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

CHAPTER 12

CONCLUSION

FEAR God and take your own part! This is another way of saying that a nation must have power and will for self-sacrifice and also power and will for self-protection. There must be both unselfishness and self-expression, each to supplement the other, neither wholly good without the other. The nation must be willing to stand disinterestedly for a lofty ideal and yet it must also be able to insist that its own rights be heeded by others. Evil will come if it does not possess the will and the power for unselfish action on behalf of non-utilitarian ideals and also the will and the power for self-mastery, self-control, self-discipline. It must possess those high and stern qualities of soul which will enable it to conquer softness and weakness and timidity and train itself to subordinate momentary pleasure, momentary profit, momentary safety to the larger future.

There is not the slightest use of saying any of this unless we are willing and able to translate our speech into action. National unselfishness and self-sacrifice must be an affair of deeds. To utter lofty sentiments on the subject, to indulge in oratory about it, to write notes about it, and then when the occasion arises not to act in accordance with these sentiments, means moral degradation for the nation. Oratorical insincerity of this kind is nauseating to all honest men. Prolonged indulgence in this kind of emotional insincerity eats into the moral fiber of the people like a corrosive acid.

In the spring of 1910 at Christiania before the Nobel Prize Committee, in acknowledging the receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize, I outlined the plan for securing international peace by means of an international league pledged to put force back of it, the plan which I elaborated in the volume published over a year ago called "America and the World War." But it is a sham and a mockery to advocate such a plan until and unless we in the first place make it evident that when we give a promise we mean to keep it, and in the next place make it evident that we are willing to show the courage, the resolution, the forethought in training and preparation that will enable us to put strength behind our promise. I believe in nationalism as the absolute pre-requisite to internationalism. I believe in patriotism as the absolute pre-requisite to the larger Americanism. I believe in Americanism because unless our people are good Americans first, America can accomplish little or nothing worth accomplishing for the good of the world as a whole.

But none of these objects can be attained by merely talking about them. National unselfishness and self-sacrifice, national self-mastery, and the development of national power, can never be achieved by words alone. National unselfishness —which is another way of saying service rendered to internationalism—can become effective only if the nation is willing to sacrifice something, is willing to face risk and effort and endure hardship in order to render service. The towering idealism of Lincoln's Gettysburg speech and second inaugural counted only because it represented the labor and effort and willingness to face death and eager pride in fighting for ideals, which marked a mighty people led by a mighty leader.

We of America, thanks to the failure of President Wilson's Administration to do its duty, have ourselves failed to serve the cause of internationalism as it was our bounden duty to serve it by standing efficiently for heroic Belgium when, under the lead of their heroic King and Queen, the Belgian people chose to tread the hard path of national suffering and honor rather than the easy path which led through fields of safety and disgrace. The Belgians have walked through the valley of the shadow rather than prove false to their ideals. We, rich, prosperous, at ease, and potentially powerful, have not lifted a finger to right their wrongs, lest our own safety and comfort might be jeopardized. This represents on our part neither readiness for national self-sacrifice, nor appreciation of true internationalism. It represents the gross selfishness which puts material well-being above fealty to a high ideal.

This national selfishness, manifested under the lead of President Wilson and Secretary Bryan, was doubly offensive because it was loudly trumpeted as a virtue. One of our besetting sins as a nation has been to encourage in our public servants, in our speech-making leaders of all kinds, the preaching of impossible ideals; and then to treat this as offsetting the fact that in practice these representatives did not live up to any ideals whatever. The vital need is that we as a nation shall say what we mean and shall make our public servants say what they mean; say it to other nations and say it to us, ourselves. Let us demand that we and they preach realizable ideals and that we and they live up to the ideals thus preached. Let there be no impassable gulf between exuberance of impossible promise and pitiful insufficiency in quality of possible performance.

Belgium is the test of just how much our public servants and our professional humanitarians mean when they speak in favor of high ideals and lofty international morality. If we clamor for peace without saying that Belgium's wrongs are to be righted before peace can properly come, we are false to every true standard of international morality. If we are not willing to encounter hazard and the risk of loss and the need of effort in order to help Belgium, then we show ourselves unfit to talk about internationalism.

But this is not all. It is odious hypocrisy to do as this Administration has done and refuse to stand for the rights of neutrals when, as in the case of Belgium, these rights were most flagrantly trodden under foot, but when we had no pecuniary interest involved; and yet promptly to clamor on behalf of the rights of neutrals when the exercise of these rights would redound to our own pecuniary advantage. This is to put the body above the soul, the dollar above the man. Moreover, when we thus, in the first and greatest case of the violation of neutral rights, flinched from our duty, we rendered it impossible with effect or indeed with propriety to protest about subsequent and lesser violations of neutral rights. With colossal effrontery Germany, the first and infinitely the greatest offender against humanity and the rights of neutrals, has clamored that we should take steps to "secure neutral rights on the seas," to "establish the freedom of the seas," "to secure the neutralization of the ocean." The pro-Germans on this side of the water have repeated these words with parrot-like fidelity of phrase. In the first place, all offences against the freedom of the seas that have been perpetrated in this war are unimportant compared with the infamy committed on Belgium—save only those offences committed by the German and Austrian submarines, which resulted in the murder of over two thousand non-combatants. In the next place, until the civilized world which is at peace, and more especially the United States, in some way takes effective action to rebuke the violation by Germany of the neutralized territory of Belgium, it is utterly useless to talk about the neutralization of the seas. If the United States had promptly and effectively interfered on behalf of Belgium, it would have been its clear duty to interfere against all the nations who on sea or on shore have subsequently been guilty of violations of international law and of the rules laid down in The Hague Conventions, the Geneva Convention and other similar conventions. But until the first duty has been efficiently performed and the major offender dealt with, it is a proof of cowardice and of bad faith to deal with minor offences.

Let us be true to our democratic ideal, not by the utterance of cheap platitudes, not by windy oratory, but by living our lives in such manner as to show that democracy can be efficient in promoting the public welfare during periods of peace and efficient in securing national freedom in time of war. If a free government cannot organize and maintain armies and navies which can and will fight as well as those of an autocracy or a despotism, it will not survive. We must have a first-class navy and a first-class professional army. We must also secure universal and obligatory military training for all our young men. Our democracy must prove itself effective in making the people healthy, strong and industrially productive, in securing justice, in inspiring intense patriotism and in making every man and woman within our borders realize that if they are not willing at time of need to serve the nation against all comers in war, they are not fit to be citizens of the nation in time of peace. The democratic ideal must be that of subordinating chaos to order, of subordinating the individual to the community, of subordinating individual selfishness to collective self-sacrifice for a lofty ideal, of training every man to realize that no one is entitled to citizenship in a great free common-wealth unless he does his full duty to his neighbor, his full duty in his family life, and his full duty to the nation; and unless he is prepared to do this duty not only in time of peace but also in time of war. It is by no means necessary that a great nation should always stand at the heroic level. But no nation has the root of greatness in it unless in time of need it can rise to the heroic mood.

APPENDIX A
\
MURDER   ON   THE   HIGH   SEAS
On the ninth of May, 1915, two days after the Lusitania was torpedoed without warning by a German submarine, I made the following statement in the press:—
THE German submarines have established no effective blockade of the British and French coast lines. They have endeavored to prevent the access of French, British and neutral ships to Britain and France by attacks upon them which defy every principle of international law as laid down in innumerable existing treaties, including The Hague Conventions. Many of these attacks have represented pure piracy; and not a few of them have been accompanied by murder on an extended scale. In the case of the Lusitania the scale was so vast that the murder became wholesale.

A number of American ships had already bee* torpedoed in similar fashion. In two cases American lives were lost. When the Lusitania sank some twelve hundred non-combatants, men, women and children, were drowned, and more than a hundred of these were Americans. Centuries have passed since any war vessel of a civilized power has shown such ruthless brutality toward non-combatants, and especially toward women and children. The Moslem pirates of the Barbary Coast behaved at times in similar fashion, until the civilized nations joined in suppressing them; and the other pirates who were outcasts from among these civilized nations also at one time perpetrated similar deeds, until they were sunk or hung. But none of these old-time pirates committed murder on so vast a scale as in the case of the Ltisitania.

The day after the tragedy the newspapers reported in one column that in Queenstown there lay by the score the bodies of women and children, some of the dead women still clasping the bodies of the little children they held in their arms when death overwhelmed them. In another column they reported the glee expressed by the Berlin journals at this "great victory of German naval policy." It was a victory over the defenceless and the unoffending, and its signs and trophies were the bodies of the murdered women and children.

Our treaties with Prussia in 1785, 1799, and 1828, still in force in this regard, provide that if one of the contracting parties should be at war with any other power the free intercourse and commerce of the subjects or citizens of the party remaining neutral with the belligerent powers shall not be interrupted. Germany has treated this treaty as she has treated other scraps of paper.

But the offence goes far deeper than this. The action of the German submarines in the cases cited can be justified only by a plea which would likewise justify the wholesale poisoning of wells in the path of a hostile army, or the shipping of infected rags into the cities of a hostile country; a plea which would justify the torture of prisoners and the reduction of captured women to the slavery of concubinage. Those who advance such a plea will accept but one counter plea—strength, the strength and courage of the just man armed.
When those who guide the military policy of a state hold up to the soldiers of their army the Huns, and the terror once caused by the Huns, for their imitation, they thereby render themselves responsible for any Hun-nish deed which may follow. The destruction of cities like Louvain and Dinant, the scientific vivisection of Belgium as a warning to other nations, the hideous wrongdoing to civilians, men, women and children in Belgium and northern France, in order thereby to terrorize the civilian population—all these deeds, and those like them, done on the land, have now been paralleled by what has happened on the sea.

In the teeth of these things, we earn as a nation measureless scorn and contempt if we follow the lead of those who exalt peace above righteousness, if we heed the voices of those feeble folk who bleat to high heaven that there is peace when there is no peace. For many months our government has preserved between right and wrong a neutrality which would have excited the emulous admiration of Pontius Pilate—the arch-typical neutral of all time. We have urged as a justification for failing to do our duty in Mexico that to do so would benefit American dollars. Are we now to change faces and advance the supreme interest of American dollars as a justification for continuance in the refusal to do the duty imposed on us in connection with the world war?

Unless we act with immediate decision and vigor we shall have failed in the duty demanded by humanity at large, and demanded even more clearly by the self-respect of the American Republic."

We did not act with immediate decision and vigor. We did not act at all. The President immediately after the sinking made a speech in which occurred his sentence about our "being too proud to fight." This was accepted, very properly, by foreign nations as the statement of our official head that we ranked in point of national spirit and power with China. I then published the following interview :
"I think that China is entitled to draw all the comfort she can from this statement, and it would be well for the United States to ponder seriously what the effect upon China has been of managing her foreign affairs during the last fifteen years on the theory thus enunciated.

"If the United States is satisfied with occupying some time in the future the precise international position that China now occupies, then the United States can afford to act on this theory. But it cannot so act if it desires to regain the position won for it under Washington and by the men who in the days of Abraham Lincoln wore the blue under Grant and the gray under Lee.

"I very earnestly hope that the President will act promptly. The proper time for deliberation was prior to sending his message that our Government would hold Germany to a 'strict accountability' if it did the things which it has now actually done.
"The 150 babies drowned on the Lusitania, the hundreds of women drowned with them—scores of these women and children being Americans— and the American ship, the GulHight, which was torpedoed, offer an eloquent commentary on the actual working of the theory that it is not necessary to assert rights and that a policy of blood and iron can safely be met by a policy of milk and water.

