p‘\'' 
 
 ft. -n 
 
 o 
 
 a E 
 
 
 
 Is EJ 
 
 :o 
 
 r? ^ 
 
 1 
 
 Another Pf^ar 
 
 Mexico?" 
 
 SERMON PREACHED IN THE 
 
 FIRST CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH 
 COLUMBUS, OHIO 
 
 JUNE 25, 1916 
 
 By 
 
 WASHINGTON GLADDEN 
 Pastor Emeritus 
 
 1 
 
ANOTHER WAR WITH MEXICO? 
 
 It will be seventy-two years next September since 
 I took a long journey from Central Massachusetts to 
 Central New York. To an eight year old boy it was 
 naturally a memorable journey. The first eighty or 
 ninety miles of it was by rail over what is now the 
 Boston and Albany road, but was then known as the 
 Western Railroad—in second class cars, springless, I 
 think, on cushionless benches, without backs, over a 
 rough track—the roughest ride in all my experience. 
 From Albany to Syracuse, a very slow freight boat on 
 the Erie Canal gave one a taste of the delights of 
 leisure; and the journey from Syracuse to my home in 
 Tioga County by stage added variety to the experience. 
 Travel, in these days, is much more monotonous than it 
 used to be when I was a boy. 
 
 The most vivid recollection of the last stage of my 
 journey was an afternoon in Cortland, New York, 
 where there had just been a flag-raising. National 
 politics were beginning to simmer; Polk was the Dem¬ 
 ocratic candidate, and a flag on which was inscribed 
 “Polk and Annexation” was floating from a hickory 
 pole in the center of the public square. A small boy 
 about the tavern with whom I struck up an acquaint¬ 
 ance led me to the flag-staff and taught me to shout 
 “Hurrah for Polk!” It was not long before I learned 
 that “Annexation” meant war; and all the events and 
 sensations of that war with Mexico are vivid memories. 
 This was my first lesson in politics; and all that I 
 learned about national life during my first decade was 
 pretty closely connected with war—the Mexican war. 
 Like most boys I was greatly impressed with the stories 
 of the war; I read all I could find about the battles and 
 the campaigns, and the heroes; the conquest was an 
 
 3 
 
unequal one; our troops were almost uniformly vic¬ 
 torious, and all questions about the right and wrong of 
 the conflict were practically out of sight, as they always 
 are as soon as the war-cry begins. How much considera¬ 
 tion were we giving in those days to the question 
 whether the right was on our side.^ Not much, if my 
 memory serves me. The almost universal feeling was 
 that since the fight was on we must fight (and shout, of 
 course) for our side. That was what a good many mem¬ 
 bers of Congress said. They did not all conceal their 
 belief that the war was an unjust war, but assumed that 
 since it had been begun there was nothing to do but to 
 fight it out. Clayton, of Delaware, protested that he 
 wished to absolve himself of all responsibility for the 
 war, which had been precipitated by the President in 
 ordering General Taylor to march into Mexican terri¬ 
 tory; but he was ready to vote supplies for the army. 
 Abraham Lincoln, who was then in Congress, was saying 
 practically the same thing. Crittenden, of Kentucky, a 
 southern Whig, expressed the sentiment that “more 
 distressing intelligence had never been communicated 
 to Congress by any President, (than the announcement 
 of the beginning of hostilities). The importance of the 
 event, he said, did not consist in the amount of precious 
 blood that had then been shed, but in the bad example 
 and the evil consequences to republicanism and to 
 liberty everywhere. H hope,’ he said, ‘to find my 
 country in the right; however, I will stand by her, right 
 or wrong.” That was the tone of leading members of 
 Congress. It is melancholy to witness such a surrender 
 of intelligence and conscience to a popular craze. Mr. 
 Crittenden was not quite sincere in saying that he 
 hoped to find his country in the right; he knew that she 
 was in the wrong. He knew that the occupation of the 
 territory of Mexico by American troops was an act of 
 wanton aggression. He knew that it was done because 
 it was the deliberate purpose of those who were pro¬ 
 moting the war to rob Mexico of a large part of her 
 
 4 
 
domain. He yielded to it because it is always unpopular 
 to oppose a war. 
 
