Eric Wojciechowski's Blog

As we enter the year 2024, we can look back on 2023, the 190th birth year of Robert G. Ingersoll, and say that the hard cover editions upgrading the original 1900 Dresden editions of his work, are now complete and available. As America approaches another presidential election year with Christian Nationalism and facism on the table, Ingersoll’s words continue to be relevant on the dangers of such ideologies forever at this nation’s doorstep. Reading his cautions and pleas for equal rights based on reason and logic are the same today as they were over a hundred years ago. All editions available now, at Amazon.

From the FOREWORD of the Volume on LECTURES:

From the editor,

For most of my adult life, I knew nothing about Robert Green Ingersoll despite my active interest and participation in political commentary, activism and championing atheism over theism. Despite the time I spent reading, mingling with like-minded people and learning about other contributions to the subject matters, the name of Ingersoll, if it ever came up, was not imprinted on my memory. I would be confident if I said that prior to the age of forty-five years old, no one I conversed with or read ever brought him up.

It wasn’t until June 2015 that I attended the Center for Inquiry’s Reason for Change conference in Buffalo, New York, that I realized this error of history. Said conference took place between June 11-15, 2015 and described by the Center for Inquiry on their website as, “…an international conference where humanists, skeptics, and all those who value science and reason will meet to inform and inspire one another to be a positive force for change.”

And throughout the conference, numerous references could be found to Ingersoll, including a banner on the main stage and elsewhere with his face on it proclaiming, “Meet the most remarkable American most people have never heard of.”

The evening of the second day of the conference featured an Award Banquet for Susan Jacoby, author of a biography of Ingersoll entitled, The Great Agnostic: Robert Ingersoll and American Freethought (2013).

So upon closure of the conference and returning home, the first step was to seek out everything and anything Ingersoll had written only to find out his material has been largely neglected. I found twelve volumes at Gutenberg.org, an online service that publishes digital copies of books where the United States copyright has expired. And over the years, I’d pick pieces from it to digest, including diving into the man’s life itself through consumption of his biographies.

Born in Dresden, New York, August 11, 1833, Robert G. Ingersoll was raised in a religious household, his father being a traveling Christian preacher. His father’s abolitionist stance made him unpopular from time to time, causing a need for the family to uproot and find a new home. When the young Ingersoll set out to make it on his own, he tried various forms of employment in various areas of the country. He finally settled on law and settled in Peoria, Illinois in 1858. It was through his law practice, so it seems, Ingersoll fine tuned his oratory skills.

When the Civil War broke out in 1861, Ingersoll signed up with the Union and served as a colonel (a moniker for which he continued to be called) for the State of Illinois. But after being captured and spending a short stint in Confederate hands, he was returned to the State of Illinois where he continued his work in law. Then in 1867, he became the attorney general of the State. And yet despite such credentials, active participation in the Republican Party and a bid for governor (for which he lost), he never held another public office. It has been speculated, and more than likely correct, that it was Ingersoll’s distaste and active attack against religion that stopped his progress towards any other elected positions.

Despite having a minister for a father and being raised in a religious household (or, perhaps, laying the ground work and precisely because of it), Ingersoll dismissed religion, particularly that of Christianity, with the threat of eternal punishment being his most objectionable aspect. According to biographer, Orvin Larson, the most influential person in his life that swayed him into agnosticism was his wife, Eva Parker. The future Eva Ingersoll came from a family holding “unorthodox views on religion” And “Her parents were devotees of Paine and Voltaire.” Larson writes, “Had Ingersoll married a devout woman, he might not have wandered (from faith in God) again. (Larson, p. 52)

Larson notes that when Ingersoll gave up any future hopes of political office, he stopped tempering his language regarding religion and god(s), stopped giving lip service to divinity in any form in his orations. In 1869, Ingersoll gave a lecture on Friedrich Wilhelm Heinrich Alexander von Humboldt, a German naturalist, to Germans near Sulphur Springs. Within that speech, Ingersoll gave no license to any god but championed natural law. The lecture was received extremely well and launched Ingersoll on a career path of being a highly sought after orator on numerous subject matters. (Larson, p. 99-100).

After hearing Ingersoll speak on November 13, 1879, Mark Twain wrote to his wife, “…I heard four speeches which I can never forget…one by that splendid old soul Colonel Bob Ingersoll – Oh, it was just the supreme combination of English words that was ever put together since the world began. My soul, how handsome he looked as he stood on that table, in the midst of those five hundred shouting men, and poured the molten silver from his lips. Lord, what an organ is human speech when it is played by a master.” (Larson, p. 235-236) That’s quite a testament to Ingersoll’s work and a shame the best we can do is read his words in these volumes and never hear what moved Mark Twain on that night in 1879. Or on all the other occasions where Ingersoll spoke, in just about every state of the nation.

Ingersoll started his lecture circuit ten years before that moment with Twain. He gave presentations from memory on everything from religion and politics, to women’s rights and the like. According to Tom Flynn, former editor of Free Inquiry magazine and Executive Producer of The Great Agnostic documentary says, “Ingersoll composed his speeches in his head, and then retained them in memory. He always spoke without notes. His longer speeches would go three or four hours. He had a repertoire of probably forty addresses which he could deliver from memory at any time.” In the documentary, Ingersoll is described eloquently as “…the greatest orator America had ever heard. Contemporaries agreed, that his skill as a public speaker was unmatched. With dramatic flair, he combined the power of a lawyer’s closing argument and the beauty of a Shakespearean monologue.”

Susan Jacoby writes, ‘The common thread in all of Ingersoll’s thinking about social issues was secular humanism and its emphasis on the promotion of happiness in this world.” (Jacoby, p. 125) This is what set him apart from many of his contemporaries. While many of his time felt a sense of Social Darwinism, that the world had been designed, or at least established through a survival of the fittest order, Ingersoll joined with Darwin himself who felt that the higher order of human beings meant looking after all members, not leaving anyone to decks they’d been dealt with. Ingersoll championed the rights of women and African Americans to be equal to that of white men. He was in favor of immigrant’s rights, worker’s rights to an eight-hour day, public education free of religious meddling and free speech – especially that which was considered blasphemy. Jacoby writes, “What Ingersoll…understood was the indivisibility of human rights, and he understood this not in spite of but precisely because of his disbelief in a deity who had supposedly “designed” the order of nature.” (Jacoby, p. 113) Above everything else, the separation of church and state had to be implemented and humanist principles could fall in line.

