THE NATIONAL DEFENCE
_The purpose of this chapter is to show why an army and navy are
needed by the United States; how they are organized; and what they
cost._
[Sidenote: What we spend each year for military purposes.]
=The Stupendous Cost of Armaments.=—Although the people of the United
States dislike war and desire peace the national government is now
spending about $750,000,000 every year to maintain the country’s
military and naval forces. Seven dollars per head of population is our
annual contribution for national defence. The people of the United
States are spending far more on national defence, on payments for past
wars, and on preparations for wars of the future, than they are
expending upon all branches of civil government. The cost of a single
battleship is greater than that of all the school buildings in a state
like Ohio or California. And this does not reckon the loss caused by the
withdrawal of more than two hundred thousand able-bodied young men from
the farms and factories. Why is it necessary to support armies and
navies? The leading nations of the world, at the Washington conference
of 1921-1922, reached an agreement for the reduction of naval armaments.
Would it not be practicable for the world to abolish armies and navies
altogether? We have all heard the arguments of the pacifists to the
effect that great armaments are not necessary, that they are in fact an
encouragement to war, and that they merely impose upon the people a
grievous burden in taxes without any substantial advantage in
return.[269]
Let us first look at this problem from a different angle, close at home.
We spend large sums of money in all American cities for the maintenance
of police, police courts, and prisons. Why do we do it? If people would
only obey the laws, respect the rights of others, and refrain from
interfering with their neighbors, there would be no need for these armed
guardians of the law. The trouble is, however, that without police and
prisons we would have disorder, injustice, and oppression. A community
certainly would not promote the cause of law and order by leaving itself
helpless against those who set out to do wrong. Now the army and the
navy are our police writ large. They are, against wrong-doing from
without, what the police are against wrong-doing from within—a measure
of protection and security.
[Sidenote: A nation cannot leave itself defenceless.]
=Defence is an Essential Function of Government.=—Many years ago one of
the Fathers of the American Republic, James Madison, stated this point
in a single sentence. “Security against foreign danger”, he wrote, “is
one of the primitive objects of civil society. It is an avowed object of
the American union.” We set great value in this democracy on the right
to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”, but no people can be
secure in their rights to any of these things so long as they permit
themselves to remain defenceless against the assaults of their enemies.
When one citizen injures another there are courts to render justice. But
when one nation treats another unjustly the injured country has no such
redress; it must depend upon its own strength to assert its rights. The
impulse to self-defence is deeply implanted in human nature. A man’s
first care is to defend himself and those dearest to him. So a nation’s
first care should be for the safety of those within its borders. A
country that is not ready and able to protect its own citizens can
scarcely be said to deserve their patriotism. Fear God and take your own
part! is a good motto.[270] A man who cannot take his own part, when
occasion demands, is a weakness in any community, for his impotence is
an encouragement to wrongdoers. The same applies to nations. A country
that cannot defend itself against external injustice puts a premium on
aggression.[271] The day may come when, as it is written in the
Scriptures, “nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither
shall they learn war any more”; but until that long-looked-for time
arrives it is the duty of every land to make sure that its territories
shall not be invaded with impunity. Wanton or unjust war is an abhorrent
evil, and even a just war of self-defence brings immeasurable suffering.
The permanent avoidance of war is assuredly a goal which human effort
should strive by some means or other to attain.
[Sidenote: Do armaments engender militarism?]
=National Defence and Militarism.=—It is often said that armaments lead
to militarism and the encouragement of a warlike spirit among the
people, and that the nation which keeps a sharp sword is always under a
temptation to unsheathe it. The history of European nations proves that
there is a measure of truth in this assertion. Huge armies are not
merely an economic burden, a source of enormous expense; but they create
suspicion and distrust among a nation’s neighbors. During the fifty
years preceding 1914 the various countries of Europe kept each other’s
tempers constantly on edge by reason of their being armed to the teeth.
The standing armies of Germany, Austria, Russia, France, and Italy prior
to the outbreak of the World War totalled nearly two million men. These
men had to be fed, clothed, and supported by the labor of those who were
not in the military service. How much better it would have been if most
of them had spent their time behind the plough!
[Sidenote: What another world-war would mean.]
=The Causes of War.=—Intelligent people everywhere are agreed that war
is the greatest curse of humanity and that some means of prevention must
be found. If the world, within the next generation, should have the
misfortune to engage in another titanic conflict like the last, it will
not much matter who wins. Victor and vanquished will alike go down in a
welter of blood and chaos. There is no difference of opinion among
thoughtful men of all nations on this point. So far as the desirability
of permanently avoiding war is concerned, there is entire agreement
between pacifists and other people. But how is war to be permanently
avoided? One way, and probably the only effective way, is to remove the
causes of war.
[Sidenote: The chief motives in war.]
In past years a great many different things have drawn nations into war.
Greed for territory has been a prolific cause of armed conflict during
many centuries. Governments, like individuals, often violate the tenth
commandment and covet the possessions of their neighbors. Rivalry in
trade sometimes leads to ill-feeling, suspicion, and in the end to
hostilities. The press, or certain sections of it, is sometimes given to
fomenting this bad feeling and so are politicians occasionally. The
misgovernment of a helpless people has at times led to outside
intervention on their behalf, as when the United States in 1898
interposed to terminate Spanish oppression in Cuba. Alliances among
nations, particularly secret alliances, have aroused jealousy to a point
where some relatively minor mishap sufficed to send armies forth to
battle. In the case of the World War the murder of an Austrian archduke
at Serajevo was the match which set Europe aflame; but it was not the
underlying cause of the conflict. The real causes are to be found in the
rivalry, the jealousies, and the militarism which turned Europe into a
huge armed camp during the years preceding 1914.
