Progress in science and in the arts completely changes the methods of warfare in one generation after another, If General Hooker had possessed a single airplane, you may be sure that “Stonewall” Jackson would never have slipped around his flank at Chancellorsville. A squadron of “tanks”, if the Army of the Potomac had been provided with them in 1863, would probably have cleared the road to Richmond within a week. Who can tell what weapons, appliances, and tactics the nations will need for use in the next war, if another war should ever come? Preparations of a strictly military sort are essential, to be sure, but it is not wise to place entire reliance upon an army which is trained to use certain tactics in a prescribed way. That, of itself, does not constitute true “preparedness”.
Three words sum up the reasons for the Allied victory in the World War; these words are men, munitions, and morale. France, Great Britain, the United States, and Italy had civilian reserves to draw upon. They had great peace-time industries which they converted into munition factories. Above all things the moral strength and steadfastness of free peoples counted in the long struggle against autocracy. |What real “preparedness” means.| The lesson to be drawn from this is that if a country builds up a vigorous manhood, both physically and mentally; if it creates great, varied, and well-managed industries; if it fosters patriotism and a sense of righteousness through its system of public education; if it cultivates intelligently all the progressive arts of peace—if a nation does all these things, it is accomplishing real preparedness for whatever may come. Great wars are won, paradoxical as it may sound, in times of peace.
The War-Time Powers of Government.—There is an ancient Latin maxim: inter arma silent leges. It means that under the stress of armed conflict the ordinary laws give way. In the United States this maxim does not strictly apply; the constitutional rights of the citizen remain intact and the ordinary laws of the land continue to apply in war-time. Nevertheless it is true that a state of war requires strict vigilance on the part of the government and this may lead it to impose upon individual freedom various restrictions which would not be imposed in time of peace. |Limitations on civic liberty during wars.| During the World War, for example, the national government laid certain restrictions upon the consumption of food, the use of coal, and the manufacture of luxuries. This it did under its constitutional authority “to raise and support armies”. |The Espionage and Sedition Acts.| Congress also passed the Espionage and Sedition Acts which provided penalties for making or circulating false statements with intent to injure the United States or using “abusive language about the government or institutions of the country”. By these laws, in brief, it was made a crime to favor the cause of the enemy by any word or act. In some quarters this legislation was regarded as an unwarranted interference with freedom of speech but on the whole it was a justifiable war-time precaution. Those who found their personal freedom restricted by the Espionage and Sedition Acts suffered very little hardship compared with that borne by the soldiers and sailors who went into active service.
There can be no absolute freedom of speech at any time.
Freedom of Speech in War-Time.—During the World War there was considerable complaint in some quarters because the national government placed certain limitations upon freedom of speech, and a good deal of discussion arose as to what freedom of speech really means. The issue is one which cannot be argued in general terms, for it is not a question of principle but of practical policy. On the one hand it is generally agreed that men ought to have all reasonable liberty to express their own thoughts in their own way; on the other hand it is just as fully agreed that people must not be allowed to go about preaching treason, uttering slanders, and by word of mouth infringing the rights of others. The question, then, is not whether we should grant freedom of speech or deny it; but how much of it we should grant or deny.
But the presumption should be in favor of free speech.
In a democracy the presumption should be in favor of freedom. It should be curtailed no further than is clearly demanded by the general interest. Just where that point comes is something that cannot be fixed by any general rule. In time of peace, for example, we may safely permit a greater freedom of speech than in time of war. We may rightly allow a citizen, whose loyalty is not in doubt, a greater latitude than a foreigner who professes his hatred of the United States. The problem is an exceedingly difficult one and the courts may at times do injustice in dealing with outspoken persons; but the nation in its sober senses is not likely to let the fundamental right of free speech be permanently restricted beyond a reasonable point.[[282]]
The various war boards, 1917-1918.
Mobilizing the Economic Forces.—In order to ensure victory it also becomes necessary to mobilize all the economic forces of a country, the industries, the means of transport, and even the professional skill. During the years 1917-18 the government of the United States established a War Industries Board whose function it was to supervise and speed up industrial production; likewise a Food Administration, a Fuel Administration, a War Labor Board, a Censorship Board, a Committee on Public Information, a War Finance Corporation, an Alien Property Custodian, and various other war-time authorities with duties which are in a general way indicated by their titles. Both the work and the authority of a government enlarge under the stress of war.