|
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.


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
-
For more immediate and instantly accessible
background, there is an excellent summary of Huey Long’s life
available to read on the web at
Teaching History Online,
which helpfully explains the main factors which would later be of key
significance in framing his political and social attitudes.
-
Hodding Carter and Gerald K. Smith,
Huey Long as Demagogue
– The Free Republic, February 13, 1935, pp. 11–15
-
Dick Eastman,
Comments on Populists
in "The Giant Killers" Series – undated.
-
Excerpts from
Huey Long’s Autobiography, 1933
-
Darrel A. Plant,
A Review of T. Harry Williams "Huey Long"
– undated
-
| | |