Why Not?
No prospective change in social conditions indicates any decrease in the sanctity of property. Concerning the sanctity of the ownership of property we may be growing more easy and less dogmatic in our views; but as for property itself, we are growing more and more dogmatic in claiming that it should be conserved, and that it should not be destroyed.
I think the foregoing premise is correct. Of this which follows I am certain: it is man’s nature to fight. It is his merit to fight for what he believes to be right. Courage and bravery are not achieved by hiring a lawyer. A man who is not willing to fight to the death for the right or for his own is not as good or complete a man as one who is willing. But opinions about this are not so important as the fact that it is man’s nature to fight, and that neither resolutions nor legislation nor provision to get over all kinds of trouble in any other way than by fighting will avail.
I claim that we cannot change human nature in this respect, and that whether we like the idea or not we shall always have wars occasionally. At least, we shall have them for more generations than any of us has fingers and toes; and that is long enough. It is, therefore, properly our business so to modify war that it shall not be so destructive to life and property; and if we do this we shall have made a great step in advance. To meet together, a few of us, the ladies with their smelling-salts and we gentlemen with our twinges of rheumatism, and to resolve that we do not countenance war, may give us satisfaction, but it does not do anything else. The nations continue to build dreadnoughts, to train men to war, and to invent engines to destroy life and property.
War is now carried on in an uncivilized manner. It is fought as if all participants were savages. What is politely called strategy is taking the enemy unawares and not giving him a fair show. Formerly, when two men had a quarrel they settled their differences in the way of modern warfare. But now, whenever one man stabs another in the back, or men shoot each other at sight because of a grievance or an agreement that they are enemies, we justly say that they are uncivilized; and in the measure that they fall upon one another like wild beasts, we declare that they render uncivilized the communities in which they live. On the other hand, where the Code Duello exists, and the civilization is of a high order, there is a Court of Honor to determine among gentlemen of similar connections, whether the challenge is justified or not, and something of the conditions under which the fight shall take place. Unfair conditions are not allowed, seconds and an umpire are insisted upon, as well as the presence of surgeons, to prevent unnecessary loss of life. A duel, fought under the code, is a more civilized proceeding than a Kentucky shooting. Let us see if civilization might not invent similar amenities for a fight between nations.
We must first take for granted a material advance over our present civilization, — enough to provide greater comity among nations. The Hague Tribunal would need to be an efficient court, and to this should be added an International Police Force, equipped with every implement of modern warfare, with unlimited powers of destruction and stronger than the war force of any single nation. Now, it would not be reasonable for an International Police Force to be intrusted with such powers unless the nations maintaining it were to have the right to settle their affairs among themselves. Otherwise, whichever nation, royal house, coterie, junta, or band should gain control of the International Police would have too much power and would be susceptible to the world-old disease of wanting to own the earth. The only business of the International Police would be to protect property and to maintain order.
The procedure in case of war would then be somewhat as follows. Suppose the people of Arcadia were jealous of those of Barcadia for one reason or another, or suppose some question of immigration were to arise between them, so that the Arcadians were angry with the Barcadians, and they should insult one another so insistently that they could no longer live without fighting; in short, suppose a condition immediately precedent to war to exist between them. Then, if the army of one country were to invade the domain of the other, the International Police would straightway interfere on the ground that property was being destroyed, and that the interest of all nations in the conservation of property made its destruction a crime. The army would have to withdraw before the International Police, the stronger body. But except as to maintaining order, the International Police would have no further duties. Now, imagine the feeling of the Arcadians and the Barcadians! What anger, what hatred, what desire to cut one another’s hearts out! Then must they fight,—and they will in one way or another.
Therefore, the one nation would challenge the other to war before the International Court of Honor, and this challenge would either be accepted or declined. If declined, the Court of Honor would determine whether the nation which refused to fight was warranted in so doing, and if it were wrong in refusing to back up its own actions with the sword, the Court of Honor would have the power to inflict a penalty in lands or money. An unjustified challenge would also be thrown out and a like penalty inflicted. It is unlikely, however, that a nation would refuse to fight if such an act might give reason for the charge of cowardice. Such a reputation would be harmful.
Granted, then, that Arcadia and Barcadia are resolved upon war, it should be provided that this take place only upon the International Battlefield, — a level park specially provided by the Court of Honor, possibly somewhere in Holland or Belgium. Any infringement of this order would constitute a breach of the International Peace, to be stopped immediately by the International Police. Each nation would then send five thousand of its picked men, trained in swordsmanship. Less than five thousand would hardly constitute a national body of men, and luck would play too great a part with a smaller number. Dynamite, explosives of every kind, guns, pistols, or, in short, any weapon or agency of offense or defense, excepting the sword, would be prohibited. The purpose is to civilize warfare by giving an equal chance to each side.
Firearms, as now constructed, with projectiles that penetrate a number of men, render a battle fought with them a matter of advantage and chance, and it. would not be right to leave a nation’s honor to chance. It should be determined by the valor of her sons. Now, before the opposing armies were drawn up on the battlefield, the Court of Honor would determine the outcome of the war in the event of either winning. The contentions of the opposing nations, which they refuse to solve in court and which are to be settled by the sword, would be fully considered and the outcome determined, with one result if the Arcadians win, and the other if victory is to the Barcadians.
Then, with the preliminaries arranged and the armies ready, at the word of the Umpire the two opposing forces, armed with swords and stripped to the waist, attack each other. They strike, thrust, disembowel, and fight to kill. There is neither truce nor pause until one side or the other is driven from the field, lies down, or surrenders. In respect to those who do the actual fighting, war would be more terrible than it is now. Nothing would count but swordsmanship and courage. Social distinctions between officers and common soldiers would disappear. Snobbery would meet its death-blow. And no property would be destroyed; the savings of mankind, humanity’s collective goods, would be conserved.
Neither should we be compelled to give up our heroes, under this beneficent civilization of warfare. The war spirit which we have in us so long as we are young, would not be choked or suppressed, with the hazard of setting loose more dangerous passions. It would be a great honor to be counted among a nation’s warriors, and every town and village would have its young men training in athletics to qualify. In the event of war, every man that died would be a hero, and the incentive to the native town of each hero to build a beautiful monument to him alone would be as great as if there were hundreds of names to be inscribed upon the monument.
Training and practicing among the young men would encourage athletics and temperate living. And those selected might well expect to find favor in the sight of young women— a fact which by general agreement seems to make life more attractive.
In short, by the introduction of the International Code Duello, war would cease to cause the destruction of property; the cost of standing armies and navies would, in time, disappear, with the exception of the quota of each nation to the support of the International Police; human nature would not be perverted by the inhibition of one of the normal instincts of man, namely, the fighting instinct; and war, which cannot be averted, would involve more valor and fewer deaths. It. would be a step in advance.
To those to whom the word duel is offensive, it may be said that to countenance duels between nations does not warrant duels between men. The standards are different. ‘ Modern Warfare ’ with its strategy, its mines, and its sneaking murder, would not be countenanced between individuals anywhere on earth, with a few exceptions, as, for instance, in some parts of Italy and the Feud Districts of the United States. Nevertheless, despite the protestations of the Peace Societies, we are all of us preparing to do this same thing in a wholesale way; to prosecute ‘modern warfare’ between nations. Why not take a step in advance and provide that our fighting shall be ordered so that it shall be fair, and that true courage and valor may prevail?