ERMS of PEACE AND THE Darker Races ■ - By A. PHILIP RANDOLPH and CHANDLER OWEN THE AUTHORS OF THIS LITTLE BOOK RESPECTFULLY DEDICATE IT TO THE ECONOMIC, POLITICAL AND SOCIAL EMAN¬ CIPATION OF THE DARKER RACES IN PARTIC¬ ULAR, AND TO THE TEEMING MILLIONS OF SUBJECT PEOPLES IN GENERAL, AS WELL AS TO THE THOU¬ SANDS OF YOUNG MEN WHO PERIODICALLY GIVE THEIR LIVES IN FUTILE WARFARE OVER THEIR POSSESSION AND EXPLOITATION.-NOT FOR THEMSELVES, BUT FOR THE CUPIDITY, GREED AND AVARICE OF AN UNSCRU¬ PULOUS WDPiD PLUTOCRACY. IT IS VERILY DEDICATED TO LASTING, PERMANENT, DURABLE AND DEMOCRATIC PEACE. WE HEREWITH OFFER " OUR BIT" TO "MAKE THE WORLU SAFE FOR DEMOCRACY" AND UNSAFE FOR HYPOCRISY. (Signed) THE AUTHORS PROPOSED PEACE TERMS AND THEIR RELATION TO THE DARKER RACES. After every war peace must eventually come. That peace, whatever its nature, must be reached on certain terms. Those terms will be secured in one of two ways: One of the parties to the conflict may win a decisive victory over the opposing party and dictate the terms of peace. Or neither party may be able to secure a decisive defeat of the other and, therefore, a nego¬ tiated peace will of necessity follow. But before the student of social problems proceeds to discuss terms of peace he must first orient himself by asking: What is the cause of the war? What were its objects and aims? What is the object of peace? Is the time ripe for it? And, if so, upon what conditions and by what methods shall peace be secured ? By a searching examination of these questions, free from prejudice, unbiased by national hate, unswayed by national love, unretarded by whims, hobbies, or personal fads, while unremit¬ tingly focusing on the social problems the psychological and eco¬ nomic lamps of historical interpretation, we shall safely find our way, at length, to the goal of truth and justice. What then is the object of peace, and is the time ripe for peace ? In answer to the latter question it is hardly open to dispute that no war should continue longer than an honorable peace can be secured. But to uncover our meaning from these hazy, vague, foggy and haphazard terms of the daily press, let us define what we mean by "an honorable peace." By an honorable peace we mean a cessation of war on terms which'will be more beneficial to the peoples fighting the war than the continuance of the war would be. Or, to state the proposition negatively, a cessation of the fighting on terms which will be less miserable and occasion less suffering to the peoples fighting the war than the continuance of the war world. Of course, we realize that this is a question of opinion to be weighed by the evidence and its strong probability. The object of peace, like the object of war, is gain. The object of the two is the same. The difference lies only in the methods employed. The object of war may be imperial ambition. The object of peace may be to maintain the monarch's crown. This explains the much discussed, but misunderstood, peace efforts on the part of the Russian Czar. The Russian people were tired of the war and the Czar's throne was threatened. He wished to withdraw from the war, but could not do so easily. He was willing to make peace to save his throne as he was willing to make war to perpetuate it. The object of war is usually largely economic—manufac¬ turers seeking markets for their goods and capitalists seeking investments for their surplus capital. Munitions makers must sell guns, shot and shell. Iron and steel magnates must sell their goods. Uniform makers must dispose of their immense stores of cotton and wool. Banks must loan idle moneys. But after the war has proceeded long enough to make possible the use and sale of these goods, it is to the interest of the capitalists, man¬ ufacturers and bankers to call the soldiers off the field—to call them from their arts of destruction to be^in the production anew of more goods for sale when they shall reach such a surplus. After the goods produced shall have been used, there is no gain in "having the war continue, but on the contrary, the war's continuance would be a heavy debt upon the capitalist. The capitalists during the war sell immense amounts of goods. When the war ends, the government owes them huge debts. It is neces¬ sary for the soldiers to become laborers now to pay these debts. Hence the object of peace is profit—gain—just as the object of war is. This-, however, is the capitalist and ruling class point of view. This is the gain contemplated by that class. Not so with the people of the different countries. They seldom have economic gain in their minds because there is none. They are burdened 2 with taxation during and after the war. They are compelled to pay high prices for the necessities of life. They bear the arms and give their life and limb. Their untold suffering could not be compensated by any outcome of the war. Victory on either side is defeat for the masses of the people. Loss only has been their lot. The people want peace to save their lives, to enjoy the meager comforts vouchsafed to them in a hard economic struggle. They do not hate those whom they fight and kill. It is simply part of the driving force of their employers which makes them kill their brothers. Here there are two distinct peace attitudes. The ruling class and the financial interests want peace after the war has con¬ sumed their surplus goods, but they want that peace to last only until it is to their interest to have war again to sell their surplus goods. The people, on the other hand, want a durable, permanent and lasting peace. War is never to their interest unless it be a revolutionary w"ar like the French Revolution or the Russian Revolution. What then should be the United States' and her Allies' atti¬ tude toward peace terms? How can peace be made and made permanent and durable? In the first place, upon the report of nine of our own commis¬ sioners who accompanied General John J. Pershing to 'France, the German line cannot be broken without the introduction of millions of men. We are in process, it is true, of sending those men. But the Commission goes further and says that 800.000 new soldiers enter the German army each year. This number is well trained in German efficiency. They are on the field while soldiers from the United States have to be transported over a sea path beset with submarines. In other words, Germany is able to produce new soldiers faster than we can. Our men have to be transported thre6 thousand miles. Hers do not have to be transported at all. The Commission also reported that Germany had the ascend- 3 ancy in the air; that the submarine menace was real, having sunk 995,000 tons of vessels each month—a close approximation to its estimate of one million tons per month. Germany, the Commission continues, has every available foot of land in cultivation and there is no possibility of starving her out. While the Allies have five million men in France, Germany has 7,200,000—3,000,000 on the first line, 2,200,000 on the second line and 2,000,000 on the third line. The Commission also reports, along with ex-Ambassador Gerard, that there is no likelihood of a revolution in Germany. Germany, then, has control of the air and control