"I see it stated in the dispatches from Washington that Germany now offers to stop the practice of murder on the high seas, committed in violation of the neutral rights she is pledged to preserve, if we will now abandon further neutral rights, which by her treaty she has solemnly pledged herself to see that we exercise without molestation.

"Such a proposal is not even entitled to an answer. The manufacture and shipments of arms and ammunition to any belligerent is moral or immoral, according to the use to which the arms and munitions are to be put. If they are to be used to prevent the redress of hideous wrongs inflicted on Belgium then it is immoral to ship them. If they are to be used for the redress of those wrongs and the restoration of Belgium to her deeply-wronged and unoffending people, then it is eminently moral to send them.

"Without 24 hours' delay this country should and could take effective action. It should take possession of all the interned German ships, including the German warships, and hold them as a guarantee that ample satisfaction shall be given us. Furthermore it should declare that in view of Germany's murderous offences against the rights of neutrals all commerce with Germany shall be forthwith forbidden and all commerce of every kind permitted and encouraged with France, England, Russia, and the rest of the civilized world.

"I do not believe that the firm assertion of our rights means war, but, in any event, it is well to remember there are things worse than war.
"Let us as a nation understand that peace is worth having only when it is the hand-maiden of international righteousness and of national self-respect"

APPENDIX B
AMERICANISM
Address delivered before the Knights of Columbus, Carnegie Hall, New York, Oct. 12, 1915
OUR centuries and a quarter have gone by since Columbus by discovering America opened the greatest era in world history. Four centuries have passed since the Spaniards began that colonization on the main land which has resulted in the growth of the nations of Latin-America. Three centuries have passed since, with the settlements on the coasts of Virginia and Massachusetts, the real history of what is now the United States began. All this we ultimately owe to the action of an Italian seaman in the service of a Spanish King and a Spanish Queen. It is eminently fitting that one of the largest and most influential social organizations of this great Republic,—a Republic in which the tongue is English, and the blood derived from many sources—should, in its name, commemorate the great Italian. It is eminently fitting to make an address on Americanism before this society.

We of the United States need above all things to remember that, while we are by blood and culture kin to each of the nations of Europe, we are also separate from each of them. We are a new and distinct nationality. We are developing our own distinctive culture and civilization, and the worth of this civilization will largely de-pend upon our determination to keep it distinctively our own. Our sons and daughters should be educated here and not abroad. We should freely take from every other nation whatever we can make of use, but we should adopt and develop to our own peculiar needs what we thus take, and never be content merely to copy.

Our nation was founded to perpetuate democratic principles. These principles are that each man is to be treated on his worth as a man without regard to the land from which his forefathers came and without regard to the creed which he professes. If the United States proves false to these principles of civil and religious liberty, it will have inflicted the greatest blow on the system of free popular government that has ever been inflicted. Here we have had a virgin continent on which to try the experi-ment of making out of divers race stocks a new nation and of treating all the citizens of that nation in such a fashion as to preserve them equality of opportunity in industrial, civil and political life. Our duty is to secure each man against any injustice by his fellows.

One of the most important things to secure for him is the right to hold and to express the religious views that best meet his own soul needs. Any political movement directed against any body of our fellow citizens because of their religious creed is a grave offense against American principles and American institutions. It is a wicked thing either to support or to oppose a man because of the creed he professes. This applies to Jew and Gentile, to Catholic and Protestant, and to the man who would be regarded as unorthodox by all of them alike. Political movements directed against certain men because of their religious belief, and intended to prevent men of that creed from holding office, have never accomplished anything but harm. This was true in the days of the "Know-Nothing" and Native-American parties in the middle of the last century; and it is just as true to-day. Such a movement directly contravenes the spirit of the Constitution itself. Washington and his associates believed that it was essential to the existence of this Republic that there should never be any union of Chursh and State; and such union is partially accomplished wherever a given creed is aided by the State or when any public servant is elected or defeated because of his creed. The Constitution explicitly forbids the requiring of any religious test as a qualification for holding office. To impose such a test by popular vote is as bad as to impose it by law. To vote either for or against a man because of his creed is to impose upon him a religious test and is a clear violation of the spirit of the Constitution.

Moreover, it is well to remember that these movements never achieve the end they nominally have in view. They do nothing whatsoever except to increase among the men of the various churches the spirit of sectarian intolerance which is base and unlovely in any civilization but which is utterly revolting among a free people that profess the principles we profess. No such movement can ever permanently succeed here. All that it does is for a decade or so greatly to increase the spirit of theological animosity, both among the people to whom it appeals and among the people whom it assails. Furthermore, it has in the past invariably resulted, in so far as it was successful at all, in putting unworthy men into office; for there is nothing that a man of loose principles and of evil practices in public life so desires as the chance to distract attention from his own shortcomings and misdeeds by exciting and inflaming theological and sectarian prejudice.

We must recognize that it is a cardinal sin against democracy to support a man for public office because he belongs to a given creed or to oppose him because he belongs to a given creed. It is just as evil as to draw the line between class and class, between occupation and occupation in political life. No man who tries to draw either line is a good American. True Americanism demands that we judge each man on his conduct, that we so judge him in private life and that we so judge him in public life. The line of cleavage drawn on principle and conduct in public affairs is never in any healthy community identical with the line of cleavage between creed and creed or between class and class. On the contrary, where the community life is healthy, these lines of cleavage almost always run nearly at right angles to one another. It is eminently necessary to all of us that we should have able and honest public officials in the nation, in the city, in the state. If we make a serious and resolute effort to get such officials of the right kind, men who shall not only be honest but shall be able and shall take the right view of public questions, we will find as a matter of fact that the men we thus choose will be drawn from the professors of every creed and from among men who do not adhere to any creed.

For thirty-five years I have been more or less actively engaged in public life, in the performance of my political duties, now in a public position, now in a private position. I have fought with all the fervor I possessed for the various causes in which with all my heart I believed; and in every fight I thus made I have had with me and against me Catholics, Protestants' and Jews. There have been times when I have had to make the fight for or against some man of each creed on grounds of plain public morality, unconnected with questions of public policy. There were other times when I have made such a fight for or against a given man, not on grounds of public morality, for he may have been morally a good man, but on account of his attitude on questions of public policy, of governmental principle. In both cases, I have always found myself fighting beside, and fighting against, men of every creed. The one sure way to have secured the defeat of every good principle worth fighting for would have been to have permitted the fight to be changed into one along sectarian lines and inspired by the spirit of sectarian bitterness, either for the purpose of putting into public life or of keeping out of public life the believers in any given creed. Such conduct represents an assault upon Americanism. The man guilty of it is not a good American.

I hold that in this country there must be complete severance of Church and State; that public moneys shall not be used for the purpose of advancing any particular creed; and therefore that the public schools shall be non-sectarian and no public moneys appropriated for sec-tarian schools. As a necessary corollary to this, not only the pupils but the members of the teaching force and the school officials of all kinds must be treated exactly on a par, no matter what their creed; and there must be no more discrimination against Jew or Catholic or Protestant than discrimination in favor of Jew, Catholic or Protestant. Whoever makes such discrimination is an enemy of the public schools.

What is true of creed is no less true of nationality. There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all. This is just as true of the man who puts "native" before the hyphen as of the man who puts German or Irish or English or French before the hyphen. Americanism is a matter of the spirit and of the soul. Our allegiance must be purely to the United States. We must unsparingly condemn any man who holds any other allegiance. But if he is heartily and singly loyal to this Republic, then no matter where he was born, he is just as good an American as any one else.

The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality than with the other citizens of the American Republic. The men who do not become Americans and nothing else are hyphenated Americans; and there ought to be no room for them in this country. The man who calls himself an American citizen and who yet shows by his actions that he is primarily the citizen of a foreign land, plays a thoroughly mischievous part in the life of our body politic. He has no place here; and the sooner he returns to the land to which he feels his real heart-allegiance, the better it will be for every good American. There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American. The only man who is a good American is the man who is an American and nothing else.

I appeal to history. Among the generals of Washington in the Revolutionary War were Greene, Putnam and Lee, who were of English descent; Wayne and Sullivan, who were of Irish descent; Marion, who was of French descent; Schuyler, who was of Dutch descent, and Muhlenberg and Herkimer, who were of German descent. But they were all of them Americans and nothing else, just as much as Washington. Carroll of Carrollton was a Catholic; Hancock a Protestant; Jefferson was heterodox from the standpoint of any orthodox creed; but these and all the other signers of the Declaration of Independence stood on an equality of duty and right and liberty, as Americans and nothing else.

So it was in the Civil War. Farragut's father was born in Spain and Sheridan's father in Ireland; Sherman and Thomas were of English and Custer of German descent; and Grant came of a long line of American ancestors whose original home had been Scotland. But the Admiral was not a Spanish-American; and the Generals were not Scotch-Americans or Irish-Americans or English-Americans or German-Americans. They were all Americans and nothing else. This was just as true of Lee and of Stonewall Jackson and of Beauregard.

When in 1909 our battlefleet returned from its voyage around the world, Admirals Wainwright and Schroeder represented the best traditions and the most efficient action in our navy; one was of old American blood and of English descent; the other was the son of German immigrants. But one was not a native-American and the other a German-American. Each was an American pure and simple. Each bore allegiance only to the flag of the United States. Each would have been incapable of considering the interests of Germany or of England or of any other country except the United States.

To take charge of the most important work under my administration, the building of the Panama Canal, I chose General Goethals. Both of his parents were born in Holland. But he was just plain United States. He wasn't a Dutch-American; if he had been I wouldn't have appointed him. So it was with such men, among those who served under me, as Admiral Osterhaus and General Barry. The father of one was born in Germany, the father of the other in Ireland. But they were both Americans, pure and simple, and first rate fighting men in addition.

In my Cabinet at the time there were men of English and French, German, Irish and Dutch blood, men born on this side and men born in Germany and Scotland; but they were all Americans and nothing else; and every one of them was incapable of thinking of himself or of his fellow-countrymen, excepting in terms of American citizenship. If any one of them had anything in the nature of a dual or divided allegiance in his soul, he never would have been appointed to serve under me, and he would have been instantly removed when the discovery was made. There wasn't one of them who was capable of desiring that the policy of the United States should be shaped with reference to the interests of any foreign country or with consideration for anything, outside of the general welfare of humanity, save the honor and interest of the United States, and each was incapable of making any discrimination whatsoever among the citizens of the country he served, of our common country, save discrimination based on conduct and on conduct alone.

For an American citizen to vote as a German-American, an Irish-American or an English-American is to be a traitor to American institutions; and those hyphenated Americans who terrorize American politicians by threats of the foreign vote are engaged in treason to the American Republic.

Now this is a declaration of principles. How are we in practical fashion to secure the making of these principles part of the very fiber of our national life? First and foremost let us all resolve that in this country hereafter we shall place far less emphasis upon the question of right and much greater emphasis upon the matter of duty. A republic can't succeed and won't succeed in the tremendous international stress of the modern world unless its citizens possess that form of high-minded patriotism which consists in putting devotion to duty before the question of individual rights. This must be done in our family relations or the family will go to pieces; and no better tract for family life in this country can be imagined than the little story called "Mother," written by an American woman, Kathleen Norris, who happens to be a member of your own church.

