| By Author | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Title | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Language |
|
Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ] Look for this book on Amazon Tweet |
Title: '1683-1920' - The Fourteen Points and What Became of Them—Foreign - Propaganda in the Public Schools—Rewriting the History - of the United States—The Espionage Act and How it - Worked—"Illegal and Indefensible Blockade" of the Central - Powers—1,000,000 Victims of Starvation—Our Debt to France - and to Germany—The War Vote in Congress—Truth About the - Belgian Atrocities—Our Treaty with Germany and How - Observed—The Alien Property Custodianship—Secret Will - of Cecil Rhodes—Racial Strains in American Life—Germantown - Settlement of 1683 and a Thousand Other Topics
Author: Schrader, Frederick Franklin
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "'1683-1920' - The Fourteen Points and What Became of Them—Foreign - Propaganda in the Public Schools—Rewriting the History - of the United States—The Espionage Act and How it - Worked—"Illegal and Indefensible Blockade" of the Central - Powers—1,000,000 Victims of Starvation—Our Debt to France - and to Germany—The War Vote in Congress—Truth About the - Belgian Atrocities—Our Treaty with Germany and How - Observed—The Alien Property Custodianship—Secret Will - of Cecil Rhodes—Racial Strains in American Life—Germantown - Settlement of 1683 and a Thousand Other Topics" ***
produced from images generously made available by The
Internet Archive/American Libraries.)
COPYRIGHT BY
FREDERICK FRANKLIN SCHRADER
1920
PUBLISHED BY
CONCORD PUBLISHING COMPANY
INCORPORATED
NEW YORK, U. S. A.
Illustration: Frederick Franklin Schrader (‡ signature)
“1683-1920”
The Fourteen Points and What Became of
Them--Foreign Propaganda in the Public
Schools--Rewriting the History of the
United States--The Espionage Act and
How it Worked--“Illegal and Indefensible
Blockade” of the Central Powers--1,000,000
Victims of Starvation--Our Debt to
France and to Germany--The War
Vote in Congress--Truth About
the Belgian Atrocities--Our
Treaty with Germany and How
Observed--The Alien Property
Custodianship--Secret Will
of Cecil Rhodes--Racial
Strains in American
Life--Germantown
Settlement of
1683
_And a Thousand Other Topics_
by
FREDERICK FRANKLIN SCHRADER
Former Secretary Republican Congressional Committee
and Author “Republican Campaign Text Book, 1898.”
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ │
│ Transcriber’s Notes │
│ │
│ │
│ Punctuation has been standardized. │
│ │
│ In the main text, several of the topics are not listed in │
│ alphabetical order. These have been left as printed. │
│ │
│ In the concluding Table of Contents, the alphabetical order │
│ of topics has been corrected, but no topics omitted by the │
│ author have been added. │
│ │
│ The text frequently shows quotations within quotations, all │
│ set off by double quotes. The inner quotations have been │
│ changed to single quotes for improved readability. │
│ │
│ Characters in small caps have been replaced by all caps. │
│ │
│ Non-printable characteristics have been given the following │
│ transliteration: │
│ Italic text: --> _text_ │
│ bold text: --> =text=. │
│ │
│ This book was written in a period when many words had │
│ not become standardized in their spelling. Words may have │
│ multiple spelling variations or inconsistent hyphenation in │
│ the text. These have been left unchanged unless indicated │
│ with a Transcriber’s Note. │
│ │
│ The symbol ‘‡’ indicates the description in parenthesis has │
│ been added to an illustration. This may be needed if there │
│ is no caption or if the caption does not describe the image │
│ adequately. │
│ │
│ Transcriber’s Notes are used when making corrections to the │
│ text or to provide additional information for the modern │
│ reader. These notes are not identified in the text, but have │
│ been accumulated in a single section at the end of the book. │
│ │
└────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
PREFACE
With the ending of the war many books will be released dealing with
various questions and phases of the great struggle, some of them
perhaps impartial, but the majority written to make propaganda for
foreign nations with a view to rendering us dissatisfied with our
country and imposing still farther upon the ignorance, indifference
and credulity of the American people.
The author’s aim in the following pages has been to provide a book of
ready reference on a multitude of questions which have been raised by
the war. It is strictly American in that it seeks to educate those
who need education in the truth about American institutions and
national problems.
A blanket indictment has been found against a whole race. That race
comprises upward of 26 per cent. of the American people and has
been a stalwart factor in American life since the middle of the
seventeenth century. This indictment has been found upon tainted
evidence. As is shown in the following pages, a widespread propaganda
has been, and is still, at work to sow the seeds of discord and
sedition in order to reconcile us to a pre-Revolutionary political
condition. This propaganda has invaded our public schools, and cannot
be more effectively combatted than by education.
The contingency that the book may be decried as German propaganda
has no terrors for the author, and has not deterred him from his
purpose to deal with facts from an angle that has not been popular
during the past five years. What is here set down is a statement of
facts, directed not against institutions, but men. Men come and go;
institutions endure if they are rooted in the hearts of the people.
The author believes in the sacredness and perpetuity of our
institutions. He believes in the great Americans of the past, and in
American traditions. He is content to have his Americanism measured
by any standard applied to persons who, like Major George Haven
Putnam, feel prompted to apologize to their English friends for
“the treason of 1776,” or who pass unrebuked and secretly condone
the statement of former Senator James Hamilton Lewis, that the
Constitution is an obsolete instrument.
Statements of fact may be controverted; they cannot be disproved by
an Espionage Act, however repugnant their telling may sound to the
stagnant brains of those who have been uninterruptedly happy because
they were spared the laborious process of thinking for themselves
throughout the war, or that not inconsiderable host which derives
pleasure and profit from keeping alive the hope of one day seeing
their country reincorporated with “the mother country”--the mother
country of 30 per cent. of the American people.
It is to arouse the patriotic consciousness of a part of the
remaining 70 per cent. that this compilation of political and
historical data has been undertaken.
European issues and questions have been included in so far only as
they exercised a bearing on American affairs, or influenced and
shaped public opinion, prejudice and conclusions. To the extent that
they serve the cause of truth they are entitled to a place in these
pages.
THE AUTHOR.
New York City, January, 1920.
=Allied Nations in the War.=--The following countries were at war
with Germany at the given dates:
Russia 1 August, 1914
France 3 August, 1914
Belgium 3 August, 1914
Great Britain 4 August, 1914
Servia 6 August, 1914
Montenegro 9 August, 1914
Japan 23 August, 1914
San Marino 24 May, 1915
Portugal 9 March, 1916
Italy 28 August, 1916
Roumania 28 August, 1916
U. S. A. 6 April, 1917
Cuba 7 April, 1917
Panama 10 April, 1917
Greece 29 June, 1917
Siam 22 July, 1917
Liberia 4 August, 1917
China 14 August, 1917
Brazil 26 October, 1917
Ecuador 8 December, 1917
Guatemala 23 April, 1918
Haiti 15 July, 1918
The following countries broke off diplomatic relations with Germany:
Bolivia April 13, 1917
Nicaragua May 18, 1917
Santo Domingo
Costa Rica Sept. 21, 1917
Peru October 6, 1917
Uruguay October 7, 1917
Honduras July 22, 1918
=Alsace-Lorraine.=--Dr. E. J. Dillon, the distinguished political
writer and student of European problems, in a remarkable article
printed long before the end of the war, called attention to the
general misunderstanding that prevails regarding Alsace-Lorraine.
He said that the two houses of the Legislature in Strasburg made
a statement through their respective speakers which, “however
skeptically it may be received by the allied countries, is thoroughly
relied upon by Germany as a deciding factor” in the vexatious
question affecting those provinces.
The president of the second chamber, Dr. Ricklin (former mayor of
Dammerkirch, then occupied by the French), declared solemnly in the
presence of the Stadthalter that the two provinces, while desiring
modification of their status within the German empire, also desired
their perpetuation of their present union with it.... “The people
of Alsace-Lorraine in its overwhelming majority did not desire war,
and therefore did not desire this war. What it strove for was the
consummation of its political status in the limits of its dependence
upon the German empire, and that settled, to resume its peaceful
avocations. In this respect the war has changed nothing in our
country. We make this confession aloud and before all the world. May
it be everywhere heard, and may peace be speedily vouchsafed us.”
“The speaker of the First Chamber, Dr. Hoeffel,” continues Dr.
Dillon, “also made a pronouncement of a like tenor, of which this is
the pith: ‘Alsace-Lorraine particularly has felt how heavily the war
presses upon us all, but selfless sacrifice is here, too, taken for
granted. Our common task has knit the imperial provinces more closely
together than before, and has also drawn more tightly their links
with the German Empire.’”
Under date of January 17, 1917, Mayor North, of Detweiler, was quoted
in the press of that day: “Alsace-Lorraine needs no liberator. After
the war, I am confident, it will know how to guard its interests
without the interference of any foreign power. The sons of the
country have not bled and died in vain for Germany.”
North is of old Alsatian stock, as is also Former Secretary Petri of
Alsace, who said, when the issue of the war was still undecided: “In
view of the military situation, the reply of the Entente to President
Wilson’s peace note is simply grotesque. It could hardly have used
other words if the French were in Strasburg, Metz, Mayence, etc.”
At the National Congress of United Socialists, March 24, 1913,
Gustave Herve (quoting a dispatch from Brest to the New York “Times”
of the day following), declared, “Alsace was German in race and
civilization, and had been an ancient possession of Germany. One of
the provinces naturally belonged to Germany and the other to France.”
Francis de Pressense, ex-deputy, declared: “Time has done its work.
Alsace-Lorraine no longer wants to return to French rule.”
The last election to the Reichstag before the war showed that
only 157,000 out of a total vote of 417,000 voted for “protesting
candidates,” while 260,000 voted as Germans, not as separatists.
Though forced to live several generations under French rule, it must
be observed that the people of Alsace-Lorraine never ceased to be
Germans. The proper mother tongue of a people is that in which it
prays. The most distinguished Catholic pulpit orator of Alsace in
the last century, Abbe Muhe, who died in 1865, was able only once in
his life to bring himself to preach in French; and Canon Gazeau, of
Strasburg Cathedral, published in 1868 an “Essai sur la conversation
de la langue Allemagne en Alsace,” in which, in the interest of
religion and morals, he energetically resisted the attempt to
extirpate German speech.
The population of Alsace, with the exception of the rich and
comfortable, in its thoughts, words and feeling was thoroughly
German. In a petition which was addressed in 1869 to the Emperor
Napoleon by people of German Lorraine, we read as follows: “O, sir!
How many fathers and mothers of families who earn their bread in the
sweat of their brow impose upon themselves the pious but none the
less heavy duty of teaching their children the catechism in German by
abridging in the winter evenings their own needful hours of sleep.”
In 1869 a radical journal was established by prominent republicans
of Muhlhausen in the interest of propagating agitation against the
French empire among the laboring people. This paper appeared only
in the German language, and justified this course in the following
words: “Because the majority, yes, the very large majority, of the
Alsatian people is German in thought, in feeling, in speech; receives
its religious instruction in German; loves and lives according to
German usages, and will not forget the German language.”
The boundary established in 1871 was the true national and racial
boundary, which had been destroyed by Louis XIV when Germany,
after the Thirty Years War, was too weak to defend it, but which
remained the boundary in the hearts of those on both sides until
the French Revolution, when executions, deportations and process
of ruthless extermination finally broke the spirit of resistance
in the population and made it succumb in order to save itself from
extinction.
The attempt of the French to control the Rhine regions, though
continued for centuries, has been a failure. “To one who has been
through the documents,” writes Raymond D. B. Cahill, in “The Nation”
for July 26, 1919, “an astounding thing is the French picture of
their former experience in ruling the Rhinelands. The student of
that period sees little which should encourage the French to attempt
a repetition of that experiment. Indeed, he is impressed with
the futility of the nation’s attempt to absorb a people of quite
different culture. Although dealing with a people still unawakened by
German patriotism, the French found eighteenth century Rhinelanders
so different, so attached to their own customs and religion, that it
took many years to overcome their resistance.”
It will again require the guillotine, the firebrand and the methods
of violence employed during the French revolution to convert
Alsace-Lorraine into a French possession. France has decisively
declined to submit the question of the annexation to a plebiscite.
The beautiful dream about the “redemption of our lost sons” has
proved a delusion; hundreds of thousands of citizens have been
transported by France in order to blot out the appearance that
there was discontent. Abbe Wetterlé, once a member of the German
Reichstag, and one of the leaders of the pro-French movement, in his
lectures, compiled in his book, “Ce qu était l’Alsace-Lorraine et
ce quelle cera; l’edition Francaise illustrée,” Paris, 1915, said:
“Soldiers who had participated in the battles of 1914 and had invaded
Alsace-Lorraine, returned painfully disappointed. They reported, and
their stories agreed in establishing them as reliable, that the civil
population of the annexed provinces had betrayed them in the most
outrageous manner.”
General Rapp, a descendant of Napoleon’s famous marshal, whose
family has been a resident of the province for 600 years, in a
manifesto signed by him as a member of the “Executive Committee of
the Republic of Alsace-Lorraine,” and addressed to Sir James Eric
Drummond, general secretary of the League of Nations, says: “We,
the representatives of the sovereign people of Alsace-Lorraine,
protest in the name of our people against the systematic ruin of
our homeland. The French government has usurped the sovereignty of
Alsace-Lorraine. The sovereign people of Alsace-Lorraine was not
consulted concerning the constitutional status of the future. We,
representing our people, personifying its sovereignty, assume the
right to speak for the interests of the people of Alsace-Lorraine
before the League of Nations. We are standing today at the parting
of the ways in our history. The hour has come when the people are
asking, ‘Shall it be revolution or self-determination?’ Before that
question is decided we appeal to the good sense of the world, which
must know that until the Alsace-Lorraine question is solved beyond
the limits of our country, two great nations will never know peace.”
This manifesto, dated Basel, August 25, 1919, informs the world that
millions of francs were taken out of the treasury of the French
government to finance the reception committee of President Poincare
and Premier Clemenceau in every city in Alsace-Lorraine, and for the
payment of agents to inflame manifestations of joy, finding vent in
shouts of “Vive la France;” that wagonloads of decorations for the
receptions, French flags, banners and torches and Alsatian costumes
especially manufactured in Paris, were imported for the occasion.
The meager dispatches which reach the public in spite of the iron
hand of suppression which is wielded in Alsace-Lorraine teem with
accounts of anti-French demonstrations and the arrest and deportation
of citizens. The police in October were reported exercising a hectic
energy in searching houses in Strasburg; all business houses were
directed to discharge their German employes, by order of Commissary
General Millerand. Hundreds of persons were arrested in Rombach,
Hagendingen and Diedenhoefen. The people were taken in automobiles to
Metz, and after passing the night in the citadel, were deported over
the bridge at Kehl the next day.
A dispatch of October 27, 1919, says: “Another trainload of wounded
Frenchmen has arrived at the main station at Mayence. They are said
to come from the Saar Valley and Alsace-Lorraine. It is reported
of the revolt in the Saar that the men sang, ‘We will triumph over
France and die for Germany.’ The band which played ‘Die Wacht am
Rhein’ and ‘Deutschland Ueber Alles’ was subjected to a heavy fine,
which was immediately paid by a leading industrial, in consequence of
which the commandant was relieved of his office.” In Sulzbach, on the
Saar, the French issued the following proclamation:
“‘Every person guilty of uttering shouts or grinning at a
passing troop will be arrested and brought before a court
martial for insulting the army. Every German official with
cap or arm-emblem who refrains from saluting officers will
be arrested and after an examination will be released.
His name will be reported to general headquarters of the
division.’”
In the new electoral orders, 30 per cent. of the population of
Alsace-Lorraine is disfranchised. The voters are divided into three
classes, consisting of persons of French birth or pure French
extraction; second, of children born of mixed marriages. In this
class those only have the franchise who are the sons of French
fathers married to German mothers. The third class, consisting of
voters having a German father and an Alsatian mother, are completely
disfranchised.
France is proceeding in Alsace-Lorraine as the English did in Acadia.
“The Nation” of September 6, 1919, indicates the measures in the
following article:
Military measures for the punishment of troublesome French
citizens of Alsace-Lorraine are quoted in the following
extract from “L’Humanité” of July 16:
“Citizen Grumbach spoke on Sunday, before the National
Council, of the order issued recently at Strasbourg
by M. Millerand, a decree under which any citizen of
Alsace-Lorraine who notably appeared to be an element of
disorder would be immediately turned over to the military
authorities.
“This abominable decree, whose existence Grumbach thus
revealed, is now known in its entirety. It is to be found
in ‘The Official Bulletin of Upper Alsace,’ No. 25, June
21, 1919. Its title is ‘Decree Relative to Citizens of
Alsace-Lorraine in Renewable Detachment’ (sic). Order is
given to the municipalities to draw up lists of citizens of
Alsace-Lorraine in renewable detachment.
“And here is what Article 2 of this strange decree says:
“1. Every citizen of Alsace-Lorraine whose class has not
yet been demobilized in France, and who notably appears to
be a disorderly element, shall be immediately, upon the
order of the Commandant of the District, arrested by the
police and turned over to the military authorities.
“His papers will be sent by the Commandant to the
commanding general of the territory, who, after inquiry,
will command the return of the arrested man:
“To his old organization if he was a volunteer in the
French army;
“To the Alsace-Lorraine depot in Paris if he is a former
prisoner of the Allied armies, or a liberated German
soldier.
“2. Citizens of Alsace-Lorraine whose class has been
demobilized in France.
“Any of these men who notably appears to be a disorderly
element shall be arraigned by request of the Commissaries
of the Republic before the Commission de Triage under the
same classification as undesirable civilian citizens of
Alsace-Lorraine.
“Strasbourg, 24 May, 1919.
“Commissary General of the Republic,
“A. MILLERAND.”
After this, who can be scandalized by the vehement
criticisms directed at the National Council by Grumbach,
against the state of siege and of arbitrary rule which the
Government of the Republic imposes upon Alsace-Lorraine?
Does M. Clemenceau, that “old libertarian” know the
decree of Millerand? In any case it is important to know
that this decree is not aimed at the Germans residing in
Alsace-Lorraine, but at the citizens of Alsace-Lorraine of
Category A, those indisputably French. Incredible, yet true!
=Americans Not An English People.=--Careful computation made by Prof.
Albert B. Faust, of Cornell University, shows that while the English,
Scotch and Welsh together constituted 30.2 per cent. of the white
population of the United States of the whole of 81,731,957, according
to the census of 1910, the German element, including Hollanders, made
up 26.4 per cent. of the total, and constituted a close second, the
Irish coming next with a percentage of 18.6.
Total white population in the U. S. proper, 1910 81,731,957 100%
English (including Scotch and Welsh, about
3,000,000) 24,750,000 30.2
German (including Dutch, about 3,000,000) 21,600,000 26.4
Irish (including Catholic and Protestants) 15,250,000 18.6
Scandinavian (Swedish, Norwegian, Danish) 4,000,000 4.8
French (including Canadian French) 3,000,000 3.6
Italian (mostly recent immigration) 2,500,000 3.
Hebrew (one-half recent Russian) 2,500,000 3.
Spanish (mostly Spanish-American) 2,000,000 2.4
Austrian Slavs (Bohemian and Moravian, old
Slovac, etc., recent) 2,000,000 2.4
Russians (Slavs and Finns one-tenth) 1,000,000 1.2
Poles (many early in 19th Century) 1,000,000 1.2
Magyars (recent immigration) 700,000 .8
Balkan Peninsular 250,000 .3
All others (exclusive of colored) 1,181,957 2.1
According to this table, more than twenty-six Americans out of every
hundred are of German origin and about thirty out of every hundred
only are either of English, Scotch or Welsh descent. Recent writers,
like Dr. William Griffis, and Douglas Campbell (“The Puritan in
Holland, England and America”) have vigorously disputed the theory
that the Americans are an English people. As Prof. Faust shows,
only 30.2 per cent. of the mixed races of the United States are
of English origin, while nearly 70 per cent. are of other racial
descent. Dr. Griffis wisely declares: “We are less an English nation
than composite of the Teutonic peoples,” and the great American
historian, Motley, declared: “We are Americans; but yesterday we were
Europeans--Netherlanders, Saxons, Normans, Swabians, Celts.”
“She (England) has a conviction that whatever good there
is in us is wholly English, when the truth is that we
are worth nothing except as far as we have disinfected
ourselves of Anglicism.” James Russell Lowell in “Study
Windows.”
“Most American authors and all Englishmen who have written
on the subject, set out with the theory that the people
in the United States are an English race, and that their
institutions, when not original, are derived from England.
These assumptions underlie all American histories, and they
have come to be so generally accepted that to question
them seems almost to savor of temerity.... Certainly =no
intelligent American can study the English people as he
does those of the Continent, and then believe that we are
of the same race, except as members of the Aryan division
of the human family, with the same human nature=.”--Douglas
Campbell. “The Puritan in Holland, England and America,”
Chapter I.