Larson remarked that Ingersoll could not have excelled prior to his 1869 Humboldt lecture (found in this collection). Something was different in 1869 and later. Larson writes, “The intellectual upheaval was the outcome of many circumstances and forces: the frontier psychology that made men self-reliant and daring; the rapid advance of practical science that could make a heaven on earth; free thought from Germany that examined the origins of religion; unitarianism and transcendentalism that challenged sacerdotal authority; the Civil War that uprooted men and morals; the dawning of the Gilded Age with its worship of Mammon; and Evolution that struck directly at divine creation and the infallibility of the Bible. Traditions and patterns of conduct crumbled. As never before, people were susceptible to new ideas.” (Larson, p. 101)

However, despite Ingersoll pulling out all the stops in 1869 criticizing religion, his support of the Hayes Administration after the 1876 election gave him hope of the possibility he might yet be appointed a position within said Administration and back in political office. Hayes considered him for the Louisiana Commission but was again turned down on the grounds of his hostile attitude towards religion. William D. Porter of the law firm of Porter and Bainbridge wrote to President Hayes saying, “I believe the appointment of such a man, who disregards and scoffs at the most sacred things, would shake the confidence of all Christian men in your Administration which we now have such great hopes, and, for which we offer such fervent prayers.” Additionally, Ingersoll was considered for the German mission but again, he was turned down due to his anti-religious rhetoric. (Larson, p. 128).

And yet, despite the snub of any appointments or offices, Ingersoll continued to partake in politics, if only as a contributor of his intellect, as an influencer and advisor. In 1876, the National Liberal League was founded, an organization made up primarily of free thinkers and those tired of the old ways of doing things. The League worked its way into politics, with the goal of separating church and state of which Ingersoll became vice-president for in 1877. However, by 1880, he resigned. Ingersoll returned to the Republican Party, providing counsel and advice. During the Garfield Administration, he routinely walked from his residence (as his family moved to Washinton D.C. in 1878) to the White House to hold conversation with then President James A. Garfield.

Ingersoll managed to maintain full time employment in law, remained a political consult and highly sought after orator around the United States. He passed away July 21, 1899, just shy of the turn of the century. His work was published during his lifetime and distributed east to readers in Europe and as far west as Japan with Japanese translations. But it was not until 1900 that his brother-in-law, C.P. Farrell, started his own publishing company for the purpose of preserving Ingersoll’s work in what became twelve volumes.

Ingersoll’s Lectures, as reproduced in this one volume edition, come from the first four volumes of the Dresden Publication Company edition, that went through printings from 1900 to the last in 1929. It is currently out of print. As I found myself more and more enamored by Ingersoll’s work since being introduced to it in 2015, I set out to find a handsome printed edition for my personal library only to find no such thing existed. And to me, a bibliophile, that would not do.

It’s precisely because of that, I took on the task of reproducing those first four Dresden editions into this one volume edition that can now sit along side other collected works of great influences from the ages: From Plato to Aristotle, to Homer to the Bible, to Shakespeare and Hume, to Voltaire to Hitchens. Wearing the editor’s hat, I took the liberty of slightly changing the formatting from the original Dresden Editions, but keeping most of the archaic word choices to preserve the language.

Among that list of great influential works noted above, no other book took up so much of Ingersoll’s time as the Bible and the Judea-Christian god. No other written work has been so widely disseminated, so widely missionized and used to conquer and form a body of politics. Were Ingersoll alive this moment in time, it would still be taking up his time and he’d be making the same arguments he did in the 19th Century, only with better scholarship to assist his assault on superstition. (As an example, in the essay, Myth and Miracle, Ingersoll attributes the sacred text of the Popol Vuh to the Aztec. However, this is a Mayan text).

But the more important reason for resurrecting the Colonel’s work and presenting it in this fine edition is to keep it in circulation, to keep it relevant. Although some of the lectures in this volume are not related to religion, Ingersoll’s reputation that cost him political positions and eventually found him buried in history was his views on religion. The ever combative Ingersoll on the subject had probably seen a day when such focus would no longer be necessary. Just as no one debates the shape of the earth (no one of influence) or germ theory and such, Ingersoll saw a day when religion and superstition would pass (as demonstrated in the final paragraph of his essay, Which Way?).

Ingersoll noted how many religions and gods were already gone that it was just a matter of time before the Judea-Christian and Islamic faiths would perish as well. And yet, today, the rise of Christian Nationalism in the United States demonstrates otherwise. Ingersoll would surely be just as active today as he was during the Gilded Age.

Reviewing his lectures, criticism could be (and was during his time) lodged at Ingersoll for taking the Bible literally and basing his attack on such an interpretation. His lecture Some Mistakes of Moses and analysis of the four Gospels in What Must We Do to Be Saved are examples. Throughout his career as lecturer and champion of human rights and downgrading religious influence, Ingersoll came into dispute with numerous religious men who made literal interpretation claims as fact. His most famous dispute with the Reverend DeWitt Talmage centered around the Reverend’s insistence on the reality of Christ’s bodily resurrection and other claims of Biblical historical accuracy. Additionally, the literal interpretation of the Bible was common during his time. It was only later, as scientific findings and higher criticisms of the Bible gnawed away at taking the Bible as history did the religious find a need to stay relevant by turning to more obscure interpretations such as claims of symbolism, allegory and anagogical. Today, creationists generally don’t argue in favor of the God of the Bible but draft essays and lectures on “Intelligent Design”, as if to claim such a thing is still probable.

Susan Jacoby writes that during the composition of her book, The Great Agnostic, she paid “scant attention to the philosophical debates between Ingersoll and contemporary theologians” because audiences of such debates usually showed up already convinced their side was correct and nothing said at the debate would change their mind. However, Jacoby notes that, “Ingersoll’s genius as an advocate for freethought lay not in his ability to best clerical antagonists in arguments about the logical impossibility of the Holy Trinity…but in his impassioned portrayal of decent behavior, of goodness, as an obligation of human beings toward one another simply by virtue of their common humanity.” (Jacoby, p. 159).

Anyone who’s ever attempted to sway an opinion with facts and data is already aware that that alone is rarely a selling point. But what is generally a glue that can bind facts and data to an audience is when the presenter carries him or herself respecting those who’s opinions they’re trying to change. As they say, honey catches more flies. Ingersoll would be a welcome voice in the continuing challenge that religious influence presents today.

And yet, somewhere along the way, America (and the world at large) forgot. Just as Thomas Paine was set aside and ignored after publication of The Age of Reason, so too eventually was Robert G. Ingersoll. But whereas Paine suffered a loss of friends and reputation during his lifetime, spending his last days a pariah and a death with barely acknowledgment, Ingersoll was honored in his day. Even after his death, he was at least respected by his opponents for years to come.

At least thirty years after Ingersoll’s death, he was still showing his influence with his family and friends establishing a memorial called the Ingersoll League. People from all over the United States wrote to the League of praises for his legacy. (Larson, p. 281).