of the "under sea." She is producing trained soldiers more rapidly than the United States can produce them. The United States must transport her troops; Germany must not. To transport millions of troops 3,000 miles is a herculean task at best, but it is a hazardous undertaking when submarines lurk on every hand to sink the transports. Moreover, Germany has 2,200,000 more soldiers in France than the Allies. Her land is cultivated to the "nth" power. She is in no danger of a revolution. Added to this concatenated line of facts is the situation on the Eastern front. Russia is demoralized. She lacks supplies of munitions and foodstuffs and she seriously doubts the good intentions of her Allies. She knows Great Britain and her his¬ toric injustices. She sees India, Ireland and Egypt under Brit¬ ain's imperial heel. She remembers Belgium in the Congo. She knows that France defeated her revolution of 1905 which held back her revolution and democracy twelve years. She sees Italy exploiting Africa. She knows that America is the greatest economic plutocracy in the world todaj)-. Russia has repeatedly proclaimed her peace terms. She_ has called on her Allies to do likewise. Russia speaks in clear, unequivocal language. Her Allies speak in vague, high-sound¬ ing but meaningless l uiguagc. Russia sees no need for such concealment where one's intentions are honest. A. Again Russia has renounced all secret diplomacy. All of her Allies have dark lantern diplomacy. And the biggest, imposing, bald fact is that Russia is con¬ trolled by Socialists while all her other Allies are dominated by capitalists. This is as inconsistent and restive a position for Russia as was England's and France's bourgeois democracies' former alliance with the Russian autocracy of the Czar. All of this makes Russia a weak opponent of Germany. She lacks both physical and moral acumen. But why do we cite these instances? Simply to show that a decisive victory for the Allies over Germany is highly im¬ probable, if not impossible. We shall have to get back to the President's first and sane attitude—-"peace without victory"! Germany cannot be beaten in the field. A decisive victory could be the dream only of a novice. Our war Commissioners say they were astonished at Germany's favorable position. All of which means that we can have no peace dictated by the victor, but we must resort to that more desirable, honorable, "negotiated peace" —the peace which we criticise Germany for not making at first. This brings us face to face with the real problem. If peace is to be negotiated what methods should be pursued? What terms should be proposed and accepted? First, let us take up the difficulties involved. There seem to be obstacles in the way of a mere discussion of peace terms. The United States and her Allies declare that they will not negotiate with German imperialism. They, in effect, say that Germany's government, her internal affairs, will have to be changed to secure the elbowing at a peace table with the white democracy of Great Britain, the bourgeois democracy of France, and the economic plutocracy of America. President Wilson says, "We have no quarrel with the Ger¬ man people. The German people are as peace loving as ourselves, and we are devoted to the pursuits of peace." 5 To which Congressman John M. Baer of North Dakota replies: "Then why the millions of American manhood sacri¬ ficed upon the bloody field of war? Is it not because no means have yet been devised for bringing to agreement these two peace¬ ful peoples ? I believe it is possible these .two peace-loving peo¬ ples could and would agree to peace terms if their Governments led the way by defining terms that would serve as a basis for negotiations." President Wilson, no doubt, has interest in revolutionizing the German political system. His earlier work—"The State"—■ breathes that spirit. But we wonder if President Wilson knows that he is today the greatest menace to German revolution and democracy. DeLara and Pinchon, in their history—"The Mexican People: Their Struggle for Freedom"—make the significant statement: "Were we to compile a textbook of the Science of Government by a ruling class for the use, for instance, of some young modern aspirant to powfer, the testimony of all history from the most remote times, Would compel us to divide our work into three main chapters: the first, on the' necessity of religious instruction for the people; the second, on the necessity of patriotic instruction for the people; the third, on the neces¬ sity of diverting the revolt of the 1people by instituting a campaign of foreign aggression or by inviting the invasion of the home' country by a foreign army. Herein lies the entire science of government by class rule." It is to the third clause that we wish to address the attention of our heavily burdened President. A historian of the old school of descriptive history, we wish to divert his attention to the new school of political science and psychological and economic in¬ terpretation. We are sure that President Wilson would not willingly serve the Kaiser. But whether he serves the Kaiser or not will depend less upon his intent and more upon the methods adopted. Mis- 6 understanding of the methods can often make one an unwilling President Wilson ought to know that the German aristocracy wanted war to avert the social revolution, and that the German people felt, for the time, that the Allies were the greater enemy; hence the necessity of allowing political and social reform to wait till the chief enemy was repelled from the gates. Russia's desire to declare war was stimulated by an exten¬ sive strike taking place in Petrograd—an evidence of economic democracy and organization which even then foreshadowed the political revolution. Great Britain undoubtedly had economic envy toward Ger¬ many, but the rapid decision to enter the war was occasioned by Ireland's rebellion in arms. Nor is the method of diverting the attention on something else new. Our Texas War of 1836 is a case in point. The Church in Mexico wanted war to preserve its power. The South¬ ern States of the United States wanted war to divert attention from abolition and slavery. They wanted war for political, not territorial, reasons. The American Revolutionary War was declared to divert popular attention from the abuses of our landed aristocracy and moneyed interests by focusing the popular attention upon British abuses and injustices. We cite these cases to show that we are ruthlessly killing the German people while our Allies are sacrificing their own young men, without any reason (when judged by history) for believing that the methods used are well designed to achieve the ends aimed at—the deposition of the Ivaiser. Since we distrust the methods, however, which are being adopted avowedly to secure a permanent, durable and democratic peace, the burden is placed upon us of making our own proposal. That proposal involves what rmt^be termed for convenience and clearness subjective and objective methods. 