During the course of the war and before our entrance, the American people had oppor tunity to get acquainted in some manner with German Politik by seeing something of the activities of the German spies and the machina tions of German agents in flagrant disregard of our laws to maintain our legal position as a neutral. Naturally this whole matter is still shrouded in partial darkness, but the revela tions, especially in 1916, increased the growing indignation of the nation. The conclusive evi dence in some cases was missing, while in others court trials were confirmatory of the existence of a system of intrigue which was exceedingly objectionable and which tended to increase dis like of Germany and her works. The later revelations justified and more than justified the suspicions and rumors that were spread about before we entered the war. The seizure of the von Igel papers in New York in the spring of 1916 brought to light evidence of a conclusive character of highly-developed plans and prac tices of the most reprehensible character. Not until we entered the war were the people gen erally aware how fully the German embassy itself had made use of the hospitality of this country to indulge in entirely illegal and wholly unjustifiable not to say criminal practices Long before the German Ambassador von Bernstorff was given his passports (3 Feb. 1917) the ac tivities of the Austrian Ambassador were de tected and his recall was demanded. These occurrences and the awakened suspicion and the thoroughly justifiable resentment account in part for the growing 'belief that the maintenance of peace was incompatible with American honor and self-respect and that the place of the United States was by the side of other democracies in a war against brutal warfare and shameless intrigue. We came to see that democracy could not be safe in the presence of autocratic might aided by autocratic stealth, Meanwhile there was much discussion on the subject of preparation for war or at least adequate provision for defense. Some there were that believed early in the war that our government should make extensive prepara tions; others thought that even at such a time, and perhaps especially at such a time, when Europe was drenched with blood in a war brought on despite great armies and caused, in part, by the maintenance of vast military estab lishments, the duty of the United States was not to display threatening military power. Others of course were merely uninterested, but it was hard to convince the ordinary citizens either of immediate danger or that big armies made peace secure. In May 1915 President Wil son in a speech at Philadelphia said, "The ex ample of America must be a special example; the example of America must be the example not merely of peace because it will not fight, but of peace because peace is the healing and elevating influence of the world; and strife is not. There is also such a thing as a man being too proud to fight; there is such a thing as a nation• being so right that it does not need to convince others by force that it is right." The too-proud-to-fight expression was immediately seized upon in some quarters as highly repre hensible. In the course of the succeeding months the President spoke plainly of Ameri can danger and of the necessity of making preparation for conflict. In January 1916 he declared that the American people are ready at any time to fight for the vindication of their character and their honor. They will at no time seek a contest, but they will at no time cravenly avoid it." Soon after this he declared that the country must prepare effectively and promptly and that not a day must be lost. In the spring months of 1916 a wave of "prepared ness" swept the country; it may be more ac curate to say that there were parades and speeches, for no one can be sure just how thoroughly the people were convinced of the necessity for putting the country in a position for defensive war. The National Defense Act (approved 3 June 1916) provided for a some what elaborate military organization. It au thorized a regular army of not to exceed 175,000 men, excluding the Philippine scouts, the en listed men of the Quartermasters corps of the Medical Department and the Signal corps. Pro visions were made for the Officers Reserve corps, for a Reserve Officers Training corps and for the 'building up of the national guard. The appropriation for the army totaled $267,596,530.
10. This was by no means satisfactory to some persons, however, for they asked for nothing less than universal military training. The naval program adopted in Congress in 1916 provided for a large increase in the navy; and an ap propriation of $313,300,555 was made, as com pared with less than half that sum appropriated for the preceding year. The three-year building plan involved the construction of over 150 ships, 10 of them battleships and 50 destroyers.
As has been said earlier in this article, not all elements of the people were eager to pre pare for war. Especially during the earlier por tion of the period under review, there were many expressions of opposition to the war spirit and even to building up the army and navy. The Women's Peace party was outspoken in its advocacy of peace and 40 delegates went from this country to the International Congress of Women at The Hague in April 1915. The Henry Ford Peace Expedition left this country in December of that year with the intention of putting an end to hostilities and accomplished nothing. The Carnegie Endowment for Inter national Peace devoted its energies partly to the publication of important documents on inter national affairs and took up various activities of a useful but uncontroversial character. The old American Peace Society was reorganized in 1916 and did a good deal in the way of dis tributing material. In addition the American Union against Militarism and various other organizations came into existence. The most powerful organization connected with the move ment for the maintenance of peaceful relations in the world was the League to Enforce Peace; its purpose, however, was not to bring about a conclusion of the existing war, but rather to promote and if possible secure the establishment of a system for assurance of lasting peace. The organization, taking its beginnings at a confer ence early in 1915, was formally founded in June of that year. The idea that there should be an international body, which should have the au thority and the power to compel a public in vestigation of controversies and differences be fore nations plunged into war, attracted wide interest. In the spring of 1916 President Wil son declared the readiness of the United States to become a partner in any feasible association of nations and at various other times gave clear indication of his sympathy with the prin ciple. In October he said that the business of neutrality was over; "Not because," he said, "I want it to be over, but I mean this, that war now has such a scale that the position of neutrals sooner or later becomes intolerable." The Republican platform of that year declared for the "pacific settlement of international dis putes and the establishing of a world court for that purpose," and Mr. Hughes in his speech of acceptance advocated international organization for international justice and to safeguard world peace. The Democratic platform contained a declaration that the world has a right to be free from every disturbance "that has its origin in aggression or in disregard of rights of peo ple and of nations," and that it was "the duty of the United States to join in any feasible association to that In the early part of 1917 President Wilson in a speech to the Senate discussed fully the general problem of world peace, which must be a peace worth keeping, "a peace that will win the approval of mankind, not merely a peace that will serve the several interests and im mediate aims of the nations engaged." He de clared it inconceivable that the people of the United States should play no part in the estab lishment of a stable peace and that "no cove nant of co-operative peace that does not in clude the peoples of the New World can suffice to keep the future safe against war." Thus, as far as the President, party platforms and the statements of party candidates could commit the nation, not to speak of many other an nouncements of opinion, the United States was committed before it entered the war, not only to peace as opposed to war for the basis of human progress, but to an abandonment of isolation and a readiness to enter into inter national organization to make secure the peace of the world. The nation could and did, there foref take up arms in April 1917 not merely to help in punishing Germany for insult and un speakable wrong, but for better conditions in the world and for lasting peace based on jus tice.