s 
 
M? 
 
 6 
 
 I /- 
 

 Some Consequences 
 of Neutrality 
 
 By 
 
 Arthur Stanwood Pier 
 
 Reprinted by request from the Boston Transcript of 
 December 15th, 1915 
 
*>* 
 
3 
 
 <£>\2> 
 
 Some Consequences of 
 Neutrality 
 
 MANY Americans believe that the attitude of neutrality is 
 intrinsically virtuous. It implies to them an open and im- 
 partial mind, a judicial habit of thought, a desire to be 
 scrupulously fair to everybody. According to this theory, to be neu- 
 tral is to be clothed with judicial authority and to be free from the 
 necessity of haste in rendering a decision. If it suits the judge's con- 
 venience, he need not render it until after the war. The worshipers 
 of neutrality as the twin sister of justice deplore unneutral utter- 
 ances as immoral and dangerous. They cannot see what reason the 
 United States has to take sides in a European quarrel. They hold 
 tenaciously to the conviction that through the policy of neutrality this 
 nation will render a great service to mankind. 
 
 But the vital question for Americans is not what will neutrality 
 enable them to do for the world, but what is neutrality doing to them. 
 
 Neutrality is not a moral principle. It is an attitude adopted 
 simply and solely for purposes of security and convenience. When 
 we take action to uphold the rights of neutrals, it is for the protection 
 of our selfish interests that we curb the extra-legal acts which one 
 or the other belligerent finds convenient or desirable. Neutrality may 
 be a moral attitude or an immoral attitude. It all depends on the 
 nature of the quarrel and the motives that might urge the neutral to 
 join in it. Self-interest in the sense of self-aggrandizement would be 
 an immoral motive for abandoning neutrality; self-interest in the 
 sense of self-preservation would make it a moral duty to cast aside 
 neutrality. Chivalrous feeling is seldom strong enough to urge a neu- 
 tral into war. It caused the United States to take sides with the 
 Cuban revolutionists against the tyranny of Spain. It has not caused 
 the United States to join in the defense of Belgium against German 
 aggression, or even to protest against German aggression. The appeal 
 
 S 
 
to our chivalry was certainly no greater in the case of Cuba than in 
 the case of Belgium. It might be strictly logical to say that if our 
 belligerent attitude towards Spain in 1 898 was a moral attitude, our 
 neutral attitude towards Germany in 1915 is an immoral attitude. 
 But there are shadings in morality. Perhaps we should define the 
 difference more justly if we said that the morals of this nation in 
 1898 were those of the inflamed idealist, and in 1915 those of the 
 calculating materialist. 
 
 Now the man who is fairly to be characterized as a calculating 
 materialist never has rendered and never will render any important 
 service to humanity. He may have the most excellent ideas for the 
 improvement of the world, but the fact that it is he who presents 
 them makes them odious and to be rejected. France and England, 
 whose sons have perished in defense of an ideal that was America's 
 as well as theirs to maintain, will not be likely to turn a favoring ear 
 to whatever words of neutral wisdom we may utter at the end of the 
 war. The fact that it is we who utter them will make them unctuous 
 and revolting. The wise course for the calculating materialist is to be 
 as quiet as possible and safeguard his wealth as best he can for the 
 next generation. A dim perception of this truth, an uneasy feeling 
 that at the end of the war this republic will be less admired and more 
 distrusted than ever before in its history, has aided and accelerated 
 the agitation for preparedness. 
 
 Will it not be unfortunate for mankind if a prejudice against us 
 because we have harvested profits while our friends and champions 
 have been shedding blood deprives the world of the benefit of our wise 
 counsel — the wiser since it was conceived in circumstances, compara- 
 tively speaking, of philosophic calm? An American writing from 
 Paris says: "I am told quite seriously that we in Europe are too 
 near to judge properly what is going on here; that we cannot have 
 the necessary perspective. But where America and the Administra- 
 tion's policy are concerned, we are too far away to understand ! 
 Apparently 'perspective' is of no value to us, and distance is no ob- 
 stacle to the national intelligence ! My sister (in America) quotes a 
 friend of hers as saying that an American who recently went home 
 misjudged the situation altogether until he 'shook off the European 
 
 4 
 
atmosphere.' In other words, our complacent fellow-countrymen, by 
 some freak of geography and logic, are the only people in the world 
 who are competent to decide anything. Of course, they make the 
 matter easier by leaving out all question of right and wrong." The 
 tone of the letter is bitter; it may be unfortunate, but it will not be 
 unnatural if nations whose experiences give rise to such bitterness 
 of feeling refuse the healing lotions which after the war we shall be 
 so ready to apply. 
 
