THE NEMESIS OF NEUTRALITY.
pRESIDENT WILSON'S plea for an Army adequate for the defence of the United States, and pre sumably for the maintenance of the Monroe Doctrine (on the essen- tial importance of which he insisted), was something quite new in a Democratic Message. This, together with his excoriating denunciation of the German-Americans who have turned against their adopted country in the criminal interests of the country of their origin, and his recent uncompromising demand for the recall of the German Attaches, is a sign that Nemesis has overtaken him. He tried to be neutral in his attitude to the issues of the war, and now events arc proving too strong for him. We do not mean, of course, that he was wrong in his determination to remain physically neutral—to remain neutral in the ordinary sense of taking no part in the fighting. Certainly he was well advised in that, and in any case we have no right or duty to criticize him. But what is fairly open to our judgment and criticism is his paradoxical attempt to remain neutral on a moral issue. It is this attempt which is now being visited by Nemesis. Mr. Wilson's new military policy, and his refusal to allow the German Attaches and German-American intriguers to try to drag American industries down to ruin, are all to the good, and have naturally been received with much favour in the United States. But is it not true that these sound acts have been imposed upon Mr. Wilson by the force of circumstances, and by nothing else ? At the beginning of the war he set up a paradox that the moral issues of the war did not concern Americans. The vast majority of American citizens thought otherwise • but Mr. Wilson went on his way, and now this new lliessal„Ye shows that his notion that the Germans and the Allies were all good fellows, unhappily engaged in quarrelling about some European policies which could not possibly, concern the United States, cannot any longer be sustained. The moral issue touches him very closely indeed. The strange flung is that his belief in a bogus form of neutrality still attracts and haunts him. One can see it passing spectrally through his Message, and causing him to say things which are in contradiction of his new policy, and indeed making his principles mutually destructive. The denunciation of the German-Americans who have conspired criminally is all plain enough. But having seemed to be inspired up to this point only by the fine scorn and indignation of a just ruler who sees the peaceful order of American life being thrown off the line by every kind of vile conspiracy, he then yields to his old paradox that he must keep the balance even on a moral issue. Having flayed the sympathizers with Germany, he must at least chastise the sympathizers with the Allies. He shuts his eyes to the fact that all the troubles which have been brought upon the world, and in a very large measure upon America herself, are purely the fruits of a debased morality—the result of Germany's immoral determination to tear up all treaties, disregard all civilized customs, and renounce all scruples which stand in the way of her lust for domination. He therefore goes on to say :— • "I wish it could be said that only a few men, misled by mistaken sentiments of allegiance to the Governments under which they wore
born, have been guilty of disturbing the self-possession and mis- representing the temper and principles of the country during these days of terrible war, when it would seem that every man who is truly American would instinctively make it his duty and his pride to keep the scales of judgment even and prove himself a partisan of no nation but his own. But it cannot. There are some men among us and many residents abroad, who, though born and bred in the United States, and calling themselves Americans, have so far forgotten themselves and their honour as citizens as to put their passionate sympathy with one or other side in the great European conflict above their regard for the peace and dignity of the United States. They also preach and practise disloyalty."
He says as precisely as ever that Americans have "no part or interest in the policies which seem to have brought the conflict on."
Shall we appear to overstate our feelings if we say that we are shocked, and that our blood freezes at the delibera- tion and detachment of those words ? "No part or interest in the policies which seem to have brought the conflict on " 1 No part or interest in the tyrannical suppression of the tiny State of Serbia, no part or interest in the violation of the solemn pledge to respect the integrity of Belgium, no part or interest in the long preparations for setting at naught everything that stands for the sanctity of international good faith on which the relations of the various peoples were gradually being established and on which the hopes for the future of mankind depended These things were not worth even a protest. Here was an issue between right and wrong if ever there was one, even before the horrors of Belgium were committed. We should be grieved indeed to think that the day will ever come when Amen i cans cannot be found passionately to take the side of right against wrong even at the cost of disturbing the "self-possession " of a State Department at Washington. Thank Heaven! there are Americans in countless numbers who are not afraid even to use the language of exaggeration when they contemplate the significance for their own country, as well as for the rest of the world, of Germany's attempt to substitute blood and iron and terror for the sanctions of international good faith. We would rather be capable of being moved by the strong, hot feelings which prompted Mr. Fuller to write the letter we publish elsewhere than have all Mr. Wilson's genius for applying finely turned phrases to the agony of mankind. In Wordsworth's lines :— "High Heaven rejects the lore
Of nicely calculated less or more,"
It is the nicety of the calculation that petrifies us. Mr. Roosevelt has called Mr. Wilson a "Byzantine logothete," by which we imagine he meant that he was a mere phrase- maker—a "Byzantine baboo," so to speak. But in its primary sense a " logothete " means one who audits accounts—a meaning which Mr. Roosevelt may like to associate with Mr. NY ilson's literary flourish about " strict accountability." If Mr. Wilson were not a man of notorious high-minded- ness, we should think that the user of many of the argu- ments which appear in his Message had an eye only to a future Presidential Election. Much in the Message almost suggests the "Editor's Creed" as set forth by Lowell. The balance which will avoid all offence to clients is disconcertingly perfect :— "This gives you a safe pint to rest on,
An' leaves me frontin' South by North."
One passe ge in the Message leaves us really bewildered. It is this :— "We insist upon security in prosecuting our self-chosen lines of national development. We do more than that, we demand it also for others. We do not confine our enthusiasm for individual liberty and free national development to incidents, movements, and affairs which affect only ourselves. . . . We have made common cause with all partisans of liberty on this side of the sea, and deemed it as important that our neighbours should be as free from all outside domination as we ourselves should be."
That is excellently said and excellently sound, but why should Mr. Wilson withhold any expression of sympathy from us poor people in Europe who fight for nothing more than this same security ? We do not fight to force any- thing on anybody. Why does he denounce those who do i passionately sympathize with his principle when t is put into practice ? We cannot think of any answer, and we should be enormously grateful to any one who could persuade Mr. Wilson to say what his answer may be.
Previous page
