A way to prevent war

Front matter

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover.

Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the publisher to a library and finally to you.

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.

Contents

Preface i

I. To THE Working Class of the World . • i

II. An Anti-War Program That Will Work . s

Preface

If the people were in favor of war, the way to end war would be to convert the people to peace. This book is devoted to the task of showing that since the people are opposed to war the logical way to end it is to take the power to declare war from minorities who misuse it and vest it in the people who may be depended upon not to use it at all. Public sentiment in favor of peace can be of little practical value so long as a minority in each nation control the war-making machinery.

The ideas upon which this book is based began to come to me twelve days after the outbreak of the Great War in Europe, while I was writing an article on the war for Pearson's Magazine. It seemed such a colossal wrong that perhaps fifty men should have the power to force war upon 350,000,000 who did not want it. I had written more than half of the article when the idea came to me that only the people, voting by direct ballot, should have the power to declare war — and thus it was that the demand for a referendum on war was first made in an article devoted to the war in Europe.

For the next seven months, I did little else but develop the idea, write about it and speak about it

i ii PREFACE

One article, when re-printed as a pamphlet, had a circulation of more than 2,000,000 copies. The Executive Committee of the Socialist Party has endorsed the plan in principle and, as noted on Page 102, it has received enthusiastic support elsewhere.

All except the last chapter of this book was printed serially in the Appeal to Reason, the Socialist weekly published at Girard, Kansas. The last chapter was first printed in Pearson's Magazine.

A. L. B.

Yonkers, N. Y., April, 1915.

Chapter I To The Working Class Of The World

^T^HE knife is at your throat and the pistol is at -■• your heart.

You must end war or war will end you.

What the great men of the world have failed to do, you must do or you die. What the great men of the world have failed to do you can do, because you are wholly opposed to war and they are not.

It is idle to say that the ruling classes of the world could not end war if they wholly believed in peace. Between sunrise and sunset of any day they could sink their navies and disband their armies. Disarmament is both simple and effective. But no nation disarms because each nation is governed by a small ruling class of capitalists who do not really want perpetual peace.

Every ruling class is opposed to every war in which it sees no opportunity to obtain profit for itself. But every ruling class favors war if it can accomplish its purpose in no other way. The capitalists of Great Britain regretted our war with Spain, but did not regret their own war with the Boer republics. The capitalists of the United States regretted the war between

Russia and Japan, but did not regret our war with Spain and the Philippines.

The time has come when the working class, the world over, must speak or die.

Civilization cannot long endure if it be subjected to many more such assaults as the great war that broke out in Europe in the summer of 1914.

Civilization could and did survive the wars of the past, but the wars of the past were as nothing in comparison with this war.

Grant so shed human blood that, in the dark days of the American Civil War, thousands called him a butcher.

The generation that judged Grant did not know what butchering meant.

Beside the European commanders of to-day, Grant was a mere brawler. Grant, in all his life, never shed so much human blood as these men shed during the first three months of the war. Nor did Napoleon.

All through the ages we have looked to the butchering class to devise means to end butchery. We should no longer look to the butchers — ^we should look to ourselves.

If civilization is to endure, the working class cannot forever be kept upon the operating table.

The working class must set its face against the farce of a peace tribunal housed in a palace built from the profits on armor plate — z peace tribunal that can prevent all wars except little wars, meditun-sized wars and big wars.

TO THE WORKING CLASS 3

The working class must sweep aside these qualified opponents of war and station its own huge bulk in their place.

We do not depend upon burglars to frame our statutes against burglary — ^why should we depend upon capitalists to bring peace and keep peace?

The only peace these creatures bring to us is the peace of death.

Instead of balm, they give us bombs. After worship, they give us warships. To end war they are willing to do almost anything except to keep the peace. The net result of all their efforts in our behalf is the European war of 19 14 — ^the greatest calamity that ever befell the human race.

Yet it would not be accurate to charge that the capitalist peace movement is sheer hypocrisy. It is sincere as far as it goes. It fails only because most of the men behind it want peace with a proviso— peace always if it can be had without detriment to profits; peace always for neighboring nations whose quarrels are without interest to their neighbors ; but peace never when the ruling class of a nation believes it can accomplish its purposes in no other way.