7 To explain: Whenever a fight takes place, two things fife essential; there must be two parties to the fight and there must be something to fight about. To prevent such a fight, one of three things may be done: You may eliminate the fighters; you may remove the thing about which the fight was caused, of change the parties' attitude toward tfie object. In a war, however, between two nations, it is obvious that it is neither useful nor necessary to eliminate or destroy one nation. Such a course is inhuman and unthinkable. And in the event that the two parties to the conflict are fighting for the power to dominate, rule and exploit other peoples, it is equally obvious that the thing then fought about cannot reasonably be destroyed. The third and last recourse, when it would not be advisable or useful to destroy either the fighters or the thing fought about, is inevitably to change the attitude of the contending parties toward the object of the contention. No sane person would contend that the great German, French, English or Russian people should be destroyed. No sane person would claim that the Balkan States should be wiped out, even though we regard it as fallacious to consider the Balkan States as the cause of the war. But granting this as the object for the sake of argument—we could not say destroy them. The only recourse then left is to change the attitude of the different nations toward the objects of the war. In order to change that attitude, however, the systems of government will have to be changed. The great governments of Germany, France, England, Austria-Hungary and the United States will have to be democratized far more than they are today. This does not mean that the Kaiser, Emperor Charles or King George will have to be killed any more than Russia had to kill Czar Nicholas. But Russia changed overnight from a polemic, warlike power to a great pacific, peace-loving nation. Its people took the reins of government into their own hands. Immediately the attitude towards objects of contention changed. Russia—new Russia— announced that it coveted no possessions & of others. Constantinople would not serve to attract her sup¬ port in the war, for the people of Russia did not want Con¬ stantinople. New Russia announced that she had no designs on German territory. From a government whose system nad changed the cry went up: "No forcible annexations, no puni¬ tive indemnities, free development of all nationalities." The first step then toward a durable peace is the democratiza¬ tion of home governments. Only private profiteers have designs on other countries. But those profiteers can afford to bribe only a few people. Monarchies and obligarchies play into their hands, for the rulers, few in number, are always easily subject to bribe. Hence the close association of the economic and the political ruling class. The democratization of home governments means universal and secret suffrage. By universal suffrage we include women as well as men without regard to race, creed or color. No suffrage is fair where sex and color are disfranchised. Universal and compulsory education are essential to insure a wise and beneficial use of the ballot. Therefore, every nation should immediately extend this inalienable right to the possession of knowledge to each adult and child. This only is intellectual democracy. Next a referendum on war policies. Insomuch as the people have to fight the wars, to pay the taxes and to undergo the in¬ human sufferings of every war, they only should have the power to declare war by a popular referendum. Not only that. A different policy here should be used. The nation should deter¬ mine the minimum age of its soldiers, and on every such referen¬ dum, every man and woman who is subject to call should be given a right to vote on the referendum without regard to what the con¬ stitutional and legal practice is in ordinary political matters. Those who offer themselves to kill and to be killed should cer¬ tainly determine the entrance upon such bloody work. History records examples showing the necessity for this. The historv of conscription in more modern times may be 9 stated to have commenced in 1793, when the first conscription act was passed by the French Chamber calling for the enrollment of all persons between the ages of 18 and 40. When it was at¬ tempted to enforce this act, thousands fled from their homes, and the Vendee district rose in open revolt. This act was never suc¬ cessfully enforced. Thereafter, Carnot introduced a more work¬ able scheme to conscript all those between the ages of 18 and 25, and the Encyclopedia Britannica says: "That it at once began to operate satisfactorily because it zvas limited to a class who were neither sufficiently numerous nor sufficiently important po¬ litically to resist" This is a great lesson. It throws into bold relief a potent fact. History records no case in which the people have declared a war or in which the ruling class has fought one. And when wars are declared by those who also have to fight them, the day of a durable and permanent peace is close at hand. Men do not ob¬ ject strenuously to war where others fight it who cannot vote. Another prolific source of war, another net of intrigue into which peoples have frequently been drawn, is the system of secret diplomacy. Before durable, permanent and democratic peace can be established, secret diplomacy must be retired to the limbo of the past. All treaties and international agreements entered into should be ratified by the popular vote before such agreements take effect. No business man or principal will loosely allow his agent to make any and all contracts without his consent or knowledge. Some must have his actual instead of his tacit con¬ sent Such should be the case with treaties and international agreements. The introduction of universal suffrage, the institution of universal and compulsory education, the extensions to the people of the right to vote on the declaration of war and war policies, and the abolition of secret diplomacy will be the fundamental, thorough and effective subjective methods for securing perma¬ nent, durable and democratic peace. These will be a long stride 10 in political and intellectual democracy. Nor is a single one of these proposals Utopian or impractical. Our own beloved country, through its legally constituted authority, makes a demand for something of this kind—so far as political male democracy goes—as a sine qua non to peace, or even to negotiate peace. Nevertheless, in making this demand we fear our President has gone a bit too far. In the first place, it is against our Ameri¬ can traditions to interfere with the internal affairs of other nations. In the second place, it is rather extreme to make such radical and revolutionary demands. Suppose Germany made a demand that our school system be changed and that a thorough system of universal, compulsory education be adopted in the United States as her sine qua non to terms of peace. And suppose taking the analogy from the political field, Germany were to demand that twenty million white women be given the right to vote and two million Negro men be given their constitutional right of suffrage in the United States. Again, suppose Germany were to say, "After, all, the im¬ portant thing is the distribution 6f wealth, the possession of the means of livelihood, the securing objects of desire. Germany has