The purpose of this address is to interest you in a peace movement which I wish to start in Cincinnati. I will begin by reading, with slight modifications, a letter printed in the New York Times, in which I attempted to give a clear and at the same time brief description of this movement.
"In the hearts of the people, the world over, is a great longing for peace. Due instruction and direction can make of this longing a great power for peace.
"For this purpose call mass meetings everywhere, have short, pointed speeches by physicians, sociologists and business men, who are good speakers and stand high in the community, on subjects like these:
1. "Disease and carnage of camp and battlefield.
2. "Disease, disability and maimed lives that follow after war.
3. "Eugenic loss. War destroys the strong and leaves the weak to propagate a weaker race.
4. "Family misery, widows and orphans.
5. "Poverty.
6. "Expense. National debts.
7. "National hatred.
8. "Harm done to America and other neutral nations by this war.
9. "What the people can do to end the war through the expression of public sentiment.
10. "Terms that mean permanent peace. This includes a degree of disarmament of all nations, and an agreement among them to boycott any one of them bringing on unrighteous war. It requires experts to make these principles workable and applicable, but there should be universal demand for them, lest they be ignored when peace is made.
"These addresses give each hearer an intelligent grasp of the effects of war and needed terms of peace, and [page 2] make him a power for permanent peace. If the movement be widespread, especially if world-wide, it will give the people an almost compelling power.
"There will be no difficulty in getting up monster, enthusiastic meetings if the people know their purpose and feel that they can help end the war. And the movement will go like a flash all over the world if the press will help, if all those attending the meeting write to their friends everywhere, if good speeches are spread widecast for use at other meetings.
"The meetings must be non-partisan, the speeches surely, and the people, so far as they can be persuaded to be so.
"Some say that this is not the psychological moment for a peace movement. None can answer this question. Hatred, lust for power or hope for temporal benefits may drive them on, but also the fearful results of war, increasing daily, must cry them halt. Perhaps even [today] all would welcome an honorable and permanent peace, and it seems a crime if we can help them and do not try.
"Some believe that permanent peace can only be secured by the crushing of one nation or another. Surely this is not true. The crushing of one side means prolongation of war, increasing national hatred, and also arrogance of the victors and bitterness and revengeful feelings of the vanquished, all of which predispose to new wars. Besides, the conquerors dictate terms favoring themselves and unlikely to make permanent peace. In time the conquered recuperate their powers, also new conditions arise, new rivalries, new alliances, and then the preparation for war and war itself. But if peace is concluded before either side conquers and dictates terms, both sides may welcome terms of permanent peace, especially if a world-wide movement of the kind here contemplated almost demands it.
"It is such terms of peace and not the crushing of one side or the other that will be the surest protection from dreaded militarism, and also lessen the pressing need of our own country's greater preparation for war.
"Even if this movement does not succeed in its chief purpose, it should still do much good. For its tendency is to lessen that strong bitter partisan spirit that is fast taking from us the possibilities of becoming mediators, of hastening the end of the war, for which we have been hoping and which the world has been expecting of us."
I want to speak about a few points brought out in the letter, and first about getting up a large meeting here. [page 3]
One of the first men to whom I spoke of this movement said that we could not get up a peace meeting in Cincinnati, that none would come to it. This statement surprised me and led me to make some investigations into the matter. I wrote out this question, "If there were a mass meeting in Music Hall, to consider the effects of the war and how to bring it to a close, and there were good speakers, would you come to the meeting?" I gave it to a number of people with the request that they would put it to each one they met. The first report I received was from the head of a factory. He said that every man in the factory answered "yes," in many instances adding, "Everybody ought to go to such a meeting." The other reports were very much like this one, so that I think there can be no doubt that we could easily get up large meetings.
But not all answers were of this kind. One man, from whom I did not hear, when I met him on the street sometime afterwards, said to me "Doctor, I did not send you a report because most of the people to whom I spoke thought a meeting of that kind would do no good." The men to whom he had spoken were business men like himself.