“The Germans were among the earliest and the most numerous of
American settlers. The Anglo-Saxons are the acknowledged masters of
the earth. The bulk of the early immigrants were of these two stocks.
Examine the matter from any angle, and it is apparent that the
American people are the direct, immediate descendants of world empire
builders.
“The American colonies were all settled by British, French, Germans,
Spanish and other inhabitants of the north and west of Europe. The
central and western Europeans played no part in the early history of
the colonies. Colonial ancestry means the ancestry of the world’s
conquering peoples.
“Immigration during most of the nineteenth century was from the same
portion of Europe. The immigration records (kept only since 1820)
show that between that year and 1840 the immigrants from Europe
numbered 594,504, among whom there were 358,994 from the British
Isles [including, of course, the Irish--Editor] and 159,215 from
Germany, making a total from the two countries of 518,209, or 87 per
cent. of the immigrants arriving in the 20-year period. During the
next 20 years (1840-1860) the total of immigrants from Europe was
4,050,159, of whom the British Isles furnished 2,385,846, and Germany
1,386,392, making for these two countries 95 per cent. of the whole.
Even during the 20 years from 1860 to 1880, 82 per cent. of the
immigrants to the United States from Europe hailed from the British
Isles and from Germany. During the most of the nineteenth century
European immigration was overwhelmingly British and German.
“Nearly nine-tenths of the early immigrants to the United States came
from these countries. They and the countries immediately adjoining
them furnished practically all of the men and women who settled
in North America from the earliest days of colonization down to
1880--the beginning of the last generation. The American race stock
is built around the stock of Great Britain and Germany.”--Prof. Scott
Nearing.
(See “The German Element in American Life,” elsewhere.)
Whatever racial prejudice and political bias may attempt to do,
philosophers and thinkers know that from the German race emanated the
ideals of freedom and personal liberty which is the heritage of the
whole world. To that great French thinkers, Montesquieu, Guizot and
others have candidly testified, as have Englishmen, such as Hume and
Carlyle. In describing the battle of Chalons in his standard work,
“The Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World,” Prof. E. S. Creasy says:
In order to estimate the full importance of the battle
of Chalons we must keep steadily in mind who and what
the Germans were and the important distinction between
them and the numerous other races that assailed the Roman
Empire; and it is to be understood that the Gothic and
Scandinavian nations are included in the German race. Now,
in two remarkable traits the Germans differed from the
Sarmatic as well as from the Slavic nations, and indeed
from all those other races to whom the Greeks and Romans
gave the designation of barbarians. I allude to their
personal freedom and regard for the rights of men; secondly
to the respect paid by them to the female sex and the
chastity for which the latter were celebrated among the
people of the North. These were the foundations of that
probity of character, self-respect and purity of manners
which may be traced among the Germans and Goths even
during pagan times, and which, when their sentiments were
enlightened by Christianity, brought out those splendid
traits of character which distinguish the age of chivalry
and romance. (See Prichard’s “Researches Into the Physical
History of Man.”) What the intermixture of the German stock
with the classic, at the fall of the western empire, has
done for mankind may be best felt, with Arnold (Arnold’s
“Lectures on Modern History”) over how large a portion
of the earth the influence of the German element is now
extended.
It affects more or less the whole west of Europe, from the
head of the Gulf of Bothnia to the most southern promontory
of Sicily, from the Oder and the Adriatic to the Hebrides
and to Lisbon. It is true that the language spoken over a
large portion of this space is not predominantly German;
but even in France and Italy and Spain the influence of the
Franks, Burgundians, Visigoths, Ostrogoths and Lombards,
while it has colored even the language, has in blood
and institutions left its mark legibly and indelibly.
Germany, the low countries, Switzerland for the most part,
Denmark, Norway and Sweden, and our own islands, are
all in language, in blood and institutions, German most
decidedly. But all South America is peopled with Spaniards
and Portuguese; all North America and Australia with
Englishmen. I say nothing of the prospects and influence of
the German race in Africa and in India; it is enough to say
that half of Europe and all of America and Australia are
German, more or less completely, in race, in language, in
institutions or in all.
It has been extravagantly modish to distort ethnological facts and
set up new gods, but the assailants of the German race have not
been able successfully to deny that tremendous influence which has
given birth to the free institutions of the world, and there are
not wanting among Americans of authority those who have been openly
outspoken for the truth. President Garfield in his article on “My
Experiences as a Lawyer” in the “North American Review” for June,
1887, p. 569, observed, alluding to a speech made by him on the death
of his friend, Representative Gustav Schleicher of Texas in 1879:
“We are accustomed to call England our fatherland. It is a
mistake; one of the greatest of modern historians writing
the history of the English people has said that England
is not the fatherland of the English-speaking people, but
Germany. I go into that and say, ‘The real fatherland of
the people of this country is Germany, and our friend who
has fallen came to us direct from our fatherland, and, not,
like the rest of us, around by the way of England.’ Then I
give a little sketch of German character, and what Carlyle
and Montesquieu said, that the British constitution came
out of the woods of Germany.”
In a like manner Charles E. Hughes, while governor of New York State,
in a speech at Mount Vernon in 1908, said:
Did you ever think that a very large portion of our people,
despite their present distinction of home and birthplace,
and even nationality, are descended from those common
ancestors who a few years ago lived their life in the
German forests? There were nourished the institutions of
freedom; and if any one were to point to any place in the
world to which, above all, we trace our free institutions,
we would point, above all, to the forests of Germany.
=Americans Saved from Mexican Mob at Tampico by German Cruiser
“Dresden.”=--The destruction of the little German cruiser “Dresden”
by the British in the neutral waters of Chili, in March, 1915, must
call up sentimental memories in the hearts of certain Americans.
For it was the gallant little “Dresden” under command of Capt. von
Koehler, that saved the lives of hundreds of American refugees who
were surrounded by a bloodthirsty mob of Mexicans at the Southern
Hotel, Tampico, Mexico, April 21, 1914. These fugitives had gathered
from all parts of Mexico, expecting to be protected by the American
battleships in Tampico Bay. But by some criminal short-sightedness
the American ships were ordered to withdraw, and the Americans at
the Southern Hotel were exposed to immediate death by a raging mob,
when Capt. von Koehler entered upon the scene and threatened to lay
Tampico in ashes if the mob did not disperse in fifteen minutes.
He then sent a squad of his blue jackets ashore and extricated
the besieged people from their dangerous position. Two American
yachts, hoisting the German and English flags, carried the refugees
to a place of safety. Capt. von Koehler’s gallantry was publicly
acknowledged by Secretary of State Bryan. A special dispatch to
the New York “Times,” dated Galveston, April 27, stated that “the
officers of the battleship ‘Connecticut’ said tonight that but for
the action of the men of the German cruiser ‘Dresden’ there would
have been bloodshed on Tuesday night.” And “the refugees arriving on
the ‘Esperanza’ sent this cable dispatch to the German Emperor:
“To your officers and men we owe our lives and pledge our
lifetime gratitude. We salute you and the noble men of your
Empire.”
=Armstadt, Major George.=--After the sack of Washington, the burning
of the White House and the Capitol, in 1812, the British proceeded
to attack Baltimore. This action brought into great prominence
two Americans of German descent. General Johann Stricker, born in
Frederick, Md., in 1759, was in command of the militia, and Major
George Armstadt commanded Fort McHenry. He was born in New Market
in 1780 of Hessian parents. “If Armstadt had not held Fort McHenry
during its terrific bombardment by the British,” writes Rudolf Cronau
in “Our Hyphenated Citizens,” a valuable little brochure, “our
national hymn, ‘The Star Spangled Banner,’ most probably would never
have been written.”
=American School Children and Foreign Propaganda.=--The tendency
in some directions to picture George III as “a German King,” in
order to shift upon the shoulders of a historical manikin the
responsibility for the American Revolutionary War, has gone so far
as to attempt to blind the unthinking masses to the truth about
our war of independence; but it should be remembered that if the
responsibility rested wholly with this alleged “German King,” then
Washington, Jefferson and Franklin deceived the American people and
the Declaration of Independence was a lie. In that event we have
lived 140 years of our history under a delusion and a fiction. It
is eminently to the interest of English propaganda to create and
strengthen this impression, and it is regrettable that no organized
opposition has developed to the attempt to inculcate into the minds
of our school children the conception that but for this German King
we should still be a contented colony of the British crown.
How is this fiction fostered?
Largely through the medium of certain important book publishers,
who print school books, though the public is ignorant of the fact
that the majority of these publishing houses are financed either
by British or American circles closely intermarried or financially
related to English houses.
The movement to rewrite the history of the United States in the
interest of England is so widespread and persistent that the chairman
of the Americanization Committee of the Massachusetts Chamber of
Commerce, in November, 1919, published an expose of his discoveries
and conclusions as to the extent of the British propaganda, in which
he said:
To work among aliens to build up respect and loyalty for
the United States while a stupendous plot is under way to
destroy the very thing which we are pleading with these
aliens to preserve is wasted effort.
In view of the efforts to burden the shoulders of George III with
the offenses that led to the Declaration of Independence while
exonerating the English people of any guilt, by representing him as a
“German King” to the uninformed minds of our school children, it is
pertinent to quote Lord Macaulay’s description of George III:
The young king was a born Englishman; all his tastes, good
or bad, were English.... His age, his appearance and all
that was known of his character conciliated public favor.
He was in the bloom of youth; his person and address were
pleasing. Scandal imputed to him no vice; and flattery
might without any glowing absurdity ascribe to him many
princely virtues.
We find nothing in Macaulay to warrant the conclusion that George,
a born Englishman in the third generation, was not complete master
of the English language, as has been alleged; and, moreover, if he
can reasonably be called a German, because of his German ancestry,
it follows that the same allegation can be reasonably preferred
against President Wilson, and that, because of his even nearer
English ancestry, he is really an Englishman and not an American--an
imputation which his partisans would declare an absurdity on its face.
A further proof of the vicious misrepresentation which describes
George III singly and alone responsible for the cause of the
Revolution is contained in the words of our forefathers themselves.
They must have known whom they were fighting, who tyrannized over
them and who were trying to subjugate them. And this is what they
said to the world:
In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for
redress in the most humble terms. Our repeated petitions
have been answered only by repeated inquiry.... Nor have
we been wanting in attention to our =British brethren=. We
have warned them from time to time of attempts by =their
legislature= to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction
over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of
our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to
their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured
them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these
usurpations. =They, too=, have been deaf to the voice of
justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce
in the necessity which denounces our separation, and hold
=them=, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in
peace friends.
=American School Children and English Propaganda.=--The Encyclopedia
Britannica says: “The notion that England was justified in throwing
on America part of the expenses caused in the late war =was popular
in the country=.... George III, who thought that the first duty of
the Americans was to obey himself, =had on his side the mass of the
unreflecting Englishmen= who thought that the first duty of all
colonists was to be useful and submissive of the mother country....
When the news of Burgoyne’s surrender at Saratoga arrived in 1777,
subscription of money to raise new regiments poured freely in.”
It is not enough to disprove the absurd statement that the English
people had no responsibility for the stamp act and the oppressions
that were practiced against the American colonies, and that all
these evils were the work of George III; it is vital for the
American people to recognize the danger of the ultimate aim of the
Anglo-American publishers who are supplying the public schools
with histories in which the English are exalted and the Germans
represented as our immemorial enemies, all contrary evidence
notwithstanding. (See under “Frederick the Great,” elsewhere.)
Edward F. McSweeney, of the Americanization Committee of the
Massachusetts Chamber of Commerce, in tracing the baleful propaganda,
calls attention to a Fourth of July demonstration in London in 1917,
during which George Haven Putnam, himself a native of London, head of
one of the largest book publishing houses in this country, made the
following observations:
The feelings and prejudices of the Americans concerning
their transatlantic kinsfolk were shaped for my generation,
as for the boys of every generation that has grown up
since 1775, on text books and histories that presented
unhistorical, partisan and often distorted views of the
history of the first English colonies, of the events of the
Revolution, of the issues that brought about the War of
1812-15, and the grievances of 1861-1865.
The influence of the British element in our population has
proved sufficiently strong to enable the English-Americans
to bring it under control and to weld it into a nation
that, in its common character and purposes, =is English=.
=Text books are now being prepared which will present
juster historical accounts of the events of 1775-83,
1812-15 and 1861-65.=
Americans of today, looking back at the history with a
better sense of justice and a better knowledge of the
facts than was possible for their ancestors, are prepared
to recognize also that their great-grandfathers had
treated with serious injustice and with great unwisdom the
loyalists of New York and of New England, who had held to
the cause of the Crown.
It is in order now to admit that the loyalists had a fair
cause to defend, and it was not to be wondered at that many
men of the more conservative way of thinking should have
convinced themselves that =the cause of good government
for the colonies would be better served by maintaining the
royal authority and by improving the royal methods than
by breaking away into the all-dubious possibilities of
independence=.
I had occasion some months back when in Halifax to
apologize before the great Canadian Club, to the
descendants of some of the men who had in 1776 been
forced out of Boston through the illiberal policy of my
great-grandfather and his associates. My friends in Halifax
(and the group included some of my cousins) said that the
apology had come a little late, but that they were prepared
to accept it. They were prepared to meet more than half way
the Yankee suggestion.
During the present sojourn in England I met in one of the
Conservative clubs an old Tory acquaintance, who, with
characteristic frankness, said:
“Major, I am inclined to think that it was a good thing
that we did not break up your republic in 1861. =We have
need of you today in our present undertaking.=”
The methods to be followed in the pursuit of the plan to induce
us to repudiate our ancestors and their action are diverse and
always devious. It begins with an agitation for “an orderly Fourth
of July,” in order to wipe out the memories of 1776, and it finds
expression in insidious attempts to discredit our national poets,
notably Longfellow, for recording the rape of the Acadians in his
“Evangeline,” and for writing “Paul Revere’s Ride.”
This foreign propaganda is supported by men like Putnam and even
American writers like Owen Wister. For the Fourth of July issue of
the London “Times” in 1919, Wister wrote an article in which he said:
A movement to correct the school books (in America) has
been started and will go on. It will be thwarted in every
way possible by certain of your enemies. They will busily
remind us that you burnt our Capitol; that you let loose
the Alabama on us during the Civil War; they will never
mention the good turns you have done us. They would spoil,
if they could, the better understanding that so many of us
are striving for.
At the meeting of the House of Bishops of the Protestant Episcopal
Church, at Detroit, October 11, 1919, a resolution was offered
to exclude from the church hymnal “The Star Spangled Banner” and
“America.” In some of the public schools in New York copy books are
furnished the children with a picture of General Haig and embellished
with the British flag, and for some time pictures of a flag combining
the American Stars and Stripes and the Union Jack in one design were
publicly exhibited for sale all over New York City.
We read in the Prefatory Note to the revised edition of “English
History for Americans,” by Thomas Wentworth Higginson and Edward
Channing (1904): “In the preparation of this revised edition, the
authors have been guided by the thought that the study of English
history in our schools generally precedes that of the United States.”
There is obviously as strong a Tory sentiment in the United States
as there was in 1776, 1779, 1808 and 1812, and the words of Thomas
Jefferson, in his letter to Governor Langdon, of New Hampshire, are
as true today as they were then:
=The Toryism with which we struggled in ‘77 differed but in
name from the Federalism of ‘99, with which we struggled
also; and the Anglicism of 1808 against which we are now
struggling is but the same thing still in another form.
It is a longing for a King, and an English King rather
than any other. This is the true source of our sorrows and
wailings.=
Again we hear the prophetic voice of Abraham Lincoln as it is borne
to us like an echo of his speech at Springfield, Ill., June 26, 1857:
The assertion that “all men are created equal” was of
no practical use in effecting our separation from Great
Britain and it was placed in the Declaration not for that,
but for future use. Its authors meant it to be--as, thank
God, it is now proving itself--=a stumbling block to all
those who in after times might seek to turn a free people
back into the hateful paths of despotism. They knew the
proneness of posterity to breed tyrants, and they meant
when such should reappear in this fair land and commence
their vocation, they should find left for them at least one
hard nut to crack=.
England’s chief propagandist is Lord Northcliffe. He owns the London
“Times,” and the latter, on July 4, 1919, clearly outlined in an
editorial the method to be pursued in turning us from our ideals and
making us forget the glorious traditions of the past. It said:
Efficient propaganda, carried out by those trained in the
arts of creating public good-will and of swaying public
opinion as a definite purpose, is now needed, urgently
needed. To make a beginning, efficiently organized
propaganda should mobilize the press, the Church, the stage
and the cinema; press into service the whole educational
systems of both countries and root the spirit of good will
in the homes, the universities, public and high schools,
and private schools.
It should also provide for subsidizing the best men to
write books and articles on special subjects, to be
published in cheap editions or distributed free to classes
interested. Authoritative opinion on current controversial
topics should be prepared both for the daily press and
for magazines; histories and text books upon literature
should be revised. New books should be added, particularly
in the primary schools. Hundreds of exchange university
scholarships should be provided.
In this manner the article continues, revealing, in defiance of all
sense of delicacy and discretion, the English attempt to undermine
the foundations of our national life by tampering with the children
of the public schools and the young men and women in the universities.
The English campaign of propaganda invades the home, the school and
the church; and has already assumed a degree of appalling boldness
in denying to America any substantial share in the issue of the
World War. Protesting against a pamphlet, “Some Facts About the
British,” said to have been published “at the suggestion of the
War Department,” District Attorney Joseph C. Pelletier, of Boston,
addressed Secretary of War Baker as follows:
I cannot believe that this pamphlet has come to your
notice, for I cannot believe that you would suggest, far
less authorize, any statement regarding the war which
unduly lionized Great Britain and absolutely omitted any
mention of the decisive share of the United States in the
triumph of the Allied Powers.
If the sinister plot, with its ramifications in our churches and
universities, our publishing houses and newspapers, is to be checked,
it will be necessary to act so as to make it unprofitable for these
interests to pursue their plans in quiet, and to seek by every means
available to arouse something of the good old spirit of 1776 that
prevailed throughout America until the advent of the late John Hay as
the first American ambassador to forget the traditions of his country
and its experiences at the hands of England.
How painful, how humiliating to every American, it should be to have
the history of our national life for 144 years declared a forgery and
to see it rewritten at the dictates of the champions of a foreign
power who repudiate the stand of their forefathers. (See “Propaganda
in the United States.”)
=Astor, John Jacob.=--“The inborn spirit of John Jacob Astor made
America what it is,” is the judgment passed upon this famous German
American by Arthur Butler Hurlbut. Popular conception of John Jacob
Astor’s personality and work is based upon a collossal underestimate
of his tremendous service in the cause of the commercial and economic
development of the United States. More interest attaches to those
things which appear adventurous in Astor’s life than to the genius
which inspired all his undertakings in pursuing unsuspected aims and
converting into accomplishments objects that seemed impossible of
accomplishment. Many picture him as a sort of Leatherstocking with an
eye to business, a hunter and trapper, boldly invading the wilderness
and making friends of the Indians, and who finally amassed an immense
fortune from the fur trade.
Truth is, only two millions represented the share of his fur trade
in the total of twenty or thirty million dollars which constituted
his fortune at the time of his death. The mythical John Jacob Astor
was a creation of those who came after him; the real one appeared
quite different to his contemporaries. His bier was surrounded by
the leading statesmen, financiers and scholars of the first half of
the nineteenth century, for they knew what today is either little
known or forgotten, that his methods were those of a true pioneer and
pathfinder.
None other than John Jacob Astor found the way of making American
commerce independent of England by getting around the English
middleman in New York for the disposal of his products and shipping
direct to the London market. It was he who opened the ports of China,
then the foremost trading country of the Orient, to the American
ships, by securing this privilege direct from the East India Company.
It was Astor who made possible trans-continental intercourse and who
opened the way from the Atlantic to the Pacific by the founding of
Astoria, at the mouth of the Columbia River. It was at the cost of a
fortune, it is true, but, with a spirit of enterprise which remained
unrivaled for sixty years after he had blazed the way. Knowledge is
power; and Astor, equipped only with an education such as a village
school afforded, had a genius for imbibing knowledge from every
source and direction, and then to employ it to the full bent of his
exceptional ability.
His life (“Life and Ventures of the Original John Jacob Astor,” by
Elizabeth L. Gebhard, Bryan Pub. Co., Hudson, N. Y.) was crowded
with anecdotal incidents of his ability and manner of gathering
information, always in the form of confidential chatter, or a simple
plying of questions. In this he was materially aided by a winning
personality, an open manner and inherent modesty, characteristics
which clung to him even after he had become one of the leading and
most influential figures in the country, and which remained with him
until his death. He was a man of natural nobility, who achieved great
results during his life-time and left his descendants to complete
what he had no time to complete himself.
