John Harrison Wilson, The life of Charles Henry Dana

[69] was of his. Robespierre made violence the instrument of liberty. Is it the destiny of fraternity to pass through the same companionship and through similar strains? I cannot believe it. There will be great and trying difficulties, but the passion which raged then can hardly be kindled now, besides, history does not repeat itself. ...

It is noteworthy that this radical philosopher, although possessed of imperturbable nerve and self-control, was listened to by his fellow-members with but little patience. What he considered as his best points against the “royalty of money” and the “aristocracy of capital” were received with laughter and derision. The greatest confusion prevailed throughout his address, but the speaker held his ground as “unchanged as if he were reading aloud to himself.” His offensive doctrines were set forth at great length, but curiously enough the Assembly, after hearing him through to the end, resolved to pass to the order of the day as the best way of expressing its disapproval of Citizen Proudhon's odious attack on the right of property, as an inexcusable appeal to the worst passions of the working people, and a calumny on the revolution of February. The resolution was carried by six hundred and ninety-one as against the single vote of Proudhon and one other member. This overwhelming decision gave satisfactory assurances to the world that the day of violence was past. The sober sense of the Assembly had not only condemned the schemes of the radical socialist, but had pronounced them to be visionary and impracticable as well as subversive of public morals and social order.

It is to be observed that it was in this speech that Proudhon laid before the Assembly and the nation his proposition to abolish interest and rent, as the best means of stimulating production and creating a state of universal abundance, cheapness, and enjoyment. It was also in