Thoughts on Carlyle

Carlyle’s statements regarding Chartism and Democracy are very controversial and in some ways contradictory. His stance is neither for or against the working classes. He in one moment warns the Aristocracy not to ignore the cry of the Working classes because “When the thoughts of a people, in the great mass of it, have grown mad, the combined issue of that people's workings will be a madness, an incoherency and ruin! Sanity will have to be recovered for the general mass”(1). He fans the flames of fear in the hearts of the Aristocracy by alluding to the revolutions occurring in France and Prussia among other European countries. He was correct in addressing these fears because the Chartist movement in some ways was the Revolution that never was in England. The demands of the Charter were not unlike the demands made by the French working classes. They wanted to be heard, they wanted to be represented in the government equally, they wanted the right to elect those representatives themselves, Carlyle warns that if these things are not acknowledged then the madness and ruinous incoherency of France would happen in England once more. It had already happened in 1642 when Cromwell ordered the execution of Charles I of England. But while he warns the Aristocracy to watch out, he also warns the working classes about the failure of Democracy.

             Democracy he warns is not always what one wants it to be. It is a warning to be careful of what one wishes for. Cromwell for instance came to power and became not King but the “Lord Protector of England” on refusing the offer of the crown. In many ways however, he was a “despot” with the republic he had helped to form, in effect being just like the king that he had tried in court. Robespierre in France did the same thing in 1793 at the outset of the Revolution, he executed the King in favor of a new Republic and ended up being assassinated himself for becoming the “despot” that Carlyle warns any leader elected for Democracy will eventually become because it is the nature of the institution. It is reminder to the working classes that they do not want the madness and incoherency of France. He once more fans the flame of fear into the hearts of men bu this time into the working classes.

            The solution according to Carlyle is not revolution against the aristocracy nor blatant disregard for the needs of the working classes. For Carlyle it is as simple as the relationship between a student and a teacher, or a subject to his King. It is the old way of things when those in power took care of their tenant farmers or parish dwellers and they in turn were loyal and subordinate to their masters. He is calling England back to the past before machines and industry. He asserts that the poor would willingly honor and house their “best” in palaces and fancy clothes if they truly conducted themselves as the worthy best of the nation and not just look it. In a nation where duty and honor are seen as necessary to the English Gentlemen’s character this is no small rebuke; but it is misleading. The poor would honor their best however, under the circumstances probably not in palaces. The poor were truly poor. Government seemed to be only interested in the upper classes and every legislation that passed was in some way a protective measure in favor of the wealthy. Food prices continued to climb in an age when food harvests were failing. Inflated food prices were preventing the poor from having access to what foods were available to them and even those were third rate picks. Starvation was not an exaggeration it was reality, a reality that the Aristocracy refused to acknowledge or alleviate. The Aristocracy as Carlyle assert would have no fear of being wiped out the way it was in France if they would only do their honorable duty and focus on the issue of England not the issues abroad or the Paltry “bedchamber” crisis that brought down the government in 1839. He asserts that the more pressing issue to be addressed was not which lady served in the Queen’s chamber but how poverty would be alleviated. England’s situation is not unlike the United States in this 21^st century. The middle class is slowly being eliminated, government believes like theirs did then that it has no business regulating or interfering in the people’s lives, Government shut downs do not happen because there is demand for Healthcare but on the contrary government shut down because it believes that the government cannot afford the health care and does not believe it should interfere in peoples lives. England’s government was the same. Chartism then is like Occupy now; they were movements formed by the 99% against the 1% elite that failed for lack of focus and leadership, undermined by their forcible and peaceable factions. Carlyle did have a point in saying that the solution is not in revolution because much is lost in the “gap” between the old and new forms of government. The solution is for both sides to acknowledge each other and truly reform. Changing times require adjustments. The upper classes must look down and see real people in the lower classes not just “Cash” in positive or negative money values. The lower classes in turn must not degenerate into a mad mob of incoherent, regicidal revolutionaries.