New-York tribune., 1916-02-21
More ''Copperheadism."

accept It's view OF the Super-emlnenJ merit
Of Mr.. Wilson's foreign policy. It says
that the United States must settle its con-
,roversies in the field Of foreign relations
either by diplomacy or by war. That is
automatic. But it wrongly assumes that
Americans are therefore debarred from
criticising the kind Of diplomacy which
this Administration has succeeded in max
ing famous. Il is irritated because the
critics Of the Wilson foreign policy will
not agree with it that the diplomacy which
Mr.. Wilson has employed has been In itself
either wise or suited TO the eXigencies of
the situation.
We know a good deal less about Cop
perheadism than "The World" does. In
Civil War times il was the chief organ Of
Copperheadism in this city. If we were
now in state Of war criticism Of the gov
ornment which might give aid and COM
fort to the enemy would be inadvisabe.
But we are not at war. Whatever the
Administration may wish, its foreign pol
icy has become the biggest issue in the
Presidential campaign. If that policy has
cen wise and right--the only possible
policy under the circumstances, as The
World" thinks-the issue ought TO be well
coined by the Democratic party. which is
Eoing TO try to reflect Mr.. Wilson.
q Saws "The World: But what is the
view of those who have criticised Mr.. VIII
sons foreign policy unless it is the view
that we have relied upon diplomatic nego-
tiations to maintain rights which should
have been upheld by blood and iron?"
That fatty misrepresents the issue, as The
Tribune pointed out on Saturday last. The
Presidents critics do not attack him be-
O.. relied on diplomatic negotiations
10 maintain American rights. He didn't
conine himself 10 mere diplomacy. He
also experimental with "blood and iron"
at Vera Cruz. Yet If he had maintained
American rights, either by diplomacy or
by "blood and iron" there would be no
criticism Of his policy to-day except from
the out-and-out pacifsts.
The real indictment drawn against his
policy is that it did not maintain rights
either by note-writing or by acts of vio-
lcnce like the seizure of Mexico's chief sea-
port His policy has become reproach,
not because il was either diplomatic or
lecause il was at times belligerent, but
because it was insincere, vacillating and
futile. 1t has had no purpose except 10
avoid responsibility and TO delay definite
action. 1t has never accomplished any
thing chiefly because It never meant what
il said.
In Mexico our diplomacy should have
ad but one aim-to protect American
lives and property. But that aim was
subordinated at the outset to the side is
sue Of boycotting Huerta. Then another
side issue intervened-the restoration of
land ownership to the submerged poems.
after Huerta's fall there was a sudden
shift TO the idea of absolute non-interfer-
cnce with the Mexican factions while they
were trying 70 determine their own form
Of government" Finally a new interfer-
cnce was attempted for the purpose of
forcing Carranza's retirement from the
Provisional Presidency. That failing, Car
ranza was recognized.
But all the time Americans were being
murdered and American property was be-
ING DESTROYED. Not hand was lifted to
enforce American rights, while blood was
spilled and an enormous amount of energy
was being uisemployed in trying 10 regu-
late the course Of Mexican politics.
Is it Copperheadism to say that the
Wilson programme in Mexico, whether
rcstrainoG or not restrained within the
hounds plomacy, was a complete and
shameful $50?
SO far as Germany is concerned, 1t Is
equally foolish TO say that no American
can criticise Mr.. Wilson's activities with
out being either cowardly Copperhead or
an advocate Of war. The United States is
Iot seeking war; neither can it run away
from war, if its own rights and interests
ere attacked. If the Democratic party
wants TO support policy whose only test
a. success is in avoiding war at any cost,
slr. Bryan is its logical leader, not Mr..
Wilson.
So long as the United States pursues
manfully and consistently its historic pol
icy Of protecting American citizens and de-
Tending neutral rights, the issue Of war
and peace cannot rest entirely in its hands.
We are subject 20 attack by those who
deny our rights, and even Mr.. Wilson has
said that such an attack may come at any
moment.
What the critics Of Mr.. Wilson's Ger
NAN policy complain Of is that it has not
maintained American rights; nor has 1t
ven forestalled the possibility Of war. The
resident has not tried'to put the coun-
y into that condition Of military security
which it'yOuld feel no hesitation about
tecting American honor and interests,