The Danger of Living Among Christians.

A QUESTION OF PEACE OR WAR.

It is seldom that any of the great questions of the time are treated from an ethical standpoint. Old opinions and old usages furnish the standpoint for our press writers, our politicians, and our clergy. The question of national defence has been under discussion for years, and Samuel J. Tilden, who was regarded by millions as the ablest of our statesmen, gave his whole mental power to urging its consideration upon the American people; but if this question has ever been seriously discussed from the ethical standpoint it has escaped my notice. The nearest approach to the ethical view was the suggestion of the Boston Herald that in putting on the full armor of national defence the effect might be to stimulate the haughty and warlike impulses of our people, and thus increase the danger of war, while a defenceless seacoast would tend to inspire prudence and moderation in our national government.

There is a great deal of truth in this view. We have a score of prominent politicians whose sentiments on international questions are too much like those of a bully in private life, and they have a dangerous amount of influence in public affairs.

Turning aside from these popular discussions, the Journal of Man maintains the ethical standpoint for the consideration of such subjects; and its first suggestion would be, Why should the people—of this country spend $120,000,000 as a preparation for slaughtering our brethren the Christian population of Europe, the only people from whom any danger can be apprehended—our brethren in civilization and Christianity, our brethren too by the ties of blood?

Do they not all maintain the Christian religion (at least nominally) by all the power of their governments and public opinion? Would not our good people in visiting them or they in visiting us be invited to participate in the communion service which commemorates the martyred Teacher of the law of love? Are they not our brethren, the neighbors to whom the command applies, “Love thy neighbor as thyself”? Is this our Christian love, to spend a hundred and twenty millions for the assassination of our beloved brethren—avowedly for that purpose? It is needless to object to the word assassination,—wholesale murder by armies is substantially the same thing as separate murders by each individual of the army.

But, it is urged, we are in danger of invasion, and the bombardment of our cities. Does any one seriously believe that a powerful nation intent on peace—the strongest power in the world, the friend of all mankind, ready to submit any international question to arbitration—would be in danger of an unjust, lawless, causeless assault from the Christian nations of Europe, who have so much to lose and nothing to gain by war, and who have already, in their groaning, tax-burdened people, a sufficient reminder of the folly and criminality of war? They have not money for another war, which would bring on the dangers of bankruptcy and the revolt of the oppressed masses.

It must be that this is seriously apprehended, or else that it is feared that the arrogant and bullying temper of our own people or our politicians may originate and exasperate international irritation to the insane extreme of war.

What a horrible theory is this! Is all the civilization, statesmanship, and Christianity of the leading nations of the earth incapable of withholding them from such gigantic crimes? Is Christendom the only dangerous portion of the world, where an honorable and peaceful nation cannot exist in safety?

The heathen nations are not a source of danger. If Christendom were annihilated to-morrow, there would be no occasion to speak of defending our coasts or building up a powerful navy. It is apparent, then—it is confessed—that it is very dangerous to live among these Christian nations, or in other words, it is very dangerous to live among Christians, as they are called! But do our statesmen or our clergy suggest this view? Do they recoil from war or inspire the people with thoughts of peace? Never! One of the conspicuous clergymen of England was the fiercest advocate of war with Russia. The fundamental principle of the Christianity of Jesus is dead in the so-called Christian church, except in that little fragment, the church of the Quakers, who, for their fidelity to the fundamental principle, were scourged and hanged in Boston by the pious predecessors of our present churches, until they were forbidden by the unsanctified monarch, Charles II. Has the old spirit died out? Look at the hostility to Theodore Parker—to spiritual investigation, even. See the scornful and hostile attitude of the descendant of Cotton Mather, Col. Higginson.

It may be a shocking proposition to say that it is dangerous to live among Christians, but it is a sober reality, to which I invite the attention of clergymen and moralists who wish to live up to their profession, and who have enough of the ethical faculty to realize the central principle of true Christianity.

If our statesmanship, religion, and education cannot protect us against such horrors, may we not justly say it is a false statesmanship, a false religion, and a false education? Indeed, our whole fabric of opinion and morals is fundamentally false, and the Journal of Man goes to record as an indictment at the bar of heaven against the polished barbarism of modern society, against which we hear only a feeble and almost inaudible protest.

Boston has a highly respectable and immensely perfunctory Peace Society, amply endowed with names and numbers, of which our late postmaster was the president, and whose presidency was vastly more inefficient than his postmastership.

A peace society might possibly be established in Boston, if its best people could be roused, but the society that we have is little better than a piece of ornamental nomenclature. When there is anything to be done it understands how not to do it. When Mr. Gladstone had performed the most glorious act of his life in the preservation of the peace of Europe against the fierce opposition of the turbulent element in England, an act which will make the brightest jewel in his crown of honor, there was an opportunity of sustaining him by American sympathy. The voice of Americans, if they cared aught for peace, should have been heard in Europe in commanding tones,—the voice of the people, the voice of Legislatures, the voice of the Federal government. An effort was made by half a dozen or less of enlightened gentlemen in Boston to have a fitting response emanate from this city. Dr. Miner and Hon. Stephen M. Allen realized its importance when I first suggested it, but on that occasion the Peace Society was a lifeless corpse. The society might have been waked up if Mr. Lowell, then returning from England, could have been induced to co-operate. He was approached on the subject, but would not respond,—he only said that he desired rest! Alas for the hollowness of American religion and philanthropy!

There is a nobler religion than that of American churches, a nobler statesmanship than that of Mr. Tilden (which is a good specimen of the popular sort), a nobler education than that of our American schools and colleges—an education, a statesmanship, and a religion which will wash the blood from the sword, bury the sword in the earth, and proclaim the fraternity of man in all the nations of the earth.

