point of placing humanity above the nation. It is true, "Charity begins
at home," certainly justice should. One should educate one's own
children, before worrying over the children of the neighborhood; clean
up one's own town, before troubling about the city further away. Often
the whole is helped best by serving the part; but it is with national
patriotism as it is with family affection. The latter is a lovely
quality and the source of much that is best in the world; but when
family affection is an instrument for gaining special privilege at the
expense of the good of society, a means of attaining debauching luxury
and selfish aggrandisement, it is an abomination. The man who prays
God's blessing on himself, his wife and his children, and nobody else,
is a mean man, and he never gets blessed--not from God. Similarly, the
man who seeks the interest of his own nation, against the welfare of
mankind, who prays God's blessing only on his own people, is equally a
mean man, and his prayer, also, is never answered from the Most High.
The world has advanced too far for the spirit of a narrow nationalism.
The recrudescence of such a spirit is one of the sad consequences of
this world War. Only in a spirit of international brotherhood, in
dedication to the welfare of humanity, can democracy go towards its
goal.
These are the obligations following upon the challenge of democracy we
have proclaimed to the nations.
VIII
THE GOSPEL AND THE SUPERSTITION OF NON-RESISTANCE
The first condition of fulfilling the responsibilities imposed upon us
by the challenge of our democracy is, now and hereafter, readiness and
willingness for self-respecting self-defense, defense of our liberties
and of the principles and ideals for which we stand. There is much
nonsense talked about non-resistance to evil. It is a lovely thing in
certain high places of the moral life. It was well that Socrates
remained in the common criminal prison in Athens and drank the hemlock
poison; but nine times out of ten it would have been better to run away,
as he had an opportunity to do. It was good that Jesus healed the ear of
the servant of the high priest,--and good that St. Peter cut it off.
In other words, acts of non-resistance and self-sacrifice are fine
flowers of the moral life; but you cannot have flowers unless their
roots are below ground, otherwise they quickly wither. Thus, to have
sound value, these acts of non-resistance and self-sacrifice must rest
on a solid foundation of self-affirmation and resistance to evil.
As with the individual, so with the nation: there come high moments in a
nation's life, when a strong people might resist and deliberately
chooses not to. As an illustration, take our Mexican problem. The
announcement that under no circumstances would we intervene, may have
led to misunderstanding. Our purpose to let the Mexican people work out
their own problem may have been taken to mean that we would not justly
protect ourselves, with consequent encouragement to border raiding.
Nevertheless, if there has been any error in handling the situation, it
has been on the better side--on the side of patience, generosity,
long-suffering, giving the other fellow another chance, and another and
another, even though he does not deserve them. Now that is not the side
on which human nature usually errs. The common temptation is to
selfishness and unjust aggression. Since that is the case, if we cannot
strike the just balance, it is better to push too far on the other side
and avoid the common mistake.
Suppose, after the War, Japan, alone or in conjunction with one or
another European power, closes the door to China: one can imagine
circumstances where we, with the right to insist that the door be kept
open, and perhaps, by that time, something of the strength to enforce
that right, might deliberately say, "No, we will not resist." Not that,
with our present situation, such action is desirable, but that one can
imagine conditions arising where it might be the higher choice.
Let me repeat that, for the nation as with the individual, these high
moments must rest on something else. They are the high mountain peaks
of the moral life; but detached mountain peaks are impossible,--except
as a mirage. They must rest upon the granite foundation of the hills
and plateaus below. So these high virtues of non-resistance, magnanimity
and self-sacrifice must always rest upon the granite foundation of the
masculine virtues of self-affirmation, endurance, heroism, strong
conflict with evil. It takes strength to make magnanimity and
self-sacrifice possible, if their lesson is not lost. A weak man
cannot be magnanimous, since his generosity is mistaken for servile
cowardice. After all, the best time to forgive your enemy, for his good
and yours, is not when he has his foot on your neck: he is apt to
misunderstand and think you are afraid. It is often better to wait
until you can get on your feet and face him, man to man, and then if you
can forgive him, it is so much the better for you, for him and for all
concerned.