less poverty than any . of the countries. Germany has more economic democracy. Let the economic plutocrats of England, France and the United States be abolished, before Germany can talk terms of peace." What statesman, publicist, clergyman or editor in America who could not be heard to resent in loud, stentorian tones any interference with our internal affairs. Families do not want outsiders to meddle with their quar¬ rels. Neither do nations. The intermeddling with family quar¬ rels always unites the family against the meddler. The same is true of nations. The mere intent to do good in trying to settle II family quarrels does not accomplish the end. The same is true with nations. The task of freeing the German Empire will remain that of libertarians within the German Empire. Outside interference can only hinder; can only defeat the thing aimed at. It is folly to demand, as a condition to peace negotiations, what only can be secured after peace has come. In addition to the reforms just proposed, the very basic and fundamental one must be grappled with at once—economic re¬ construction—fairer distribution of wealth. Exploitation is caused by the desire of the exploiter to exploit, on the one hand, and the object of exploitation—something to exploit, on the other hand. Self interest being the prime motive of all human beings, unless action is artificially curbed, cupidity and greed will go to any lengths. With the present organization of society cupidity is inculcated, greed is fostered, voracity is stimulated, plundering is perpetuated. For good or ill there are many things which tend to accen¬ tuate this acquisitive spirit. There are 1,700,000,000 peoples in this world—500,000,000 whites and 1,200,000,000 colored. The great masses of both are in ignorance, poverty and serfdom —both economic and political. Consequently they furnish a pro¬ lific source of exploitation—for robbery. The countries where white populations dwell have been partly exploited, some having been developed until they have now reached what, in economics, we call diminishing reti^rns or marginal utility. The chief countries, however, in which colored peoples dwell have untapped natural resources, plus an excess of labor, which, because of its surplus and its ignorance, may be secured very cheaply. This applies to Africa, India, China, Persia, Hawaii, the West India Islands, Porta Rico, the Philippines, Cuba and in a certain sense to Japan. Africa, in particular, has 11,339.840 square miles of terri¬ tory and a population of 137,000,000 Negroes. This territory 12 is all partitioned out. Belgium has 800,000 square miles with a population of 15,000,000. Great Britain has 2,132,840 square miles with a population of 40,000,000. France has 4,300,000 square miles with a population of 36,000,000. Germany has 930,000 square miles with a population of 15,000,000. Italy has 591,000 square miles with a population of 1,750,000. Portu¬ gal has 800,000 square miles with a population of 9,000,000. Spain has 86,000 square miles with a population of 250,000. Great Britain holds also 1,802,629 square miles in India with a population of 315,156,000. Great Britain also holds 11,889 square miles of West Indies (Islands) with a population 1,760,501. Great Britain, France, Germany, Russia, the United States and other Allies of the Entente and the Central Powers hold large parts of China, South America and Central America, be¬ sides various islands of the sea. It is obvious to the social student that such fertile lands as India, Africa, China, the Islands of Hawaii, Porto Rico, the Philippines, Cuba, and the like, furnish inviting objects of ex¬ ploitation. Africa alone is rich in gold, coal, copper, rubber, cocoa oil, dates and diamonds. India produces great stores of cotton and food stuffs. The -islands of the United States are rich—indeed prolific—in the production of sugar, coffee and to¬ bacco. China has extensive coal mines and oil wells. Not only is the great wealth of natural resources to be had in these countries. These countries have an abundant supply of labor. These are the tods of the capitalist—undeveloped resources and undeveloped peoples—cheap lands and cheap labor. Herein lies the real bone of contention of the world war— darker peoples for cheap labor and darker peoples' rich lands. The war to be sure is being fought in Europe very largely, but the thing about which the war is fought lies elsewhere. The cause rests in the grab of territory, on on the one hand, and the desire to hold what has been grabbed, or to grab more, on the 13 other hand. No single one of the big powers in this war can escape the indictment. Congressman John M. Baef said recently: "As a result of the war England holds already in Africa a million more square miles of territory." The New York Call, with its characteristic clear thinking, catches the point and states it well in these worlds: "The German ruling class wants to hold on to what they have grabbed, or most of it; to use some of it in dickering for the return of what they have lost in colonies." What Germany has lost in colonies is what Great Britain has grabbed from Germany. Not only do we find Africans and Indian peoples exploited. We find the same true of Japanese. Doctor David Starr Jordan says: "The Japanese problem arose in this country in 1899 on account of the need of cheap labor on the sugar plantations of Hawaii—which need was great and constant. These laborers were treated essentially as slaves in Hawaii. San Francisco, Seattle and Vancouver offered higher wages and they came to the United States." In 1899, Mr. W. W. Scott, of Honolulu, a former resident of Japan, warned the Japanese authorities of the danger involved in this movement of Japanese laborers to California. Their lower standard of living and wages would make them exploitable. This would bring them in contact with labor unions. Economic clash would beget race prejudice. Influenced by these considera¬ tions, the Japanese Government, in 1899, refused passports to all unskilled laborers, and since that time none have come from Japan direct to the Pacific States." Dr. Jordan makes the significant remark, however: "In spite of much reckless talk and exaggeration of language, there 14 was very little real enmity toward the Japanese with any class of their opponents. Most of the unfriendly talk was for political purposes and the main cause of the opposition was economic." The rule of detectives used to be: "In case of crime, look for the woman." The rule of wars and clashes must be: "Look for the economic interest." It is this economic interest which must be dealt with now in making terms of peace. It is the scientific adjustment of the economic condition which will determine whether peace is to be durable and permanent. As to zvhether peace will be permanent depends largely upon how democratic the settlement is. Before getting into the terms of peace for the darker nations, we wish to observe that only incidentally are the darker peoples exploited. It is not because of their color per se, but because colored peoples happen to assume such a low place in the scale of civilization just now, as to make such exploitation attractive, easy and possible. The