Слике страница




Mallock, W. H. “War a Social Democracy," Fortnightly Rev.,

vol. 103, pp. 193-204. (Feb., 1915.) Couturier de Chassaigne. “Future of Poland,” ibid , vol. 106, pp.

246-252. (Aug., 1916.)

(Aug., 1916.) Dasyznski, Ignace. “Poland's Deliverance.” N. Y. Times Curent

History, III, 514. (Dec., 1915.) 2. Central Powers Against Human Freedom. 3. Policy of Central Powers Contrary to Principle of Amer

ican Democracy. 4. Conquests Contrary to Respect for Small Powers. 5. The Whole War Contrary to Our National Love for Peace. 6. Documents and Extracts.

(a) [$180] Why We Are at War.

By Henry Dwight SEDGWICK (1917).

We are a peaceable people. After the Civil War there was a universal hope that we should never go to war again; but Cuba lay at our doors, exploited, ill-treated, making her pathetic appeal to American chivalry and American justice, and we regarded war as a lesser evil than a heart hardened to the suffering of others. Against that war neither Pacifists nor German Americans made objection; they had no Spanish sympathies.



The Spanish war was soon ended, and once more we hoped that America would never go to war again. But our hopes were too sanguine. A great country in the centre of Europe had waxed wonderfully strong during forty years of peace. In 1870 Germany and France were equal in population and riches. In 1914 the German population was 70 millions, the French 38 millions; German commerce amounted to five billions of dollars, French commerce to three; the German merchant marine was double that of France; German agricultural produce, wheat, rye, potatoes, in spite of an inferior soil, was 25 per cent. to 50 per cent. greater than the French. By peaceful means Germany was rapidly acquiring a very great, even guiding, influence in the world's affairs. The German government, however, remained a government of the warrior caste, bred upon the Prussian tradition that might makes right; at its head was an Emperor who declared that he ruled by divine right, and that his army was the rock on which his empire was built. This great nation, and especially its intellectual leaders, became drunk with success and self-love; boastful and truculent, it pressed upon its neighbors until the peace of Europe gave way at its weakest point. Germany thought she saw her way clear to dominate Europe, and, dragging Austria with her, dashed over Belgium, in order to deal knock-out blows first to France and then to Russia.


We were astounded. We admired Germany, her music, her science, her scholarship, her universities and schools, her munici

palities, her industry, skill and success. We could not believe that Germany was so utterly in the wrong as her enemies said. But little by little we were forced to believe it. First the Allies published the story of their diplomatic efforts to prevent the war, but Germany never published her correspondence with Austria; then came report after report of murders, devastation and pillage in Belgium and France; then followed, one after the other, lawless sinkings of American vessels, the torpedoing of the Lusitania, the drowing of American women and children, the intrigues and plots in this country, the insulting order that American ships should keep off a great part of the high seas, and finally the plan to involve us in war with Japan and Mexico.

Even these insults and injuries did not push us directly into war, but they opened our eyes, and we learned a lesson. That lesson was that a Prussian, feudal, military government, with a Kaiser by divine right at its head, will act in accordance with its nature; that, in order to fulfill its ambition, it will burn and pillage cities, devastate fields and orchards, that it will order priests shot, women raped, laborers deported, that it will tear up treaties, sink innocent travelers by sea, and seek to cow nations into submission by terror. With such an imperial government, supported by the mightiest army that has ever existed, no democracy in the world is safe.


Slowly, reluctantly, we faced this alternative: either we must submit to the divine rights of an Emperor who bids his soldiers act like Huns, or we must fight for our own right to exist. So, slowly, reluctantly, we decided to fight.

