^ IS 
 

c/y^^-i^^^ 
 
 : /4^ 
 
 7 
 
 Who is the Strong Man 
 of the War in America? 
 
 Wilson 
 Bryan 
 
 Roosevelt 
 Taft 
 
 Ml Ml MANGASARIAN 
 
 / 
 
 REPORT OF A LECTURE DELIVEREl 
 BEFORE THE 
 
 INDEPENDENT RELIGIOUS SOCIETY 
 
 1918 
 CHICAG 
 
^ 
 
 ^3b 
 
 A list of M. M. Mangasarian*s 
 Recent Publications 
 
 The Pope's Peace 
 
 Why is the Kaiser so Religious? 
 
 Are the Germans the White Slaves of Europe? 
 
 The Big Men of the Hour 
 
 ; Address 
 
 Independent Religious Society 
 
 1307 No. 8 So. Dearborn Street 
 
 Chicago 
 
Who is the Strong Man of the War 
 in America? 
 
 Criticism may be described as a mental antiseptic. It 
 is a preventive of infection — the infection of error. The 
 principal aim of criticism, however, is to protect thought 
 from stagnation. To criticise means to agitate, and agitation 
 keeps our ideas under a constant stream of fresh air and 
 light. Even when the criticism is unjust, it is better than no 
 criticism at all. If a religion or a government, or an insti- 
 tution is never criticised, it is a proof that it is not sufficiently 
 alive to interest people. If a man has no enemies, it may 
 be interpreted as a sign that he has no convictions. We are 
 entitled to protection against misrepresentation, and to dam- 
 ages for libel, or slander, but to ask for protection against 
 criticism for our work or platfrom or party or creed, is 
 to admit the weakness of our cause. 
 
 The most freely and frequently criticised institution in 
 this country is the government. But the government itself 
 is the greatest of critics. The government is always investi- 
 gating something or somebody — always examining or plac- 
 ing officials on the witness stand. There is not a man in 
 the service of the people who may not be summoned on short 
 notice before a committee to answer questions. The Secre- 
 tary of War was investigated only the other day. The Food 
 Commissioner was examined by a committee not very long 
 ago. Mr. Daniels, of the Navy, has had his share of criti- 
 cism, and Senator Chamberlain did not hesitate the other day 
 to attack even the President of the United States. This is the 
 democratic method. It was so in Athens twenty five hun- 
 dred years ago; it was so in George Washington's day; and 
 it ought to be so always. No man, much less a public man, 
 should be deemed above criticism. No office, or position, 
 or title, or profession, should make a man immune from 
 criticism. 
 
Criticism hurts the critic himself when it is hasty. 
 Perhaps Chamberlain spoke before he was ready, or before 
 he had finished his investigations. But even then his 
 criticism gave Mr. Baker a chance to inform the country 
 on many points concerning which the people were in the 
 dark. Criticism, when based upon research and prompted 
 by courage, instead of leading to controversy, barren and 
 destructive, leads to reconciliation through the correction 
 of the error, or the reform of the evil criticised. 
 
 While I was reading of the way congress turned the 
 search-light upon every man, no matter who he may be, 
 and upon everything, never mind how well established and 
 by doing so, prevents dishonesty from masquerading as 
 honesty, or inefficiency from usurping the prestige that be- 
 longs to merit — I wished we were equally enthusiastic about 
 the benefits of agitation and criticism in religion. Unfort- 
 unately, the label religious on an institution, or on a person, 
 completely disarms criticism. You may impeach a presi- 
 dent, dethrone an emperor, or overthrow an autocracy, but 
 where is the tribunal that can summon a pope, for example, 
 to appear before it? And there is no man who deserves to be 
 investigated in connection with the war more than the pope. 
 But it is well for the pope that no such tribunal exists, for 
 if it did, and he were placed on the witness stand and 
 examined and cross-examined, as many a public official is, — 
 and the workings of the system, of which he is the head, 
 exposed — how long do you think the spiritual autocracy 
 would last? 
 
 In the political world the men who command the atten- 
 tion of the nation are President Wilson, the two ex-presi- 
 dents, Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft, and 
 the frequent candidate for the presidency, Mr. Bryan. 
 These men have many admirers and followers in the country, 
 they are in the public eye and they command the public ear. 
 More than that, these men have power to do things. They 
 say Mr. Bryan made Woodrow Wilson president. That 
 would prove that he is a factor in the democratic party. 
 Mr. Bryan has also a growing clientele in religious circles, 
 and as the spokesman of the prohibition party — the apostle 
 of the "Drys," whose political power is on the increase, 
 Mr. Bryan may yet be elected to the presidency. 
 
 Former President Taft is a quiet man, but he too has 
 a considerable following, and he has never been busier than 
 
since our country entered the war. He speaks frequently 
 to audiences of business men, to the soldier boys at the 
 various camps, and to large popular gatherings in the great 
 cities. And he is the organizer and president of the League 
 to Enforce Peace after Victory. Surely, he should be reck- 
 oned among the big men who are today moulding and direct- 
 ing American opinion. The country is indebted to William 
 Howard Taft for the energy and intelligence with which he 
 is serving the nation in this critical hour. 
 
