Activate Javascript or update your browser for the full Digital Library experience.
Previous Page
–
Next Page
OCR
ISSUES AND EVENTS
than a Mexican murder of the Vice-President of the
United States and his wife would have been to us.
Back of the assassin stood an organized conspiracy
participated in by men high in the Servian army; back
of them stood Russia. A careful investigation enabled
Austria to trace these connections beyond doubt or
question. Then at last the Dual Monarchy moved
against Servia, with the same guarantees of Servian ter-
ritorial integrity and sovereignty which Mr. Wilson has
given as to Mexico. It was another instance of the
necessity which frequently arises for a superior people
to administer chastisement to an inferior.
Surely the parallel is obvious enough. Yet there will
be people narrow enough in their outlook to partrioti-
cally approve of our move against the Mexican bandits
who had become intolerable, yet continue to condemn
Austria-Hungary for performing exactly the same duty
toward civilization in undertaking the chastisement of
Servian assassins!
A parallel may be drawn between our present ad-
venture, too, and the clash between Germany and Rus-
sia, though here the comparative seriousness of the
respective threats against civilization is ludicrously
disproportionate. Russia might be called a Mexico
multiplied ten thousand fold; such she was in her re-
lation to Germany. And yet Americans have condemned
German “militarism”! Our little army is seriously
considered much too small to deal adequately with
Mexico if the whole nation should unite against us.
What would history say of us if we were neighbors to
Russia, as debased and inferior as Mexico, but ten
thousand times as terrible, united under a masterful
autocracy, if we neglected to arm against that danger?
History would not even drop a maudlin tear for a
nation so foolish. History would not have dropped a
tear for Germany had Germany neglected to arm against
Russia ; and Germany would have ceased to exist many
years ago.
Germany has been much condemned for following the 1
higher law of necessity and self-preservation in cutting
a path through Belgium when she was surrounded by
th iron ring of her enemies. Yet the American people
have followed the higher law of necessity, without the
justification of the need of self-preservation, not once
but many times. American history is a history of ruth-
less conquest based on no right save that inherent in the
207
superior race. Every inch of American soil was appro-
priated by white men and white men’s governments
under the sanction of racial superiority. And to round
out our national career of assertion of superiority over
tribal Indians, we finally applied the same stern and
practical test to our neighboring republic, Mexico. Gen-
eral Grant called our Mexican War “the most unjust
war ever waged by a strong nation against a weak.”
He was wrong. By every thumb-rule of conventional
ethics, by the record of the superficial deeds, it was
an unjust war; but it was justified because it meant
that California, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada,
and parts of Utah, Colorado and Wyoming were to be
the seats and scenes of our kind of civilization, not of
the brand that prevails in Mexico. If you wish,.you
can put it that we embarked on an enterprise to shoot
our band of “kultur” into an unwilling people, or else
give them the alternative of death or expatriation. And
we were ruthless in our methods, too. How then do we
dare denounce Germany for politely asking Belgium
for a passage in her hour of agony, and on finding Bel-
gium also an enemy, cutting her way through?
So here we are embarked on a “punitive expedition”
which may lead us far. Washington views the move
with great satisfaction. A sense of national humiliation
has prevailed during our “watchful waiting” policy.
And everyone is asking what effect it will have on our
relations with Germany? Will we be busy enough now
to satisfy the jingoes? Will the Administration get all
the military glory it wants? Will Mr. Wilson be a War
President without having to tackle Germany? By at-
tending to a matter which is strictly our business will
we be weaned away from the habit of dabbling in things
which are not our business, such as whether a German
submarine or an Allied auxiliary cruiser shall have the
first shot? In this act of war to the south can the tried
and harried souls of the American people see a guaran-
tee of peace to the east?
Or, on the other hand, will the present expedition be
used as the starting point for a vast increase in our
armed force, with the intention of turning it against
Germany in the end? No one can say. An observer in
Washington can only assure the country that the
enemies of Americanism are sleepless, and there is no
end to their resources. So far, nothing warrants the
belief that the danger of being precipitated into war
with Germany is past. The people must be vigilant.
The Future of International Trade
By PROFESSOR DR. M. J. BONN.
THE foreign trade of the United States after the war will
be affected by many individual circumstances. Its future
.development will depend in no small degree upon the prin-
ciple goveining the future trade relations between the na-
tions. '
During the last century the economic life of nations has
been based upon the principles of international interdependen-
dence in a constantly increasing degree. Will that. principle
be maintained or will the world return to the principle of
isolation and national self-sufficiency, which was the trade-
ideal of days gone by? The answer can only be given after
an inquiry into some of the economic lessons of the war.
That the war stopped the trade between belligerent nations
was no surprise to anybody. Given a. war of such magni-
tude, an enormous economic dislocation was unavoidable.
The imports of Germany, for example, from her enemies
comprised 43.5 per cent. of her total imports.
But the war did more than that. It affected to an unex-
pected degree the trade between neutrals and belligerents.
That the belligerents would levy an embargo againstthe neu-
tral nations on goods they wanted at home-the British em-
bargo, in wool, for example-was reasonable and legitimate.
Nor could Russia's grain trade to neutral countries be main-
tained, as its route lay through the Dardanelles. The almost
total annihilation of the German-American trade is due to
a so-called blockade declared by England. This measure
may be illegal, but it is a fact.
Moreover, as far as her power goes, England has stopped
the trade between neutral nations. Whenever she was afraid
of goods-even non-contraband goods-reaching the enemy,
she stopped that trade. She does not permit the provision-
ing of neutral countries unless they furnish guarantees that
they would not trade with the enemy. T at interference cuts
both ways. A country like Sweden, neutral in the spirit as
well as the letter of the law, has imposed an embargo against
Russia, whenever she has had to lay one against Germany.
Sea power as well as geographical position interfere in the
trade between neutrals. Roumania cannot export wheat ex-
cept through the territory of the central powers, and Switzer-
land is entirely surrounded by belligerents. ’
Surprises of Modern War.
A rupture of trade relations on a far bigger scale than
was ever expected is not the only lesson of the war. The
migration of individuals and the influx of capital into foreign
countries played a large part in business life before the war.
So far as men liable to military service were concerned, it
was quite natural that they should be interned in a hostile
country. This was done with Russian laborers in Germany
and with German reservists in England. But it was not ex-