If we cannot overthrow the Prussian military aristocracy and its Emperor now, not only England, France, Italy and Russia, but the United States also must keep armed to the teeth; and with national military preparedness moulding our national life, reshaping our honored institutions, breaking down our old ideas, our democracy, as we hoped to see it, will be impossible. We shall be obliged to economize and scrimp on schools, hospitals, asylums, playgrounds, institutions of research, to refrain from all activities which, sprung from a sense of human brotherhood, make the lives of the mass of men more worth while to themselves and to others. Armories and arsenals will be the school houses for young men; ammunition plants will be their laboratories; rifle and bayonet drill will take the place of ball and boating

For the sake of our children we must stop all that wickedness and folly now. We must fight till the German government has passed out of the hands of the feudal aristocracy and their supporters, into the hands of the German people.

It was a clear understanding of the matters at issue and of the immense consequences to our future and to the future of the world, that has ranged us at last side by side with England, France, Russia, Italy, Belgium and Serbia. May God defend the right.

(Vigilantes Special Service.)




(b) [$181] Danger to American Political Ideals.

By Elihu Root (January 25, 1917).


The present war which is raging in Europe was begun upon an avowal of principles of national action that no reasonable and thoughtful neutral ought to ignore. The central principle was that a state exigency, state interest, is superior to those rules of morality which control individuals. Now that was not an expedient, an excuse, seized upon to justify the beginning of the war; it is fundamental. The theory of the modern republic is that right begins with the individual. It was stated in the Declaration of Independence, that instrument which it was the fashion to sneer at a few years ago, but which states the fundamental principle upon which alone a free republic can live. It was that individual men have inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and that governments are instituted to secure those rights. The ancient republics upon which they went down to their ruin was that the state in the beginning was the foundation of right and that individuals derive their rights from the state, and therefore the exigencies of the state are superior to all individual rights. It was upon the continuance and assertion of that principle that this war in Europe was begun. And upon that principle it was declared that there was no obligation upon a nation to keep the faith of a treaty if it did not suit its interests. It was declared that there was no obligation upon a nation to observe the rules of that law of nations upon which all civilized states have agreed if it did not suit its interest. Now mark, I am not discussing the right or wrong. I am stating the principle of action upon which was followed and which was asserted to be right.


Upon that principle little Serbia was served with an ultimatum that demanded the surrender of her independence; and upon her failure to comply to the uttermost, she was overwhelmed. Upon that principle little Belgium, that had no quarrel with anybody, was served with a demand that she surrender her independent rights as a neutral and violate her solemn agreements to preserve her neutrality; and upon her refusal to surrender her rights and violate her faith, she was overwhelmed. And that principle is still maintained and asserted to be right. I repeat that I am not referring to this for the purpose of discussing it; I am referring to it because it bears directly upon

ne here to-day. It doesn't matter much what you and I think about these things; it doesn't matter that I think they were immoral and criminal, as I do; it doesn't matter that I think that if that principle of national conduct is to be maintained and approved in this world, then liberty and civilization must die. What does matter is that approximately one-half the entire military power of this world supports that proposition. And I say to you, and I wish I could say it to every American, if that principle of national conduct be approved in the struggle that is pending, be approved by the free people


of America, be approved by the conscience of the civilized world, then our American freedom will surely die and die while

we live.

My friends, so sure am I that liberty and security in this land of ours depends upon the destruction and abandonment of the hated principle of national aggrandizement and immorality, and the enthronement of the principles of national responsibility and morality, that for all the countless generations to come after us in our dear land, I am grateful with all my heart to those men who are fighting in the trenches in France and Belgium and Russia and Italy and the Balkans to-day for the liberty and peace of my children's children.


This nation has publicly pledged itself and all its resources to the maintenance of certain doctrines and principles, designed not only for its own welfare and protection, but which are also in the nature of specific guarantees to other peoples of the world. The honor, integrity and future well-being of the United States, as well as of the many smaller nations over which it has extended the wing of its voluntary protection, inevitably require that this country shall at all times be prepared to sustain its principles and enforce its demands or decrees.

Either we are sincere or insincere. If we are to interpret the high standards of humanity and international law that are to guide other nations, at war or at peace; if we are to say how other nations may expand, and where they may colonize and where they may not; if we are to preserve at all times the integrity and the neutrality of the Americas; if we are to guarantee liberty and independence to other peoples and preserve the rights of all—then we must do it honestly and fearlessly, and in doing it realize that by the very principles and doctrines we expound we are likely to create the motives for war against us.