So from whence did we forget?

It appears for the same reason suffered by Thomas Paine decades before. If it weren’t for Ingersoll, America may have also forgotten Thomas Paine. America certainly tried after The Age of Reason. It wasn’t until Ingersoll championed Paine in his lecture (presented in this volume) did he force the man, his ideas and challenges to religion back into American history where he belonged.

Starting in the 1930s but increasing in urgency after World War Two, there was a perceived threat in the west, particularly in America, of a “godless Communism”. In 1954, President Eisenhower signed a bill to add “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance. In 1956, Congress approved the use of In God We Trust as the official motto. American patriotism entangled with Christian devotion as a force to repel the Soviet Union, nothing else would suffice.

Dristin Kobes Du Mez writes, “In the 1950s…Americans of all sorts were investing in religion. Churches were springing up in new suburban neighbors across the country, and Sunday schools were bursting at the seams. Cold War politics also united Americans across party lines. To their delight, evangelicals found themselves securely within the political and cultural mainstream. The formation of the Religious Right was still two decades away, but the pieces were already falling into place. By the end of the decades, evangelicals had become active participants in national politics and had secured access to the highest levels of power.”

Ingersoll’s reputation as an infidel and agnostic were enough to limit his participation in politics back in his own day, let alone survive any lasting chance in Twentieth Century America. Any lasting influence would find a natural death in such an environment that by the end of the Cold War in the 1990s, Ingersoll was mostly forgotten outside freethought communities.

Ingersoll frequently included the following Happiness Creed in his speeches: “While I am opposed to all orthodox creeds, I have a creed myself; and my creed is this. Happiness is the only good. The time to be happy is now. The place to be happy is here. The way to be happy is to make others so. The creed is somewhat short, but it is long enough for this life, strong enough for this world. If there is another world, when we get there we can make another creed.” Additionally, this was recorded in 1894 by Thomas Edison and is one of seven brief speeches of Ingersoll’s voice.

In his presentation on Voltaire, Ingersoll noted, “A great man does not seek applause or place; he seeks for truth; he seeks the road to happiness, and what he ascertains he gives to others.” It is precisely why I chose to create this new volume of his work. To pass down to others so that they might not forget. Despite the humbleness of the quote above, it is my opinion Robert G. Ingersoll deserves a proper place and to continue to deserve applause for the path he paved that we continue to benefit from. So this edition of his lectures has been created, to give Ingersoll applause and a place. Even if the sound of one man clapping isn’t very loud, perhaps it’s loud enough to reach the attention of others so that Ingersoll’s name and contribution can be given it’s proper place in the history of the liberty of thought. As the very first sentence of his essay, “Thomas Paine” says, “With His Name Left Out, the History of Liberty Cannot be Written.” The same can be said about Ingersoll himself.

Eric Wojciechowski

January 25, 2023

Bibliography:

Du Mez, Dristin Kobes 2020: Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation. New York: Liveright Publishing Company.

Jacoby, Susan 2013: The Great Agnostic: Robert Ingersoll and American Freethought. New Haven & London: Yale University Press.

Larson, Orvin 1962: American Infidel: Robert G. Ingersoll. New York: The Citadel Press.

The Great Agnostic, Written, Produced, and Directed by Roderick Bradford. Execute Producer, Tom Flynn. Produced in association with the Council for Secular Humanism. Vimeo.com.

It’s been a long time coming but the first of what’s to be a total of five volumes of the works of Robert G. Ingersoll is now available! As editor, it has been my pleasure to bring this work from the Gilded Age to the modern age, where it’s still as important as it was back then.

From the FORWARD:

From the editor,

For most of my adult life, I knew nothing about Robert Green Ingersoll despite my active interest and participation in political commentary, activism and championing atheism over theism. Despite the time I spent reading, mingling with like-minded people and learning about other contributions to the subject matters, the name of Ingersoll, if it ever came up, was not imprinted on my memory. I would be confident if I said that prior to the age of forty-five years old, no one I conversed with or read ever brought him up.

It wasn’t until June 2015 that I attended the Center for Inquiry’s Reason for Change conference in Buffalo, New York, that I realized this error of history. Said conference took place between June 11-15, 2015 and described by the Center for Inquiry on their website as, “…an international conference where humanists, skeptics, and all those who value science and reason will meet to inform and inspire one another to be a positive force for change.”

And throughout the conference, numerous references could be found to Ingersoll, including a banner on the main stage and elsewhere with his face on it proclaiming, “Meet the most remarkable American most people have never heard of.”

The evening of the second day of the conference featured an Award Banquet for Susan Jacoby, author of a biography of Ingersoll entitled, The Great Agnostic: Robert Ingersoll and American Freethought (2013).

So upon closure of the conference and returning home, the first step was to seek out everything and anything Ingersoll had written only to find out his material has been largely neglected. I found twelve volumes at Gutenberg.org, an online service that publishes digital copies of books where the United States copyright has expired. And over the years, I’d pick pieces from it to digest, including diving into the man’s life itself through consumption of his biographies.

Born in Dresden, New York, August 11, 1833, Robert G. Ingersoll was raised in a religious household, his father being a traveling Christian preacher. His father’s abolitionist stance made him unpopular from time to time, causing a need for the family to uproot and find a new home. When the young Ingersoll set out to make it on his own, he tried various forms of employment in various areas of the country. He finally settled on law and settled in Peoria, Illinois in 1858. It was through his law practice, so it seems, Ingersoll fine tuned his oratory skills.

When the Civil War broke out in 1861, Ingersoll signed up with the Union and served as a colonel (a moniker for which he continued to be called) for the State of Illinois. But after being captured and spending a short stint in Confederate hands, he was returned to the State of Illinois where he continued his work in law. Then in 1867, he became the attorney general of the State. And yet despite such credentials, active participation in the Republican Party and a bid for governor (for which he lost), he never held another public office. It has been speculated, and more than likely correct, that it was Ingersoll’s distaste and active attack against religion that stopped his progress towards any other elected positions.

Despite having a minister for a father and being raised in a religious household (or, perhaps, laying the ground work and precisely because of it), Ingersoll dismissed religion, particularly that of Christianity, with the threat of eternal punishment being his most objectionable aspect. According to biographer, Orvin Larson, the most influential person in his life that swayed him into agnosticism was his wife, Eva Parker. The future Eva Ingersoll came from a family holding “unorthodox views on religion” And “Her parents were devotees of Paine and Voltaire.” Larson writes, “Had Ingersoll married a devout woman, he might not have wandered (from faith in God) again. (Larson, p. 52)

Larson notes that when Ingersoll gave up any future hopes of political office, he stopped tempering his language regarding religion and god(s), stopped giving lip service to divinity in any form in his orations. In 1869, Ingersoll gave a lecture on Alexander Friedrich Heinrich von Humboldt, a German naturalist, to Germans near Sulphur Springs. Within that speech, Ingersoll gave no license to any god but championed natural law. The lecture was received extremely well and launched Ingersoll on a career path of being a highly sought after orator on numerous subject matters. (Larson, p. 99-100).