[Sidenote: Can these motives be removed?]
There is no reason why nations should be natural enemies. Like men they
can live together in amity if, like men, they learn to secure respect
for their own rights by respecting the rights of others. Up to a certain
point rivalry between different countries makes for progress, but when
rivalry engenders bitterness it becomes a menace to peace. A large part
of the mutual suspicion which exists among governments would be
obliterated if secret diplomacy were abolished and the burden of great
armaments removed.
=The Regular Army of the United States.=—Until these causes of war are
permanently removed by some agreement among the nations of the world no
country can venture to give up reasonable measures for its own defence.
For military protection the United States relies first of all upon the
regular army. In proportion to the total population of the country this
army has never been large in time of peace. The policy of the United
States has always been to maintain a standing army of very moderate size
and to depend, in emergencies, upon the assistance of units raised from
among the able-bodied men of the civilian population.[272] [Sidenote:
How the regular army is organized.] The size of the regular army is
fixed from time to time by Congress; it is always recruited by voluntary
enlistment and has never contained any regiments raised by conscription.
Enlistments are for a term of years, at the end of which time an
honorable discharge is given if the soldier has served faithfully. The
regular army is completely and at all times under the control of the War
Department; its officers are appointed by the President as
commander-in-chief; its discipline is regulated by federal law and its
entire cost of maintenance is borne by the national government.
=The National Guard.=—But the military forces of the United States do
not consist of the regular army alone. Each state maintains a militia in
which every able-bodied citizen between the ages of eighteen and
forty-five is under obligation to serve when called upon. The effective
portion of this militia, however, consists of organized units known as
the national guard. In time of peace the national guard is under the
control of the states, the governor in each state being its
commander-in-chief; but Congress has authority to provide for the arming
and disciplining of this force so that it may be serviceable in time of
war. The present regulations relating to the size, organization, arming,
and disciplining of the national guard were framed by Congress in 1916.
Its officers, in time of peace, are appointed in each state by the
governor; but the national government furnishes the arms and equipment
besides giving an annual money grant to each state. The national guard,
like the regular army, is recruited by voluntary enlistment. In time of
war or other emergency it may be called into the service of the federal
government and then becomes, for all practical purposes, an integral
part of the United States army.[273]
=The Volunteers.=—During practically all the wars in which the United
States was engaged prior to 1917 a call was made for volunteers. In the
Civil War more than a million soldiers were brought to the colors in
response to the six successive calls which President Lincoln issued. But
recruits did not always come readily and it was necessary on occasions
to offer bounties or money grants to all who would volunteer. During the
war with Spain in 1898 volunteers were again called for, and many
regiments were raised in this way, notably the First Volunteer Cavalry,
better known as the Rough Riders.[274] The serious defect of an army
raised in this way is that no one can foretell the number of men who
will respond. The volunteer system, moreover, rests upon the idea that
military service is an optional, not a universal duty, on the part of
citizens.
[Sidenote: The draft in 1917-1918.]
=The National Army.=—When the United States entered the World War in
1917 it was realized that a sufficient military force could not be
obtained by using the regular army, by ordering out the national guard,
or by calling for volunteers. So, on May 18, 1917, Congress passed the
Selective Service Act which authorized the President to summon all male
citizens between the ages of twenty-one and thirty-one to be registered.
It further provided that the President should call into service (subject
to certain exemptions made in the act and in accordance with regulations
which he might frame) a sufficient number of men to form a national
army. [Sidenote: How the draft was applied.] The first registration took
place in June, 1917, and immediately thereafter the local draft boards,
under the supervision of the Provost-Marshal-General, selected the
persons who were called into service. In due course it was found
advisable to classify all the registrants and to summon, first of all,
unmarried men without dependents who were not engaged in any essential
occupation. In the summer of 1918 an extension of the age limit was
authorized by Congress, to include all men between the ages of eighteen
and forty-five; but it did not prove necessary to call into service any
considerable number of men from among these later registrants. The
classification of the men, the physical examinations, and the order in
which men were called to the colors were all provided for in the body of
rules known as the Selective Service Regulations.
The men drafted under these regulations were sent to military camps or
cantonments located in different parts of the country. There they were
organized into military units, equipped, and trained. As soon as each
division had completed its preliminary training it was sent to Europe.
Forty divisions of the national army, mobilized in this way, were in
Europe before the armistice was signed. These, with the non-combatant
troops, made up a total of about two million men. [Sidenote: The
American army in the war.] In the spring of 1918, when the last great
German drive against the French and British armies took place, there
were only half a million American troops in Europe. The need for more
was urgent and America was asked to hurry. By almost superhuman effort
great bodies of troops were rushed from the camps to the Atlantic ports
and sent across the water during the summer at the rate of more than two
hundred thousand men a month. When the final united assault of the
Allied armies carried them through the German lines in the autumn the
strength of the American forces contributed decisively to the ultimate
victory. The speed with which America drew a great army from the ranks
of her citizenship, trained it, sent it overseas, used it to turn the
scale, and brought it home again—these things made a profound impression
upon the whole world.
