The Personality of Henry George
Louis F. Post
[Reprinted from The Prophet of San Francisco:
Personal Memories & Interpretations of Henry George, by Louis
F. Post (New York: The Vanguard Press, 1930)]
[Henry George's] personality was reflected in his philosophy. Though
the story of his life be interesting and useful as a sketch of the
external processes of his career, his personality is to be better
inferred from the spirit and the substance of his writings than from
recollections of friendly intercourse however intimate, or
considerations of personal conduct however picturesque. (p.313)
He [George] believed in prayer. No one believed in it more than he
did. Not mere piety petitions, nor hollow forms of worship, nor empty
denunciations of wrong; but by deed as well as word; and by trusting
an Intelligent and Beneficent Creator for results. (p.314)
[Concerning human immortality], our Prophet... gave expression to it
in Progress and Poverty while discussing the problem of
individual life; and on an occasion five years or so before he died he
declared it to me in response to a question inspired by a recent
death. "Do you believe in immortality?" I asked. "Yes,"
he answered with solemn emphasis. "Why?" "Because this
a rational universe, and the existence of men born only to die would
be irrational." (p.315)
Mr. Verinder recalled an instance of Henry George's readiness at
repartee -- not repartee of the merely humorous type, but of the kind
which, enlivened by wit, is loaded with philosophical truth. "In
our great meeting at Lambeth Baths," relates Mr. Verinder, "a
social democrat asked: 'But what about capital?' "The question
alluded evidently to George's having in his speech laid no stress upon
monopoly of capital, but all stress upon monopoly of land. "Quick
as lightning," Mr. Verinder continues, "came the perfect
reply: 'My friend, when you've got the cow, you've got the milk!' "(p.321)
In nothing were our Prophet's intellectual powers exemplified more
impressively than in the practical climax he gave to his elucidation
of the enigma of poverty as the companion of progress. He had risen to
the heights of observation and penetrated the depths, he had brought
all his powers to bear in describing conditions and picturing
possibilities, he had appealed to the moral law for condemnation of
the most destructive of social sins -monopolization by the few of the
birthright of all, -- he had advocated unreserved restoration of that
birthright as the only remedy for impoverishment in the midst of
plenty; yet the same prophetical powers that enabled him to perceive
the gigantic sin of civilization, forced him to realize that the
practical remedy lay in the domain of the statesman. (p.321)
As a statesman, . . . he knew that a social custom so firmly rooted
as land monopoly could not be uprooted over night.... With
statesmanlike forethought and skill, he thereby made of himself a
pathfinder through our social wilderness to the social Eden he saw
beyond. "It is a maxim of statesmanship... that the great changes
can best be brought about under old forms. We, who would free men,
should heed the same truth. It is the natural method. When Nature
would make a higher type, she makes a lower one and develops it. This,
also, is the law of social growth. Let us work by it. With the current
we may glide fast and far. Against it, it is hard pulling and slow
progress." (pp.322-323)
[He was a person of great integrity.] An instance was his refusal as
a juror to obey the judge who ordered an entry by the clerk of the
court of a verdict for the defendant, a distillery company, in an
accident case. When the court clerk, upon receiving this instruction
from the judge, repeated the usual formula to the jury, saying, "By
direction of the court you find the defendant," etc., Henry
George, who was the foreman of the jury, arose and succinctly said: "I
don't." The clerk repeated the formula. George replied, "No,
I don't." "Yes, you do," said the judge severely; "I
take the responsibility in this matter." He gave George no
opportunity to reply or explain, but struck his name from the jury for
the term. (pp.323-324)
In an interview with a New York World reporter immediately
afterwards, Mr. George made this explanation. "I was utterly
astounded when, after the testimony had been closed, Judge Freedman
instructed the jury to find a verdict for the defendant, for it seemed
to me that a negligence had unquestionably been proved. I make no
reflection on Judge Freedman. He is the guardian of his own
conscience. But I am also the guardian of mine." (p.324)
Though a serious-minded person, Henry George was nevertheless not
lacking in appreciation of the humorous. He was moreover affectionate,
tolerant, at times absent-minded, always courageous, ambitious within
the limits of the rational and the moral, never destructive in purpose
or policy, but always considerate. (p.324)
Could any words be more fitting and inspiring than his own, when in
Social Problems, he wrote of spiritual rewards for earthly
service? "What, when our time comes, does it matter," he
asked, "whether we have lived daintily or not, whether we have
worn soft raiment or not, whether we leave a great fortune or nothing
at all, whether we shall have reaped honors or been despised, have
been accounted learned or ignorant-as compared with how we may have
used that talent which has been entrusted to us for the Master's
service? What does it matter, when eyeballs glaze and ears grow dull,
if out of the darkness may stretch a hand and into the silence may
come a voice, 'Well done, thou good and faithful servant; thou hast
been faithful over a few things. I will make thee ruler over many
things. Enter thou into the joy of the Lord.' "(pp.327-328)
|