After hearing Ingersoll speak on November 13, 1879,, Mark Twain wrote to his wife, “…I heard four speeches which I can never forget…one by that splendid old soul Colonel Bob Ingersoll – Oh, it was just the supreme combination of English words that was ever put together since the world began. My soul, how handsome he looked as he stood on that table, in the midst of those five hundred shouting men, and poured the molten silver from his lips. Lord, what an organ is human speech when it is played by a master.” (Larson, p. 235-236) That’s quite a testament to Ingersoll’s work and a shame the best we can do is read his words in these volumes and never hear what moved Mark Twain on that night in 1879. Or on all the other occasions where Ingersoll spoke, in just about every state of the nation.

Ingersoll started his lecture circuit ten years before that moment with Twain. He gave presentations from memory on everything from religion and politics, to women’s rights and the like. According to Tom Flynn, former editor of Free Inquiry magazine and Executive Producer of The Great Agnostic documentary says, “Ingersoll composed his speeches in his head, and then retained them in memory. He always spoke without notes. His longer speeches would go three or four hours. He had a repertoire of probably forty addresses which he could deliver from memory at any time.” In the documentary, Ingersoll is described eloquently as “…the greatest orator America had ever heard. Contemporaries agreed, that his skill as a public speaker was unmatched. With dramatic flair, he combined the power of a lawyer’s closing argument and the beauty of a Shakespearean monologue.”

Susan Jacoby writes, ‘The common thread in all of Ingersoll’s thinking about social issues was secular humanism and its emphasis on the promotion of happiness in this world.” (Jacoby, p. 125) This is what set him apart from many of his contemporaries. While many of his time felt a sense of Social Darwinism, that the world had been designed, or at least established through a survival of the fittest order, Ingersoll joined with Darwin himself who felt that the higher order of human beings meant looking after all members, not leaving anyone to decks they’d been dealt with. Ingersoll championed the rights of women and African Americans to be equal to that of white men. He was in favor of immigrant’s rights, worker’s rights to an eight-hour day, public education free of religious meddling and free speech – especially that which was considered blasphemy. Jacoby writes, “What Ingersoll…understood was the indivisibility of human rights, and he understood this not in spite of but precisely because of his disbelief in a deity who had supposedly “designed” the order of nature.” (Jacoby, p. 113) Above everything else, the separation of church and state had to be implemented and humanist principles could fall in line.

Larson remarked that Ingersoll could not have excelled prior to his 1869 Humboldt lecture (found in this collection). Something was different in 1869 and later. Larson writes, “The intellectual upheaval was the outcome of many circumstances and forces: the frontier psychology that made men self-reliant and daring; the rapid advance of practical science that could make a heaven on earth; free thought from Germany that examined the origins of religion; unitarianism and transcendentalism that challenged sacerdotal authority; the Civil War that uprooted men and morals; the dawning of the Gilded Age with its worship of Mammon; and Evolution that struck directly at divine creation and the infallibility of the Bible. Traditions and patterns of conduct crumbled. As never before, people were susceptible to new ideas.” (Larson, p. 101)

However, despite Ingersoll pulling out all the stops in 1869 criticizing religion, his support of the Hayes Administration after the 1876 election gave him hope of the possibility he might yet be appointed a position within said Administration and back in political office. Hayes considered him for the Louisiana Commission but was again turned down on the grounds of his hostile attitude towards religion. William D. Porter of the law firm of Porter and Bainbridge wrote to President Hayes saying, “I believe the appointment of such a man, who disregards and scoffs at the most sacred things, would shake the confidence of all Christian men in your Administration which we now have such great hopes, and, for which we offer such fervent prayers.” Additionally, Ingersoll was considered for the German mission but again, he was turned down due to his anti-religious rhetoric. (Larson, p. 128).

And yet, despite the snub of any appointments or offices, Ingersoll continued to partake in politics, if only as a contributor of his intellect, as an influencer and advisor. In 1876, the National Liberal League was founded, an organization made up primarily of free thinkers and those tired of the old ways of doing things. The League worked its way into politics, with the goal of separating church and state of which Ingersoll became vice-president for in 1877. However, by 1880, he resigned. Ingersoll returned to the Republican Party, providing counsel and advice. During the Garfield Administration, he routinely walked from his residence (as his family moved to Washinton D.C. in 1878) to the White House to hold conversation with then President James A. Garfield.

Ingersoll managed to maintain full time employment in law, remained a political consult and highly sought after orator around the United States. He passed away July 21, 1899, just shy of the turn of the century. His work was published during his lifetime and distributed east to readers in Europe and as far west as Japan with Japanese translations. But it was not until 1900 that his brother-in-law, C.P. Farrell, started his own publishing company for the purpose of preserving Ingersoll’s work in what became twelve volumes.

Ingersoll’s Lectures, as reproduced in this one volume edition, come from the first four volumes of the Dresden Publication Company edition, that went through printings from 1900 to the last in 1929. It is currently out of print. As I found myself more and more enamored by Ingersoll’s work since being introduced to it in 2015, I set out to find a handsome printed edition for my personal library only to find no such thing existed. And to me, a bibliophile, that would not do.

It’s precisely because of that, I took on the task of reproducing those first four Dresden editions into this one volume edition that can now sit along side other collected works of great influences from the ages: From Plato to Aristotle, to Homer to the Bible, to Shakespeare and Hume, to Voltaire to Hitchens. Wearing the editor’s hate, I took the liberty of slightly changing the formatting from the original Dresden Editions, but keeping most of the archaic word choices to preserve the language.

Among that list of great influential works noted above, no other book took up so much of Ingersoll’s time as the Bible and the Judea-Christian god. No other written work has been so widely disseminated, so widely missionized and used to conquer and form a body of politics. Were Ingersoll alive this moment in time, it would still be taking up his time and he’d be making the same arguments he did in the 19th Century, only with better scholarship to assist his assault on superstition. (As an example, in the essay, Myth and Miracle, Ingersoll attributes the sacred text of the Popol Vuh to the Aztec. However, this is a Mayan text).

