The falsity of the other argument—that woman suffrage would tend against militarism—was crushingly refuted when Dr. Ernest Bernbaum drew attention to the recent history of militaristic policies in England and Australia. In male suffrage England, Lord Roberts, despite his personal popularity and strong arguments, was unable to get sufficient support for his program of universal military service. In woman suffrage Australia and New Zealand, on the other hand, the same line of arguments was completely successful by 1911. There, boys from their twelfth year are required to be enrolled for instruction in drill and the rudiments of military science. The penalties for failure are severe, and public opinion supports their enforcement; in New Zealand a boy was sent to jail for refusing service, on ground of conscientious scruples; another was fined and went into exile. The electorate was determined that New Zealand and Australia should be nations in arms; indeed they were more drastic than Germany, where many exemptions from military service on various grounds are allowed. It is instructive to recall that when in March, 1914, Winston Churchill, Lord of the Admiralty, advised Australia that, in view of the Japanese alliance, it did not need to spend as much money on warships, the Australian statesmen frankly intimating their distrust in alliances, declared they would proceed with their expensive naval program, which was supported by both political parties. I do not say that what is termed "militarism" is a bad policy; I do say that when the suffragists state that woman suffrage tends against militarism they state what is diametrically opposed to the real truth of history. In this case, as usual, they draw their principles not from observation of what is happening but from what they wish and fancy would happen.
The theories of the Suffrage Woman's Peace Party being false, it is not surprising that their actions prove bewilderingly futile. They brought together a group of "hand-picked" delegates, quite unrepresentative of the real sentiment of the nations they were nominally representing, and forgathered in a so-called Woman's Peace Conference at the Hague. Miss Jane Addams supplied the American press with rose-colored accounts of its proceedings. Her reports were justly condemned by the New York Times as bad journalism, because they did not "tell the whole of the truth." They were calculated to give the impression that the Conference was harmonious, and that its deliberations led to really practicable conclusions. Not to conceal the truth, it must be said, that these pacific ladies, who surely ought in their own circle to have exhibited that "international solidarity" which the sex as a whole had failed to manifest, soon developed sharp antipathies. One of the few British delegates who went to the conference (need it be said she was not Mrs. Pankhurst?) disturbed its complacency by reminding those present that they really did not represent the sentiments of the warring nations. When it came to discussing the actual situation and specific terms of peace, there arose strong differences of opinion—along national lines. The chief resolution offered,—that peace should be made without delay,—could not be passed until an amendment, adding the words "with justice," was accepted,—words which each belligerent would interpret in a different manner. Needless to say, the amendment rendered the high-sounding resolution a useless mass of ambiguous words.
Equally futile were the subsequent travels of the delegates of the Woman's Peace Party. At a time when the energy and money of every woman should have been whole-heartedly devoted to practical deeds of charity, these misguided women wasted their means and strength in fool's journeys to the capitals of all the great nations. They made proposals for immediate peace negotiations, which were listened to with more patience and politeness than their amateurish character deserved, but which were of course without exception pigeon-holed.
Having moved the nations to mirth by one modern version of "Innocents Abroad," the suffragists appear to have thought it a good advertisement to send forth a second. This time they attempted to screen themselves behind the figure of Mr. Henry Ford, wearing a celluloid button, "Out of the Trenches by Christmas!" But when a man acts with apparently inexplicable foolishness, it is generally safe to say, "Cherchez la femme!" In this case, the truth presently came out: the unfortunate Mr. Ford was merely the "angel" of the new travelling troupe. It was Mme. Schimmer, professional suffragist-pacificist, who had persuaded him to launch his argosy. As Mr. Ford himself confessed on his ignominious return, he was "simply backing up and financing the plans of the Woman's Peace Congress." The second expedition, like the first, developed an astounding fighting spirit among the peace delegates, and accomplished nothing. (It is worth noting that woman-suffrage Denmark prohibited the party from holding any public meetings.)
There is a lamentable as well as ridiculous aspect of the suffragists' activity in connection with the peace movement. Their intrusion into the pacificist camp has brought discredit not only upon themselves, but upon every pacificist. If the word "pacificist" today suggests to most men an ecstatic, irresponsible dreamer, it is they who are to blame. The sane pacificist, whose patient labors are directed toward unsensational and unspectacular, slow but sure, organization of friendly relations to be gradually made closer and closer, realizes that his task is a complicated one, not to be solved by emotionalism, but by calm reasoning and patient adjustment. He realizes that many different functions must be brought into co-operation before the likelihood of war can be reduced. His noble work is in danger of being thought ridiculous because of the meddling of suffrage fanatics.
The present war, instead of justifying the suffragist theory, has refuted it. It has vindicated the position of the anti-suffragists.
What is the chief lesson of the great war? It has shown that international law and treaties are so weak as to be useless, unless there is physical force to ensure their not being violated. What anti-suffragists have always maintained in national government has proved true in international relations. Any law that is made by those unable to support it through force of arms will sooner or later become a "scrap of paper." Consequently the most sanely progressive step in the peace movement is the formation by men like Mr. Taft, and Mr. A. Lawrence Lowell, (both anti-suffragists, by the way) of a league to enforce peace, which aims to give international law the sanction not only of world-wide opinion, but of the irresistible power of the united armed forces of the great nations. That is the work of men toward world peace.
What is the work of women? In this field as in all others, it is not to try to compel, but to educate and civilize, to create in the children committed to her care an intelligent love for fair play, justice, and self-control. The suffragist is an enemy to the diffusion of the peace spirit, because she would force women into political warfare, where contention is bred. She closes her eyes to woman's greatest opportunity for diminishing the spirit of belligerency—that of keeping one of the sexes out of the bitter strife of partisan politics. The anti-suffragist, asking that the mothers of men may be left free to develop the milder attributes of character, has the true vision of the road that leads to lasting peace.