The author quoted, who is a great granddaughter of the Rev. Dr. John
Gabriel Gebhard, pastor of the German Reformed Church in Nassau
Street, New York, during the Revolution, and who was driven out of
his pulpit through the machinations of the influential Tories then in
New York, and forced to preach in Claverack in Van Rensselaer County,
on the Hudson, declares that however fondly attached Astor was to
his adopted country, he never abandoned certain ideals instilled in
him in the old German home and of which neither his experiences nor
the radical changes surrounding one so young could ever divest him,
ideals translated into German thoroughness, German love of industry
and efficiency and German honesty, judgment and foresight, confidence
and the guiding principle that knowledge is power.
He enjoyed the friendship of many eminent men, and was very intimate
with Washington Irving and Fitz-Greene Halleck, at the suggestion of
the former leaving $400,000 to found the Astor Library in New York
City.
He was born in Waldorf, near Heidelberg, Germany, came to New York
at the age of twenty with a few musical instruments, which he sold
and the proceeds of which he invested in furs. He died March 29,
1848. His descendants only in part remembered the racial origin of
the founder of their fortune, and one of them expatriated himself
and in December, 1915, was made a baron by the King of England in
recognition of his loyalty to the British Crown.
=Titled Americans.=--The correspondent of the New York “Evening
Post,” writing from Paris after the armistice, commented on the power
of propaganda through the medium of decorations bestowed on Americans
by some of the foreign governments. The war has assuredly added a
long list to the roll of titled Americans, Knights of the Garter and
of the Bath and Chevaliers and Commanders of the Legion of Honor.
Except Secretary Daniels and former Senator Lewis, practically all
accepted the dignities with which they were invested at the hands of
royalty. The cross of the Legion of Honor was established by Napoleon
and historically is an imperial decoration.
Prominent among those who had knighthood conferred upon them at the
hands of the King of England were General Pershing, General Dickman,
former Ambassador James W. Gerard, Oscar Straus, Col. C. Cordier,
Brigadier General C. B. Wheeler and Major General George W. Goethals
(Knight Commander of the Order of St. Michael and St. George).
Lieutenant General Robert L. Bullard was decorated by the King of
Belgium with the Order of Leopold and made a Commander of the Legion
of Honor. General Joseph H. Kuhn, former military attache at Berlin
with the American embassy, was made a Commander of the Legion of
Honor. James M. Beck, a famous Wall Street corporation lawyer, was
made “a Bencher,” an honor never before bestowed on an American, and
he also received the Order of the Crown from the King of Belgium;
Alfred C. Bedford, chairman of the board of directors of the Standard
Oil Company, was made a Chevalier of the Legion of Honor; Lieutenant
Laurenc C. Welling of Mount Vernon received the order of a Chevalier
of the Crown of Belgium; the Legion of Honor Cross was conferred on
Dr. William T. Manning, rector of Trinity Church, New York; Otto H.
Kahn was appointed by the King of Italy, Commander of the Crown of
Italy, as was Major Julius A. Adler; J. M. Nye, chief special agent,
in charge of King Albert’s train in the United States, was given
the order of Chevalier of the Order of Leopold; Elizabeth Marbury
was decorated with the Medal of Queen Elizabeth of Belgium “in
recognition of services rendered to Belgium since 1914.”
Others named to be Knights Commanders by the King of England were
Brigadier General George Bell, Jr., Major General William Lassiter,
Brigadier General John L. Hines and Brigadier General Charles H.
Muir; Commanders of the Order of the Bath, Brigadier General Malin
Craig and Brigadier General Harry A. Smith; Commanders of the Order
of St. Michael and St. George, Col. John Montgomery, Col. David
H. Biddle, Col. William P. Wooten, Col. Horace Stebbins. Several
American naval officers were “promoted” and nominated in the Legion
of Honor.
Admiral Benson promoted to receive the Grand Cross of the Legion,
while Admiral Mayo and Rear-Admirals Sims and Wilson are advanced
to the grade of Grand Officer. Rear-Admirals Gleaves, Usher, Long,
Griffin, Welles, Taylor and Earle become Commanders of the Legion.
Dr. Henry van Dyke, former American ambassador to the Netherlands,
and Alexander J. Hemphill were made Chevaliers of the French Legion
of Honor.
Companion of the Order of Bath--Major General William L. Kenly.
Companion of the Order of St. Michael and St. George--Brigadier
General William Mitchell, Brigadier General George S. Diggs, Colonel
Walter Kilmer and Major Harold Fowler.
The widow of Col. Robert Bacon, who fell in action, was invested
with the insignia on behalf of her husband of the order of British
knighthood; Edward R. Stettinius was made a Commander of the Legion
of Honor; the Order of the Crown was conferred on Elliot Wadsworth of
Boston; Mrs. James Hamilton Lewis received a French decoration; Jacob
A. Riis received the order of Danneborg from the King of Denmark.
This list is only a partial one of Americans distinguished in the
manner indicated, which prompted Arthur Brisbane in his column in the
New York “American” to observe:
We shall have our little titled class in America, thanks
to the British King’s action. General Pershing is now “Sir
John”--in England, anyhow, and here if he chooses. Our
General Dickman, commander of the Third Army, is made a
Knight Commander of the Bath. He will be “Sir Joseph” and
his wife “Lady Dickman.” Those that “dearly love a Lord” or
a Knight are not all English.
In England such men as Gladstone, Carlyle and others
refused any title, setting too high a value upon their own
dignity. Some American soldiers have missed an opportunity
to take democracy seriously.
=Atrocities.=--It is easily conceivable that had Germany been invaded
early in the war by the joint world powers, instead of the reverse,
there would have been a decided sentiment in favor of Germany
instead of an increasing hatred which in a short time was extended
to people of German ancestry in the United States; it held them
morally responsible for the alleged atrocities of the German armies
in Belgium. When a paper like the New York “Sun” holds that “the
Germans are not human beings in the common acceptation of the term,”
it cannot avoid the responsibility which that verdict imposes on
every person of German lineage in America. It is therefore a matter
of duty to investigate the testimony of responsible persons whether
the Belgian atrocities had any existence in the light in which they
were presented. The administration shares this responsibility in
having steadfastly ignored demands for the publication of the report
on Belgian atrocities made by the British government early in the war
and transmitted to the State Department by Ambassador Page at London.
These atrocities were alleged to consist of cutting off of hands of
Belgian children, cutting off tongues, of mutilating the breasts of
women, of outraging nuns and violating nurses, crucifying soldiers,
etc.
Now and then a conscientious voice was heard out of the universal cry
of accusation such as represented by the following self-explanatory
letter addressed to the New York “Evening Post:”
To The Editor of the “Evening Post:”
Sir: Every man who has had a connection with the honorable
British journalism of the past ought to thank you for
your just and moderate rebuke of the pretended censorship
which has passed off such a mountain of falsehoods on the
public of both hemispheres. I suppose I am the Doyen of
the foreign editors of London, and well I know that under
Gladstone and Beaconsfield it would have been impossible to
find either writers or censors for the abominable fictions
which have been spread in order to inflame the British
masses against their German opponents. The tales of German
officers filling their pockets with the severed feet and
hands of Belgian babies, and German Catholic regiments
deliberately destroying French Catholic Cathedrals, would
decidedly not have been accepted by any editors of the
“Times” or “Morning Post” in the days of Queen Victoria.
The worst part of these infamous inventions has been that
they have stirred up the blind fury of the English populace
against tens of thousands of inoffensive and useful
foreigners who have done nothing but good in a hundred
honest professions, and who are now, in the midst of savage
threats and insults, torn from their industrious homes and
thrust into bleak and miserable prisons without a single
comfort on the brink of the wintry season. The spectacle is
a hideous one, and the military censorship which has spread
the exciting calumnies has gained no enviable place in
truthful history.
F. Hugh O’Donnell.
Formerly foreign editor on the “Morning Post,” “Spectator,”
and other leading journals.
Melville E. Stone, general manager of the “Associated Press,” in an
address before the Commercial Club of St. Louis, early in 1918, as
reported in the St. Louis “Globe-Democrat,” of March 25, 1918, among
other things made the following statement:
One of the many rumors which I have investigated since the
beginning of the war is that “the hands of Belgian children
have been cut off.” This is not the truth. Aside from all
other proof, a child whose hands had been cut off would die
if not given immediate medical attention; any surgeon or
physician will bear me out in this.
The rumor was given currency by pro-Germans in this
country, I believe, because it was so easy to deny it; they
could assume on the strength of the proof of that denial
that all other atrocities, of which there were innumerable
instances, could be denied.
I have investigated forty or fifty of such stories, and in
every case have found them untrue. One of these statements
came from the wife of a leading banker in Paris. She was
asked where she had seen the child, and mentioned a certain
railway station. Asked if she had seen the child, she
replied she had seen a little girl with her hands wrapped
up. She did not know the little girl. In reply to another
question she admitted she had been told the child’s hands
had been cut off by Germans by a woman who stood on the
platform near her. She had never seen the woman before or
after, and did not know her or know her name.
“There is a little band of Catholic priests,” he said, “who
have been going into Belgium and Holland and hunting out
children who have lost one or both parents or in the great
excitement have become separated from their parents. They
informed me in a letter that they had taken between 5,000
and 6,000 children from these countries and found homes for
them, and that they never had seen such a case and didn’t
believe they existed.”
On December 16, 1917, the Rev. J. F. Stillimans, a pupil of Cardinal
Mercier, director of the Belgian Propaganda Bureau in New York,
made a similar statement, singularly assigning the same reasons for
the currency of the reports, namely, that they were inspired by
“Germans.” He said:
I believe that the rumors as to mutilated children being
in this country are started and circulated by the Germans
themselves for the sake of being able to declare them
erroneous and to claim victoriously, though illogically,
that all other accusations are to be judged untrue, since
in this particular case no proof is forthcoming.
Because the proof was not forthcoming, the campaign was abandoned,
thus leaving in the lurch a great many supposedly honorable persons
who had sworn to “the truth of what they had seen with their own
eyes.”
B. N. Langdon Davies, an Englishman, speaking at Madison, Wis., as
reported under date of December 5, 1919, said among other things,
that the public had been fed on a great deal of misinformation, and
that most of the German atrocities were manufactured by Allied press
agents for the purpose of stirring up hate.
The London “Globe” of November 1, 1915, said:
In regard to the stories about German war atrocities, which
are as mythical as the Russians in France, the “Globe”
has received numerous letters. Those who have until now
given credence to these stories must realize that reports
concerning atrocities which were never committed will tend
to shake confidence in the accuracy of reports concerning
innumerable barbarities which have been committed. These
reports are still credited in many circles, and what is
the result when investigations are instituted? It can
be expressed in one sentence which an official of the
Committee on Belgian Refugees stated to a reporter of the
“Globe” today:
“We have not seen a single mutilated Belgian refugee in
this country, nor have we found anyone who had ever seen
one.”
The following extract is from the “Universe,” London:
A correspondent writing from Amsterdam states that a friend
of his, a Catholic, who has visited many convents in
Belgium with the object of testing stories of ill-treatment
of nuns, makes the following statements. After careful
examination it is evident that, with the exception of one
or two isolated instances of rough treatment, Catholic
nuns have nowhere suffered violence; on the contrary,
this witness cites many examples of humane and excellent
behavior on the part of the Germans, both officers and
men. It is not to be assumed from the above that the
gentleman quoted has made an exhaustive examination of all
the convents in Belgium, but his evidence is noteworthy
since he explicitly denies, on the authority of the nuns
themselves, the stories of violence that were spread abroad
regarding two convents, one of which was at Malines and the
other at Blaunpal.
John T. McCutcheon, special war correspondent of the New York “World”
and Chicago “Tribune,” made this declaration in September, 1914:
In that time from Louvain to the French frontier at
Beaumont, there has not been a single instance of wanton
brutality which has come under my observation. The widely
disseminated stories of German atrocities were found to
be groundless, and I am sincerely convinced, after my
association and the observation of the officers and private
soldier of the German columns with which I have traveled,
that no army could go through a hostile country with fewer
exhibitions of brutality.
In a special dispatch to the New York “Times,” dated London, October
16, 1914, Irvin S. Cobb, writes:
In all my travels in the theater of war I have seen no
atrocities committed by either side. I have seen men led
away to execution, but only after thorough and ready
justice of a drumhead court martial had been administered.
Germany is full of stories of German Red Cross nurses with
their breasts slashed by Belgians.
A highly important witness in this connection is Emily Hobhouse,
the well-known English philanthropist and writer. In October, 1916,
Miss Hobhouse wrote an article for a British periodical, giving her
impressions of her visit to Belgium. She emphasized her astonishment
at seeing so little of the terrible devastation which she had been
led, by English newspaper reports, to expect. From her experience
in the South African war she was well aware that soldiers rule with
fire and sword, but she found nothing in Belgium to compare with the
devastation of South Africa. While but 15,000 houses out of a total
of 2,000,000 had been destroyed in Belgium, the houses of 30,000
farmers had been destroyed in the Boer war out of a relatively much
smaller total, and whole cities and towns with their schools and
churches had been made level with the ground. Even in cities like
Liege and Antwerp, where the fighting had been fierce, she could
discover no evidence of any extraordinary destructiveness on the part
of the Germans, and the conditions in Louvain, which she had pictured
as a place of ruins, fairly astounded her.
In May, 1915, on his return from Europe, Ex-Mayor and
Ex-Representative McClellan of New York, gave out a statement
correcting the view so prevalent in American circles that Belgium was
devastated.
The following correspondence will speak for itself:
Rev. J. F. Matthews, Glossop Road Baptist Church, Sheffield.
Dear Sir:--A correspondent informs us that on Sunday
morning you stated in the course of a sermon delivered in
Wash Lane Church, Latchford, Washington, that there is a
Belgian girl in Sheffield with her nose cut off and her
stomach ripped open by the Germans and that she is still
living and getting better. I am anxious to investigate
stories of German atrocities and should be grateful if you
could send particulars to me by which your statement could
be authenticated. Faithfully yours,
A. FENNER BROCKWAY,
Editor of “Labor Leader.”
The Editor the “Labor Leader.”
Dear Mr. Brockway: I enclose our consul’s letter, which I
have just received. I am writing a letter to my old church
at Latchford, to be read on Sunday next, contradicting
the story which I told on what seemed to be unimpeachable
authority. I am glad I did not give the whole alleged facts
as they were given to me. With many thanks for your note
and inquiry, I am, yours sincerely,
JOHN FRANCIS MATTHEWS,
March 12, 1915.
(Enclosure.)
Dear Mr. Matthews: Replying to your letter of the 9th
inst., enclosing a letter which you have received from the
“Labor Leader,” although I have heard of a number of cases
of Belgian girls being maltreated in one way or another,
I have on investigation not found a particle of truth in
one of them, and I know of no girl in Sheffield who has
had her nose cut off and her stomach ripped open. I have
also investigated cases in other towns, but have not yet
succeeded in getting hold of any tangible information.
Yours very truly,
A. BALFAY,
Consulat du Royanne de Belgique.
District War Refugee Committee for Belgians.
March 11, 1915.
Horace Green, a war correspondent, who spent many weeks in Belgium
during the early stages of the war, in his book, “The Log of a
Noncombatant,” issued by the Houghton Mifflin Company, devotes the
last chapter to a discussion of atrocities. Concluding that the
stories of atrocities have been exaggerated a hundred fold, Mr. Green
says:
The reports of unprovoked personal atrocities have been
=hideously exaggerated=. Wherever one real atrocity has
occurred, it has been multigraphed into a hundred cases.
Each, with clever variation in detail, is reported as
occurring to a relative or close friend of the teller. For
campaign purposes, and particularly in England for the sake
of stimulating recruiting, a partisan press has helped
along the concoction of lies.
In every war of invasion there is bound to occur a certain
amount of plunder and rapine. The German system of reprisal
is relentless; but the German =private as an individual
is no more barbaric= than his brother in the French, the
British, or the Belgian trenches.
In the “Atlantic Monthly” for October, 1917, Prof. Kellogg, of
the American Belgian Relief Commission, while severely arraigning
Germany’s treatment of Belgium, expressly states that he came across
no instance of Belgian children with their hands cut off or women
with breasts mutilated.
Ernest P. Bicknell, Director of Civilian Relief, American Red Cross,
in an article in “The Survey” in 1917, writes as follows:
The world is familiar with stories of the atrocities
charged against the German army in Belgium. In our travels
in Belgium many of these stories came to our ears. In time
we came to feel that a fair consideration of these reports
required a careful discrimination between the conduct of
individual German soldiers, and those operations carried on
under the direction of army officers in accordance with a
deliberately adopted military policy.
Approaching this subject in accordance with this idea, we
should classify the stories of mutilations, violations of
women, killing of women and children, etc., as belonging
in the category chargeable against individuals of reckless
and criminal character, who when opportunity offers, will
gratify their lawless passions. The stories of individual
atrocities in Belgium, which have shocked the world, we
found difficult to verify. While it is probable that such
atrocities were occasionally committed, I personally came
in contact with no instance of that character during my
travels about Belgium; nor did I discuss this subject with
any person who had himself come in contact with such an
instance.
In my opinion the verdict of history upon the conduct of
the German army in Belgium will give little heed to these
horrifying stories of individual crime.
Testimony along the same line is furnished by Father Duffy, chaplain
of the 165th Infantry; the War Refugee Committee in London, George
Bernard Shaw, General Pershing, General March and many others of
equal standing, and furnishes an array of evidence that is strangely
opposed to that of Mrs. Harjes, the wife of the partner of J. P.
Morgan, that she personally saw Belgian children with their hands
cut off, and of Cardinal Mercier, who stirred the heart of humanity
when he declared that “forty-nine Belgian priests were tortured and
put to death by the Germans during the occupation.” It is a matter
of record, however, that General Bissig, Governor General of Belgium
during the occupation, forbade the Belgians to keep song birds that
had been bereft of their eyes to make them sing better. The order
concludes: “The wilful blinding of birds is an act of cruelty which I
cannot under any circumstances tolerate.”
Five reputable American correspondents on September 6, 1914,
after tracing the German army in its invasion of 100 miles, sent
a message to the American people that “we are unable to report a
single instance (of atrocities) unprovoked.... Everywhere we have
seen Germans paying for purchases and respecting property rights as
well as according civilians every consideration.... To the truth
of these statements we pledge our professional and personal word.”
The statement was signed by James O’Donnell Bennett and John T.
McCutcheon, of the Chicago “Tribune;” Roger Lewis, of the Associated
Press; Irvin S. Cobb, of the “Saturday Evening Post,” and Harry
Hansen, of the Chicago “Daily News.”
It has been said that Lord Bryce signed the official atrocity report
and that his honored name raises it above suspicion. Lord Bryce is an
old man and it is inferred that he signed the report in good faith
without, however, having looked into the truth or falsity of the
statements himself, accepting the word of others who were using him
for their nefarious purpose, the intention being to incite American
public opinion to action in behalf of the Allies. For Lord Bryce is
flatly contradicted by the following cable message from London, taken
from the daily papers of September 15, 1914:
(Lord Bryce subsequently modified his position by a denial
of the truth of the report as presented.--Ed.)
London, Sept. 14, 3:23 P. M.--Premier Asquith told the
House of Commons today that official information had
reached the Ministry of War concerning the repeated stories
that German soldiers had abused the Red Cross flag, killed
and maimed the wounded, and killed women and children, as
had been alleged so often in stories of the battlefields.
Joseph Medill Patterson: The Hague, September 11--To the
Chicago “Tribune:” I firmly believe that all stories put
out by the British and French of tortures, mutilations,
assaults, etc., of Germans are utterly rubbish.
A flat denial of the atrocity stories was furnished by a Washington
dispatch to the New York “World,” five months after the invasion of
Belgium. The report contained the substance of an official finding by
the British government and was turned over to Ambassador Walter H.
Page for transmission to Washington upon the request of the American
government. When Dr. Edmund von Mach subsequently requested the
State Department for information about the finding, after returning
one evasive reply, Secretary Lansing left Dr. von Mach’s letters
unanswered and the report has never been made public. Following is
the Washington report referred to:
Washington, Jan. 27. (Special to the “World”)--Of the
thousands of Belgian refugees who are now in England not
one has been subjected to atrocities by German soldiers.
This in effect is the substance of a report received at the
State Department from the American Embassy in London. The
report states that the British government thoroughly had
investigated thousands of reports to the effect that German
soldiers had perpetrated outrages on the fleeing Belgians.
During the early period of the war, columns of the British
newspapers were filled with these accusations. Agents of
the British government, according to the report from the
American Embassy at London, carefully investigated all of
these charges; they interviewed alleged victims and sifted
all the evidence. As a result of the investigation the
British Foreign Office notified the American Embassy that
the charges appeared to be based upon hysteria and natural
prejudice. The report added that many of the Belgians had
suffered severe hardships but they should be charged up
against the exigencies of war rather than the brutality of
the individual German soldier.