But the more important reason for resurrecting the Colonel’s work and presenting it in this fine edition is to keep it in circulation, to keep it relevant. Although some of the lectures in this volume are not related to religion, Ingersoll’s reputation that cost him political positions and eventually found him buried in history was his views on religion. The ever combative Ingersoll on the subject had probably seen a day when such focus would no longer be necessary. Just as no one debates the shape of the earth (no one of influence) or germ theory and such, Ingersoll saw a day when religion and superstition would pass (as demonstrated in the final paragraph of his essay, Which Way?).

Ingersoll noted how many religions and gods were already gone that it was just a matter of time before the Judea-Christian and Islamic faiths would perish as well. And yet, today, the rise of Christian Nationalism in the United States demonstrates otherwise. Ingersoll would surely be just as active today as he was during the Gilded Age.

Reviewing his lectures, criticism could be (and was during his time) lodged at Ingersoll for taking the Bible literally and basing his attack on such an interpretation. His lecture Some Mistakes of Moses and analysis of the four Gospels in What Must We Do to Be Saved are examples. Throughout his career as lecturer and champion of human rights and downgrading religious influence, Ingersoll came into dispute with numerous religious men who made literal interpretation claims as fact. His most famous dispute with the Reverend DeWitt Talmage centered around the Reverend’s insistence on the reality of Christ’s bodily resurrection and other claims of Biblical historical accuracy. Additionally, the literal interpretation of the Bible was common during his time. It was only later, as scientific findings and higher criticisms of the Bible gnawed away at taking the Bible as history did the religious find a need to stay relevant by turning to more obscure interpretations such as claims of symbolism, allegory and anagogical. Today, creationists generally don’t argue in favor of the God of the Bible but draft essays and lectures on “Intelligent Design”, as if to claim such a thing is still probable.

Susan Jacoby writes that during the composition of her book, The Great Agnostic, she paid “scant attention to the philosophical debates between Ingersoll and contemporary theologians” because audiences of such debates usually showed up already convinced their side was correct and nothing said at the debate would change their mind. However, Jacoby notes that, “Ingersoll’s genius as an advocate for freethought lay not in his ability to best clerical antagonists in arguments about the logical impossibility of the Holy Trinity…but in his impassioned portrayal of decent behavior, of goodness, as an obligation of human beings toward one another simply by virtue of their common humanity.” (Jacoby, p. 159).

Anyone who’s ever attempted to sway an opinion with facts and data is already aware that that alone is rarely a selling point. But what is generally a glue that can bind facts and data to an audience is when the presenter carries him or herself respecting those who’s opinions their trying to change. As they say, honey catches more flies. Ingersoll would be a welcome voice in the continuing challenge that religious influence presents today.

And yet, somewhere along the way, America (and the world at large) forgot. Just as Thomas Paine was set aside and ignored after publication of The Age of Reason, so too eventually was Robert G. Ingersoll. But whereas Paine suffered a loss of friends and reputation during his lifetime, spending his last days a pariah and a death with barely acknowledgment, Ingersoll was honored in his day. Even after his death, he was at least respected by his opponents for years to come.

At least thirty years after Ingersoll’s death, he was still showing his influence with his family and friends establishing a memorial called the Ingersoll League. People from all over the United States wrote to the League of praises for his legacy. (Larson, p. 281).

So from whence did we forget?

It appears for the same reason suffered by Thomas Paine decades before. If it weren’t for Ingersoll, America may have also forgotten Thomas Paine. America certainly tried after The Age of Reason. It wasn’t until Ingersoll championed Paine in his lecture (presented in this volume) did he force the man, his ideas and challenges to religion back into American history where he belonged.

Starting in the 1930s but increasing in urgency after World War Two, there was a perceived threat in the west, particularly in America, of a “godless Communism”. In 1954, President Eisenhower signed a bill to add “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance. In 1956, Congress approved the use of In God We Trust as the official motto. American patriotism entangled with Christian devotion as a force to repel the Soviet Union, nothing else would suffice.

Dristin Kobes Du Mez writes, “In the 1950s…Americans of all sorts were investing in religion. Churches were springing up in new suburban neighbors across the country, and Sunday schools were bursting at the seams. Cold War politics also united Americans across party lines. To their delight, evangelicals found themselves securely within the political and cultural mainstream. The formation of the Religious Right was still two decades away, but the pieces were already falling into place. By the end of the decades, evangelicals had become active participants in national politics and had secured access to the highest levels of power.”

Ingersoll’s reputation as an infidel and agnostic were enough to limit his participation in politics back in his own day, let alone survive any lasting chance in Twentieth Century America. Any lasting influence would find a natural death in such an environment that by the end of the Cold War in the 1990s, Ingersoll was mostly forgotten outside freethought communities.

Ingersoll frequently included the following “Happiness Creed” in his speeches: “While I am opposed to all orthodox creeds, I have a creed myself; and my creed is this. Happiness is the only good. The time to be happy is now. The place to be happy is here. The way to be happy is to make others so. The creed is somewhat short, but it is long enough for this life, strong enough for this world. If there is another world, when we get there we can make another creed.” Additionally, this was recorded in 1894 by Thomas Edison and is one of seven brief speeches of Ingersoll’s voice.

In his presentation on Voltaire, Ingersoll noted, “A great man does not seek applause or place; he seeks for truth; he seeks the road to happiness, and what he ascertains he gives to others.” It is precisely why I chose to create this new volume of his work. To pass down to others so that they might not forget. Despite the humbleness of the quote above, it is my opinion Robert G. Ingersoll deserves a proper place and to continue to deserve applause for the path he paved that we continue to benefit from. So this edition of his lectures has been created, to give Ingersoll applause and a place. Even if the sound of one man clapping isn’t very loud, perhaps it’s loud enough to reach the attention of others so that Ingersoll’s name and contribution can be given it’s proper place in the history of the liberty of thought. As the very first sentence of his essay, “Thomas Paine” says, “With His Name Left Out, the History of Liberty Cannot be Written.” The same can be said about Ingersoll himself.

Eric Wojciechowski

January 25, 2023

Bibliography:

Du Mez, Dristin Kobes 2020: Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation. New York: Liveright Publishing Company.

Jacoby, Susan 2013: The Great Agnostic: Robert Ingersoll and American Freethought. New Haven & London: Yale University Press.

Larson, Orvin 1962: American Infidel: Robert G. Ingersoll. New York: The Citadel Press.

The Great Agnostic, Written, Produced, and Directed by Roderick Bradford. Execute Producer, Tom Flynn. Produced in association with the Council for Secular Humanism. Vimeo.com.

Essays of Eric Wojciechowski over the first ten years of the FreedomCocaktail blog. Available in print for the first time at Amazon!