 Indeed, it is highly improbable that at the end of the war we shall 
 command an audience of respectful nations. And what sort of a 
 nation shall we be at the end of the war? What sort of a nation are 
 we now? How have we developed or degenerated since August 1, 
 1914? What is likely to be the course of our development or degen- 
 eration in the immediate future? 
 
 The constant and enforced inhibition of a natural impulse tends 
 to promote ill temper, crabbedness, nervous strain, restlessness, and 
 morbidness. In some cases enforced inhibition produces the partial 
 or complete atrophy of the impulse. Mr. Graham Wallas describes in 
 his book, "The Great Society," the evil effects of what he calls 
 "balked disposition." The United States is suffering as a nation from 
 inhibited impulse and balked disposition, and presents in its body 
 symptomatic manifestations analogous to those that may be observed 
 in an individual who is under similar disability. 
 
 The two emotions which most sharply distinguish civilized man 
 from primitive man are pity and indignation. The more highly 
 civilized the state of society, the greater is the national capacity for 
 pity and indignation and the more urgent the impulse towards ex- 
 pression when some great catastrophe occurs or some monstrous 
 crime is committed. Yet when the greatest catastrophe the world ever 
 knew occurred, when the most monstrous crime in all history was com- 
 mitted, this civilized nation expressed as a nation neither compassion 
 for the victims nor indignation against the assassins. There was no 
 evidence that its sensibilities were affronted when Belgium was 
 invaded, peaceful citizens slain, villages burned, and women raped. 
 Individuals could not refrain from expressing their abhorrence, but 
 the Government, if it was moved, did not move ; nor when the 
 
 5 
 
$40,000,000 tax was imposed on Brussels, nor when the first death- 
 dealing Zeppelin dropped its bombs on Antwerp at midnight, nor 
 when a battle fleet bombarded the open towns of Scarborough and 
 Whitby, and slew a hundred women and children. Although these 
 things were done by Germany in direct violation of the laws of war, 
 and in violence to every instinct of common humanity, the Amer- 
 ican Government smothered what must have been its impulse to pro- 
 test. Finally came the sinking of the Lusitania; then the silence 
 was broken. In the series of notes that followed our Government 
 announced that the cause for which it contended was no less high 
 and sacred than that of humanity itself. Its declaration contrasts 
 strangely with its acts. The Government has been scrupulously care- 
 ful to protest only when American lives have been jeopardized or lost; 
 the sinking by German submarines of steamers that carried only Nor- 
 wegians or Danes or Italians has elicited no expression of disapproval 
 at Washington. The barbarous execution of Miss Cavell, that stirred 
 the anger of America, drew no word from Washington. 
 
 When pity for the victims of aggression does not lead to inter- 
 vention in behalf of others who are clearly doomed to be the vic- 
 tims of similar aggression, and when indignation against murderers, 
 pirates, and outlaws is not followed by any effort to curb the criminal 
 activities of such persons, the state which so flagrantly inhibits its 
 best impulses must necessarily suffer the consequences of balked dis- 
 position. What these are it requires no specialist in national pathol- 
 ogy to point out today. When worthy impulse is not translated into 
 still more worthy act, the moral fiber is inevitably weakened. If there 
 is a continuing chain of events, each of which rouses the same emo- 
 tions of pity and of indignation and each of which is succeeded by 
 inaction, not merely is the moral fiber weakened, but the soul grows 
 callous. Tragedies such as those which first filled the national imagi- 
 nation with horror now have little power to affect it. Contrast the 
 effect upon our startled, incredulous minds of the first Zeppelin bom- 
 bardment of Antwerp with the passive disgust created by the last 
 and far more destructive raid on London. Contrast the appeal made 
 to the American imagination and compassion by the plight of Belgium 
 a year ago and that made by the plight of Serbia today. The Amer- 
 
 (i 
 
ican people are richer than they were a year ago, but they are not 
 giving so freely to the relief of war sufferers, though these have 
 increased appallingly in numbers. American individuals have grown 
 tired of doling out charity to people who might have been spared the 
 need of charity if the American Government had not inhibited its 
 noblest impulses, and become the melancholy victim of balked disposi- 
 tion. "I don't let myself think any more about the war, and I read 
 very little about it," a highly intelligent woman said to me. " It does 
 no good, and it's very distressing. I think and read about other 
 things." Perhaps this is the sensible course to pursue under a gov- 
 ernment which says in effect: "The Germans and their allies have, as 
 we know, brutally put to death, in violation of the laws of war, men 
 and women and children in Belgium and France and England and 
 Serbia, and they will no doubt put others to death. We should like 
 to save these people, but we are neutral, and so we must not utter one 
 word of protest — unless, of course, the Germans carelessly kill an 
 American. Armenia? Yes, we did venture to raise a slight, a very 
 mild, protest over Armenia, but then, Armenia had always been our 
 favorite humanitarian field, and we hoped that for this reason our 
 expression of concern for the fate of those poor people would give no 
 offense at Berlin." 
 