According to advices from Switzerland, under date of July 9, 1916,
the paper “Italia” printed the following:
“Assisted by the Papal state department, the congregation
of Catholic church officials instituted a searching
inquiry into the reported German atrocities in Belgian
convents, first among the Belgian prioresses resident
in Rome, next among the Belgian nuns passing through,
all of whom unanimously deny having any knowledge of the
alleged atrocities. Bishop Heylen, of Namur, who was
among those examined, declared that the reports referred
to were lacking in every essential of truth. Possibly an
isolated case had occurred without his knowledge, but
certainly nothing beyond this. Cardinal Mercier, who was
also interviewed, spoke of three cases based upon hearsay.
The Congregation deplored the spread of exaggerated
reports lacking all semblance of truth and expressed its
satisfaction with the results of the investigation.”
To the last it was a favorite pastime to charge the Germans with
wanton destruction of towns. Ample contradiction could easily be
offered if space permitted. Thus William K. Draper, Vice Chairman
of the New York County Chapter of the American Red Cross, is quoted
in the New York “Times” of July 13, 1919: “A pitiful part of this
destruction is the realization that much of it was caused by French
artillery, the troops being forced to demolish the towns while being
occupied and used by the Germans.”
The whole web of lies and the conditions underlying the scheme
are conclusively exposed in “The Tragedy of Belgium,” by Richard
Grasshof, (New York: C. E. Dillingham Co.)
The Belgian atrocities were purposely conceived and exaggerated for
two reasons:
1. To camouflage the fact that against all rules of civilized warfare,
the Belgians of Louvain and several other towns, claiming protection
as civilians, awaited an opportune time to institute a massacre of
German soldiers who had entered and been stationed there approximately
a week in apparently good relations with the population.
2. It was expected that Germany and Austria would be surely invaded
under the joint impact of the forces of Russia, France, Belgium,
Servia, Montenegro, England and Japan. In that event the world would
hear no end of Cossack, Servian and Montenegran atrocities committed
on German women and children, as in the Balkan campaign. England had
called into the field the Indians, Maoris, Zulus and other savage
blacks and yellow skins; France had called the Moroccan natives and
the Senegalese tribesmen, blacks who hang around their necks strings
adorned with the ears and noses of their fallen foes.
Forseeing that the ravages of these uncivilized warriors would excite
the anger of the world against the Allies, if they ever crossed
into German territory, that their deeds would bring the curses of
the universe upon England’s head, it was resolved to anticipate
all possible criticism and reproach by being the first to charge
atrocities against their enemies and thus to negative all counter
charges, or to say that they were merely retaliatory measures adopted
in reprisal for barbarous acts committed against their own men. The
Allies never crossed the German lines, save in East Prussia, nor
the Austrian-Hungarian border save in Galicia, and here the Cossack
reign, short as it was, proved the shrewd wisdom of English and
French foresight; 700,000 homes were wantonly destroyed in Galicia
alone. Its lawlessness beggars description; but humanity was not
staggered because the mind of the world had been drugged by fatal
infusions of falsehood about Belgian babies and women maimed and
brutalized by “German barbarians.”
Prof. John W. Burgess, Charles Carleton Coffin (“The Boys of ’61”)
and others have shown that precisely the same hysterical lies were
circulated throughout England and the world by Englishmen during the
American Civil War, the same kind of atrocities being charged against
the Union Army.
No paper has been more aggressive in charging the Germans with
atrocities than the New York “Times.” In its issue of April 17, 1865,
it said:
“=Every possible atrocity appertains to this rebellion. There is
nothing whatever that its leaders have scrupled at. Wholesale
massacres and torturings, wholesale starvation of prisoners, firing
of great cities, piracies of the crudest kind, persecution of the
most hideous character and of vast extent, and finally assassination
in high places--whatever is inhuman, whatever is brutal, whatever is
fiendish, these men have resorted to. They will leave behind names so
black, and the memory of deeds so infamous, that the execration of
the slave-holders’ rebellion will be eternal.=”
The late James G. Blaine quoted Lord Malmesbury of date February 5,
1863, as accusing the Union troops guilty of “horrors unparalleled
even in the wars of barbarous nations.”
All efforts to counteract the avowed campaign of misrepresentation
were denounced as the acts of men in the pay of the Kaiser or
irreclaimable pro-Germans determined to lend aid and comfort to
the enemy, and subjected any one attempting them to the penalties
contained in the Espionage Act. In interpreting the act, as applied
to the liberal press, Postmaster General Burleson was quoted as
follows:
“There are certain opinions and attitudes which will not be
tolerated by the Post Office Department. For instance, such
papers have sought to create in the minds of our citizens
of German birth or descent the impression that Germany is
fighting a defensive war; that the accounts of Belgian
atrocities ... are all English or American lies.”
To gainsay such an edict was to risk imprisonment for a term of
twenty years.
=Bancroft, George--Treaty with Germany--Vancouver Boundary
Line.=--The very cordial relations which subsisted between the
United States and Germany from the days of Frederick the Great were
carefully nurtured by the great men succeeding the establishment of
the republic, as shown elsewhere by the comments of President Adams
on the treaties with Prussia, and were strongly cemented by the aid
extended the Union by Germany during the Civil War, as acknowledged
by Secretary Seward and prominent members of the United States
Senate. One of the most active promoters of this friendship was
America’s foremost historian, George Bancroft, Secretary of the Navy
under President Polk, and father of the Naval Academy at Annapolis,
minister to Great Britain and subsequently to Prussia and Germany
(1867-74).
It was through his efforts and friendly personal relations with
Bismarck that a memorable agreement came into existence which
established the right of immigrant German Americans to renounce
their old allegiance and accept an exclusive American citizenship,
exempting them from performing military service should they return
to their native land. The effect of this agreement was more
important than appears, as it was the first time that by a formal
act the principle of renunciation of citizenship at the will of the
individual was recognized. Beyond this, it led to a complete change
of policy on the part of Great Britain by upsetting the old doctrine,
“once an Englishman, always an Englishman.” The immediate good
result was the renunciation by England of her claim to indefeasible
allegiance, and to the right to impress into the British service a
former British subject who had become an American citizen, a claim
which had contributed to bring about the War of 1812.
Nor was this all that Bancroft accomplished. The Northwestern
boundary, having been settled by treaty, Bancroft, while United
States Minister in Great Britain, had perceived an incipient effort
of a great English interest to encroach on the territory which had
been acknowledged by the treaty to be a part of the United States.
By and by the importunities of interested persons in England, who
possessed a great party influence, began to make themselves heard,
and the British government by degrees supported the attempt to raise
a question respecting the true line of the boundary of the Northwest
and finally formulated a perverse claim of their own, with a view of
obtaining what they wanted as a compromise.
The American administration had of course changed, and the President
and his cabinet, having had no part in the negotiations, agreed to
refer the question to an arbiter. They made the mistake of consenting
that the arbiter, if there was uncertainty as to the true boundary
line, might himself establish a boundary of compromise. The person
to whom the settlement of the dispute was to be referred was the
president of the Swiss Republic.
The American Secretary of State chanced to die while the method of
arrangement was still inchoate. Bancroft at once wrote to the new
Secretary, urging him not to accept a proposal of compromise, because
that would seem to admit an uncertainty as to the American title, and
to sanction and even invite a decision of the arbiter in favor of a
compromise, and would open the way for England, under an appearance
of concession, to obtain all that she needed.
Being at the time minister to the court of Prussia, he advised the
government to insist on the American claim in full, not to listen to
a proposal of compromise, but to let each party formulate its claim,
and to call on the arbiter to decide which was right, and urged it to
select for that arbiter the Emperor of Germany.
The Department of State at once consented that the arbiter should be
the Emperor of Germany, and left the whole matter of carrying out the
American argument to Bancroft. The conduct of the question, the first
presentation of the case, as well as the reply to the British, were
every word by him, and the decision of the Emperor was unreservedly
in favor of the United States. (Prof. William M. Sloane, in “The
Century,” for January, 1887.)
Bancroft has been pronounced one of the greatest historians of the
past century; he was one of the most distinguished statesmen of his
time, and as former minister to London and a student at Göttingen and
minister to Germany, he was qualified as no other famous American to
form an appraisal of German, French and English policies, especially
in regard to ourselves. We may be pardoned, therefore, in taking more
than a cursory interest in some expressions which occur in a letter
of Bancroft’s, addressed to Hamilton Fish, then Secretary of State,
and written at Berlin during the Franco-Prussian war.
In summing up his reasons for preferring Germany over England and
France, he says: “If we need the solid, trusty good will of any
government in Europe, we can have it best with Germany; because
German institutions and ours most resemble each other; and because
so many millions of Germans have become our countrymen. This war
will leave Germany the most powerful State in Europe, and the most
free; its friendship is therefore most important to us, and has its
foundation in history and in nature.” (“Life and Letters of George
Bancroft,” by M. A. De Wolfe Howe, II, 245.)
=Baralong.=--An English pirate ship commanded by Capt. William
McBride, which sailed under the American flag, with masked batteries,
and sank a German submarine which had been deceived by the Stars and
Stripes and the American colors painted on both sides of her hull. On
August 19, 1915, the “Nicosian,” an English ship loaded with American
horses and mules and with a number of American mule tenders aboard,
was halted by a German submarine about 70 miles off Queenstown. The
men took to the boats and the U-boat was about to sink the “Nicosian”
when a ship flying the American flag came alongside. Without
suspecting anything, the submarine allowed the ship to approach,
when suddenly the American flag was lowered and the English ensign
hoisted, and a destructive fire was opened on the U. The latter soon
sank. Half a dozen German sailors swam alongside of the “Nicosian”
and clambered on deck, concealing themselves in the holds and engine
rooms as the English followed them aboard. They were dragged out and
murdered in cold blood. The German captain swam toward the “Baralong”
and held up his hand in token of surrender but while in the water was
first shot in the mouth and then repeatedly hit by bullets aimed at
him by the English, and killed without compunction. The story of the
“Baralong” is one of the most brutal in the history of the seas and
illuminates the inhuman character of English warfare toward a weaker
foe in the most glaring light. The history of the tragedy first
came to light through a letter written by Dr. Charles B. Banks, the
veterinary surgeon aboard the “Nicosian,” to relatives in Lowell,
Mass., giving some of the gruesome details as follows: “A number of
German sailors were swimming in the water. Some swam to our abandoned
ship and climbed up to the deck. Shots from the patrol boat (the
‘Baralong’) swept several from the ropes. We were taken aboard the
patrol boat, and then the boat steamed slowly around our ship while
the marines shot and killed all the Germans in the water. As we had
left three carbines and cartridges aboard the ‘Nicosian,’ we had
reason to believe the Germans had found them. So marines went on our
ship and killed seven men there. We were then towed to port.” The
infamous wretch who performed this murder, Capt. McBride, later wrote
a letter to the captain of the “Nicosian,” warning him not to speak
of the affair, and requesting that the Americans aboard especially
be cautioned to keep the matter from the public. But one of the
American mule tenders made an affidavit to the truth at Liverpool
and forwarded it to the American Embassy in London and three others
made affidavit to the same facts on their return to New Orleans. The
affidavits were sent to the State Department, but neither President
Wilson nor Secretary Lansing complied with the request of the German
Ambassador to demand an inquiry into the misuse of the American flag,
and the cold-blooded murder of German sailors. Dr. Bank’s letter was
published in the N. Y. “Times” of September 7, 1915, but that paper
was among the most active in preventing an investigation.
=Berliner, Emile.=--One of the most important inventors in the United
States, distinguished for his improvements of the telephone; born
at Hanover, Germany, May 20, 1851; came to the United States in
1870. Invented the microphone and was first to use an induction coil
in connection with the telephone transmitters; patentee of other
valuable inventions in telephony. Invented the Gramophone, known also
as the Victor Talking Machine, for which he was awarded John Scott
Medal and Elliott Crosson Gold Medal by Franklin Inst. First to make
and use in aeronautical experiments light weight revolving cylinder
internal combustion motor, now extensively used on aeroplanes.
=The Boers--England’s Record of Infamy.=--The success in causing the
surrender of the Boers by exterminating their women and children
by slow starvation and disease is the incentive which prompted the
British nation to violate international law by stopping the shipment
of non-contraband goods, Red Cross supplies and milk for babies, to
Germany and contiguous countries. The number of deaths (in the Boer
concentration camps) during the month of September, 1901, was 1,964
children and 328 women. There were then 54,326 children and 38,022
women under Kitchener’s tender care. The “Daily News” on November
9, 1901, said: “The truth is that the death rate in the camps is
incomparably worse than anything Africa or Asia can show. There is
nothing to match it even in the mortality figures of the Indian
famines, where cholera and other epidemics have to be contended
with.” “Reynold’s Newspaper” (London) of October 20, 1901, spoke of
“the women and children perishing like flies from confinement, fever,
bad food, pestilential stinks and lack of nursing in these awful
death traps,” with a rate of 383 per 1,000. The “Sydney Bulletin”
said: “The authority granted by Lord Roberts to Red Cross nurses to
attend our camps has been withdrawn.” The English wanted the women
and children to perish for want of Red Cross supplies, as in the case
of Germany. President Steyn of the Orange Free State, in a letter of
protest to Lord Kitchener, dated August, 1901, among other things
said:
=Your Excellency’s troops have not hesitated to turn
their artillery on these defenseless women and children
to capture them when they were fleeing with their wagons
or alone, whilst your troops knew that they were only
women and children, as happened only recently at Graspan
on the 6th of June near Reitz, where a women and children
laager was taken and recaptured by us, whilst your
Excellency’s troops took refuge behind the women; and when
reinforcements came they fired with artillery and small
arms on that woman laager. I can mention hundreds of cases
of this kind.=
On December 16, 1913, the Boers, in the presence of immense throngs,
dedicated a monument at Blomfontein with the following inscription:
=This Monument is Erected by the Boers of South Africa
in memory of
26,663 WOMEN AND CHILDREN
who died in the Concentration Camps during the War 1900-1902=
No better evidence can be desired than is contained in a speech
which the present British Premier, Lloyd George, made in 1901,
charging that the English army had burned villages, swept away the
cattle, burned thousands of tons of grain, destroyed all agricultural
implements, all of the mills, the irrigation works, and left the
territory a blackened, devastated wilderness. Then the women and
children were herded, in winter, in thin, leaky tents, surrounded by
barbed wire fences, where thousands died of unnecessary privations.
He said:
Is there any ground for the reproach flung at us by the
civilized world that, having failed to crush the men, we
have now taken to killing babies?
“=Illegal, Ineffective and Indefensible Blockades.=”--The World War
has evolved principles of warfare, upset practices and sanctioned
acts that place war in a new aspect, present it as a new physical
problem, like the discovery of a new planet. So many laboriously
achieved understandings, agreements and principles of international
law were swept overboard that the world must begin its efforts all
over, if humanity is to regain the rights which it had slowly wrested
from reluctant power during four or five centuries.
The outstanding fact is the recognition of the right of a belligerent
power to compel another to surrender by the starvation of its civil
population.
If this object were obtainable by direct blockade of the nation to
be starved there would be some latitude for discussion; but when
attainable only by so controlling the food supply of neutral nations
as to leave them no alternative but to starve themselves or to help
starve the power to be coerced, a new problem is created which will
recur to vex those who sanctioned it.
During the Civil War we sent food to the starving mill operatives of
England who were exposed to famine by the war, although English-built
and equipped privateers were destroying our commerce, and England
was actively supporting our enemies in other ways. Germany sent us
food, chemicals, goods, shoes and necessary supplies in one of the
most needful stages of the war, for non-contraband supplies were
recognized as immune from seizure or destruction.
A blockade is illegal unless it is effective in blockading the point
named. The blockading of a whole nation and the rejection of the
immunity character of non-contraband supplies intended for the civil
population, down to the furnishings of the Red Cross, is an English
expedient and a product of the late war, though the same policy was
tentatively tried in England’s war against the Boer republics.
We held that such blockade was illegal, for in the note of October
21, 1915, our State Department said: “There is no better settled
principle of law of nations than that which forbids the blockade
of neutral points in time of war,” and we reminded the British
government that Sir Edward Grey said to the British delegates to the
“Conference assembled at London upon the invitation of the British
government,” that:
A blockade must be confined to the ports and coasts of the
enemy, but it may be instituted at one port or at several
ports or at the whole of the seaboard of the enemy. It may
be instituted to prevent the ingress only or egress only,
or both.
And because England had violated these and numerous other principles,
agreements, covenants and pledges we said to her:
“It has been conclusively shown that the methods sought to
be employed by Great Britain to obtain and use evidence
of enemy destination of cargoes bound for neutral ports
and impose a contraband character upon such cargoes are
without justification; that the =blockade upon which
such methods are partly founded is ineffective, illegal
and indefensible=.... The United States, therefore,
cannot submit to the curtailment of its neutral rights
by these measures, which are admittedly retaliatory,
and therefore =illegal in conception and in nature, and
intended to punish the enemies of Great Britain for alleged
illegalities on their part=.”
But the State Department surrendered to the contentions of England.
We submitted to countless outrages (see extract from Senator
Chamberlain’s speech under “England Threatens United States”); we
made it unpleasant for native Americans who determined to send
non-contraband goods across the seas; approved England’s assumption
of dictatorial control of the commerce of Holland and Scandinavia and
held that Germany was equally our enemy as England’s on the ground
that in using her submarines to sink merchant vessels feeding England
she had violated our rights to the free use of the seas.
In thus abandoning cardinal principles which made us a great nation
and recognizing as effective, legal and justified, England’s blockade
of neutral nations, her right to confiscate non-contraband goods,
to search and deprive Red Cross surgeons of their instruments,
rifle our mail, remove American citizens from neutral vessels and
incarcerate them, prevent Red Cross supplies from reaching the civil
population and to do all the things we said she should not do, we
have surrendered to Great Britain rights, powers and privileges that
can hardly be justified unless we are about to dissolve our political
institutions and merge ourselves with England as one people--two
souls with but a single thought, two hearts that beat as one.
The point is that future wars will not be decided by the usual
engines of war, but by the starvation of the civil population;
this invests the nation having the largest fleet with a terrible
weapon of annihilation; it makes England the arbiter of nations--it
compels us to compact our own terrible power of destruction, for in
making food the sine qua non of victory, fate has given us a factor
of far-reaching importance. And how will a nation menaced with
extinction by famine retaliate? Will the inevitable consequence be
that the nation so threatened will meet starvation with the subtle
poison germs of =a malignant plague=?
=Brest-Litovsk Treaty.=--It is an approved trick of political
strategy to raise a hue and cry over one matter in order to divert
attention from another, and by this token to accuse one’s enemies
of treachery, baseness and all the sins in the calendar with a
professed feeling of righteous indignation. Thus the Brest-Litovsk
treaty between Germany and Russia, when the former was in a
position to impose her terms as conqueror upon its beaten foe, was
made to appear as an act of unexampled oppression. In the light
of the terms ultimately imposed upon Germany by the Paris Peace
Treaty, it is interesting to examine the cardinal features of the
Brest-Litovsk treaty. Under its terms as revised by the three
supplementary agreements signed in Berlin in August, 1918, several
weighty concessions were made to Russia which insured her routes
of trade and free ports in the Baltic provinces which were given
their independence in accordance with century-long aspirations and
revolutionary movements. Germany dropped her Caucasus claims and
demanded that Russia should recognize the independence of Georgia,
Finland, Ukrania, Poland, Esthonia and Livonia. Russia, desiring
to assure herself of the rich territory with the naptha fields of
Baku, Germany supported the wish on condition that Russia pledge
herself to place a portion of the oil production at the disposal of
Germany and its allies. The total indemnity levied was 6,000,000,000
marks ($1,500,000,000) which Russia undertakes to pay, all sums lost
by Germans up to July 1, 1917, through revolutionary confiscatory
legislation being included. Independent courts were provided for
the adjudication of claims and one-sixth of the indemnity was
shifted to Finland and the Ukraine jointly. This was reputed to
be the oppressor’s toll unheard of in history--no milch cows, no
horses, no surrender of the instruments of industry, no seizure of
strictly Russian territory, independence for all states that had been
struggling for independence through long centuries, no occupied zones.
“=Bombing Maternity Hospitals.=”--Nominally a favorite occupation of
the enemy throughout the war. The following was written by the late
Richard Harding Davis in the Metropolitan Magazine for November,
1915: “So highly trained now are the aviators, so highly perfected
the aeroplane that each morning in squadrons they take flight, to
meet hostile aircraft, to destroy a munition factory, or, =if they
are Germans, a maternity hospital=. At sunset, like homing pigeons,
in safety they return to roost.”
