Page:EB1922 - Volume 32.djvu/924

Rh Germans and pro-Germans in the United States, and also to lawless acts perpetrated or directed by agents dispatched by the German Government for the purpose of buying up or paralysing the munition factories.

In addition to this controversy as to munitions and other supplies there was the question of the German methods of carrying on war, and particularly of the treatment of the occupied areas of Belgium and France. Neither the State Department nor any considerable number of American statesmen saw any obligation under the Hague neutrality treaties of 1907 to go to war for the defence of Belgian neutrality; nevertheless the German policy aroused deep and lasting resentment. Within a few weeks after the war broke out the United States realized for the first time that its population included hundreds of thousands of citizens of the belligerent countries, many of whom were liable to military service and attempted to return to their homes in order to serve. The road for recruits was blocked for the Germans and their allies, but open for the English, French and later for the Italians, Serbians, Greeks and Armenians. No neutrality proclamation could prevent these men from believing in their native countries, defending them by argument, and going over to fight for them if possible. For the first time in a hundred years the United States found within its own borders the sharpest division on questions of foreign policy.

On the other hand, the war trade brought immense profits. The favourable balance of trade rose from $691,000,000 in 1913 to $1,768,000,000 in 1915 and $3,000,000,000 in 1916. This prodigious debit was balanced by about $3,000,000,000 sent to the United States in securities and gold, besides $2,000,000,000 in foreign war bonds. Under these circumstances genuine neutrality was out of the question; and while direct commerce with Germany and Austria was almost cut off, enormous shipments continued to the western Allies. A decided preponderance of sympathy developed toward these countries which were profitable customers and also were in close and almost undisturbed intercourse with the United States, and, as time went on, seemed to be fighting against a ruthless, arrogant and dangerous autocracy.

International Controversies, 1914-7.—The internal tension of the United States was tightened by the incidents of the war and especially by the controversy over submarine warfare. The practical issue was the insistence of Germany on the right to use new weapons, tactics and procedures of war, without submitting to the limitations supposed to be provided by international law, without mercy to non-combatants, on the basis of a law of necessity, and supported by all the physical and political force of the German Empire engaged in war. No able-bodied German man or woman was really a non-combatant; all Germans insisted that they must regard all civilian enemies as combatants. In so far as contact in the field was concerned they carried out their theory unhesitatingly. They introduced the use of poison gas and bombing aeroplanes; they murdered civilians and practically enslaved Belgian men and women. There was no way to stop them except by conquest, and conquest was impossible without using these new methods of warfare. On the sea their principle was the same, but the execution was different because it brought them into controversy with neutrals and especially with the United States.

Great Britain, which in the London Maritime Conference of 1912 had shown some disposition to enlarge the privileges of neutral commerce, seized American ships and shipments, and arbitrarily extended the list of contraband, until (Dec. 26 1914) a dispatch signed by Secretary Bryan, but known to be the work of President Wilson, made a protest. Some of the incidents of the British practice as to neutral vessels were given up; but in the course of 1915 the British Government took up the American principle of “continuous voyages,” and eventually extended it so as to cover shipments to neutral ports in cases where those shipments were likely ultimately to reach Germany, or would replace products of the neutral countries that could thus be spared to Germany eventually, or if the neutral countries declined to make a hard and fast agreement not to reship. In 1916 the British were practically blockading neutral ports and capturing vessels,

American and other, wherever they liked. The Central Powers, which were in no position to interfere with neutral trade by ordinary cruising, as an offset to this very effective system set up a new war practice, on principles never before asserted, by using submarines as commerce destroyers. On Feb. 4 1915 this practice was asserted as a right. The American Government at once protested, and President Wilson at one time declared that any use of submarines against merchant ships was contrary to international law. He based his protest chiefly on the failure of the Germans to observe the usual rules as to safety of life for ships' crews and passengers, when submarines sank merchant vessels. The fact was, and it was perfectly clear to the large majority of thinking Americans, that whatever the state of international law on that subject, belligerent or neutral vessels carrying Americans and American property, and also American merchant ships, were sunk by the Germans whenever they felt so disposed.

The crisis came through the destruction of the British passenger liner “Lusitania” May 7 1915, with the loss of 113 American lives—all neutral in the war, all non-combatant. That sinking was a deliberate act of the Germans to test the temper of the United States. Apparently they were greatly surprised when the people of the United States rose in resentment. President Wilson, who had months before notified Germany that “strict accountability” would be demanded, insisted on a protest such as could not be ignored. Mr. Bryan thought milder measures sufficient, and on that issue resigned the Secretaryship of State, June 8 1915, and was succeeded by Robert M. Lansing. The correspondence went on for months until, after the sinking of the British steamer “Sussex,” while plying across the English Channel, and the killing of more Americans, on May 4 1916 Germany informed the American Government that merchant ships would not be sunk without warning and the opportunity to save non-combatant lives. Meanwhile, throughout 1915 and 1916, a constant series of attacks was made on the United States or its citizens within the boundaries of the country through systematic violations of the neutrality laws of the United States by Germans and Austrians. These acts caused the dismissal of the Austrian ambassador to the United States and of the two most obnoxious members of the German ambassador's staff. The whole status of neutral trade was changed by the ruthlessness of the Germans, who drew upon themselves the belief that they would hesitate at nothing during the war.

“Preparedness.”—By the end of 1915 it became clear that the war would be long and destructive; and that, with or without their own desire, the people of the United States might find themselves involved. The whole world was taken by surprise by the new methods of warfare, and the United States was visibly in no position to attack across the sea or to defend itself against the kind of warfare which was by this time going on all over the world. President Wilson desired peace. As late as a day or two after the sinking of the “Lusitania” he spoke of there being such a thing as “a nation that was too proud to fight.” The speech containing these words was, however, prepared before the sinking of the “Lusitania,” and in his message of Dec. 1915 he urged national defence and the protection of American shipping by placing it all in the hands of the Government. The movement in favour of preparedness grew, and the President in Feb. 1916 favoured a bill for concentrating the national forces, and abandoning the idea of a Federalized army composed of state militia contingents. Because the President refused to use upon Congress the influence that had carried through so many measures, Garrison, Secretary of War, resigned and Newton D. Baker of Ohio succeeded him. The only result was the passage of a weak and inadequate bill.

Long before this time the war had brought about a violent change in the economic conditions of the country. The great demand for foodstuffs raised the price of grain and other farm products. “The high cost of living” became a political issue. The munition factories offered unheard-of wages and drew hundreds of thousands into improvised towns, thus inaugurating a movement for the increase of wages in other industries. One of