spoken, remain my last extensive works. In the interval between them,
1897-1902, I was engaged mostly in occasional writing, for magazines
or otherwise. From time to time these papers have been collected and
published, under titles which seemed appropriate. Concerning them, for
the most part, there is one general statement to be made. With few
exceptions, they have been written to order. Partly from indisposition
to this particular activity, partly from indolence, ultimately from
conviction that editors best know--or should know--what the public
want, I have left them to come to me. When expedient, I have taken a
subject somewhat apart from that suggested, but usually akin. Speaking
again generally, the field of thought into which I have been thus
drawn has been that of the external policy of nations, and of their
mutual--international--relations; not in respect to international law,
on which I have no claim to teach, but to the examination of extant
conditions, and the appreciation of their probable and proper effect
upon future events and present action. In conception, these studies
are essentially military. The conditions are to my apprehension
forces, contending, perhaps even conflicting; to be handled by those
responsible as a government disposes its fleets and armies. This is
not advocacy of war, but recognition that the providential movement of
the world proceeds through the pressure of circumstances; and that
adverse circumstances can be controlled only by organization of means,
in which armed physical power is one dominant factor.
In direct result from the line of thought into which I was drawn by my
conception of sea power, and which has inspired my subsequent magazine
writing, I am frankly an imperialist, in the sense that I believe that
no nation, certainly no great nation, should henceforth maintain the
policy of isolation which fitted our early history; above all, should
not on that outlived plea refuse to intervene in events obviously
thrust upon its conscience. The world of national activities has
become crowded, like the world of professions; opportunity,
consequently, has diminished, and possibilities must be cultivated and
husbanded. This is the primary duty of a government to its own people
and to their posterity. But there are other duties which must be
accepted, even though they entail national sacrifice, because laid at
the nation's door, like Cuba, or forced upon its decision, like the
Philippines. I see too clearly in myself the miserable disposition to
shirk work and care, and responsibility, to condone the same in
nations. I once heard a preacher thus parody effectively the words of
the prophet--"Here am I, send _him_!" And I have heard attributed to
the late Mr. John Hay an equally telling allusion to certain of our
moralists, who would discard the Philippines on the score of danger to
the national principles. Said a pious girl, "When I realized that
personal ornaments were dragging my immortal soul to hell, I gave them
to my sister." Still less, let us hope, will one of the wealthiest of
nations, almost alone in the possession of an abundant surplus income,
desert a charge on the poor plea of economy; or so far distrust its
fate, as to turn its back upon a duty, because dangerous or
troublesome. If the political independence of the Philippine Islands
bid fair to result in the loss, or lessening, of the safeguards of
personal freedom to the private Philippine islander, the mission of
the United states is at present clear, nor can it be abandoned without
national discredit; nay, national crime. Personal liberty is a greater
need than political independence, the chief value of which is to
insure the freedom of the individual. Similarly, not only for the sake
of its own citizens, but for the world at large, each country should
diligently watch and weigh current external occurrences; not
necessarily to meddle, still less to forsake its proper sphere, but
because convinced that failure to act when occasion demands may be as
injurious as mistaken action, and indicates a more dangerous
condition, in that moral inadequacy means ultimately material decline.
When the spirit leaves the body, the body decays.
In these subjects and my way of viewing them, I suppose that ten years
ago, before our war with Spain, I was ahead of the times, at least in
my own country, and to some extent helped to turn thought into present
channels; much as to my exposition of sea power has been credited a
part of the impulse to naval development which characterizes to-day.
Immediately after the Spanish War I seemed to some, if I may trust
their words, to have done a bit of prophecy; while others laid to my
door a chief share in the mistaken direction they considered the
country to be taking. Of course, I was pleased by this; I have never
pretended to be above flattery judiciously administered: but, while
confident still in the main outlook of my writing, I know too well
that, when you come to details, prediction is a matter of hit or miss,
and that I have often missed as well as hit in particulars. "It is all
a matter of guess," said Nelson, when tied down to a specific
decision, "but the world attributes wisdom to him who guesses right."
This is less true of the big questions and broad lines of contemporary
history. There insight can discern really something of tendencies;
enough to guide judgment or suggest reflection. But I am now
sixty-seven, and can recognize in myself a growing conservatism, which
may probably limit me henceforth to bare keeping up with the
procession in the future national march. Perhaps I may lag behind.