A program will now be presented which, if adopted, would bring to the world peace without a provisopeace without end.

It is not a program that the butchers will approve.

It is not a program based upon a plan that ha& failed.

It is a program based upon the needs of the working class — ^which is equivalent to sa)ring that it will not be installed by the capitalist class. It can be placed in effect only by the working class.

But the working class is strong. It includes all but a fraction of the people. What the working class demands it can have. It has only to learn to demand — and to insist

Let it demand peace and go about it to bring peace in a way that is its own.

Chapter II An Anti-war Program That Will Work

^T^HE power to declare aggressive war should be -■• taken from the ruling class and deposited in the people, to be exercised by them only by direct ballot.

The power to resist actual attack in force should remain in the hands of the Congress and the President whose duty, in such circumstances, it should be to defend and protect the people of the United States without resort to special authority from the people.

In the face of threatened invasion, or of any other emergency indicating speedy attack in force, the Congress and the President should have the power, without resort to special authority from the people, to make every needful provision for defense up to, but not including, the firing of the first gun. All other military preparations made by Congress should be subject to referendtun. The first gun should never be fired by the United States except by order of a majority of the qualified electors expressed by direct ballot.

The electors qualified to vote upon a proposal to declare war should consist of all the men and women in the United States more than i8 years old. War is the concern of women as much as it is of men, and if a boy i8 years of age is old enough to die for his country he is also wise enough to know whether he wants to die.

Congress, by majority vote of the membership of each house thereof, should have the power to propose war.

War having been thus proposed, Congress should set a day for a general election throughout the United States to pass upon the proposal.

The day should not be set within 60 days from the date of the proposal, nor should it be later than six months therefrom.

The people should be given time to ponder upon the solemnity of the occasion, but it would be neither just nor prudent to permit a threat of war to hang too long over another nation.

The ballot should consist of a slip of paper upon which should be printed the question:

NO

Shan the United States declare war against

Each voter should be required to sign his or her name opposite the word indicating his or her desire.

At each polling place, an accurate record should be kept of the numerical order in which the electors exercised the right of franchise.

In counting, the ballots cast by those desiring war should be kept apart from the ballots of those opposed to war.

AN ANTI-WAR PROGRAM 7

Electors not voting should be regarded as having voted against war.

In the event of a majority of the men and women in the United States voting for war, the President, as the Commander-in-chief of the army and navy, should proceed to make war.

Every man who voted for war should be regarded as having thereby automatically enhsted into the army.

The President should be authorized to send to the front all of the men who voted for war, or as many thereof as he might deem necessary.

If all of the men who voted for war should prove unable to defeat the foe, the President should be authorized to select by lot and muster into service all the men who did not vote.

If still more soldiers should be required, the President should be authorized to muster into service the men who voted against war, choosing first those who voted against war latest in the day and working backward upon the lists to the first man in each precinct who voted against war, who should be the last man called upon to fight.

The President should be forbidden to send to the front any man who voted against war until every man who voted for war had been mustered into service, and the resultant army proved insufficient.

Women who vote for war should not be required to perform military service unless war would not have been declared without their votes.

If the votes of women should turn the scale toward war, the women who voted for war should be mustered into the military service in the order in which they cast their ballots at their respective polling places. But in no circumstances should a woman who voted against war be required to perform military services.

Every writer, public speaker and public official who shall advocate war with a particular nation or group of nations should be sent to prison for not less than one year nor more than five unless he forthwith files notice of such advocacy with the President of the United States. If, within five years of such advocacy, war should take place between the United States and such nation or nations, such persons should be immediately sent to the front as common soldiers and kept on the firing line until the end of the war, unless temporarily incapacitated by wounds. Such persons, if wounded, should, upon recovery, be sent back to the front and kept there until the end of the war.

The power to formulate and execute foreign policies and to conduct negotiations with foreign powers should be taken from the President and deposited in Congress.

The present Department of State should be abolished and all of its functions transferred to a joint congressional committee on foreign relations.