 And the rest of us, boys and men, inside Congress 
 and out, shouted for it and voted for it simply be¬ 
 cause it was a popular craze. There was not, there 
 could not have been any conviction in the minds of 
 intelligent American voters, that the United States had 
 any good reason for going to war with Mexico. There 
 was a small minority of very selfish and unprincipled 
 men who had reasons of their own for wanting war with 
 Mexico. They wanted more slave territory, they 
 wanted more slave states, and Mexico was weak and 
 helpless and could be despoiled of her territory. If a 
 quarrel could be trumped up she could easily be over¬ 
 powered and robbed. Mexico did not want war: she 
 had shown in a hundred ways her desire to avert war, 
 her readiness to make all possible concessions to prevent 
 war; she was making no attack upon us and threat¬ 
 ening none; no collision between the two countries 
 could come unless it was wantonly provoked by the 
 United States. It zaas wantonly provoked, and before 
 the country knew anything of the real causes of the 
 strife the hue and cry was sounding over the land “We 
 are at war with Mexico!” With the vast majority that 
 was enough. The vast majority did not reason about it 
 any more sanely than the members of Congress did. 
 They could hardly have been expected to be any more 
 reasonable than Clayton, of Delaware, and Crittenden, 
 of Kentucky, were. What could they be expected to 
 think or say or do ^ “ If your country is at war, are you 
 
 going to take the side of the enemy Fie for your patri¬ 
 otism!” That is what you always hear. If you can 
 only get the fighting started, the reasoning will stop. 
 Inter arma silent reges, et rationes! Woe to any man 
 who undertakes to stem the tide of passion! Tom 
 Corwin ventured to do it, and he was promptly driven 
 out of office and made to feel for a long time the con¬ 
 demnation of his fellow citizens. He recovered from 
 
 5 
 
that, indeed, after a while, and came back into influence 
 and power, for the jeering multitude came to their 
 senses, by and by and were able to see that he was 
 absolutely right, and that it was their own heads that 
 had been turned. But for the present he was down and 
 out. 
 
 There is no question now but that that war with 
 Mexico was a war of wanton aggression. It cost this 
 nation perhaps 15,000 lives, and perhaps ^160,000,000; 
 that, for those days, was a heavy cost. How much it cost 
 Mexico of blood and treasure will never be known. Of 
 course the conquest was easy, as wars go. The resist¬ 
 ance of this feeble nation was soon overcome, and the 
 aggressors won their game—Mexico had to give what 
 her conqueror demanded. What he took was about 
 650,000 square miles of her territory, comprising what is 
 now a good strip of Western Texas, and the whole of 
 Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, and California—enough to 
 make sixteen states like Ohio. That’s all! For this 
 ‘‘cession” the United States government did indeed 
 “grant” to Mexico at the end what President Polk 
 described as the “magnanimous” appropriation of 
 $15,000,000—enough to pay, perhaps, for some small 
 county in southern California. > Conscience money, 
 maybe; if so it is a sorry commentary on the size and 
 quality of the national conscience. 
 
 Just how much damage the American nation sus¬ 
 tained in that transaction I should not like to be called 
 on to estimate—in the dulling of its ideals, in the weak¬ 
 ening of its moral sense, in the loosening of its fiber, in 
 the clouding of its vision. Probably it was preparing 
 for the Civil War, which followed only a dozen years 
 later. “Preparedness” has many phases, and some long 
 leases to run. But I am persuaded that a nation, no 
 more than an individual, can violate the eternal prin¬ 
 ciples of justice and righteousness, without suffering in 
 its own life. There is no doubt that Mexico also suf¬ 
 fered heavy and lasting injuries as the result of this war. 
 
