The use of this text or audio material is subject to the TR American Patriot user agreement located at: TR American Patriot.com {{Pause=0.5}}

CHAPTER 3{{Pause=0.5}}
WHERE THERE IS A SWORD FOR OFFENCE THERE MUST  BE A  SWORD  FOR DEFENSE{{Pause=0.5}}
THE professional pacifists who have so actively worked for the dishonor of the American name and the detriment of the American nation (and who incidentally have shown themselves the basest allies and tools of triumphant wrong) would do well to bear in view the elementary fact that the only possible way by which to enable us to live at peace with other nations is to develop our strength in order that we may defend our own rights. Above all, let them realize that a democracy more than any other human government needs preparation in advance if peace is to be safeguarded against war. So far as self-defence is concerned, universal military training and, in the event of need, universal military service, represent the highest expression of the democratic ideal in government.

Jefferson had been an apostle of peace who had declared "that peace was his passion," and his refusal to lead the nation in preparedness bore bitter fruit in the war of 1812. But at least he learned aright the lesson that was taught. In 1813 he wrote to Monroe:

"We must train and classify the whole of our male citizens and make military instruction a regular part of collegiate education. We can never be safe till this is done."
And in 1814 he went still further:

"I think the truth must now be obvious that we cannot be defended but by making every citizen a soldier, and that in doing this all must be marshaled, classed by their ages,-and every service ascribed to its competent class."

President Monroe in his message to Congress of December 3rd, 1822, just ninety-three years ago, used expressions which without changing a word can be applied to the far more urgent needs of to-day. He said:

"The history of the late wars in Europe furnishes a complete demonstration that no system of conduct however correct in principle, can protect neutral powers from injury from any party; that a defenceless position and distinguished love of peace are the surest invitations to war, and that there is no way to avoid it other than by being always prepared and willing for just cause to meet it. If there be a people on earth whose more especial duty it is to be at all times prepared to defend the rights with which they are blessed, and to surpass all others in sustaining the necessary burthens, and in submitting to sacrifices to make such preparations, it is undoubtedly the people of these states."

The question of more real consequence to this nation than any other at this moment is the question of preparedness. The first step must be preparedness against war. Of course there can be no efficient military preparedness against war without preparedness for social and industrial efficiency in peace. Germany, which is the great model for all other nations in matters of efficiency, has shown this, and if this democracy is to endure, it must emulate German efficiency —adding thereto the spirit of democratic justice and of international fair play. Moreover, and finally, there can be no preparedness in things material, whether of peace or war, without also preparedness in things mental and spiritual. There must be preparedness of the soul and the mind in order to make full preparedness of the body, although it is no less true that the mere fact of preparing the body also prepares the soul and the mind. There is the constant action and reaction of one kind of preparation upon another in nations as in individuals.

But there are certain elementary facts to be grasped by this people before we can have any policy at all. The first fact is a thorough understanding of that hoary falsehood which declares that it takes two to make a quarrel. It did not take two nations to make the quarrel that resulted in Germany trampling Belgium into the mire. It is no more true that it takes two to make a quarrel in international matters than it is to make the same assertion about a highwayman who holds up a passer-by or a black-hander who kidnaps a child. The people who do not make quarrels, who are not offensive, who give no cause for anger, are those who ordinarily furnish the victims of highwaymen, black-hand-ers and white-slavers. Criminals always attack the helpless if possible. In exactly similar fashion aggressive and militarist nations attack weak nations where it is possible. Weakness always invites attack. Preparedness usually, but not always, averts it.

The next fact to remember is that it is of no use talking about reform and social justice and equality of industrial opportunity inside of a nation, unless that nation can protect itself from outside attack. It is not worth while bothering about any social or industrial problem in the United States unless the United States is willing to train itself, to fit itself, so that it can be sure that its own people will have the say-so in the settlement of these problems, and not some nation of alien invaders and oppressors. Thanks to the weakness we have shown for five years, and to the fact that for a year and a half we have shown the "neutrality" of the Levite who passed by on the other side when he saw on the ground the man who had been wounded by robbers near Jericho (and at the least the Levite did not boast of his "neutrality"), the United States has not a friend in the world.

