Bohemians, Poles and Czechs and Slavs in the ideal unity which our militarists picture for us as the inevitable result of conscription. In fact, it was a matter of common knowledge that the death of Emperor Franz Joseph was to be the signal for a simultaneous revolution in which all the races of Austria should seek freedom from the unity thus imposed upon them by conscription and force, and only the outbreak of the great war has prevented the disintegration of the Austrian Empire. It may be that war has a unifying influence and that the Austrian Empire will be solidified by the terrible ordeal through which it is passing. That remains to be seen. But in any case, I do not understand the advocates of universal military service to be urging war as a remedy for the lack of unity in our national life. The history of Poland, of the subject races and nationalities of Russia, and of Turkey is a refutation of the claim that national unity can be secured by universal military service.

America needs unity, a national consciousness, and a national will, but no reactionary, militaristic, obsolete, old world instrument, such as conscription, can unify the American people.

PATRIOTISM

A fourth argument for universal military service is that it will promote patriotism, it will teach a man to be ready to sacrifice himself for others and to lay down his life for his country in the service of a great idea. The difficulty with this plan is that there are various kinds of patriotism and the tendency of militarism is to emphasize the wrong kind-the patriotism which corresponds to a narrow nationalism and to Jingoism and the patriotism which is based upon the hatred of other parts of the human race who happen to live the other side of a boundary line. Patriotism and nationalism of the wrong kind are defeating their own ends in Europe. For the sake of our country, as well as for humanity, we must develop another type of patriotism than universal military service has given us in Germany or any of the European countries, a patriotism which will

look upon America as a part of the world and will take pride in the contributions which America can make to the family of nations. Independence for the sake of independence, a new nation merely that there might be one more army and navy in the world, was no part of the purpose of the founders of the Republic. As Henry Adams said of the great author of the Declaration of Independence:

Jefferson aspired beyond the ambition of a nationality, and embraced in his view the whole future of man. That the United States should become a nation like France, England or Russia, or should conquer the world like Rome, was no part of his scheme. He wished to begin a new era. Hoping for a time when the world's ruling interests should cease to be local and should become universal; when questions of boundary and nationality should become insignificant; when armies and navies should be reduced to the work of police, he set himself to the task of governing with this golden age in view. He would not consent to build up a new nationality merely to create more navies and armies, to perpetuate the crimes and follies of Europe; the central government at Washington should not be permitted to indulge in the miserable ambitions that had made the Old World a hell and frustrated the hopes of humanity.

We need greatly a rebirth of true patriotism, just as we need a more fundamental democracy, deeper national unity, more self-discipline, but universal military service is not the panacea for these ills. A true American patriotism can be created only by a return to the great principles of the founders of the Republic, a new vision of the mission of America in the world, a great world task such as the establishment of a League to Enforce Peace, calling for the sacrifice of old provincialisms and outworn traditions in the service of humanity, as a whole. In this way, under the great constructive leadership of a world statesman, America can be unified. In this way we may recover our vision of democracy and we may lead the world into a higher patriotism, purified in the fiery furnace of this world crisis. By these new paths which lead out into a future full of hope and service, it may be that in the coming years the soul of America will be born again into a new and larger life, but never by the path of conscription, of fear and servile obedience, and the mechanical methods of militarism.

A much deeper principle is involved than is usually discussed in connection with universal military service: What kind of a society do we wish to live in? For, if the principle of compulsion is accepted in the case of military service, it must logically be accepted for service in munition factories, on the railroads, in coal mines and in all the industrial and economic life upon which modern wars depend. In other words, once having granted the principle of compulsion on the ground of military necessity, all the fundamental principles of democracy must be sacrificed and our country must be "Prussianized" from within. Freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of the press are all opposed to military effectiveness and must disappear step by step if freedom of conscience, the advance trench of democracy, is carried by the militarists; for in the last analysis, universal military service means conscription of conscience.'

The new political persecution represented by the adoption of conscription differs from the old religious persecution in this: whereas, in the Middle Ages the heretic could save his life by keeping his mouth closed and his opinions to himself, in the modern political persecution of Twentieth Century militarism, the heretic who may believe that an aggressive foreign policy is unjust, or a war which his country has declared is unprovoked, is compelled not only to keep his opinions to himself, but is forced to go out and kill his fellowmen against whom he may have no cause for enmity whatever.

America is the only great nation left in the world in which militarism is not enthroned and the principle of conscription established. In order to defend our institutions and our democracy from imaginary dangers from without, we are urged to surrender to this much more real and formidable enemy of militarism and conscription

The War Department is now advocating legislation giving the military authorities power to establish a censorship over the press in time of war.

See Norman Angell's admirable article on the psychological aspect of universal military service as a conscription of conscience in The New Republic, April 8, 1916.

from within. Upon the outcome of the great debate on "Conscription vs. Democracy" depends the question of whether the last fortress of democracy in the world and the greatest adventure in human history shall go down in failure. All patriotic Americans, all who believe that America has a mission and a great message of democracy to give to the world should enroll themselves in defence of America's freedom and democratic institutions presenting a united front against this attempt to militarize the whole American people.

Sometime in the future, if Europe remains an armed camp after this war, and if militarism is enthroned in the world it may become inevitable for America to adopt conscription, and, in Jefferson's words "to perpetuate the crimes and follies of Europe," "to indulge in the miserable ambitions that had made the Old World a hell and frustrated the hopes of humanity." But if conscription ever does become inevitable let us not add blasphemy to our other crimes by adopting militarism in the name of democracy. No, let us do it with the clear knowledge that we are dealing a death blow to the greatest experiment in democracy the human race has ever tried. Let us do it with the consciousness that we have participated in a great world tragedy, and that, with the triumph of militarism in the New World as well as the Old, we shall have seen government of the people, by the people and for the people, perish from the earth.

THE UNITED STATES AND SANTO DOMINGO

1789-1866

(Continued)

By Mary Treudley, Ph.D., Clark University

CHAPTER VI

THE UNITED STATES AND HAITI, 1810-1840

The resumption of commercial relations between the United States and Haiti in 1810 found the island divided in sovereignty. Spain had in 1809, by the aid of England, wrested the control of the eastern half of the island from France and for the next twelve years Spanish Santo Domingo continued to be a Spanish colony. In the western half of the island negro rule had been securely established, but consolidation of the country under one ruler had not yet been accomplished. During Dessalines' brief rule, he was acknowledged as the nominal head of the entire state, but his death by assassination revealed the divisions within the country, due to racial prejudices and the difficulty of communication between the different sections of Haiti.

Various claimants to power sought to establish themselves in the provinces of Haiti, but gradually authority was consolidated into the hands of two men. In the north, Henri Christophe, one of Toussaint's lieutenants, set up a despotic negro kingdom, under the title of King Henry I. Until 1820 his word was law among the negroes of the north, while his cruelty is commemorated in many a story of his reign.

In the west and south, Pétion, a mulatto leader, exercised until 1818 somewhat less arbitrary power as president of the Republic of Haiti. The contrast between the two governments established illustrates the difference in tendency between a negro and a mulatto régime in Haiti; for