[Sidenote: The President as commander-in-chief.]
=The Control of the Army in War.=—According to the constitution of the
United States the power to declare war rests with Congress. The usual
method of declaring war is the passage of a resolution by both houses of
Congress, signed by the President. War may begin, however, without a
formal declaration on either side. It may begin by an act of war, an
attack by one nation upon another, or by one section of a country upon
another. The Civil War began with the firing upon Fort Sumter; there was
no declaration of war by either side. Once war is declared the movements
of the army depend upon the discretion of the President. He appoints the
officers who command it and has the final decision as regards the course
of military operations. Congress votes the money for carrying on a war,
but the President directs the spending of it. Congress determines the
size and character of the army, but as commander-in-chief the President
controls all its operations in the field.[275] This division of
functions might possibly lead to friction and even to disaster if
Congress and the President did not work in harmony, but on the whole the
two branches of the government have always shown a spirit of
co-operation in war-time.
[Sidenote: The army as an aid to the civil power.]
=The Use of Armed Forces in Time of Peace.=—In time of peace the regular
army and the national guard may be used under certain conditions to put
down riot or disorder. The President has the right to use United States
troops within the limits of any state in order to enforce the national
laws, to facilitate the carrying of the mails, or to maintain any other
function of the national government. This he may do without the
invitation or permission of the state government, or even against the
wishes of the state authorities. In 1894 when a railway strike in
Chicago interfered with the free passage of mails, President Cleveland
sent a detachment of regular troops to the state of Illinois and cleared
the way. The Supreme Court held that he was within his rights. If a
state is invaded, the President may also act on his own volition; but
when internal disorders occur, it is the primary function of the state
authorities to suppress them. The governor is vested with authority to
call out the national guard for this purpose. Federal troops cannot be
sent in such cases except upon the request of the state authorities,
unless, of course, the disorders reach a point where they obstruct the
national government in the performance of its functions. In any event,
troops are not called out for active service in time of peace save under
conditions of serious emergency. Soldiers are not well qualified to
handle ordinary disturbances; they have not been trained for that
purpose and their presence is likely to make mild disturbances more
serious. Bodies of state constabulary, like those maintained in New
York, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts, are better adapted to use in such
situations.
[Sidenote: The articles of war.]
=Military Law.=—The citizen, under normal conditions, is subject only to
the law of the land. But the soldier (and this term includes officers)
is subject not only to the ordinary laws but to a special code of
military law the provisions of which are embodied in the Articles of War
and are administered by courts-martial. The Articles of War are enacted
by Congress, and anyone entering the army, whether as a commissioned
officer or an enlisted man, becomes subject to their provisions both in
time of war and in time of peace. These articles deal with such matters
as desertion, disobedience of orders, neglect of duty, absence without
leave, the wrongful use of military equipment, and kindred military
offences.
[Sidenote: Courts-martial.]
Military law is not enforced by the ordinary courts but by special
courts known as courts-martial, which are composed of army
officers.[276] Punishment may be inflicted in the form of dishonorable
discharge from the army, or imprisonment—even the death penalty may be
imposed in extreme cases during war. The accused person has the right to
have his own counsel and the customary rules of evidence are followed,
as in the civil courts.
[Sidenote: What martial law implies.]
=Martial Law.=—Military law and martial law are often confused with each
other, but they are in fact wholly different. Martial law is the entire
legal administration which is applied to any area of conflict or
insurrection by order of Congress, or by the President in case such
action is urgently needed before action by Congress can be taken. It is
not proclaimed except in case of invasion, insurrection, or civil or
foreign war, and then only in districts where the ordinary laws and
courts prove themselves unable to secure the public safety.
[Sidenote: Its effects.]
When martial law is proclaimed in any district the ordinary laws cease
to function there. The orders of the commanding military officer take
the place of the laws. Special military tribunals are usually appointed
to enforce these orders; but if practicable, the ordinary courts may be
retained. Martial law applies to everybody within the district, soldiers
and civilians alike. The commanding officer issues his orders and,
whatever they are, they must be implicitly obeyed. He may order, for
example, that there shall be no public gatherings, no traffic in the
streets after nightfall, and no keeping of weapons in private houses. He
may require every inhabitant to carry a pass signed by the military
authorities. There is no definite code of martial law; the will of the
commanding officer is supreme so long as the citizen is not deprived of
his rights as guaranteed by the constitution of the United States. This
constitution, however, is the supreme law of the land and not even the
army can disregard it. Martial law is never proclaimed except in urgent
circumstances when it appears to be the only way of securing public
order and protecting property. During the Civil War it was administered
in some sections of the South which were occupied by the Northern
armies.[277]
=The Navy.=—The navy is commonly called the “first line” of the national
defence inasmuch as the most vulnerable boundaries of the United States
extend along two great seacoasts.[278] Like the army its organization is
under the jurisdiction of Congress, which appropriates the money for its
maintenance; but the President is also the commander-in-chief of the
navy and is responsible for directing its operations. In this he is
assisted by the Secretary of the Navy who in turn is advised by a staff
of naval officers. Men are enlisted in the navy, and officers are
commissioned as in the army, but with different ratings and ranks.
[Sidenote: Administration of the navy.] The navy also has its code
corresponding to the Articles of War and its system of courts-martial.