=Creel and the “Sisson Documents.”=--George Creel, a Denver
politician, was appointed head of the Committee of Public Information
pending the war, and was practically in control of the American press
and the propaganda work. Exercising almost unlimited authority and
directing general publicity at home and in Europe, including the
presentation of war films, many of the oppressive measures against
the liberal press are justly charged to his account, at the same time
that numerous measures inaugurated under his direction attracted
widespread notoriety. Among others, the bureau issued to the American
press the notorious “Sisson documents.” They consisted of a series
of documents to prove that Lenine and Trotzky, heads of the Russian
Soviet government, had taken German money and were, first and last,
German agents. The New York “Evening Post” was quick to discern the
forgery--they are said to have been written in London, translated
into Russian in New York by two Russians and sent to Russia, where
they were “discovered.” For pointing out the internal evidence of
their incredibility contained in the papers Mr. Creel charged the
paper with being guilty “of the most extraordinary disservice” to the
government of the United States and the nation’s cause; claiming that
it had impugned the good faith of the government and exposed itself
to “the charge of having given aid and comfort to the enemies of the
United States in an hour of national crisis.” The ultimate end was
that the famous Sisson documents were proved to be clumsy forgeries
and Mr. Creel subsequently claimed for them no more than that they
made a good story.
The Creel bureau cost the government about $6,000,000, and its
affairs were found to be in hopeless confusion, according to
official reports made to Congress, Creel being charged with gross
negligence in handling the government’s funds. In June, 1919, frauds
in the handling of war films, involving huge sums of money and “the
complicity of high officials” were charged in Congress. Mr. Creel’s
connection with the Sisson documents places him in no flattering
light. In reply to a letter of protest against the publicity of the
Sisson documents and the use made of them, he wrote: “Of course, you
are entitled to your opinion, but I warn you it seems to border on
sedition.” While this bureau flagrantly compromised the reputation of
the government and the American people by a piece of wicked fiction,
to deny the authenticity of the Sisson documents was sedition.
=Cromberger, Johann.=--A German printer who as early as 1538
established a printing office in the City of Mexico.
=Custer, General George A.=--Famous American cavalry leader in
the Civil War, and the hero of the battle of the Little Big Horn,
Dakota, in which he and his command were destroyed by the Sioux
Indians, June 25, 1876. Of German descent. Frederick Whittaker in “A
Complete Life of General George Custer” (Sheldon & Co., New York,
1876) says: “George Armstrong Custer was born in New Rumley, Ohio,
December 5, 1839. Emanuel H. Custer, father of the General, was born
in Cryssoptown, Alleghany County, Md., December 10, 1806. The name
of Custer was originally Kuster, and the grandfather of Emanuel
Custer came from Germany, but Emanuel’s father was born in America.
The grandfather was one of those same Hessian officers over whom
the Colonists wasted so many curses in the Revolutionary war, and
were yet so innocent of harm and such patient, faithful soldiers.
After Burgoyne’s surrender in 1778, many of the paroled Hessians
seized the opportunity to settle in the country they came to conquer,
and amongst these the grandfather of Emanuel Custer, captivated
by the bright eyes of a frontier damsel, captivated her in turn
with his flaxen hair and sturdy Saxon figure, and settled down in
Pennsylvania, afterward moving to Maryland. It is something romantic
and pleasing, after all, that stubborn George Guelph, in striving to
conquer the colonies, should have given them the ancestor of George
Custer, who was to become one of their greatest glories.”
=Cavell, Edith.=--An English nurse shot by the Germans as a spy at
Brussels in October, 1915, an episode of the war which supplied the
English propagandists in the United States with one of the principal
articles in their bill of charges of German atrocities. Colonel E.
R. West, chief of the legislative section of the Judge Advocate
General’s Department, before the American Bar Association’s Committee
on Military Justice, declared that the execution was entirely legal.
S. S. Gregory, chairman of the committee, and Judge William P. Bynum,
of Greensboro, N. C., before the Bar Association, (Baltimore, August
27, 1919), rendered a minority report of the same import. Col. West
said:
“We have heard much of the case of ‘poor Edith Cavell.’ Yet I have
become rather firmly convinced that she was subject to her fate by
the usual laws of war. Certainly the French have executed women
spies.”
Col. West agreed with the Chairman that it would be only consistent
with the Anglo-Saxon attitude on the Cavell case to exempt women from
the death penalty, but he added:
“I believe that a woman spy deserves the same fate as a man spy.
Otherwise we would open the gates wide to the most resourceful class
of spies that is known.”
In his report Mr. Gregory said: “A careful consideration of the
case of Miss Edith Cavell, one of the most pathetic and appealing
victims of the great war, whose unfortunate fate has aroused the
sympathy and excited the indignation of two continents, has led me
to the conclusion that she was executed in accordance with the laws
and usages of what we are commonly pleased to refer to as civilized
warfare. This being so, it has seemed to me quite inconsistent with
our condemnation of those who thus took her life to retain in our own
system of military justice those provisions of law which were relied
upon by the German military authorities in ordering her execution.
For us to take any other course, it seems to me, is to impeach our
sincerity and good faith in criticising the German authorities in
this regard, and to warrant the suggestion that such criticism is
inspired rather by the fact that they, our enemies, were responsible
for it, as well as sympathy for a good and worthy woman, than any
well-considered judgment in the case.” The three majority members
declared that “they could not concur in the suggestion of Mr. Gregory
that there should be a provision prohibiting the death penalty in the
case of women spies.”
It was proved that Miss Cavell was an English professional nurse
employed only by people well able to pay for her services. She
imposed upon the German officials for a long time in the character
of a devout Christian who was taking a disinterested share in the
relief work for the good of humanity until it was discovered that she
was the head of a widespread organization which assisted hundreds of
English and Belgians to escape from the country and enter the armies
of Germany’s enemies. Her activities are described in the New York
“Times” of May 11, 1919, by her friend and co-agent, Louise Thuliez,
who was condemned with Miss Cavell but pardoned. In court she
admitted all charges and contemptuously shrugged her shoulders when
the presiding judge asked her if she wished to make any statement
that might influence the verdict. She was confined in prison about
ten weeks before her execution. Her case gave rise to much comment
in the press, endeavoring to show that it was a case of exceptional
harshness. The Paris “Galois” admitted the shooting of 80 women spies
by the French. The Germans presented proof that two German women,
Margaret Schmidt and Otillie Moss, had been shot by the French in
March, 1915, on similar charges, and this was admitted later by the
French authorities. Miss Schmidt was executed at Nancy and Miss Moss
at Bourges. (Associated Press dispatch from Luneville dated March
25.) Julia Van Wauterghem, wife of Eugene Hontang, was executed at
Louvain, August 18, 1914, for treason. Felice Pfaat was executed at
Marseilles, August 22, 1916, for espionage. Later the beautiful Mata
Hari was executed by the French.
Miss Cavell’s case is very similar to that of Mrs. Mary Surratt,
the American woman, found guilty in 1865, by a military commission
consisting of Generals Hunter, Elkin, Kautz, Foster, Horn, Lew
Wallace, Harris, Col. Clendenin, Col. Tompkins, Col. Burnett, Gen.
Holt and Judge-Advocate Bingham, of receiving, harboring, concealing
and assisting rebels; she was sentenced to be hanged by the neck
until dead, which sentence was approved by President Johnson.
=Concord Society, The.=--Born during the latter part of the war of
a desire on the part of a few Americans of German origin deeply
impressed by the events of the times to have an organization that
would stand for the promotion of good fellowship and friendship
between them and their kin as individuals, and to encourage the
study of the share of their race in the founding and development of
the United States. The society takes no part in politics or affairs
of state or church. Its sole aim is the fostering of good relations
between all citizens of the German race for social and educational
purposes. The active membership will be limited to 500.
The name is derived from the good ship “Concord,” which brought the
settlers of Germantown to these shores in 1683. This historic event
will be commemorated by an annual banquet of members of the society
in one of the larger cities. All activities on the part of the
society have been deferred until the state of war is finally ended.
Address Frederick F. Schrader, Secretary, 63 East 59th Street, New
York, N. Y. (See “Germantown Settlement.”)
=Christiansen, Hendrick.=--Soon after Hendrick Hudson discovered the
noble river which bears his name, a German, Hendrick Christiansen
of Kleve, became the true explorer of that stream, undertaking
eleven expeditions to its shores. He also built the first houses on
Manhattan Island in 1613 and laid the foundations of the trading
stations New Amsterdam and Fort Nassau. “New Netherland was first
explored by the honorable Hendrick Christiansen of Kleve.... Hudson,
the famous navigator, ‘was also there.’” (“Our Hyphenated Citizens,”
by Rudolf Cronau.)
=DeKalb.=--Major General Johann von Kalb, who gave his life for
American independence in the Revolutionary War, was a native of
Bavaria. Fatally wounded in the battle of Camden, he died August
19, 1780. A monument to his memory was erected in front of the
military academy at Annapolis, which states that he gave a last
noble demonstration of his devotion for the sake of liberty and the
American cause, after having served most honorably for three years
in the American army, by leading his soldiers and inspiring them by
his example to deeds of highest bravery. Kalb was one of a number of
efficient German-born officers who came over with the French to serve
with the French troops under Lafayette.
=Declaration of Independence.=--The first paper to print the
Declaration of Independence in the United States was a German
newspaper, the “Pennsylvania Staatsboten” of July 5, 1776. It is also
claimed that the first newspaper in Pennsylvania was printed in the
German language. Benjamin Franklin at one time complained that of
the eight newspapers then existing in Pennsylvania two were German,
two were half German and half English, and only two were printed in
English.
=Dorsheimer, Hon. William.=--Lieutenant Governor of the State of
New York; born at Lyons, Wayne County, 1832. His father was Philip
Dorsheimer, a native of Germany, who emigrated from Germany and
settled at Buffalo; he was one of the founders of the Republican
party and in 1860 was elected Treasurer of the State.
=Dutch and German.=--In the history of early American colonization
the terms Dutch and German are often confounded, as the English had
little first-hand acquaintance with the people of the continent
save Dutch, French and Spanish. Hence many have inferred that the
Pennsylvania Germans were somehow misnamed for Pennsylvania Dutch,
because the latter designation is the more frequently employed in
describing the most important element of the population concerned in
the settlement of Penn’s Commonwealth. Many of the first settlers
of New Amsterdam were Germans and almost as many Germans as Swedes
were concerned in the earliest European settlement of Delaware.
Peter Minnewit, the first regular governor of New Amsterdam, was
German-born, and it was he who, having entered the Swedish service,
in 1637, with a ship of war and a smaller vessel, led a colony of
Swedes with their chaplain, to the Delaware River region, between
Cape Henlopen and Christian Creek. They bought land of the Indians
and called it “New Sweden.” A second company of immigrants from
Sweden came over in 1642, under Colonel John Printz, likewise
a native of Germany. Among these first settlers of Delaware a
considerable number were Germans. The latter however, are more often
confounded with their nearest of kin, the Hollanders. “At that time,”
says Anton Eickhoff (“In der Neuen Heimath”) “the distinction between
Hollanders and Germans was not as pronounced as nowadays. The loose
political union which had never been very close, between Holland and
the German Empire, was formally severed by the Peace of Westphalia.
But though politically it was no longer a German State, Holland
continued to be regarded as such in public mind. The common language
of the Hollanders and the Low Germans was Plattdeutsch.” Dr. William
Elliot Griffis (“The Romance of American Colonization”) refers to the
confounding of Germans with Dutch. “The Isthmus of this peninsula was
called ‘Dutch Gap,’ after the glass makers who set up their furnace
here in 1608,” he writes. “Most Englishmen then made and uneducated
people now make, no distinction between the Dutch and the Germans,
who are politically different people.”
=Dual Citizenship.=--It was frequently alleged before and during our
entrance into the war that a native German might under the laws of
Germany become a citizen of another country without thereby being
released from his obligations to his native country, and the attempt
was made to make it appear that naturalized Germans could still be
regarded as citizens of Germany, or as possessing dual citizenship.
It is true that the German law
(Reichs-und-Staatsangehorigkeits-Gesetz) of July, 1913, says:
“Citizenship is not lost by one who, before acquiring foreign
citizenship, has secured on application the written consent of the
competent authorities of his home State to retain his citizenship.
Before this consent is given the German Consul is to be heard.” But
this section is under no circumstances applicable to the United
States, because in Section 36 the law says: “=This law does not apply
as far as treaties with foreign countries say otherwise.=” Now the
treaty of the United States with the Northern German Confederacy
which was concluded 1868 (the Bancroft treaty) provides that Germans
naturalized in the United States =shall be treated by Germany as
American citizens=. This provision applies now to the natives of all
the German States, and was so interpreted by the State Department.
=Earling, Albert J.=--President of the Chicago, Milwaukee and St.
Paul Railway Company and one of the recognized authorities on modern
railway economics. Son of German immigrants.
=Eckert, Thomas.=--General superintendent during the Civil War of
military telegraphy, and assistant secretary of war (1864). Given
the rank of Brigadier General Appointed general superintendent of
the Western Union Telegraph Company in 1866, and in 1881 became its
president and general manager, and also director of the American
Telegraph and Cable Company also of the Union Pacific Railroad.
=Eliot, Prof. Charles W.=--One of the most eminent as well as
bitter enemies of the German cause. Prof. Eliot has attacked German
civilization and German institutions in magazines and newspaper
articles and in a book. Yet in 1913, one year before the war, at a
public dinner, Prof. Eliot paid German “Kultur” this high tribute:
“Two great doctrines which had sprung from the German Protestant
Reformation had been developed by Germans from seeds then planted in
Germany. The first was the doctrine of universal education, developed
from the Protestant conception of individual responsibility, and
the second was the great doctrine of civil liberty, liberty in
industries, in society, in government, liberty with order under
law. These two principles took their rise in Protestant Germany;
and America has been the greatest beneficiary of that noble
teaching.” Yet with all these political and civic virtues, Prof.
Eliot reversed himself like a weather-cock within a few months and
became the hysterical spokesman of the most violent section of the
Anglo-American coterie.
=England Plundered American Commerce in Our Civil War.=--From Benson
J. Lossing’s “History of the Civil War:” “The Confederates ... with
the aid of the British aristocracy, shipbuilders and merchants, and
the tacit consent of the British government, were enabled to keep
afloat on the ocean some active vessels for plundering American
commerce. The most formidable of the Anglo-Confederate plunderers
of the sea was the ‘Alabama,’ which was =built, armed, manned and
victualled in England=. She sailed under the British flag and was
received with favor in every British port that she entered. In the
last three months of the year 1862 she destroyed by fire twenty-eight
helpless American merchant vessels. While these incendiary fires,
kindled by Englishmen, commanded by a Confederate leader, were
illuminating the bosom of the Atlantic Ocean, a merchant ship (the
“George Griswold”) laden with provisions as a gift for the starving
English operatives in Lancashire, who had been deprived of work and
food by the Civil War in America, and whose necessities their own
government failed to relieve, was sent from the City of New York,
convoyed by a national war vessel, to save her from the fury of the
British sea-rover!”
Recent statistics show that while 90% of our imports and 89% of our
exports were carried in American bottoms before the Civil War, they
had declined to 10 and 7½% of our imports and exports in 1910.
=English Tribute to Germany’s Lofty Spirit.=--The following tribute
to the lofty spirit of the German Empire is from the pen of Prof. J.
A. Cramb, “Germany and England,” (Lecture II, p. 51, 1913):
And here let me say with regard to Germany, that, of all
England’s enemies, she is by far the greatest; and by
“greatness” I mean not merely magnitude, not her millions
of soldiers, her millions of inhabitants; I mean grandeur
of soul. She is the greatest and most heroic enemy--if she
is our enemy--that England, in the thousand years of her
history, has ever confronted. In the sixteenth century we
made war upon Spain. But Germany in the twentieth century
is a greater Power, greater in conception, in thought, in
all that makes for human dignity, than was the Spain of
Charles V and Philip II. In the seventeenth century we
fought against Holland, but the Germany of Bismarck and
the Kaiser is greater than the Holland of DeWitt. In the
eighteenth century we fought against France, and again
the Germany of to-day is a higher, more august Power than
France under Louis XIV.
=Election of 1916 and the League of Nations Covenant.=--Save for
artificially engendered belligerency, owing its inspiration to a
subtle propaganda conducted through a portion of the press known
to be under the direct influence of Lord Northcliffe, there was no
demand for war with Germany among the people in general over the
various issues that had arisen. The McLemore resolution in the House
was defeated through the direct intervention of the administration
under whip and spur. It requested the President to warn American
citizens to refrain from traveling on armed ships of any and all
powers then or in the future at war.
In the Senate the Gore resolution declaring “that the sinking by
a German submarine without notice or warning of an armed merchant
vessel of her public enemy, resulting in the death of a citizen of
the United States, would constitute a just cause of war between the
United States and the German Empire” was laid on the table by a
vote of 68 to 14. It had been designed by Senator Gore to put the
issue squarely up to the Senate. Senator Stone in the Senate said,
referring to the original Gore resolution warning American citizens
to keep off armed merchant vessels: “The President is firmly opposed
to the idea embodied in the Gore resolution. He is not only opposed
to Congress passing a law relating to this subject, but he is opposed
to any form of official warning to American citizens to keep off
so-called armed merchantmen. If I could have my way I would take some
definite step to save this country from becoming embroiled in this
European war through the recklessness of foolhardy men.”
A few days before, the Senator, chairman of the Committee on Foreign
Relations, had returned from an interview with the President which
had convinced him even then that war was impending.
In various parts of the country test votes of whole communities
showed an overwhelming sentiment in favor of peace. W. J. Bryan had
resigned as Secretary of State because “the issue involved is of such
moment that to remain a member of the Cabinet would be as unfair to
you (the President) as it would be to the cause which is nearest my
heart, namely, the prevention of war.”
Perhaps the best indication whether the war was popular or not is
that supplied by the number of volunteers who offered themselves
for service from April 1, 1917, to April 6, 1918, in eleven eastern
States, as follows:
Connecticut 4,263
Delaware 807
Maine 2,491
Maryland 4,029
Massachusetts 19,253
New Hampshire 1,364
New Jersey 10,145
New York 44,191
Pennsylvania 45,687
Rhode Island 2,496
Vermont 645
-------
135,371
The number of enlistments in the remaining States was in proportion.
The President had been elected because “he kept us out of the war.”
In his nominating speech ex-Governor Glynn of New York assured the
country that, if elected, Mr. Wilson would keep us out of war.
It became the campaign slogan. The Democratic National Committee
published full-page advertisements in the daily press. On November 4,
1916, it printed in all the papers a full-page display with a cartoon
under the caption, “Mr. Hughes Would Name a Strong Cabinet,” showing
a council of ten Roosevelts in Rough Rider attire, with slouched hats
and spurs, and in every possible attitude of vociferous belligerency,
intended to show the kind of cabinet that Mr. Hughes would select.
In heavy type these lines appeared: “You Are Working--Not Fighting!”
“Alive and Happy--Not Cannon Fodder!” “Wilson and Peace With Honor
or Hughes With Roosevelt and War?” “The Lesson is Plain: If You Want
War Vote for Hughes; If You Want Peace With Honor Vote for Wilson and
Continued Prosperity. It Is up to You and Your Conscience!”
It latterly became known that though Hughes had repeatedly declared
himself clearly on the issues in the course of his campaign speeches
his remarks on this subject were not reported. All reference to the
European situation and his views thereon were suppressed.
The city of Milwaukee gave Wilson 6,000 majority over Hughes. He
carried the assured Republican State of Ohio on the issue that he
would keep us out of the war and the decisive vote was given by
California under the belief that with Wilson peace would be assured.
The defeat of Hughes secondarily must be attributed to Colonel
Roosevelt. The latter’s personality fell like an ominous shadow
across the path of the Republican candidate. Roosevelt was satisfied
with nothing short of immediate war, and, nominally fighting Wilson,
was in effect making the election of Hughes impossible. Repeatedly
proven to have lost his power of influencing political results in his
own State of New York, in New England and other sections, he still
was able to decree the defeat of the candidate of his own party by
inspiring popular fear of his future sway over him.
In Washington it was known that preparations for war with Germany
were long under way. Secretary McAdoo, the President’s son-in-law,
was understood to have entered into a secret arrangement with Brazil,
during his visit there, for the seizure of German ships when the hour
to strike should have arrived. The administration in 1916, months
before the election, passed through Congress appropriations for
military purposes larger than those provided in the German budget for
1914, the year of the war:
United States, for 1917 $294,565,623
German Empire, for 1914 294,390,000
------------
In excess of Germany $ 175,623
The national election occurred in November, 1916. Three months later,
early in February, 1917, Count Bernstorff, the German ambassador, was
handed his passports and relations with Germany were broken off. The
announcement came like a bolt out of a clear sky. The President was
not to be inaugurated until March 4 following. Within a month of his
formal inauguration he announced that we were in a state of war with
the imperial German government.
