| OCR Text |
Show _ ) 2si\ 259 prepare for war." Certainly prepare for war if war is what you want. \Ve usually get what we prepare for. But if you want peace. in the name of common sense why not prepare for peace? by In 1817 we prepared for a century's peace with England uniting with L'anada in demolishing our forts upon our northern "1d "mull" hum. frontier and both agreeingr to have no battleships or forts along that 3mm miles of borderland \\'ithout any cost, that has remained the safest borderland in the world. Norway has prepared for peace by getting Russia, England. France and Ger- many to agree to let no foreign foe attack her. \Vhy not get the. powers: to guarantee the same neutrality for the Philippines when we grant them independence and thus remove one danger spot? England prepared for peace with France by initiating the minute cnrdinlc, an interchange of vi. s and gentlemanly treatment, The nations at Algeeiras prepared for peace. The return of the Chinese indemnity which did not belongr to us has done more for peace than would twenty Dreadnoughts. The armed man in the frontier mining camp creates suspicion and dread and provokes attack. The unarmed gentle- man going: about his business on \\"abash avenue or on an lllinois farm is at'er. lingland and Germany endanger and weaken them- selves with every Dreadnought they build and with blind folly bend their backs under an ever increasing load which brings no more security. lxird Roberts and the Navy League ignore the facts oi human nature, and with goat] and spur of wild alarm create danger Where none exists and invite the certain enemies of starvation and poverty within their borders in their frantic efforts to prepare to light an enemy largely of their own creation out- Klllt‘ their borders. _:. 'l‘he llllll fallacy, and a specially dangerous one. is that lllt last ad\i~i-rs as to what and how large our defenses shall be Itl't' the llik'll who are trained to only one form of defense. that is. M use of explosives. and the very men whose whole chance of lmiiui or promotion must come by usingr this defense. The la~t wan to .lll‘."t‘ whether one needs a new coat or not is the tai‘, 1 who l‘ to rind-e it. The last man a consumer wants to with tlw tariff on le \es is the man who makes gloves. The last nan who sllrv'i‘d dwide "hellur l nerd anew house is the archi- tw't l should lounge to build it. The need of defense depends solely upon the degree of dan- geri That is for the statesmen, traveler, and business man to perceive. It is a psychological problem. It is, "How can we keep Germany, Russia, Japan, France and the other nations which have been our friends for a century still our friends?" The problem as the militarist sees it is simply, "How shall we menace or kill these old friends when by some piece of folly we have turned them into enemies?" As well expect the Tsar to turn a democrat as to expect men who have focused their minds for thirty years upon physical problems like the trajectory of projectiles to understand the significance and force of the new substitutes for war. How can they be expected to undermine their own profession or not to try to enlist the vested interests to clamor for Congress to buy the munitions of war that they want to sell? Small blame to the soldier or navy man that he is not a statesman; we do not blame an engineer because he is not a doctor. IJUt let him not usurp the functions of statesman and tell us what our dangers are or when nations should go to war. Said a United States rear-admiral during the Boer \\'ar, "l tell you what England ought to do. She ought to whip France." "VVhat. when her hands are tied in South Africa?" he was asked. "Yes, yes," he retorted: I ‘she could do it and it would clear the airi" "But go to war on general principles ?" "Yes, yes; it would be a good thing." Alas that the expert in managing squadrons is often an infant in political philosophy and international ethics! Let his bravery and excellence in his own profession not blind our eyes to the folly of his wild demands for twenty Dreadnoughts on the Pacific before we have given a. thought to securingr from all nations what England in 1897, in the ()lney‘l'aimcefote treaty. was ready to sign with us, pledgingr to settle all differences bev tween us by some peaceful means. What nations would refuse were we to offer interchange of such a pledge? l.et not newspaper sentimentality about prestige or cowardly fear of riotiexistent enemies, or the glamor of brass buttons permits us as a nation to retrograde further towards the Old "'orld's travesty upon human brotherhood and its tolmp-gaii slide towards bankruptcy. It is only the fetich worshippers of steel and dynamite, the theorists who guess that though never havingr been attaelzed we probably shall be attacked. who fool us into paying six times |
