Chapter 16 15. The possibility of reuniting the United Kingdom and the United States

Today it is impossible for any country to monopolize the oceans as it did in the past.The kinship between Britain and the United States based on common blood may establish cooperation in the control of the seas, establishing the domination of the seas by the same race. The words kinship and alliance express two very different meanings; and they rest on fundamentally different grounds, as far as the sense of the rights and duties implied therein is concerned.The former refers to a natural connection, the latter is purely acquired, even though it may arise from the affections, common interests, and sense of incumbent responsibilities that accompany the former.Correspondingly, in the etymological sense of alliance one can find a sense of being subject to an artificial bond; a bond that can be both a source of strength and a source of distress.One of its counterparts in our social life is the marital bond.It is certainly the strongest of all ties when it exists in the peculiar condition of a transcendent emotion sublimated from human nature; but, as everyday experience shows, Marriage is the most debilitating thing ever, when all that has faded and withered is nothing but cold duty.

Personally, I like to believe that in recent years the goodwill between Great Britain and the United States has been slowly but surely on the rise, most recently Sir George Clark's and Sir Arthur Silva White's in the North American Review The article happily shows that this does prove that the common language and common traditions are making the two nations feel each other, and are destroying the barriers that separate the two peoples who share the same blood.What we see here is the working of kinship, the perfectly normal result of a common source, the outpouring of the natural kinship of children of the same blood.They fought and distanced themselves from each other, but both later realized that such a state was wrong and harmful.This revived emotion may attract the attention of those who observe the world's problem-making, and make them realize the extent to which imagination and emotion run the world.If, in addition to the strong emotional impulse, we have not forgotten that under the rather different political forms of the two countries there are common political traditions and habits of thought handed down from generation to generation, and that the political development of the peoples of each country is influenced by the same moral forces. Dominated and shaped by the two countries, the possibility of the two countries gradually moving towards concerted actions becomes increasingly compelling.Of all the factors that pervade European and American civilizations, nothing has been more positive than the unique combination of two fundamental but antagonistic factors, individual liberty and respect for the law.This role has been most vividly played in Great Britain and the United States, and in the only two countries which embody this combination, a method for striking the right balance between the two has been developed.Like any other nation, we oscillate between sides, leaning now one way and now the other, but never too far from normal in either direction.

It is worth noting another circumstance that exists in both countries and predisposes them to choose similar courses of action.These two countries are the only ones bathed in European civilization that are geographically separated to varying degrees from all existing adversaries to avoid the burden of huge armies; The oceans are the main conduits of communication with nations that are concerned with their nation's well-being.How much geographical isolation has shaped British history is well understood.In the case of the United Kingdom, the limited territorial size of the British Isles has unusually exacerbated an objective tendency for the people who inhabit it to seek space for action beyond their borders.On the other hand, the figures cited by Sir George Clark amply show that the same tendencies, arising from the same causes, exist and operate in the United States, despite the vastness of the country not yet fully inhabited and the large domestic production produced by the protectionist system. Consumers have caused some deviation from this trend.In short, the geographical conditions of England and America are qualitatively the same, though differing in degree; they affect both countries in the same direction.To other nations land, with its attendant privilege and glory, is the chief source of national prosperity and renown; to Great Britain and America, if they rightly estimate the part they can play in the great drama of human progress. If not, it is closely related to maritime interests.Maritime interest, understood in a broad sense, requires, as one of the conditions of its existence and functioning, a well-organized force to steer the general course of maritime affairs and maintain, when necessary, the laws governing warfare at sea.These are not only thoughts based on a sound reasoning process, but also based on the teachings of history.By exercising this power, by upholding these laws, by using only these means, England saved herself from collapse at the beginning of the nineteenth century, when she was the only maritime power.And forcefully move history in a better direction.

When the above-mentioned powerful and decisive factors work together.As the United Kingdom and the United States converge on the same path, and as the dawn of an age when passion begins to manifest itself in action, a question arises: who hail these dawn and will rejoice What current policies should countries that hasten this rosy time support? The short period of concentration in the North American Review of articles by Mr. Carnegie, Sir George Clark, and Mr. White shows that not many people have sought to answer this question.Here, although I, like some others, would like to see an alliance between Britain and America, maritime or otherwise, the present situation prevents me from conceiving this.I would rather say: let each nation be more educated to realize the extent of its maritime interests.If this is done, the alignment of their interests will become apparent.This sense of unity could not have been firmly imprinted on the minds of men without experience, the great teacher of the Yuan; and experience could not have existed were it not for the fact that it happened with that not-so-distant epoch.This is an era in which the American people must once again commit to reaching out to the seas, as their forebears did in their native land and in their new home.

