Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 53.djvu/655

Rh and laborer alike—once supposed to furnish the brains as well as the brawn of this republic, have become more and more dependent. And here, again, we meet with the same apathy among those not directly interested. Gigantic strikes, one after the other, this country has witnessed since 1882, in which public sympathy at the beginning has been with the striking workingman, only to be transferred to the side of the rapacious corporation—already backed by the executive and judicial branches of the Government—just as soon as the inconvenience of the situation began to make itself felt by all: the result of it all being a large middle class, insensible to the encroachments on their personal freedom on the one hand, and a dissatisfied, disgruntled working element without faith or confidence in our political institutions on the other.

Under such conditions this war with Spain may truly be said to have found us unprepared, not so much from the lack of an adequate navy or standing army as from the absence of a real national unity. It is generally held that—war having commenced—it is unpatriotic to discuss now whether it was justifiable or not; it certainly is useless, and we may as well accept the situation as unavoidable and the war as a righteous one. It may seem strange, therefore, perhaps unkind, to speak of the absence of national unity in the face of the vigorous preparations made by the administration and the willing response to its call for volunteers by our young men in all parts of the country. Yet the thoughtful man can not shut his eyes or ears to the chaotic state of opinion concerning the war and its causes, and for the sake of the future of this nation it is well to take a sober look at the situation. A war is always a crisis in a nation's history, especially so when its traditional policy has been one of peace. Earnest appeals to patriotism and humanitarian principles have not been wanting; but side by side with the many responses to these appeals, grumblings and bitter fault-findings have been heard. The professional politician, as might be expected, has come in for his share of alleged responsibility—his supposed aim being personal gain or glory—though, strangely enough, the political leaders who usually are the targets for the attacks of the professional reformer were the most anxious to avert the conflict. No more satisfying is the charge that our politicians in Washington, who were chiefly instrumental in working up the war feeling, were actuated only by a desire to stem the tide of Bryanism by diverting public attention from this movement—seeing that its brilliant leader and some of his henchmen were as clamorous for war and military glory as any of the rest; while the silver organs did not hesitate in stigmatizing the President's efforts toward settling the difficulty through diplomacy as being in the interest of Wall Street.