Continuing my recent series of diaries featuring my grandfather that began with my introduction of him in Meet my Grandfather Garfield V Cox. A second diary gave an introduction to his thoughts on economics in Is Socialism the Wave of the Future. The third diary a letter to his mother sharing some of his views on religion in Scopes Monkey Trial - How it played out in one family.
This evening we'll get a look into the idealistic young Quaker's views on war in a piece he wrote for his soon-to-be brother-in-law titled The War and World Peace.
Amongst my grandfathers papers was a fragile hand written draft of this piece. On the back it read:
Written by Garfield V. Cox – G. C. Wade gave this as an oration at Wauwatosa High, May 1916 in his senior year.
G.C. Wade was my grandmothers younger brother. Wauwatosa is a suburb of Milwaukee, Wi. where my Wade ancestors lived. In 1916 my grandfather was attending Beloit College in Beloit Wisconsin which is where he met G.C.'s older sister, Jeanette Wade, my grandmother. They were married after their graduations the following year .
My grandfather was a student of public speaking. He had attended Earlham College, a Quaker school in Indiana. He had won the Indiana state prize for oration in both 1914 and 1915. He also won a mid-west interstate contest those years. He transferred to Beloit because the rules said he could not win Indiana a third year and therefore would also not be eligible for the mid-west interstate contest. Beloit had one of the top public speaking departments in the nation at the time so he transferred there for his final two years. I have a copy of his winning speech from 1915 and have sent requests to both Beloit and Earlham to see if they have copies of his speeches in the other years. Beloit has the 1916 speech and will be sending it to me. I don't yet know about the other years.
In addition to the copy of the 1915 speech however I have a very interesting newspaper clipping of his winning the 1914 contest. From the Indianapolis Star, March 21, 1914:
I don't think it is any mistake that the paper was clipped in such as fashion as to include the article to the right. On the left we have a story about the Indiana State Intercollegiate Peace Contest and on the right a story about the U.S. War Department mock invasion of Washington. D.C.
In 1916 World War I had been raging for 2 years in Europe. The slaughter had been ghastly. The United States had an isolationist and demobilized, peace oriented policy. It is impossible for those of us alive today to really understand how drastically different attitudes were in a pre-militaristic United States as none of us have lived in one. But by 1916 this was changing and Woodrow Wilson was moving us towards a war footing. The U.S. officially entered the war on April 6, 1917.
But in 1916 it was possible for colleges to sponsor oratory contests specifically on the subject of peace and for those contests to be covered as front page news.
Here is what my grandfather who was having his idealistic dreams of world peace shattered had to say.
The War and World Peace
Less than two years ago the world was preparing to celebrate a great centenary of peace. We were entering upon a new era, and to millions in Europe and America a great war seemed impossible. But at the very moment when advocates of peace were hailing the millennium, a pistol shot on the Balkan hills convulsed the peoples of three continents. Within a month the ancient battle grounds of Europe shook beneath the tread of armed millions. Men viewed the flames of Rheims and Louvain, and turned away disheartened. Seizing upon the occasion, Militarists have proclaimed that this gigantic struggle, coming at the end of forty years of protest against war, demonstrates forever the impossibility of permanent peace. And at this moment, the gravest question that faces America is, Must we accept their judgment?
If we retain the militaristic theories of the past fifty years, we must admit that war is inevitable. It has been an age of industrial activity. Abundant resources, accessible markets, and safe transportation spell national wealth and prosperity. To secure these, the European powers have thought that vast possessions are essential, and that today, with no more worlds to discover, the only means of obtaining territory is by conquest. War, in this theory, is inevitable, and the prudent nation will develop great armaments in time of peace.
This logic did not appeal to the advocates of friendship and justice among nations. But they were told that mighty armaments would preserve a nation from attack, or enable it to defend civilization against aspiring wrong doers. Thus “adequate armaments for self-defense” became the patriotic passion of every people. England in fifteen years multiplied her navy by three, Germany levied an extra five hundred million dollars a year as a war tax, and Russia doubled her army. Talk of war and increasing armaments turned into an international curse the patriotism which had claimed to be a national blessing. Nationality, rightfully the guardian of civilization, sold itself to the enemy of civilization, to undo the hope of a world.