In the beginning, there was a friendship that found itself in the hound-halls of Malow Junior High in southeast, Michigan. I can’t quite remember the first meeting or the words exchanged, but Alan J. Sanders became one of my best friends that lasts until this day. Unfortunately, our day to day contact back then during junior high only lasted a couple of years as his father obtained new employment in the State of Georgia and sometime around or after our ninth grade year, his family moved out of Michigan and down south.

Some letters were exchanged, including short stories we were super proud of (all of which I still have, in hard and digital copies). I visited down there and he came up here. Then, the Internet and cell phones were born and we’ve been in contact through the various channels those mediums have to offer ever since.

One of many things we found ourselves having in common as far back as the 1990s was our position regarding politics. We’d label ourselves primarily libertarian, classical liberal, constitutional conservatives. And so for a few years, I’d entertain the idea that we should start a blog and Alan would as well. But we never put digital pen to paper, if you will. Not until 2012 when the United States Supreme Court fully cemented the Affordable Care Act. Alan and I, being against government run healthcare (and just about anything else government run), decided that was the catalyst and with that, we were off and brainstorming on that long considered blog.

Besides politics, Alan and I have a long history and appreciation of fine scotch and whiskeys. So why not combine

those enjoyments into the blog? And I believe it was Alan who came up with the name: FreedomCocktail.

The front page of the blog reads:

“Welcome to our ‘conversation’ bar, where we are always serving up fresh content to be consumed by our readers. The goal here is to publish pieces that range from our thoughts on government and history, to how our culture is changing, to comments on current events. We tend to write from a Constitutional/Libertarian perspective, but welcome all to comment and continue the discussion regardless of political persuasion.

Beyond this blog site, we want to encourage you to follow us on Twitter and like us on Facebook. In today’s social media-driven world, we know we need to have an outlet to post and make quick comments on news that is sometimes breaking multiple times a day. As with our more thoughtful pieces here, we encourage our readers to engage with our social media outlets by commenting, sharing or retweeting.

So, take a look around, search for a given topic, subscribe to be notified when we post a new piece or just share our URL with others. However you choose to consume our offerings is entirely up to you. We believe in individual freedom and choice here at Freedom Cocktail and encourage you to adopt that same worldview.

May your glass never run dry and your thoughts always overflow.

Cheers!”

But a more descriptive version and mission statement appears in the ABOUT US section of the blog. There, you will read:

“Hey! Welcome to Freedom Cocktail.

Everyone here enjoys the occasional adult beverage. By ‘occasional’ we sometimes mean nightly. A good bourbon, scotch, vodka, whiskey blend, glass of wine or an ice cold beer are among the favorites. When Eric and Alan first decided to create a political blog site, they kicked around several ideas. They eventually landed on the idea of a virtual bar. Both of them had commented about having some of the best political conversations, often with total strangers, while enjoying a drink. Thus the metaphor of a bar lent itself to the idea of spurring discussion. Anyone and everyone is invited to sit down, drink in hand, and chat with one of our bartenders.

Every bar has a look and feel — a theme. We don’t waste time with useless bric-a-brac, though. Our servers aren’t going to be sporting pieces of flair. What you will notice is our focus is on freedom, liberty and a love of the Constitution as originally conceived by our Founding Fathers.

You are free to disagree or to add a new wrinkle to anything here. All we ask is for you to be respectful. Be passionate, but be mindful of facts and focus. We will be watching for those who like to shift the subject, ignore the facts or resort to name-calling. Those are good ways to be escorted off the premises. A spirited debate is good for the soul, but mindless screaming accomplishes nothing.

Enjoy your time here and if you had a good time, bring a friend next time. The only goal here is to engage in the conversation and introduce the topics. It’s up to everyone else to keep the communication flowing.

Cheers!”

As you can see, the idea was to have our essays more conversational, as if we were engaging in back and forth discussion and friendly debate in a bar room atmosphere. Like the television show, CHEERS, I suppose. In hindsight, it’s a bit dangerous of us to encourage political discussions where alcohol is involved but I hope you get the point.

The blog launched in 2012 with the first article by yours truly. But just prior to publishing that, we published the opening volley on June 30, 2012:

“Federalist Resurrection: We don’t need another political blog! Yep, I heard ya yell it when you clicked the button and fell upon us. But I disagree. We DO need another political blog. We need one in favor of the American Republic as envisioned by Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin and all those other old dead guys. There are numerous Socialist, Democrat and Communitarian (my personal favorite of the rename-game) out there that the more the merrier when it comes to comment to the contrary.

Let’s recall the Federalist Papers. While the Founding Fathers were debating whether or not to ratify the Constitution, those in favor wrote opinion pieces that were meant to persuade the public. Consider Freedom Cocktail to be a continuation of those Papers, an attempt to get the United States back to its roots, its freedoms and personal responsibilities.

If the message gets repeated, the chances are greater that change can be accomplished. (Damn, my first post and I used the word ‘change’).

As a note, us Contributors quibble sometimes on certain issues but note that no one anywhere ever will agree on 100% of topics. Each of us Contributors is his own entity and what one says doesn’t necessarily reflect the exact opinion of the other. However, we desperately wish to get back to the Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness the Founding Fathers envisioned and we’re working together to assist in its return.”

And with that, Alan and I set about publishing on our own time and schedule, picking our own topics without any governing or control from the other side. By that, I mean, Alan and I never bothered to ask for permission or approval of essays. We’d just write and pretty much surprise each other with the uploading of new content. Sometimes this happened a few times a week, sometimes only once a month. And then in later years, even less so (to which I’ll speak more on).

From time to time, we had guest essayists and one or two regular contributors for a time. But primarily, the essays came from Alan and I.

In the end, it’s been our blog.

This present volume and collection of essays are mine that I put up over the past ten years at FreedomCocktail. I don’t space the name of the blog as that’s the way it appears at Freedomcocktail.com. And I’m simply used to seeing it as one word.

I considered arranging them for this book based on topic but after reviewing them, I think it’s better to present them in the same order they appeared on the blog. The evolution of thought and what was important at the time shows itself better that way. And since I regularly reference prior essays, it makes more sense if you’ve read the previous work when you come across it (although it is not necessary to read any of these in order).

I do hope you enjoy these writings. In reviewing them for this collection, I find no points where I’ve changed my mind. By that I mean I still agree with the points made in each article. And while that can be sometimes seen as stuck to a position without any reflection or ability to change one’s mind, to me, it means that after all these years (even being massaged prior to FreedomCocktail), I’m even more convinced the libertarian philosophy is the best there is.

Let me unpack that a little.

There’s all sorts of political philosophies, more than even I can remember. Some of this is explored in the essay in this collection titled, Schrodinger’s Other Cat. And after exploring the many offerings, I still think the basic premises and goals of libertarianism offers the best course of action for a society.