This committee should consist of such equal number of members of each house as the two houses of Congress might mutually agree upon, each house electing its own representatives upon the committee.

The chairman of the committee, who should not necessarily be a member of Congress, should be elected

AN ANTI-WAR PROGRAM 9

by the two houses in joint session. He should rank as the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the United States and should be responsible, not to the President, but to Congress.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs should have, in the disposal of minor matters and routine affairs, such latitude for individual discretion as Congress might choose to give him; but in matters of moment he should act only under the direction of Congress, as expressed directly or through the committee on foreign relations.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs should be required, not later than the close of each business day, to give to the press all the messages that he had received during the preceding 24 hours from (i) American Ambassadors, Ministers, Consuls and every other ofHcial or personal agent, by whatever title known; (2), all the messages sent during the same time to American Ambassadors, Ministers, Consuls and other agents dispatched to other nations; (3), all the dispatches received from the representatives, official or otherwise, of foreign nations and officials; (4), and all the dispatches sent to the representatives of foreign nations and officials.

It should be unlawful for anybody except the chairman of the committee on foreign affairs to communicate, in the name of the United States, with American diplomatic and consular agents abroad, or with the official or unofficial representatives of foreign governments.

It should be unlawful for the chairman of the committee on foreign relations to send verbal messages or to direct messages to any others than the persons for whom they are actually intended.

Any evasion of these provisions, either by trick or device or by failure to publish messages the same day they are received or sent, should be deemed sufficient justification for the impeachment of the chairman of the committee on foreign relations, for his removal from office and for his indictment upon a charge of felony, upon conviction of which he should be imprisoned in a federal prison for not less than one year nor more than five.

Warships, guns and ammimition should be manufactured only by the government. No individual or corporation should be permitted to have a pecuniary interest in urging preparation for war.

The foregoing is a brief outline of the program that, if adopted by the world, would banish war from the world. It is based upon the assumption that wars are fomented by individuals and that the natural tendency of people is to keep the peace. The plan, therefore, contemplates three distinct achievements:

( 1 ) The punishment of writers, speakers and public officials who foment wars, by compelling them to be common soldiers on the firing line in any wars they may provoke ;

(2) The placing of diplomacy in the daylight, to the end that the people may have full and accurate knowledge of their negotiations with other nations,

AN ANTI-WAR PROGRAM ii

as they proceed from day to day. It is the lies told by diplomatists that inflame people who would otherwise be peaceful. It is the darkness in which diplomatists work that enables them to commit aggressions that they would not dare to attempt if their own people knew what they were doing.

(3) The equal aK>ortionment of power and responsibility, so far as a declaration of war is concerned, among all of the American people. As matters now stand, 134 men in Congress and one man in the White House have all of the power without any of the physical responsibility, while the rest of the people have all of the physical responsibility without any of the power. The exercise of power unbalanced by responsibility tends toward the abuse of power. Responsibility for the acts of others without power to prevent the acts is an aggravated form of slavery. It is an incomparably greater assault upon justice for a few men to have the power to send all others into the field to kill human beings than it would be for a few men to have the power to send all others into the field to raise cotton or reap wheat.

It is not the contention of the writer, however, that the foregoing reaches the root of the war evil, in the sense that it reaches the cause of war. So long as men tolerate laws under which the necessities of life are subject to private ownership, so long will a few men own the necessities and so long will the greed of the few precipitate situations that will cause them to prefer war to the abandonment of their purposes.

The plan herewith proposed is an attempt to prevent a few men from sending all other men to war. It is proposed to do this by taking from the few the power to make a war-declaration and giving it not only to all men, but to all women.

If this be wrong, democracy is wrong.

If this be unnecessary, democracy is unnecessary.

If democracy is necessary to decide the tariff question, it is infinitely more needed to decide the death question.

Not every man is thoroughly informed with regard to currency and banking, but every man knows whether he wants to be shot.

Upon this question of personal preference, everyone can vote with precision and with certainty.