 6 
 
She was robbed, to begin with, of a large and rich part 
 of her domain; physically, she was crippled and weak¬ 
 ened; her national pride was humiliated; worst of all 
 she was filled with bitter and fierce suspicions and 
 resentments. Her nearest neighbor had turned upon 
 her and flung her down in the mire and trampled upon 
 her. How could Mexicans ever learn to respect and 
 trust the people of the United States.? We were held 
 up to them as the representatives of a certain type of 
 Christianity different from their own. Could we expect 
 them to be attracted to Protestantism, to have any 
 other feeling than hot hatred for everything which 
 called itself by that name? Who can doubt that a large 
 part of the discouragement and obscurantism and back¬ 
 wardness of Mexico during the last seventy years is due 
 to the injury inflicted upon her two generations ago by 
 the people of the United States? 
 
 I wonder if it is possible for the people of the United 
 States to forget all these things. I wonder if it never 
 occurs to those of them who profess and call themselves 
 Christians that some debts are due from them to these 
 hapless people. The two republics have been living 
 next door for three-quarters of a century, since this act 
 of spoliation took place; one of them has been growing 
 rich and strong; a considerable part of that wealth is 
 the product of the domain of which the other was 
 plundered. Might not some slumbering sense of justice 
 now and then awaken in the heart of the strong nation, 
 prompting it to thoughts of restitution? Might not 
 Americans at any rate be moved to consider that a 
 policy of forbearance and conciliation, a spirit of clem¬ 
 ency and toleration is at least becoming in our dealings 
 with those who have suffered so much at our hands? 
 It seems to me that the time has come for this nation to 
 show its nobleness and its magnanimity, in big meas¬ 
 ure, to the people of Mexico. 
 
 True it is that the sinister motives which led to the 
 war of conquest in 1846 have largely disappeared out of 
 
 7 
 
our national life. We have no longer the same reasons 
 for wishing to rob them of their heritage that we had 
 then. There is no ill-will in the hearts of the American 
 people toward them. Their traditional hatred and con¬ 
 tempt for the “Gringoes” is no longer justified by any¬ 
 thing which can be found in the hearts of the masses of 
 the American people. They have had a chance to get 
 acquainted with some of us during recent years; for 
 capital has been seeking investment in Mexico, and 
 numbers of Americans have come into contact with the 
 industrial and commercial classes. That the Mexicans 
 have learned in this way to respect and trust some 
 Americans I am sure; that they may have learned also 
 to distrust and hate some Americans, I greatly fear. 
 We know well enough that there are Americans who are 
 ready to exploit everything that is exploitable, and I 
 fear that they do not all stay at home, as I wish that 
 they would. Such men are apt to be adventurers, and a 
 civilization like that of Mexico offers them a great 
 opportunity. It would not surprise me therefore to 
 learn that a good many Mexicans have added to their 
 traditional suspicion of the “Gringoes” some reasons of 
 their own for enmity toward them. And putting mem¬ 
 ories and experiences all together, I cannot doubt that 
 there is at the present time in the Mexican mind an 
 antipathy toward Americans which is inveterate and 
 intense, and not wholly inexplicable. What I should 
 like to have my countrymen understand is the extent of 
 their responsibility for this condition of the Mexican 
 mind. What I would like to bring home to them is the 
 great need of forbearance and self-control, and consider¬ 
 ation in dealing with it. 
 
 Doubtless very irritating and exasperating things 
 are happening along the border. What I should like to 
 know is whether all these disturbances are due to Mexi¬ 
 can lawlessness; whether they are not sometimes 
 provoked by contempt and aggression originating on 
 our side. How much of all this trouble originates with 
 
 8 
 
outlaws and bandits from our own side who have found 
 refuge in the Mexican border? 
 