But there are other problems.Against this background, both sides may currently have doubts as to the appropriate field of activity for each country, as to what is essential to the achievement of cordial cooperation; Still unwilling to secure the region in question by creating a force sufficient to be relied upon, it cannot reasonably be expected that Britain will believe we are ready for alliances, or to make concessions to us where matters are vital to its maritime power.Just because satisfactory cooperation in adjusting the roles played by each country can be based on this process, a certain amount of friction may arise, so I would not advocate trying to build alliances prematurely. Such a move to achieve the desired goal is overwhelming and may even be irritating.I prefer to stress consistently the undeniable resemblance in nature and surroundings, which belies a common blood and foretells a common destiny.Plant the seed of this thought in the soil, and it will sprout and grow: first the leaves, then the tassels, then the full fruit, and then you can reap your politics with your sickle.But right now it's clearly immature.Quietly, unobtrusively, as by a slow and natural process, emotion was kneaded into the body of the nation, the bombardment of the flag at Port Sumter, the leap of the North at the outbreak of our Civil War proved this point.The circumstances showed how deeply love for the Union and the flag had penetrated the hearts and minds of the masses.This devotion has been nurtured by a long-term commitment to belief, nurtured by countless Fourth of July speeches.These speeches were often undeniably pompous, and sometimes comical, but at a time when the northern states were under fire, the life force and overriding effect of them were vividly revealed.In the South, it was equally apparent how firmly and irresistibly the sons and daughters of the South were gripped by the consistent emphasis on the state as the object of absolute allegiance to the individual.At that time, what agreement, treaty, or alliance on paper could be used to bring together people whose ideas were so far apart and whose interests were so opposed?

As much as I firmly believe that it is in the interests of both nations and the world that the United Kingdom and the United States work together in good faith on the seas, I also believe that such a situation should not only be hoped for, but should be calmly awaited, while at the same time creating the basis upon which such genuine friendship rests conditions of development.Everyone is familiar with what the word drive process means.Some things cannot be forced, some processes cannot be urged forward; plants grow vigorously and harmoniously only as they slowly absorb the beneficial influences of the sun and air in which they are bathed.How far can excessive imagination drive a process?What is the inevitable backlash of the thoughts you intend to occupy by storm?Mr. Carnegie's "Looking Ahead" and Sir George Clarke, an ardent supporter of the Anglo-American alliance in what seems to me to be a rational rather than hasty alliance, give a pleasant account of the doubts expressed. .Britain, a country with a history full of honor and hardship, was not ready as a whole to take the extraordinary step toward reuniting with the United States, and was suddenly confronted with a final picture in which I would not Impossible, but sure to undo many of Britain's hard-earned achievements over the centuries.Disintegration, loss of national identity, rather drastic changes in institutions, the decline of a world-wide empire to the status of a subordinate part of a great federation, these may be Britain's fate in the distant future.I am sure that, if I were a British citizen, this prospect would not tempt me today to move an inch in such a direction.Undoubtedly, this net, stretched out in the view of all birds, is of no avail.

It is unreasonable to accuse Sir George Clarke and Mr White of suggesting that they only drive further away those they seek to persuade.These proposals are clear, frank, and coherent, and their premise fully considers justifiable reasons for the common interests of both countries.With regard to Sir George's proposal, I have had the privilege of being better acquainted with a close personal relationship.Its adequacy is not determined solely by genuine goodwill and broad awareness of any issue that concerns America.I can't comment much on these proposals without picking their details, other than this: I don't think the time is right now.In the hearts and minds of Americans, there is no soil for accepting the Anglo-American alliance. I also doubt whether British citizens are more psychologically prepared.Both proposals have a naval alliance between Britain and the United States in mind, although the specific propositions vary.The difficulty, however, is that the United States as a nation has not yet recognized or acknowledged that it has great interests in the seas; Limited to the three oceans that wash our eastern, western and southern coasts.For me, I believe that this perception was once true, but it can no longer be held true even for the present let alone for a future so near that it hardly needs a prophet's interpretation.If it is just a prejudice, it must be cleared out before any other action can be taken.In our country, if there is to be a stable and consistent national policy, it must be consistent with the beliefs of the public.The latter, once formed, may be silent for long periods of time; but at particular moments they can be translated into forceful action, as the actions of the North and the South in 1861, driven by a variety of factors, showed.