 And no one will question that Theodore Roosevelt is, 
 has been, and in all probability will be as long as he lives, 
 a power in the country. We may not like him, or agree 
 with him, but we have got to listen to him. We may not 
 want to follow him, but he will not let us alone. That is 
 a proof of personality and power. The man has convictions. 
 He feels deeply. He is warm. He is alive. He is con- 
 tagious. Even when he is wrong he is strong, because he 
 is nothing in a half-hearted or lukewarm fashion. If he 
 hates you, he hates you with all his might, and does not 
 make a secret of it; if he is with you, you have in him a 
 "bully" good friend. 
 
 The re-election of Woodrow Wilson to the presidency, 
 despite the powerful combination against him could be cited 
 as a proof of his prestige with the nation. He is looked 
 up to for counsel and guidance not only by his own people, 
 but by the nations across the seas. His words are translated 
 into every language and repeated all over the world. It 
 is not so much because he is the President of the United 
 States, that Europe and Asia and Africa lift up their eyes 
 to gaze upon him, as it is that he is Woodrow Wilson 1 
 
 Surely it was not flattery when the newly appointed 
 British ambassador, Earl Reading paid so warm and glow- 
 ing a tribute to our president. "No human being," he said, 
 "has the faculty of stating the true nature of our ideals as 
 your president, the man who speaks for you." We Ameri- 
 cans have a right to be proud of such a representative. To 
 compliment Woodrow Wilson is to compliment the Ameri- 
 can people. "We in Europe" continues the ambassador, "have 
 learned to look to those words of his and to cherish them as 
 representing to us the unalterable determination of Ameri- 
 ca, once it has commenced to war in vindication of right, 
 never to sheathe the sword until it has conquered. We know 
 that the words spoken by your president are words upon 
 
which we can build. We do. They are messages of hope 
 and comfort to us." 
 
 Whether rightly or wrongly, Mr. Wilson has come to be 
 regarded as the cleanest man in world politics today. He 
 is also believed to be one of the ablest. At any rate he 
 has aroused high hopes in the breast of our stricken world. 
 
 Of course, I could mention the names of other men in 
 other departments of life who loom big on the horizon in 
 this anxious hour, but confining myself to the sphere of 
 politics, I shall not go beyond the four names I have just 
 mentioned. 
 
 I shall speak of President Wilson first, because he is the 
 man of the hour. He is on the bridge of the ship of state; 
 the others are on board only as passengers. Even Mr. 
 Bryan is not one of the crew, for although he is of the same 
 political faith as the president, he is out of office. 
 
 The important question in the minds of Messrs. Taft 
 and Roosevelt and their coteries is "Can Captain Wilson 
 save the ship? Does he understand navigation? Is he an 
 experienced sailor?" On the other hand, what is agitating 
 Wilson and giving him no little concern is the fear that his 
 distinguished passengers and former sea-captains may insist 
 upon meddling, which might demoralize or cripple the 
 service and even lead to mutiny on board the ship in mid- 
 ocean. Let me not forget to say that former President Taft 
 has more than once expressed complete satisfaction with the 
 way President Wilson is piloting the nation. But still he is 
 of another party and did his best to elect Mr. Hughes to the 
 presidency. 
 
 And perhaps Mr. Taft is mentally more in sympathy 
 with Mr. Wilson than he is with Mr. Roosevelt. For 
 example, Mr. Taft believes that a League of Nations could 
 enforce peace. Mr. Wilson seems to share that opinion. 
 Roosevelt, on the contrary, regards a League of Nations 
 enforcing peace as a chimera. Universal disarmament is 
 neither attainable nor is it desirable, according to Mr. 
 Roosevelt. I am inclined to think that he is more practical 
 on that question than the other gentlemen. The only way 
 peace and friendship can be maintained is through inter- 
 national confidence, and that cannot be enforced. More- 
 over how is peace to be enforced if we are all disarmed? 
 At best then an armed peace is all that a League of nations 
 can promise. Of course, even that is preferable to war. 
 
But how is peace of any kind to be enforced? And as 
 already suggested, what are we to enforce it with if the 
 nations are disarmed? And if a league of nations may 
 enforce peace at the point of the bayonet why may it not also 
 enforce a certain form of government or religion? 
 
 But the academic objections against a League of nations 
 to enforce anything are not very serious after all; the real 
 objections are of a practical nature. We have for a neighbor 
 Mexico which, a great part of the time is in a state of dis- 
 order. Would we consent to submit the proposition to 
 allow Japan or Germany the right to take Mexico in hand, 
 with a view to restore order there — establish the industries 
 and direct its finances, to an international court in which 
 perhaps the representative of the Sultan of Turkey or of 
 the Kaiser of Austria-Hungary will cast the deciding vote? 
 It may be that it is not the intention of the sponsors of a 
 League of Nations to submit such vital questions as are 
 covered by the Monroe Doctrine to a court of arbitration. 
 If so then a League of Nations can not be of any material 
 help to us in real trouble. 
 