What is true of the family, the foundation stone of our national life, is not less true of the entire superstructure. I am, as you know, a most ardent believer in national preparedness against war as a means of securing that honorable and self-respecting peace which is the only peace desired by all high-spirited people. But it is an absolute impossibility to secure such preparedness in full and proper form if it is an isolated feature of our policy. The lamentable fate of Belgium has shown that no justice in legislation or success in business will be of the slightest avail if the nation has not prepared in advance the strength to protect its rights. But it is equally true that there cannot be this preparation in advance for military strength unless there is a solid basis of civil and social life behind it. There must be social, economic and military preparedness all alike, all harmoniously developed ; and above all there must be spiritual and mental preparedness.

There must be not merely preparedness in things material ; there must be preparedness in soul and mind. To prepare a great army and navy without preparing a proper national spirit would avail nothing. And if there is not only a proper national spirit but proper national intelligence, we shall realize that even from the standpoint of the army and navy some civil preparedness is indispensable. For example, a plan for national defence which does not include the most far-reaching use and co-operation of our railroads must prove largely futile. These railroads are organized in time of peace. But we must have the most carefully thought out organization from the national and centralized standpoint in order to use them in time of war. This means first that those in charge of them from the highest to the lowest must understand their duty in time of war, must be permeated with the spirit of genuine patriotism; and second, that they and we shall understand that efficiency is as essential as patriotism; one is useless without the other.

Again: every citizen should be trained sedulously by every activity at our command to realize his duty to the nation. In France at this moment the workingmen who are not at the front are spending all their energies with the single thought of helping their brethren at the front by what they do in the munition plants, on the railroads, in the factories. It is a shocking, a lamentable thing that many of the trade unions of England have taken a directly opposite view. It is doubtless true that many of their employers have made excessive profits out of war conditions; and the Government should have drastically controlled and minimized such profit-making. Such wealthy men should be dealt with in radical fashion; but their misconduct doesn't excuse the misconduct of those labor men who are trying to make gains at the cost of their brethren who fight in the trenches. The thing for us Americans to realize is that we must do our best to prevent similar conditions from growing up here. Business men, professional men, and wage workers alike must understand that there should be no question of their enjoying any rights whatsoever unless in the fullest way they recognize and live up to the duties that go with those rights. This is just as true of the corporation as of the trade union, and if either corporation or trade union fails heartily to acknowledge this truth, then its activities are necessarily anti-social and detrimental to the welfare of the body politic as a whole. In war time, when the welfare of the nation is at stake, it should be accepted as axiomatic that the employer is to make no profit out of the war save that which is necessary to the efficient running of the business and to the living expenses of himself and family, and that the wage worker is to treat his wage from exactly the same standpoint and is to see to it that the labor organization to which he belongs is, in all its activities, subordinated to the service of the nation.

Now there must be some application of this spirit in times of peace or we cannot suddenry develop it in time of war. The strike situation in the United States at this time is a scandal to the country as a whole and disfcredit-able alike to employer and employee. Any employer who fails to recognize that human rights come first and that the friendly relationship between himself and those working for him should be one of partnership and comradeship in mutual help no less than self-help is recreant to his duty as an American citizen and it is to his interest, having in view the enormous destruction of life in the present war, to conserve, and to train to higher efficiency alike for his benefit and for its, the labor supply. In return any employee who acts along the lines publicly advocated by the men who profess to speak for the I. W. W. is not merely an open enemy of business but of this entire country and is out of place in our government.

You, Knights of Columbus, are particularly fitted to play a great part in the movement for national solidarity, without which there can be no real efficiency in either peace or war. During the last year and a quarter it has been brought home to us in startling fashion that many of the elements of our nation are not yet properly fused. It ought to be a literally appalling fact that members of two of the foreign embassies in this country have been discovered to be implicated in inciting their fellow-countrymen, whether naturalized American citizens or not, to the destruction of property and the crippling of American industries that are operating in accordance with internal law and international agreement. The malign activity of one of these embassies, the Austrian, has been brought home directly to the ambassador in such shape that his recall has been forced. The activities of the other, the German, have been set forth in detail by the publication in the press of its letters in such fashion as to make it perfectly clear that they were of the same general character. Of course, the two embassies were merely carrying out the instructions of their home governments.

Nor is it only the Germans and Austrians who take the view that as a matter of right they can treat their countrymen resident in America, even if naturalized citizens of the United States, as their allies and subjects to be used in keeping alive separate national groups profoundly anti-American in sentiment if the contest comes between American interests and those of foreign lands in question. It has recently been announced that the Russian government is to rent a house in New York as a national center to be Russian in faith and patriotism, to foster the Russian language and keep alive the national feeling in immigrants who come hither. All of this is utterly antagonistic to proper American sentiment, whether perpetrated in the name of Germany, of Austria, of Russia, of England, or France or any other country.
We should meet this situation by on the one hand seeing that these immigrants get all their rights as American citizens, and on the other hand insisting that they live up to their duties as American citizens. Any discrimination against aliens is a wrong, for it tends to put the immigrant at a disadvantage and to cause him to feel bitterness and resentment during the very years when he should be preparing himself for American citizenship. If an immigrant is not fit to become a citizen, he should not be allowed to come here. If he is fit, he should be given all the rights to earn his own livelihood, and to better himself, that any man can have. Take such a matter as the illiteracy test; I entirely agree with those who feel that many very excellent possible citizens would be barred improperly by an illiteracy test. But why do you not admit aliens under a bond to learn to read and write English within a certain time ? It would then be a duty to see that they were given ample opportunity to learn to read and write and that they were deported if they failed to take advantage of the opportunity. No man can be a good citizen if he is not at least in process of learning to speak the language of his fellow-citizens. And an alien who remains here without learning to speak English for more than a certain number of years should at the end of that time be treated as having refused to take the preliminary steps necessary to complete Americanization and should be deported. But there should be no denial or limitation of the alien's opportunity to work, to own property and to take advantage of civic opportunities. Special legislation should deal with the aliens who do not come here to be made citizens. But the alien who comes here intending to become a citizen should be helped in every way to advance himself, should be removed from every possible disadvantage and in return should be required under penalty of being sent back to the country from which he came, to prove that he is in good faith fitting himself to be an American citizen. We should set a high standard, and insist on men reaching it; but if they do reach it we should treat them as on a full equality with ourselves.

Therefore, we should devote ourselves as a preparative to preparedness, alike in peace and war, to secure the three elemental things; one, a common language, the English language; two, the increase in our social loyalty— citizenship absolutely undivided, a citizenship which ac-knowledges no flag except the flag of the United States and which emphatically repudiates all duality of national loyalty; and third, an intelligent and resolute effort for the removal of industrial and social unrest, an effort which shall aim equally to secure every man his rights and to make every man understand that unless he in good faith performs his duties he is not entitled to any rights at all.

The American people should itself do these things for the immigrants. If we leave the immigrant to be helped by representatives of foreign governments, by foreign societies, by a press and institutions conducted in a foreign language and in the interest of foreign governments, and if we permit the immigrants to exist as alien groups, each group sundered from the rest of the citizens of the country, we shall store up for ourselves bitter trouble in the future.

I am certain that the only permanently safe attitude for this country as regards national preparedness for self-defense is along the lines of obligatory universal service on the Swiss model. Switzerland is the most democratic of nations. Its army is the most democratic army in the world. There isn't a touch of militarism or aggressiveness about Switzerland. It has been found as a matter of actual practical experience in Switzerland that the universal military training has made a very marked increase in social efficiency and in the ability of the man thus trained to do well for himself in industry. The man who has received the training is a better citizen, is more self-respecting, more orderly, better able to hold his own, and more willing to respect the rights of others, and at the same time he is a more valuable and better paid man in his business. We need that the navy and the army should be greatly increased and that their efficiency as units and in the aggregate should be increased to an even greater degree than their numbers. An adequate regular reserve should be established. Economy should be insisted on, and first of all in the abolition of useless army posts and navy yards. The National Guard should be supervised and controlled by the Federal War Department. Training camps such as at Plattsburg should be provided on a nation-wide basis and the government should pay the expenses. Foreign-born as well as native-born citizens should be brought together in those camps; and each man at the camp should take the oath of allegiance as unreservedly and unqualifiedly as the men of the regular army and navy now take it. Not only should battleships, battle cruisers, submarines, aircraft, ample coast and field artillery be provided and a greater am-munition supply system, but there should be a utilization of those engaged in such professions as the ownership and management of motor cars, aviation, and the profession of engineering. Map-making and road improvement should be attended to, and, as I have already said, the railroads brought into intimate touch with the War Department. Moreover, the government should deal with conservation of all necessary war supplies such as mine products, potash, oil lands and the like. Furthermore, all munition plants should be carefully surveyed with special reference to their geographic distribution. Provision should be made for munition and supply factories wesu of the Alleghenies. Finally, remember that the men must be sedulously trained in peace to use this material or we shall merely prepare our ships, guns and products as gifts to the enemy. All of these things should be done in any event. But let us never forget that the most important of all things is to introduce universal military service.

Let me repeat that this preparedness against war must be based upon efficiency and justice in the handling of ourselves in time of peace. If belligerent governments, while we are not hostile to them but merely neutral, strive nevertheless to make of this nation many nations, each hostile to the others and none of them loyal to the central government, then it may be accepted as certain that they would do far worse to us in time of war. If Germany and Austria encourage strikes and sabotage in our munition plants while we are neutral it may be accepted ar axiomatic that they would do far worse to us if we were hostile. It is our duty from the standpoint of self-defence to secure the complete Americanization of our people; to make of the many peoples of this country a united nation, one in speech and feeling and all, so far as possible, sharers in the best that each has brought to our shores.

The foreign-born population of this country must be an Americanized population—no other kind can fight the battles of America either in war or peace. It must talk the language of its native-born fellow citizens, it must possess American citizenship and American ideals—and therefore we native born citizens must ourselves practice a high and fine idealism, and shun as we would the plague the sordid materialism which treats pecuniary profit and gross bodily comfort as the only evidences of success. It must stand firm by its oath of allegiance in word and deed and must show that in very fact it has renounced allegiance to every prince, potentate or foreign government. It must be maintained on an American standard of living so as to prevent labor disturbances in important plants and at critical times. None of these objects can be secured as long as we have immigrant colonies, ghettos, and immigrant sections, and above all they cannot be assured so long as we consider the immigrant only as an industrial asset. The immigrant must not be allowed to drift or to be put at the mercy of the exploiter. Our object is not to imitate one of the older racial types, but to maintain a new American type and then to secure loyalty to this type. We cannot secure such loyalty unless we make this a country where men shall feel that they have justice and also where they shall feel that they are required to perform the duties imposed upon them. The policy of "Let alone" which we have hitherto pursued is thoroughly vicious from two standpoints. By this policy we have permitted the immigrants, and too often the native-born laborers as well, to suffer injustice. Moreover, by this policy we have failed to impress upon the immigrant and upon the native-born as well that they are expected to do justice as well as to receive justice, that they are expected to be heartily and actively and single-mindedly loyal to the flag no less than to benefit by living under it.