stronger peoples will always exploit weaker ones, if only they are given the opportunity—without regard to color. The Irish people understand what a little barrier their color is in preventing exploitation and injustice on the part of England. Mexico must remember how much color counts for in a clash with United States capitalists. South America is not unaware of the designs upon that rich continent. And the present war exists because one group of whites desires to secure possessions of another group of whites, even to the extent of sacrificing millions of young white men in the bloody carnage and the horrible holocaust. So long as there is something to fight about there will be frequently recurring wars. The nations in making peace must search their consciences. They must recognize certain principles to secure permanent peace. Government by the consent of the governed must be ac¬ corded to all peoples whether white or black or brown. Africa, 15 India, China, the Islands held by Great Britain, by the United States and by other nations, must be accorded this right. This is political democracy. The first consideration of a good govern¬ ment belongs to the people it rules. A good system of education will remove every bar to re¬ sponsible citizenship, and add to the strength of the various na¬ tions holding colonies, by inspiring the darker peoples with confi¬ dence in their sense of justice and of liberty. Moreover, all of these nations hold colonies and islands in the name of civilization—not in the name of business. That, of course, is the deception practiced by civilized peoples upon those less civilized. The truth nevertheless is, that business and not civilization is the object of all these nations. The African, the Hindu, the Chinaman, and the West Indian are wanted as workers, but not as citizens. They are called upon for service, but not for friendship. In 1901-1902 there were in India 36 million children of school age, while only 3,200,000 children were accorded school privileges. The number able to read and write among the males was 103 per thousand, and among females 8 per thousand. And this, notwithstanding the fact that the foreign trade was over $200,000,000. The school situation in Africa is quite as deplora¬ ble as in India, whether under British, French, Belgium, Italian or German rule. The nations in Africa are there primarily for business, and not as frequently pretended—for civilization. They favor only so much civilization as will foster their business as shown by (a) inadequate schools, (b) slavery, (c) enforced labor, (d) low wages, (e) concubinage, (f) whipping post, (g) killing and imprisonment for petty offenses. Our present system of industry produces surplus capital. Capital seeks investment. When the capitalist invests in a foreign land the flag follows the investor. Back behind the flag great armies and navies are formed to enforce the ideas and opinions of those investors, upon the people in whose land the investment 16 is made. To perpetuate their System missionaries are tiSUally sent to promulgate a philosophy conducive to the thinking favor- able to the investors. These missionaries are paid by the capi¬ talists who invest in these undeveloped countries, hence they con¬ trol the doctrine preached and taught. Two or more nations may invest among these undeveloped peoples. In their mad rivalry a clash comes. War ensues Over the bone of contention—-profits, How can this be avoided and averted ? There are many pro¬ posals, most of which we shall proceed to examine. It would Seem to be logical to provide some Permanent Inter¬ national Peace Commission. This Commission's function would be that of a court of law today. The court of law deals with individual breaches of the peace. The proposed court would be the judge of international breaches of the peace. But the court of law has a constituted force to execute its orders and its mandates. A league of all the nations with a force—a community of powers—greater than any individual na¬ tion's force, should be Organized and established to enforce the judgments, mandates or orders of the International Peace Com¬ mission. The composition—the make-up—of the Permanent Inter¬ national Peace Commission and the T eague to Enforce Peace could be decided by some regularly called conference, where the representations, relations, etc.. might be determined. The Pope declares further for freedom of the seas. Much talk and discussion has transpired about this. We have never thought, however, that the discussion had much merit. Most of it refers to the German submarines and the British interference with neutral shipping during the war. But insomuch as the sub¬ marines do not beset the sea in peace times and Britain does not interfere with neutral shipping—the injunction -would seem ir¬ relevant. 17 In war time, hereafter as tidzv, all nations will violate inter^ national laws and domestic constitutions, wherever they find it to their interest to do so. Self interest will continue to dictate the course of nations as it does the course of individuals. The Pope's declaration for a reduction of armaments is sound. Economically, large armies and navies are a burden upon the citizens of every nation. Again, the possession of a large military and naval machine tends to incite the desire to use that machine, just as the possession of a gun by an individual tends to incite the desire to use it. The economic and psychological arguments combined are Urgent, imperative, compelling for the reduction of armaments. The most peaceful nation will have to continue to build while other, nations build, the question being relative. Hence the necessity of all acting in concert, and toward the same end. The Pope is against annexations or indemnities. So is Russia. This seems to be what the President meant by his demand for a "peace without victory." This is what he said on January 22: "They (the necessary peace terms) imply first of all that it must be a peace without victory. It is not pleasant to say this. I beg that I may be permitted to put my own interpretation upon it and that it may be Understood that no other interpretation was in my thought. I am Seeking only to face realities and to face them without Soft concealments. Victory would mean peace forced upon the loser, a victor's terms imposed upon the van¬ quished. It would be accepted in humiliation, under duress at an intolerable sacrifice, and would leave a sting, a resentment, a bitter memory upon which terms of peace would rest not per¬ manently but only as Upon quicksand." The President here is very sound. No more certain way of 18 laying the foundation of a futurd war could be adopted than that of the victor's imposing huge indemnities upon the other or annexing the other's territory. That is one of the issues of this very war. France has never forgotten Alsace-Lorraine, taken from her by Germany and the huge indemnity of $1,000,- 000,000 imposed by Germany in the 1870 War. The resent¬ ment and sting have never ceased to cling. Russia, the Presi¬ dent and the Pope are sound in their advocacy here. The New York Evening Mail says: "The Pope demands that the difficult border questions—■ Poland, Alsace-Lorraine, Italia