 That we have much to endure from the turbulence 
 and semi-savagery of the Mexicans, I cannot doubt; I 
 wish I knew a little better how much they have to 
 endure from us. It is natural and human to say and 
 think that when there is any trouble, the other fellow 
 is to blame; I suppose that it is just as natural for 
 Mexicans to say and think so as for Americans. But I 
 wonder if Americans have not some larger reasons for 
 being patient and forbearing than the Mexicans have. 
 
 When a band of Mexican bandits marches across 
 the border and shoots up and burns up an American 
 town, murdering several of its inhabitants, and when 
 there seems to be no power on the other side to prevent 
 or punish such depredations, it is clear that some effective 
 measures must be taken by our government to put an 
 end to them. But punitive expeditions of that sort are 
 hard to manage: it is difficult to fix their limits and to 
 define their powers. The sooner they can be withdrawn 
 the better for all concerned. 
 
 We are dealing with a disorganized and chaotic 
 society, filled with lawless and criminal elements; it is 
 a difficult situation. 
 
 Certain it is that our President has manifested 
 great patience and forbearance in dealing with it. I 
 have not knowledge enough of all the circumstances to 
 justify me in approving or in condemning all the features 
 of his administration; he may have sometimes done too 
 much and sometimes not enough; not possessing the 
 omniscience which some of his critics seem to claim, 
 I cannot undertake to appraise his policy in detail; but 
 I am sure that he has meant to be both just and con¬ 
 ciliatory in his treatment of the Mexicans; and I can¬ 
 not doubt that he is seeking their best interest as well as 
 our own. He is a historian, and he cannot help knowing 
 those discreditable facts to which I have referred; he 
 characterizes them in his history, as an “inexcusable 
 
 9 
 
aggression,” and I have no doubt that he gives them 
 now the weight to which they are entitled. He has 
 honestly and diligently sought to guard against war 
 with Mexico. 
 
 But there are powerful influences which have con¬ 
 stantly been urging upon him policies and attitudes 
 which must lead to war. 
 
 First, most cryptic, most insidious, and most 
 powerful is the interest of thousands of millions of dol¬ 
 lars, invested in businesses, financial or industrial, 
 which would reap an immediate profit from war. No¬ 
 body supposes that these interests have openly pro¬ 
 posed war to our government; but nobody can doubt 
 that the pressure of their influence has been felt in 
 quarters where it would be most effective. 
 
 Second is the concentrated influence of the army 
 and navy organizations, always pervasive and powerful 
 in Washington and always naturally and professionally 
 in favor of war. 
 
 Third is the war hysteria which has been sweeping 
 over this country like an epidemic. That all Europe is 
 insane is palpable, and that madness is contagious; the 
 ocean is no protection; the spectacle of that carnage 
 kindles the lust of battle in millions of those who look 
 on, so that, instead of revolting at this horror, they are 
 mad to rush into it. Nothing is more dreadful and dis¬ 
 heartening then the outbreaking of this passion for 
 slaughter, in the heart of our twentieth century civiliza¬ 
 tion. Bertrand Russell, in his book just published on 
 “Justice in War Time,” names three central causes of 
 war: fear, pride, and “plain lust of bloodshed.” “It is 
 hard to admit this,” he says, “but it is true. The in¬ 
 stinct for fighting and killing is as old as the instinct for 
 marrying. And in its present outbreak, instead of being 
 tempered by centuries of intellectual and ethical growth, 
 it is infinitely more hideous, brutish, frightful and 
 shocking than any war, back as far as the memory of 
 
 lO 
 
man runs. Never was such a welter of blood-lust on the 
 globe.” 
 