If Chinese people's ideology on ocean affairs does not change, they cannot think that the most powerful factors that determine the prosperity of the country and the direction of history exist on the ocean.This theme is not only important to a country, but also related to world history and the well-being of mankind.As far as we have seen so far, the fate of mankind depends on the civilizations that exist in Europe and its offshoots in America.What, then, is our European and American civilization, which is not too much admired?It is an oasis in the desert of a barbarian age, torn apart by many internal disputes, in which it is not the sophistication of the organization that is ultimately decisive, but the deterrent, effective posture of the organization with its material force, which is sufficient to resist Overwhelmingly numerous but insufficiently organized external powers to express themselves.In the present environment, Europe's considerable military power has prevented foreign invasion of Europe on the one hand and successfully dealt with its own brutality on the other hand.To the latter we give from time to time stern warnings, to which one can scarcely be deaf.We have seldom, however, given sufficient attention to the dangers of races from without, alien to the spirit of our civilization, nor have it been recognized that the attitude of armed vigilance among nations, which is now maintained by all the great powers of Europe, is the preservation of our civilization. What an important role it has.Even if we don't take into account the invaluable significance of this to a society in an age of non-subordination and anarchy, so many young people at the most stigmatized stage are taught a lesson about obedience, order, respect for law and authority education.It would still be a plausible but definitely not a mistake to think that in the hoped-for sinking of the martial spirit of the European nations there is a guarantee that the world is destined to move toward general peace, widespread material prosperity, and ease.This seductive ideal will not be realized by representative civilized nations if they lay down their arms, relax their mental tension, and change from beasts of war into fat cattle fit for slaughter.

With the fall of Carthage, without a single enemy to guard against, Rome ascended to the dominance of the civilized world of the Mediterranean.Under Rome, a general peace was gradually achieved; but it was shattered by internal social and political divisions, which also find their sinister counterparts in our war-few present age.At a time when the conflicts among the civilized nations of the Mediterranean waned, material prosperity, the abundance of common crops and luxuries, were at their height, while weapons slid feebly from their stiff arms to the ground.In the Gallic and Germanic wars the genius of Caesar erected a perimeter fence which, like a dam, has sustained through the centuries; When the obsession with wealth and general ease is what today's prophets of peace want, it falls apart.The intruders came like waves.The rain poured, the flood flooded, the wind howled, and houses and fortresses toppled under the onslaught, for its foundations were not resting upon the firm grip of iron and the fearless heart that guards the precious.

Long-lasting comfort, unhindered commerce, and the removal of hardships, all hardships removed from life, is our modern dream.But can we get these?Can we take these as the place of infatuation?Fortunately, we can't do that just yet.We can, if we choose, turn a blind eye to the mass of external beings alien to our civilization.They are weak now, because we have a higher level of material development, still retaining the spirit of Twist, which was also the chief wealth of the former.But even if we ignore them, the danger of disintegration from within has shaken the ground beneath our feet, and the only security is to be constantly vigilant against it. In the emergence, in the confrontation between various ideals, there is a martial spirit.It alone is infallible against any destructive force, external or internal, that has loomed through the centuries.

