CIVILISATION AND WAR.*

CAPTAIN MAHAN has collected under the title of Some Neglected Aspects of War articles which we have already seen. Two of the articles are not by Captain Mahan, but by Mr. Henry S. Pritchett and Mr. Julian S. Corbett, Mr. Pritchett writing on " The Power that Makes for Peace," and Mr. Corbett on " The Capture of Private Property at Sea." Mr. Corbett's excellent article ought, we think, to convince most readers of the wisdom of the recent decision of the British Government to support the traditional freedom to capture private property at sea. At first sight the humanitarian argument, to which we would allow not less than its due value, and the vast extent of British private property at sea, seem to tell against that decision. But both principle and expediency are found on examination to reinforce the argument on the other• side, which Mr. Corbett states as clearly and fairly as could be.

An American of a certain age feels perhaps more strongly than a man of any other nation the insufficiency of the belief that " war settles only which nation is the stronger." The Civil War in America settled a great deal more than that the North was stronger than the South ; it settled the question whether the Union should continue to exist at all, and, above all, it settled the question of slavery. None but an unthinking or a young American can forget that. Was slavery a thing- that could be submitted to arbitration P Certainly not, for on one side it was a decree of conscience that it should cease, and on the other a firm economic resolution that it should not. In the highest sense it was a war of honour, and the

Some Neglected Aspects of War. By, Captain A. T. Mahan, U.S.N. Together with "The Power that Makes for Peace," by Henry S. Pritchett ; sad " The Capture of Private Property at Sea," by Julian S. Corbett. :London : Sampson Low, Marston, and Co. L65. net.]

poet of "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" put what the Federals fought for on the-loftiest plane :-

"'Mid the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,

As He died to make men holy let us die to make men free." The phrase "honour and vital interests" which is used at the Hague to define matters which a nation cannot be expected to submit to arbitration is, however, as Captain Mahan says, unfortunate, for "honour" is too often assumed to mean nothing but vanity. We do not pretend to any sympathy with'

countries which expose mankind to the shocking evils of war simply for the sake of some punctilio of prestige. But if the Federals argue that without war they could never have induced the Southern States to remain in the Union and give up slavery, we do not see how the statement can be contra-

dicted. Innumerable efforts had been made to subordinate slavery to the law, but all had failed. Another issue which could not be arbitrated upon, in Captain Mahan's judgment, was that which led to the Russo-Japanese War. " There is no law existent applicable to such cases."

Although we admit Captain Mahan's argument up to this point, we must not be supposed to concur in a common theory (not Captain Mahan's) which represents war as a quite inevitable collision of contending forces which is ordained by Providence because progress would be impossible without it.

That is a cheap and unintelligent application of the scientific thought to which Darwin made us his 'heirs. It is implied that men must kill one another in order that the fittest among nations may survive, and that men can do nothing to stay the process. To agree to that is an infamous abdication of all that differentiates man from beast. Nor would we praise war for war's sake as the producer of manly and self-sacrificing virtues. War may, indeed, call out the best in man, even as it may call out the worst; but the qualities of the soldier that Ruskin praised so finely are only the beautiful compensations of a bad business. To foster those qualities by procuring war would be an economic system leading direct to moral insolvency. It would be spending a pound to earn a penny.

To some extent we cannot agree with Captain Mahan's paper, " War from the Christian Standpoint," which was read before the American Church Congress, because it regards Christianity as a kind of fixed formula by which war may be defended eternally. Captain Mahan goes on to the observa- tion that at the time of writing " the most conspicuous apostles of the extreme position in condemning war are not now Christian believers. In illustration of this remark I would cite on the one hand Herbert Spencer, Frederic Harrison, and John Morley; on the other Bishop Westcott, whose position in deprecation of war appears to me as advanced as is consistent with conservative recognition of Christian authorities." But Christianity is not an unexpand- ing code; no state of moral advancement is conceivable in which Christian ethics would not still be a long way ahead of accomplishment. Therefore, though Christianity may be tolerant of war in circumstances in which war is still some- times necessary to secure the good and repulse the evil, it is certain that in the social state contemplated as the ulti- mate achievement of Christianity war would not exist.

