Did Nineteenth-CenturyCapitalistsWantthe Poorto Die? 13manner,theydo so to givethe appearancethatSpencerapprovedwhenevera business
executiveresortedto violence,thievery,backstabbing,or blackmailin the amassingof his
fortune.
In refutationto thosewhodefameSumnerandSpencer,I shallcitethe workof
SwarthmoreCollegehistorianRobertC. Bannister.His bookisSocialDarwinism:Science
and Mythin Anglo-AmericanSocialThought. Fromthis momentforwardI shallabbreviate
its titleasSD-SMAASTand pronounceit “S. D. smast.” Alternately,I shallalludeto this
sameworkby the firstthreewordsof its subtitle,Scienceand Myth. Anyhow,in this
volumeBannisterputsto rest any suchmisperceptionthatSumnercondonedspoliation.
SD-SMAASTprovesthat Sumner“deplored” any “ill-gottenwealth” and “the entire‘get-
rich-quick’ mentality.. .” Spoliationyieldednothingexcept“a pictureof societyquite
unacceptableto him.”^48 Sumneridentifiedspoliationas an assaulton whathe calledcivil
liberty.He identifiedspoliationas suchwhetherinflictedby a privatecorporationor the
government.^49
RobertRees huffsthatif Sumneris rightaboutmillionairesbeingthe creationof
naturalselection,thenit impliesthat“the rest of us are workerbees,destinedby natural
selectionto a life of unquestioninghardlabor.”^50 CharlesDerber’s bookCorporationNa-
tionquotesthat samepassageof Sumner’s and thenaffixesit to this one:“... if we do not
likethe survivalof the fittest,we haveonlyonepossiblealternative,andthatis the
survivalof the unfittest.The formeris the law of civilization;the latteris the law of anti-
civilization.”^51 The DerberbookthenaddstartlythatSumner“arguedthatworkerswere
nature’s losersand deservedto be treatedas such.”^52 NewYorkUniversityhistorianKim
Phillips-Feinemploysthe infamousquotationas she fumesthat following“the CivilWar,
the rhetoricof marketlibertybecameincreasinglyassociatedwithrigidrefusalsto permit
the governmentto takeanyactionsto regulatethe harshtempoof industrialization.”
Phillips-Feinquotesthe Sumnerpassageaboutmillionaires,andthenmistranslatesit as
meaningthat“thosewhosurvivedthe rigorsof the marketwerethosebestfittedfor
wealthandpower,andthosewhofailedshouldbe left to the gutters.”^53 Addingto my
horrorand disappointment,BrinkLindseyof the CatoInstitutelikewisequotesSumner’s
statementabout“anti-civilization” for the expresspurposeof damningSumner.Lindsey
condemnsSumneras “the leadinglightof the American‘socialDarwinist’ school.. .”^54
WhenDerber’sCorporationNationcontinuesSumner’s quotationwith“... if we do not
likethe survivalof the fittest,”^55 it quotesa completelydifferentessayfromthe one
whereinSumneropinesthatmillionairesare “the productof naturalselection.” Derber’s
booksplicestogethertwodiscreteSumnerquotationsfromseparatesourcesto forma
hybridquotation.The partof the Sumnerquotationaboutmillionairesis froman article
Sumnerhad publishedin the April-June 1902 issueof theIndependenttitled“The Concen-
trationof Wealth.” Yet the partaboutthe survivalof the fittestcomesfromthe transcript
of an addressthat Sumnergaveto the FreeTradeClubin 1879.Curiously,Derbercitesthe
1902 Independentarticlewhereasthe 1879FreeTradeClubspeechgoesunmentioned.The
secondsourceof the hybridquotationis not provided.Giventhat,CorporationNationhas
committeda gruesomedistortion.It placestogethertwo differentquotationsof Sumner’s
thatweremadeoverthirty-twoyearsapartfromoneanother.Thisis doneas if both
quotationswerefromthe samesource.
Moreover,whenSumnerspokeof “fitness” in the 1879talk thatDerberquotes,Sum-
ner wasreferringto the survivalof the fittestbusinessesnot the fittestpersons.As we
observedin BookTwo,a business’s “death” doesnot kill the business’s owners,manag-
ers, or employees.ExamineSumner’s “millionaires” remarkin its full context.Sumner
waswritingabouttechnologicalinnovationsthatprovidean importantservicethatwas
onceprovidedexclusivelyby manuallaborers.The powerloom’s outputexceededthat of