It was very manifest that as regards the answer to my question the community could be divided into two classes; the one, the larger class, represented by the laboring classes, the other represented by business and professional men. The first class was influenced by the pinch of the war, the pinch of need felt by themselves or by those about them, and by the consciousness of the need of the world. Their answers were prompted, not by reasoning how or why, but by the instinct to help, a wholesome instinct in this instance; for, if all would help together, the war would soon be ended. The other class had not felt the pinch of the war, at least they had not felt the pinch of need, and their answers were prompted rather by their prejudice, desire or viewpoint. They did not want peace, or they feared the movement would help the other side, or they doubted that it would have any effect, or they were altogether hopeless. It was very manifest that there was often a very narrow margin between hope and hopelessness. Not rarely one who had left me favoring the movement or even enthusiastic about it would afterwards speak to his friends, be discouraged by them and lose interest in the movement. But if there were to be a meeting in Cincinnati, if it were advertised everywhere and it were in the air that something were being done, the same individuals would be turned just [page 4] as readily from hopelessness to hope, and might be the first to come to the meeting.
The question whether the movement would spread, whether there would be meetings everywhere is infinitely more important than whether we could get a meeting in Cincinnati. I believe the possibility of meetings everywhere is almost as great as that of a large enthusiastic meeting here. There is the same tense state of public mind everywhere, and there would be the added stimulus of the enthusiastic meeting here and that of meetings elsewhere as they took place.
To make the movement spread needs the help of the press and the people. We want the press to give reports that will instruct and influence the community at large, and also make the movement spread. A large enthusiastic meeting may in itself call forth full notices from the press, but to get just the kind of reports needed requires probably the help of influential men, so that the interest of such men is almost essential for complete success. The people may count almost as much as the press. The central idea of the movement is that peace can be brought about by the people. This fact should be impressed upon them and the appeal made that each one write to his friends, far and near. They should tell all about the meeting, urge their friends to get up like meetings, offering pamphlets with the speeches, for printing the speeches and widely distributing them would doubtless be a help.
What can such mass meetings accomplish? They should be effective through the force of public sentiment. Surely we [cannot] question that public sentiment is a great power. It brought on our war with Spain. If unanimous and outspoken why should it not bring peace? I often hear it said, "Europe will not know anything about our mass meetings here," or "Europe does not care what we think," or "She despises or she hates us." I believe such statements are not only pessimistic, but also that they are not true. Europe evidently knows a great deal about what we are saying and writing and doing; and that she cares for what we think, is shown by the strenuous efforts of each side to turn us to its way of thinking.
But we are not counting on the effect of mass meetings in America alone; for, if the movement goes all over this country, there is no reason why it should not go all over the world, perhaps even into the countries now at war.
The most important purpose of the movement is securing terms of peace that mean permanent peace. It is often said that this is to be the last war, because its horrors [page 5] are so great. There is no justification for such a view. The thirty years war of Germany and the hundred years war of France and England did not prevent subsequent wars of those countries. Russia and Japan were recently engaged in a fearful war and are at war again. And the Balkan States pass from horrible wars into horrible wars; nor is there any assurance that the mere horrors of this war will prevent Europe from engaging in future wars.
Then again, it is often said, that talk about permanent peace is folly, that there will be war as long as human nature is what it is. While there is much truth in this statement, I do not think it is the whole truth. The time was when gentlemen settled their differences with the pistol or the sword. Now, on account of a change in the laws, they settle them in the court room, though human nature remains the same. So a change of methods between nations may make wars infrequent just as duels are now.
If the change is to be brought about now it must be through the terms of peace at the end of this war. If the war continues till one side is completely vanquished, such terms are not likely to be made; nor, under ordinary circumstances, would such terms be likely to be made if the war were ended [today]. Diplomats are proverbially narrow and selfish, each seeking by every means in his power for the immediate interests of his own country, regardless of the good of other countries, or of the future of mankind. It is only if a world-sentiment demands or compels them that we can expect them to make terms that mean permanent peace.
The terms I mentioned were: First, a degree of disarmament. It will require much study and compromising to work this out satisfactorily. I spoke also of an agreement among nations to boycott any one of them bringing on unrighteous war. The question, no doubt, would often arise whether the war were unrighteous, and that means the need of an international court. This, too, would call for study and advice from experts of all the warring nations, but not of them alone, for, if there is to be permanent peace there must be representatives from all nations in the congress making terms of peace.