We cannot afford to continue to use hundreds of thousands of immigrants merely as industrial assets while they remain social outcasts and menaces any more than fifty years ago we could afford to keep the black man merely as an industrial asset and not as a human being. We cannot afford to build a big industrial plant and herd men and women about it without care for their welfare. We cannot afford to permit squalid overcrowding or the kind of living system which makes impossible the decencies and necessities of life. We cannot afford the low wage rates and the merely seasonal industries which mean the sacrifice of both individual and family life and morals to the industrial machinery. We cannot afford to leave American mines, munitions plants and general resources in the hands of alien workmen, alien to America and even likely to be made hostile to America by machinations such as have recently been provided in the case of the above-named foreign embassies in Washington. We cannot afford to run the risk of having in time of war men working on our railways or working in our munition plants who would in the name of duty to their own foreign countries bring destruction to us. Recent events have shown us that incitements to sabotage and strikes are in the view of at least two of the great foreign powers of Europe within their definition of neutral practices. What would be done to us in the name of war if these things are done to us in the name of neutrality?

Justice Dowling in his speech has described the excellent fourth degree of your order, of how in it you dwell upon duties leather than rights, upon the great duties of patriotism and of national spirit. It is a fine thing to have a society that holds up such a standard of duty. I ask you to make a special effort to deal with Americanization, the fusing into one nation, a nation necessarily different from all other nations, of all who come to our shores. Pay heed to the three principal essentials: (i) The need of a common language, English, with a minimum amount of illiteracy; (2) the need of a common civil standard, similar ideals, beliefs and customs symbolized by the oath of allegiance to America; and (3) the need of a high standard of living, of reasonable equality of opportunity and of social and industrial justice. In every great crisis in our history, in the Revolution and in the Civil War, and in the lesser crises, like the Spanish War, all factions and races have been forgotten in the common spirit of Americanism. Protestant and Catholic, men of English or of French, of Irish or of German descent, have joined with a single-minded purpose to secure for the country what only can be achieved by the resultant union of all patriotic citizens. You of this organization have done a great service by your insistence that citizens should pay heed first of all to their duties. Hitherto undue prominence has been given to the question of rights. Your organization is a splendid engine for giving to the stranger within our gates a high conception of American citizenship. Strive for unity. We suffer at present from a lack of leadership in these matters.

Even in the matter of national defence there is such a labyrinth of committees and counsels and advisers that there is a tendency on the part of the average citizen to become confused and do nothing. I ask you to help strike the note that shall unite our people. As a people we must be united. If we are not united we shall slip into the gulf of measureless disaster. We must be strong in purpose for our own defence and bent on securing justice within our borders. If as a nation we are split into warring camps, if we teach our citizens not to look upon one another as brothers but as enemies divided by the hatred of creed for creed or of those of one race against those of another race, surely we shall fail and our great democratic experiment on this continent will go down in crushing overthrow. I ask you here to-night and those like you to take a foremost part in the movement—a young men's movement—for a greater and better America in the future.

All of us, no matter from what land our parents came, no matter in what way we may severally worship our Creator, must stand shoulder to shoulder in a united America for the elimination of race and religious prejudice. We must stand for a reign of equal justice to both big and small. We must insist on the maintenance of the American standard of living. We must stand for an adequate national control which shall secure a better training of our young men in time of peace, both for the work of peace and for the work of war. We must direct every national resource, material and spiritual, to the task not of shirking difficulties, but of training our people to overcome difficulties. Our aim must be, not to make life easy and soft, not to soften soul and body, but to fit us in virile fashion to do a great work for all mankind. This great work can only be done by a mighty democracy, with those qualities of soul, guided by those qualities of mind, which will both make it refuse to do injustice to any other nation, and also enable it to hold its own against aggression by any other nation. In our relations with the outside world, we must abhor wrongdoing, and disdain to commit it, and we must no less disdain the baseness of spirit which tamely submits to wrongdoing. Finally and most important of all, we must strive for the establishment within our own borders of that stern and lofty standard of personal and public morality which shall guarantee to each man his rights, and which shall insist in return upon the full performance by each man of his duties both to his neighbor and to the great nation whose flag must symbolize in the future as it has symbolized in the past the highest hopes of all mankind.

APPENDIX C
November 24, 1915. 'My dear Mr. Dutton:
Even to nerves dulled and jaded by the heaped-up horrors of the past year and a half, the news of the terrible fate that has befallen the Armenians must give a fresh shock of sympathy and indignation. Let me emphatically point out that the sympathy is useless unless it is accompanied with indignation, and that the indignation is useless if it exhausts itself in words instead of taking shape in deeds.

If this people through its government had not shirked its duty in Mexico for the last five years, and if this people through its government had not shirked its duty in connection with the world war for the last sixteen months, we would now be able to take effective action on behalf of Armenia. Mass meetings on behalf of the Armenians amount to nothing whatever if they are mere methods of giving a sentimental but ineffective and safe outlet to the emotion of those engaged in them. Indeed they amount to less than nothing. The habit of giving emotional expression to feelings without following the expression by action is in the end thoroughly detrimental both to the will power and to the morality of the persons concerned. As long as this government proceeds, whether as regards Mexico or as regards Germany, whether as regards the European War, or as regards Belgium, on the principles of the peace-at-any-price men, of the professional pacifists, just so long it will be as absolutely ineffective for international right-eousness as China itself. The men who act on the motto of "safety first" are acting on a motto which could be appropriately used by the men on a sinking steamer who jump into the boats ahead of the women and children —and who at least do not commemorate this fact by wearing buttons with "safety first" on them as a device. Until we put honor and duty first, and are willing to risk something in order to achieve righteousness both for ourselves and for others, we shall accomplish noth-ing; and we shall earn and deserve the contempt of the strong nations of mankind.

One reason why I do not wish to take part in a mass meeting only for the denunciation of the atrocities committed on the Armenians is because there are ignoble souls who have preached professional pacifism as a creed, or who have refused to attend similar meetings on behalf of the Belgians, who yet do not fear to take such action on behalf of the Armenians—for the simple reason that there is in America no Turkish vote, and because Turkey is not our neighbor as Mexico is, and not a formidable aggressive power like Germany, and so it is safe both politically and materially to denounce her. The American professional pacifists, the American men and women of the peace-at-any-price type, who join in meetings to "denounce war" or with empty words "protest" on behalf of the Armenians or other tortured and ruined peoples carry precisely the weight that an equal number of Chinese pacifists would carry if at a similar meeting they went through similar antics in Peking. They do not wear pigtails; but it is to be regretted that they do not carry some similar outward and visible sign of their inward and spiritual disgrace. They accomplish nothing for peace; and they do accomplish something against justice. They do harm instead of good; and \hey deeply discredit the nation to which they belong. It was announced the other day, by certain politicians interested in securing votes, that at the end of the war this Government would "insist" on Russia and Roumania doing justice to all Jews. The con-duct of this Government during the present war, and its utter refusal to back words with deeds, has made it utterly unable to "insist" on anything of the kind, whether as regards Russia or Roumania or any other power. A nation too timid to protect its own men, women and children from murder and outrage and too timid even to speak on behalf of Belgium, will not carry much weight by "protest" or "insistence" on behalf of the suffering Jews and Armenians. Foreign powers will attribute such "protests" or "insistence," coupled with our failure to act in cases of other nationalities, merely to the fact that there is in this country neither a Russian nor a Turkish vote—and will despise us accordingly.

All of the terrible iniquities of the past year and a half, including this crowning iniquity of the wholesale slaughter of the Armenians, can be traced directly to the initial wrong committed on Belgium by her invasion and subjugation; and the criminal responsibility of Germany must be shared by the neutral powers, headed by the United States, for their failure to protest when this initial wrong was committed. In the case of the United States additional responsibility rests upon it because its lack of influence for justice and peace during the last sixteen months has been largely due to the course of timid and unworthy abandonment of duty which it has followed for nearly five years as regards Mexico. Scores of our soldiers have been killed and wounded, hundreds of our civilians, both men and women, have been murdered or outraged in person or property, by the Mexicans; and we have not only taken no action but have permitted arms to be exported to the bandits who were cutting one another's throats in Mexico and who used these arms to kill Americans; and although we have refused to help our own citizens against any of the chiefs of these bandits, we have now and then improperly helped one chief against another. The failure to do our duty in Mexico created the contempt which made Germany rightfully think it safe to go into the wholesale murder that accompanied the sinking of the Lusitania; and the failure to do our duty in the case of the Lusitania made Germany, acting through Austria, rightfully think it safe to go into the wholesale murder that marked the sinking of the Ancona.

The invasion of Belgium was followed by a policy of terrorism toward the Belgian population, the shooting of men, women and children, the destruction of Dinant and Louvain and many other places; the bombardment of unfortified places, not only by ships and by land forces but by air-craft, resulting in the killing of many hundreds of civilians, men, women and children, in England, France, Belgium and Italy; in the destruction of mighty temples and great monuments of art, in Rheims, in Venice, in Verona. The devastation of Poland and of Serbia has been awful beyond description and has been associated with infamies surpassing those of the dreadful religious and racial wars of seventeenth-century Europe. Such deeds as have been done by the nominally Christian powers in Europe, from the invasion of Belgium by Germany to the killing of Miss Cavell by the German Government, things done wholesale, things done retail, have been such as we had hoped would never again occur in civilized warfare. They are far worse than anything that has occurred in such warfare since the close of the Napoleonic contests a century ago. Such a deed as the execution of Miss Cavell, for instance, would have been utterly impossible in the days of the worst excitement during our Civil War. For all of this, the pacifists who dare not speak for righteousness, and who possess such an unpleasant and evil prominence in the United States, must share the responsibility with the most brutal type of militarists. The weak and timid milk-and-water policy of the professional pacifists is just as responsible as the blood-and-iron policy of the ruthless and unscrupulous militarist for the terrible recrudescence of evil on a gigantic scale in the civilized world.

The crowning outrage has been committed by the Turks on the Armenians. They have suffered atrocities so hideous that it is difficult to name them, atrocities such as those inflicted upon conquered nations by the followers of Attila and of Genghis Khan. It is dreadful to think that these things can be done and that this nation nevertheless remains "neutral not only in deed but in thought," between right and the most hideous wrong, neutral between despairing and hunted people, people whose little children are murdered and their women raped, and the victorious and evil wrongdoers.

There are many sincere and wise men in China who are now endeavoring to lift China from the old conditions. These old conditions made her the greatest example of a pacifistic, peace-at-any-price, non-mili-taristic people. Because of their cult of pacifism, the Chinese, like the Koreans, and utterly unlike the Japanese, became absolutely powerless to defend themselves, or to win or retain the respect of other nations. They were also of course utterly helpless to work for the good of others. The professional pacifists of the United States are seeking to make the United States follow in the footsteps of China. They represent what has been on the whole the most evil influence at work in the United States for the last fifty years; and for five years they have in international affairs shaped our governmental policy. These men, whether politicians, publicists, college presidents, capitalists, labor leaders, or self-styled philanthropists, have done everything they could to relax the fiber of the American character and weaken the strength of the American will. They teach our people to seek that debasing security which is to be found in love of ease, in fear of risk, in the craven effort to avoid any duty that is hard or hazardous— a security which purchases peace in the present not only at the cost of humiliation in the present but at the cost of disaster in the future. They are seeking to Chinafy this country. In so doing they not only make us work for our own undoing, and for the ultimate ruin of the great democratic experiment for which our great American republic stands; but they also render us utterly powerless to work for others. We have refused to do our duty by Belgium; we refuse to do our duty by Armenia ; because we have deified peace at any price, because we have preached and practised that evil pacifism which is the complement to and the encouragement of alien militarism. Such pacifism puts peace above righteousness, and safety in the present above both duty in the present and safety in the future.

