Transcriber’s Note:
The cover image was created by the transcriber and is placed in the public domain.
Letters of condolence and of cynicism come to my desk inthese latter days in increasing number. There is a note of triumphand of mockery in one group: “What has become of the famousPeace idea? The South African war, following immediatelyupon the close of the Peace Conference at The Hague, has not yetreached its end, and already the horizon in Eastern Asia islurid with the glare of a world-war. Are you convinced now ofthe absurdity of your claims, ye dreamers of peace?” Throughthe second group runs an undertone of commiseration: “Whatsuffering must have come to you, honored madame, and to yourfriends, in seeing your beautiful illusion shattered. Sad, sad;but thus it is. War is an historic law, and your ideals are simply—ideals.You will have to reef your sails in the face of such astorm of facts.”
It is true that a feebly manned boat cannot battle against stormand surf. But the simile ill fits the effort to establish peace.That is no boat; it is a rock. The waves may top it with theirwrathful spume, but naught can affect its granite permanence.
Let me set aside metaphor and reply to my correspondents.Let me endeavor to show them the point of view from which theadvocates of peace regard the present condition of the world, andthe nature of the duties and prospects, the hopes and self-denialsto be descried therefrom.
In the first place, we admit candidly that we have been mistaken;not, however, in the principles we have enunciated, butin our estimate of present culture. We had regarded public conscienceas being permeated by a longing for international rightand by an abhorrence of despotism to a greater degree than thefacts of the case warrant.
654The warlike events that surge about us and threaten us furnishno proof against the principles of the peace movement. Theymerely prove that these principles have not yet entered fully intothe conscience of nations and of their leaders; that the movementis not yet sufficiently advanced in its spread, its organization, itsmethods of action, to verify the hopes fostered by the conferenceat The Hague for an early eradication of old, deeply-rooted institutionsof brute force. In other words, we have been mistaken,not in the fundamental statements we have made, but in the conceptionthat they were more widely accepted than they haveproved to be.
These truths remain: (1.) Culture is synonymous with therepression of brute force; (2.) Nations are oppressed by theirbrazen breast-plate, and, if its weight increases, they will becrushed by it; (3.) Right relations are as possible between nationsas they have gradually been proven to be between individuals,tribes, boroughs, cities and provinces; (4.) The abolition of waras a legal institution of human society, when such abolition ismade a matter of principle, will result in undreamed-of increaseof material wealth and moral elevation. All these truths, andmany theories begotten of them, have not lost an iota of theirlogical content and of their blessed potentiality from the fact thatfoolish humanity, through its most powerful agents, government,church and press, still emphasizes dogmas opposed to