 The determined preservation of neutrality in the face of repeated 
 insult and injury has, of course, encouraged the seditious undertak- 
 ings of German sympathizers and emissaries. Their belief that we 
 will not deviate from our officially neutral attitude, no matter what 
 provocation is given us, has led them to plot and conspire with an un- 
 precedented audacity. Bomb outrages, incendiary fires, the foment- 
 ing of strikes and industrial disorders, are merely the skin humors of 
 the patient suffering from balked disposition. They are symptoms of 
 the disease rather than the worst or most dangerous feature of it. 
 They signify that forces of disintegration are at work in the body, 
 and that the cohesion and unity of the nation are being undermined 
 and imperiled. The attempt to ally Irish-Americans and German- 
 Americans for political purposes, the utterances of leaders of the 
 National German Alliance, the violent anti-Americanism of The 
 Fatherland and of some German newspapers published in this coun- 
 
 7 
 
try. the expenditure of great sums of money to influence public opin- 
 ion, and the network of German intrigue and espionage in which 
 there is no possible reason to doubt that we are enmeshed, have cre- 
 ated a situation of internal rancor and bitterness, and one full of the 
 most evil possibilities. Because of the official attitude of neutrality, 
 the drastic measures that alone are likely to purge a sick nation art- 
 not applied. The disorganizing activities of German spies and con- 
 spirators will not be effectually curbed and the vicious propaganda 
 silenced so long as we regard Germany as a friendly Power and so 
 long as surreptitious effort in behalf of Germany is not constructive 
 treason to the United States. 
 
 More insidious in its effects than German plotting and spying has 
 been the gradual disappearance in the mind of the ordinary citizen, 
 so far as relates to this war, of fundamental distinctions between 
 right and wrong. The lulling and dulling of the American conscience 
 has been the inevitable consequence of neutrality. Admiration of Ger- 
 man military efficiency and success and of German unity and sacrifice 
 has gradually eliminated from many minds the horror that the brutal 
 unscrupulousness of German militarism had inspired. If German 
 conquest of Europe implied no threat to America, many Americans 
 who were shocked by the overrunning of Belgium would soon grow 
 reconciled to such conquest. Success, if it is vast enough, always wins 
 the deference of the multitude and usually that of the historian. 
 
 It is not only that the brilliancy of Germany's military achieve- 
 ments has dazzled eyes that first were horrified by her iniquity. In 
 such a conflict as has raged it was inevitable that both belligerents 
 should infringe the rights of neutrals. Great Britain's imposition of 
 burdensome and obnoxious restrictions on our commerce has oper- 
 ated to reduce American sympathy for the allied cause, and has 
 enabled the industrious German propagandists to win an increasingly 
 indulgent hearing. Original issues, the distinction between a war 
 waged deliberately, with purpose of aggression and aggrandizement, 
 and war waged of necessity in defense of libert}' and life, have been 
 clouded in minds that were once disposed to see clearly. There is no 
 doubt that the hearts of the American people are still with the Allies, 
 but they are not passionately with them as in the beginning. If Eng- 
 
 8 
 
land were standing alone against Germany, with the same right on 
 her side that exists today, a great number of our people would be 
 indifferent to the outcome. France has our sympathy and admiration 
 far more than England; yet if Germany had not been so stupidly 
 persistent in enforcing her policy of frightfulness, our sympathetic 
 admiration for France would by this time have been hardly greater 
 than our respectful admiration for Germany. 
 
 The truth is, the ordinary citizen, in matters which do not imme- 
 diately affect his own interest, does not reason closely. He thinks 
 that Belgium should not have been invaded, but he remembers that 
 Great Britain has in the past abused small nations ; and without know- 
 ing much about Russia, he is inclined to distrust her thoroughly. The 
 German-Americans of his acquaintance have been good citizens, and 
 he believes that the German people are a great people. These preju- 
 dices and prepossessions, combined with what he reads in the news- 
 papers about England's high-handed treatment of American shipping, 
 influence him, in spite of all the revolting inhumanity of the Germans, 
 to believe that there may be right on both sides as well as wrong on 
 both sides. His government's way of dealing with the situation tends 
 to confirm him in this confusion. In order to preserve the even- 
 handed justice of the neutral, the Government sends a sharp note to 
 this belligerent, a stiff note to that. The grievances of the United 
 States are infinitely greater against Germany than against England, 
 but the notes addressed by the Administration to the governments of 
 those countries have not adequately expressed a sense of the relative 
 values. The ordinary citizen, accustomed to let the Administration 
 do his thinking for him where foreign relations are concerned, is led 
 by the Administration's remonstrances to the English Government to 
 feel resentment against England as a rude and disagreeable neighbor, 
 instead of gratitude to England as a champion of the American ideal 
 of liberty. "Champion of the American ideal of liberty!" exclaims 
 the ordinary citizen. "Not at all! Why, if you will look up Presi- 
 dent Wilson's third note to Germany on the subject of the Lusitania 
 you will find he commends Germany for striving like us for the free- 
 dom of the seas." Yes, it is perfectly true. At that most inappropriate 
 time the Administration did formally record that most amazing dis- 
 