War is an evil of such colossal proportions that it should be curbed at the earliest possible moment. War is like a great tiger thirsting for human blood. The anti-war program here presented, which will be explained and elaborated during the following chapters, is intended to be a steel cage enveloping the tiger. The tiger once caged, we shall have time to consider the best means of killing him.

Chapter III Is The War Referendum Right In Principle?

TViTANY measures that are wrong in principle are ^^^ nevertheless put into practice. We all know this. I shall, therefore, venture the assertion that anything that is right in principle can also be put into practice. To challenge this statement is to assert that wrong is practical, but right is not.

By this rule, let us measure the proposal that only the people shall declare aggressive war, that they shall declare it only by direct ballot, and that those who vote for war shall be compelled to accept responsibility for their votes by going to any wars they may make before any opponent of war shall be summoned to military service.

If this proposal be wrong in principle, the ascertainment of this fact should put an end to the proposal* If this proposal be wrong in principle, we need give no consideration to the means by which it might be applied. But if it should be demonstrated that this proposal is right in principle — ^if it shall be demonstrated that this proposal is based upon a great need of the human race — ^then we should go on. Then we should consider the means by which the principle embodied in the proposal might be put into effect

But before any other question is settled we should settle the question of the rightness or wrongness of the contention that the people should exercise direct control of their war-making machinery. Let us settle this question first and settle it with confidence that, if the contention be sustained, we shall not lack means to carry it out. Wrong alone is not practical. Right is not less practical than wrong. Right is more practical than wrong. And, it is not less true of right than it is of wrong that "where there is a will, there is a way."

The suggestion that the war-making power be taken from the Congress and the President and deposited in the people contemplates a ftmdamental change in the structure of the government of the United States. Let us first ascertain what change is contemplated and then consider whether it is justified by our necessities.

The change that is contemplated in the matter of war-declarations is the substitution of direct power for delegated power. The government of the United States is solely a government of delegated powers. The governments of most of our states are not. Most of our states give the people the right to vote directly on proposed constitutions, proposed amendments to constitutions and proposals to issue bonds. In such matters, the people have refused to delegate their political powers and have insisted upon exercising them directly.

But the same people, as citizens of the United States, submit to a national government that consists solely of delegated powers.

We authorize the President to act in our behalf.

We authorize the members of Gmgress to act in our behalf.

As citizens of the nation, we cannot in any matter act in our own behalf. Whatever governmental function is performed in our name is done by those who exercise the powers we have delegated to them. Wherefore, we say that this is a representative government — 2L government administered by the people through their representatives.

But the state governments, as we have seen, are not strictly representative governments. American citizens, in their capacity as citizens of states, have not delegated all of their political powers. Let us seek the line that the American people themselves have drawn between the powers they were willing to delegate to their state governments and the powers they insisted upon exercising by direct ballot.

Let us do more than that. Let us try to discover wl^ the American people drew the line. Why have the American people said to their state legislators: "We will delegate to you power to legislate upon this subject, but not upon that"? Why have the citizens of practically all of the states said to their legislators : "We will not delegate to you the power to say what our constitution shall be"? And, furthermore, why have the citizens of Oregon, California, Arizona and some other states said to their legislators : "We will not delegate to you any legislative power that is not subject to our right to reverse it, at pleasure, by our votes at the polls" ?

We are now approaching bedrock. Plainly, the American people, in their capacity as citizens of states, have said there were some subjects upon which they would not permit their legislators to speak for them. Precisely as plainly, the citizens of Oregon, California, Arizona and some other states have refused to delegate unqualified legislative power upon any subject. Why have citizens of states drawn a line between powers they would delegate and powers they would not?

Is not the reason for this line as plain as day? Can there be any doubt as to the reason? Have not the citizens of states, with mighty voice said : "There are some subjects so important to us that we cannot take a chance of having our representatives misrepresent us" ? If not, why have the people refused to delegate to their legislators the power to make state constitutions? Why, except for the proneness of legislators to misrepresent their constituents, have the citizens of several western states refused to delegate any legislative power except upon condition that every act performed under such delegated power shall be subject to the right of the people to pass final judgment upon it at the polls?