Irredenta—be settled by negotia¬ tion upon the principles of equity and justice. Well, that is precisely what the President demanded. Recall his words of January 22: " 'No peace can last, or ought to last, which does not recog¬ nize and accept the principle that governments derive all their just powers from the consent of the governed, and that no right anywhere exists to hand peoples about from sovereignty to sov¬ ereignty as if they were property. " 'I take it for granted, for instance, if I may venture upon a single example, that statesmen everywhere are agreed that there should be a united, independent and autonomous Poland, and that henceforth inviolable security of life, of worship and of industrial and Social development should be guaranteed to all peoples who have lived hitherto Under the power of governments devoted to a faith and purpose hostile to their own." The Pope demands that there shall be no economic warfare after the war. This is a fine proposal but it cannot be carried into effect by agreement A radical readjustment of the economic System is essential. • The governments of the various nations should take out of the hands of private individuals or concerns the munitions industries, and it may be necessary to include many of the neceS- 19 sities of life. The ability to coin money out of war will create Wars, on the one hand, and a clash of interests in a country will breed war. Those who make goods for war use must sell them. No curb can come to that desire so long as possession of the goods remains Unchanged. In order to Sell such goods there must be a demand for them. In order for a demand to exist there must be a war. Those interests are usually able to bring on war when they desire. They control the government, and the gov¬ ernment generally obeys them. Hence the necessity of govern¬ ment ownership and control of all munitions industries and all others which are so related as to make war highly profitable for them. Finally, there is need of clear, definite, concrete expression Of the conditions upon which peace is to be made, free from the high Sounding but meaningless piffle with which we have been deluged. William Randolph Hearst forcefully puts the issue in the following Words : "For example, what definite meaning is there in the asser¬ tion that this is a war between democracy and autocracy? "What well-informed person believes that either Rumania, or Serbia, or Belgium, or Italy is. or ever has been, a democracy; Or that either the German Empire or the Empire of Austria- Hungary is an autocracy? "There never was such a mixed struggle, with democracies and limited monarchies, constitutional monarchies and semi- autocracies lined up against each other in combinations almost as grotesque as that of Slave-driven Russia with the Republic of France and the' democratic monarchy of England, which car¬ ried on war together until last January. "To speak of this war as a war between an alliance of democracies and an alliance of autocracies, between a league of free peoples and a league of despots is to speak foolishly and against the plain and undeniable facts. 20 "Then, too, what meaning is there in the vague generality that this is a war to establish rights of small peoples to choose their own forms of government and to live in independence, when we see Ireland held in subjection by military forces, Egypt and India ruled by the sword, Algiers and Morocco held in severe subjection, Tunis ruled with the bayonet and, in short, every single one of the principal allied 'Powers severely governing smaller and weaker nations without their consent, in spite of their ob¬ jection and resentment, and purely by superior force? "So we say that these generalities mean nothing and, indeed, cannot endure investigation." What then shall be the concrete proposals with respect to the various nations, their territory and colonies, as effects the settlement of the war? Belgium, the invaded districts of France, Servia, Rumania and Montenegro must be evacuated. The damages and ravages of Belgium should be repaired by the great nations parties to this war. The condition of Belgium is the result of world politics for which all these great powers are responsible. All therefore should assume their part of the obligation. We recommend that a similar course be pursued toward Greece whose soil has been violated and whose government has been ruthlessly sacked and forced to yield to foreign domination and Allied intimidation. ALSACE AND LORRAINE The disposition of the case of Alsace and Lorraine should be settled by the vote of its own people. Three questions should be presented to them: 21 (1) Do thg people of Alsace and Lorraine want to remain under German Rule? - (2) Do they want to be under French rule? (3) Do they want to be an independent state? An election with universal, secret suffrage, supervised by International Peace Commissions to insure fair play, should be held in the form of a referendum, as soon after the war has ceased as will permit an efficient and proper campaign on the issues. TRENTINO The claims of Trentino should be decided by a similar process. The people of Trentino should have a referendum on whether they desire to go with Italy, Austria-Hungary, or to become an independent state. POLAND Poland should be free. Thfc populations of Austrian Poland and Prussian Poland should decide by referendum whether they wish to become part of Poland or to remain in their present state. The Austro-Hungarian Empire should also decide its internal affairs. The Allies should be repudiated for any attempt to disturb those internal relations. If Austria and Hungary wish to be autonomous states, as the states of the United States are, and yet bound together by a centralized government—let the people therein decide that. TURKEY The English Union of Democratic Control proposes the internationalizing of Constantinople on the ground that it is 22 one of the great trade center# of the world and on a great trade waterway. We emphatically repudiate this proposal as unsound and inconsistent and undemocratic. New York is a great trade city. So is Liverpool. But neither the United States nor Great Britain would entertain for one moment any attempt to internationalize and control the cities of New York or Liverpool. The Union of Democratic Control also proposes a policy of international control over the Ottoman Empire to provide full security for the Christian peoples and other races under the suzerainty of the Sultan. We repudiate this also as high-handed and unjustifiable. It is true that Turkey permits and condones certain injustices. Armenians are massacred now and then—all of which is de¬ plorable. But it would be just as logical to advocate international control of the United States because certain races are not free from massacres. For instance, a Negro is lynched every four days in this country. A member of that race is hanged before ten and fifteen thousand people, his body is burned, and his bones sold as souvenirs, while no perpetrator of the foul deed is ever brought to justice. It would also be quite as logical to advocate international control of Great Britain for her inhuman exploitation and her