 9 
 
covery. Is there anywhere a sadder illustration of the demoralizing 
 influence of neutrality when to maintain neutrality means to balk the 
 disposition ? 
 
 There has arisen confusion in the American mind as to whether 
 England is not waging as inhuman warfare as Germany. American 
 annoyance over the interference with American commerce has taken 
 on in many cases the warmth of moral indignation because the illegal 
 blockade aims to starve Germany into submission. It is one thing for 
 armies to fight and kill each other, but to try to win a war by starving 
 a nation's women and children ! Many a person originally sympa- 
 thetic with the Allies feels that it is just as barbarous for England 
 to adopt such methods as it was for Germany to sink the Lusitania. 
 Is it not, however, a curiously confused mind that discovers an equal 
 degree of moral guilt in England's effort and in Germany's achieve- 
 ment? England is trying to starve Germany into submission, but 
 Germany has the option of escaping starvation by withdrawing its 
 armies from countries in which they have no business to be, and ren- 
 dering such reparation as is possible for having wickedly and wan- 
 tonly provoked the war. What chance for escape was given to the 
 women and the babies on the Lusitania? 
 
 If such confusion of mind can exist in regard to specific issues 
 immediately touching the heart of America, it is not to be wondered 
 at that on the general question of the proper treatment to be accorded 
 b}' the national Government to the world's great outlaw, the failure 
 of decisive leadership should have brought about the befuddlement of 
 the American conscience and the obfuscation of the American intelli- 
 gence. Mr. Henry Ford's ill-considered humanitarian enterprise, Mr. 
 Bryan's peace-at-any-price pleadings, Mr. Wanamaker's maudlin 
 proposal that the United States buy the independence of Belgium 
 from Germany, the appeals, partly disingenuous, partly sentimental, 
 that have been raised in Congress and out of it for an embargo on 
 the export of munitions, show in what a maze of good intentions and 
 utter misapprehension Americans are wandering. In their attitude 
 towards the war our people are of three classes : the real neutrals, 
 who are and have always been as indifferent to its course as if it were 
 taking place on the planet Mars ; those who, having once held strong 
 
 10 
 
hopes and earnest desires, now are condemned to feel a gnawing and 
 bitter humiliation; and those who are actively working and agitating 
 for the immediate cessation of the war, even though Germany would 
 then be left in full enjoyment of her plunder. This last class, com- 
 posed of German sympathizers and of well-meaning, soft-hearted 
 people who wish to avert further bloodshed, is mischievous ; its activi- 
 ties increase disrespect for this country among the nations of the 
 Quadruple Entente, and perform a kind of inverted missionary work 
 at home. For they seek to bring moral pressure and any other avail- 
 able pressure to bear against the nations that are fighting for their 
 independence and struggling to restore the liberties of their enslaved 
 citizens. In the name of humanity, these pacifists are trying to rally 
 the moral support of this nation to the greatest foe of humanity that 
 the world has ever known. That the effort is destined to fail does not 
 make it in its domestic effects any less harmful. It debases the moral 
 sense of our people. If the time should come when the tottering 
 Hohenzollern appeals for peace through the agency of American 
 peace missionaries, hoping with their aid to retain some shred of his 
 conquests, and the Allied nations refuse to give him peace, an influen- 
 tial body of opinion will have been prepared in this country to 
 denounce the vindictiveness of France and England and Russia, and 
 to forward its sympathy to the Kaiser and to Prussian Junkerdom. 
 
 Our mental obliquity and moral deterioration must be ascribed 
 directly to the resolution with which our Government has maintained 
 and enforced a policy of neutrality in a conflict between elemental 
 right and elemental wrong. Baffled impulse, balked disposition, have 
 resulted in the partial atrophy, the flabby tissue, the itching and 
 inflamed members, the moral chilblains, that a specialist in national 
 neurasthenia would no doubt have predicted. 
 
 ll 
 
020 914 105 A 
 
 
 (ffitrynaLjS'^S't'&o . 
 
my 
 
libhahy OF CONGRESS 
 
 020 914 105 A