 There is a report that the Russians have demanded 
 of our government to release Emma Goldman, Berkman, 
 and Mooney of California who was convicted of murder. 
 Is it the idea that this demand of the Bolsheviki should be 
 submitted to an international tribunal? But that would 
 mean that before we could enforce a sentence passed by our 
 own courts we would have to consult the Bolsheviki in 
 Russia, the Chamber of Deputies in France, the House of 
 Commons in England, etc. What nation with red blood in 
 its veins would submit to that? If the Bolsheviki have their 
 way, the Supreme Court in Washington would not be our 
 Supreme Court at all. The court of final appeals would 
 be the one in which, as intimated, a Bolshevik or a Turk 
 may cast the deciding ballot. Would it not be wiser for the 
 Russians to settle their own affairs instead of dictating to 
 other nations? 
 
 This does not mean that there are not hundreds of inter- 
 national questions which could be safely and profitably sub- 
 mitted to a central tribunal elected to act with authority. 
 The success of arbitration has been more than once demon- 
 strated. But since not all disputes can be so settled it follows 
 that universal military service is indispensable to any nation 
 that is jealous of her honor and sovereignty. These remarks 
 
are offered not in criticism of the League of Nations idea, 
 but only to shatter the illusion, if possible, that such a 
 league will enable us to dispense with preparedness. The 
 nation that prefers opiates and anodynes to banners and 
 battle-cries is lost. "Trust in God and keep your powder 
 dry" was the advice of the Arabian reformer; let us trust 
 in the League of Nations to enforce peace and "keep our 
 powder dry." 
 
 But President Wilson's most formidable rival is 
 Theodore Roosevelt, and there is no denying the fact that 
 while Taft and Wilson and Bryan could meet on a common 
 ground, I do not think that Woodrow Wilson and Theodore 
 Roosevelt could ever assimilate each other's political 
 philosophy. They are two opposites. I am not suggesting 
 that they are enemies. They are not. But they are two 
 diametrically contrary natures. The phrase "watchful 
 waiting" is Wilsonian. The word "bully" is Rooseveltian. 
 Had the latter been president when the Lusitania was tor- 
 pedoed, there is no doubt that we would not have waited 
 nearly three years before breaking relations with that evil 
 power. Of course, I am unable to say whether entering the 
 war three years earlier would have been wiser, but my point 
 is to illustrate the difference between the two temperaments. 
 
 Mr. Roosevelt is quicker to respond to his environment 
 than Mr. Wilson. The former rushes on, the latter lingers. 
 Mr. Roosevelt would have led us into war; with Mr. 
 Wilson, it is we who led him to declare war. Mr. Wilson's 
 conception of a great nation like America is, or was, that of 
 a nation living as much as possible unto itself — free from 
 what Washington described as entangling alliances, closeted 
 and aloof from the noise and rattle of over-sea quarrels; 
 Mr. Roosevelt's idea of a great nation is that of an active, 
 aggressive, meddling power, everywhere present to defend 
 the right and defeat the wrong. Mr. Wilson would have 
 said, I do not think he will now, but his attitude at one time 
 was, that so long as American territory was not invaded it 
 was not any of our concern what they were fighting for in 
 Europe. In one of his speeches in Congress in 1914, Mr. 
 Wilson used the expression "It does not concern us," when 
 speaking of the terrible conflict in Europe. It would be 
 difficult to imagine a man of Roosevelt's endowment taking 
 so academic a view of a world-war. 
 
Our country is not only geographical, it is also moral. 
 Ideas are just as much our country as soil, sand and sea. 
 Institutions, civilization, liberty, the right— these are our 
 moral possessions, they are property conquered, and to attack 
 them is to attack America. Mr. Wilson's country has 
 boundaries; Mr. Roosevelt's is the whole cosmos of law and 
 honor! 
 
 It will be seen that it is not always Mr. Wilson who is 
 the idealist, and Roosevelt the practical statesman. At the 
 outbreak of the war, Mr. Wilson was bent upon saving the 
 hves, the rights and the property of American citizens. 
 That is practical statesmanship. Mr. Roosevelt, on the other 
 hand, at once clamored for war against a ruthless enemy 
 that made life, rights and property worthless so long as it 
 remained the victor on the field of battle. That is idealism. 
 And yet, America's experience has shown that under the 
 circumstances his idealism was more practical than the 
 strictly practical program of the president during the first 
 years of the war. 
 
