52 Chapter 3
- Thatdeprivingour rulersof the powerto makewar,wouldbe one of the most
effectualmeanswithinour reach,of hasteningthat period,when“nationsshallnot
lift up swordagainstnation.” - Thatresistanceto invasionis the onlywarthathas any claimto the titleof neces-
sary,and that we havelittleneedto fear its requisition.^8
Spencerthenpronouncedthat “it is our duty... to adoptall feasiblemeansof puttingan
end’ to war,‘andthatrestrictinggovernments,to the fulfillmentof theirprimitivefunc-
tions... wouldbe the mosteffectualmeansof preventingit.”^9 Accordingto the wordsin
AndrewCarnegie’s autobiography,Spencercursedhis fellow“countrymen” for being
“suchfoolsthatthe militaryandnavalelementin Britaincouldstampedethe masses,
frightenthem,andstimulatemilitarism.”^10 Onceagainto quotethe text ofSocialStatics,
SpencerreviledEnglisheffortsto “justifyour colonialaggressionsby sayingthatthe
Creatorintendsthe Anglo-Saxonraceto peoplethe world.”^11 Thissamebookdevotedan
entirechapterto denouncingEuropeanimperialism.Hither,the free-marketevolutionist
happilyforetoldthe dayon whichthisdrivefor “statecolonization”—the BritishEm-
pire’s “cravingfor widerpossessions”—wouldbe “destroyedby the convictionthat terri-
torialaggressionis as impoliticas it is unjust.”^12 Far frombeingan enemyof Mohandas
Gandhi’s, Spencerhappilyanticipatedthe day on whichthe U.K.grantedindependence
to its Asiancolonies.
ArthurA. Ekirch,Jr., ascribessociallyDarwiniansentimentsto Spencer,predictably.
But EkirchthencontradictsAsimov.EkirchcitessocialDarwinistconvictionsas the cause
behindSpencer’s incessantantiwarrhetoric.“Manynowbelieved,withHerbertSpencer,
the EnglishSocialDarwinist,thatwarwasan anachronism,incompatiblewiththe forces
of moderntechnologicaland industrialprogress.”^13 From 1879 to 1881,BritishParliament
debatedoverwhetherto invadeEgypt.Spencerleanedon everyonein his circle,includ-
ing NewLiberalandsocialistLeonardT. HobhouseandliberalMembersof Parliament,
alongwithotherintellectuals,to mounta campaignagainstthe invasion.Spencerwrote
to Darwinhimselffor publicsupport.Darwinrepliedthat he wouldnot join sucha group
or supportit publiclyuntilhe learnedwhatspecificactivitiesits campaignwouldentail,
but thathe alreadyagreedwiththe generalthrustof Spencer’s argument.^14 Sufficeit to
say thatSpencerianthoughtwasfar fromthe militaristicjingoismthatAsimovcarps
about.
Andwhatdid other“Spencerians” haveto say aboutmilitarism?CarlSchurz,the
aforementionedUnionsoldierandfan of Spencer’s, vehementlyopposedthe forcible
annexationof foreignlandsto the UnitedStates.Consider,fromthe previouschapter,that
Schurzcameto this positionas a resultof ferventlyagreeingwithwhatSpencerhad said
on the subject.As a U.S.Senator,SchurzvotedagainstPresidentUlyssesS. Grant’s
(1822–1885)initiativesto annexthe DominicanRepublic,whichwasthenknownas Santo
Domingo.BarryWerthwritesthis of the Spencerian’s clashwiththe president.“Grant
wantedthe islandnationnot just for its richresourcesand marketsbut alsoas a redoubt
againstBritishand Frenchadventurismin the Caribbean,as wellas an inroadfor further
‘necessary’ expansionin the regionand an outletfor freedmendrivenout of the South.”
But,Schurz“denouncedthe schemeas an imperialistlandgrab,anathemato partyand
nationalprinciples.A memberof the Committeeon ForeignRelations,he revealedin
publichearingsthat Grant’s aideand a friendstoodto makea fortunethroughannexation
andhadsecretlypledgedto keepSantoDomingo’s corruptrulerin powerwithmilitary
support.... AlongwithcommitteechairmanCharlesSumner,Schurzmaneuveredto
thwartthe treaty,presentingGrantwiththe mostembarrassingchallengeof his presiden-
cy.” Schurzoratedon the floorof Congress,“Supposewe annexthe DominicanRepublic,
will therebe an end to our acquisitions?HavingSan Domingo,Cubaand PortoRico,you