BOOKS.
A PEACE BOANERGES.* DR. DAVID STARR JORDAN, of Stanford University, Cali- fornia, has written a stirring philippic against war, which affords a curious and instructive example of a good cause damaged by exaggeration, by sweeping generalizations based on imperfect data, and by fallacious reasoning. Mr. Trevelyan, in his very sympathetic account of Garibaldi's exploits, says that "no hero should feel himself absolved from the obligation to speak the truth." The same remark applies to an apostle of peace. Dr. Jordan is, however, so carried away by his intense and very laudable desire to establish universal peace that he does not hesitate to garner the most glaring fallacies into his dialectical armoury in order to condemn, not only war, but all those who are in any way concerned with warlike acts. Forgetful of the facts connected with the history of the Civil War in his own country, and of the further fact that the recent war in South Africa was, on the part of one of the con- tending parties, carried on, not by trained soldiers, but by armed peasants and farmers, be places on the title-page of his book, as a text which his further dissertations expand, the • War and Waste. By David Starr Jordan. London: T. Asher Unwin. Da. set] amazing statement that "where there are no soldiers there is no war ; when nobody is loaded, nobody explodes." Dr.
Jordan here confounds cause and effect. His criticisms should be directed, not against the instruments which are the outcome of human passions, but against the passions themselves.
Dr. Jordan calls the peace which is preserved by the relative strength of the potential combatants "the Peace of Force." He quotes with approval a statement of Mr. Israel Zangwill to the effect that the time-honoured principle of preparing for war in order to preserve peace is "a maxim forged in hell," and, in the face of the unquestionable fact that but a few years ago the predominant strength of the British Navy was the main factor which prevented a rupture between France and England, he tells us that "to call a great navy an instrument of peace is one of the giant jokes of the century." But elsewhere his manifest honesty and sincerity oblige him to recognize that it "'hay be well to work for the Peace of Force, when nothing better seems possible. . . . It may be better than no peace at all." He wishes, however, to substitute "the Peace of Law," which is to rest on justice, for "the Peace of Force." He looks to the democracies of the world to accomplish this most desirable change. They alone are virtuous. "The waning aristocracies are everywhere for war." "The military leagues of Europe want war and not peace." Dr. Jordan does not give us any example of an English aristocrat who is so steeped in original sin as to desire war for its own sake, neither does he allude to the fact that it was a member of this much-abused class who, as representative of England at Washington half a century ago, soothed and checked the bellicose tendencies of the American democracy and prevented the calamity of a fratricidal war between the two branches of the Anglo-Saxon race. But he tells us that "the caste spirit, strong in England and dominant in Germany, is ever and in all nations an incentive to war." It is, in fact, now generally assumed that democracy makes for peace. It may be so. The past in this respect affords no very sure guide for the future. The Athenian democracy of the time of Pericles was not peacefuL The aggressive Imperialism of Rome preceded the accession to power of Emperors. The French Jacobins, as Taine has clearly shown, deliberately brought on war with England in order to main- tain their own position in France. But it may be readily and joyfully admitted that, so far as can as yet be judged, modern democracies are animated by a different spirit. Time alone can show whether the fair hopes which Dr. Jordan and others entertain in this respect will be justified. In the meanwhile, the practical fact of which an Englishman or a Frenchman, be he aristocrat or democrat, has to take account, is that there is not a German Socialist, however much he may be academically inclined to fraternize with his foreign comrades, who would not unhesitatingly march to war if he received the order to do so. It would be dangerous to cherish any delusions on this vital point.
Dr. Jordan is quite justified in maintaining that the democracy of the United States is very differently placed from any of the European democracies. In arguing this ques- tion he does, indeed, lapse into paradox. So convinced is he that preparation for war, far from averting, tends to facilitate a collision, that he maintains that " it is of vital interest to us [the Americans] that our Navy should never be ready for war." Moreover, although he puts forward a rather Utopian scheme for what he terms " sanitating " the Monroe Doctrine, be evades the real dilemma, which is that the Government of the United States must either, for all international purposes, police Central and Southern America itself, or leave other nations free to act as they think best. But he is on perfectly sound ground when he argues that, for geographical and other reasons, no nation dreams of attacking the United States. He is also probably right in ridiculing the idea that America has anything to fear from Japan, and he treats the whole colour question in a rational and broad- minded spirit which commands respect and sympathy. He thus leads up to the conclusion that the United States may, and should, assume the leadership in a general world. campaign in favour of peace. The idea is noble, but it has to be remembered that nothing which the American people or American statesmen can do or say will alter the facts in respect to those nations whose situation, from various causes, is wholly different from theirs.