 One of the very first messages which Mr. Wilson de- 
 livered to the American people at the outbreak of the war 
 contained the request that we be neutral— neutral even in 
 our thoughts. Do you hear? It was indeed a most remark- 
 able request. Not only were we to take no active part on 
 one side or the other, not only were we to speak neither for 
 Germans nor for the Allies,— but we were not even to think 
 more of one than of the other belligerent. Mr. Wilson real- 
 izing how unprepared our country was for war, and fearing 
 that our sympathies and antipathies, unless suppressed, 
 might sweep us into the maelstrom, almost begged us to 
 refrain even from thinking about the war. Our kinsmen 
 across the water were in a life and death wrestle, but we were 
 not even to think about it one way or another, but to go on 
 mining coal, selling cotton, digging oil wells, and taking no 
 pains to investigate the issues at stake, lest we should come 
 to hold one side in the right and the other in the wrong. 
 How extraordinary! And one would infer that the presi- 
 dent did himself what he wished us to do, and remained 
 neutral even in thought, like a god in alabaster. But I am 
 not reminding you of this to prejudice you against him, but 
 merely to disclose his point of view and his temperament- 
 He wished for peace as the summum bonum, and to secure 
 It, he was ready to shut our eyes, our ears, our minds, and to 
 
silence our consciences as well as his own. If we could, 
 as a nation have gone to sleep, like Rip Van Winkle, until 
 the war was over, it would have pleased the president in 
 19 14. But all this only shows the intensity with which 
 President Wilson coveted peace. 
 
 In our criticisriis of Woodrow Wilson it would be only 
 fair to remember that he is president at a period which is 
 the most critical thus far in the history of our republic. 
 Washington, too, had great responsibilities as the first 
 president of the country, but the war with England cannot 
 be compared with the inhuman and barbaric methods Ger- 
 many has introduced into the present war; nor did England, 
 in 1776, entertain the ambitions which in 19 18 Germany is 
 seeking to realize in her efforts to dominate the world and 
 destroy the rights of man. Moreover, when Washington 
 became president, a victorious peace had finally been con- 
 quered by American arms. Abraham Lincoln had a heavier 
 burden to carry during the civil war; but Wilson's burden 
 is heavier still, because it is not only a very much stronger 
 enemy that he is pitted against, but also an enemy who is 
 three thousand miles from home. 
 
 Besides, the German and Irish intrigues in this country, 
 and on a vast scale, greatly increased the difficulties of 
 President Wilson's position. The Irish and German-Ameri- 
 cans together represent effective political strength in the 
 country. Their combined hatred against England blinded 
 them to any virtues the president possessed. They did not 
 thank Wilson for keeping us out of the war, because they 
 wanted him also to prevent us from selling to the Allies or 
 sailing on the seas. And now that we are at war, they like 
 Wilson even less because of the fear that by defending 
 America against Germany we might be indirectly helping 
 England. 
 
 There is a tradition, I know not to what extent it can 
 be depended upon, — that the democratic party has a larger 
 following of Irish- Americans than any of the other parties. 
 Observe in connection with this that many prominent Irish- 
 Americans in New York and elsewhere openly and stoutly 
 espoused the cause of Germany at the outbreak of the war. 
 No doubt this element in the democratic party brought 
 considerable pressure to bear upon the president during that 
 long period of hesitation. One of the intercepted Bernstorf 
 messages requested from the Kaiser a pro-Irish utterance, 
 
 10 
 
which was to be used in this country to reward the Irish 
 for their activities against the Allies. I believe the Kaiser 
 counted on the support of the Irish-Americans almost as 
 much as he did on that of the German-Americans. To- 
 gether they were expected to keep America out of the war. 
 Mr. Wilson had these unruly political friends to conciliate. 
 
 The pro-Germans insisted even after we entered 
 the war that a way could be divised by which we could 
 fight Germany without recognizing England as an ally. 
 "We are willing to fight for America, but not for England," 
 represented their attitude. Which meant that they did not, 
 want England to help us fight Germany, or to help us defend 
 our country. It meant that they did not want the English 
 fleet to protect our ships or transports — that is to say, they 
 preferred to take greater chances against Germany, or to 
 give to that country greater odds to sink our ships and invade 
 our soil. To object to England for an ally is to make it 
 easier for Germany to win the war. That is evident enough. 
 
 Suppose a German in Berlin were to say, "I like to 
 fight for Germany, but not for Turkey." But if he fights 
 for Germany will he not also be helping Turkey? Let me 
 ask the anglophobe Irish this question: Do you want 
 America to defeat Germany? If so, will not that help 
 England? Tell me, then, how you expect to fight for 
 America without fighting also for England. Why do you 
 not have the honesty and courage to say you are for Ger- 
 many, at heart? When you say you do not wish to be fight- 
 ing for England, you really mean that you do not want to 
 fight for America. 
 
 And what is this prejudice against England based upon? 
 Why do people prefer Turkey, Bulgaria, Austria, to Eng- 
 land? If England has her Ireland, has not Germany her 
 Poland? The richer and progressive portion of Ireland is 
 pro-British; can it be said that a large part of Poland is 
 ready to fight not to be separated from Germany, as the 
 north of Ireland is to remain in fellow-ship with England? 
 The German propaganda against England is indirectly an 
 attempt not only to divide the United States into hostile 
 camps, but also to help prejudice our people against the 
 English language, — English literature and English institu- 
 tions and traditions, hoping thereby to draw us into the pan- 
 German alliance. The main object of the anti-British 
 propaganda is to Germanize the United States. To effect 
 
