III

We must not fail to distinguish the worth of the best type of anti-militarist and to value the truth of his statement.  It is curious to find Mr. Angell writing an introduction to M. Novikow’s book, for M. Novikow’s position is, in our point of view, quite different.  He does not draw the fine distinction of policing the “backward races.”  Rather, he defends the Bengalis.  Suppose their rights had never been violated, he says:  “They would have held their heads higher; they would have been proud and dignified, and perhaps might have taken for their motto, Dieu et mon droit.” ("War and Its Alleged Benefits,” p. 12.) He can be ironical and he can be warm.  Later, he writes; “The French (and all other people) should vindicate their rights with their last drop of blood; so what I write does not refer to those who defend their rights, but to those who violate the rights of others.” (Note p. 70.) He does not put by the moral plea, but says:  “Political servitude develops the greatest defects in the subjugated peoples.” (p. 79.) And he pays his tribute to those who die for a noble cause:  “My warmest sympathy goes out to those noble victims who preferred death to disgrace.” (p. 82.) This is the true attitude and one to admire; and any writer worthy of esteem who writes for peace never fails to take the same stand.  Emerson, in his essay on “War,” makes a fine appeal for peace, but he writes:  “If peace is sought to be defended or preserved for the safety of the luxurious or the timid, it is a sham and the peace will be base.  War is better, and the peace will be broken.”  And elsewhere on “Politics,” he writes:  “A nation of men unanimously bent on freedom or conquest can easily confound the arithmetic of the statists and achieve extravagant actions out of all proportions to their means.”  Yes, and by our unanimity for freedom we mean to prove it true.

CHAPTER XV

THE EMPIRE

I

With the immediate promise of Home Rule many strange apologists for the Empire have stepped into the sun.  Perhaps it is well—­we may find ourselves soon more directly than heretofore struggling with the Empire.  So far the fight has been confused.  Imperialists fighting for Home Rule obscured the fact that they were not fighting the Empire.  Now Home Rule is likely to come, and it will serve at least the good purpose of clearing the air and setting the issue definitely between the nation and the Empire.  We shall have our say for the nation, but as even now many things, false and hypocritical, are being urged on behalf of the Empire, it will serve us to examine the Imperial creed and show its tyranny, cruelty, hypocrisy, and expose the danger of giving it any pretext whatever for aggression.  For the Empire, as we know it and deal with it, is a bad thing in itself, and we must not only get free of it and not be again trapped by it, but must rather give hope and encouragement to every nation fighting the same fight all the world over.