There is but one way for the United States to prove the honest courage of its convictions, and that is by being prepared to answer decisively and victoriously any challenge of those principles which it has pledged to the world upon its honor as a nation.

(Address before National Security League's Congress of Constructive Patriotism.)



1. Specific References on the Section.
See $$123-127, 178(4) above.

Am. Acad. Pol. and Soc. Sci. Annals. IX, 1, 106.
Am. Jour. Int. Law, X, Sp. Supp. (Jan., 1916.)
Hillis, D. N. “Verdict of the American People,” in Times Current

History, I, 573. (Jan. 9, 1915.)
2. Prevention of Needed Imports.
3. Disturbance of Banking Relations.
4. Interference with the Movement and Safety of Persons.
5. Disadvantages to the United States.

[blocks in formation]

1. Specific References on the Section.
See 88128, 178(5) above.

Colliers. Story of the War, III. ch. lxxxvii; IV, chs. Ixix-lxxii.
Am. Jour. Int. Law. III Spec. Suppl., 594, 606; IV, 567, 575, 590.
Providence Journal. A Few Lines of Recent American History.

(Obtainable from Journal Office, Providence, R. I.) A list of

plots, outrages and prosecutions from Jan., 1906, to April, 1917, Anon. “American Munition Supplies,” in N. Y. Times Current

History, II, 673-678. (July, 1915.)
Anon. “Alleged German Attempt to Get American Munitions,"

ibid., II, 1070-1072.
Von Igel's Case, ibid., 1916, p. 23.
Von Papen and Boy-Ed Correspondence, in Am. Jour. Int. La х

(Spec. Suppl.), 363.
Dumba, Official Correspondence, in Collier's Story of the , War

IV, 10, 36; N. Y. T'imes Current History, III, 10-14.
Bopp (Consul at San Francisco) Case, in Am. Year Book, 1916, pp.

Werner Horn Case, ibid., 1915, p. 68.
Archibald Incident. N. Y. Times Current History, II. 10-14.
Kronprinzessin Cecilie Case. Capt. Polack's testimony.
Ohlinger, G. "German Propaganda in U. S.,” in Atlantic Monthly,

vol. 117, pp. 535-547. (April, 1917.)
Brooks, Sidney. “The German Spy System,” ibid., vol. 115, pp.

253-261. (Feb., 1915.) 2. Offensive Spy System and Maintenance of Subsidized Press. 3. Interference with Legitimate American Business.

(a) Causing and subsidizing strikes in munition plants.

(b), Blowing up munition plants.
4. Hostile Action Inside Our Boundaries.

(a) Blowing up international bridges.
(b) Attempt to raise up enemies in Mexico and Japan.

(c) Internal destruction on German ships enjoying. our hospitality. 5. Official Responsibilities for These Acts. (a) Conviction of consular officials for violations of the law, e. g.,

Bopp, of San Francisco. (b) Orders issued to officials and officers of steamers to destroy

their ships. (a) Offences causing dismissal of Austrian Minister Dumba. (b) Activity of Boy-Ed, von Papen and von Igel in New York.

(c) Conviction of Rintelen and Werner Horn. 6. German Attempts Through Bernstorff to Stir Up Mexico. 7. Documents and Extracts on the Section.

(a) [$184] Hostile Action Inside Our Boundaries (1915).


There was an attempt on the life of J. Pierpont Morgan by an insane instructor in German in Cornell University known as Frank Holt.

Holt placed a bomb in the Capitol in Washington on July 2 which wrecked the Senate reception

[ocr errors]


Beginning with an incendiary fire causing $1,500,000 loss at the works of the John A. Roebling's Sons Co., at Trenton, N. J., on January 18, disasters to industrial plants engaged in the manufacture of munitions were reported with increasing fre

« ПретходнаНастави »