 11 
 
this purpose, nothing seems to be too absurd to say against 
 the English, even now, when English and American soldiers 
 are fighting side by side in a common cause. But the anti- 
 English feeling of the Irish and the Germans was so stub- 
 born that any strong proof that the President favored the 
 cause of the Allies would have made his election to the 
 presidency for a second term impossible. In criticising, 
 therefore, Mr. Wilson's earlier attitude toward the belliger- 
 ents and his pacifist utterances we must be impartial enough 
 to realize that he was practically compelled to win his 
 fight against the pro-German pacifists in his own party be- 
 fore he could count on any strong support for his policies.^ 
 
 ^ About six months after we had entered the war, pro-German publica- 
 tions were still calling upon the president to "strafe England." In the 
 August (191 7) issue of The Open Court, edited by a man born in Ger- 
 many, an article appeared entitled "English Diplomacy." 
 
 The present world-war, in the opinion of this German-American 
 editor, was provoked by England to make a rapprochement between Ger- 
 many and America impossible. "England has a high contempt for America 
 and American efficiency," says The Open Court, "but the main point even 
 now is not so much to gain the United States as an ally for herself as to 
 alienate the United States and Germany not only for the present but for 
 all time to come," 
 
 These weighty and damning conclusions are based on w^hat the editor 
 read, many years ago, in an English newspaper, the name of which he does 
 not give — that Great Britain was willing to let Germany lay the founda- 
 tions of a colonial empire in South America. Of course, the English were 
 well aware that our Monroe Doctrine would not permit a German inva- 
 sion of this continent, but then the English, suggests The Open Court, did 
 not care a button for the Monroe Doctrine. What they were after was 
 to make Germany and America enemies. 
 
 The responsibility for this carnival of blood lies at the door of "Eng- 
 lish Diplomacy," concludes the editor of The Open Court. I think what 
 he would like to say, but is not bold enough to say it is that, if England 
 had remained neutral, Germany would have quickly crushed France and 
 Russia, and the war would have been over in three months, which benev- 
 olent German program was defeated by the interference of the hated 
 Britishers. 
 
 It is also intimated by this "patriotic" editor of German descent that 
 the revolution in Russia was another English manoeuver. By bringing 
 about a political upheaval in that vast empire, the ancient enemy of Great 
 Britain, the latter hoped to eliminate Russia as an imperialistic competitor 
 after the war. Russia crippled would give England a free hand in India. 
 Still another motive in fomenting revolution, or at least in causing demor- 
 alization in the Russian armies, was to furnish England with an excuse for 
 losing the war. In the event of defeat at the hands of the central powers 
 England could throw the entire blame upon the Russian fiasco. "A second 
 Daniel come to judgment!" one exclaims, after reading the article on 
 "English Diplomacy" in "The Open Court." 
 
 12 
 
But perhaps an even more difficult situation for Mr. 
 Wilson was created by his pacifist Secretary of State, 
 William Jennings Bryan, to whom report says, he owed his 
 election. Mr. Bryan too represented quite a large follow- 
 ing in the democratic party, and his being appointed Secre- 
 tary of State was in recognition of his services in a political 
 way. But Mr. Bryan was even more wrong on the question 
 of the war than he was on the sixteen to one formula. He 
 got over his bi-metalism, but it is doubtful if he will ever 
 shed his pacifism. It is true he is now anxious to see America 
 win, but that does not mean that he has had a change of 
 heart. Mr. Wilson had the misfortune of Mr. Bryan's men- 
 tal comradeship during the most critical stages of our parley 
 with Berlin. The final separation, when Mr. Bryan 
 resigned, came as the climax of a struggle on the part of the 
 president to shake off the Bryan brand of pacifism which 
 caught the administration in its strangling embrace. From 
 that day on Mr. Wilson was a stronger man. 
 
 Mr. Bryan may be likened to a man who, in order to 
 see things as he wants to see them, closes his eyes that he may 
 not see things as they really are. What Mr. Bryan dislikes 
 most is facts. He had a papier mache world in which 
 shadows took the place of flesh and blood people, and whim 
 took the place of the law of cause and effect. It was his 
 advice to the president to keep on sending notes to the 
 Kaiser, to keep on protesting. Some day the protest will 
 take effect said Mr. Bryan. It would. If you keep on 
 praying for rain, you will get rain reason's Bryan. He is 
 right, the drought cannot last forever. It is the same with 
 the war. Keep on protesting and we will have peace. 
 "Between friends," says Mr. Bryan again, "there is no last 
 word," — the idea being that we should keep on exchanging 
 notes as long as ink and paper hold out. Between friends 
 there is not even a first word, — but how about between 
 America and a government that insists on sinking American 
 ships and drowning American citizens? Is it Bryan's idea 
 that Germany should go on sinking and we keep on protest- 
 ing? And Bryan was at one time Secretary of State! "But 
 we have no enemies," replies the pacifist. That is just what 
 the ostrich said, after he had buried his head deep in the 
 sand. 
 