Thus there are two opposite lines of error in the moral life. The
philosophy of the one is given by Nietzsche, while Tolstoy, in certain
extremes of his teaching, represents the other. Nietzsche, I suppose,
should be regarded as a symptom, rather than a cause of anything
important; but the ancestors of Nietzsche were Goethe and Ibsen, with
their splendid gospel of self-realization. Nietzsche, on the contrary,
with his contempt for the morality of Christianity as the morality of
slaves and weaklings, with his eulogy of the blond brute striding over
forgotten multitudes of his weaker fellows to a stultifying isolation
apart--Nietzsche is self-realization in the mad-house. It has always
seemed to me not without significance that his own life ended there.
On the other hand, when Tolstoy responded to an inquirer that, if he saw
a child being attacked by a brutal ruffian, he would not use force to
intervene and protect the child: that, too, is non-resistance fit for
the insane asylum. One of these is just as far from sane, balanced human
morality as the other.
It is a terrible thing to suffer injustice; it is far worse to
perpetrate it. If one had to choose between being victim or tyrant, one
would always choose to be victim: it is safer for the moral life and
there is more recovery afterward. If, however, it is better to suffer
injustice than to perpetrate it, better than either is to resist it,
fight it and, if possible, overthrow it.
It has been said so many times by extreme pacifists that even sane human
beings sometimes take it for granted, that "force never accomplished
anything permanent in human history." It is false, and the reasoning by
which it is supported involves the most sophistical of fallacies. All
depends on who uses the force and the purpose for which it is used. The
force employed by tyranny and injustice accomplishes nothing permanent
in history. Why? Because tyranny and injustice are in their very nature
transient, they are opposed to the moral order of the universe and, in
the end, must pass. On the other hand, the force employed on the part of
liberty and justice has attained most of the ends of civilization we
cherish to-day. The force of the million of mercenaries, collected
through Asia and Africa by Darius and Xerxes, to overwhelm a few Greek
cities, accomplished nothing permanent in history; but the force of the
ten thousand Athenians who fought at Marathon and of the other thousands
at Salamis, saved democracy for Europe and made possible the
civilization of the Occident. The force employed by King Louis of
France to support a tottering throne and continue the exploitation of
the people by an idle and selfish aristocratic caste, accomplished
nothing permanent in history; but the force of those Frenchmen who
marched upon Paris, singing the Marseillaise, made possible the freedom
and culture of the last hundred years. The force employed by King
George of England, to wring taxes without representation from reluctant
colonies, accomplished nothing permanent in history, but the force
which, at Bunker Hill and Concord Bridge, "fired the shot heard round
the world," achieved the liberty and democracy of the American
continent.
It may be freely admitted that all use of force is a confession of
failure to find a better way. If you use force in the education of a
child, it is such a confession of failure. So is it if force is used in
controlling defectives and criminals, or in adjusting the relations of
the nations; but note that the failure may be one for which the
individual parent, teacher, society, state or nation is in no degree
responsible. Force is a tragic weapon--and the ultimate one.
IX
PREPAREDNESS FOR SELF-DEFENSE
Since force is still the weapon of international justice, readiness and
willingness to use it for defense, when necessary, is then the first
condition of fulfilling the aims and serving the causes for which
America stands. In other words, since the relations of the nations are
still so largely those of individuals under the conditions of frontier
life, as with the honest man on the frontier, so for the
self-respecting, peace-loving nation to-day, it is well to carry a gun
and know how to shoot.