The events that followed were marked by a complete surrender of
Congress and the domination of the Executive over the Legislative
branch of our government. The President was invested with dictatorial
powers; political traditions and the time-honored admonitions of
the founders of the government were disregarded and overruled. A
Cabinet order had already decreed that American citizens forswearing
their allegiance in order to serve in the British army were not to
lose their standing as American citizens. Now armies of conscripts
were made ready to be sent a distance of 3,000 miles to fight for
the safeguarding of democracy in Europe and to protect us from an
invasion, possible only by ships which were subsequently pronounced
by the Secretary of the Navy to be restricted by their bunker
capacity to operations in European waters.
A sudden mad fury seized the people, following a visit of Lord
Northcliffe, marked by numerous conferences with publishers during
a trip West. The press became unanimous, with the exception of
the Hearst papers, on the question that Germany must be crushed.
During the floating of the $500,000,000 loan to England and France
pending our neutrality, full page advertisements had been generously
distributed to papers throughout the country by the Morgan banking
interests. In mining regions, in steel-producing sections, in great
industrial centers, in cities having large packing interests or sugar
refineries, local interests prevailed to influence sentiment for war
as a means of profit and prosperity. Public opinion was soon rendered
so completely unfit for sober reflection by the continued propaganda
directed from Wall Street and British and French publicity centers
in this country that a wave of hate against people of German descent
swept everything before it. The Germans were not wanted, and papers
like the New York “Sun” declared that Germans were not human beings
in the same sense as other members of the family.
Yet, shortly prior to the election, a member of the Cabinet and
others in the confidence of the administration had come to New York
to confer with those whom they regarded authorized to speak for the
German element to prevail upon them to influence the so-called German
vote in favor of the Democratic candidate, and in one case, at least,
a post of honor was tentatively promised to one such spokesman by an
agent direct from the highest source.
The crowning event of the raging spirit of repression was the passage
of the Overman bill creating the Espionage act, considered elsewhere,
under which every liberal paper was tampered with in one form or
another, and public assembly, the right of petition, freedom of
speech and the press became a memory.
A vigorous reaction against the President set in during the fall
of 1918. Down to that period he had practically had a free hand in
dealing with the conduct of the war and with the European situation.
There had been a protest by Senators against the disregard shown
that body by the President in the initial negotiations at Paris,
but so completely had the Executive dominated the high legislative
body, his treaty-making partner, that the protest took the discreet
form of a round-robin, which in turn was not only disregarded, but
characterized as a presumption to hamper the action of the President.
The November election of 1918 was coming on. The President in Paris
issued an appeal to the voters to elect a Democratic Congress to
strengthen his hands. Diplomatically, steps were inaugurated to
insure the end of the war by the voluntary abdication of the Kaiser
in time to influence the elections with the news of a crushing
victory over Germany. The name of Minister Nelson Morris at
Stockholm, Sweden, as also the name of Senator James Hamilton Lewis
of Illinois, was brought into connection with rumors of negotiations
looking to the surrender of Germany on the basis of the Fourteen
Points in time to enable the news to be flashed to America on the eve
of the election as the crowning achievement of the President. But the
psychological moment passed. The elections occurred on November 7,
the German debacle four days later.
Although it was well understood that a victory was at hand, the
Republicans swept the country. The great Democratic majorities were
reversed, not only in the House, but in the Senate. The Republican
leaders interpreted the result as an endorsement of their party, but
it was really a popular vote of protest that could find no channel of
expression other than the Republican party because of its opposition
to the administration on party policies, though in accord with it on
many of the radically oppressive measures of domestic policy in the
prosecution of the war.
With the Republicans in control of both branches of Congress, the
President’s dominating influence began to wane rapidly. When it
began to be apparent that his visit to Europe, where he had been
hailed by millions as the Moses of the New Freedom, was marked by
one concession on his part after another to the superior statescraft
of Premiers Lloyd George and Clemenceau and that his famous Fourteen
Points had been reduced one by one to zero, the magic slogan, “Stand
by the President,” was forgotten. Some one said that on his way to
Utopia he had met two practical politicians.
A year preceding men were arrested for failing to stand by the
President, as treason to the institutions of the country; now the
tide had turned, the rallying cry had lost its force. The country
was witnessing the spectacle of its President stepping down from
his pedestal to play the game of European politics in the secrecy
of a closet, not with his equals, but with mere envoys of sovereign
powers, guided by radically different interests from our own.
Thence on the President was at open war with the Senate, which had
been kept in ignorance of the peace negotiations and discovered that
a draft of the League of Nations covenant, including the treaty with
Germany, had been in the hands of the Morgan banking group while the
high treaty-making body of our government had been ignored in its
demand for information.
A few courageous Senators, notably Reed of Missouri, Democrat, and
Borah of Idaho and Johnson of California, Republicans, began to
analyze the treaty, and showed that while Great Britain was accorded
six votes the United States would have but one vote in the League,
and that China had been ravaged by the ceding to Japan of the
Shantung Peninsula as the price of her adherence to the League of
Nations. Senator Knox directed attention to the ravagement of the
German people by the terms of the treaty, and, though a conservative,
evidenced the vision of a statesman and patriotic American.
The outlook for the treaty began to darken from day to day. The
administration was still confident, and statements from the White
House declared the treaty to redeem all of the Fourteen Points of
the President’s peace program. But the constant assaults upon it by
Senators Reed, Borah and Johnson in speeches in various parts of the
country eventually aroused the administration to its danger.
A conference with the President was brought about at the White House
in the summer of 1919, at which the Chief Executive expressed himself
ready to answer all questions, and a committee from the Senate waited
upon him to submit a series of inquiries. It was in the course of
this interview that the following colloquy occurred:
=Senator McCumber: “Would our moral conviction of the unrighteousness
of the German war have brought us into this war if Germany had not
committed any acts against us without the League of Nations, as we
had no League of Nations at that time?”=
=The President: “I hope it would eventually, Senator, as things
developed.”=
=Senator McCumber: “Do you think if Germany had committed no act of
war or no act of injustice against our citizens that we would have
got into the war?”=
=The President: “I do think so.”=
=Senator McCumber: “You think we would have gotten in anyway?”=
=The President: “I do.”=
The Republican leader in the House of Representatives, Representative
Mann, in 1916 had declared “Wilson is determined to plunge us into
war with Germany.” Three years later the admission that we would have
been in the war even “if Germany had committed no act of war or no
act of injustice against our citizens” came from the White House, and
Senators stood appalled at the revelation.
The President’s frank admission that the administration would have
drifted into war regardless of what Germany had done or might do, is
strangely in accord with statements contained in the great historic
work on the World War by the former French Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Hanotaux, who writes:
=Just before the Battle of the Marne, when the spirits
of many of the leading politicians in France were so
depressed that they were urging an immediate peace with
Germany, three American ambassadors presented themselves
to the government--the then functioning ambassador, his
predecessor and his successor--and implored the government
not to give up, promising that America would join in the
war.=
“=At present there are but 50,000 influential persons in
America who want it to enter the war, but in a short time
there will be a hundred million.=”
The description makes it easy to identify the three diplomats who
gave France this assurance; they were Robert Bacon, Roosevelt’s
ambassador; Myron T. Herrick, Taft’s ambassador, and William G.
Sharp, Wilson’s ambassador to Paris. This promise was given in
September, 1914. There had then been no alleged outrages against
American rights. The U-boat war had not been started. The Lusitania
was not sunk until May, 1915. Obviously, then, the sinking of the
Lusitania, the U-boat raids, and other alleged offenses, were mere
pretexts of these “50,000 influential persons” in a propaganda to
precipitate their hundred million fellow-citizens into the bloody
European complication.
No compromise now seemed possible. The Senate was determined to take
charge of the treaty, and the President prepared to appeal to the
country by a series of speeches which carried him through the West as
far as the Pacific Coast. During the trip he denounced the opposition
Senators with strong invective, culminating in violent outbreaks of
temper. But apparently his spell over the public mind, the seduction
of his phrases, had been broken. Suddenly came the news of his
physical breakdown, followed by his immediate return to Washington
under the care of physicians, and a long period of confinement with
the attendance of various specialists. Still he continued to direct
the fight in the Senate for the ratification of the League of Nations
and the treaty with Germany without the crossing of a “t” or the
dotting of an “i.”
On November 19, 1919, the question came to a vote on a resolution
of Senator Underwood, resulting in the defeat of the administration
measure by a vote of 38 for and 53 against it. The only Republican
voting with the administration was McCumber of North Dakota, seven
Democrats voting against ratification with the Republicans. They
were Gore of Oklahoma, Reed of Missouri, Shields of Tennessee, Smith
of Georgia, Thomas of Colorado, Trammell of Florida and Walsh of
Massachusetts.
=English Opinion of Prussians in 1813-15.=--The British, as is well
known, revise their opinions of other nations according to their own
selfish interests. The ambition of England to crush Prussia is in
strong contrast to England’s gratitude to Prussian military genius
for saving Wellington from annihilation by Napoleon at Waterloo. The
sinister years of 1806-13 speak an eloquent language. The Corsican
conqueror thought he had crushed Prussia for all times. He had
stripped Prussia of half her territory and trampled the rest under
the hoofs of his cavalry. But Prussia was not dead, and from 1813 to
1815 Prussia was the wonder of the world. The London “Times” said:
“Almost every victory that led to the fall of the conqueror was a
Prussian victory. At Lutzen and Goerzen always the Prussians. At the
Katzbach, always the Prussians; at Grossbeeren and Leipzig, always
the Prussians; in the battles in France, always the Prussians, and
finally at Waterloo, always the Prussians. The Prussian soldier has
proved himself the best soldier of these campaigns.”
=Espionage Act, Vote on.=--By a vote of 48 to 26, the Senate, on
May 4, 1918, adopted the conference report on the Espionage Act. It
accepted all recommendations of the conference, even to the extent of
rejecting the France amendment, designed to protect from prosecution
newspapers and other publications whose criticism of the Government
was shown to be not based on malice.
The actual count showed the result as follows:
AYE: Democrats--Ashurst, Bankhead, Beckham, Chamberlain, Culberson,
Fletcher, Gerry, Guion, Henderson, Hitchcock, Hollis, Jones, of New
Mexico; King, Kirby, Lewis, McKellar, Myers, Overman, Owens, Phelan,
Pittman, Pomerene, Ransdell, Salisbury, Shafroth, Sheppard, Shields,
Simmons, Smith, of Georgia; Smith, of Maryland; Smith, of South
Carolina; Swanson, Thompson, Tillman, Trammell, Underwood, Walsh and
Williams.
Republican--Colt, Fall, Jones, of Washington; Lenroot, McCumber,
McLean, Nelson, Poindexter, Sterling and Warren. Total, 48.
NO: Democrats--Hardwick and Reed--2.
Republicans--Borah, Brandegee, Calder, Curtis, Dillingham, France,
Gallinger, Gronna, Hale, Harding, Johnson, of California; Kenyon,
Knox, Lodge, McNary, New, Norris, Page, Sherman, Smoot, Sutherland,
Wadsworth, Watson and Weeks--24. Total, 26.
=Exports and Imports to and from the Belligerent Countries,
1914.=--The following figures are taken from the “Statistical
Abstract of the United States, 1915.”
Exports to-- Imports from--
Austria-Hungary 1913 $ 23,320,696 $ 19,192,414
1915 1,238,669 9,794,418
France 1914 159,818,924 141,446,252
1915 369,397,170 77,158,740
=Germany 1914 344,794,276 189,919,136=
1915 28,863,354 91,372,710
Italy 1914 74,235,012 56,407,671
1915 184,819,688 54,973,726
Russia 1914 31,303,149 23,320,157
1915 60,827,531 3,394,040
United Kingdom 1914 594,271,863 293,661,304
1915 911,794,954 256,351,675
1913 415,449,457 120,571,180
Canada 1914 344,716,081 160,689,790
1915 300,686,812 159,571,712
The table shows that the normal trade with Germany was the largest
next to that with the United Kingdom, and that Germany took more of
our products than Canada. It shows that Germany was not only one of
our best customers but that the balance of trade was largely in our
favor, the excess of American exports to Germany over imports in 1914
amounting to $154,875,140, or nearly as much as our entire exports to
France in 1914.
The following table shows how the British arbitrary rule of the seas
cut down our trade with the Scandinavian countries, all but that of
Norway, whose neutrality was largely in favor of England. The figures
are for the nine months ending March.
1915 1916
Denmark, exports and imports $ 63,103,962 $44,046,752
Netherlands, exports and imports 101,892,382 72,469,008
Norway, exports and imports 32,401,556 37,259,135
Sweden, exports and imports 65,880,749 43,156,027
=Under the Espionage Act--A Chapter of Persecution.=--The sudden
decision of our government to enter the European war, on April 6,
1917, found the German element wholly unprepared for the outburst
of bitter hate which in the course of a few weeks threatened to
overwhelm every standard of sense and justice. Though a minority
element, it approximated closely the dominant Anglo-American element;
it far outnumbered every other racial element, and it was not
conscious of anything that justified its being relegated to a class
apart from the American people as a whole.
The German element had fought for the independence of America in the
Revolution to the full limit of its quota, which was considerable;
it had outstripped every other element in furnishing troops for the
Union army; it had stood loyally by the government in every other
crisis of its history, and it was not aware that the Germans living
3,000 miles away under a government of their own had ever followed
any policy save one of pronounced friendship for the United States.
Having no political adhesion among themselves, having never
contemplated the possibility of being turned upon by their fellow
citizens, fostering the spirit of conviviality, sociability, and
cultivating song and art rather than politics, they had relied
confidently on the impartiality of laws of the land to protect them
in their rights as well as to exact the performance of their duties
as American citizens.
Their forefathers had been foremost in the winning of the West;
more than any others they formed the far-flung battle line that
encountered the invasion of the red hordes in the French-Indian
wars; more of their number had perished in Indian massacres,
from Canajoharie to New Ulm, than of any other race; they could
defiantly challenge any other element to show a greater influence
in educational, cultural and general academic directions, and in
the words of that truly great American woman, Miss Jane Addams, the
German American element was entitled to be heard.
It is unfortunately an Anglo-American trait to be easily lashed into
a fanatical mob spirit by prominent spokesmen, in singular disregard
of its avowed democracy. The history of our country teems with
examples of unbridled violence against any non-conforming spirit that
ever developed. Nathaniel Hawthorne wrote:
The influential classes, and those who take upon themselves
to be the leaders of the people, are fully liable to all
the passionate error that has ever characterized the
maddest mob. Clergymen, judges, statesmen, the wisest,
calmest, holiest persons of their day, stood in the inner
circle round about the gallows, loudest to applaud the work
of blood, latest to confess themselves miserably deceived.
It began with the hanging of witches; it was continued in the mobbing
of Quakers; at one time we mobbed English actors, and in the Astor
Place riots of New York, because we abhorred an English actor,
Macready, eighteen persons were killed. There were the anti-Masonic
riots, the anti-Catholic emeutes, the Know Nothing riots; later the
anti-abolitionist riots in Boston and elsewhere; the Copperhead
mobs, the Sandlot riots, and dozens of others, down to the burning
of negroes by demonstrative communities charging themselves with the
administration of savage justice.
It happened to be the turn of the Germans, forming 26 per cent.
of the total population, and so intermixed that nothing can ever
segregate the cross-currents of blood that courses through the veins
of the American people.
In the Revolution Prussia had given refuge to American cruisers at
Danzig, the port which, under the treaty we are helping to distrain
from her German motherland, and had bribed Catherine the Great’s
minister to prevent the sending of Russian troops to help England
fight the American colonists; in the Civil War, besides giving
their sons to the cause of the Union, the Germans had come to our
rescue with their money when most needed. Was it astonishing that
the so-called German element was stunned and staggered by the sudden
reversion of sentiment from one of complete spiritual and national
accord to one of vindictive malice by neighbor against neighbor and
friend against friend?
It is perhaps true, as has been assumed, that certain influential
members of the administration received an inordinate shock at the
suggestion, from whatever source it came, that the German Americans
would be likely to rise in revolution, and that a panic seized
Washington at such a prospect, so that all measures were considered
fair that would tend to put down the Germans and keep them in
complete subjection by a system of terrorism. It is certain that no
evidence has been disclosed by the endless investigations that have
been going on which tended to establish the guilt of any member of
the race as to plots against the government.
The Attorney General called for 200,000 volunteers to act as agents
of the Department of Justice to report all disloyal talk or on the
identity of persons suspected of being “pro-German.” To be known as
having sympathized with the Central Powers, no matter what one’s
action was after we entered the war, was to insure one’s footsteps
and movements to be dogged by spies. No home was sacred, and the
least indiscreet utterance was ground for a report, arrest and
indictment under the so-called Espionage Act, which the New York
“American” of February 24, 1917, described as “simply the infamous
Alien and Sedition laws under another name,” passed in 1789, during
the presidency of John Adams, which consigned the party that passed
it to eternal oblivion.
Senator Cummings of Iowa said:
This measure is the most stringent and drastic law ever
proposed to curb a free people in time of peace or war.
The Government would have absolute power in war time to
suppress newspapers and prevent debate in Congress. It
might even be held a criminal offense for two citizens to
discuss with each other questions of military policy.
The New York “Call” of July 2, 1919, described the effect of the law
in no exaggerated language when it said:
Free discussion became a memory, and rubber stamp opinions
became a badge of “patriotism.” Men and women were hunted
out of their homes for having an idea higher than a rat.
In some states a White Terror raged which deported whole
families to adjoining states. Blood flowed. Men were mobbed
and some lynched because they insisted on using their
brains, instead of the brains of others. Public officials
applauded, refused to interfere, and newspapers glorified
the carousal of hate and terror.
Spying upon your friends became an honorable calling.
The coward who hated his fellow man in packs became the
popular “hero.” Papers and magazines had their mailing
privileges withdrawn and some were suppressed. Libraries
were repeatedly ransacked for “seditious” literature. The
schools became a refuge of servile teachers, who taught
what was told them, no matter how absurd it might be.
Censorship barred the masses from the real news of the
world. The “news” was manufactured in government bureaus
and in the editorial offices of the daily newspapers. The
theater and the “movie” became agencies for enforcing
standardized opinions. The churches tied their creeds to
the chariot of the imperialists and made their Christ speak
for reaction. The lecture platform became defiled. The
reversion back to the primitive permeated politics. The
blackest enemies of human progress had the public ear; its
friends were damned and assaulted. Historical works were
“revised” or suppressed to make them square with the brutal
mania of the hour.
All this was glorified in the name of “democracy,” in the
name of “liberty,” in the name of “freedom.” A shadow fell
upon the intellectual life of the nation. For the time
being it was blotted out. All thinking had ceased, except
for a courageous few, and they were mobbed or sent to the
penitentiaries. Yet the editors, politicians, preachers,
capitalists, bankers, exploiters, profiteers, patrioteers,
“labor leaders,” all, looked upon their work and called
it good. Missions went abroad to tell the European yokels
of our “ideals.” The masses were intellectual prisoners,
marching in the lockstep of capital’s chain gang.
There was a phase of this spy activity that went even beyond this:
The invasion of the homes of German Americans whose sons were
fighting in the ranks and dying in France--there were 17,000 of the
latter. They were harried by ill-bred patriots of the sort we read of
in the history of the French revolution, who, disregarding the fact
that these parents were citizens, treated them as suspects and kept
them under surveillance because they were not rushing out into the
open and shouting “Huns.”
Many a case occurred in which a lad in the American army was fighting
against his own brother in the ranks of the German army and his
mother over here was harrassed by members of the National Security
League, the American Defense Society or the American Protective
League, while the father was cast out of employment for being of
German blood.
Many a crippled boy returned from France to find that his family had
been impoverished and persecuted by secret agents or self-constituted
spies. In the breast of many a young German American were then and
there planted the seeds of hate for his tormentors, and, sad to
relate, doubts of the virtue of American liberty. He had given his
blood to make the world safe for democracy and found his home in the
grip of despotism.
There are those who account for the persecution of the German
element by the reminder that the war offered the first opportunity
for Southern-thinking Americans to repay the German element for its
share in the Civil War in aiding the Union to win the final victory
in 1865. Be that as it may, in the end this element was gloriously
vindicated by ample proof of its loyalty, no matter what the test.
Despite the most unrelenting enforcement of every phase of the
objectionable act, mass meetings were held in twelve cities during
Lincoln’s birthday in 1919, to protest against the law and demand
its repeal. The meetings were called in the name of Lincoln, the
liberator, but not by German Americans.
Reviewing the prosecutions under the Espionage Act, the Civil
Liberties Bureau, 41 Union Square, which itself was repeatedly
raided, on February 13, 1919, issued the following summary:
The bureau has had, since the beginning of the war, a
standing order with a newspaper clipping company covering
all references in the press of the United States to
disloyalty, sedition, espionage and the Espionage law. As
a result, we have the most illuminating record of cases
which it has been possible to complete without access to
the records of the Attorney General. We have no record of a
single instance when a spy has been imprisoned under this
law.