I trust that all Americans worthy of the name feel their deepest indignation and keenest sympathy aroused by the dreadful Armenian atrocities. I trust that they feel in the same way about the ruin of Belgium's nationality, and realize that a peace obtained without restoring Belgium to its own people and righting the wrongs of the Armenians would be worse than any war. I trust they realize that unless America prepares to defend itself she can perform no duty to others; and under such circumstances she earns only derision if she prattles about forming a league for world peace, or about arbitration treaties and disarmament proposals, and commission-investigation treaties such as the unspeakably foolish ones negotiated a year or two ago at Washington and promptly disregarded by the very Ad-ministration that negotiated them.

Let us realize that the words of the weakling and the coward, of the pacifist and the poltroon, are worthless to stop wrongdoing. Wrongdoing will only be stopped by men who are brave as well as just, who put honor above safety, who are true to a lofty ideal of duty, who prepare in advance to make their strength effective, and who shrink from no hazard, not even the final hazard of war, if necessary in order to serve the great cause of righteousness. When our people take this stand, we shall also be able effectively to take a stand in international matters which shall prevent such cataclysms of wrong as have been witnessed in Belgium and on an even greater scale in Armenia.
Sincerely yours,
THEODORE ROOSEVELT. SAMUEL T. BUTTON, ESQ.,
70 Fifth Ave.,
New York City. Chairman of the Committee on the Armenian Outrages.

APPENDIX D
[Speech of Senator Miles Poindexter; reprinted from the Congressional Record of January 12, 1916.]
COL. ROOSEVELT'S RECORD ON PREPAREDNESS—THE TRUTH OF HISTORY FOR THE INFORMATION OF SECRETARY GARRISON—AN INCESSANT AND EARNEST ADVOCATE OF PREPAREDNESS FOR MORE THAN 30 YEARS —PRESIDENT WILSON'S POLICY OUTLINED AND CONDEMNED 18 YEARS IN ADVANCE—PREPAREDNESS URGED IN EVERY MESSAGE TO CONGRESS WHILE PRESIDENT —A BIG, EFFICIENT NAVY AND AN EFFICIENT ARMY DEMANDED AS THE SUREST GUARANTY OF PEACE— THE Swiss SYSTEM OF MILITARY SERVICE HELD UP AS A MODEL TO CONGRESS IN 1906—HYPHENATED AMERICANS CONDEMNED AS UNDESIRABLE CITIZENS IN 1894—ARBITRATION TREATIES DECLARED 
USELESS WHEN UNBACKED BY FORCE.
IN a carefully prepared statement issued recently at Washington (Dec. 21, 1915) the Secretary of War, Mr. Garrison, representing President Wilson, and speaking in the unruffled serenity of that state of bliss in which 'tis said 'tis folly to be wise, made the following engaging observations:
"Mr. Roosevelt is welcomed as a convert on the issue of preparedness, but the front pew is already filled before the conversion, and he must now rely on the strength of his voice for recognition.
" 'Preparedness'   was   with   him   an   acquired   taste.
Others brought it forward and urged it upon the attention of the people, and it was only after he found that it suited their taste that he became vocal in its behalf."

THE PLAIN TALE OF HISTORY

"Mark now, how plain a tale shall put you down," Mr. Secretary.
Theodore Roosevelt began to advocate preparedness 33 years ago, and has advocated it unceasingly and unwaveringly from that time to the present moment. He has been during all those years at every opportunity not merely "vocal" on the subject but vociferously vocal.
Shortly after his graduation from Harvard in 1882 he wrote in the preface to his history of the War of 1812 these passages:

CRIMINAL FOLLY  OF  JEFFERSON   AND  MADISON

"The operations of this war on land teach nothing new; it is the old, old lesson that miserly economy in preparation may in the end involve a lavish outlay of men and money which, after all, comes too late to more than partially offset the evils produced by the original shortsighted parsimony. It was criminal folly for Jefferson and his follower, Madison, to neglect to give us a force either of Regulars or of well-trained Volunteers during the 12 years they had in which to prepare for the struggle that any one might see was inevitable.
"The necessity for an efficient Navy is so evident that only our almost incredible shortsightedness prevents our at once preparing one."
Fifteen years later, writing a condensed history of the same war for an English publication, Col. Roosevelt reiterated his earlier views •

TWENTY   SHIPS   OF   THE   LINE   WOULD   HAVE   PREVENTED THE  WAR

(From "The War with the United States, 1812-15," written for the English History of the Royal Navy in 1897.)

"Had America possessed (in 1812) a fleet of 20 ships of the line her sailors could have plied their trade unmolested, and the three years of war with its loss in blood and money would have been avoided. From the merely monetary standpoint such a navy would have been the cheapest kind of insurance, and morally its advantages would have been incalculable, for every American worth the name would have lifted his head higher because of its existence."

JEFFERSON'S PASSION FOR PEACE

"But unfortunately the Nation lacked the wisdom to see this, and it chose and rechose for the Presidency Thomas Jefferson, who avowed that his 'passion was peace,' and whose timidity surpassed even his philanthropy."

EVIL CAUSED BY JEFFERSON AND  MADISON

"There never was a better example of the ultimate evil caused by a timid effort to secure peace and the refusal to make preparations for war than that afforded by the American people under the Presidencies of Jefferson and Madison."
These citations disclose the original inventor of President Wilson's "too-proud-to-fight" policy. Jefferson's "passion was peace." In his recent address to Congress, President Wilson said of the American people that "their passion is for peace."
Instead of being a "convert" to any phase of President Wilson's policy, 18 years before that policy was put into operation Theodore Roosevelt was outlining it with singular accuracy and denouncing it as leading to national humiliation and dishonor, as the following citations abundantly testify:
PRESIDENT WILSON'S FOREIGN POLICY DENOUNCED 18 YEARS IN ADVANCE NO PEACE AT THE PRICE OF NATIONAL HONOR

(Address, as Assistant Secretary of the Navy, before the Naval War College, June, 1897.)

"A really great people, proud and high-spirited, would face all the disasters of war rather than purchase that base prosperity which is bought at the price of national honor."

WORDS   WITHOUT   DEEDS   CAUSE   OF   HUMILIATION

"Unreadiness for war is merely rendered more disastrous by readiness to bluster; to talk defiance and advocate a vigorous policy in words, while refusing to back up these words by deeds, is cause for humiliation.
No material loss can begin to compensate for the loss of national self-respect.
No nation should ever wage war wantonly, but no nation should ever avoid it at the cost of national honor."

DIPLOMACY   WITHOUT FORCE USELESS

"Diplomacy is utterly useless unless there is force behind it; the diplomat is the servant, not the master, of the soldier."
SAY   WHAT   IS   NECESSARY   AND   STAND   BY   IT

(Speech at Chicago, April 2, 1903.)

"This is in substance what my theory of what our foreign policy should be: Let us not boast, not insult any one, but make up our minds coolly what is necessary to say, and then stand by it whatever the consequences may be."

A COWARD'S PEACE CONTEMPTIBLE

(Speech at Clark University, Worcester, Mass., June 21, 1905.)

"Peace of a valuable type comes not to the man who craves it because he is afraid, but to the man who demands it because it is right.
The peace granted contemptuously to the weakling and the coward is but a poor boon after it has been granted."

A  GREAT  NATION   SHOULD   NOT  BLUFF

(Address at Williams College, Williamstown, Mass., June 22, 1905.)

"I demand that the Nation do its duty and accept the responsibility that must go with greatness.
I ask that the Nation dare to be great, and that in daring to be great it show that it knows how to do justice to the weak no less than to exact justice from the strong.
In order to take such a position of being a great nation the one thing that we must not do is to bluff.
The unpardonable thing is to say that we will act as a big nation and then decline to take the necessary steps to make the words good.
Keep on building and maintaining at the highest point of efficiency the United States Navy or quit trying to be a big nation. Do one or the other."

RIGHTEOUSNESS BEFORE  PEACE

(Address at Harvard University, June 28, 1905.) 

"Of course I am for peace.   Of course every President who is fit to be President must be for peace.   But I am for one thing before peace; I am for righteousness first and then peace."

(Address at Richmond, Va., October 18, 1905.) 

"Our mission in the world should be one of peace, but not the peace of cravens, the peace granted contemptuously to those who purchase it by surrendering the right. No!   Our voice must be effective for peace because it is raised for righteousness first and for peace only as the handmaiden of righteousness."

(Annual message to Congress, December 3, 1906.)

"It must ever be kept in mind that war is not merely justifiable, but imperative upon honorable men, upon an honorable nation, where peace can only be obtained by the sacrifice of conscientious conviction or of national welfare.
Peace is normally a great good, and normally it coincides with righteousness; but it is righteousness and not peace which should bind the conscience of a nation, as it should bind the conscience of an individual; and neither a nation nor an individual can surrender con-science to another's keeping.
A just war is in the long run far better for a nation's soul than the most prosperous peace obtained by acquiescence in wrong or injustice."

CRIMINAL   NOT   TO   PREPARE   FOR   WAR

"Moreover, though it is criminal for a nation not to prepare for war, so that it may escape the dreadful consequences of being defeated in war, yet it must always be remembered that even to be defeated in war may be far better than not to have fought at all.
As has been well and finely said, a beaten nation is not necessarily a disgraced nation; but the nation or man is disgraced if the obligation to defend the right is shirked."

A   NATION   NOT  AFRAID

(Address to the graduating class of the Naval Academy, Annapolis, June 23, 1905.)

"What we desire is to have it evident that this Nation seeks peace, not because it is afraid, but because it believes in the eternal laws of justice and right living."

CONSCIENCELESS  WAR   A   CRIME  AGAINST  ALL   HUMANITY

(Annual message to Congress, December 5, 1905.) 
"A wanton or useless war, or a war of mere aggression—in short, any war begun or carried on in a conscienceless spirit—is to be condemned as a peculiarly atrocious crime against all humanity.
Our aim is righteousness. Peace is normally the handmaiden of righteousness; but when peace and righteousness conflict, then a great and upright people can never for a moment hesitate to follow the path which leads toward righteousness, even though that path also leads to war."

NO CHOICE LEFT TO ROOSEVELT

When President Wilson put into operation the precise policy thus condemned in advance, what choice had Col. Roosevelt but to denounce him? Could he, on the plea that all must "stand by the President," abandon the convictions and utterances of a lifetime and defend a policy of national dishonor?
"I would have thrown up my hat for Wilson," the Colonel said recently, "if only he had given me the chance by acting in the Presidency as a sound American of rugged strength and patriotism. When he trailed the honor of the United States in the dust, I, as a good American, had no alternative but to oppose him."
So long ago as 1905, as the first quotation cited above shows, the Colonel specified the kind of war that Germany is waging as a "particularly atrocious crime against all humanity," and defined the course which, in his opinion, the Nation should not for a moment hesitate to follow in regard to it.

SAMPLES OF ROOSEVELT'S METHOD

Not in words alone but in acts does Col. Roosevelt's record show flat disagreement with the Wilson policy in international controversies. What stronger contrast could there be to President Wilson's methods in dealing with Germany than is afforded in the following incident, which is described in a recently published "Life of John Hay"?

