and decided to pay Long a visit in the State Capitol Building. Long was in the governor's office, and so he waited by a marble pillar in the corridor. When Long left the office with John Fournet and six bodyguards, Weiss pulled out a .32 automatic and aimed it at Long. Weiss fired and hit Long in the abdomen. The bodyguards opened fire and Weiss died on the spot. A bullets fired by one of the bodyguards ricocheted off the pillar and hit Long in the lower spine.
At first it was thought that Long was not seriously wounded and an operation was carried out to repair his wounds. However, the surgeons had failed to detect that one of the bullets had hit Long's kidney. By the time this was discovered, Long was to weak to endure another operation and died on 10th September, 1935. According to his sister, Lucille Long, his last words were: "Don't let me die, I have got so much to do." His book, My First Days in the White House, was published posthumously.
Huey Long was Governor of Louisiana from 1928 to 1932 and was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1930. A nominal Democrat, Huey Long was a radical populist, of a sort we are unfamiliar with in our day. As Governor, he sponsored many reforms that endeared him to the rural poor. An ardent enemy of corporate interests, he championed the "little man" against the rich and privileged. A farm boy from the piney woods of North Louisiana, he was colorful, charismatic, controversial, and always just skating on the edge. He gave himself the nickname "Kingfish" because, he said, "I'm a small fish here in Washington. But I'm the Kingfish to the folks down in Louisiana."
Huey Long was the determined enemy of Wall Street, bankers and big business and he was also a determined enemy of the Roosevelt administration because he saw it as too beholden to these powerful forces.
Huey Long did not suffer from excessive modesty. A high-school dropout who taught himself law and got a law degree in only one year of study, Long was confident he would become President of the United States in 1936. So confident was he that he wrote a book entitled My First Days in the White House in which he named his cabinet (including President Roosevelt as Secretary of the Navy and President Hoover as Secretary of Commerce) and in which he conducted long imaginary conversations with FDR and Hoover designed to humiliate them and show their subservience to the boy from the piney woods of Louisiana.
The Kingfish wanted the government to confiscate the wealth of the nation's rich and privileged. He called his program Share Our Wealth. It called upon the federal government to guarantee every family in the nation an annual income of $5,000, so they could have the necessities of life, including a home, a job, a radio and an automobile. He also proposed limiting private fortunes to $50 million, legacies to $5 million, and annual incomes to $1 million. Everyone over age 60 would receive an old-age pension. His slogan was "Every Man A King."
Huey P. Long's life and career defy short summary. He may have captured himself best when he told reporters, "I am suis generis (one of a kind), just leave it at that."
No other Governor in Louisiana history affected the political and social landscape like Huey Long. His impact lasted far beyond his death.
Politically, because he offered a dramatic alternative to the leadership of the paternalistic Bourbons of the late 19th century and the mildly progressive Democrats who preceded him, Louisiana voters benefited from a de facto two-party system. Unlike other southern states mired in the politics of race, Louisiana politics were based on a real, if controversial, choice given to voters. Huey Long, and his followers for 30 years after his death, pushed for an unprecedented expansion of governmental services in education, transportation and health. The anti-Longs, fiscal conservatives, opposed his plans to increase severance taxes on natural resources, to pave thousands of miles of roads, to provide free textbooks, to build a new state capitol, and to establish an extravagantly grandiose regime without sound financing.
The anti-Longs often did not approve of increasing political participation for blacks and poor whites which Long fought for through the removal of the poll tax as a voting qualification. His detractors opposed Long's methods of controlling the legislature and his demagogic methods of appealing to the masses.
Long's single-minded use of power not only strengthened the executive branch, it helped him achieve his goals. His highway program built almost 13,000 miles of roads. All schoolchildren received free textbooks whether the communities wanted them or not. Funding for LSU and the Port of New Orleans greatly increased.
Long expanded the Charity Hospital System, built LSU Medical School and brought natural gas to New Orleans.
Elected to the U.S. Senate in 1930 while still governor, Long remained in his state office until his slate of candidates took over in 1932. He brought his radical social platform of redistributing wealth to the national level and appeared to be a serious threat to President Roosevelt in the 1936 election. History, however, was deprived of such a contest. Huey Long's tumultuous career was cut short by an assassin's bullet in 1935. Shot by an assailant in a corridor of the very capitol he built, he died on September 10th. Long is buried on the capitol grounds. A fascist dictator or latter day "Robin Hood", he remains in political lore the one and only "Kingfish".