 Another unforgetable remark of Bryan's, while he was 
 officially connected with the administration, was that "It 
 
 13 
 
is not our affair how the belligerents fight." He said this to 
 influence the president in the wording of his note against 
 ruthless submarine warfare. Yet Mr. Bryan thinks it is his 
 affair to find out what his neighbors drink, or what god the 
 Chinese worship ; but he does not care how brutal or bar- 
 baric is the conflict in Europe. Is it not strange? I am 
 scandalized when I think of the pope's silence, — of his 
 failure to condemn German outrages upon women and chil- 
 dren and the way they massacred non-combatants. But the 
 pope's silence is not a circumstance to the declaration of an 
 American statesman, many times a candidate for the highest 
 oflice in the land. Secretary of State under Woodrow Wil- 
 son, a reformer by profession etc., that "it is not our affair 
 how the belligerents fight." Mr. Bryan can calmly watch the 
 Germans sink without warning as many passenger boats as 
 they can torpedo, — see them commit rape, massacre a whole 
 nation and show no more respect for the rights of man than 
 for a rag! Why should he care, these things are happening 
 three thousand miles from home! Mr. Bryan seemed to be 
 prepared to sacrifice conscience, honor, humanity, religion, 
 morality — to his pacifism. Was there ever such idolatry! 
 
 It was also a favorite theme with the former Secretary 
 of State to advise Americans to keep away from the danger 
 zone prescribed by Germany. Of course, the Americans 
 had the right, Mr. Bryan argued, to sail the seas, but he 
 cautioned them strongly against doing so. Rather than that 
 this country should go to war, let the few Americans deny 
 themselves the right of going to Europe or of crossing the 
 ocean. This was Bryan's solution of the trouble with Ger- 
 many. It was an easy solution "Let a few Americans 
 sacrifice a few of their rights." 
 
 But the German order was not against a few Americans 
 venturing across the sea; it was, on the contrary an order 
 excluding all Americans from the ocean. Will Mr. Bryan 
 note that? 
 
 Moreover, the German order did not state that Ameri- 
 cans went into the danger zone at their own peril, as one 
 would who ventures too close to a conflagration; but it said 
 plainly that they would be deliberately, not accidently, — 
 but deliberately — killed if they did. There is a great differ- 
 ence between saying to people: "There is a big fire up the 
 street, and if you try to go near it, you might lose your life ; 
 and saying. "We have started a big fire over there and if 
 
 14 
 
you come anywhere near it, we will kill you." Germany 
 did not say to us "You cross the ocean at your own risk," 
 but "You cross the ocean under penalty of death." 
 
 Mr. Bryan might still ask "Would it not have been 
 more prudent to have minded the Kaiser's warning and 
 given up the ocean to him than to be thus dragged into war?" 
 Many pacifists and pro-Germans are still asking that 
 question. Let us see : 
 
 It never seems to have occurred to these "idealists" 
 that if one nation may order us olTf the sea, another would 
 have the right to order us to sea. If Germany may forbid 
 us to trade with the Allies, the Allies have the right to 
 forbid us to do Germany's bidding. And if we take Mr. 
 Bryan's advice and keep off the seas, in order to avoid a war 
 with Germany, by the same reasoning we should follow 
 the advice of those who would have us trade with the Allies 
 in order to keep at peace with them. But how can we obey 
 Germany without offending the Allies, or obey the Allies 
 without offending Germany? And slaves cannot choose 
 their masters. 
 
 It would follow that Bryan's solution was not a 
 guarantee of peace at all, for if we escaped the enmity of the 
 Germans by allowing them to dictate to us, we could only 
 avoid the enmity of the Allies by giving them the same 
 privilege. But we cannot both be on and off the ocean — 
 both trade and not trade with Europe. If we did not fight 
 Germany we would have to fight Great Britain and France. 
 The English fleet would have been just as irresistible as the 
 German submarine. What would lecturer Bryan have ad- 
 vised us to do with the British fleet bombarding New York? 
 
 Bryan practically advised the nation to surrender to 
 the strongest among the belligerents. He deemed that 
 cheaper than fighting for freedom and honor. Shades of 
 George Washington and Abraham Lincoln! With Bryan 
 at the helm, how long would the flag wave over the land of 
 the free and the home of the brave! 
 
 In his lecture on "The Value of An Ideal," which Mr. 
 Bryan has delivered hundreds of times in eloquent accents 
 and with a flow of words, occurs the following strange pro- 
 nouncement: 
 
 "Instead of trying to make our navy the largest in the 
 world, let us try to make our government the best govern- 
 ment on earth. Instead of trying to make our flag float 
 
 16 
 
everywhere, let us make it stand for justice wherever it floats 
 — for justice between man and man, for justice between 
 nation and nation. And then the people of the world will 
 learn to know and revere that flag because it will be their 
 protection as well as ours. And then if any king raises his 
 hand against our flag, the oppressed people of his own land 
 will rise up and say to him, "Hands off I That flag stands 
 for our rights as well as the rights of the American people I" 
 
 What a dreamer! This is the same easy speaker who 
 predicted that " a million men would spring to arms between 
 sunset and sunrise, etc." Evidently he has never heard the 
 maxim "Trust in God and keep your powder dry" which 
 I have already quoted, or "The good God is always on the 
 side of strong battalions," or "God helps those who help 
 themselves." Mr. Bryan's God is more generous; he helps 
 t;he dreamers. Indeed, Mr. Bryan was something of a mill- 
 stone around the neck of the administration. With the elimi- 
 nation of his influence or "atmosphere" there was noticed a 
 decided improvement in the state department. 
 