Again, the United States should make up its mind just what its policy is to be. Foolish people say that the Monroe Doctrine is outworn, without taking the trouble to understand what the Monroe Doctrine is. As a matter of fact, to abandon the Monroe Doctrine would be to invite overwhelming disaster. In its essence the Monroe Doctrine amounts to saying that we shall not permit the American lands around us to be made footholds for foreign military powers who would in all probability create out of them points of armed aggression against us. We must therefore make up our mind that we will police and defend the Panama Canal and its approaches, preserve order and safeguard civilization in the territories adjacent to the Caribbean Sea, and see that none of these territories, great or small, are seized by any military empire of the Old World which can use them to our disadvantage. A prime duty, of course, is to secure livable conditions in Mexico. To permit such conditions as have obtained in Mexico for the past five years is to put a premium upon European interference; for where we shirk our duty to ourselves, to honest and law-abiding Mexicans, and to all European foreigners within Mexico, we cannot expect permanently to escape the consequences.

The events of the past year have shown that all talk of preventing aggression from unscrupulous militaristic nations by arbitration treaties, Hague Conventions, peace agreements and the like at present represents nothing but empty declamation. No person outside of an imbecile asylum should be expected to take such talk seriously at the present time. Leagues to Enforce Peace and the like may come in the future; I hope they ultimately will; but not until nations like our own are not too proud to fight, and are too proud not to live up to their agreements. It is at best an evidence of silliness and at worst an evidence of the meanest insincerity to treat the formation of such leagues as possible until as a nation we do two things.

In the first place, we must make ready our own strength. In the next place, by our action in actually living up to the obligations we assumed in connection with the Hague Conventions, we must make it evident that there would be some reasonable hope of our living up to the onerous obligations that would have to be undertaken by any nation entering into a League to Enforce Peace. The Hague Conventions were treaties entered into by us with, among other nations, Belgium and Germany. Under our Constitution such a treaty becomes part of "the Supreme Law of the Land," binding upon ourselves and upon the other nations that make it. For this reason we should never lightly enter into a treaty, and should both observe it, and demand its observance by others when made. The Hague Conventions were part of the Supreme Law of our Land, under the Constitution. Therefore Germany violated the Supreme Law of our Land when she brutally wronged Belgium; and we permitted it without a word of protest.

Nearly eighteen months have gone by since with the outbreak of this war it became evident to every man willing to face the facts, that military and naval problems and international problems of every kind were infinitely more serious than we had had reason to believe, that treaties were absolutely worthless to protect any nation unless backed by armed force, and that the need of preparedness was infinitely more urgent than any man in this country had up to that time believed. The belief that public opinion or international public opinion, unbacked by force, had the slightest effect in restraining a powerful military nation in any course of action it chose to undertake was shown to be a pathetic fallacy. But any man who still publicly adheres to and defends that opinion at the present time is engaged in propagating not a pathetic, but an absolutely mischievous and unpatriotic fallacy. It is the simple and literal truth that public opinion during the last eighteen months has not had the very smallest effect in mitigating any atrocities or preventing any wrongdoing by aggressive military powers, save to the exact degree that there was behind the public opinion actual strength which would be used if the provocation was sufficiently great. Public opinion has been absolutely useless as regards Belgium, as regards Armenia, as regards Poland. No man can assert the contrary with sincerity if he takes the trouble to examine the facts.

For eighteen months, with this world-cyclone before our eyes, we as a nation have sat supine without preparing in any shape or way. It is an actual fact that there has not been one soldier, one rifle, one gun, one boat, added to the American Army or Navy so far, because of anything that has occurred in this war, and not the slight-est step has yet been taken looking toward the necessary preparedness. Such national shortsightedness, such national folly, is almost inconceivable. We have had ample warning to organize a scheme of defence. We have absolutely disregarded the warning, and the measures so far officially advocated are at best measures of half-preparedness, and as regards the large aspect of the question, are not even that.