This doctrine of armament has not been refuted by its consequences alone. The parent theories are as false as their offspring. Militarists declared armaments a necessary pillar to commercial prosperity; yet Prussian militarism failed to make the credit of Germany as strong as that of defenseless Norway; three years ago, German three percent bonds were rated at 82, while Norwegian three-and-one-half- percents were placed at 102. England's navy,more powerful than those of her two nearest rivals combined, failed to prevent Germany from procuring each year a larger share of the worlds' commerce at England's expense. Where, then, is the boasted control of armaments over material prosperity? How much will the conquest of Belgium relieve the crushing burden of debt imposed on the German peasant? How much will it avail the dying English soldier to know that he gave his life that Britannia might still be “mistress of the seas”, when he realizes that as the might of Europe overthrew French imperialism at Waterloo, as it is now turned to crush German militarism, so it will one day combine to conquer British navalism?
Every great power pleads that armaments are necessary for self-defense. But the Englishman forgets that his navy is the chief cause of German militarism; the German forgets that fear of his army has given birth to the military power of France and Russia; each one forgets that if all were unarmed there could be no war. Bygone ages stand as a perpetual warning that for the weak, armaments are no protection against the strong – that for the strong they are no security against an alliance of the weak. So long as each plays the African savage, it must fight or die. Humanity can never mount high while nations live by the law of the club; men can never grow to the full stature of reasonable beings, so long as nations unseat justice to enthrone might.
Such is the false theory upon which militarists have builded. The consequences bespeak the enormity of their blunder. The cost of the struggle in money alone, already exceeds one-sixth of the wealth of Europe. The art of France and Belgium which has lifted men of all peoples to dreams of better things, is now a target for shot and shell. And what of human suffering? Already the blood of six million men has soaked the fields of Europe; already six millions sacrificed, and other millions on the alter! Those untombed dead were the flower of Europe's manhood, the destined fathers of the next generation, and by their loss the race is weakened; they were the leaders of Europe's literary, social, and scientific life, and by the destruction of their genius human progress is set back a century.
Yet in the darkness of the present, one hope remains. Those gigantic armaments that have for two generations prevented peace, are being destroyed by their own might, and the beliefs that fostered them are losing caste. Furthermore, the cost of the war will leave no room for future military expenditures; every penny of conquerors and conquered will be demanded to pay interest on the war debt, to rebuild industry, and buy bread. Under these conditions peace is imminently possible; for the first time statesmen think of it as a practical necessity, and have given us a plan of peace: a world congress to codify international law, and enact new laws as needed; a world court to settle all international differences; an international police force to give effect to the decrees of that court; and an end to the burden of armies and navies under which the whole world is groaning.
Peace is possible on condition that we want it. For there is a higher authority than the written law, and that authority is the tongue of nations; there is a stronger force than the mandate of kings, and that force is the will of the people. And among the people “the will to peace” grows steadily stronger. Ask the broken Belgian soldier, limping homeward to his ruined farm, with the fruits, the ambitions, the hopes of a lifetime destroyed, - ask him if he wants peace, a peace that shall last. Ask the widowed German mother, stifling her sorrow to heed the calls of her children for bread, - ask her if she wants her little ones to follow their father's footsteps to the field carnage. Ask the French maiden whose life's happiness lies buried in her lover's grave, - ask her if war is an “economic necessity”. Ask, and from the lips of those who must fight, and suffer, and die, will come a mighty “No”, - will come a demand that lasting peace be the highest law of nations.
What answer shall we in America give to Europe's millions when they call on us for aid? Today we must decide. If we multiply our army and navy, if we stubbornly cling to a theory that has deluged Europe in blood and tears, no power on earth can save us from a similar fate. Let us, then, prepare for peace, and when this war shall have ended, Europe, with her peoples weakened, exhausted, and oppressed by debt, will be ready to join us. Cynics may tell us that we will always have war, but they said the same of dueling and negro slavery, and it was false. So with our heads clear, our hearts brave, and our aims high, we may yet write humanity into a law of nations; we may turn the passion of patriotic sacrifice to a greatness that is not stained with blood; we, who gave the world democracy, shall lead it to peace.
Peace,
Andrew