 The man who is president today is a totally different 
 Woodrow Wilson. He has shaken off Bryanism and paci- 
 fism, and is determined to win the war for America and the 
 cause of civilization. Read his address to Congress, on 
 December 4, 191 7: "When shall we consider the war won? 
 We shall regard the war only as won when the German 
 people say to us through properly accredited representatives 
 that they are ready to agree to a settlement based upon 
 justice and the reparation of the wrongs their rulers have 
 done." 
 
 There is neither neutrality nor uncertainty in that 
 clarion utterance. The President holds fast to the real war 
 aims which justified our entrance into the European con- 
 flict — the defeat of militarism and the triumph of reason. 
 "Every power and resource we possess, whether of men, of 
 money, or of materials, is being devoted, and will continue 
 to be devoted, to that purpose until it is achieved." 
 
 Mr. Wilson's education has been both rapid and thor- 
 ough. It proves there was splendid material in him. It is 
 true he began as a neutral, and failed to see the bearing or 
 the trend of events crowding fast upon us ; it is true he spoke 
 of the European nations as being "war-mad," which was a 
 great slight upon France, upon Belgium, upon England, 
 upon Serbia, which had done everything to avoid war; it is 
 
also true that he asked for peace without victory, and did 
 not know what the war was about, etc., but that Mr. Wilson 
 is no more. No man is infallible, and many of the acts of the 
 administration are open to criticism, but "by taking much 
 thought Woodrow Wilson has added cubits to his mental 
 and moral stature." He has rapidly risen in the love and 
 confidence of the whole civilized world. He is today the 
 star actor in the greatest drama ever staged. International 
 good-will finds in our president an eloquent spokesman. 
 The cause of human progress looks to him for the word that 
 sheds light and the blow that vindicates right. It was purely 
 by the power of clear thinking that Mr. Wilson emerged 
 from the fog of pacifism. His intellect saved him and the 
 nation from shipwreck. His strong will will beat Germany 
 to her knees. ^ 
 
 I believe in men who can change. In that respect Mr. 
 Wilson has the advantage over Mr. Roosevelt. The latter 
 made a mistake about a great American, some years ago, but 
 he persists in his unjust opinion of Thomas Paine in the 
 very teeth of the evidence." Mr. Wilson is more teachable. 
 
 ^ There is absolutely no excuse for such attacks on the administration 
 as appeared in a recent issue of the Metropolitan Magazine, by Mr. Hard. 
 
 - When I returned from Washington, where I had gone to see Presi- 
 dent Roosevelt in reference to his attack on Thomas Paine, I said that if 
 Mr. Roosevelt w'\\\ not see merit in Thomas Paine, we can see the high 
 qualities of Mr. Roosevelt. He has indeed shown qualities of a very high 
 order in his denunciation of German might and defense of outraged Bel- 
 gium, Serbia, France, and Armenia. I am proud of the following letter 
 which I wrote a few weeks ago because it shows that when I criticise anyone 
 I do so without any malice : 
 Editor, Truth Seeker. 
 Dear Sir: — 
 
 Your original reference to Theodore Roosevelt and Emma Goldman, 
 in a late issue of the Truth Seeker, was very unfortunate. Your reply to 
 your Denver correspondent, in this week's issue, in which you renew your 
 attack upon Theodore Roosevelt and hold him to be less worthy of your 
 esteem than Emma Goldman was more than I could endure in silence. 
 In my opinion you owe Rationalism an apology. By publicly comparing 
 an American president with a woman of the type of Emma Goldman to 
 the disadvantage of the former you have placed all Rationalists under a 
 cloud. I am not going to argue with you about the merits or demerits of 
 the persons involved. If you can't see the difference between Theodore 
 Roosevelt and Emma Goldman, no arguments will avail. To shut your 
 eyes so as to become blind to the worth of a man like Theodore Roose- 
 velt simply because he has committed a wrong against Thomas Paine is 
 
 17 
 
I have heard the remark that a man who has been a pacifist 
 once, like Wilson, or his present Secretary of War, Baker, 
 could not be a good leader in a time of war. That suggests 
 the basis of the recent criticism in Congress of the adminis- 
 tration. That is what might be called, apriori criticism. 
 Wilson was a pacifist. Baker was a pacifist, ergo, they are 
 not the proper persons to win a war. But that argument is 
 like a two-edged sword, it will hurt the man who uses it 
 as much as it is expected to hurt the man against whom it 
 is used. If a peace-lover is not qualified to be president or 
 secretary of war in war times, then a war-like man is not 
 qualified to be president in peace-times. 
 