We should consider our national military policy as a whole. We must prepare a well-thought-out strategic scheme, planned from the standpoint of our lasting national interests, and steadily pursued by preparation and the study of experts, through a course of years. The navy is our first line of defence, but it must be remembered that it can be used wisely for defence only as an offensive arm. Parrying is never successful from the standpoint of defence. The attack is the proper method of efficient defence. For some years we have been using the Navy internationally as a bluff* defensive force, or rather asserting that it would be so used and could be so used. Its real value is as an offensive force in the interest of any war undertaken for our own defence. Freedom of action by the fleet is the secret of real naval power. This cannot be attained until we have at our disposal an effective military establishment which would en-able us when threatened to repel any force disembarking on our coast. This is fundamental. It is only by creating a sufficient army that we can employ our fleet on its legitimate functions. The schemes of the Navy must always be correlated with the plans of the Army, and both of them with the plans of the State Department, which should never under any circumstances undertake any scheme of foreign policy without considering what our military situation is and may be made. For reasons I give elsewhere I believe that we should base our military and naval program upon the retention and defence of Alaska, Hawaii, the Panama Canal and all its approaches, including all the points of South American soil north of the Equator, and of course, including the defence of our own coasts and the islands of the West Indies. To free the Navy we need ample coast defences manned by a hundred thousand men, and a mobile regular army of one hundred and fifty thousand men.. The proposed Administration program is a make-believe program. It is entirely inadequate to our needs. It is a proposal not to do something effective immediately, but to do something entirely ineffective immediately, and to trust that the lack will be made good in succeeding years. Congress has never been willing to carry out the plans advocated by the General Board. Until 1911, however, the differences between what was needed and what was actually appropriated for, although real, was not appallingly great. At the very time, however, when the extraordinary development of navies abroad rendered it imperative that we should enlarge our own program and treat it far more seriously than ever before, Congress stopped entirely the proper upbuilding of the Navy. At present what is needed is immediately to strain every nerve of the government so that this year we will begin work on half-a-dozen formidable fighting battleships and formidable speedy armed cruisers. Whether we begin them in public or private yards is of no earthly consequence compared with the vital importance of beginning on these ships somewhere at once—not next sum--mer, but within thirty or sixty days. Frederick Palmer has recently shown that in the three squadron actions of this war the beaten side has behaved with the same skill and prowess shown by the victors but has been beaten purely because of the superiority of its opponent in the speed of the ships and in the range and power of the guns. He has furthermore shown that in these three squadron actions the defeated ships were in each case superior to any of our cruisers in speed and range and power of guns. In other words, our cruisers would be helpless against those of a first-rate power at the present time. Our people need to remember that half-preparation is no preparation at all. A great many well-meaning people are of the same mind as a philanthropist who wrote me the other day to the effect that he believed in some preparedness, but not much. This is like building a bridge half way across a stream, but not all the way. I regret to state that this seems to be the attitude which our Government now takes as a substitute for its attitude of a year ago, when its view was that preparedness was "hysterical," immoral and unnecessary. The only proper attitude is that there shall be no preparedness at all that is not necessary, but that in so far as there is need for preparedness the need shall be fully met. Years ago I served as a deputy sheriff in the cattle country. Of course I prepared in advance for my job. I carried what was then the best type of revolver, a .45 self-cocker. I was instructed never to use it unless it was absolutely necessary to do so, and I obeyed the instructions. But if in the interest of "peace" it had been proposed to arm me only with a .22 revolver, I would promptly have resigned my job.

There are two immediately vital needs to be met:

I. That our navy shall at the earliest possible moment be made the second in the world in point of size and efficiency. We do not need to make it the first, because Great Britain is not a military power, and our relations with Canada are on a basis of such permanent friendliness that hostile relations need not be considered. But the British Empire would, quite properly, be "neutral" if we were engaged in war with some great European or Asiatic power.
2. That our regular army shall be increased to at least a quarter of a million men, with an ample reserve of men who could be at once put in the ranks in the event of a sudden attack upon us; and provision made for many times the present number of officers; and in administration, provision made for a combination of entire efficiency with rigid economy that will begin with the abandonment of the many useless army posts and navy yards.