GERMANY  BROUGHT  TO  BOOK  IN   IQO2

(From the "Life of John Hay," by William Roscoe Thayer, Vol. II, pp. 284, 285, 286.)

"In 1902 one of the periodic outbreaks to which Venezuela was addicted gave him (Hay) an excuse for putting to the test whether or not the United States would defend the Monroe Doctrine by force of arms. The Venezuelans owed the Germans, the English, and the Italians large amounts, which they had put off paying until their creditors began to suspect that they never intended to pay at all. The Kaiser apparently counted on the resistance of the Venezuelans to furnish him a pretext for occupying one or more of their seaboard towns.
In order to disguise the fact that this was a German undertaking, he looked about for accomplices who would give to it an international semblance. It happened just at that time that Germany found herself isolated, as France and Russia had renewed their bond of friendship. England, too, always suspicious of Russia, and recently irritated by France, seemed to be looking for a friend.
By offers which cannot yet be made public, Germany persuaded the Tory government to draw closer to her. The immediate result of this adventure in international coquetry was the joint demand of Germany and England on Venezuela to pay them their due. Venezuela procrastinated.
The allies then sent warships and established what they called a 'pacific blockade' on the Venezuelan ports (December 8, 1901). During the following year Secretary Hay tried to persuade the blockaders of the unwisdom of their action. He persistently called their attention to the fact that a 'pacific blockade' was a contradiction in terms and that its enforcement against the rights of neutral nations could not be tolerated. He also urged arbitration.
Germany deemed that her opportunity had now come, and on December 8, 1902, she and Great Britain severed diplomatic relations with Venezuela, making it plain that the next steps would be the bombardment of Venezuelan towns and the occupation of Venezuelan territory.
Here came the test of the Monroe Doctrine. If the United States permitted foreign nations, under the pretense of supporting their creditors' claims, to invade a weak debtor State by naval or military expedition, and to take possession of its territory, what would become of the doctrine?

ROOSEVELT   IN   PERSONAL   CHARGE

At this point the direction of the American policy passed from Secretary Hay to President Roosevelt.
England and Italy were willing to come to an understanding. Germany refused. She stated that if she took possession of territory such possession would only be 'temporary'; but such possessions easily become permanent; and, besides, it is difficult to trust the guaranties which may be treated as 'scraps of paper.'
President Roosevelt did not shirk the test. Although his action has never been officially described, there is no reason now for not describing it.
One day, when the crisis was at its height, he summoned to the White House Dr. Holleben, the German ambassador, and told him that unless Germany consented to arbitrate, the American squadron under Admiral Dewey would be given orders by noon 10 days later to proceed to the Venezuelan coast, and prevent any taking possession of Venezuelan territory.

Dr. Holleben began to protest that his imperial master, having once refused to arbitrate, could not change his mind. The President said that he was not arguing the question, because arguments had already been gone over until no useful purpose would be served by repeating them; he was simply giving information which the ambassador might think it important to transmit to Berlin.

GERMANY  NOT  ALLOWED TO DODGE

A week passed in silence. Then Dr. Holleben again called on the President, but said nothing of the Venezuelan matter. When he rose to go, the President asked him about it, and when he stated that he had received nothing from his Government, the President informed him in substance that in view of this fact Admiral Dewey would be instructed to sail a day earlier than the day he, the President, had originally mentioned.
Much perturbed, the ambassador protested; the President informed him that not a stroke of a pen had been put on paper; that if the Emperor would agree to arbitrate, he, the President, would heartily praise him for such action and would treat it as taken on German initiative; but that within 48 hours there must be an offer to arbitrate or Dewey would sail with orders indicated.
Within 36 hours Dr. Holleben returned to the White House and announced to President Roosevelt that a dispatch had just come from Berlin, saying that the Kaiser would arbitrate.
Neither Admiral Dewey (who with an American fleet was then maneuvering in the West Indies) nor any one else knew of the step that was to be taken; the naval authorities were merely required to be in readiness, but were not told what for.
On the announcement that Germany had consented to arbitrate, the President publicly complimented the Kaiser on being so staunch an advocate of arbitration.
The humor of this was probably relished more in the White House than in the palace at Berlin."
In this wise the German Kaiser learned that the Monroe Doctrine was a fact.
There was no note, sharp or otherwise, no bluff or bluster. Simply verbal information to Germany that the step contemplated by her would not be tolerated—that if she did not abandon it the American fleet would sail for the scene of action.

AMERICAN   LIFE   PROTECTED   IN   MOROCCO

Two years later, on a much smaller scale, another international controversy arose. This raised the simple question of whether or not the United States Government could be depended upon to protect its citizens abroad as well as at home. This case is recorded also by Mr. Thayer.

"PERDICARIS  ALIVE   OR   RAIZULI   DEAD"

"In June, 1904, an American citizen, Ion H. Perdicaris, was seized by Raizuli, a Moroccan bandit, and held for ransom. After much shilly-shallying, and threats by Raizuli that he would kill his prisoner unless the money was speedily paid, Hay cabled to Gummere, American consul at Tangier, on June 22:
'We want Perdicaris alive or Raizuli dead,' adding that Gummere was 'not to commit us about landing marines or seizing customhouse.'
In his diary Hay made the following entries:
'June 23. My telegram to Gummere had an uncalled for success. It is curious how a concise impropriety hits the public.'
'June 24. Gummere telegraphs that he expects Peidicaris to-night.'
'June 27.   Perdicaris wires his thanks.' "
"So speedily," comments William Roscoe Thayer, in his "Life of John Hay," "did even a brigand, apparently safe in the depths of Morocco, recognize the note of command in the voice from over seas."

AMERICAN  OPINIONS AT THE TIME

The news of the cable message was published on June 22. The Republican national convention, which on the following day nominated Roosevelt for President, was in session at the time in Chicago. The correspondent of the New York Tribune wrote about it as follows:
" 'Perdicaris alive or Raizuli dead' went through the convention like an electric thrill, and it was more talked about at night than any feature of the day's work. The prevailing impression was that if Secretary Hay had sent the telegram it was after consultation with the President, and that there must have been ample justification. Delegates from all sections of the country discussed it in all its potential phases, and in almost every instance warmly commended it.
' 'It is pithy, pungent, and peremptory. I like it, and so do the people,' said Senator McComas, of Maryland. ' 'It is the kind of a telegram,' said Senator Spooner, of Wisconsin, 'that would provoke rapturous applause in any political convention. It touches a popular chord. This Government is bound to protect its citizens abroad as well as at home.'
' 'The American people will not back down on a message of that kind,' said Representative Grosvenor, of Ohio. 'The people admire a declaration of that kind when the justification is sufficient. It may not be couched exactly in diplomatic words, but its meaning is unmistakable. The people are quick to respond when their patriotism is appealed to. The Morocco bandit will find that there is a vigorous and united sentiment supporting the President and Secretary Hay in the stand they have taken.'
" 'It was good, hot stuff, and echoed my sentiments,' said Congressman Dwight, of New York. 'The people want an administration that will stand by its citizens, even if it takes a fleet to do it.'
" 'It was magnificent—magnificent!' said Senator De-pew. 'Every right-minded American will heartily indorse Mr. Hay's strong stand.'
" 'Do I like it ?' exclaimed W. A. Elstun, of Kansas, one of the delegates. 'Bet your bottom dollar I like it. Roosevelt is behind that cable message to that fine old body snatcher, Raisuli. Out in Kansas we believe in keeping the peace but in fighting against the wrong. Roosevelt and Hay know what they are doing. Our people like courage. We'll stand for anything those two men do.' "
Commenting on the message a few days later, after Perdicaris had been released, the Tribune said:
"It is easy to sneer at it. • A dog may bay at the moon. But every rational man knows that a nation that does not protect its own citizens is unworthy of the name of Government, and that, moreover, the only way to make citizenship respected and secure is to make outrage upon it perilous."

THE  TRUE  AMERICAN   POLICY

The quoted comments by American statesmen reflect accurately the old-time American view of what the duty of a national administration is in cases affecting the lives
of American citizens abroad. It accords with the view of that duty which Theodore Roosevelt holds and expounds to-day, as he has always held and expounded it. It is diametrically opposed to the policy pursued by the Wilson administration. In both the instances above referred to the outcome was not war, but peace with honor.
TWENTY YEARS' ADVOCACY OF PREPAREDNESS From the moment he became Assistant Secretary of the Navy in 1897, down to the time when he retired from the Presidency in 1909, in all his public addresses, in all his annual messages to Congress, Col. Roosevelt advocated with tireless energy preparedness for war as the surest guaranty for peace. For the information of Secretary Garrison a partial collection of these utterances, beginning with those of his annual messages, is appended:

PREPAREDNESS  URGED   IN   MESSAGES TO  CONGRESS

(First annual message to Congress Dec. 7, 1901.) 

"The work of upbuilding the Navy must be steadily continued. No one point of our policy, foreign or domestic, is more important than this to the honor and material welfare, and above all, to the peace of our Nation in the future."

PREPARATION   LED  TO  VICTORY   IN   1898

"It was forethought and preparation which secured us the overwhelming triumph in 1898.   If we fail to show forethought and preparation now there may come a time when disaster will befall us instead of triumph."

 (Second annual message to Congress, Dec. 2, 1902.) 

"There should be no halt in the work of building up the Navy, providing every year additional fighting craft."

A GOOD NAVY THE SUREST GUARANTY OF PEACE

"A good Navy is not a provocation to war.   It is the surest guaranty of peace.
The refusal to maintain such a Navy would invite trouble, and if trouble came would insure disaster.
Fatuous self-complacency or vanity, or shortsightedness in refusing to prepare for danger, is both foolish and wicked in such a Nation as ours, and past experience has shown that such fatuity in refusing to recognize or prepare for any crisis in advance is usually succeeded by a mad panic of hysterical fear once the crisis has actually arrived."
HIGHEST POINT OF EFFICIENCY NECESSARY
"The Army has been reduced to the minimum allowed by law. It is very small for the size of the Nation, and most certainly should be kept at the highest point of efficiency."

GENERAL  STAFF  FOR   THE  ARMY  URGED

"I urgently call your attention to the need of passing a bill providing for a general staff and for the reorganization of the supply department on the lines of the bill proposed by the Secretary of War last year."

TO STAND STILL MEANS TO GO BACK

(Third annual message to Congress, Dec. 7, 1903.) 

"I heartily congratulate the Congress upon the steady progress in building up the American Navy.   We can not afford a let-up in this great work.   To stand still means to go back."

GENERAL STAFF SECURED

"The effect of the law providing a general staff for the Army and for the more effective use of the National Guard has been excellent.   Great improvement has been made in the efficiency of our Army in recent years. We should not rest satisfied with what has been done." (Fourth annual message to Congress, Dec. 4, 1904.) "I most earnestly recommend that there be no halt in the work of upbuilding the American Navy."
POTENT FOR PEACE BECAUSE NOT AFRAID OF WAR

"Our voice is now potent for peace, and is so potent because we are not afraid of war. But our protestations upon behalf of peace would neither receive nor deserve the slightest attention if we were impotent to make them good.
It is very important that the officers of the Army should be accustomed to handle their men in masses, as it is also important that the National Guard of the several States should be accustomed to actual field maneuvering, especially in connection with the regulars."

EFFICIENCY  ALWAYS  EFFICIENCY

(Fifth annual message to Congress, Dec. 5, 1905.)