The Marine Corps, which in organization, drill, and discipline, is
really a military organization, comes under the control of the Secretary
of the Navy because it is primarily intended to furnish a landing force
after attack. The marine, as Kipling says, is “a soldier and sailor
too”. In connection with the work of the navy mention should also be
made of the coast defences which are located at points where they may
serve to protect the commercial seaports. These consist of concealed
land batteries, floating batteries, channels guarded by mines,
submarines, and naval airplanes.
[Sidenote: The history of the issue.]
=The Problem of Disarmament.=—Is there any reasonable ground for the
hope that the burden of maintaining an army and navy may be reduced at
some time in the near future? Proposals for a general disarmament by
international agreement have been put forth at various times for a
hundred years or more. Following the long Napoleonic Wars which
exhausted the chief countries of Europe, the Czar of Russia suggested
that the nations should agree to place a limit upon their respective
armaments. But nothing came of this proposal, and although the question
of disarmament was discussed during the next three-quarters of a century
in unofficial circles no concrete plan for an international conference
on the matter was formulated until 1898, when Russia once more brought
to the attention of the other European powers the urgent desirability of
considering some effective measures for disarmament.
[Sidenote: The two Hague conferences.]
As a direct result of this action delegates appointed by all the leading
governments of the world assembled at the Hague in the following year
and discussed the possible methods of securing international
disarmament. A resolution was adopted affirming the desirability of such
action but no definite plan was formulated. A second Hague Conference
was held eight years later but it likewise managed to procure no
definite promises of disarmament because Germany refused to enter into
any such agreement, believing that more could be gained by war than by
disarming. So the feverish activity in preparations for war continued
until the great world conflict began. In the negotiations which took
place at the close of this war it was generally agreed that a reduction
of armaments on the part of all countries should begin at the earliest
practicable moment, but the disordered state of affairs in several
European countries, notably in Russia, delayed any important steps in
that direction. This led President Harding, in the summer of 1921, to
propose that the chief naval powers should send delegates to a
conference at Washington in order that some plan of limiting naval
expansion might be prepared.
[Sidenote: The conference on naval armaments.]
This conference assembled in the autumn of 1921 and at once proceeded to
consider a proposal, made on behalf of the United States, that a fixed
tonnage of capital ships agreed upon and that this limit should not be
exceeded during the next ten years. With some slight amendments the
American proposal was ultimately accepted and embodied in an
international treaty. The conference also framed agreements for the
future limitation of submarine warfare, the prohibition of poison gas in
war, and the restriction of fortifications in the Pacific regions. No
action was taken towards the limitation of armies.[279]
=Universal Military Training.=—If the leading nations do not agree upon
a plan of general disarmament, is it desirable that the United States
should adopt a system of universal military training? There is a popular
aversion to the maintenance of a large regular army. On the other hand
it would be folly to permit the United States to stand unprepared if
other nations go on arming themselves as in the years preceding the
World War. [Sidenote: The Swiss plan.] The suggestion has been made that
we could avoid the necessity of maintaining a large regular army and yet
secure the advantages of military preparedness by adopting the plan used
in Switzerland where every able-bodied young man is required to undergo
a short period of military training. This training would be taken at
some convenient time between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one; it
would last from three to six months. The claim is made that this
training would have educational as well as military value and that it
would conduce to the physical upbuilding of American manhood. In
opposition to the plan of universal military training it is contended
that anything of this sort would involve a great waste of energy, would
withdraw large numbers of young men from productive labor, would foster
militarism, and would involve enormous expense.
[Sidenote: New wars being new methods.]
=What is Real Preparedness?=—Under present-day conditions one must
recognize that preparedness for war does not consist in merely training
men to march and shoot. No war is ever like any previous war. No amount
of human ingenuity or foresight can avail to train men for “the next
war”, because nobody knows where, when, or how the next war is going to
be fought. The Civil War was fought in the open; it was a war of
movement. The World War was fought, for the most part, in trenches; it
was a war of positions. In the Civil War, cavalry played an important
part; in the World War cavalry had very little share. Artillery was the
great factor. For example, it has been estimated that all the artillery
ammunition used during three whole days at the battle of Gettysburg
would have lasted the American artillery just about thirty minutes in
one of the Argonne battles! New weapons and devices are brought forth in
every new conflict, and they greatly change the conditions of warfare.
The great European struggle utilized the airplane, poison gas,
incendiary bombs, gas shells, hand grenades, liquid flame, tanks,
wireless telegraphy, wireless telephony, dirigible balloons, submarines,
seaplanes, and artillery with a range of over fifty miles—none of these
things figured in any previous war.
[Sidenote: The “next war”, if it comes.]
It has been predicted that the next war will be fought, for the most
part, in the air and under the sea; that the entire populations of great
cities may be wiped out during a few days by a deluge of poisonous
gas-bombs hurled from the sky;[280] that science under the pressure of
war emergency will discover some form of lethal ray (we have X-rays,
light rays, heat rays,—why not rays of a deadlier sort?) which will be
shot from the clouds to shrivel and poison human beings by the
thousands; that disease germs will be called into service to spread
pestilence among the people;—all these things have been soberly
predicted as likely to feature the next great conflict if one ever
comes.[281]
[Sidenote: How the progress of science affects warfare.]