Neither of these needs is in any way met by the Administration's proposals. I am sincerely glad that the Administration has now reversed the attitude taken in the President's message to Congress of December, 1914, in which he advocated keeping this nation unprepared and helpless to defend its honor and vital interest against foreign foes. But I no less sincerely regret that the Administration has not thought out the situation and is not prepared to present a real and substantial plan for defence instead of a shadow program. During the last three years our navy has fallen off appallingly in relative position among the nations. The Administration now proposes a plan, to be followed mainly by the next Administration, which, if hereafter lived up to, would nominally replace the navy where it formerly was in ten years' time and really not until twenty years have passed—a plan which in reality, therefore, is merely an adroit method of avoiding substantial action in the present. This will not do. There should be no policy of adroit delay and make-believe action. Our government should make provision this year which will insure the regaining of our naval place at the earliest possible moment. The work should begin on a large scale at once. This is of the first importance.

But it is also vital to bring the army abreast of national needs. The proposed plan to create a rival national guard of half-trained or quarter-trained volunteers—for that is what the absurdly named "continental army" would amount to—if tried will prove very expensive, very detrimental to the existing national guard, and entirely useless from the standpoint of meeting the real needs of the country. It is thoroughly undemocratic, for it appeals to the "patriotism" of the employer to let his employees be trained to do his fighting! It would put a business premium on the unpatriotic employer who would not permit his men to take part in it. It would be much wiser to spend the money in increasing the size and efficiency of the national guard, and establishing national control over it—although this also would be a mere half-measure, in no way going to the root of things. The Administration has declined to ask for the adoption of any of the military systems which have been so strikingly successful in Switzerland, Australia, Argentina, not to speak of Germany. Instead they, congenially, ask for the system which England fatuously tried, and which in the crisis proved worthless. Their proposed "continental army" has nothing in common with Washington's continental army, which was an army of regulars, whose efficiency was conditioned by service year in and year out in winter and summer. It is nothing but the English "territorial" army, reliance upon which by England was one of the main factors in securing that unpreparedness for war for which England is now paying so heavy a penalty—for the splendid courage and self-sacrifice of the English who are now fighting so gallantly can not wholly undo the effects of the failure adequately to prepare in advance. The best men among the Territorials keenly realized the truth of the position taken by that high-minded old hero, Lord Roberts, and in 1913 memorialized the English government in favor of a system of universal military service as the only adequate method to secure effective home defence. But the political leaders of England insisted upon blindly following the easy path to disaster, the path down which, in imitation of these blind leaders, our own American politicians now contentedly amble.

The proposed increase in the size of the regular army as outlined by the Administration is utterly inadequate to serve any real purpose. It is one of those half-measures which are of service, if at all, only from the political standpoint. Either we need to prepare or we do not. If we do, then we should prepare adequately. I should not regard as wise a proposal for doing away with the New York Fire Department—the wisdom of such a proposal being about on a par with the wisdom of the attitude of Messrs. Bryan, Ford, Jordan, and the rest of the professional pacifists, as regards what they are pleased to call "militarism." Yet it would not be materially less wise than a proposal to compromise, by, on the one hand, having fire engines, but, on the other hand, not fitting them to throw a stream of water higher than the second story. The military plans of the Administration are on a level with plans for the New York Fire Department which should provide only for second-story hose; they go on the theory that it is desirable to try to put out a fire a little, but not too much. Now, it is always wise either to let a fire alone or to deal with it thoroughly.
The un-wisdom of being content with a sham in this case shown by the opposition of the professional pacifists and peace-at-any-price leaders even to the shadow-plan of the Administration. They have been busily engaged in opposing it on the ground that it is "rushing into militarism," and that a standing army is an "instrument for aggression." Of course in reality the trouble with the Administration's plan is that the standing army it would provide would not even be an instrument for defence. As for "rushing into militarism," we are not even trickling in that direction. The proposal advocated by the real believers in national defence (as distinguished from those who support the Administration's plan) is to make the regular army, relatively to the United States, as large as the New York police force is relatively to the city of New York; for a quarter of a million men bears to the nation just about the proportion that the present police force does to New York City. Surely even hysteria cannot see "militarism" and "aggression" in such a proposal.

