PREPAREDNESS.
In the eighty-five years of a busy life I have witnessed five wars in
which this nation has been a party, not counting the numerous Indian
wars.
One of these, the Mexican war of 1846, was clearly a war of conquest,
brought on by the discordant element of the slave power, then so
dominant and I may say domineering in our councils. Then followed the
dreadful War of the Rebellion to settle the question whether the United
States was a nation or a loose confederation of States.
I am one of the very few left that witnessed the war of aggression
that despoiled Mexico of half her territory, which gave us California,
extended our Pacific coast line to the 32° 30' parallel and made this
nation a great world power, in fact as well as in name.
Who will dare say that great benefit to the cause of civilization and
to the human race did not result from this war? Who, again, will dare
assert that the Indian wars of the last century did not likewise result
in the advancement of the cause of humanity and civilization? And,
again, are there any now so bold as to say that the war prosecuted by
the United States in suppressing the rebellion did not result in the
betterment of all parties engaged in the conflict? The why, as to these
results I will not discuss now, but simply state the acknowledged fact,
to the end that we may more clearly see that the pacificists' doctrine
is a fallacy and utterly impracticable until after the advent of the
millennium.
Suppose a thousand pacificists were gathered in a peace meeting and
some one introduced a resolution condemning all wars, would they vote
for it? If not, why not? If against preparedness—preparedness for
defense—it follows they are against preparedness for war and prepared
to sing: "I did not raise my boy to be a soldier".
If, on the other hand, it is admitted that some wars are righteous, the
query arises, who would fight it? like the boy, when asked by a visitor
if he didn't wish that one of his brothers was a sister, promptly
responded, "Who'd a been her?"
Seriously, is there a pacificist with American red blood in his veins,
who will condemn the war with Spain to put a stop to the atrocities
right under our nose, in Cuba, or the wars with Aguinaldo in the
Philippines, or with the pirates of Tripoli, or coming right home to
the vital spot, the War of the Revolution that resulted in the birth
of this nation? There is no middle ground, there can be none, any more
than a given body can be moved in opposite directions at the same
instant of time.
It follows, then, that we who oppose the pacificists are in favor of
preparedness for defense or for war—for the two terms are synonymous.
How great and how numerous the ships needed for our navy must of
necessity be referred to experts, for the average citizen can not know.
How numerous the army and what the formation, must necessarily be left
to those who have made the subject a life study.
The average citizen will know the fundamentals and join to curb
excesses, though he may not know the specials. He will know that if we
are to meet an enemy with guns that will carry five miles it is useless
to oppose them with guns that carry but four, though he may not know
how to construct the better arm. He will know that a small army, that
can be speedily mobilized, is of greater efficiency than a large,
unwieldy, scattered force that can not be quickly concentrated at vital
points of danger, though he may not know how best to provide the means
for speedy concentration.
How narrowly we escaped a third war with Great Britain over the
Northwest boundary, now so nearly forgotten by this generation, I
personally witnessed on the San Juan Island in the northern waters
of Puget Sound. Again, how the Trent affair came so near plunging us
into a desperate struggle of arms with this same power, we of this
generation can read in history and a few vividly remember, and finally,
how the fitting out of privateers in English ports to prey upon our
commerce at last became so exasperating the war spirit of this nation
rose to a demand that emboldened our ambassador to the court of St.
James to utter those immortal words, "But, my Lordship, this is war,"
and it was.
And then again how near another war with England we came in the
Venezuela affair, a direct result of the Monroe Doctrine, we are too
prone to forget.
I happened to be in London when Cleveland's famous message was
received and witnessed the excitement that followed, that with but a
little more indiscretion would have lighted the spark for a worldwide
conflagration. Again I am not assuming to say which party was right, or
which was wrong, but simply to recite the fact and to point to the fact
that preparedness—for England was prepared—did not result in war.
And may I not point to another instance where preparedness did not lead
to war, but on the other hand averted war. I refer to the French in
Mexico. At the close of the Rebellion this nation was fully prepared
for the enforcement of the Monroe Doctrine, and notice to that effect
was made manifest and the French troops were accordingly withdrawn
without a struggle. Without this preparedness on our part the French
troops would have tightened their grip upon Mexico, and we would have
been compelled to fight, or else abandon the Monroe Doctrine. If we
cannot assert our rights, no other nation will for us. If we are
prepared, no nation will challenge us. Which do the American people
want? Shall we submit to endure as a nation by sufferance or shall we
by the strong arm maintain our rights?
We must, likewise, take note that we have championed the "open door"
policy in China, and already one of the signatory parties has violated
the compact. Shall we give up our trade with the Orient or shall we
assert that we have the right to trade with China on terms with other
nations. If we are not prepared how can we uphold a doctrine that
disputed the right of European monarchies to seize and appropriate any
portion of either Americas and extinguish the right of free government
of the western hemisphere?
It is well to remember that this Monroe Doctrine—the doctrine that
Europe must keep hands off all Americas—is still held by this nation
and is still repudiated by all European nations except England.
It is also well to remember that this present war to determine the
question of the divine right of kings to rule as the "vice-regents
of God" is directly antagonistic to our theory of government "by the
people and for the people", which becomes a platitude if we are not
prepared to defend it.
Dating back to the dawn of history there has been war in all the
centuries. Why, I will not undertake to say, but simply recite the
fact—a condition and not a theory—and a fact the American people should
bear in mind.
I do not believe preparedness or unpreparedness will avert war, but I
do believe to be prepared will avert an appalling calamity in the no
distant future for this nation if we neglect to provide the means of
defense when attacked.
Preparedness of course lessens the danger of attack, but can not nor
will not avert it.
Another factor, the congestion of population of nations or likewise in
vast cities breeds danger and eventually war.