cruel debauchery of the faithful, loyal and brave little island of Ireland. The same could be said of all those nations who have per¬ secuted, maligned and treated unjustly the sturdy, vigorous and industrious Jewish people. In fact, to force this logic at all would to-day put under international control every larg'e nation in the world except the 23 great, grand and new free Russia. The mere international agreement to exploit and plunder Turkey is no evidence of justice. There is little more in such a proposal than to increase the gang of robbers who would be permitted to ravage, abuse and debauch that country. Turkey should be considered and governed for the interests of the Turks. Such interference will be a living, patent and explicit lie given to the blatant clamor that this is a war for the rights of small nationalities. "Hands off Turkey!" should be the only slogan. THE BOSPHORUS AND THE DARDANELLES The Bosphorus and the Dardanelles should be internation¬ alized. The freedom of the seas is essential for the maintenance of democratic and durable peace. GERMAN COLONIES It is not possible to make any hasty and ill-considered adjustment of the colonies of Germany or any of the nations. Argued from the mere national and economic point of view, however, it would certainly be logical for Britain to return to Germany her colonies for two reasons: In the first place, Germany has much less territory in Africa than any of the large nations. Britain and France already have more territory than they can develop. Moreover, Germany has a more crowded population which needs an outlet for settle¬ ment. The German people are aggressive, virile, vigorous and scientific, who are likely to develop those colonies more effectively and efficiently than England and France with their hands over full. 24 INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CONDITIONS OP DARKER RACES Nevertheless, this question of colonies demands a searching inquiry on the part of all the powers—Allies or Central Powers. Africa should exist largely for the Africans. The peoples of those colonies cannot be considered as mere chattel property to be shifted from pillar to post wherever one nation is willing to sell, or when another nation is able to take by conquest. So long as African territory is the object of unstinted avarice, greed and robbery, while its people with dark skins are con¬ sidered as just subjects of exploitation-—now here and now there in slavery, enforced labor, peonage and wage slavery—just so long will the conditions smolder and brew which needs must inevitably be prolific in the production of future war. Nor can China be made an object of exploitation under the euphonious defense of the "open door." China should be maintained for the Chinese. Kiao Chau Should not be returned to Germany* nor should Japan be permitted to hold it. Such an eye-sore may be productive of a world war with only the difference that it is carried on upon a different continent. China herself should be the final arbiter of the conditions under which any foreign nation shall come into China to exploit the natural resources of China. There is no sound reason in justice why Great Britain and all of these countries should not get out of China. BRITISH WEST INDIES The peoples of the British West Indies are quite well edu-1 cated. They have manned the fields, factories and the industries of those islands for well nigh a century. The British Government is in those islands in the name of civilization. But it -is doing - 25 less for those people than those people could do for themselves without the handicap of British rule. The truth is that the British Government is in those islands —not for civilization, but for business. The British West Indies should have self-government. They should have at least the amount of autonomy which Canada and Australia have. Moreover, the colored peoples in these islands should not be confined to clerkships, but they should hold the judicial and administrative offices of the government, which will initiate them into the lessons of government. The absentee appointment of governors for the islands should be abolished, and those governors should be selected by the people from their own population which is acquainted with its needs and problems. Besides British corporations should not be permitted to exploit the West Indies without the consent of the legislative bodies of those islands. THE UNITED STATES AND HER ISLAND SUBJECTS The United States, too, has no unsullied escutcheon in her dealings with her island subjects. The sugar, tobacco, fruit, rice, coffee and rubber trusts have been given a free hand in Cuba, the Philippines, Hawaii, Porto Rico, Hayti and San Domingo. The methods of government employed by the United States have been democratic on their face, but autocratic in substance. It is true that periodical elections are held, but the heavy hand of the government, combined with the big trusts, has always been able to elect its candidate through sheer coercion. Yet the world is given a fiasco for the appearance of democracy. The strong can never be relied upon in their dealings with the weak unless there are unusual, artificial inhibitions. The 26 spider is not a safe protector for the fly. The cat is atl unreliable guardian for the mouse. The lion never keeps its trust where contact with the lamb is possible. The same is true of great nations in their dealings with smaller ones. Obviously some machinery must be introduced to deal with these delicate national problems. We propose an International Council on the Conditions of Darker Races. The International Peace Commission would be the bigger body and the Council on the Conditions'-of Darker Races would be the associate body to deal with'* that special phase of dark races. The work of the Council on the Conditions of Darker Races should be, first, to set minimum wages for labor in different countries where these darker, undeveloped peoples live; to set the maximum hours of work and the conditions of em¬ ployment. We are aware that these things will vary according to the conditions in different countries. The work of women and children must also be under their international supervision. Second, the education of the natives must be put under the Commission's charge. It is obvious that this will require immense money. But, in so much as all of these nations are making immense profits from their hold on these colonies, a tax might be exacted on all the business they do, for the education of the natives. We propose that this tax be graduated with progressive rates, increasing heavily with the increase of business done. British Africa could be given an exceptional education, if a tax of 10 per cent, only were levied upon her billion-dollar rubber trade, not to mention the gold, coal, iron, etc., which make a huge and staggering mountain of wealth. 