"We have most wisely continued for a number of years to build up our Navy, and it has now reached a fairly high standard of efficiency. This standard of efficiency must not only be maintained, but increased.
We now have a very small Army—indeed, one well-nigh infinitesimal when compared with the army of any other large nation.
I do not believe that any army in the world has a better average of enlisted men or a better type of junior officer, but the Army should be trained to act effectively in mass."

(Sixth annual message to Congress, Dec. 3, 1906.)

"The United States Navy is the surest guarantee of peace which this country possesses.
I do not ask that we increase our Navy. I ask merely that it be maintained at its present strength, and this can be done only if we replace the obsolete outworn ships by new and good ones, the equals of any afloat in any navy.
In both the Army and Navy there is urgent need that everything possible should be done to maintain the highest standard for the personnel, alike as regards the officers and the enlisted men."
SWISS SYSTEM A  MODEL

"The little Republic of Switzerland offers us an excellent example in all matters connected with building up an efficient citizen soldiery."

FOUR BATTLESHIPS A YEAR URGED

(Seventh annual message to Congress, Dec. 3, 1907.)
"To build one battleship of the best and most advanced type a year would hardly keep our fleet up to its present force. This is not enough. In my judgment we should this year provide for four battleships.
Again and again in the past our little Regular Army has rendered service literally vital to the country and it may at any time have to do so in the future.
Its standard of efficiency and instruction is higher now than ever in the past. But it is too small. There are not enough officers, and it is impossible to secure enough enlisted men."

EXTRA OFFICERS FOR THE ARMY NEEDED

"We should maintain in peace a fairly complete skeleton of a large army.
In particular it is essential that we should possess a number of extra officers trained in peace to perform efficiently the duties urgently required upon the breaking out of war."
From public utterances made by Col. Roosevelt at various points throughout the country during the same period, the following instructive citations are taken, my desire being to have Secretary Garrison's information thorough and complete:

TOO LATE TO PREPARE AFTER WAR BEGINS

(Address as Assistant Secretary of the Navy before the Naval War College, June, 1897.)
"We must make up our minds once for all to the fact that it is too late to make ready for war when the fight is once begun.
There must be adequate preparation for conflict, if conflict is not to mean disaster. Furthermore, this preparation must take the shape of an efficient fighting navy."

A BOLD FRONT MAKES FOR PEACE
"In public as in private life, a bold front tends to insure peace and not strife.
If we possess a formidable navy, small is the chance, indeed, that we shall ever be dragged into a war to uphold the Monroe Doctrine. If we do not possess such a navy, wir may be forced on us at any time."
NOT IN THE INTEREST OF WAR BUT OF PEACE
"We ask that the work of upbuilding the Navy and of putting the United States where it should be put among the maritime powers go forward without a break. We ask this not in the interest of war, but in the interest of peace."

PREPAREDNESS NEVER A MENACE TO PEACE
"In all our history there has never been a time when preparedness for war was any menace to peace.
On the contrary, again and again we have owed peace to the fact that we were prepared for war."

IF   THE   NAVY   FAILS,   DEFEAT   FOLLOWS

(Address to the graduating class, Naval Academy, Annapolis, May 2, 1902.)

"We all of us earnestly hope that the occasion for war may never arise, but if it has to come, then this Nation must win; and in winning the prime factor must of necessity be the United States Navy. If the Navy fails us, then we are doomed to defeat."
ONLY THE SHOTS THAT HIT COUNT
"In battle the only shots that count are those that hit, and marksmanship is a matter of long practice and intelligent reasoning."

EFFICIENCY DEPENDS UPON PREPARATION

"A navy's efficiency in a war depends mainly upon its preparedness at the outset of that war. We are not to be excused as a nation if there is not such preparedness of our Navy."
PREPAREDNESS ALONE COMMANDS RESPECT

(Speech at Chamber of Commerce banquet, New York, Nov. 11, 1902.)

"We need to keep in a condition of preparedness, especially as regards our Navy, not because we want war, but because we desire to stand with those whose plea for peace is listened to with respectful attention."

PREPARATION   WON   AT   MANILA

(Speech at San Francisco, May 14, 1903.)

"Remember that after the war has begun it is too late to improvise a navy. A naval war is two-thirds settled in advance, at least two-thirds, because it is mainly settled by the preparation which has gone on for years preceding its outbreak. We won at Manila because the shipbuilders of the country, under the wise provisions of Congress, had for 15 years before been preparing the Navy."

(Speech in Brooklyn, May 30, 1905.)

"If our Navy is good enough, we have a long career of peace before us. The only likelihood of trouble ever coming to us as a Nation will arise if we let our Navy become too small or inefficient."
AN   INEFFICIENT   WARSHIP A   MENACE TO  THE  NATIONAL

HONOR

"Every warship which is not first class in efficiency becomes in battle not a help to the Nation, but a menace to the national honor."
NAVY'S PRIME USE TO AVERT WAR

(Speech at the banquet of the National Convention for the Extension of the Foreign Commerce of the United States, Washington, Jan. 16, 1907.)

"Remember, gentlemen, that the prime use of the United States Navy is to avert war. The United States Navy is the cheapest insurance Uncle Sam has. It is the surest guaranty against our ever being drawn into war; and the guaranty is effective in proportion as the Navy is efficient."

A  MAKESHIFT   NAVY  IMPOSSIBLE

(Speech at Cairo, 111., Oct. 3, 1907.) "It is utterly impossible to improvise a makeshift navy under conditions of modern warfare."
NAVY MUST BE BUILT IN TIME OF PEACE

"The Navy must be built and all its training given in time of peace. When once war has broken out it is too late to do anything."
NO FINER MATERIAL FOR VOLUNTEER SOLDIERY ANYWHERE
(Speech at Fargo, N. Dak., Apr. 7, 1903.)

"I believe that no other great country has such fine natural material for volunteer soldiers as we have, and it is the obvious duty of the Nation and of the States to make such provision as will enable the volunteer soldiery to be organized with all possible rapidity and efficiency in time of war; and, furthermore, to help in every way the National Guard in time of peace."

It is quite plain from these various utterances in messages and addresses that Col. Roosevelt has been advocating for nearly 20 years the same kind of efficient army and navy as he is advocating to-day.

"What I ask for," he said recently, "is a big efficient navy, and a small efficient army of a quarter of a million men, and back of the Army a nation of freemen trained to the use of arms."

So also with the danger of militarism and other arguments of the peace-at-any-price advocates. His opinions of these to-day are the same that he has always held, as a few citations will show:
NO  NATION   MORE  FREE  FROM   MILITARISM   THAN  OURS

(Annual message to Congress, Dec. 3, 1907.)

"Not only there is not now, but there never has been,
any other nation in the world so wholly free from the
evils of militarism as is ours."

FOOLISH DENOUNCERS OF IT RARE

"There are, of course, foolish people who denounce any care of the Army or Navy as militarism, but I do not think that these people are numerous.

Declamation against militarism has no more serious place in an earnest and intelligent movement for righteousness in this country than declamation against the worship of Baal or Ashtaroth."
LESSONS  OF THE   CIVIL  WAR
(Speech before the Hamilton Club, Apr. 10, 1899.)

"If in 1861 the men who loved the Union had believed that peace was the end of all things, and war and strife the worst of all things, and had acted up to their belief, we would have saved hundreds of thousands of lives; we would have saved hundreds of millions of dollars.

Moreover, besides saving all the blood and treasure we then lavished, we would have prevented the heartbreak of many women, the dissolution of many homes, and we would have spared the country those months of gloom and shame when it seemed as if our Armies marched only to defeat.

We could have avoided all this suffering simply by shrinking from strife. And if we had thus avoided it, we would have shown that we were weaklings and that we were unfit to stand among the great nations of the earth. Thank God for the iron in the blood of our fathers, the men who upheld the wisdom of Lincoln and bore sword or rifle in the Armies of Grant and Lee! Let us, the children of the men who proved themselves equal to the mighty days—let us, the children of the men who carried the great Civil War to a triumphant conclusion, praise the God of our fathers that the ignoble counsels of peace were rejected; that the suffering and loss, the blackness of sorrow and despair, were unflinchingly faced and the years of strife endured; for in the end the slave was freed, the Union restored, and the mighty American Republic placed once more as a helmeted queen among nations."

PROFESSIONAL   NONCOMBATANTS   HARMFUL

(From Life of Thomas H. Benton, written in 1887.) "A class of professional noncombatants is as hurtful to the healthy growth of a nation as a class of fire eaters, for a weakness or folly is nationally as bad as a vice, or worse. No man who is not willing to bear arms and to fight for his rights can give a good reason why he should be entitled to the privilege of living in a free community."

PEACE-AT-ANY-PRICE MEN COST BLOOD AND WEALTH

(From the "War with the United States, 1812-1815," written for the English History of the Royal Navy in 1897.)

"Both Britain and America have produced men of the 'peace-at-any-price' pattern, and in America, in one great crisis at least, these men cost the Nation more in Mood and wealth than the political leaders most recklessly indifferent to war have ever cost it."
PEACE SECURED BY AN UPHOLDER OF JUST WAR

(Letter to Carl Schurz, Sept. 8, 1905, published in Autobiography.)

"I thank you for your congratulations [upon the conclusion of peace between Japan and Russia]. If I had been known as one of the conventional type of peace advocates, I could have done nothing whatever in bringing about peace now, I would be powerless in the future to accomplish anything, and I would not have been able to help confer the boons upon Cuba, the Philippines, Porto Rico, and Panama, brought about by our action therein.

If this country had not fought the Spanish War, if we had failed to take the action we did about Panama, all mankind would have been the loser."

FRIGHTFUL CONSEQUENCES OF AN UNJUST PEACE

"While the Turks were butchering the Armenians the European powers kept the peace, and thereby added a burden of infamy to the nineteenth century, for in keeping the peace a greater number of lives were lost than in any European war since Napoleon, and these lives were those of women and children as well as of men; while the moral degradation, the brutality inflicted and endured, the aggregate hideous wrong clone, surpassed that of any war of which we have record in modern times."

PARTIAL DISARMAMENT CALAMITOUS

"Unjust war is dreadful; a just war may be the highest duty. To have the best nations, the free and civilized nations, disarm and leave the despotisms and barbarisms with great military force would be a calamity compared to which the calamities caused by all the wars of the nineteenth century would be trivial."
HIGH   PURPOSE   WITHOUT   POWER   USELESS

(In the Outlook, September 9, 1911.) 406
"Our chief usefulness to humanity rests on our combining power with high purpose; and high purpose by itself is utterly useless if the power to put it into effect is lacking."

TRUE LOVERS  OF PEACE

"In the history of our country the peace advocates who treat peace as more than righteousness will never be, and never have been, of service, either to the nation or to mankind.

The true lovers of peace, the men who have really helped onward the movement for peace, have been those who followed, even though afar off, in the footsteps of Washington and Lincoln and stood for righteousness as the supreme end of national life."

WHAT PACIFISM   HAS DONE  FOR  CHINA

(In the Outlook, November 14, 1911.)

"A complete absence of militarism in China and China's effort to rely purely on pacific measures in dealing with all foreign powers have not only caused it to lose various Provinces to various foreign powers within the last few decades, but have had not the smallest effect in saving it from tyranny, misgovernment, and the most far-reaching economic misery at home; and, moreover, have had the effect of depriving it of means of keeping order within its own boundaries."