Carrying a gun is a dangerous practice, for two reasons: it may go off
in your pocket; you may get drunk and shoot when you ought not. Those
are the only two rational arguments against national preparation for
defense, in the present state of the world. Let us see. The gun may go
off in your pocket: that is, if a strong armament for defense is built
up, there is always danger that it may be used internally, against the
people, unjustly. That, indeed, has been one of the curses of Europe
for a thousand years. It is a grave danger, but recognizing it is partly
forestalling it; moreover, we would better face that danger than one far
worse. So with the other menace: you may get drunk and shoot when you
ought not. Nations get drunk: they get drunk with pride, arrogance,
aggressive ambition, revenge, even with panic terror, and so shoot when
they should not. This, also, is a grave danger; but here, as well,
recognizing it is part way forestalling it, and this danger, too, we
would better face than one far more terrible. Moreover, it is armament
for the gratification of aggressive ambition, and under the control of
the arbitrary authority of a despotic individual or group, that tends to
initiate war, not armament solely to defend the liberties of a people.
Thus, under the conditions cited, it is well to be armed and prepared.
If a wolf is at large, if a mad dog is loose, if a madman is abroad with
an ax, it is the part of wisdom to have an adequate weapon and be
prepared to use it. If the Athenians had not resisted the hordes of
Asia, what would have been the history of Europe? If the French had not
resisted tyranny and injustice in the Revolution, what would have been
the civilization of the last hundred years? If the English colonists
had not resisted taxation without representation, what would be the
present status of America? If the artisan groups had not united and
fought economic exploitation, what would be their life to-day? If
Belgium had not resisted Germany, what would be the future of democracy
in Europe? Thus, now and after the War, the need is for all necessary
armament for self-respecting self-defense and not an atom to gratify
aggressive ambition. This does not mean that, once involved in war, the
military tactics of democracy should be merely defensive. As has often
and wisely been said, in war the best defense is a swift and hard
attack.
It is widely argued, however, since our aim is peace and a world-court
of justice to settle the disputes among the nations, making general
disarmament possible, should not one great nation, fortunately free from
the quarrels of Europe, occupying the major portion of a continent, its
shores washed by two great oceans, with peaceful friendship on the north
and weak anarchy on the south--should not such a nation take the lead,
disarm and set an example to mankind? It is a beautiful dream! Would
that those who really believe in non-resistance to evil would be
logical, and apply it to internal as well as external policy. What is a
police force? It is a body of men, trained, employed and paid to use
force in resisting evil. If you wish to try out non-resistance, why not
let some city apply it? Let Chicago do it: abolish its police force and
set the example to the rest of the benighted cities of the country.
What would happen? As long as there are criminals in all cities of the
land, how they would flock to that fat pasturage. What devastation of
property, destruction of life, injury to innocent women and children!
Until the best men of Chicago would get together, form a vigilance
committee, shoot some of the criminals, hang others, drive the rest out;
and Chicago would get back to law and order, with courts of justice and
a regular police body, composed of men trained, employed and paid to use
force in resisting evil.
The example of Canada and the United States is cited, and a noble
example it is: three thousand and more miles of international boundary,
with never a shining gun or bristling fortress on the entire frontier.
A glorious example, prophetic of what is coming all over the world,
perhaps more quickly than we dare hope to-day; but what made it
possible? Agreement in advance, and that at a time when one of the
parties was too weak to be feared. Canada is getting strong: she has at
present four hundred thousand trained men at the front or ready to go.
Before the War closes she will have over a half million. Now suppose
Canada fortified: we would be compelled to, there would be no other way.
Thus one nation cannot disarm while the others are strongly armed, and
among them are those whose autocratic rulers and imperialistic castes
are watching for signs of weakness in order to perpetrate international
claim-jumping.
It is true that, on the frontier, in the early days, there were
individuals who went about unarmed among the gun men, did it
successfully, and some of them died peacefully in their beds: Christian
ministers--sky-pilots, they were called. Please note, however, that the
sky-pilot never had any money. He had no claims to be jumped.
