democracy, her influence in the direction of liberty for a full generation. We should not be deceived about the character of the Kaiser and his government. He was too autocratic even for a Bismarck to support. Single-handed he has directed the policy of the Empire. His ministers have always been only his servants. As the historian West says, "He believes thoroughly in the 'divine right' theory, and he has repeatedly stated it in as striking a form as ever did James I of England or Louis XIV of France, two or three centuries ago." Whether he believes in that theory personally or not, he has certainly tried to get his people to accept it, and has acted upon it. Read this statement of his to the city of Munich: "The will of the king is the supreme law." And again, to a body of teachers upon the proper teaching of history: "You must teach that the French Revolution is an unmitigated crime against God and Man!" Addressing a body of military recruits in 1891 he said: "You are now my soldiers. You have given yourselves to me, body and soul. There is but one enemy for you and that is my enemy. In these times of socialistic intrigue, it may happen that I shall call upon you to fire upon your brothers and fathers * * * in such a case you are to obey me without a murmur!" In 1897 he referred to himself as the "Viceregent of God." His relatives and friends have preached the same gospel everywhere they have gone, and especially in the Oriental countries and Turkey-they knew they did not dare to do so openly in America; but they did just as bad a thing they deceived us as to the purpose of their visits here. A nominal friendly visit was nothing less than the perfecting of a knowledge of our military conditions and resources and of the German spy system in America. And this august mission was headed by no less distinguished a personage than the brother of the Kaiser himself! They have relied on that impression of the American people as proof that we would not go to war with Germany. The German government and Kaiser have little understood the true spirit of American democracy! Why should we not fight with all our might the power that would wipe democracy from the face of the earth? We have seen the fruits of liberty and democracy so bountiful all about us in the world that we have not understood nor appreciated this mighty countercurrent that still survives out of a medieval age. It is high time that our eyes were opened, and that we see the greatest of all causes, for which we are fighting. We need also to distinguish carefully between real causes and pretended ones. The little things which are spoken of as causes, and are generally given by the parties engaging as causes, are usually but pretexts, or mere occasions, and not efficient causes. A king may lead a country into war on a slight pretext, as in Austria in 1914; but the ideas and principles that are back of such acts-the type of government that they stand for are the causes, and are not trifling. They represent a system, whose earmarks are oppression, whose gospel is greed. The fundamental cause for Austria's plunging the nations of Europe into this war were her designs upon the Balkan states and her fear lest Russia might gain or control them, and with them Constantinople. And Russia, with her Czar, was equally culpable, except that the Balkan states had a racial sympathy with Russia that they did not have with Austria. But now, thank God, the Russia of the Czar is no more. greatest obligation, next to saving her own liberties, is to help that struggling New Russia. And America's Often a long standing and vital cause of conflict is hidden behind such pretexts, or excuses, and is revealed only by the results of the war. This is one of the curses of autocratic governments and of ambitious, powerful monarchs. This leads us to say that while a war cannot be without causes, the cause may be unjust, or even useless, though the war itself cannot be, to the side that is wronged. If both sides have real grievances, as is often the case, the reason for each going to war must be understood, else we are partisans of the one and unfair to the other. On this point, here in America, many a student and teacher, both North and South has misunderstood and misrepresented the Civil War and its causes, in the United States. We have therefore been unable to reconcile the causes with the results of the war. There are usually at least as many causes of war as there are parties engaged in it. Ruin and sorrow for a lost cause was the price that the South had to pay for not understanding why the North and those devoted to the national cause should fight for the Union and liberty, for the negro. The "crime of reconstruction" is the reproach that the South can lay at the feet of the North with a radical Congress, for not understanding why the South fought and sacrificed and suffered so long, having been taught by masters of thought to distrust a strong central government, as did their forefathers the government of King George. This is one of the many instances that go to show that peoples' ignorance of each other and their misunderstandings are one of the most potent causes of trouble. Turkey, with Now, let us return to a brief discussion of a few of the causes grouped above. Wars of religion have ceased to exist; but religious prejudice has been taken into account in recruiting for the present war in those countries where "holy war" has been declared, as in Russia and slight traces of religious appeal otherwhere. fairs in themselves can no longer cause war. gence in times of peace has triumphed over war. Hence but for the others we could dispense with the first three causes entirely. Yet, it is not out of place to discuss the love of people for war in the past. It helps us to understand what the war passion and loyalty let loose on the battlefield means today. Man has inherited the fighting instinct from his remote ancestors, who lived in a state of nature, with the lower animals. In that environment war is the effect of a needthe need to exist, to survive. It is the instinct to live, which is the greatest of all instincts. The farther we go back in the history of man and the nearer we find him to nature, and the more he is under the control of his animal nature-why, the more we find that war with him has been the effect of a human need, and its end the satisfaction of that need. There are hundreds of cases on record of wars of conquest due to the migrations of peoples who had outgrown their native valleys, plains or desert pastures. The pinch of hunger and famine drove them on, and the more satisfied and peaceful peoples whom they invaded became their victims and slaves, or were pushed on, to struggle for existence, or fight for it elsewhere. Again, it is nature's law of the survival of the fittest. We recognize this principle in all animal life in nature. The big fish devours the smaller one; the forest giant makes the smaller beast its prey, as it does the still smaller; the eagle's mighty strength was developed in order that he might prey upon more helpless creatures. The same law rules the plant kingdom. The large sturdy plant crowds out and kills its weaker, more delicate competitor. The more warlike plant, as the thistle and the thorn, "chokes out" the tenderer stem. So, savage man took his lessons from nature and from necessity, since he had no religion of the higher life and of unselfishness to guide him, except as his imagination slowly and feebly led him to "the gods" as arbiters of human destiny and judges of his deeds. It is only the religion of one God, a God of mercy as well as of judgment upon mankind, that can save the race from its animal instincts and from war. And were it not for that in man that is spiritual, and above nature, the principle that "might makes right" would still hold undisputed sway. The warlike instinct is therefore inherent in human nature, and man has to conquer it with his reason, else he is no better essentially than the brute. The war spirit we have inherited from generations for countless ages past, and it is only the long process of man's evolution into a higher state that can save that civilization for which we fight. Not until the spirit of Jesus of Nazareth has met its response in the spirit of man and has supplanted the beast in nations, will warfare cease. CHAPTER IV BEC FUNDAMENTAL CAUSES ECAUSE of their close relationship, we may treat commercial causes and those of colonial expansion together. There are those who hold to the materialistic conception of history, and claim that at bottom the real causes of war are economic in nature—that they even go back to a basic wrong in society-namely, the production and distribution of wealth in the capitalistic form. This is so far from the truth of the history of wars, however, that it may be dismissed as altogether too narrow a view. Yet, the economic factor, and greed for gain, cannot be ignored. To a certain extent in the recent past, society has had an economic basis in much the same way that in medieval times and in the ancient world men sought through war to secure mines and treasures, as for example, the ancient Romans and Carthagenians, as well as other peoples. It is true that military politics, built upon an economic basis, still dominates to a large extent in some countries. Some of the latest and best examples are Germany, Austria and Russia. This evil, however, has been no less true of international relations. The opium war between China and England was inspired by the very basest cupidity on England's part, and remains one of the black pages on English history. In fact, colonial wars have sought primarily and generally the employment and security of capital, the monopoly of commerce, or the exclusive use of the shortest and most lucrative trade routes. It is an earnest of better things, however,, that now most of the greatest world powers are seriously considering the neutralization of the strategic commercial |