ginning. Patience and forbearance had marked all his dealings with the Imperial German Government. Perhaps never in history had the head of a great Power reasoned so calmly, so earnestly, or for so long a time with a declared and impenitent aggressor. He had even been willing to waive points of honor which had caused wars in the past-the destruction of property, the destruction of life, plots of ministers and military attachés against the sovereignty of the United States. Germany had occasionally, as in the case of the Frye, agreed to make compensation, or had promised, as in the case of the Sussex, that an offense would not be repeated. Yet in the numerous exchanges of notes which had taken place between him and Germany's spokesmen, one thing only had become clear. Germany either deliberately would not or could not understand the meaning of the key-words employed so clearly and eloquently by the President. Germany did not comprehend or would not recognize the significance of words like law, right, freedom, justice, humanity. The diplomatic controversy had not, therefore, been able to clear up the cardinal

points at issue. It had merely set them into stronger relief, and made plain that in principles, in ideals, in all that to us makes life worth living, Germany and America were irreconcilably at odds.

Political differences, Aristotle has said, spring from small occasions, but from great causes.

So

it was here. The real causes and the real issues of the war are not to be sought in the Balkans or in the sinking of American ships. They are to be sought in certain fundamental national antagonisms. And it is in terms of these that future historians will explain the origins of the present conflict. It is too soon to pretend to do this fully or finally, but some light we shall, in the present chapter, attempt to throw on the question of why this war, which we did not wish, had to come at all. In later chapters we shall deal with the question of why it had

to come now.

I have used the word antagonisms after careful deliberation. They are not differences which admit of present or peaceful adjustment. The gulf which divides the United States and Prussia is too deep and too wide to be easily bridged,

and we must not delude ourselves into believing that in a little while, through some sea change in German psychology, the points at issue can be harmoniously resolved. The Prussian detests democracy through interest and principle; to Prussia's governing class the idea of democracy by which and in which we live as a people, is the corrosive poison which destroys great states. The German ideas on the mission of Germany, on the constitution and morality of states and on the place and function of an army are not only divergent from but absolutely incompatible with ours. Were the Prussian allowed to realize the dearest purposes for which he is now desperately fighting, and for which he is willing to sacrifice himself, there would and could be no place in the world for another nation, equal in rights and privileges with his own. Our idea is, live and let live; his idea is, live and let all others minister to your life or die. His conception is well expressed by Doctor Carl Peters, the well-known German traveller:

"Not to live and let live, but to live and direct the lives of others, that is power. To

bring peoples under our rational influence in order to put their affairs on a better footing, that is more glorious power.

But what of the good fellow we used to know, the docile, blue-eyed, fair-haired German Michel who loved his pipe and his bowl and his fiddlers three? Some such there are, to be sure, but to all intents and purposes, as coin of the realm they have gone out of circulation. For the most part they have been recalled and reminted; the government has cut a new die, has given them a new appearance and a new psychology, not Falstaffian and gemüthlich, but disciplined and heroic, and they now wear the Pickelhaube and sing Deutschland über Alles. Docile they still are, clay in the potter's hand; that is why they have changed, for they have accepted a new master, who boasts that he has power of life and death upon them, and they accept this domination, this submission to a megalomaniac prince of the house of Hohenzollern. Why this is so and under what unhappy compulsion such a change has taken place will be later abundantly evident.

But, you

will say, will this not end of its own

impossibility? -even the Russians revolted. Yes, but the German people will not revolt. Not only have they learned the habit of submission through the penalties of protest, but their belief in their rulers and in themselves as God's chosen people, destined to inherit and redeem the earth, has been so subtly and persistently instilled into them that they accept the rigorous control of their masters as a part of their great mission. It they did not they would have revolted long ago under that tyranny tempered by success, the rule of force and fraud of Bismarck. Perfect embodiment of the Prussian spirit, avatar of Frederick and the Great Elector, he was worshipped by all Prussians, has become the hero of most Germans and, alas, of some Americans. Under this Machiavellian hero, Germany was rising to the moral heights which made it possible to applaud the dishonest Ems Despatch which caused the FrancoPrussian War. But he was the true servant of the house of Hohenzollern, died a prince, full of years and honors, and in Prussia his spirit goes marching on. Under the influence of a more compelling idea than Bismarck ever had in his