The basic idea of libertarianism is that you should be able to live your life any way you choose as long as those choices do not injure someone else’s person or property. It really is that simple.

When it comes to the serious issues of the day like healthcare, education, immigration, employment, foreign policy, guns, etc, libertarians understand that no one person can be an expert in all these areas. And because of that, we don’t trust politicians who claim to have answers in all these areas. If you listen to libertarian candidates, when asked questions on the issues, the honest candidate will admit ignorance where ignorance is present and defer to the experts.

As an example, if I were running for office and someone asked me how best to educate the children, I’d answer that I don’t know. That’s not my expertise. And because of that, you won’t want me to issue decrees and policies on how to run a school. This is why schools should be left to the private sector where experts can build and operate them (like an auto mechanic, not a politician, operates a garage) and parents can make choices on where they’d like to send their children.

So in reviewing the essays from the first ten years at FreedomCocktail, I’m still quite pleased with them.

Besides politics, the essays attempted to offer ways to achieve more liberty and freedom in all areas of life. And so you’ll find pieces on achieving more freedom in publishing, more liberty if you were a business owner, more freedom from religious mandates, more freedom in educational or career choices and then some.

One of my favorite books is Harry Browne’s, How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World. In that book, Browne lays out ways to live life on your own terms despite demands of family, government, friendships, business, etc. I’ve found it helpful in my own life and through the essays at FreedomCocktail, I attempted to work with that same template of Browne’s by looking at topics of interest and offering advice from a libertarian viewpoint. It will be up to you, dear reader, to determine if I managed to accomplish this.

And now, a few words and things to consider:

Many of the essays had hyperlinks that no longer work. And in reviewing these essays, I noticed that most were only helpful pointers to quotes and proofs but don’t detract from the essay without them. And for that reason, I simply didn’t include most hyperlinks. It wouldn’t be functional anyhow in printed format. In some instances where I felt it still helpful, I put in a short bracketed explanation of what I was pointing to. The essays (to date) still exist at the website and if the reader is interested, they can review them there.

Another thing to note is that it will be evident as you get to the end of the book that there’s a change of tone and focus. With the assassinations at Charlie Hebdo and the rise of ISIS, and Muslims attempting to shut down free speech and other offenses against civilized society, I spent some time combating the ideology of Islamism. I found it (and still find it) to be a dangerous belief system if let run freely. But this goes for all religions.

If you stay long enough to the end of this book, you’ll see my concern changed during the Trump Administration and became primarily focused on the rise of Nationalism, primarily White Christian Dominionism and today, I believe it’s more of a danger to this country than Islam ever was or will be. This became more evident than ever on January 6, 2021 when then President Donald J. Trump refused to accept the results of the 2020 presidential election and convinced his audience of the same, causing an attempted insurrection that took the United States Capitol Building, a feat that hadn’t been accomplished since the War of 1812.

Should you pay attention to the dates of these essays, you’ll notice my contributions at FreedomCocktail became less and less. Sometimes months would go by before I had anything to say. The reason for this is quite simple: Since the Trump Administration, policy and political positions have become less important. It may just be my own observations or interactions but it appears no one really cares anymore about a proper form of government or position on an issue. What matters are personalities, owning the other side, insults, one-upmanship, and the dreaded alternative facts. You can be completely right about something and it doesn’t seem to matter. What matters lately are the loudest voices. And because of that, I don’t quite feel at home in that atmosphere (considering that’s pretty much how junior high operated). And so I contribute less and less being on the receiving end of insults and demands I be sent to a gas chamber. I mean, why bother preparing a position paper on something when it’s going to be answered by comments ranging from libtard to much worse?

We’re seeing less and less discussion on proper drug policy, immigration, self-defense, foreign policy, taxation, healthcare and numerous other subjects you’ll come in contact with here in these essays. My interest lies in what makes up good governance and what is good public policy; and yet, these issues aren’t very interesting to the general reader anymore. Again, it’s because too much time seems to be spent in the mud pits and less on intellectual pursuits.

As Thomas Nicholas wrote in the beginning of the Conclusion of his book, OUR OWN WORST ENEMY, “Liberal democracy depends on knowledge and virtue, and both of these are now in short supply among the citizens of the developed world. So many of the challenges we now think of as mortal dangers to democracy are, in reality, policy dilemmas we might solve if we were more disciplined in our willingness to learn and be more civic in our public life. Around the world, citizens resolutely reject both paths to recovery.”

And for this reason, unless things change, I’m afraid intellectual arguments and the goal of FreedomCocktail as laid out in the ABOUT US section, is just too difficult to manage. If a quality argument is met with fuck yous and murder threats, I’m afraid it’s just not worth it.

But I’m hopeful. The tides tend to wax and wane and maybe these are just trying times that will massage themselves out. I don’t know. I have every intention to continue to publish on topics at FreedomCocktail when the time and topic feels right.

And finally, you may be asking, if these essays are all free at the blog, why spend any money at all on this edition? Well, if you’re a bibliophile like myself, you like hard copies. So you may want this on paper (which was one of the reasons I put this together for myself). Secondly, the Internet is ever changing, morphing and evolving. The blog may disappear one day either through neglect or WordPress (our host) going under. It happens. I’d hate for these essays to one day just be gone.

So I hope you enjoy these as much as I enjoyed putting them up at the FreedomCocktail blog over the past ten years. And who knows, maybe in 2032, we’ll have a Volume II.

Cheers,

Eric Wojciechowski

June 30, 2022

On track for release at the ten-year anniversary of FreedomCocktail, comes all my essays from that blog. For release June 30, 2022.

June 2022 will mark ten years I’ve been blogging at my jointly-owned political blog, FreedomCocktail. In conjunction with my oldest and dearest friend, Alan J. Sanders, we set out in June 2012 to write commentaries and positions in politics. And now, a collection of my essays over those past ten years is coming in June 2022 book format.

In the beginning, there was a friendship that found itself in the hound-halls of Malow Junior High in southeast, Michigan. I can’t quite remember the first meeting or the words exchanged, but Alan J. Sanders became one of my best friends that lasts until this day. Unfortunately, our day to day contact back then during junior high only lasted a couple of years as his father obtained new employment in the State of Georgia and sometime around or after our ninth grade year, his family moved out of Michigan and down south.

Some letters were exchanged, including short stories we were super proud of (all of which I still have, in hard and digital copies). I visited down there and he came up here. Then, the Internet and cell phones were born and we’ve been in contact through the various channels those mediums have to offer ever since.