Furthermore, in the cases cited in the Attorney General’s
report as typical of those prosecuted under the Espionage
law, there is not one case in which the prisoner was
convicted of being a paid German spy, or of even trying to
find out military secrets. All the convictions which are
reported arose under section 13 of the Penal Code, under
which the maximum sentence is two years. So far as we have
any record, cases of this nature which have arisen under
the Espionage act have been terminated by the internment
of the accused, without imprisonment. On the other hand,
American citizens exercising (perhaps without discretion)
the right of free speech in war time have been sentenced
to as high as twenty years in the penitentiary. According
to the data in our possession, about two-thirds of the
convictions have been for remarks in private conversation.
The remainder have been for statements made in public
speeches and in literature publicly circulated.
The daily press, with the very rarest exceptions, was in accord with
the mob and the spirit of the Espionage Act. If ever it was evident
how little the German Americans had been taken into consideration by
their fellow citizens, it became undeniably patent in the refusal
of the press, though largely dependent on the support of this
element, to cry a halt to the persecutions. Every man arrested on
some charge was glaringly pictured in the character of a dangerous
spy, and fanatical women were given much space in their columns for
organized assaults on German toys and German music. The German people
were described as moral lepers. The New York “Herald” advocated the
hanging of German Americans to lamp posts. The New York “Sun,” late
in October, 1918, soberly printed this:
Yet by not a few are we ominously told that the German is
a man of like nature with ourselves and that as such we
must be prepared to live with him after the war. This is
not the truth; it is rather the most menacing lie upon the
horizon of the conflict and its conclusion.... Scrutinized
historically and presented boldly, the German cannot be but
recognized as a distinctly separate and pathological human
species. =He is not human in the sense that other men are
human.=
Societies were formed for the Suppression of Everything German,
and there exists at present in all parts of the United States a
secret society pledged not to buy of any German American or to give
employment to any member of that race.
The German Americans manifested an utterly helpless spirit in the
situation. No uniform demand was formulated to be presented to
Congress demanding the repeal of the Espionage Act after the excuse
that called it into existence had ceased to exist, or calling on
the authorities for protection. Some formed a society known as
“The Friends of German Democracy,” under Mr. Franz Sigel, which
adopted resolutions pledging complete and unreserved loyalty. It was
rewarded with a letter from a woman heading an anti-German movement
who subsequently was shown to be an English subject, in which the
Friends of German Democracy were roundly told that “the only good
German-American is a dead one.”
Another woman, the daughter of German parents, Mrs. William Jay,
gained great notoriety by her campaign against German music, and
was instrumental in stopping German plays, operas and symphonies in
New York before and after the armistice had been signed, and also
in sending many well-established German musicians into exile, or
to an internment camp. Many, courting favor and recognition from
persons having some social standing, seeing their own race utterly
helpless in counteracting the feeling of contempt, joined with their
detractors in order to remove all doubt as to their own loyalty.
In many States the teaching of the German language was prohibited
by the legislatures. In New York City, though the Germans have a
total vote of 1,250,000, including the women, they were unable to
prevent--and made no attempt to prevent--an order forbidding the
teaching of German or the introduction of new books of history in the
schools in which their race is described as Huns and made responsible
for every atrocity ascribed to it in the heat of war.
The only outstanding resistance to the spirit of Anglicising the
country was recorded in New Jersey, where the German language was
put under the ban in the Masonic lodges, and where John J. Plemenik,
Master of Schiller Lodge, in Newark, refused to comply with the order
of the Grand Lodge on the ground that for fifty years the lodge had
worked in German, under the sanction of the Grand Lodge. Rather
than submit to the edict of the Grand Lodge of the State the master
walked out of the lodge room, followed by 200 Masons, some of them
from English-speaking lodges. The example found a near parallel in
one of the twenty-seven German lodges in New York City, one of them
above 125 years old, after which an order extending the time for
discontinuing the German language of the lodges was promptly issued.
All the lodges were, however, unanimous in support of steps against
obedience to the edict.
The New York Liederkranz Society, one of the largest German social
organizations in the United States, cheered the late Col. Roosevelt
to the echo in his attacks on their race. The New York “Times” of
October 16, 1918, says that although all members of the club are of
German descent, every statement made by Col. Roosevelt, and the other
speakers, William Forster, president of the club, and Ludwig Nissen,
chairman of the Liberty Loan Committee, were cheered again and
again. Col. Roosevelt said there was room here for but one language,
meaning, of course, the King’s English.
A few months later we read a dispatch from Philadelphia (New York
“Tribune,” April 26, 1919): “President Wilson’s attitude on the Fiume
situation has so aroused Italians in this city that they will not
hold their Victory Liberty Loan parade.... Leaders here fear that
the attitude of the Italians toward President Wilson will result in
cutting down their subscriptions to the loan.”
Before one Justice Cropsey, of the Queens County Supreme Court,
ten Germans out of eleven who applied for citizenship one day in
May, 1919, six months after the signing of the armistice, had their
petitions denied. A girl who was earning her living as a stenographer
was included in the list because she had not invested in the first
two Liberty loans, though she was unemployed at the time. The learned
Justice dismissed her petition with the statement: “You get the
benefit of this country and increase your pay through its entrance
into the war, and yet you will not support it.”
Out of 215 staff officers named among the personnel of the new
general staff of the army, announced October 3, 1918, only nine bore
German names. Of the service men aboard an American ship destroyed in
action during the war, 36 per cent. bore German names. The highest
distinction conferred on any American aviator during the active
fighting was given to Capt. Edward V. Rickenbacker, popularly called
“the American Ace of Aces,” of Columbus, Ohio.
Any one resisting the current of hatred and abuse, as Henry Ford,
whose contribution to the success of the American army is certainly
incontestible, was exposed to the same attacks as those directly
of German descent who were everywhere summoned before boards of
inquisition; a headline in the “Evening Sun” of July 2, 1919, runs
like this: “Ford Kept 500 Pro-Germans--Staff Men Say They Worked
at Plant During the War--Motor Defects Were Passed--Didn’t Try to
Correct Errors.”
That citizens of German origin were assigned a status independent of
other citizens is apparent from a statement filed with the United
States Senate by Mr. George A. Schreiner, the war correspondent of
the Associated Press, who, upon his return here for a visit, was
refused a passport for two years to go back to his post of duty. He
writes:
I will terminate my report with a few remarks that seem
greatly in order. These remarks concern the status of the
naturalized citizen. On the very report issued to me on
August 30, 1919, there appears personal data denouncing
me which was formerly not placed on passports, =and
which during the last two years has done much injury
to naturalized citizens=. I refer to the fact that in
the lower left-hand corner of the passport is noted the
citizen’s place of birth and former nationality. As things
are constituted and as they have been for some time, the
notice referred to constitutes a discrimination against
citizens of the United States of immigrant origin. The
passport is given to the citizen as a means to identify
himself as a citizen of the United States, =not as signal
to those hostile to his racials elsewhere, that the
Government of the United States sees a distinction between
native and those of foreign birth=.... The elimination of
all personal data from the passport would be the first
step on the part of the Government in serving notice
upon foreign governments that there is but one class of
citizens in the United States, and that all of them are
equally entitled to protection, as was the stand taken by
the Senate when some years ago it abrogated the commercial
treaty with the Imperial Russian Government, because that
government had refused to recognize fully the American
passports given to citizens of the United States of Jewish
origin.
Men in the Department of State have thought it presumptuous
on my part that I should claim the rights of a native-born
citizen, and do that in the manner in which I was forced
to do it. To that I will reply that no other avenue was
open. In the first place, =I am either a citizen of the
United States in every sense of the word, and in every duty
and right, or I am not=. So long as there is not set up,
let me say, immigrant citizens, or whatever designation
may be deemed proper, which class a person can join, fully
cognizant of what he or she is doing, the citizen admitted
on the basis of full citizenship, the reservation of the
presidency duly considered, would show his utter unfitness
for his national status did he relinquish, in the least
degree, his rights and guarantees, as constitutionally
fixed and legally defined.
One German American army officer was sentenced to 25 years at
hard labor at Leavenworth for having written a letter to the War
Department, declaring that as his sympathies for Germany did not fit
him to act a soldier in the fighting line, he desired to resign. He
was nevertheless sent to France in the hope that it “would cause his
sense of propriety to reassert itself.” Later, when Pershing reported
that there had been no change, he was sent back to the United States
for trial, with the above result. The “Times” said the papers and
documents seized in his home would not be published. “These papers
are said to show that the convicted man was an active friend of
Germany in this country (his wife was born there), and that in the
early part of the war he subscribed to one of the German war loans,
paying his subscription in installments.” This was the extent of the
proof, so far as known. Another officer of German descent could not
be confirmed when his name was sent in for promotion to brigadier
general.
One of the most sensational trials was that against Albert Paul
Fricke, in New York, charged with high treason. Delancey Nicol,
a famous attorney, was specially engaged to prosecute the case.
Fricke was acquitted by a jury. This result was noticed in an
obscure part of the papers, whereas Fricke’s arrest, indictment and
the details of the case at many stages was spread under screaming
headlines invariably. Paul C. H. Hennig, holding a responsible
position as superintendent in the E. W. Bliss Co. plant in Brooklyn,
was announced to have been caught red-handed tampering with the
gyroscopes for torpedoes manufactured by the company for the
Government. It was described as a plot so to manipulate the gyroscope
as to reverse the course of the torpedo and discharge it against
the vessel from which it was released, thus blowing the ship out of
the water. At the trial it was testified that Hennig could not have
accomplished any such purpose had he desired, as the torpedoes passed
through numerous other hands after leaving his and were carefully
inspected at every stage of their manufacture. He was acquitted by a
jury, but the trial had ruined him financially.
Two years before the war, a Lutheran minister, Rev. Jaeger, was
assassinated in his home in Indiana for being pro-German. On April
5, 1918, Robert B. Prager was lynched by a mob of boys and drunken
men at Collinsville, Illinois, for being a German. The acquittal of
the men was received with public jubilation, bon fires and concert by
a Naval Reserve band. At West Frankfort, Ill., according to a press
dispatch of March 25, 1918, “500 men seized Mrs. Frances Bergen, a
woman of Bohemian birth, from municipal officers, rode her on a rail
through the main street of the town, and compelled her to wave the
American flag throughout the demonstration. At frequent intervals the
procession paused while Mrs. Bergen was compelled to shout praise for
President Wilson.”
A law evidently designed to hurt citizens of German descent was
passed in Chicago, and a dispatch of March 26, 1918, gleefully
announced that “six thousand aliens will lose their rights to conduct
business in Chicago, May 1, when the ordinance passed by the City
Council refusing licenses to all persons not United States citizens
takes effect. Brewers, saloon keepers, restaurant keepers, tailors,
bakers, junk dealers and others for whom a license from the city is
required will be affected by the new law.” In this manner judges were
forced from the bench and even compelled to fly for their lives,
teachers were ousted out of their places, and professors frozen out
of their professorships in universities. Citizens to the number
of thousands were made outcasts in the country of their birth or
adoption, and they were asking themselves “why?” without getting
an answer. The German plotters spoken of by leading officials of
the government as menacing the safety of the government, had not
materialized; the danger of the “hyphen” had been exaggerated.
Under the extraordinary power given to irresponsible organizations
and individuals by the repressive legislation enacted by Congress,
the abuses which ensued were harrowing to any one with the least
conscious regard for the institutions of his country. In New York a
boy was sentenced to three months in jail for circulating a leaflet
containing extracts from the Declaration of Independence, emphasis
being laid on the fact by the court that certain passages, construed
to be an incitement to sedition, were printed in black type. An
appeal to a higher court fortunately nullified the verdict. A woman
was knocked down in the streets of New York by a man for speaking
German, and the court discharged the brute without a reprimand. From
all parts of the country reports of outrages against citizens with
German names were of daily occurrence. Men were carried off by groups
of hooligans, stripped and whipped, or tarred and feathered. The same
individuals who had themselves expressed sympathy for the cause of
the Central Powers in conversations with their neighbors, suddenly
turned informers, and professed to be proud of their betrayal of
confidence. Everywhere men were indicted for treason who on trial
were acquitted by the juries who heard their cases.
Not until the mob spirit everywhere assumed such a menacing aspect
that no citizen dared trust his own friend, and bloodshed and
violence began to run rampant, came any utterance from administration
sources designed to check the reign of terror, and then the warnings
were couched in such conservative language that they could be applied
as a rebuke only to extreme cases of fanatical madness.
Not only was the press doing yeoman’s duty in the suppression of
human rights, but the pulpit, the bar and the theaters and film
companies combined to lash the ignorant into a state of maniacal
fury and incited them to further outrages. A few judges, here and
there, stood out in bold relief for their attitude in defense of
constitutional government and the right of the individual under the
same.
One of the most dastardly outrages was enacted near Florence, Ky.,
October 28, 1917, when a masked mob seized Prof. Herbert S. Bigelow,
a prominent citizen of Cincinnati, Ohio, tied him to a tree in the
woods and horse-whipped him for advocating the constitutional rights
of American citizens.
The manner in which terrorism was carried out is well illustrated by
events in New York City. Bazaars were everywhere held in aid of the
cause of army and navy and the associated governments, and committees
scoured the city for subscriptions and support. Among the events
organized for this ostensible purpose was the Army and Navy Bazaar.
The sum of $72,000 was taken in, but only $700 went to Uncle Sam’s
soldiers and sailors. The rest went for commissions and expenses.
This affair was used to terrorize German Americans on a large scale
in order to press money out of them. An investigation brought out
evidence, supplied by William S. Moore, secretary of the Guaranty
Trust Company, who was treasurer of the bazaar, that “German citizens
and citizens of German descent had been threatened with accusations
of disloyalty by collectors of the bazaar.” An evening paper stated:
“He admitted to the prosecutor that during the preparations for the
bazaar several complaints that New Yorkers of German blood had been
solicited, with the threat that they would be reported for internment
if they refused to contribute, had been made to the bazaar officials.”
Samuel Gompers, head of the American Federation of Labor, during the
war declared that 600 liberal periodicals had been interfered with
by the Post Office Department under the power given the Postmaster
General to censor the American press. A large number of papers were
harrassed, their editors arrested, some charged with treason or other
high crime; and a few--a very few--were indicted. One effectual way
of putting a stop to a publication which, though no grounds existed
for its suppression, yet proved offensive by its outspoken defense
of American principles, was to cancel its second-class mailing
privilege. Under this privilege a paper enjoys a pound-rate postage,
instead of being obliged to pay one cent or more for every copy
mailed.
This was the course pursued toward the weekly, “Issues and Events,”
which, with “The Fatherland” (now Viereck’s “American Monthly”),
was started in 1914 to combat the pro-Ally campaign under Lord
Northcliffe. After some five or six issues were stopped from going
through the mails, the paper taking steps to reincorporate, became
“The American Liberal,” but after only four issues was denied the
second-class mailing privilege, and was forced to suspend.
The issue of March 23, 1918, was stopped for printing Theodore
Sutro’s plea before the Senate Committee as attorney for the
German-American Alliance, which was having its charter canceled by
a bill introduced by Senator King, of Utah. The issue of April 6,
1918, was stopped. It contained a compilation of the outrages against
German Americans in all parts of the country under the heading, “A
Reign of Terror.” The issue of April 13 was stopped. It contained a
quotation from Carl Schurz on the freedom of speech and press, and
a statement of Abraham Lincoln on reverence for the law; also an
article on the seizure of a list of 40,000 subscribers to the German
war bonds by the then attorney general of New York.
The next number to be stopped was the issue of May 11, containing
an article, “The Right of Free Speech Defined by a Distinguished
Federal Judge to Roosevelt and by Judge Hand to the Jury Trying
‘The Masses’ Case,” and an article showing that the Germans had
subscribed a larger amount to the Liberty Loan than any other group
of foreign-born citizens.
The June 1 issue was next stopped. It contained the address of
Melville E. Stone, general manager of the Associated Press, before
the St. Louis Commercial Club, in which he denied the truth of the
stories of Belgian atrocities after a personal investigation of
numerous cases in France and Belgium. The June 8 issue also was
stopped. The offensive material obviously consisted of extracts from
a pamphlet issued by the National Civil Liberties Bureau, “The Truth
About the I. W. W.” It presented a compilation of extracts from the
works of industrial investigators and noted economists, and was
printed as a matter of news with no idea of propagandizing the cause
of the I. W. W.
The paper was rapidly losing its footing under this heroic treatment
of the Post Office censorship, although no notoriety was attached
to the course. On June 22 the first issue of “The American Liberal”
appeared, in which an attempt was made to avoid anything that could
give excuse for interference, the chief desire being to protect the
stockholders and creditors. But after the fourth issue a peremptory
order canceling the second-class mailing privilege put an effectual
stop to further efforts to continue the uneven struggle.
Immediately after, the affairs of the paper became a subject of
serious concern in various secret service branches of the government.
A raid was made on a prominent citizen in the town of Reading and
letters were found showing that he had at one time aided the paper
in the sum of $100. This was heralded as evidence of some sinister
conspiracy to destroy the government. A raid was made on the office
of the paper and every letter on file was seized to discover proof of
fraud and bad faith on the part of certain employes of the office,
and to establish some connection with German plotters. Investigations
were instituted; the daily papers were supplied with information
that contained one part fact and nine parts suggestion, innuendoes
and insinuations. Lawyers who examined the reports said they were
vicious, but just within the law--that action for libel would
probably not stick. And that was obviously the purpose of the raids.
The prominent citizen of Reading was allowed to go the even tenor of
his ways, and the seized documents in the office of the paper were
returned in due season and pronounced harmless. The public had been
lashed into a feverish state of indignation against some imaginary
plotters, a legitimate enterprise had been ruined, all the employes
of the paper had been turned into the street, some filth had been
flung at the head of the editor, and the country was saved!
The paper was instrumental, after its suspension, in raising
sufficient money to satisfy an indebtedness of more than $600 due a
private benevolent institution in which it had placed a large number
of children of distressed aliens affected by the rigorous legislation
of Congress against alien enemies, and the Mount Plaza Home, which
it had started for the same purpose, took care of between 800 and
900 children during the season of 1918 with its own resources. This
charity had formed a special object of attack and suspicion.
Even more drastic was the treatment accorded Viereck’s “American
Monthly,” though for reasons which need not be detailed here, it was
not interfered with by the Post Office Department. The principal
cause for the inquisition, which kept the daily press well supplied
with Monday morning articles of sensational interest, was Mr.
Viereck’s connection with German propaganda before our entrance
in the war. The inquisition was conducted by Assistant State’s
Attorney Alfred Becker, then a candidate for Attorney General, who
was apparently making political capital for himself out of the
investigation. Later Senator Reed showed that Becker’s associate in
the investigation was an individual named Musica, an ex-convict, who
with a number of associates had, also under Mr. Becker’s auspices,
sought to “frame up” William Randolph Hearst with Bolo Pasha, the
press being furnished with statements that Mr. Hearst, Bolo Pasha,
Capt. Boy-Ed and Capt. von Papen had foregathered over a supper at a
prominent New York hotel for some undefined evil purpose. The whole
story was shown to be a fabrication.
The daily press teemed with headlines like this: “Letters Seized
by Millions in Raid--Alleged Seditious Matter Taken After Over 300
Search Warrants Are Issued Secretly--Anti-War Bodies on List.”
(New York “Times,” August 30, 1918.) “Teuton Propaganda Board Now
Known--Attorney General Promises that Names of Americans Involved
Will be Made Public--Kaiser’s Machine Worked Under the Cloak of
the German Red Cross;” “Teuton Propaganda Paid for by Rumely--Gave
Hammerling $205,000 in Cash for Space in Foreign Language
Newspapers--Germans Planned $1,500,000 Good Will Campaign, Expecting
U-Boats to End War in June, 1917;” “‘Charity’ Millions a Propaganda
Fund--Becker Exposes Fraud of German Agents Here--Deputy Attorney
General Says He Expects to Implicate ‘Journalists’ Among Others;”
(New York “Evening Post,” August 19, 1918); “Propaganda Hunt by
Federal Agents--Homes and Offices Searched in Cities Wide Apart Under
Government Warrants--Visit Plants in Reading--Correspondence and
Documents of Dr. Michael Singer Seized in Chicago,” etc.
All books bearing on the European struggle, written long before our
entrance into the war, many of them of a sociological character,
others dealing with historical subjects, were placed in an index
expurgatorious. Books discontinued the day we entered the war were
sent for by reputable persons in the hope of obtaining evidence
of violation of law against those issuing them. Indiscriminately,
everywhere, names of well-known citizens of German descent, many
of them native-born, were bandied about in the newspapers as spies
and plotters, their homes and offices were raided, their papers
seized--and there matters ended. Among the books described as
seditious were works by Prof. John W. Burgess, Frank Harris, Prof.