As things are to-day the peacemakers seem sometimes unwittingly to excite war ; serious wars followed the first

Peace Conference, and the immediate sequel to the second, at which the reduction of armaments was sincerely proposed, is a more furious challenge to shipbuilding than Great Britain has ever received before. If such things were really cause and effect, the nations would soon be forced to the con- clusion that they could not afford to attend Peace Conferences any more. Mr. Pritchett speaks of the man who is " so eager for world-peace that he is ready to fight for it," and the description stops short of caricature. One is reminded of the Spanish town which started a society for the prevention of

cruelty to animals, and raised the initial funds by a gala performance in the bull-ring. Mr. Pritchett, again, writes that

the hope of peace lies in " the promotion of common con- fidence and better understanding, not in the effort to belittle and to ostracise any class of citizens." There is a reference

here, we suppose, to the traditional American feeling—less widely spread now, but still to be reckoned with—that the existence of a Regular army is a threat to Constitutional liberty. The different States consent to the training of

soldiers who are primarily guardians of the publie peaoe—• viz., the National Guard—but even the " Manifest Destiny " ol the America of to-day has not been allowed to create a large Regular army. In Germany the ostracisation is not of the

soldiers by the civilians, but the other way; in a country

where a Court of Honour has held an officer to be justified in cutting down an unarmed citizen in the street who had

insulted him there is indeed a privileged military caste.

And in France the anti-militarists have only succeeded lately in getting themselves ostracised into prison.

To sum up, wars are not often necessary, but we cannot accept the theory either that they are never necessary or that

only goodwill .is required to remove the possibility of them.

Countries which refuse arbitration on matters of fact are dis- loyal to the international standard of forbearance which has already been reached, but there are circumstances in. which arbitration might be an abdication of personal responsibility.

Thus a civilised country could not arbitrate in place of correcting a less civilised country which is quite unamenable to the pressure of international comity, or insensible of its

duties to its own subjects, particularly subjects of a lower race. Could one consent to arbitration in a dispute with President Castro ? Mr. Morley authorised a war a few weeks- ago because punishment could be conveyed, and protection for a district secured, by war, and in no other way; and even.

so-called civilised countries may find themselves in relations which differ only in degree from those in which the Indian. Government stood to the Zakka Khel. Let us quote Captain

Mahan on a case in which both nations were civilised. He- describes the sufferings of the Cubans under Spanish govern- ment, and continues :- "Under such circumstances, does any moral obligation lie up on. a powerful neighbouring state ? Or, more exactly, if there is- borne in upon the moral consciousness of a mighty people that such an afflicted community as that of Cuba at their doors is like Lazarus at the gate of the rich man, and that the duty of stopping- the evil rests upon them, what is to be done with such a case of conscience ? Could the decision of another, whether nation or court, excuse our nation from the ultimate responsibility of its own decision ? But, granting that it might have proved expedient to call in other judges, when we had full knowledge of the circum- stances, what would have been our dilemma if, conscience com- manding one course, we had found ourselves antecedently bound to abide by the conclusions of another arbiter ? For let us not. deceive ourselves. Absolutely justifiable, nay, imperative, as most Americans believe our action to have been, when tried at the bar of conscience, no arbitral court, acceptable to the two- nations, would have decided as our own conscience dial."

Arbitral Courts, in fine, may remove many of the oppor- tunities for war, but they can no more end war of themselves. than the quite desirable reduction of the number of public- houses can end drunkenness. Perhaps the universal change of the human heart which will alone end war will come, but as things are one can only conclude that the material evil of war, though very great, may be occasionally less than: that of assenting to a wrong.