 It is this deadly infection that the fetid winds have 
 brought across the Atlantic and spread over this coun¬ 
 try. It is difficult to account in any other way for the 
 craze for preparedness which has swept over the land 
 and stirred up the people of this continent to clamor for 
 preparation for war when there was no enemy in sight. 
 Of course it has been plain, all the while, that we should 
 have to find an enemy or invent one; and now this dis¬ 
 turbance with Mexico supplies the demand. It is to be 
 hoped that the government will insist on finding some 
 better reason for war with Mexico than the desire to 
 justify this demand for preparedness. 
 
 Added to the commercial and the hysterical insti¬ 
 gations of war with Mexico are the border frictions and 
 the other collisions of Americans with Mexicans, to which 
 I have referred. It is difficult for me to believe that any 
 or all these motives justify the United States in going 
 to war with Mexico. At any rate I want to appeal to 
 my fellow countrymen to consider well, before they take 
 a step or lift a finger in preparation for war, all these 
 facts to which I have called their attention. For myself 
 I have many doubts as to whether war is ever justifiable; 
 I am sure that there is always a better way for two 
 nations to settle any difficulties that may arise between 
 them than by trying to see which nation can kill the 
 most of the other nation’s capable and efficient young 
 men. I am sure that that is absolutely the worst possible 
 way of settling any kind of national trouble. 
 
 But while I would try hard to avoid war with 
 every nation, I confess that I would try a good deal 
 harder to avoid war with Mexico than with almost any 
 other nation that I can think of as a possible enemy. 
 
 The first reason why I do not want the United 
 States to fight Mexico is that it seems a shameful thing 
 • to do. The old taunt of the playground comes back to 
 me: “Take one o’ yer size!” It used to be thought 
 
 II 
 
unsportsmanlike for a big strapping fellow of sixteen or 
 eighteen to pick a quarrel or match muscles with a little 
 sickly chap of seven or eight. And it doesn’t seem just 
 the decent thing for a nation of a hundred millions of 
 people to be squaring off for a trial of physical strength 
 with a nation of thirteen millions; for a nation as rich 
 and strong and resourceful as ours—the richest nation 
 in the world—to be getting ready to light a nation 
 crippled, impoverished, anemic, bankrupt, disorganized, 
 helpless! 
 
 I could never get much glory—after all the shouting 
 —out of the conquest of Mexico seventy years ago. I 
 never wanted to read the story over, did you? Have 
 you ever known of a book being made for boys about 
 the Mexican war? There wasn’t really much to brag 
 about. And yet the disparity between the two powers 
 is vastly greater now than it was then. We are sure to 
 get a great deal less glory out of another war with 
 Mexico, than we got out of the first, which was much 
 less than none at all. We shall not, I am sure, rob her of 
 any more of her territory; we are past that; and just 
 what the sum of our gains will be, I shall not try to 
 compute. 
 
 I do not know either what our losses will be; in all 
 probability they will be considerable. A small and poor 
 nation fighting with desperation may inflict terrible 
 injury on a big and rich nation; England found that out 
 in the Boer War. There was no doubt, from the first, 
 of course, that the Boers would ultimately be over¬ 
 powered; but I dare say that the losses of the English 
 were fully ten times as great as anybody expected them 
 to be when the war began. And so there is no question 
 but what we shall conquer Mexico, this time as we did 
 before; but it will cost us, probably, a good deal more 
 this time than it did the other time. And the pitiable, 
 the horrible thing is that we shall be compelled to inflict 
 still deadlier harm on them—on these poor, ignorant. 
 
 12 
 
half-savage people, who have but the dimmest idea of 
 what they are fighting for or against! 
 
 The one sure result of this second war with Mexico 
 will be a great waste of life on both sides; the addition 
 to our debt of hundreds of millions of dollars ;the absolute 
 impoverishment and prostration of Mexican industry 
 with the death, probably, of thousands of women and 
 children by starvation; and the fixing of a great gulf of 
 hatred and contempt between the two countries, which 
 no efforts of good will ever be able to bridge. 
 