Ah! when shall the demand for the supremacy of the moral law be anything more than “the voice of one crying in the wilderness”? Is it not possible to have a protest against the barbarism of war from men of influence, who have sufficient mental power and strength of character to command the attention of the nation? When Elihu Burritt and Robert Dale Owen were alive I thought it might be possible, but it was not attempted. Is it possible now? Is all the genius and energy of the American people bound in fidelity to the Moloch of war? I do not believe it, and would invite correspondence from those who share this belief and wish to co-operate in such a movement.

We have to-day a practical subject of discussion: Shall we, the people of the United States, tax ourselves $120,000,000 at once and an unknown amount hereafter, to place ourselves upon a par with the homicidal nations of Europe, and sanction by our example the infernalism in which they have lived from Cæsar to the Napoleonic period, or shall we endeavor to introduce a true civilization, lay aside the weapons of homicide, and urge by our powerful mediation the disarmament of Europe, relieving the oppressed millions from accumulating war debts, and from that infernalism of the soul which makes the duel still an established institution in France and even in German universities? Shall we move onward toward humane civilization, or cling to a surviving barbarism?

The measure now proposed is an abandonment of Divine law, and a practical pledge of this country to the infernalism of war. It is a declaration that we do not believe peace attainable at all, and that we indorse and seek to renew forever the blood-stained history of the past.

Is there not among our politicians who sustained the Blair Education bill some one whose voice may be heard in behalf of peace? Is Col. Ingersoll too much of a pessimist to believe that American moral power will be sufficient in time to calm the world’s agitation? Let him espouse this cause, and he will find it more practical by far than riding down the ghosts of an effete theology. Let Henry George turn his attention to this question, and he will find in it even more than in the question of sovereignty over the land; for every acre on the globe, if confiscated to-day, would pay but a portion of the boundless cost of war. The blood alone that has incarnadined all lands is worth vastly more than the dead soil into which it has been poured. Let Dr. McGlynn, who has already entered on the perilous path of the reformer, look at this question in the light of religion and philanthropy, and he will find it more worthy of his attention than any other practicable reform, for it is practicable now and here to roll back the warlike policy from its approach to our national government.

Are not such questions as these worthy of the profound attention of such men as Rev. Dr. Miner, Rev. M. J. Savage, Rev. J. K. Applebee, and Rev. W. H. Thomas of Chicago? They are not theological dilettanti, but earnest thinkers. Should not every Universalist and every Quaker realize that it is time for them to stir when our nation’s destiny is under discussion, and that their voices should be heard at Washington?

The proposition is made and sustained by the influence of Mr. Tilden, to place this country in the list of mail-clad warrior nations, and it is rather a fascinating proposition to those who entertain pessimistic ideas of man, and believe that all nations are ready to slay and rob when they have a good opportunity.

Capt. F. V. Greene, late of the U. S. engineering corps, appears as the advocate of American fortifications, and at the Massachusetts Reform Club he presented his views substantially as follows: The United States have 3,000 miles of Atlantic and Gulf coast, 2,200 on the lakes, and 1,200 on the Pacific, and have cities on these coasts aggregating a wealth of $6,000,000,000—all exposed to a hostile fleet, which could in a short time destroy everything within cannon-shot from the water, and drive five millions of people from their city homes. The fortification board estimates $120,000,000 as the sum necessary to supply cannon and forts for protection, which is but two per cent upon the amount of property protected.

This is a very satisfactory statement of the case from the average standpoint, which is not the ethical. But in the first place I consider it morally sure that this country will never have a foreign war if it models its national policy on the Divine law; and secondly, whenever war is foreseen as probable in consequence of an intolerable spirit of aggression and the refusal of the hostile party to submit to arbitration, a sufficient number of cannon can be cast and placed on floating batteries or behind iron walls to protect every endangered point. It would be necessary only to know that our foundries were adequate to the task; and the fact that such an armament was preparing would be a sufficient warning to avert a hostile movement. Yet the costly steel cannon, which require such enormous appropriations to prepare for their manufacture on a large scale, are not absolutely necessary. It has been shown by recent experiments that dynamite shells of 150 pounds can be thrown two miles and a quarter by air pressure or steam pressure from light, slender-built cannon, or steel tubes of unusual length, which may be enlarged to compete with the most formidable artillery. A single steel-clad vessel of the Monitor type with such an armament could destroy a squadron.

But let arbitration be known as our fixed national policy—let us secure also the co-operation of other nations pledged to the arbitration policy, and war would be almost an impossibility.

Capt. Greene’s exposition of the necessity of coast defence was clear and forcible, but his concluding remarks gave a glimpse of peaceful purposes. “He supplemented his speech by remarking that the United States will probably be called on before long to be the arbitrator between the nations of Europe. The latter cannot stand the financial strain much longer, and inside of twenty years we shall probably be the equal in population and wealth of any two, if not three, nations of Europe, and to us will be referred all their disputes for settlement. When we become the referees of the world we must have the force behind us, so that when we give a decision we shall be able to enforce it; and this can only be adequately effected by a perfect system of coast defences.”

Commander Burke of the U.S. Navy, who followed Capt. Greene “thought that if the Irish question be settled satisfactorily, there will be no danger of a war with England unless we desire war. He had been advised that the English people, Great Britain and her colonies, look to the Americans to assist them in case of war with any foreign powers, and there is a strong sentiment of friendship for the American people for that reason, if for no other. He believed that the use of high explosives, by which war could be rendered more dangerous, would result in reducing the probability of war.”

Certainly if the United States would lead in a pacific policy, Great Britain, under Gladstone, would unite in the movement, and arbitration would ere long become the policy of the world, and would not long be the established policy before disarmament would follow and the sword be buried forever.