A few of the professional pacifists now support the Government's plan for a half preparation, for pretending to meet needs without meeting them. But the extreme pacifists can always be trusted to insist on the nadir of folly. They do not wish to see this nation even pretend to act with self-respect. It is natural that they should wage a sham battle with a sham, for all their utterances are those of men who dwell in a world of windy make-believe. Their argument is that we should have no preparedness whatever, that we should not prepare for defence, nor bear arms, nor be able to use force, and that this nation must "influence others by example rather than by exciting fear," and must secure its safety "not by carrying arms, but by an upright, honorable course." Of course such a position can be honestly held by a man of intelligence only if he also demands the abolition of the police force throughout the United States and announces that he will not resent the action of an offender who slaps the face of his wife or outrages his daughter. However, to argue with these gentlemen is to waste time, for there can be no greater waste of time than to debate about non-debatable things.

It seems literally incredible that any human being can take the position now taken by the professional pacifists, with the fates of Belgium and China before their eyes at this very moment. China has sought to influence others "by example" instead of by "exciting fear," and half her territory is in the possession of aliens. Belgium thought to secure her safety "by an upright honorable course" instead of by "carrying arms," and in consequence she has been trampled into dust. Probably there is not in all Belgium a man, a woman, or a child over six years old, who would consider the arguments of these pacifists against preparedness as other than peculiarly heartless jests. In China, however, among elderly mandarins of unusually conservative type, it is possible that they would be taken seriously.

I very earnestly hope that the ordinary citizens of this country, since their official leaders refuse to lead them, will themselves wake to their own needs and lead the should-be leaders. Let us at once take action to make us the second naval power in the world. Let us take the action this year, not the year after next. Do it now. The navy is our first line of defence. It is from the national standpoint literally criminal to neglect it.

As regards the army, first and foremost let us know the advice of the experts. Then provide a regular army of a quarter of a million men. Relatively to the nation this army would be no larger than the New York police force is relatively to the city of New York. On paper our present strength is 100,000, and we have in the United States a mobile army of only 30,000 men. We need 10,000 more men adequately to man our coast defences at home, and 5,000 additional adequately to man those abroad. We need 20,000 additional men to provide an adequate mobile army for meeting a raid on our overseas possessions. At home we should have a mobile army of 150,000 men, in order to guarantee us against having New York or San Francisco at once seized by any big military nation which went to war with us. A quarter of a million in the regular army is the minimum that will insure the nation's safety from sudden attack.

In addition we must provide backing for this regular army. Provide a real reserve of enlisted men. Provide as many officers, active and reserve taken together, as will enable us to officer a million and a half of men in the event of war. Meanwhile do everything possible for the national guard, providing the necessary Federal control to make it really efficient; and provide for many training camps like that at Plattsburg. Drop the undemocratic continental volunteer army which discriminates between employer and employed, which would help the unpatriotic employer who refused to do as his patriotic rival was glad to do, and which would result merely in the establishment of an inefficient rival to the national guard. Provide an adequate reserve of war material—this is of prime importance.

We should at once begin governmental encouragement and control of our munition plants. To make war on them is to make war on the United States; and those doing so should be treated accordingly and all who encourage them should be treated accordingly. The existing plants should be encouraged in every legitimate way, and provision made to encourage their continuance after the war. But it is most unfortunate that they are situated so near the seacoast. The establishment of munition plants further inland should be provided for, without delay. Pittsburg is as far east as any plant should by rights be placed. This whole matter of providing and regulating the output of munitions is one in which Germany should especially stand as our model. Let us study carefully what she has done, and then develop and adapt to our own needs the schemes which she has found successful, supplementing them with whatever additional measures our own experience may indicate as advisable. There should be a great plant in the southern iron fields —the iron fields whose development was rendered possible by the wise action of the United States Government in permitting the United States Steel Corporation to secure the Tennessee Coal and Iron Company, action which has since been passed on and approved by the Federal courts.