Now I will mention a few objections made to this movement by some of those whom I tried to interest in it.
First come those of a partisan character. One, who stood high, and deservedly so, in the counsels of one of our city administrations, said to me, "I don't want the war [page 6] to end. I want to see Germany crushed. I want to see that d--d kaiser killed." Others were not so outspoken or at least not in the same terms, but many felt much the same way, some of them perhaps more so than they would be willing to acknowledge, even to themselves. I often thought when speaking to some of these men that if they were on the other side, on the firing line, and felt the pressure of this fearful war in their own person, or in that of their families, they might have the same deep feeling, the same bitter hatred, but they would be very much more anxious for peace than they are now. It is much safer and more pleasant to stand and watch while others do the fighting.
But the partisanship was not always selfish or narrow. Many thought that the war ought to continue until one side was vanquished in order to have lasting peace or to do away with militarism -- that usually meant German militarism. Apart from the endless harm that a war to the finish would bring, it is a question whether that is the way to get rid of militarism. Napoleon crushed Prussia more than the allies can ever crush her, but that was only a spur to militarism. It is true that conditions are different now, but there is no assurance that vanquishing Germany will end German militarism, and especially not that it will end all militarism. But if Germany has a smaller army, if she does not need to defend herself from her neighbors, nor to stand in fear of them, the natural growth and development of this intelligent and industrious people will soon eliminate both the presence and the spirit of militarism.
Another objection frequently made was that this is not the psychological moment. I asked one of Cincinnati's most distinguished statesman who made this objection when he thought that the psychological moment would come. He answered that he did not know. I then asked if he thought that he would recognize it when it did come. He said that he supposed not. And that is just what the psychological moment amounts to. It is merely an expression of hopelessness. A peace committee expressed the hopelessness in these terms, "To cast our feeble protest among the tremendous forces urging on the war would be futile." But what are these tremendous forces? To a very large extent they are the will and the efforts of the people. And why are they put forth? It is because they believe that for them this is a war of self-defense, that they are fighting for their lives. If they were given to feel that peace were a far greater protection for them than war these "tremendous [page 7] forces" would be urging on peace nearly as strongly as they are now urging on war.
Another objection made was that we ought not to interfere -- we should leave all this to the government. That means doing nothing. Our president offered his services at the beginning of the war and is still waiting for an acceptance of his offer. His position practically precludes his bringing pressure to bear upon the belligerents, but we wish to bring strong pressure to bear for we wish to hasten the war to a close and not let it go on to its bitter end.
Some of the objections made go to the very heart of the matter, that there have been many peace meetings without avail, that people do not need instruction or advice to know the horrors of war or to want to be rid of them, and that it is difficult or impossible to get a united sentiment of the people, especially about the war. Now, the peace meetings hitherto have been mostly meetings of idealists, addressed by idealists; and while idealists exert a great influence for good, a few of them [cannot] end this tremendous war. The purpose of this movement is very different. It is to have meetings of the people, for the people and by the people, and also spread by their influence. The object is not to increase their knowledge of the horrors of war, but to give them an intelligent grasp of its effects and to make them conscious of their power to end it and of the terms of peace which they should demand.
However difficult it may sometimes be to build up a general public sentiment, it should not be so here, for it is practically only giving direction and expression to the longing in the hearts of the masses that this war should end. In the program above presented there was a studied effort to exclude any subject which might give rise to a conflict of opinion or prejudice.
Nor does it suffice that there be a universal desire for peace so long as that desire remains silent. It requires expression and public demonstration to give it force, especially, will that be necessary to secure terms needed for permanent peace.
Just a word in conclusion. This tremendous war has told so severely upon all the peoples involved that one can scarcely doubt that they would be glad to be out of it if their vital interests were secured. What power ought more naturally and easily bring the belligerents together for the purpose of making peace than a movement like this which is the expression of the whole people, the sentiment of the [page 8] world; and, if successful, what greater lesson for the future of mankind?
If this movement once begins it will almost go on of itself, gathering momentum as it goes. The hard part is to get it started. That needs the class hardest to win, the influential men of the community, in order to finance it, to get the help of the press and to get good speakers. I appeal to you for assistance to win them over and also for your own help. Each one who does help may prove to be doing a great service for humanity.
Comments