27 We Recommend that such a commission substitute a Sci¬ entific education in Africa. A thorough course in the tools of knowledge—reading and writing—and erected thereon courses in chemistry, physics, biology, horticulture, geology, mining, engi¬ neering and political science, will make it possible for the darker races to apply scientific mind to matter—an attitude which will be like Aladdin's lamp, i. e., every time it touches matter, replies by satisfying a human want. We recommend that no religion be taught in these schools. Superstition, the application of mind to spirit and worship of the skies, has already kept the dark races with their minds sloth- fully sleeping. The education we advocate will make it possible for the bright young men of those backward countries to develop their own mines, to till their fields, to run their factories and railroads, to control their government, and to set at rest forever the pious pretensions of the great nations that they have to be in these countries to carry the torch of civilization. The Council on the Conditions of Darker Races must set up certain reasonable standards for suffrage. These standards must be artificial—not natural, so that such impediments as stand in the way may be removed. Whatever those standards are, the Council must adopt immediately methods for their rapid attainment by all the natives. Under no circumstances must those conditions be extreme, hard and unusual. SUFFRAGE MUST BE UNIVERSAL AND SECRET The internationalization of wages and working conditions, the institution of scientific education, the setting up of suffrage standards—shall be applied alike to Africa, India, China, the Islands of the Sea. 28 THE PERSONNEL OF THE COUNCIL ON CONDITIONS OF DARKER RACES. The personnel of the Council should consist of members of the exploiting and the exploited countries. No ear can be given to the cry that some of the countries are too backward to have representation. There are educated men in all these nations, and it is from these that we shall be able to get efficient representatives in every country. Besides, on this Commission should be the American and West Indian Negroes, who have reached the highest stage of civilization of any of the darker races, save Japan. Each member of the Commission should have one vote only. PUBLICITY BUREAU The Council should have a publicity bureau in order that the world might keep well informed with the conditions of the darker peoples, and in order that the great nations might be kept from secret and entangling alliances and intrigues which might again break out in war. The organ of the publicity bureau should carry an open forum which must carry contributions from any member of the Council on Conditions of Darker Races. EMIGRATION AND IMMIGRATION There is no objection to any country's trying to control immigration to its territory. It is quite proper to try to secure the most desirable citizens such as literate and educated immi¬ grants, skilled artisans, non-criminal and non-defective and non- diseased persons. Political refugees, however, should not be considered as criminals. 29 But any prohibition of immigration based upon race, creed or color is pernicious, indefensible and positively objectionable— calculated to produce international disputes, discord, hatred and finally war. Any prohibition upon one's owning property, based upon race, is also pernicious. The resident in the borders of coun¬ tries, who has the thrift, industry and acumen to save and buy property, should be encouraged, and not have obstacles placed in his way because of color or race. Peace is the object of those who have so assiduously ad¬ dressed themselves to the preparation of this message. We have not thought lightly. We have not been short¬ sighted. We have looked far into the dark and cavernous future, unless the foundations of society are radically reconstructed. In our discussions of the darker races we have performed a public service for the whites. So long as these darker races are economic footballs for the great capitalists, just so long will wars continue to come. When the wars come, millions of young white men in the very flower of their youth, will be sent on their journey of life, armless, legless, maimed and mutilated. Dark-skinned soldiers may not be wanted in the beginning of the wars, but when the great white nations are hard pressed, they will always call for dark-skinned soldiers to pull their chestnuts out of the fire. The consequence, then, is that a war between whites means war in which the blacks must also give their lives. To maintain peace we must remove the conditions which create war. Democracy must be enthroned. White and black workingmen must recognize their common interest in industry, in politics, in society, in peace. Secret diplomacy must go. Uni¬ versal suffrage must prevail. Universal education must be es¬ tablished everywhere. Wage slavery must be abolished. The 30 means and resources of wealth must be socially owned for the' common welfare. This will remove the incentive for war. The people must always vote on whether they want war and conscription. Free speech, free press, liberty of thought must be main¬ tained in time of war as in time of peace. Great Britain, let us prepare for peace, to make it permanent and lasting, by lifting the yoke off India, Egypt, the West Indies and Ireland. France, let us prepare for durable peace, by withdrawing your imperial hand from Algeria, Tunis and Morocco. Belgium, let us prepare for peace by giving to the blood- soaked and massacred Congo the freedom which you in your piteous appeal ask for yourself. In this way only can the shame of the Congo be lessened and atoned for in the eyes of the world. Twelve million Congo inhabitants jean never be restored to that life of liberty and joy which was ruthfessly snuffed out by your inhumanity and greed, to snatch rubber, gold and iron. Italy, thou land once proucfr and great, Afric's scorching suns still shine on the tired backs of your African slaves. Let us start peace by liberating them also. Germany, let us start peace by abolishing enforced labor and the whipping-post of Africa. Give to those subjects that fine and scientific education which you accord to your own boys and girls. And now America—the United States of America—to twelve million black souls, always loyal and true, grant that freedom from lynching, Jimcrowism, segregation and discrimination. Stop the disfranchisement in the South which makes your cry of 31 "making the world safe for democracy" a sham, a mockery, a rape on decency and a travesty on common sense. Finally, in the words of the Petrograd Council of Workers and Soldiers' Deputies: Workers of all countries—black and white! "In extending to you our fraternal hand over mountains of corpses of our brothers, across rivers of innocent blood and tears, over smolder¬ ing ruins of cities and villages, over destroyed treasures of civilization, we beseech you to re-establish and strengthen inter¬ national unity without regard to race or color." Herein lies the only security for peace—permanent, durable and democratic peace—a peace in which the black and white world will be made safe for democracy. 32 THE AUTHORS OF THIS BOOK ARE A. PHILIP RANDOLPH President of the Independent Political Council and Editor of the " Messenger" AND CHANDLER OWEN Executive Secretary of the Independent Political Council and Editor of the " Messenger." N. B. A Series of Pamphlets will be issued shortly by the same authors. Watch for them and get them!