Progress in science and in the arts completely changes the methods of
warfare in one generation after another, If General Hooker had possessed
a single airplane, you may be sure that “Stonewall” Jackson would never
have slipped around his flank at Chancellorsville. A squadron of
“tanks”, if the Army of the Potomac had been provided with them in 1863,
would probably have cleared the road to Richmond within a week. Who can
tell what weapons, appliances, and tactics the nations will need for use
in the next war, if another war should ever come? Preparations of a
strictly military sort are essential, to be sure, but it is not wise to
place entire reliance upon an army which is trained to use certain
tactics in a prescribed way. That, of itself, does not constitute true
“preparedness”.
Three words sum up the reasons for the Allied victory in the World War;
these words are _men_, _munitions_, and _morale_. France, Great Britain,
the United States, and Italy had civilian reserves to draw upon. They
had great peace-time industries which they converted into munition
factories. Above all things the moral strength and steadfastness of free
peoples counted in the long struggle against autocracy. [Sidenote: What
real “preparedness” means.] The lesson to be drawn from this is that if
a country builds up a vigorous manhood, both physically and mentally; if
it creates great, varied, and well-managed industries; if it fosters
patriotism and a sense of righteousness through its system of public
education; if it cultivates intelligently all the progressive arts of
peace—if a nation does all these things, it is accomplishing real
preparedness for whatever may come. Great wars are won, paradoxical as
it may sound, in times of peace.
=The War-Time Powers of Government.=—There is an ancient Latin maxim:
_inter arma silent leges_. It means that under the stress of armed
conflict the ordinary laws give way. In the United States this maxim
does not strictly apply; the constitutional rights of the citizen remain
intact and the ordinary laws of the land continue to apply in war-time.
Nevertheless it is true that a state of war requires strict vigilance on
the part of the government and this may lead it to impose upon
individual freedom various restrictions which would not be imposed in
time of peace. [Sidenote: Limitations on civic liberty during wars.]
During the World War, for example, the national government laid certain
restrictions upon the consumption of food, the use of coal, and the
manufacture of luxuries. This it did under its constitutional authority
“to raise _and support_ armies”. [Sidenote: The Espionage and Sedition
Acts.] Congress also passed the Espionage and Sedition Acts which
provided penalties for making or circulating false statements with
intent to injure the United States or using “abusive language about the
government or institutions of the country”. By these laws, in brief, it
was made a crime to favor the cause of the enemy by any word or act. In
some quarters this legislation was regarded as an unwarranted
interference with freedom of speech but on the whole it was a
justifiable war-time precaution. Those who found their personal freedom
restricted by the Espionage and Sedition Acts suffered very little
hardship compared with that borne by the soldiers and sailors who went
into active service.
[Sidenote: There can be no absolute freedom of speech at any time.]
=Freedom of Speech in War-Time.=—During the World War there was
considerable complaint in some quarters because the national government
placed certain limitations upon freedom of speech, and a good deal of
discussion arose as to what freedom of speech really means. The issue is
one which cannot be argued in general terms, for it is not a question of
principle but of practical policy. On the one hand it is generally
agreed that men ought to have all reasonable liberty to express their
own thoughts in their own way; on the other hand it is just as fully
agreed that people must not be allowed to go about preaching treason,
uttering slanders, and by word of mouth infringing the rights of others.
The question, then, is not whether we should grant freedom of speech or
deny it; but how much of it we should grant or deny.
[Sidenote: But the presumption should be in favor of free speech.]
In a democracy the presumption should be in favor of freedom. It should
be curtailed no further than is clearly demanded by the general
interest. Just where that point comes is something that cannot be fixed
by any general rule. In time of peace, for example, we may safely permit
a greater freedom of speech than in time of war. We may rightly allow a
citizen, whose loyalty is not in doubt, a greater latitude than a
foreigner who professes his hatred of the United States. The problem is
an exceedingly difficult one and the courts may at times do injustice in
dealing with outspoken persons; but the nation in its sober senses is
not likely to let the fundamental right of free speech be permanently
restricted beyond a reasonable point.[282]
[Sidenote: The various war boards, 1917-1918.]
=Mobilizing the Economic Forces.=—In order to ensure victory it also
becomes necessary to mobilize all the economic forces of a country, the
industries, the means of transport, and even the professional skill.
During the years 1917-18 the government of the United States established
a War Industries Board whose function it was to supervise and speed up
industrial production; likewise a Food Administration, a Fuel
Administration, a War Labor Board, a Censorship Board, a Committee on
Public Information, a War Finance Corporation, an Alien Property
Custodian, and various other war-time authorities with duties which are
in a general way indicated by their titles. Both the work and the
authority of a government enlarge under the stress of war.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration:
PRICES IN THE UNITED STATES FROM
1810 TO 1920
(Prices in 1914 = 100)
]
Retail prices are based on wholesale prices.
Three times have wholesale prices in America risen to more than
double the normal.
1. During the war of 1812, which was in reality the country’s
participation in the Napoleonic wars—one of the great world
wars.
2. During the Civil War, in 1861-65, a long and costly struggle.
3. During the recent World War.
Not less notable than the great rise of prices during these great
wars has been the long and continued fall of prices extending over a
generation of time which followed the great rise.