Steadily remember that ample material is useless unless we prepare in advance the highly trained personnel to handle it. This applies all the way through from battle cruisers and submarines to coast guns and field artillery and aeroplanes. We need the best types of sea-going submarines. We need an immense development of the Aviation Corps. I wonder how many of our people understand that at this time the total strength of the officers and men in the French Aviation Corps surpasses in number the total strength of the officers and enlisted men in the United States Army? As regards the army— strict economy should at once be introduced, and, as a preliminary, all useless army posts should be abandoned—just as economy in the navy should imply the abandonment of useless navy yards. A board of first-class army officers, and another of first-class navy officers, should be chosen and required to report, on purely military grounds, which posts should be kept and which abandoned; and their reports should be followed implicitly. However, we ought to have training posts for a mass of officers ready to lead our citizen armies in time of need; and these army posts and navy yards could be very advantageously used for this purpose.

These are the needs that can be and ought to be immediately met. But I believe with all my heart that we must adopt a system of universal service on the Swiss or Australian models, adapted of course to our own needs. This is the method of true democracy. In a free republic rights should only be allowed as corollaries to duties. No man has a right to vote who shirks his obligations to the state whether in peace or war. The full citizen must do a citizen's full duty; and he can only do his full duty if he fits himself to fight for the common good of all citizens in the hour of deadly peril of the nation's life. Manhood suffrage should mean manhood service in war just as much as in peace. People speak in praise of vol-unteers. I also praise the volunteer who volunteers1 to fight. But I do not praise the volunteer who volunteers to have somebody else fight in his place. Universal service is the only way by which we can secure real democracy, real fairness and justice. Every able-bodied youth in the land should be proud to, and should be required to, prepare himself thoroughly to protect the nation from armed aggression.

The question of expense is of wholly secondary importance in a matter which may well be of life or death significance to the nation. Five years hence it may be altogether too late to spend any money! We will do well at this time to adopt, with a slight modification, the motto popular among our forefathers a century ago: Millions for defence but not a cent for either tribute or aggression.

Fortunately we can, if we have sufficient good sense and foresight, not only successfully safeguard ourselves against attack from without, but can, and ought to, do it in such a manner as immeasurably to increase our moral and material efficiency in our everyday lives. Proper preparation for self-defence will be of immense incidental help in solving our spiritual and industrial problems.

In a country like ours a professional army will always be costly, for as regards such an army the Government has to go into the labor market for its soldiers, and compete against industrialism. Universal service, as an obligation on every citizen, is the only way by which to secure an economical and inexpensive army.

A democracy fit to be called such must do its own fighting, and therefore must make ready in advance. The poltroon and the professional pacifist are out of place in a democracy. The man fit for self-government must be fit to fight for self-government. Universal service means preparedness not for war but primarily against war. Such essentially democratic preparedness would render it less likely that war will come and certain that if it does come we shall avoid disgrace and disaster. Such preparedness would mean much for the soul of this nation. The efficiency of the average man in civil life would be thereby greatly increased. He would be trained to realize that he is a partner in this giant democracy, and has duties to the other partners. He would first learn how to obey and then how to command. He would acquire habits of order, of cleanliness, of self-control, of self-restraint, of respect for himself and for others. The whole system would be planned with especial regard to the conditions and needs of the farmer and the workingman. The average citizen would become more efficient in his work and a better man in his relations to his neighbors. We would secure far greater social solidarity and mutual understanding and genuine efficiency among our citizens in time of peace. In time of war we would put back of the navy and of the regular army the weight of the whole nation. With the navy and the very small regular army asked for, only a quarter of a million men, we would be able to meet sudden emergencies; and behind the army and navy would stand a people so trained and so fitted that if the demand was not merely to meet a sudden emergency but a great and long-continued strain, our citizens would be able to furnish within a reasonably short time the number of men necessary to meet this strain.

Universal military service as here indicated would be the best preliminary for fitting this nation for the kind of efficient industrialism, and efficiency of spiritual and moral patriotism from the standpoint of the commonwealth as a whole, which would make us able to parallel the extraordinary German achievements without loss of our own democratic spirit. It is our great duty to combine preparedness for peace, efficiency in securing both industrial success and industrial justice, with preparedness against war. We need not in servile fashion follow exactly the example set abroad, but if we are wise we will profit by what has been achieved, notably among great industrial nations like Germany, in these matters. Switzerland has shown that the most absolute democracy, without one touch of militarism, can develop high industrial efficiency in time of peace and can adequately prepare against war while at the same time securing a marked advance among the citizens in their relations with one another, as regards the qualities of mutual respect, of order, of regard for the law and for the rights of the weak. We are the largest republic of the world. Let us be ashamed to fall behind France, a great republic, and Switzerland, a small but gallant republic, and Australia, the great democracy of the South Seas, and Argentina and Chik in our own hemisphere, in such matters as patriotism, as national efficiency, as the subordination of the individual to the socialized welfare of the people as a whole.

