| OCR Text |
Show 312 313 , MWW'LMiiN'." This suggests one of the real irritants that go with arma- ment. liven our President pleads for a "respectable" army, by which I suppose he means one commensurate in sizc with our wealth and position. Talk of the United States havingr "risen to be a world power!" It has fallen into the base competition, yielded to the insidious pride of parade. liven now the capital "1'" that belongs to the Linited States among the powerful na- tions, measured by its armament. must be written very small. In printer‘s phrase we must put the "P" in small caps. Some enterp mtg journal has recently shown the relative military strength of the powers of Europe by drawing the typ- ical soldier to a mathematical scale. In this line the Russian soldier towers above the rest, a mighty giant. Next to him stands the German soldier. a lusty companion. Away off at one end stands the little American soldier. :1 Tomb Thumb in the line. I pity the American who is so tin-American as to blush over this diminutive Yankee soldier. The true American glories in the insignificancc of his army. rejoices in the fact that small as he is, he is a snpei‘tluity, For the nation that rests in intelligence, whose rule is of. by and for the people, is its own soldiery, and is ready for any emergency. lint more than the competitive irritant, let us sadly confess that the charm of the army and the pride of the navy practically rest in the still more humiliating psychology that is best revealed in the show windows of the milliner. Strip the army of its fuss and feathers, supplant the brass buttons with hooks and eyes, tcar off the gold lace. clothe the private soldier in blue jeans and the officers in plain cut-away business suits of neutral colors, and you instantly make a standing army in time of peace impossible, congressional committees would promptly cut down their appropriations. and if appropriations were made the number of foolish young men who would be attracted from the more stimulating walks of civil life would become lit'rpelessly small, and the num- ber of foolish young: wmnen who would shower the same with bouquets and l<i~~scs would be hopefully reduce d in the same proportion Much of the army regulation of all nations , consciously or unconsciously, rests upon the psychology of the peacock, \thn a soldier is to be degraded they cut off his buttons; if an officer is to be humiliated he is deprivcd of his sash, belt and sword. It is probable that the philosophic historian, writing from an adequate distance of the decline and death of the standing army in England and the attendant growth of English power and leadership, will date it from the time when the red coat was supplanted by the khaki, for the added danger springing from its conspicnousncss was more than compensated by its irritating; power, on lines that the philosopher draws from the strut of the turkey gobbler in the barnyard to the wild, extravagant display of Easter bonnets in Christian churches. Do not suspect me of dealingr either in extravagant rhetoric or humorous illustration; I deal with the cold, hard realities; l appeal to the scientist rather than to the poet in this argument; I hint at facts which only the philosopher. the psychologist. the economist, disciplined to rigid lines of thought, have a right to challenge or are prepared to adequately estimate. My contention is that armaments serve as irritants on belligerent. competitive and display lines. They tend to make nations more belligerent, increase their sense of rivalry and contribute to the. primal love of show, the barbaric passion for ornamentation. To increase our armament in order to enhance our security is a vain hope, for if we add four Dreadnoughts to our navy this year. line‘land will add eight and Germany sixteen: even little Japan will match its the year following. \Vhen the inspirations of fear end, then the inspiration of competition, the desire to keep up with the pro« cession, to make. a respectable showing on the fields of Mars, enters into the committee rooms and debauches the council cham< bers, even of republics. I have read in a book written by a Confederate officer and published in the South, that when General Stephen D. Lee, than whom no more fearless or loyal son of the South ever drew sword, was asked why the officers of the Confederacy so persisted in the hopeless and cruel contention after every shadow of a chance for ultimate victory was gone, he replied promptly: "Because the women of the South would not let us stop." If there are any corners in the St'tltll] still unrecimstrncted, if there lurks in any heart still a feeling of bitterness and a wild hope that somehow the mad attempt to break the ['nion will be vindicated and the tables turned, it is to be found in the fond lllllhll AMOH‘ |