THE RISE OF PRICES IN WAR TIME
The diagram on the reverse of this page illustrates
the way in which war disturbs a nation’s economic
life. It sends prices sky-high by reason of the
monetary inflation which almost invariably
accompanies war. This rapid rise in prices causes
industries to expand. Wages rise with prices, and
for the moment we have an era of prosperity or “good
times” as it is usually called. But when the
stimulus of war inflation is removed, the general
level of prices begins to decline, and with this
fall in prices the industries slacken. Wages also
come down, although more slowly than prices, and we
have an era of industrial depression or hard times.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Sidenote: The greatest of all human tragedies.]
=War’s Aftermath.=—War is waste. It destroys life and property, uses up
the accumulated wealth of nations, and saddles them with huge debts
which future generations have to pay. The cost of a war can never be
reckoned in full until long after the treaty of peace has been signed.
The Civil War came to an end more than fifty years ago, but we are still
paying more than two hundred million dollars per annum in pensions to
veterans of that struggle or to their widows. The number of Civil War
pensioners and their widows now on the roll is more than five hundred
thousand. It was not until 1906 that the last surviving widow of a
veteran of the Revolutionary War died. The burden of pensions growing
out of the World War is just beginning to accumulate; the country will
not feel its full weight for many years to come. A generation born after
this war ended will be required to defray its cost. War also leaves, as
its tragic aftermath, large numbers of wounded, disabled, or invalided
soldiers who must be cared for at the public expense. No nation which
values its own honor can afford to leave its veterans unaided in
suffering and want. In the United States we have made provision for
affording medical care to those soldiers of the World War who require it
and for giving vocational education to those partially disabled men who
need it in order to fit them for success in life.
General References
C. A. BEARD, _American Government and Politics_, pp. 342-357; _Ibid._,
_Readings in American Government and Politics_, pp. 308-322;
EVERETT KIMBALL, _National Government of the United States_, pp.
423-444;
W. B. MUNRO, _The Government of the United States_, pp. 265-276;
A. B. HART, _Actual Government_, pp. 459-480;
P. S. REINSCH, _Readings in American Federal Government_, pp. 610-650;
EDWARD F. ALLEN and RAYMOND FOSDICK, _Keeping Our Fighters Fit_,
_passim_;
B. A. FISKE, _The Navy as a Fighting Machine_, _passim_;
R. M. JOHNSTON, _Leading American Soldiers_, especially pp. 3-65;
E. H. CROWDER, _The Spirit of Selective Service_, pp. 59-92;
R. R. MCCORMICK, _The Army of 1918_, pp. 207-243.
Group Problems
=1. In what ways did the World War differ from previous wars?= What
predictions have been made concerning the weapons and tactics of the
next war? How can preparedness best be made for such a war?
=References=: J. F. RHODES, _History of the Civil War_, pp. 1-46; B.
CROWELL and R. F. WILSON, _How America Went to War_, Vol. I, pp. 3-14;
WILL IRWIN, _The Next War_, pp. 33-66; EMORY UPTON, _The Military Policy
of the United States_, _passim_; ERICH VON LUDENDORFF, _Ludendorff’s Own
Story_, _passim_; BARON HORFF VON DEWITZ, _War’s New Weapons_, pp. 5-48;
W. L. MCPHERSON, _The Strategy of the Great War_, pp. 80-118; D. W.
JOHNSON, _Topography and Strategy in the War_, pp. 1-40.
=2. How can the causes of war be removed? Should we have international
disarmament?= =References=: G. L. DICKINSON, _The Choice Before Us_, pp.
166-186; H. M. KALLEN, _The Structure of Lasting Peace_, pp. 141-187; A.
T. MAHAN, _Armaments and Arbitration_, pp. 15-35; F. W. HOLLS, _The
Peace Conference at The Hague_, pp. 66-92; J. B. SCOTT, _The Status of
the International Court of Justice_, pp. 1-30; JOHN BAKELESS, _The
Economic Causes of Modern Wars_, pp. 177-195.
=3. The National Army of 1917-1918: how it was raised, trained, and
used.= =References=: E. H. CROWDER, _The Spirit of Selective Service_,
pp. 115-175; _Selective Service Regulations_ (revised edition), pp.
1-30; R. B. PERRY, _The Plattsburg Movement_, pp. 173-214; LEONARD P.
AYRES, _The War with Germany_, pp. 13-48; R. R. MCCORMICK, _The Army of
1918_, pp. 1-57.
Short Studies
1. =The War Department.= JOHN A. FAIRLIE, _National Administration_, pp.
133-151.
2. =The war powers of the President and Congress.= _Cyclopedia of
American Government_, Vol. III, pp. 646-648; G. GLENN, _The Army and the
Law_, _passim_.
3. =The growth of the navy.= G. R. CLARK, _History of the United States
Navy_, pp. 406-444; E. S. MACLAY, _History of the United States Navy_,
Vol. III, pp. 11-36.
4. =Great American soldiers.= R. M. JOHNSTON, _Leading American
Soldiers_, pp. 137-192 (Grant); 256-310 (Lee).
5. =The Grand Army of the Republic.= W. H. WARD, _Records of Members of
the Grand Army of the Republic_, pp. 5-15.
6. =The American Legion.= G. S. WHEAT, _The Story of the American
Legion_, pp. 12-30; 193-211.
7. =How the nation mobilized in 1917-1918.= P. L. HAWORTH, _The United
States in Our Own Time_, pp. 422-440.
8. =Military law, martial law, and military government.= EVERETT
KIMBALL, _National Government of the United States_, pp. 434-444.