Col. Roosevelt's poor opinion of the usefulness of arbitration treaties when unbacked by force is not the outgrowth of developments of the present war, but, like his opinions on the other vital questions of national policy, is a matter of long-standing conviction:
ARBITRATION  TREATIES USELESS UNLESS BACKED BY FORCE

(Address to the graduating class of the Naval Academy, Annapolis, January 30, 1905.)
"The adoption of those (arbitration) treaties by themselves would not bring peace. We are a good many years short of the millennium yet; and for the present and immediate future we can rest assured that the word of the man who is suspected of desiring peace because he is afraid of war will count for little."
RELIANCE OF A FIRST-CLASS FLEET SAFER

(Address, as Assistant Secretary of the Navy, before the Naval War College, June, 1897.)

"Arbitration is an excellent thing, but ultimately those who wish to see this country at peace with foreign nations will be wise if they place reliance upon a first-class fleet of first-class battleships rather than on any arbitration treaty which the wit of men can devise."

(Address at dinner of the Sons of the American Revolution, New York, March 17, 1905.)

"I know one excellent gentleman in Congress who said he preferred arbitration to battleships. So do I. But suppose the other man does not? I want to have the battleships as a provocative for arbitration so far as the other man is concerned.

We have now got our Navy up to a good point. We have built and are building 40 armored ships. For a year or two, or two or three years, to come what we need to do is to provide for the personnel of those ships and to secure the very highest standard of efficiency in handling them, singly and in squadrons; above all, for handling the great guns."

ARMED  STRENGTH   ALONE   MAKES ARBITRATION SUCCESSFUL

(Annual message to Congress, December 3, 1906.) "The chance for the settlement of disputes peacefully, by arbitration, now depends mainly upon the possession by the nations that mean to do right of sufficient armed strength to make their purpose effective."

LIMITATION OF ARMAMENTS IMPOSSIBLE

(Annual message to Congress, December 3, 1907.) "It is evident (from the failure of The Hague conference to take action on the limitation of armament) that it is folly for this Nation to base any hope of securing peace on any international agreement as to the limitation of armaments. Such being the fact, it would be most unwise to stop the up-building of our Navy."

NO SAFEGUARD AGAINST VIOLATION

(Address before the Nobel Prize Committee, Chris-tiania, Norway, accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, May 5, 1910.)

"All really civilized communities should have effective arbitration treaties among themselves. I believe that these treaties can cover almost all questions liable to arise between such nations, if they are drawn with the explicit agreement that each contracting party will respect the other's territory and its absolute sovereignty within that territory, and the equally explicit agreement that (aside from the very rare cases where the nation's honor is vitally concerned) all other possible subjects of controversy will be submitted to arbitration. Such a treaty would insure peace unless one party deliberately violated it. Of course, as yet, there is no adequate safeguard against such deliberate violation, but the establishment of a sufficient number of these treaties would go a long way toward creating a world opinion which would finally find expression in the provision of methods to forbid or punish such violation."

NO SINGLE POWER CAN LIMIT ARMAMENTS

"Something should be done as soon as possible to check the growth of armaments, especially naval armaments, by international agreement. No one power could or should act by itself; for it is eminently undesirable, from the standpoint of the peace of righteousness, that a power which really does believe in peace should place itself at the mercy of some rival which may at bottom have no such belief and no intention of acting on it.

Finally, it would be a master stroke if those great powers honestly bent on peace would form a league of peace, not only to keep the peace among themselves but to prevent, by force if necessary, its being broken by others."

NEED OF AN  INTERNATIONAL POLICE POWER

"The supreme difficulty in connection with developing the peace work of The Hague arises from the lack of any executive power, of any police power, to enforce the decrees of the court.

Each nation must keep well prepared to defend itself until the establishment of some form of international police power, competent and willing to prevent violence as between nations.

As things are now, such power to command peace throughout the world could only be assured by some combination between those great nations which sincerely desire peace and have no thought themselves of com-mitting aggressions."

WILSON'S LOST OPPORTUNITY

"The combination might at first be only to secure peace within certain definite limits and certain definite conditions, but the ruler or statesman who should bring about such a combination would have earned his place in history for all time and his title to the gratitude of all mankind."
PAPER   TREATIES   USELESS   IF   NOT   BACKED   BY   FORCE

(In the Outlook, November 4, 1911.) 
"This war (between Italy and Turkey) proves the utter inefficiency of paper treaties when they are unbacked by force; the utter folly of those who believe that these paper treaties accomplish any useful purpose in the present stage of the world's development when there is no force behind them; and, finally, not merely the folly but the iniquity of making treaties which there is no real intention of putting into effect."

WICKED TO   MAKE TREATIES  SURE  TO   BE BROKEN

"It would be not merely foolish but wicked for us as a Nation to agree to arbitrate any dispute that affects our vital interest or our independence or honor, because such an agreement would amount on our part to a covenant to abandon our duty, to an agreement to surrender the rights of the American people about unknown matters at unknown times in the future.

Such an agreement would be wicked if kept, and yet to break it—as it undoubtedly would be broken if the occasion arose—would be only less shameful than keeping it."
Even on the subject of hyphenated Americans, the views which Col. Roosevelt has been expressing since the outbreak of the European War are not new. He uttered the same sentiments more than 20 years ago and has reiterated them frequently since.

HYPHENATED  AMERICANS  NOT DESIRABLE

(From "True Americanism," published April, 1894.) "We welcome the German or the Irishman whobecomes an American. We have no use for the German or Irishman who remains such. We do not wish German-Americans and Irish-Americans who figure as such in our social and political life; we want only Americans, and, provided they are such, we do not care whether they are of native or of Irish or of German ancestry. We have no room in any healthy American community for a German-American vote or an Irish-American vote, and it is contemptible demagogy to put planks into any party platform with the purpose of catching such a vote. We have no room for any people who do not act and vote simply as Americans and as nothing else."

ALL AMERICANS  IN  ROUGH   RIDERS

(Speech at New Mexico, May 5, 1903.) "There were men in my regiment (in the Spanish War) who themselves were born in England, Ireland, Ger-many, or Scandinavia, but there was not a man, no matter what his creed, what his birthplace, what his ancestry, who was not an American and nothing else."

GOOD CITIZENSHIP THE TEST

(Speech at Butte, Mont, May 27, 1903.) "If we are to preserve this Republic as it was founded, as it was handed down to us by the men of sixty-one to sixty-five, and as it is and will be, we must draw the line never between section and section, never between creed and creed, thrice never between class and class; but along the line of conduct, the line that separates the good citizen wherever he may be found from the bad citizen wherever he may be found."
GOOD AMERICANISM NOT A MATTER OF BIRTH
(Message to Congress, December 6, 1904.) "Good Americanism is a matter of heart, of conscience, of lofty aspiration, of sound common sense, but not of birthplace or of creed. The medal of honor, the highest prize to be won by those who serve in the Army and the Navy of the United States, decorates men born here, and it also decorates men born in Great Britain and Ireland, in Germany, in Scandinavia, in France, and doubtless in other countries also."
ALL   AMERICANS
(Speech at dinner of the Friendly Sons of St. Patrick, New York, March 17, 1905.)

"My fellow countrymen, I have spoken to-night especially of what has been done for this Nation of ours by men of Irish blood. But, after all, in speaking to you or to any body of my fellow citizens, no matter from what Old World country they themselves or their forefathers may have come, the great thing is to remember that we are all of us Americans. Let us keep our pride in the stocks from which we have sprung, but let us show that pride, not by holding aloof from one another, least of all by preserving the Old World jealousies and bitternesses, but by joining in a spirit of generous rivalry to see which can do most for our great common country."

Finally, in regard to the Monroe Doctrine and the necessity of upholding it by force in case of need, Col. Roosevelt has for years held and advocated no uncertain views.

THE   MONROE  DOCTRINE   ONLY   EFFECTIVE   IF   UPHELD  BY
FORCE

(At Augusta, Me., August 26, 1902.)

"The Monroe Doctrine is simply a statement of our very firm belief that on this continent the nations now existing here must be left to work out their own destinies among themselves and that the continent is not longer to be regarded as colonizing ground for any European nation.

The only power on the continent that can make that doctrine effective is, of course, ourselves, for in the world as it is, gentlemen, the nation which advances a given doctrine likely to interfere in any way with other nations must possess power to back it up if she wishes the doctrine to be respected."

BLUSTER WITHOUT FORCE WORSE THAN ABANDONMENT

(Speech at Chicago, April 2, 1903.)
"I believe in the Monroe Doctrine with all my heart and soul. I am convinced that the immense majority of our fellow countrymen so believe in it; but I would infinitely prefer to see us abandon it than to see us put it forward and bluster about it, and yet fail to build up the efficient fighting strength which in the last resort can alone make it respected by any strong foreign power whose interest it may ever happen to be to violate it." "SPEAK SOFTLY AND CARRY A BIG STICK"

"There is a homely old adage which runs: 'Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far.' If the American Nation will speak softly, and yet build, and keep at a pitch of the highest training, a thoroughly efficient Navy, the Monroe Doctrine will go far." 
The End

A concluding word from Robert J.  Kuniegel

TR AMERICAN PATRIOT hopes you enjoy our books.  Theodore Roosevelt lived his life in a manner that is the only way possible to make government responsive to the people.  He has written how to make meaningful reform possible not only for his generation but for future generations, if we read what he has said.  We only need to interest others in reading what he has said to transform our government. 

Reading the books on TR AMERICAN PATRIOT DOT COM  and having others do the same, will develop citizens and leaders capable of transforming American politics into a system of government that will be honest, and responsive to “a square deal”.  A square deal has no special deals for the rich, the middle class, or the poor.  Our government today has degenerated into a system that rewards citizens for not being productive.  It promotes entitlements under the guise of helping people, when in fact it only helps politicians to protect their own royal positions.  Policies that foster a special privileged class was the type of government policies Theodore Roosevelt fought against and won.  He was a visionary.  He knew this fight would need to be fought through the ages if we were to keep our country strong.  He was an intrepid pioneer that blazed a trail through a jungle of corrupt government, so that others might follow his proven and highly successful common sense approach toward honest government.  His fearless course helped make America a beacon of hope to all that seek justice.  His endless devotion to America helped make America a super power that no just nation has needed to fear as long as our citizens value his lofty resolute square deal policy toward our fellow citizens and those of other nations. 

Theodore Roosevelt’s greatest gift to this country is before us.  It is not in the past, if we as Americans recognize that his message is not just a story from American history pages.  His message is an example, clearly defined.  It details actions that are required if we desire to do something meaningful for our country.  Join the good fight today.  You only need to read and interest others to do the same.  

David Boyd, repeating what he had read, once said, “The person we become is because of our experiences in life, the people we meet, and the books we read. ” It is time to have others meet Theodore Roosevelt.  It is time for a Theodore Roosevelt revival, “Fear God and do your own part”.  Dare to help make Theodore Roosevelt the standard and not the exception.  America needs to adopt a wise, fearless and honest role model as the standard we revere, so that our public servants know what we expect.  The first step to honest government is no harder than setting proper standards of conduct for our public servants through the use of a proper role model.  Can you find one quality in Theodore Roosevelt that is not right in a public servant?  If you think you can, I bet your conjecture is based upon something other than truth and honest reasoning and this American would love an opportunity to debate any such conjecture.