The Administration, at this most critical period of our history, when our people so need the light, has refused to let them have the light, by forbidding the professional officers to discuss the problems which they are especially fitted to discuss. It is treachery to the republic for statesmen—and for professional officers—to propose and to acquiesce in unsound half-measures which necessitate large continuing expenditures, but which do not provide for adequate national defence,

I am told that "women oppose war," and therefore that, with illogical folly, they oppose preparedness against war. I appeal, as a lover of peace, in the name of my wife and myself—the father and mother of sons who would have to go to war, and of daughters who in war would work and suffer as much as the sons—to every good man and good woman in this country. We dread war; but we follow Washington and Lincoln in dreading some things worse than war. Therefore we desire to prepare against war. I wish every man and woman in the land would read a piece in the November Woman's Home Companion which my wife recently showed me. The writer does not give her name. She says she is "a plain old woman of seventy-three" who lives "in a little country town in Kansas." She tells of her husband, John, a skilled mechanic, who went to war in '61, who later grew blind from injuries received in the war, and whose life was a hard, hard struggle. She says that she would like to see everything done to keep war away from us; that therefore she would like to see "forts, submarines, a fine strong fleet, and then every boy raised to be a soldier," to see "every man in some farm, or factory, or business in peace times," but trained so as to be always ready to defend the nation if the call comes; and she "would include the girls, too"—which is quite right, for universal service does not mean that every man must fight, but that every man or woman must serve the country in the position in which he or she can render best service. She ends by saying: "I did raise my boy to be a soldier. If a million other mothers, if every mother in the country would do the same, we would be safe forever."

Universal service would be in every way beneficial to the state and would be quite as beneficial from the standpoint of those who consider the interest of the state in time of peace as from the standpoint of those who are interested in the welfare of the state in time of war. The normal tests of military efficiency are the very tests which would test a man's efficiency for industry and for the ordinary tasks of civil life. If a large percentage of men are unfit for military service it shows that they are also poorly fit for industrial work. A high percentage of infant mortality does not mean the weeding out of the unfit; it means the existence of conditions which greatly impair the vitality of even those who survive. Moreover, the moral effect is at least as great as the physical.

The fundamental evil in this country is the lack of sufficiently general appreciation of the responsibility of citizenship. Unfair business methods, the misused power of capital, the unjustified activities of labor, pork-barrel legislation, and graft among powerful politicians have all been made possible by, and have been manifestations of, this fundamental evil. Nothing would do more to remedy this evil than the kind of training in citizenship, in patriotism and in efficiency, which would come as the result of universal service on the Swiss or Australian models or rather on a combination of the two adapted to our needs. There should be military training, as part of a high-school education which should include all-round training for citizenship. This training should begin in the schools in serious fashion at about the age of 16. Then between the ages of 18 and 21 there should be six months actual and continuous service in the field with the colors.

Such universal training would give our young men the discipline, the sense of orderly liberty and of loyalty to the interests of the whole peo-ple which would tell in striking manner for national cohesion and efficiency. It would tend to enable us in time of need to mobilize not only troops but workers and financial resources and industry itself and to coordinate all the factors in national life. There can be no such mobilization and coordination until we appreciate the necessity and value of national organization; and universal service would be a most powerful factor in bringing about such general appreciation.

As a result of it, every man, whether he carried a rifle or labored on public works or managed a business or worked on a railway, would have a clearer conception of his obligations to the State. It would moreover be a potent method of Americanizing the immigrant. The events of the last eighteen months have shown us the gravity of the danger to American life of the existence of foreign communities within our borders, where men are taught to preserve their former national identity instead of entering unreservedly into our own national life. The hyphenated American of any type is a bad American and an enemy to this country. The best possible anti-scorbutic for this danger is universal service.

