246 Force and the Social Structure 



war. Even in times of peace the recent history 

 of the clashes between the miHtary and civil 

 authorities in the Dreyfus affair in France, the 

 Zabern incident in Germany, and in the Ulster 

 crisis in England illustrates the difficulty which the 

 civil authorities find in trying to subject military 

 power to democratic control. In America the 

 fundamental opposition between democracy and 

 militarism has been emphasized by President 

 Wilson in his message to Congress, December 

 8, 1914, in which he said: 



Allow me to speak with great plainness and direct- 

 ness upon this great matter, and to avow my convic- 

 tions with deep earnestness. I have tried to know 

 what America is, what her people think, what they 

 are, what they most cherish and hold dear. I hope 

 that some of their finer passions are in my own heart 

 — some of the great conceptions and desires which 

 gave birth to this government and which have made 

 the voice of this people a voice of peace and hope and 

 liberty among the peoples of the world, and thus 

 speaking my own thoughts, I shall, at least in part, 

 speak theirs, however plainly and inadequately, upon 

 this vital matter. . . . 



From the first we have had a clear and a settled policy 

 with regard to military establishment. We never have 

 had, and while we retain our present principles and 

 ideals, we never shall have, a large standing army. 



Not all military officers are militarists, and 

 there are, of course, many militarists outside the 

 military profession. MiHtarism is essentially a 