9. =The human cost of the war.= HOMER FOLKS, _The Human Costs of the
War_, pp. 119-167.
10. =The use of regular troops in labor troubles.= GROVER CLEVELAND,
_Presidential Problems_, pp. 79-117.
11. =The Hague Conferences.= F. W. HOLLS, _The Peace Conferences at The
Hague_, pp. 1-35; J. H. CHOATE, _The Two Hague Conferences_, _passim_.
12. =The United States Food Administration.= 1917-1918. W. F.
WILLOUGHBY, _Government Organization in War Time_, pp. 258-292.
13. =How the National Army was drafted.= E. H. CROWDER, _The Spirit of
Selective Service_, pp. 115-175; see also _Second Report of the Provost
Marshal General_ (1918).
14. =Military pensions.= JOHN A. FAIRLIE, _National Administration_, pp.
205-208; W. H. GLASSON, _History of Military Pension Legislation_, pp.
70-107.
15. =Freedom of speech in war time.= ZECHARIAH CHAFEE, JR., _Freedom of
Speech_, _passim_.
Questions
1. Classify the chief causes of war and indicate which class of causes
was mainly responsible for: the French and Indian Wars; the
Revolutionary War; the Napoleonic Wars; the War of 1812; the Mexican
War; the Civil War; the Spanish War; the Russo-Japanese War; and the
World War.
2. What did President Roosevelt mean when he said that a defenceless
nation is a temptation to injustice. Give some examples to illustrate
this proposition and also to illustrate the reverse.
3. Why would it not be better to abolish the national guard and have
only a regular army?
4. Explain the various steps by which civilians were taken into the
national army under the provisions of the Selective Service Law.
5. Is it right to use the armed forces of the nation in quelling labor
troubles? What are the objections to so doing?
6. Explain the system of trial by court-martial under the following
heads: (_a_) who may be tried; (_b_) on what charges; (_c_) how the
court is organized; (_d_) who prosecutes; (_e_) who defends; (_f_) what
sentence may be imposed; (_g_) who reviews the sentence.
7. What is the difference between proclaiming martial law in a district
and establishing a military government over it?
8. Outline the history of the United States navy. What are the
characteristics of (_a_) battleships; (_b_) battle cruisers; (_c_)
gunboats?
9. What would be (_a_) the political and (_b_) the economic advantages
of disarmament? What difficulties stand in the way of an international
agreement to disarm?
10. Make a list of the special governmental agencies which were
established in the United States during the World War, and name the
functions performed by each.
Topics for Debate
1. The United States should adopt the system of universal military
training.
2. A declaration of war should require a two-thirds vote of Congress.
3. The national government should pay pensions to veterans of the World
War in the same way that it has provided pensions for veterans of the
Civil War.
-----
Footnote 269:
Since its foundation in 1788 the national government has spent, in
round figures, about sixty-seven billion dollars. Of this entire sum
fifty-eight billions have been spent for war, that is, for maintaining
the army and navy, for carrying on the nation’s various wars, for
pensions, and for interest on war debts.
Footnote 270:
THEODORE ROOSEVELT, _Fear God and Take Your Own Part_ (N. Y., 1915),
Ch. I.
Footnote 271:
History is full of examples to support this statement. When Carthage
proved unable to defend herself against Roman aggression, the victors
left not one stone upon another. Look at Poland, ripped apart during
the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries by her avaricious neighbors
and now restored to nationhood by the armed forces of France, England,
Italy, and America. And what of China today? Are her four hundred
million people happier and more prosperous because they happen to be
citizens of a defenceless country?
Footnote 272:
The War of Independence was won by a volunteer army. On the conclusion
of peace this army was disbanded, but the absence of a defence force
was deemed a serious danger. Accordingly, when the constitution was
framed in 1787, it provided that the new Congress should have power
“to raise and support armies.” During Washington’s first term a
Department of War was established in the national government and a
small regular army was created under the supervision of this
department. The size of this army was not above five thousand men of
all ranks, barely sufficient to keep the Indian tribes from giving
trouble. But the Napoleonic wars in Europe led Congress to increase
its size as a measure of precaution, and during the War of 1812 an
endeavor was made to raise the regular army, by enlistment, to about
35,000 men. Recruits, however, did not come readily because the war
was unpopular in some parts of the country, and it therefore became
necessary to call out the militia organizations of the several states.
After 1816, when peace was made, the regular army was greatly reduced,
and until 1860 it remained small with the exception of the years in
which the United States was at war with Mexico. The Civil War
necessitated a considerable expansion of the regular army, but the
larger portion of the fighting force was obtained by calling out the
state militia and by raising regiments of volunteers. When the war was
over, Congress fixed the maximum strength of the regular army at
25,000, and there it remained until the outbreak of the war with
Spain, when it was more than doubled. In 1916, during the World War,
but before the United States entered the conflict, a further increase
to a maximum of 175,000 was authorized. This figure subsequently rose
to 225,000 but in 1921 it was cut down by Congress to 150,000, at
which point it remains today, although a further reduction is now
being considered.
Footnote 273:
Prior to 1916 the national guard could not be called upon for service
outside the United States, but only for defence against invasion and
for the suppression of internal disturbances. But in 1916 it was
provided by the National Defence Act that whenever Congress authorizes
the use of armed forces in addition to the regular army, the President
may draft any or all members of the national guard into the service of
the United States and may employ them outside American territory.