Upon these questions, informed men cannot differ. The testimony is all one way. In their capacity as citizens of states, the American people have said there were some powers that might be safely delegated and some that might not be. They have said there were some questions so important they dare not entrust them to representatives.

We have now taken the first step toward the finding of the truth for which we seek. The right of the people to do what they will with their political power cannot be denied. It is their power. Nor can anyone deny the right of the people to be the judges of the facts. It is for the people alone to determine what powers, if any, they may safely delegate and what they may not. And it is for the people alone to determine what subjects are so important that it would be madness to invite the risk of misrepresentation through the exercise of delegated power.

What subject is more important than war? What calamity is greater than war? What horror is greater than a war that the people do not want ? What wrong is greater than a war enforced upon the many by the few? What legislative act, if performed against the people's will, could bring more misery to more millions than a declaration of war? And, if it be correct in principle and wise in practice for citizens of states to reserve the right to vote directly upon certain matters, why would it not also be correct in principle and wise in practice for citizens of the United States to reserve the right to vote directly upon a declaration of aggressive war?

Denial of this demand can in logic be based only upon the assertion that the Congress and the President can be trusted never to declare a war that the people do not want. But if representatives can so safely bo trusted in the matter of war, why should we trouble ourselves to reserve the right to vote upon state bond issues, state constitutions, amendments to state constitutions and other relatively trifling subjects, control over whidi we are still clutching with jealous hands?

The fact is that no legislative body can safely be trusted to give expression to the public will in any matter. Legislative bodies sometimes correctly represent the public and scmietimes they do not. When legislative bodies misrepresent the public as to relatively immaterial matters, the misrepresentation can be endured, for the moment, and later corrected. But misrepresentation as to war cannot be corrected. The dead remain dead forever and the living grieve to the end of their lives.

Upon what principle of justice or expediency is this great power to declare war absolutely delegated to a few men ? It is a denial of the principle that American citizens have laid down for themselves in their capacity as citizens of states. Nobody questions the correctness of the principle that the people themselves, by direct ballot, shall determine what their state constitutions shall be. If it be correct in principle to reserve the power to adopt state constitutions, would it be wrong in principle to reserve the power to declare aggressive war? Is war less important than a state constitution? If it would be unwise to let a legislature adopt a state constitution, is it wise to let a handful of men in Washington have the power to declare war? Is it only in the making of state constitutions and other relatively trivial matters that legislators may act in opposition to the wishes of the people? If the principle of delegated power is not always to be trusted in these relatively trivial matters, is it always to be trusted in the supreme matter of war-making?

No American will question the right of the people to vote directly upon proposed state constitutions. Within a limited sphere, the principle of the referendum is well-grounded in this country. Within that sphere, the principle of the referendum is older than the country itself. It harks back to colonial days. In advocating both the right and the expediency of making war-proposals subject to a ratiiScation by the people before they can take effect, I seek only to extend the sphere of the referendum.

We may well delegate power to perform certain legislative acts. We may well permit these acts to take effect without direct sanction of the people, though we should permit no legislative act to be performed without reserving the right to go to the polls and, by our direct votes, repeal it. But while we could not well have government without delegating some of our powers, I contend there is one power above all others that no man or woman on earth should ever delegate to any other person. I refer to the power to declare offensive war.

I am willing to delegate my power to vote upon tariff bills and currency schemes.

I am willing to delegate my power to vote upon appropriation bills and mail routes.

If those to whom I delegate such powers vote as I would not have voted, the injury done to me is not unbearable and the loss may be repaired.

But if I delegate to others the power to vote for me on a proposal to declare war, and if my representatives vote as I would not have voted, the wrong thus done may be beyond all computation and beyond all possibility of satisfactory adjustment.

The wrong thus done is not done alone to me. Even though I lose my life in a war that I regard as unjust, the wrong thus done to me may be the least of the wrongs created by the failure of my representatives to vote as I would have voted. For my failure to reserve my own war-making power, I am indicted by every corpse on every battlefield — ^both friend and foe. I am indicted by every orphaned child. I am indicted by every widowed mother. I am scorned by my own conscience and derided by my own intellect.