Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1915-03-11

The best answer to this proposition is that both sides have
interfered with American commerce, and stepped on our toes
in other ways so that, if we wanted to fight ever so much,
it might puzzle us to decide what country to challenge to
mortal combat. What possible excuse could we advance to
posterity for fighting at all?
The first appeal in the direction of American participa-
ton in war was that whether Great Britain or Germany won
the United States would have to fight the victor. The lame
logic of this appeal was that since we were sure to have to
fight the victor, we must turn in and help to win so as to be
sure to have the friendship of the victor.
We might turn a leaf in the history of Austria to learn
conclusively how futile is the idea of gaining a neighbours
abiding friendship by helping him to make war on a third
power or combination of powers. Bismarck persuaded Aus
tra to join Prussia in the war for the alienation of the duchies
of Schleswig- Holstein from the Danish crown in 1864, while
our own Civil war was in progress. In 1866 Bismarck pro-
voked Austria to the Seven Weeks war which made Prussia
the dominating power in central Europe and paved the way
for the present German empire.
But Bismarck was able to persuade the Prussian king to
adopt a wiser course toward Austria than at the end Of the
war with France which was signalzed by the wrestling of
Alsace and Lorraine from the v%anqushed. The need of fu-
ture friendship with Austria was foreseen as against Russia
OH the one hand and France on the other. 1t satisfied Prus-
STA to put Austria out of the German circle forever and thus
end the false relation in which the House of the Hapsburgs
had stood with reference to Germany.
This lesson of history regarding the futility of cement
ing lasting friendships through cooperation in war could be
repeated over and over again just as it is likely to be repeat
ed in the future when England and Russia, now allies against
Germany, clash in Asia as surely they will.
America has a much surer path to abiding friendship
with both sides in the present European war by maintaining
that strict neutrality both as a nation and as individuals
and groups of individuals, which President Wilson has pointed
out and emphasized in every possible way.
That we have a%bundantly succeeded thus far diplomatic
ally is indicated, as Viscount James Bryce, former British
Ambassador to the United States, shows, by the course of both
Great Britain and Germany in blaming this country. That is
the best possible proof that we have succeeded in remaining
neutral to a gratifying degree. If we can continue to the
end as careful as we have been thus far, we ought to escape
embodiment in the European conflict.
There are those, however, who insist that some untoward
event is liable to precipitate us into the European war without
a moments notice. They tell us that the United States did
not want war with Spain over Cuba, but that when Congress
passed a resolution demanding that the independence of Cuba
be recognized by the Mckinley administration, the act was
so resented by Spain that the blowing up of the Maine and
war itself speedily followed.
That is a lesson which we should steadily bear in mind.
War with Spain was the direct outcome of a play between
the republicans and the democrats for political position in the
presidential campaign of 1900. The move began with the
offering Of a resolution by Congressman Lewis Of Illinois
recognizing the rights of Cuba as a belligerent country, which
in effect recognized the independence Of the island. The
republicans, to prevent the democrats from securing a party
advantage, carried the idea still further with the result stat
ed, and a needless war was the price of that inexcusable par
tsanship on both sides.
This reference to comparatively recent history of our own
country helps to emphasize the patriotism embodied in eX-
President Tafts plea that we lay aside party politics in the
face of the great emergency confronting not only this nation
but also all neutral powers of the whole world, and devote
our energies to the avoidance of any course that will need
lessly and criminally expose us to the dangers of a useless
conflict.
Nor need we confine ourselves to our own country in
studying this problem of avoidance of war. 1t is a notorious
fact that Great Britain did not intend to participate in the
Crimean war, to which reference has been made in these
columns. England started out to promote neutrality between
Russia and Turkey and other powers that might be involved,
and she ended by taking a chief part in the struggle herself.
England and Russia were not involved in the Napoeonic
wars at the outset, but they drifted into the conflict.
While we want peace in Europe we should not be suf-
ficiently eager to fight for peace. To state that proposition
is to demonstrate the absurdity of one way in which we might
be drawn into the struggle as England gradually found her
way into the Crimean wal. and just as we were drawn into
war for Cuba.
Theodore Roosevelt and the other loyal citizens who are
seeking to form the american Legion" or national reserve
army made up of former soldiers, for the defense of this
nation in the event t. of unexpected conflict are unquestionably
animated by the purest patriotism.
Yet Cardinal Gibbons, Bishop Greer, Rev. Francis E.
Clark, Rabbi Hirsch and a host of other patriots are appeal
ing to Americans to avoid warlike discussion at this time
as calculated to facilitate, if not to promote, the very dangers
of warsparks we should all seek especially to avoid in the
present crisis. 1t will always take at least two countries to
fight.
The value Of the typographical maps familiar with he fax thai these