The emergence of the United States as an extremely important naval power with definite foreign intentions dictated by the requirements of its transoceanic location is not the only, or even the main, guarantee of general peace. Nor is sincere cooperation between two nations of the same origin and species.The best prospects for the whole world, which are contained in the destiny of European civilization, are not based on general harmony, nor on the hope of uninterrupted peace.This reassurance can be heard only in the competition of interests, in a revived sense of nationhood, in the decision of each people to provide for its own needs first, and the wave of protectionism sweeping the world is a clear symbol of that decision: multiple The grand institutional norms established by the heroic battles of the century have not yet been eroded.In this highly creative struggle, undeniable interests and a awakened national consciousness will lead the United States to play its part, abandoning the policy of isolation that only applied to its infancy; and realizing that, while avoiding involvement in European Human affairs had been crucial to the development of its independence, but today it takes a toil from the Europeans and a duty to preserve the common good of this civilization.Our Pacific region and the British Pacific colonies have felt with an instinctive shudder the threat that some astute Europeans sensed in the vast populations of Central and North Asia.Their swarming into the Pacific Islands shows that the torrent may not only flow westward along the land, but may also flow eastward across the sea.However, I have not delved into the details of this vast movement, which may never happen, but whose possibility under the present circumstances is clearly looming on the future horizon, the only barrier to it will be It is the martial spirit of the representative of our civilization.Whatever happens, sea power in the present age will play the part it has played in any period of history; and the United States, by virtue of its geographical location, must be one of the frontiers which give impetus to sea power in the civilized world. If by then people should be seen to be ready, they should actually understand the situation now as mentioned at the beginning of this article and act on this understanding, which can be done for emergencies that seem remote. Be prepared.Domination of the seas by means of maritime commerce and naval superiority meant decisive influence in the world, for no matter how rich the land could produce, nothing could so facilitate the necessary exchange.The fundamental fact about the ocean, perhaps more water, is that it is nature's great medium of communication.Today it is impossible for any country to monopolize the oceans as it did in the past.Like comparatively insignificant interests on land, control of the sea must be won through competition, perhaps by force.Control of the seas, the great prey over which nations contend, will, like other strife-like interests, help to animate that unwavering purpose and striving which are the hallmarks of civilized civil society. where the power lies.The unity of this society is not reflected in the simple similarity of various situations, but in the common standards of morality and thinking. Although the nations within all European civilizations have much in common, there are, as generally admitted, certain distinct differences of character which divide them into groups within each with a marked affinity based on common blood.However, as often happens on land, when the members of these groups are geographically close to each other, this proximity may act like currents of the same polarity to produce a repulsive force, making political differences the deciding factor rather than Political commonalities are left behind.On the other hand, if the frontiers are so far apart that mutual contact is so slight that political conflict does not arise, as is the case between Great Britain and the United States, the survival, development and dominance of the same race may well be the political ideal.This ideal would promote a political association, which in turn would be based more on natural kinship and an explicit recognition of the mutual benefits of working together than on artificely concocted treaty agreements.If the spirit of co-operation existed, one race would have sufficient ingenuity to furnish the necessary means for the exercise of that spirit, and England and America would find neither in the control of the seas, the salutary instrument which divides them. Objects to be harnessed alone, but perhaps capable of being dominated by the combined forces of this race.If an Anglo-American alliance does come to pass, it may be more the product of an irresistible popular voice than a project skillfully crafted by statesmen. But I do not think that we need perhaps have the oft-mentioned, and advocated by Sir George Clarke, perception that mutual support between Britain and the United States may in the future save maritime commerce in general from what it has hitherto suffered in war. intrusion received.Here I must try to express my own views with the utmost clarity, as they may appear to some to be negative, others may see them as inconsistent with the extensive, systematic treatment of the subject that I have made elsewhere Contradictory. Sir George and Mr. White advocated the establishment of an alliance between Britain and the United States. The former refers to a naval alliance, and the latter refers to a formal treaty relationship.It is true that the main feature of each's claim is to promote amity between Britain and the United States, and to prevent the emergence of divisive factors, but even this goal is pursued so that the two countries can rely on each other in case of difficulties in relations with other countries.Thus war may indeed be avoided with greater certainty; and if war should come, it will be found that the two nations are united on the sea, and thus invulnerable at sea, possessing the general situation which the sea has so far only conferred on its absolute rulers. control.In my view, the logical consequence of the Anglo-American alliance being handy is hegemony.But then, if it is high above, why make any concessions to some enemy country, and agree to the inviolability of its commerce?Sir George Clark said neither the UK nor the US could find a motive for the attack in other countries' businesses.Why can't I find it?What is the main purpose of the existence of the navy?Certainly not just for fighting each other, gaining what Yovini calls the no-nonsense