We are not sky-pilots--far from it. As to money: the wealth of the
world has been flowing into our coffers in a golden stream, to the
embarrassment of our financial institutions, to the exaltation of the
cost of living to such a point that, with more money than we ever
dreamed of having, we find it more difficult to buy enough to eat and
wear. As for claims to be jumped: they are on every hand: Panama Canal,
Hawaiian Islands, Philippine Islands, ports of New York and San
Francisco, vast reaches of unprotected coast. No, we are not
sky-pilots, we cannot claim exemption on that ground.
Suppose, after the War, we attempted to disarm, without the protection
of a world court and international police, while the other nations
retained war armament. They, the victors and perhaps the defeated,
would possess a great army and navy, manned with seasoned veterans, and
be burdened with an intolerable debt; for the War has gone too far for
any one to be able to pay adequate indemnity. We, rich, young,
heedless, sure that no one on earth could ever whip us, chiefly because
no one worth while has ever seriously tried: suppose we were completely
disarmed. It would require only a little meddling with Mexico or
Brazil, and we should have to give up the Monroe Doctrine or fight.
Well, perhaps we shall give it up: it has even been suggested in the
halls of Congress that we should--to the shame of the suggester, be it
said. People do not understand the Monroe Doctrine: they talk of it as
if it were a law. It is in no sense a law, but is merely a rather
arrogant expression of our desires. We said to the other nations: "We
desire that none of you henceforth shall fence in any part of our front
or back yard, or the front or back yard of any of our neighbors,
dwelling on the North and South American continents." That is the
Monroe Doctrine, and that is all that it is: an expression of our
wishes. All very well if others choose to respect them, but suppose
some one does not? Perhaps, as stated, we may abandon the Monroe
Doctrine: that is the easiest way, and the easiest way, for a nation or
an individual, is usually the way of damnation. Even so, suppose the
nation in question to say, "My national aspirations demand the Panama
Canal, the Philippine Islands, or Long Island and the Port of New York."
Why not? The Atlantic Ocean is only a mill-pond. It is not half so wide
as Lake Erie was fifty years ago, in relation to modern means of
transportation and communication. People say, "Do we want to give up
our traditional isolation?" They are too late in asking the question:
that isolation is irrecoverably gone. That should be now evident even
to people dwelling in fatuously fancied security between the Alleghenies
and the Rockies. We are inevitably drawn into relation with the rest of
mankind. The question is no longer, "Shall we take a part in world
problems?", but "What part shall we take?"
The point is, that if, under the circumstances cited, any one wished to
do so, we could quickly be driven to such a condition of abject
humiliation that we should be compelled to fight. Now suppose,
disarmed, we should enter the conflict utterly unprepared? The result
would be, hundreds of thousands of young men, going out bravely in
obedience to an ideal--untrained and half equipped--to be butchered, a
humiliating peace, and an indemnity of many billions to be groaned under
for fifty years.
On the other hand, if we were adequately armed for defense, there would
be much less temptation to any one to trouble us; and if we were
compelled to fight, would it not be better to fight reasonably prepared?
There is a story, going the rounds of the press, about the bandit, Jesse
James: telling how, on one occasion, he went to a lonely farm house to
commandeer a meal. Entering, he found one woman, a widow, alone and
weeping bitterly. He asked her what was the matter, and she replied
that, in one hour, the landlord was coming, and if she did not have her
mortgage money, she would lose her little farm and home and be out in
the world, shelterless. The heart of the bandit was touched. He gave
her the money to pay off the mortgage, hid in the brush and held up the
landlord on the way back.
Need the moral be pointed? We have been getting the mortgage money.
During the first years of the War it rolled in, an ever-increasing
golden stream, until we held a mortgage on numerous European nations.