Footnote 274:
Theodore Roosevelt was serving as Assistant Secretary of the Navy when
the war with Spain began in 1898. He offered to raise a volunteer
cavalry regiment of cowboys from the cattle country and his offer was
accepted by the government. Resigning his position in the Navy
Department he organized this regiment of Rough Riders and became its
lieutenant-colonel. The Rough Riders went to Cuba, where they gave a
good account of themselves.
Footnote 275:
The actual organization and disciplining of the army during peace, as
well as its movements and operations in war, are under the immediate
direction of the General Staff. This body consists of a Chief of
Staff, who is appointed from among the high officers of the army, and
numerous other army officers who are detailed for this service. The
General Staff is so organized that in the event of war one section of
it can take charge of operations in the field while the other keeps
building up the army at home. General Pershing, who commanded the
American Expeditionary Forces in the World War is now Chief of Staff,
his principal assistant being Major-General Harbord, who commanded the
First Army overseas.
Footnote 276:
For minor offences an enlisted man is tried by summary court-martial
before a single officer. For more serious offences a special
court-martial of from three to five officers is convened. If the
offence is very serious, or if the accused person is a commissioned
officer, the trial takes place before a general court-martial of from
five to fifteen officers, who must be, wherever possible, at least of
equal rank with the accused. The verdict, or finding, of the
court-martial, together with its recommendations for punishment in
case of conviction, is transmitted to the officer by whose order the
court was convened. This officer has power to diminish but not to
increase the punishment recommended by the court-martial.
Footnote 277:
There is still another phase of military jurisdiction which must be
distinguished from both military law and martial law. This is called
military government. It may be explained as follows: When any
territory is conquered and held by an invading army it must obviously
be given some temporary form of government. The former government
usually flees and something must be put in its place. Under such
conditions the commander-in-chief of the occupying force sets up a
temporary administration. In 1919, when a portion of the American
Expeditionary Force advanced into German territory under the terms of
the armistice, a military government with its headquarters at Coblenz
was established for the area occupied by the American troops. A
military government may even be set up in home territory during a
civil war or insurrection. After the fall of the Confederacy military
governments were maintained in the South until the state governments
were reconstructed, hence we commonly speak of the “reconstruction”
period. Military government is always a temporary arrangement, never
intended to be permanent, although it may last for several years. It
does not, like martial law, supplant the ordinary laws of the occupied
territory, but merely means that the occupying army, through its
commander-in-chief, takes over the administration.
Footnote 278:
The beginnings of the American Navy go back to the time of the
Revolutionary War, when a few frigates were placed in service; but
when the war was over these ships were sold and the navy abolished. In
1794, however, Congress authorized the building of six new frigates,
and four years later a Department of the Navy was created, with a
member of the Cabinet at its head. The number of vessels increased
very slowly and when the War of 1812 began the United States had only
sixteen war vessels, some of them too small to be of great usefulness.
This small navy, nevertheless, gave a good account of itself during
the course of the war at sea. From 1815 to the outbreak of the Civil
War little attention was paid to the upbuilding of American naval
strength, but during the course of this struggle a great expansion
took place. The invention of the iron-clad _Monitor_ revolutionized
naval construction. But when the South had been subdued the Navy was
once more allowed to dwindle and it was not until after 1885 that the
United States again made a serious attempt to build up a strong naval
establishment. Since that date naval progress has been steady and
today the United States navy ranks second in point of size among the
sea forces of the world. By the terms of the agreement concluded among
the chief naval powers of the world at Washington in 1922 it has been
arranged that the United States, Great Britain, and Japan shall each
destroy certain war vessels now built or in process of building, and
that each shall refrain from building new capital ships (except for
purposes of replacement), during the next ten years. At the end of
this period the navies of the United States and Great Britain will be
approximately equal in strength, while that of Japan will be about
three-fifths as strong. See also p. 577.
Footnote 279:
For the action of the conference with reference to matters in the Far
East, see p. 619.
Footnote 280:
Brigadier-General Mitchell of the United States Army Air Service, in
his testimony before a committee of Congress in 1920, declared that a
few planes could visit New York City and rain down enough phosgene gas
to kill every inhabitant “unless we provide some means of repelling
them.”
Footnote 281:
See the quotations from various military authorities given in _The
Next War_, by WILL IRWIN, pp. 46-66.
Footnote 282:
There is a tradition in England that if a person goes into Hyde Park,
London (a large open space in the center of the city), he may gather a
crowd around him and say anything he pleases, subject only to the
chance that he may be roughly handled if his hearers do not like what
he says. For this reason, Hyde Park is sometimes referred to as the
“safety valve” of the English government. Anyone who has a grievance,
real or imaginary, can go there and blow off steam. Having had his
say, without let or hindrance, the speaker feels better about it.
Somewhere in this country we ought to have a Hyde Park.
We must be careful not to judge the liberties of the citizen and the
severity of a government by what may happen in war-time or in time of
civil insurrection. War inflames popular passion and impels both the
officers of government and the people to do unwise things, sometimes
to violate the laws of the land in the name of patriotism. An excited
nation, like an excited man, is entitled to some allowance.
Nevertheless, it is the duty of all who understand the meaning of free
government to stand firmly against the wrongful curtailment of
personal rights at any time; for the true interests of free government
are never promoted by resort to injustice or oppression.