Such a service would be essentially democratic. A man has no more right to escape military service in time of need than he has to escape paying his taxes. We do not beseech a man to "volunteer" to pay his taxes, or scream that it would be "an infringement of his liberty" and "contrary to our traditions" to make him pay them.
We simply notify him how much he is to pay, and when, and where. We ought to deal just as summarily with him as regards the even more important matter of personal service to the com-monwealth in time of war. He is not fit to live in the state unless when the state's life is at stake he is willing and able to serve it in any way that it can best use his abilities, and, as an incident, to fight for it if the state believes it can best use him in such fashion. Unless he takes this position he is not fit to be a citizen and should be deprived of the vote. Universal service is the practical, democratic method of dealing with this problem. Rich boy and poor boy would sleep under the same dog tent and march shoulder to shoulder in the hikes. Such service would have an immense democratizing effect. It would improve the health of the community, physically and morally. It would increase our national power of discipline and self-control. It would produce a national state of mind which would enable us all more clearly to realize the necessity of social legislation in dealing with industrial conditions of every kind, from unemployment among men and the labor of women and children to the encouragement of business activities. What I thus advocate is nothing new. I am merely applying to present day conditions the advice given by President George Washington when he submitted a plan for universal military training in his special message to Congress of January 2ist, 1790. This plan advocated military training for all the young men of the country, stating that "every man of proper age and ability of body is firmly bound by the social compact to perform personally his proportion of military duty for the defence of the state," and that "all men of the legal military age should be held responsible for different degrees of military service," and that "the United States are to provide for arming, organizing and disciplining these men." This is merely another name for compulsory universal service, and the plan actually provided that no man of military age should vote unless he possessed a certificate showing that he had performed such service. Washington did not regard professional pacifists as entitled to the suffrage.

I advocate universal service because it would be a potent means of securing a quickened social conscience; because it would help us greatly industrially; and because it would put us where, if necessary, we shall be able to defend ourselves against aggression. This is part, and a vital part, of the doctrine of the larger American-ism. The prime work for this nation at this moment is to rebuild its own character. Let us find our own souls; let us frankly face the world situation to-day as it affects ourselves and as it affects all other countries. We must have a definite home policy and we must have a definite foreign policy. Let us, when we enter into treaties, speak the truth, be wary of making promises, and honorable in fulfilling them. Let us clear sightedly and after mature deliberation adopt a definite policy without and within our borders and then prepare ourselves to carry it through. Let us quit trying to fool ourselves by indulging in cheap self-assertion or even cheaper sentimentality. We must have a period of self-searching. We must endeavor to recover our lost self-respect. Let us show in practical fashion that we fear God and therefore deal justly with all men; and let us also show that we can take our own part; for if we cannot take our own part we may be absolutely certain that no one else will try to take it for us. A policy of unpreparedness and of tame submission to insult and aggression invites the kind of repeated insolence by foreign nations which in the end will drive our people into war. I advocate preparedness, and action (not merely words) on behalf of our honor and interest, because such preparedness and the readiness for such action are the surest guarantees of self-respecting peace.

The larger Americanism demands that we insist that every immigrant who comes here shall become an American citizen and nothing else; if he shows that he still remains at heart more loyal to another land, let him be promptly returned to that land; and if, on the other hand, he shows that he is in good faith and whole-heartedly an American, let him be treated as on a full equality with the native born. This means that foreign born and native born alike should be trained to absolute loyalty to the flag, and trained so as to be able effectively to defend the flag. The larger Americanism demands that we refuse to be sundered from one another along lines of class or creed or section or national origin; that we judge each American on his merits as a man; that we work for the well-being of our bodily selves, but also for the well-being of our spiritual selves; that we consider safety, but that we put honor and duty ahead of safety. Only thus shall we stand erect before the world, high of heart, the masters of our own souls, fit to be the fathers of a race of freemen who shall make and shall keep this land all that it seemed to the prophetic vision of the mighty men who founded it and the mighty men who saved it.