 Until I was about twenty-five, I was a devout Cal- 
 vinist. I believed in the tenets of orthodoxy. I was an 
 ordained clergyman. Does that fact make me unfit to serve 
 the cause of Rationalism, or to represent and expound its 
 beautiful teachings? It is true I believed at one time the 
 very opposite of what I stand for now, but then, I am not 
 the same man. I have, I believe, developed, matured, ex- 
 perienced a re-birth. You would not be justified to with- 
 hold support from me because once I was a Calvinist. Not 
 to believe in change is to deny progress. To see in the 
 Wilson of today the Wilson of 19 14 is to confess that all 
 our efforts to educate and enlighten are a failure, because 
 what men are today they will be tomorrow. What is the 
 use then of propaganda, or education, or the printed word, 
 if men and minds can never be changed? But if they can be, 
 why not gladly give Woodrow Wilson credit for his con- 
 version? The Catholics have a saying, "once a Catholic, 
 always a Catholic." In all probability when the Catholics 
 
 to prove yourself a sectarian of a very antiquated type. What is the 
 difference between a man who will not see anything good in you, or true 
 in your teaching, simply because you do not believe in his Jesus, and one 
 who will prefer Emma Goldman to Roosevelt because the latter does not 
 believe in Thomas Paine? 
 
 You know how I have fought Roosevelt for his injustice to Thomas 
 Paine; but I am glad that if I could blame him for his unfairness to a 
 great American I can also commend him for his loyalty to the cause of 
 humanity and his magnificent courage in denouncing the infamies of the 
 most powerful "blood and iron" man in the world. That you should ask 
 that Roosevelt be muzzled and Emma Goldman given freedom to betray 
 the nation and make a "Bolshevik Russia" of this country was, to me, a 
 bitter disappointment. Very truly, 
 
 M. M. Mangasarian. 
 
 18 
 
count their membership they include also those who at one 
 time belonged to that church but who are no longer affiliated 
 with it, on the plea that "once a Catholic always a Catholic." 
 But that is absurd. Once all Europe was Catholic. Will 
 anyone maintain that England, Scotland, France, the 
 Scandinavian countries, Holland, etc., are still Catholic? 
 Many of you were formerly sectarians, now you are in the 
 all-embracing fellowship of freedom. If you could change, 
 honestly, radically, consistently, why not the president? 
 
 You will observe that I am not allowing party con- 
 siderations to influence my attitude. That Mr. Wilson is a 
 democrat instead of a republican means nothing to me. But 
 I want him to remember too that as president, he is an 
 American before he is the spokesman of the democratic 
 party. Therefore, in my opinion, the president should not 
 hesitate to invite capable men of the other political parties 
 to share with him the responsibilities of the hour. This is 
 not the war of the democratic party alone; it is the nation's 
 war, and the services of experts, irrespective of political 
 affinities, should be commandeered. A coalition govern- 
 ment, or at least an inter-party war council, composed of the 
 strongest men the country can ofifer, would not only be the 
 real Amercian way of doing things, but it would also be the 
 best way to unify and consolidate the nation behind the 
 president. England and France have risen above all party 
 lines, why should not we? 
 
 Considering everything, the present administration has 
 done well. Secretary Baker and his critic Chamberlain are 
 beginning to understand each other better. Let us gladly 
 give Mr. Wilson credit, not only for his courage in changing 
 from hesitation to decision, but also for the force and weight 
 he has been able to put in the American "punch." He is now 
 ready to hit, and to hit hard, notwithstanding that the war 
 is three thousand miles from our shores, and that we have 
 been a peace-loving and unprepared nation. 
 
 But the Democrats alone can not win the war. The 
 Republicans alone cannot. All the parties should pull to- 
 gether. It would be a splendid exhibition of patriotism 
 for Mr. Wilson to recognize Mr. Roosevelt, Mr. Taft and 
 other Americans, by inviting their cooperation. Such a 
 course would have made Senator Stone's partisan speech and 
 
 19 
 
ittack on the admi...?..®^.^ ^65 838 | 
 
 Senator Chamberlain's 
 possible. 
 
 Both Roosevelt and Taft are splendid Americans — 
 loyal, fearless, sane. From the very first these gentlemen 
 have been right on the subject of the war. Their courage in 
 denouncing the iniquities of a most popular and powerful 
 enemy does great credit both to their heart and head. Let 
 Mr. Wilson take counsel with Taft and Roosevelt. It will 
 inspire the whole nation with confidence to see love of 
 country and recognition of merit rise high above partisan- 
 ship and ancient political grievances. Bury the hatchet, 
 gentlemen. The country expects great things of you. Let 
 President Wilson, besides his own splendid service to the 
 country, utilize also the brains of the big men of America, 
 irrespective of party, and who will hesitate to proclaim him 
 the Strong Man of the War in America today! 
 
 
 
 20 
 
 ^- ///^ 
 
< IS 
 
 IM ^^ 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 llllllilllllllllllilillllllil 
 
 018 465 838 
 
 HoUinger Corp. 
 pH8.5