 This is the goal toward which the people of the 
 United States now seem to be marching quite light- 
 heartedly. Possibly some of you are able to feel en¬ 
 thusiastic and triumphant about it; I am not. If the 
 war goes on to its bitter end, and the newspapers bring 
 us daily news of victories over such a foe, purchased at 
 such a cost, I do not expect to read them with exulta¬ 
 tion; that glory will be lusterless for me; you may have 
 all my share in that triumph. 
 
 For I shall feel, through it all, that it was quite 
 possible for my country, with more effective weapons, in 
 a warfare that was not carnal, without shedding a drop 
 of blood, to have won a much more signal victory. I 
 shall look back to this day, with the assurance, that if, 
 even at this juncture, the preparations for war had been 
 arrested, and an adequate and resolute effort had been 
 made, the barriers of suspicion and ill-will might have 
 been broken down and the foundations laid for a whole¬ 
 some and righteous peace, and an enduring and profit¬ 
 able friendship between the two republics. 
 
 For that, I am strongly convinced, is possible 
 today. I do not believe that this nation has exhausted 
 the possibilities of conciliation. If this nation would 
 address itself today to the business of making peace, 
 with one tenth of the vigor and resolution which it is 
 applying to the business of making war; if it were ready 
 to spend one tenth of the amount of money in bringing 
 aid to Mexican industries which it is now getting ready 
 
 13 
 
to spend in devastating Mexico, we could very speedily 
 overcome much of the ill-will of the Mexican people and 
 call together the forces which would reunite the people 
 and put them in the way to the rehabilitation of their 
 national life. We have sent one or two representatives 
 to Mexico who have sought to express our good will and 
 who have, I doubt not, mediated wisely: our own 
 townsman who is there today, is doing, I doubt not, all 
 that any one good and wise man can do, to pour oil on 
 the troubled waters; but what I should like to see is a 
 great delegation of our best known and most influential 
 men sent down there—men like President Taft and 
 President Eliot and Cardinal Gibbons and Judge Parker 
 and Mr. Bryan and Judge Brandeis and Secretary 
 Baker and Samuel Gompers—a dozen or more such men 
 of all parties—men of such fame and position that all 
 Mexico would have to sit up and take notice, saying, 
 “These are men who have a right to speak for America; 
 now let us listen, and hear what America has to say.” 
 I am sure that such a delegation could make the Mexi¬ 
 cans understand that we have no sinister purposes 
 toward them; that it is our deepest interest that they 
 should be at peace; that we have no wish to dictate how 
 they shall settle their differences, but are ready, as soon 
 as they can come together and make peace, to help them 
 by the most liberal subvention, in rebuilding their rail¬ 
 ways and their factories, and reopening their mines and 
 getting their farms and plantations under cultivation, 
 and restoring thrift and prosperity, plenty and peace to 
 this distracted country. 
 
 I am sure that such an embassy of our greatest and 
 best citizens, nominated by the President, authorized 
 by Congress, and bearing such a message, could go to 
 the city of Mexico and get a hearing. I have no doubt 
 that they could make the Mexican people believe in the 
 sincerity of our friendship, and that the proffer of it, 
 in this impressive and authoritative way, would 
 awaken a sentiment among intelligent Mexicans which 
 
 14 
 
would force the quarreling factions to come together and 
 restore order, and re-establish peace. 
 
 Isn’t there, in this big country, brain enough and 
 heart enough to take such a policy down to Mexico and 
 put it over ? It would cost something, but not one tenth 
 as much as to fill their plains with armies and line their 
 coasts with cruisers, and'deluge their soil with blood. 
 
 It would cost something, but think of the difference 
 between the harvest which would spring from such a 
 sowing compared with that which would grow from the 
 dragons’ teeth with which we are now preparing to 
 plant the soil of Mexico. 
 
 15 
 
Price for single copies ten cents; ten or 
 more copies at five cents each. Address, 
 THE CHAMPLIN PRESS, 
 COLUMBUS, OHIO