Carl Weiss The Assassin?

 

The Assassination

Sunday, September 8, 1935, Huey Long came to the capitol building he helped build in Baton Rouge. He had called a special meeting of the state legislature. One of the many things on the evening's agenda was a bill to gerrymander (rearrange the boundaries of) the district of one of Long's political enemies, Judge Benjamin Pavy.

The events that followed have been a mystery for decades. Walking down the corridor of the Capitol Building, Long is thought to have been greeted by Pavy's son-in-law, Dr. Carl Weiss, a physician practicing in Baton Rouge. Then, as reported by witnesses, Weiss shot Long at close range in the abdomen. Long cried out and then stumbled down the cooridor. Weiss was immediately shot and killed by Long's bodyguards. The number of shots fired is not known. All told, 30 bullet wounds were found in front of Weiss' body, 29 in the back, and 2 in the head, but it was impossible to tell how many were caused by the same bullet entering and exiting.
Huey had disappeared from view. Jimmie O'Connor, an associate, found the senator in an isolated stairwell. He was rushed to Our Lady of the Lake Sanitarium. Long whispered "I wonder why he shot me," to O'Connor. When he was informed of his assailant, Huey shook his head, saying, "I don't know him." Dr. Arthur Vidrine, the physician attending Long, discovered that the bullet, from a .22 caliber pistol, had entered the upper right portion of his abdomen and emerged from the back. It was necessary to perform surgery to keep the senator from bleeding to death. Huey Long sent for 2 of the finest surgeons in New Orleans to perform the surgery, but they were delayed in traffic and wouldn't make it to the hospital in time. It fell on Dr. Vidrine to perform the surgery. During the two hour surgery, Dr. Vidrine repaired two small wounds in the colon and sutured the abdomen closed. When the two surgeons arrived from New Orleans, they were shocked to find that Vidrine hadn't performed a simple procedure to test for blood in urine. This test would have shown that the kidney had also been injured by the bullet. They would need to perform another surgery to fix this, but Long was too weak to handle another operation. It was a matter of time. On his death bed, he was said to have pleaded, "God, don't let me die! I have so much to do!" At 4:06 a.m., on September 10, Huey Long died. His widow, Rose, completed his Senate term.
 
Books On Huey Pierce Long:
Huey Long, by T. Harry Williams, 1969
The Career of a Tinpot Napoleon- A Political Biography of Huey P. Long, by John Kingston Fineran, 1986
Every Man A King- The Autobiography of Huey P. Long, by Huey P. Long, 1934
Huey P. Long- The Kingfish of Louisiana, by Suzanne LeVert, 1995

Reproduced gratefully from: Louisiana Social Studies

 

 

 

 

Go to Huey Long Page II

 

Kimosabe
Progressive Nationalist Populist Brotherhood
of American Citizen

Peacemakers of All Races and Creeds
-- This is our Common Ground!

By Dick Eastman -- 11-1-8
.....It's not that someone is out to enslave you.
You have already been enslaved. A syndicate
of international financiers and national dictators
have already taken over the world and consolidated
their power over it. Now having taken over they are
in the process of looting everyone.
Their power over us is complete to the point
where they no longer have to be convincing in their
deceptions. They impose their government on us,
the charade of a democratic system need no longer
be convincing -- no one has the intelligence or power
or organization or leadership to do anything about it,
all of the components making such resistance possible
have been carefully dismantled.....

 

NO To The Paulson-Bernanke
Derivatives Scam Bailout
Bail Out the American People,
Not Wall Street!

An Economic Recovery Strategy for Protectionists,
Dirigists, Mercantilists, and Populists

By Webster G. Tarpley
9-23-8

Father Coughlin
A 1930s Messiah

FDR's `New Deal':
An Example of
American System Economics

by Hartmut Cramer

Draft Economic Recovery Program
To Stop The Bush Depression

By Webster Tarpley  
1-22-8

Henry Wallace Would Never
Have Dropped the Bomb on Japan

by Robert L. Baker

ON THE NON-NOMINATION OF 1944
The Geometry of the
Henry Wallace Nomination

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
October 18, 2003

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Revised: January 03, 2010 .   Communication:   discoverer73(at symbol)hotmail.com     Go to Home Page     Go to Index of All Articles Pages       
Read the
Disclaimer
Last modified: January 03, 2010  Copyright © 1999 - 2008  All rights reserved. [Gnostic Liberation Front].   www.gnosticliberationfront.com