A great deal of what Dr. Jordan says applies only to America. He is above all things cosmopolitan. He attacks the Navy League of his own country and the "Armour-Plate Press," which he holds responsible for war scares, with a vigour quite equal to that which be displays when dealing with the prejudiced and effete aristocracies of Europe. But English readers will naturally be most interested in the mis- deeds which he imputes to England. In dealing with his statements on this subject, two reflections force themselves on the mind. The first is that, even when he is in the main right, he enormously exaggerates. The second is that he is evidently very imperfectly acquainted with his English facts. Under the influence of his monomania, for such it really is, Dr. Jordan attributes all the evils in the world to bloated armaments and to the excessive taxation rendered necessary for their maintenance. The fall in the value of gold, which has raised the cost of living throughout the world, is, in his opinion, due to this cause. But perhaps the reductio ad absurdum of his method of reasoning is reached when he tells us that " 'the white slave traffic' of to-day is an outgrowth of the standing army." Again, every rational Englishman regrets quite as much as Dr. Jordan the recent increase of naval and military expenditure, but to hold, as he holds, that by reason of that increase we are rushing headlong towards national insolvency is a wholly untenable proposition. The facts which are given in Mr. Bernard Mallet's recent work testify to the contrary. Again, we learn with some astonish- ment that "in the world at large, the world of dukes and barons, of generals and admirals . . . the ideal of equality before the law does not yet obtain." It would appear that Dr. Jordan surpasses even the present Chancellor of the Exchequer in his anti-ducal proclivities. The latter has never yet maintained that, in the eyes of the law, any difference exiats between a duke and a dustman. We are also told that "Imperial England is not the Englishman's land. Those who rule the sea and those who pay the taxes are not on speaking terms with each other." The Indian trade, Dr. Jordan maintains, does not benefit the many, but only the few. He also alludes to the faot, indicated by numerous poets from the days of Anacreon downwards, that
"Mars takes the brave And spares the coward for a nameless grave," and forthwith he rushes to the conclusion that "the beat of England's workers have died in her wars, leaving a weaker stock to breed from." He tells us that "no English citizen knows how far he is pledged to France, or to what degree he is to be blind to the designs of Russia." "The secret treaty," he adds, "is a relic of the military State." Statements of this sort may give point to the irresponsible rhetoric of a mob orator, but they are scarcely worthy of one writing from a seat of learning. It is necessary to indicate these fallacies, for they are mischievous. They may be, and probably are, believed by a number of ill-informed persons both in England, and America. Any operative from Manchester or Preston could, however, tell Dr. Jordan that the more humble classes of society in Lancashire thrive on the Indian trade. Any ordinarily well-informed Member of Parliament could state with accuracy the nature of our engagements to France and Russia, and would deride the idea that we are bound by any secret treaties. If England ever goes to war, it will not be because some occult arrangement has been elaborated in the twilight of the Foreign Office, but because the English democracy wants to fight.
But the main gravamen of Dr. Jordan's charge is contained in the following passage: "There can be no doubt that the most powerful lobby in the world is that employed by the great armament builders of England and Germany. . . . The war scare as promulgated through the 'Armour-Plato Press' of these countries is the chief agency for affecting public opinion and controlling the aotion of Reichstag and Parlia- ment." If this statement were true, it would indeed be serious; but whatever may be the case in America or Germany, there is happily every reason to suppose that, so far as England is concerned, it is wholly devoid of foundation. What Dr. Jordan calls a war scare nurtured by "armament pirates" is in this country not a fictitious cry got up by hired journalists or interested manufacturers. It represents the deliberate and well-founded belief of every thinking man in the United Kingdom that, in order to ensure the safety of
British overseas possessions and the inviolability of British soil, a navy of predominant strength is for the time being absolutely essential.
A caveat must also be entered against the manner in which Dr. Jordan confounds together the tendencies and aspirations of all the nations of Europe. "English Dreadnoughts," he says, "breed German." He has here confused parent and child. It would be more true to say that German Dreadnoughts breed English. Dr. Jordan puts the saddle on the wrong horse. The idea of " revenge " has died out in France. There is probably not a sane Englishman of any class of society who does not recognize that the greatest of British interests is peace. There is, in fact, only one disturbing element in Europe—namely, the fears excited by the possible future course of German policy. In Germany militarism still reigns supreme. It is impossible to read Prince Billow's recent work without recognizing that Dr. Jordan is not far from the mark when he says that Germany is still "possessed with the mediaeval spirit of military rivalry." It is certain that European thought and action were at one time moving in the direction so earnestly desired by Dr. Jordan, but Prince Bismarck arose and put back the hands of the clock. He introduced the principle that "the State is Force," and, although it may earnestly be hoped that Dr. Jordan is right when he says that "we shall never see another war among the great nations of Europe," it would, so long as the present phase lasts, be little short of madness for a nation which has so much to lose as England to expose itself to the risks involved in adopting a policy of blind security based on the toleration and continuous friendship of other nations stronger than itself. Napoleon once said that "what one nation most hates is another nation." It was a vile and cynical utterance, and it may not only be hoped bat believed that the sentiment which it expresses is moribund. But it would be in the highest degree unwise to disarm until we can feel greater confidence than can at present be entertained that it is altogether defunct.
CROMER.
Previous page