One of many things we found ourselves having in common as far back as the 1990s was our position regarding politics. We’d label ourselves primarily libertarian, classical liberal, constitutional conservatives. And so for a few years, I’d entertain the idea that we should start a blog and Alan would as well. But we never put digital pen to paper, if you will. Not until 2012 when the United States Supreme Court fully cemented the Affordable Care Act. Alan and I, being against government run healthcare (and just about anything else government run), decided that was the catalyst and with that, we were offer brainstorming on that long considered blog.

Besides politics, Alan and I have a long history and appreciation of fine scotch and whiskeys. So why not combine those enjoyments into the blog? And I believe it was Alan who came up with the name: FreedomCocktail.

The front page of the blog reads:

“Welcome to our ‘conversation’ bar, where we are always serving up fresh content to be consumed by our readers. The goal here is to publish pieces that range from our thoughts on government and history, to how our culture is changing, to comments on current events. We tend to write from a Constitutional/Libertarian perspective, but welcome all to comment and continue the discussion regardless of political persuasion.

Beyond this blog site, we want to encourage you to follow us on Twitter and like us on Facebook. In today’s social media-driven world, we know we need to have an outlet to post and make quick comments on news that is sometimes breaking multiple times a day. As with our more thoughtful pieces here, we encourage our readers to engage with our social media outlets by commenting, sharing or retweeting.

So, take a look around, search for a given topic, subscribe to be notified when we post a new piece or just share our URL with others. However you choose to consume our offerings is entirely up to you. We believe in individual freedom and choice here at Freedom Cocktail and encourage you to adopt that same worldview.

May your glass never run dry and your thoughts always overflow.

Cheers!”

But a more descriptive version and mission statement appears in the ABOUT US section of the blog. There, you will read:

“Hey! Welcome to Freedom Cocktail.

Everyone here enjoys the occasional adult beverage. By ‘occasional’ we sometimes mean nightly. A good bourbon, scotch, vodka, whiskey blend, glass of wine or an ice cold beer are among the favorites. When Eric and Alan first decided to create a political blog site, they kicked around several ideas. They eventually landed on the idea of a virtual bar. Both of them had commented about having some of the best political conversations, often with total strangers, while enjoying a drink. Thus the metaphor of a bar lent itself to the idea of spurring discussion. Anyone and everyone is invited to sit down, drink in hand, and chat with one of our bartenders.

Every bar has a look and feel — a theme. We don’t waste time with useless bric-a-brac, though. Our servers aren’t going to be sporting pieces of flair. What you will notice is our focus is on freedom, liberty and a love of the Constitution as originally conceived by our Founding Fathers.

You are free to disagree or to add a new wrinkle to anything here. All we ask is for you to be respectful. Be passionate, but be mindful of facts and focus. We will be watching for those who like to shift the subject, ignore the facts or resort to name-calling. Those are good ways to be escorted off the premises. A spirited debate is good for the soul, but mindless screaming accomplishes nothing.

Enjoy your time here and if you had a good time, bring a friend next time. The only goal here is to engage in the conversation and introduce the topics. It’s up to everyone else to keep the communication flowing.

Cheers!”

As you can see, the idea was to have our essays more conversational, as if we were engaging in back and forth discussion and friendly debate in a bar room atmosphere. Like the television show, CHEERS, I suppose. In hindsight, it’s a bit dangerous of us to encourage political discussions where alcohol is involved but I hope you get the point.

The blog launched in 2012 with the first article by yours truly. But just prior to publishing that, we published the opening volley on June 30, 2012:

“Federalist Resurrection: We don’t need another political blog! Yep, I heard ya yell it when you clicked the button and fell upon us. But I disagree. We DO need another political blog. We need one in favor of the American Republic as envisioned by Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin and all those other old dead guys. There are numerous Socialist, Democrat and Communitarian (my personal favorite of the rename-game) out there that the more the merrier when it comes to comment to the contrary.

Let’s recall the Federalist Papers. While the Founding Fathers were debating whether or not to ratify the Constitution, those in favor wrote opinion pieces that were meant to persuade the public. Consider Freedom Cocktail to be a continuation of those Papers, an attempt to get the United States back to it’s roots, its freedoms and personal responsibilities.

If the message gets repeated, the chances are greater that change can be accomplished. (Damn, my first post and I used the word ‘change’).

As a note, us Contributors quibble sometimes on certain issues but note that no one anywhere ever will agree on 100% of topics. Each of us Contributors is his own entity and what one says doesn’t necessarily reflect the exact opinion of the other. However, we desperately wish to get back to the Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness the Founding Fathers envisioned and we’re working together to assist in it’s return.”

And with that, Alan and I set about publishing on our own time and schedule, picking our own topics without any governing or control from the other side. By that, I mean, Alan and I never bothered to ask for permission or approval of essays. We’d just write and pretty much surprise each other with the uploading of new content. Sometimes this happened a few times a week, sometimes only once a month. And then in later years, even less so (to which I’ll speak more on).

From time to time, we had guest essayists and one or two regular contributors for a time. But primarily, the essays came from Alan and I.

In the end, it’s been our blog.

If you’ve liked the blog or never saw it, I hope you give the collected edition in book format a look-see next summer. Here’s hoping to at least another ten years for a Volume II after.

Cheers,

Eric

So I opened up a Substack feed where I can post my book reviews and ramblings and commentary on politics and UFOs and atheism and my studies on the Christ Myth theory and anything else that comes up. Speaking of “coming up”, I’m working on a new short story compilation. It’ll include some stories you’ve already read here but new ones as well. And now that vaccinations are underway (yours truly being vaccinated since end of March this year), I’m combing the con sites, looking forward to seeing many of you in person again. Hoping this can happen by the fall. Or at least, by 2022. My goal is to have the new book done by 2022. Hope to see everyone soon.

I’m pleased to see CHASING MAGIC is now available through Amazon, Smashwords, Barnes & Noble and other areas. I hope you all like it but even zero star ratings get people to pick up books. And as always, if you read it, I can’t thank you enough for taking some of your time to get into my work. Cheers.

Wanna see a trailer for the upcoming collection of UFO related shorts? Well click on the book cover to see one! And thanks for watching.[image error]

We’re two weeks away from the release of my latest book, CHASING MAGIC.

A race of alien machines, implants discovered to modify some humans to survive a journey into space, and group of people who know what’s coming. In 2017, the novel CHASING DISCLOSURE debuted introducing just such a universe with an answer to the UFO phenomenon. Now, expanding on those themes comes CHASING MAGIC. A follow up, collection of short stories and narrative threads continuing the story.

I will also be attending the International UFO Congress virtual conference, vending this book and others. Hope to see you there![image error]

From the ever talented Marc Ducrow. Due out September 11, 2020.