In Ten Years | AdventAI

International Religious Liberty Association · Chicago, Illinois · Jul 5, 1900

FromThe American Sentinel, The Sentinel of Liberty, Vol. 15, No. 26.

In Ten Years.

(From the Springfield Republican, June 26.)

To see how fast we are moving, it is necessary sometimes to cast a short backward glance. One grows so quickly accustomed to daily news of war that it is easy to forget how new a thing it is in our time. To-day it seems hardly believable that only a few years ago the world was at peace, and peace-lovers were not without excuse for believing that a brighter, sweeter era was at hand than any this blood-soaked planet had ever known. War seemed a remote possibility; peace seemed the normal and natural thing. To see how far we have moved from that tranquil time, it is only necessary to turn back to a newspaper of, say 10 years ago, and compare it with one of to-day. The contrast is

OVERWHELMING, APPALLING.

The Republican of Wednesday, June 25, 1890, was not so large as the paper of the present day, but it gave in compact form the news that was of most import. Much space was given to college commencements, several columns were devoted to the speeches of George M. Stearns and Attorney-General Waterman on the West-end street railroad case. From Washington came the news that Wyoming was soon to be admitted as a state. There was but one paragraph of military news, to the effect that appropriations for navy-yard improvements and for extra tools at the Boston navy-yard had been struck out by the committee of Congress! Tranquil domestic news was not lacking, and peace prevailed, even in the brief announcement that the men on the Canadian fishery protection cruisers were to be armed with batons, instead of cutlasses. The sugar trust was already making trouble, and Quay was pulling the strings for the Pennsylvania convention. A new record for baseball throwing was made, and John L. Sullivan was fined $500, no doubt very properly. The only item of old-world news which was sufficiently important to be given a place in a crowded paper, ten years ago yesterday, was a four-line paragraph to the effect that Mme. Sarah Bernhardt had accidentally taken an overdose of chloral. Nor did any of the editorials mention any foreign topic, except the action of Newfoundland in regard to the purchase of bait. How dull and disappointing such a day's news would be to the reader of to-day, whose appetite is whetted with daily horrors from all quarters of the world!

TO COMPLETE THE CONTRAST.

It is only necessary to analyze the contents of yesterday's Republican. The principal news page was given up almost exclusively to war—to four different wars. We read of “North China ablaze,” of Minister Wu's opinions on the war, of the supposed safety of our people in Pekin, of the rise of the Boxers in Canton, of the rumored killing of a missionary, of the shipping of vast stores of ammunition to China, of the departure of marines from Washington, of the part of England and the United States in the war, and that of Germany and Russia, of the sailing of the 6th cavalry, of the killing of four Americans in an ambuscade, of the sailing of the cruiser Brooklyn, of the transfer of the headquarters of the Asiatic squadron, of the plans of the war department, of our ex-minister's views on the war, of the rescue of a missionary, of the sailing of a Russian cruiser, and the augmentation of the Indian army bound for China, of pressure brought to bear on Turkey, of England's war with the Ashantis, of Gen. Buller's progress in South Africa, and the raids of the Boers, of the departure of Boer envoys, of the war with a mob in St. Louis, of Gen. MacArthur's dealings with the Filipinos, and the movements of American garrisons in the island of Samoa. There is barely room in this appalling record of bloodshed for a brief statement to the effect that some 19,000,000 people are starving to death in India. There is much peaceful news, too, baccalaureate sermons, sermons from local pulpits, the happenings of the day—but the dominant note is war, one sensation topping another. Whatever views one may have as to the justice or

necessity of any particular war, it must be agreed that the effect of living in

A CONSTANT WAR ATMOSPHERE

Is not likely to be conducive to peace. It kindles the passion for fighting, and it makes war instead of peace seem the natural and normal thing. This effect has been vastly intensified by the multiplication of newspapers and the use of telegraphy, which plunges us all daily into the midst of every war going on. A century ago the progress of a war was a matter of slow rumor; foreign nations sometimes hardly heard of one till it was over. The world has now been knit into a nervous organism, every part of which is thrilled by a local disturbance. A morbid appetite for horrors is developed, not unakin to that found in the amphitheaters of the Romans, and a day without a battle, a massacre, or an ambuscade at the very least, is disappointing. It is not hard to awaken the primitive passion for blood; the difficulty is in quelling it. It is a time for peace advocates to redouble their efforts, while apostles of the “strenuous life” may well rest for a season from their labors.

THE CONTRAST

Between the two snap-shots of the world in 1890 and 1900 throws a strong light on the pace at which the world has been moving. The view 10 years ago showed a placid, smiling river; now we see the boiling rapids of a torrent plunging toward what abyss no one knows. War has followed war with swift succession, the scene shifting from Greece to Cuba, from Cuba to the Soudan, from the Soudan to the Philippines, from the Philippines to South Africa, from there to China. What the next stroke will be, who shall say? In the tumult of new sensations it is hard to realize how far we have come, or how short a time has elapsed since an era of peace on earth, good will to men. Many a hater of war and cruelty has thought silently of the poet's bitter awakening from his dream of the golden years:— O cease! must hate and death return? Cease! must men kill and die? Cease! drain not to its dregs the urn of bitter prophecy.

Yet the chief cause for disquietude among thoughtful men, who love the arts of peace, and look on war as wicked and hateful, is not that its baleful conflagrations are breaking out in so many places, but that so many reputable men should be found to

POUR OIL ON THE FLAMES,

Teaching the young that courage and manhood and honor decay unless they periodically go out and shoot each other, that it is the duty of strong races to crush the life out of weak and backward nations and reduce all civilizations to one type. What more efficient ally could the cold, selfish greed of commercialism find? What force could so aggravate the craving for war which the world's daily butcher's bill creates? It is easy to talk lightly of “pessimism;” are the millions of people who 10 years ago hoped that the reign of peace had begun exactly satisfied with the situation since imperialism has got into the saddle?

The record of 10 years ago was dull and humdrum, but the world was moving steadily forward toward the ideal of the wise men of all ages. Can as much be said for the record of to-day?