glory from fighting just to beat an opponent.If, as all agree, the navy exists to protect commerce, a corollary must be that its object in war must be to deprive the enemy of abundant resources.It is hard to imagine a broader military use of the navy than to protect and disrupt trade.Sir George actually saw this, and said elsewhere that the destruction of commerce can only be considered right if it follows the principle of striking the enemy the hardest, with an eye to hastening the victory of the war.Still, I don't think he fully appreciates the importance of this restrictive concession, and neither he nor Mr. White seem to have adequately acknowledged the magnitude of commercial destruction. Both, I think, are flawed in not seeing clearly the difference between commercial sabotage as a tactic of indecision and strategic control of the seas by means of a powerful navy.All maritime nations, some more than others, base their prosperity on maritime commerce more or less on some other factor.For such a country, whether it trades with its own ships or with the ships of some neutral country, whether it conducts foreign trade or coastal trade, the sea is always the most important lifeblood, but in any form its ocean trade may be in the hands of an opponent with a decisive advantage. So, can such an opponent be expected to give up such an advantage?Will you insist on sacrificing blood and money to fight?Or would it be possible to keep a fleet, but let it do nothing of war without costing money by such obvious means as tying up an adversary and forcing her out of use of her own ports?In the war with France, the British navy not only protected its own commerce, but also struck down the commerce of the enemy, both of which were crucial to British victory. It is precisely because Britain's sea power is still superior, but compared with other countries, it is not as good as it used to be, and it is no longer unparalleled, so Britain turned to recognize the principle of inviolability of goods on ships flying the neutral flag.The concession was born of relative weakness, or perhaps of some misunderstood humanitarianism.However, whether it is appropriate or not, it can only benefit neutral countries and disadvantage powerful belligerents.In policy terms, the only reasonable explanation for this British concession is that Britain can no longer bear the additional burden of hostility as before if the neutral powers are to side with its enemies.I have said on another occasion that the principle of flag-protection of goods will never change, meaning that, from present indications, no power will ever be so powerful on the seas as to overthrow this principle by force. Likewise, it may be fairly safely asserted that a nation or ally confident of its sea power will never concede to the inappropriately called private property of some maritime adversary.The weaker sea belligerents of any era have dreamed of this.From their point of view, their arguments, which seem plausible at first glance, are convincing.Napoleon I, the great marauder, did his best and showed no mercy in pushing the principle of war to its extreme, and did not hesitate even in peacetime to supply his armies with dependent states, which in the final analysis is He feeds his army on the wealth of the private property of foreigners, but when he compares the interception of the sea cargo of his empire with the interception of a carload of goods running on an inland country road, he becomes more There are good reasons, and on the surface it seems very convincing. Beneath the plausible surface of all these arguments there is not much dubious thinking that fails to recognize that the situation is fundamentally different.Even on land, the protection of private property is based on the simple principle that damage will not be arbitrary.That is, when the purpose to be achieved is very small or very disproportionate to the harm that may be caused, the infringement of private property will not occur.For this reason personal property not invested in commercial ventures is respected in civilized naval warfare.On land, on the other hand, as we all know, the rules are not at all constant, and the expropriation and destruction of private property is not considered when it is in accordance with the intentions of some enemy state.A man who walks the high road with a club in his hand may claim that his club has all the sanctity that civilization bestows on property; but if he breaks his neighbor's head with it, the aforementioned respect for his property vanishes in an instant. up.Today, private property operating over the sea participates in the most dynamic way in enhancing the wealth and resources of the nation to which it belongs.Once the country goes to war, its so-called private property operating over the seas strengthens the country's financial strength and endurance in war, and thus inflicts damage on the adversary.Most of those familiar with warfare today are familiar with the Army's reliance on communications.We also know that threatening or striking an army's lines of communication is one of the most common and effective strategic arrangements.Why?Because once the connection with the base is cut off, an army will be exhausted and die; and once it is so direly threatened, it must fight no matter what the unfavorable situation.In this way, isn't it clear that marine commerce has the same nutritional function as an army's transportation to the strength of a maritime country?A blow to commerce is a blow to traffic in the country concerned.It cuts off its nourishment, makes it starve, cuts off the foundation of its strength, the sinews of war.Notwithstanding the sad but inevitable element of war, there is a fervent hope that commerce will be spared from the flames of war, for blows to commerce are indeed the deadliest blows that can be dealt.There was no other use for the Navy than suggested, such as bombardment of port towns, which was both crueler and less scientific.A blockade, as adopted by the U.S. Navy in the Civil War, is obviously only a special phase of commercial destruction, but how enormous will its results be! It is only through cowardly scrambling and stagnation that the commercial sabotage policy can be accused of misconduct, while the concentrated and methodical control of the oceans is undoubtedly the sure way to win.Also, a reasonable inference to be drawn from the comparison is that, just as two belligerent nations agree to insure the inviolability of the rival nation's trade, so two contending armies can agree to respect each other's lines of communication.