We have the mortgage money, but _beware of the way back!_
Thus the agitation, in one nation, for disarmament, unpreparedness and a
patched up peace, while the other nations are armed and embittered, not
only renders the situation of the one people critically perilous, but
actually cripples its power to serve the cause of world peace and
humanity. If only the peace-at-any-price people had to pay the price,
one would be willing to wait and see what happened; but they never pay
it, they take to cover. It is those hundreds of thousands of splendid
young men, going out blithely in obedience to duty, to be butchered, it
is the millions of women and children, who cannot escape from a
devastated area, who pay that price.
Every people in the past that turned to money and mercenaries for
defense has gone down. No people ever survived that was unable and
unwilling to fight for its liberties and spend, if necessary, the last
drop of its blood for the principles it believed.
X
RECONSTRUCTION FROM THE WAR
We have seen how impossible it is to forecast the new world that will
follow the War, we know merely that it will be utterly new.
Nevertheless, the great tendencies already at work we can partly discern
and recognize something of what they promise. It is well to try to see
them, that we may be not too unready to welcome the opportunity and
accept the burden of the world that is being born in pain.
Peace and prosperity produce a peculiar type of conservatism. People
are then relatively free in action and expression, things are going well
with them, and they are instinctively inclined to let well enough alone.
Thus in thought they tend to a conservative inertia.
On the other hand, in periods of great strain and suffering, as in war
time, thought is stimulated, all ordinary views are broken down and the
most radical notions are widely disseminated and even taken for granted
by those who, shortly before, would have been scandalized by them.
Action and certain phases of free speech are, in such a period, much
more widely restrained by authority. There is a swift and strong
development of social control, urged by necessity.
Thus, in war time, there is the curious paradox of ever widening
radicalism in thought, with constantly decreasing freedom in action and
expression. When the discrepancy becomes too great, you have the
explosion--Revolution. This cause hastened and made more extreme the
Russian Revolution, which had been simmering for a century. It has not
yet appeared in Germany because of the forty years of successful work in
drilling the mind of the German people to march in goose-step; yet the
increasing signs of questioning the infallibility of the existing regime
and system in Germany give evidence that there, too, the conflict is at
work.
With ourselves, the opposition appears, as yet, only in minor degree.
Nevertheless, it is here. On the one hand, are the registration,
conscription and espionage measures, the effort to control news, the
governmental supervision of food supplies, transportation, production
and corporation earnings, the war taxes. On the other hand, thought is
so stimulated that everything is questioned: our political system, our
social institutions--marriage, the family, education. As some one says,
"Nothing is radical now." We probably shall escape a sudden revolution,
but the conflict must produce profound readjustment in every aspect of
our life; for thought and action must come measurably together, since
they are related as soul and body.
There are singular eddies in the main current both ways. For instance,
the exigencies and sufferings of war produce a reaction toward narrower,
orthodox forms of religion and a harsher spirit of nationalism; while in
fields of action apart from the struggle, freedom and even license may
increase, as in sex-relations. Nevertheless these cross-currents, while
they may obscure, do not alter the main tendencies, which move swiftly
and increasingly toward the essential conflict.
Even before our actual entrance into the War, its profound influence
upon both our thinking and our conduct and institutions was evident.
Now that we are in the conflict that influence is multiplied. We are
aroused to new seriousness of thought. The frivolity and selfish
pleasure-seeking that have marked our life for recent decades are
decreasing. We may reasonably hope that the literature of superficial
cleverness and smart cynicism, which has been in vogue for the last
period, will have had its day, that the perpetrators of such literature
will be, measurably speaking, without audience at the conclusion of the
War.
The philosophy of complacency, at least, will be at an end, and the
world will face with new earnestness the problem of life. This
generation will be tired, perhaps exhausted, by the titanic struggle;
but youth comes on, fresh and eager, with exhaustless vital energy, and
the generations to come will take the heritage and work out the new
philosophy. As Nature quickly and quietly covers the worst scars we
make in her breast, so Man has a power of recovery, beyond all that we
could dream. It is to that we must look, across the time of demoniac
destruction.