With years, speculation as well as action becomes less venturesome,
and I look increasingly to the changeless past as the quiet field for
my future labors.
THE END
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Worcester, quoting from _Falconer's Marine Dictionary_, defines
"Grommet" as "a small ring or wreath, formed of the strand of a rope,
used for various purposes."
[2] J. R. Soley, _The Blockade and the Cruisers_, 1883. Scribner's,
_Navy in the Civil War_.
[3] This statement when written rested on my childhood's memory only.
A few months later there came into my hands a volume of the
publications of the British Navy Records Society, containing the
Recollections of Commander James Anthony Gardner. 1775-1814. Gardner
was at one time shipmates with Culmer, who it appears eventually
received a commission. By Gardner's reckoning he would have been far
along in the forties in 1790. The following is the description of him.
"Billy was about five feet eight or nine, and stooped; hard features,
marked with the small-pox; blind in an eye, and a wen nearly the size
of an egg under his cheek-bone. His dress on a Sunday was a mate's
uniform coat, with brown velvet waistcoat and breeches; boots with
black tops; a gold-laced hat, and a large hanger by his side like the
sword of John-a-Gaunt. He was proud of being the oldest midshipman in
the navy, and looked upon young captains and lieutenants with
contempt."
[4] The _Navy Register_ of 1842 shows the number appointed in 1841 to
have been two hundred and nineteen.
[5] That is, within a quarter of a point on either side of her course.
A "point" of the compass is one-eighth of a right angle; e.g., from
North to East is eight points.
[6] _Naval Letters of Captain Percival Drayton._ Edited by Miss
Gertrude L. Hoyt. 1906. Pages 10, 3, 4.
[7] The anchoring chains pass from inboard through the hawse-holes to
the anchor. When left bent on soundings, the sea, if rough, will rush
through them copiously. To prevent this in part, conical stuffed
canvas bags were dragged in from outside. These were called
"jackasses."
[8] Acknowledgment is here due to Mr. Thomas G. Ford, once a professor
at the Naval Academy, cordially remembered by the midshipmen who knew
him there in the fifties. His article is in the issue of the _Naval
Institute Proceedings_ for June, 1906, which has just reached me. He
attributes his information to the late Admiral Preble, almost the only
American officer within my time who has had the instincts of an
archaeologist.
[9] Perhaps it is better to explain that there are three watches from
8 P.M. to 8 A.M.; the two watches into which the crew were divided had
on alternate nights one watch, or two watches, on deck. This sybarite
was foretasting two watches below.
[10] On referring to the file of the _Times_, I find that the forecast
concerning Vicksburg occurred in the issue of July 1st. "It is not
improbable we may hear that General Grant has been obliged to raise
the siege of Vicksburg." It is surprising to note of how secondary
importance the Vicksburg issue appears to have been thought at the
time.
[11] Rhodes's _History of the United States_, vol. v., p. 99.
[12] I have here used the expression "harakiri," because so commonly
understood among English--speaking readers. A Japanese correspondent
has informed me that it is never used among the Japanese, with the
signification we have attached to it. The proper word is "Seppuku."
[13] _Official Record of the Union and Confederate Navies_, Series I.,
iii., p. 722.
[14] Since this was written, I have been told by one of the officers
of the _Iroquois_, Lieutenant--now Rear-Admiral--Nicoll Ludlow, that
many years afterwards he saw the story of the _Cayalti's_ captain,
told by himself, in the _Overland Monthly_, of San Francisco. He had
been allowed to go ashore to get provisions, and of course did not
return.
[15] This is not the place for a discussion of commerce-destroying as
a method of war; but having myself given, as I believe, historical
demonstration that as a sole or principal resource, maintained by
scattered cruisers only, it is insufficient, I wish to warn public
opinion against the reaction, the return swing of the pendulum, seen
by me with dismay, which would make it of no use at all, and under the
plea of immunity to "private property," so called, would exempt from
attack the maritime commerce of belligerents.
[16] "Is not patron, my lord, one who looks with unconcern on a man
struggling for life in the water, and, when he has reached ground,
encumbers him with help?"--Johnson to the Earl of Chesterfield.