Scott Nearing, Frederic C. Howe, W. S. Leake, Sven Hadin, Theodore
Wilson Wilson, Arthur Daniels, E. G. Balch, Capshaw Carson, E. F.
Henderson, Roland Hugins.
The reaction came when before the Overman Senate Committee a list of
“suspects” was given out by an agent of the Department of Justice. It
was headed by Miss Jane Addams. People began to realize that if the
efforts of this great American woman, actuated in her philanthropic
work by the most impartial and benevolent motives, could be
impudently pronounced those of a German plotter and propagandist,
the indictment against every other person on the list must be of
uncertain consistency. By slow degrees it became apparent that
certain officials had blundered. When “The Nation” had an issue held
up for criticizing Samuel Gompers, the zealous Solicitor for the Post
Office Department, William H. Lamar, was suddenly overruled by the
President. In addition, Lamar made a bad impression by excluding “The
World Tomorrow,” representing the Fellowship of Reconciliation, of
which Jane Addams is president. It was practically ordered to cease
publication. By the President’s order it was restored to its rights.
DeWoody, in charge of the Federal investigations in New York,
resigned and disappeared from public notice. Bielaski, head of the
secret service at Washington, resigned. Many of the officials had
been handsomely advertised but had failed to effect convictions. They
had been principally occupied in loading odium on American citizens
who had acted wholly within their rights.
Much blame fell to them that attaches legitimately to the American
Protective League, the National Security League and other voluntary
spy organizations, whose members did not know the difference between
testimony and evidence and were continually embarrassing the federal
officers with over-zealous efforts to convict people, so that
ultimately Attorney General Palmer, on succeeding Gregory, issued
notice repudiating these private organizations.
A fatal blunder was made on a certain day in New York; thousands of
young men were halted on the streets by men in khaki and publicly
dragged to a station as “slackers.” Attorney General Gregory
repudiated all responsibility and soon after retired from office.
The principal agent in keeping the excitement at fever heat in
New York City was Deputy Attorney General Alfred L. Becker, and
much of his activity was due to his candidacy for the position of
Attorney General of the State. His “revelations” were all timed
with his eye on the primary election, to take place September 3,
1918. When the United States entered the war he helped to draft the
radical “Peace and Safety Act,” and took charge of investigations
under its authority. A campaign pamphlet issued by him, entitled “A
Brief Account of the Exposure of German Propaganda and Intrigue by
Deputy Attorney General Alfred L. Becker, Candidate for Attorney
General at the Republican Primary,” cites the following cases having
come under his investigations: Bolo Pasha, Joseph Caillaux, former
Premier of France; Adolf Pavenstedt, Hugo Schmidt, Eugen Schwerdt,
German ownership or affiliation of two great woolen mills placed
under control of the Alien Property Custodian; German secret codes,
Dr. Edward A. Rumely’s ownership of the New York “Mail;” German
and Austria-Hungarian war loan subscribers, George S. Viereck,
Dr. William Bayard Hale and Louis Hammerling, and he dwelt on his
efforts toward “fearlessly exposing the activities of the above and
many others =who sought to keep the United States out of the war=.”
Among the subjects investigated by him were enumerated the following
offenses: “Praising German ‘kultur’;” “defending Germany against
the charge of instigating the war;” “cursing England and Japan and
sneering at Italy;” “advocating war with Mexico;” “whining that
France was ‘bled white’;” “hypocritical appeals for German peace;”
“preaching that Germany was sure to win.” The pamphlet carried
the endorsement of Col. Roosevelt: “I am heartily in favor of the
nomination of Mr. Becker because as Deputy Attorney General in charge
of investigating war conspiracies, he has done more to expose and
stamp out German propaganda than any other city, state or federal
official.”
When Becker’s unscrupulous methods were exposed by Senator Reed
before the Overman Committee of the United States Senate and it was
shown that he had been employing a number of ex-convicts parading
under assumed names as his assistants, in order to procure evidence
on which to convict men summoned before him, his star began to set.
In the primaries he was decisively defeated and shortly after he
retired to private practice as a lawyer.
=England Threatens the United States.=--On September 7, 1916, some
remarkable statements were made in the Senate by Senator Chamberlain,
of Oregon, and later replied to by Senator Williams.
The moment for war had not arrived, the Presidential election was
still two months off. Senators were speaking their minds concerning
the arbitrary acts of England against the United States, and Senator
Chamberlain, representing the great salmon and other fishing
interests of the Northwest, told how they were being destroyed by the
Canadian railways and other agencies. “How?” asked Mr. Chamberlain,
“not by any act of Parliament of the Canadian Government, but by
orders in council, pursuing the same course in Canada that the
British Government pursues in England and on the high seas for the
purpose of destroying not only the commerce of our own country
but the commerce of any other neutral country that it sees fit to
destroy.”
The Senator said: “There is absolutely too much Toryism in the
Congress of the United States, both in the House and in the Senate.”
In the course of his speech, he reviewed in detail England’s
aggressions and diplomatic victories over the United States, and it
developed that in the most high-handed manner England was actually
threatening us. Senator Jones, of Washington, being conceded the
floor by his colleagues, said:
“I read the other day an extract from a letter I received from the
Acting Secretary of State, in which he said this:
“‘On July 12 the department received an informal and
confidential communication from the British Ambassador
stating that the Canadian Government has requested him to
say that =the passage of the House Bill 15839 would affect
the relations of the two countries, and might cause the
Canadian Government to enact retaliatory legislation=.’”
Nominally a question of issue between this country and Canada, the
part that England was prepared to play in the matter was shown by the
fact that the British Ambassador was acting as the agent of Canada, a
British colony.
Senator Chamberlain resumed his speech, saying:
“It is the same old threat that is always made when America
undertakes to assert her rights against the British
Government. We do not want to get into trouble with Great
Britain, nor any other country, but we do want to protect
our own rights; and if in order to do it we must suffer
retaliation in some other line or at some other place, why,
Mr. President, let us at whatever cost make the effort to
protect ourselves and let these retaliatory measures come
whenever and wherever they see fit to bring them.
“Why, there are some of our friends so tender-footed and
so fearful of offending the majesty of Great Britain
that they do not want to retain any of these so-called
retaliatory provisions in this bill; and, yet, in violation
of every treaty obligation, we find that Great Britain has
not only been interfering with our commerce but is doing
the very things that this measure is intended to relieve
against; not only blacklisting our merchants but opening
and censoring our mails. Only a few days ago I got a letter
from a constituent of mine inclosing a letter from his
good old mother in Germany, who wrote him that she had not
heard from him for months, and yet he has been writing to
her every week. Why? Because on the plea of military or
other necessity Great Britain is invading the mails of the
United States even when addressed to neutrals or neutral
countries, and taking from the mail pouches private letters
and every other kind, except such as may be protected not
by international law--because they violate international
law--but by special agreement between that country and
this; not only letters but drafts and money and papers and
everything else. I have letters from a prominent man in
Pennsylvania who tells me that letters containing orders
to his house from neutral countries are opened, the orders
taken out and sent to British manufacturing establishments,
and there filled; and the Government that has done these
things has the impudence, as suggested by the letter
addressed to the Senator from Washington, to insist that
if we enact such legislation as that proposed and which
we deem necessary to protect our people and our country,
she will retaliate in some way. She can not retaliate
any worse than she has done, Mr. President, without law,
without authority, and in violation of every national and
international right.
“I know that there are Senators here who do not agree with
me. I heard a distinguished gentleman say tonight that
Great Britain was fighting our battles. If that be true,
does she find it necessary, in fighting our battles, to
destroy our commerce, to rifle our mail sacks, to take our
money, to prevent our intercourse with neutrals, and to do
everything or anything to our injury, whether sanctioned by
the laws of nations or in spite of them?
“I get tired of hearing this, Mr. President. Until the
United States has the courage that Great Britain has always
had to assert her rights and dare maintain them, the United
States may expect to be imposed upon. One of my reasons
for advocating preparation for self-defense was to let
the world know that from this time on the United States
expected to protect her citizens and her country and her
country’s interests at all hazards; and the very fact
that she is prepared to assert those rights when occasion
requires and demands is all that it will be necessary to
do. She will never have to utilize her resources for war.
“Mr. President, I serve notice on the Senate now that I
propose to introduce a bill at the next session of Congress
embodying the provision under consideration and try to
call it to the attention of the Senate, and, if necessary,
to the attention of the country, and to show the country
who is responsible for this base surrender of our rights
to the demands of the Canadian Government. =I want to
protest as loudly as I can against Sir Joseph Pope or any
other Canadian official or the representatives of any
other foreign Government coming over here, either to the
Executive Chambers or to the Department of State or to any
other department of the Government, unless duly accredited,
and interfering with the enactment of laws by the American
Congress that the American people feel are necessary for
their protection and the protection of their commerce. I
think if any American citizen ever dared to enter upon such
a course without an invitation, there ought to be some way
found to punish him for attempting to interfere with the
legislation proposed by a foreign government in its own way
and for its own purposes.=”
Was the Senator, in the closing sentence, referring to any particular
American citizen--to a citizen acting as the attorney for a foreign
government and sustaining close relations to a distinguished member
of the Cabinet?
On September 7 Senator Williams, of Mississippi, undertook to defend
the Canadian Government, and incidentally described a hypothetical
condition which eventually became a reality as to the German
element--that of their children killing the children of their kin,
against which, as to Canada, Williams forefended with religious
protestations.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, there is just one thing that
even my friend George Chamberlain cannot do. He cannot
create war between us and the men and the women and the
children of Canada. =We are too near akin to one another
in blood and in language and in literature and in law and
in everything else that makes men and women akin to one
another for that.=
=The greatest crime that the world could possibly witness
would be a war between the people of the United States
and the people of Canada. It is unthinkable from a sane
man’s standpoint, no matter what happens, no matter what
occurs....=
The Senator says that we assert and we dare to maintain
our rights. Of course we do. =So do they assert and so do
they dare maintain their rights, and they are weaker than
we.= All the more reason why we should be considerate in
our treatment of them, and by God’s blessing we are going
to be. We are not hunting retaliation with Canada, either
from her ports or from ours. We are seeking nothing except
justice in the world.
There is one more thing to be said, Mr. President. A
pathway of commercial retaliation is a pathway of war. In
the long run it means that. It can not mean anything else.
What we want is the old Democratic standpoint of the utmost
free-trade relations with everybody on the earth. The
utmost they grant us we ought to grant them. That spells
peace; that spells amity; that spells friendship. The
opposite course spells war in the long run, and to attempt
to convert these 3,000 miles of boundary between us and
Canada into an area of retaliation and trade hostility is
to convert it ultimately into a relationship of war.
I, for one, have been opposed to it all the time, and I am
opposed to it now. =I can not conceive of a greater crime
than having our children kill the children of the Canadians
or have their children kill our children in an absolutely
useless species of hostility. If we start with trade
hostilities, we will wind up with warlike hostilities.=
Senator Williams was one of the foremost in defending Great Britain
and inciting to war with Germany. Senator Chamberlain had said that
there was entirely too much Toryism in the Senate as well as in the
House; but though he had mentioned no names, the Toryism of which he
had referred stood self-revealed the next day.
=France’s Friendship for the United States.=--The “French and Indian
wars” with which the American settlers had to contend in the early
history of the colonies long antedated the Revolution, and massacres
were instigated by French policy of conquest and retaliation. In
the Revolution a number of patriotic Frenchmen, nursing a long
grievance against France’s ancient enemy, England, saw opportunity
to enfeeble their country’s hated rival. Encouraged by Frederick
the Great, who had a score to settle with England for the treachery
which Bute had practiced against him in paying secret subsidies to
Frederick’s enemy, Austria, while England was allied with him, by
heroic efforts they succeeded in sending succor to the colonies
in the form of troops (many of them Germans) under Lafayette.
This is so well understood that the American historian, Benson J.
Lossing, specifically points out in his writings what he calls the
“superstition” that we owe our “being as a nation to the generosity
of the French monarch and the gallantry of French warriors.”
Revealing the motives that governed France, he writes:
In the Seven Years War, which ended with the treaty of
1763, France had been thoroughly humbled by England.
Her pride had been wounded. She had been shorn of vast
possessions in America and Asia. She had been compelled, by
the terms of the treaty, to cast down the fortifications
of Dunkirk and to submit forever to the presence of an
English commissioner, without whose consent not a single
paving stone might be moved on the quay or in the harbor
of a French maritime city. This was an insult too grievous
to be borne with equanimity. Its keenness was maintained
by the tone of English diplomacy, which was that of a
conqueror--harsh, arrogant, and often uncivil. A desire for
relief from the shame became a vital principle of French
policy, =and the most sleepless vigilance was maintained
for the discovery of an opportunity to avenge the injury
and efface the mortification=.
The quarrel between Great Britain and her colonies,
which rapidly assumed the phase of contest after the
port of Boston was closed, early in the summer of 1774,
attracted the notice and stimulated the hope of the French
government. But it seemed hardly possible for a few
colonists to hold a successful or even effective contest
with powerful England--“the mistress of the seas;” and it
was not until the proceedings of the First Continental
Congress had been read in Europe, the skirmish at Lexington
and the capture of Ticonderoga had occurred, and the Second
Congress had met, thrown down the gauntlet of defiance at
the feet of the British ministry and been proclaimed to be
“rebels” that the French cabinet saw gleams of sure promise
that England’s present trouble would be sufficiently
serious to give France the coveted opportunity to strike
her a damaging blow.
Lossing sums up our debt to France in the following words:
That all assistance was afforded, primarily, as a part of a
State policy for the benefit of France;
That the French people as such never assisted the
Americans; for the French democracy did not comprehend
the nature of the struggle, and had no opportunity for
expression, and the aristocracy, like the government, had
no sympathy with their cause;
That the first and most needed assistance was from a French
citizen (Beaumarchais), favored by his government for State
purposes, who hoped to help himself and his government;
That, with the exception of the services of Lafayette and
a few other Frenchmen, at all times, and those of the army
under Rochambeau, and the navy under De Grasse, for a few
weeks in the seventh year of the struggle, the Americans
derived no material aid from the French;
That the moral support offered by the alliance was
injurious because it was more than counterpoised by the
relaxation of effort and vigilance which a reliance upon
others is calculated to inspire, and the creation of hopes
which were followed by disappointment;
That the advantages gained by the French over the English,
because of their co-operation with the Americans, were
equivalent to any which the Americans acquired by the
alliance;
That neither party then rendered assistance to the other
because of any good will mutually existing, but as a means
of securing mutual benefits; and
That the Americans would doubtless have secured their
independence and peace sooner without their entanglements
with the French than with it.
A candid consideration of these facts, in the light of
present knowledge on the subject, compels us to conclude
that there is no debt of gratitude due from Americans to
France for services in securing their independence of Great
Britain which is not cancelled by the services done by the
Americans at the same time in securing for France important
advantages over Great Britain. And when we consider these
facts and the conduct of the French toward us during a
large portion of the final decade of the last century, and
of the decade of this just closed--=the hostile attitude,
in our national infancy, of the inflated Directory,
sustained by the French people, and the equally hostile
attitude, in the hour of our greatest national distress, of
the imperial cabinet, also sustained by the French people,
Americans cannot be expected to endure with absolute
complacency the egotism which untruthfully asserts that
they owe their existence as a nation to the generosity and
valor of the French=.
Though President Wilson brought back from Paris a treaty of alliance
between the United States, England and France, which he asked the
Senate, on July 29, 1919, to ratify, and declared that “we are
bound to France by ties of friendship which we have always regarded
and shall always regard as peculiarly sacred,” he stated in a much
earlier work, “The State,” that though the Congress at Philadelphia
had explicitly commanded Franklin, Adams and Jay, the American
commissioners, to be guided by the wishes of the French court in the
peace negotiations, “it proved impracticable, nevertheless, to act
with France; for she conducted herself, not as the ingenuous friend
of the United States, but only as the enemy of England, and, as first
and always, a subtle strategist for her own interests and advantage.
The American commissioners were not tricked, and came to terms
separately with the English.”
Having accomplished the object of giving aid in humbling England
through the loss of her colonies, the French, far from remaining
our friends, became our enemies, and from 1797 to 1835 we find the
messages of the Presidents abounding in complaints of the treatment
France was according our young merchant marine on the high seas.
In 1798 we found ourselves in a state of war with France. “Such an
outburst had not been known,” says the historian, Elson, “since
the Battle of Lexington.” Patriotic songs were written, and one of
these, “Hail, Columbia,” still lives in our literature. Washington
was again called to the command of the American army, but beyond some
engagements at sea, no blows were actually struck.
But ere long France was again at her old tricks. In 1851 we were
on the eve of war over the Hawaiian Islands, which France had
seized, though knowing that she could never hold them save as the
result of a successful war. On June 18, 1851, Secretary of State
Webster instructed the American minister in Paris to say that the
further enforcement of the French demands against Hawaii “would
tend seriously to disturb our friendly relations with the French
government.”
The third conspicuous instance of France’s persistent enmity to us
was at a time when President Lincoln was harrassed by the distressing
events of the most critical hours of the rebellion and the
possibility of England and France together undertaking the cause of
the Confederacy. England had been approached by the Emperor, Napoleon
III, with a proposal for an alliance, and in both countries the Union
cause was at its lowest ebb.
Justin McCarthy in his “History of Our Own Times” (II, p. 231) says:
“The Southern scheme found support only in England and in France.
In all other European countries the sympathy of the people and
government alike went with the North.... Assurances of friendship
came from all civilized countries to the Northern States except from
England and France alone.”
While the Northern and Southern States were engaged in a death
grapple, Napoleon III was defying the Monroe Doctrine by invading
Mexico, and in 1862 was sending instructions to the French general,
Forey, as follows:
People will ask you why we sacrifice men and money to
establish a government in Mexico. In the present state of
civilization the development of America can no longer be
a matter of indifference to Europe.... =It is not at all
to our interest that they should come in possession of the
entire Gulf of Mexico, to rule from there the destinies of
the Antilles and South America, and control the products of
the New World.=
After Lee’s surrender General Slaughter of the Confederate army
opened negotiations with the French Marshal Bazaine for the transfer
of 25,000 Confederate soldiers to Mexico, and many distinguished
Confederate officers cast their lot with the French to establish
Maximilian on the throne. General Price was commissioned to recruit
an imperial army in the Confederate States. Governor Harris of
Tennessee and other Americans naturalized as Mexicans and now
took the lead in a colonization scheme of vast proportions. The
North became thoroughly alarmed. A French army co-operating with
Confederate expatriates could not be tolerated on the Mexican border.
The government at Washington lodged an emphatic protest with the
French government, and an army of observation of 50,000 men under
General Sheridan was dispatched to the Rio Grande, ready to cross
into Mexico and attack Bazaine at a moment’s notice. =The American
minister in Paris was instructed by Seward to insist on a withdrawal
of the French forces from Mexico, and as the French government was in
no position to engage in a war in a distant country against a veteran
army of a million men it was forced to yield.=
“The Emperor of the French,” writes McCarthy (p. 231), “fully
believed that the Southern cause was sure to triumph, and that the
Union would be broken up; he was even willing to hasten what he
assumed to be the unavoidable end. He was anxious that England should
join with him in some measures to facilitate the success of the South
by recognizing the Government of the Southern Confederation. He got
up the Mexican intervention, which assuredly he would never have
attempted if he had not been persuaded that the Union was on the eve
of disruption.”
The French populace was enthusiastically on the side of Napoleon
in the Mexican adventure, as attested by the proceedings in the
French legislature, especially by the scenes in the Senate, February
24, 1862, and in the Corps Legislatif, June 26 of the same year,
when Billault, Minister of Foreign Affairs, spoke on French aims
in Mexico. On March 23, 1865, Druyn de Lluys, the French Premier,
notified Mr. Seward, our Secretary of State, that American
intervention in favor of Juarez, the Mexican patriot, =would lead to
a declaration of war on the part of France=. The necessary military
preparations had been made by Marshal Bazaine, who, as related by
Paul Garlot in “L’Empire de Maximilian” (Paris, 1890), had erected
“fortified supports” at the United States frontier and made certain
“arrangements” with Confederate leaders.
=“In our dark hours and the great convulsions of our war,” said
Charles Sumner, then chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations
in the Senate, in New York, September 11, 1863, “France is forgetting
her traditions.”=
=Benjamin Franklin.=--In his pointed comments on the disfavor
with which practical politicians regard the independent voter in
politics, Prof. A. B. Faust, of Cornell University, in his valuable
work, “The German Element in the United States,” says of conditions
in Pennsylvania preceding the Revolution: “The Germans, with few
exceptions, could not be relied upon either by demagogues or by
astute party men to vote consistently with their party organization.
The politician catering to the German vote often found himself
strangely deceived. He never expected that the German might think
for himself and vote as seemed right to him. The politician in his
wrath would declare the Germans politically incapable. From his point
of view they were un-American. They did not cling to one party.
The fact of the matter is, they were independent voters, and they
appeared as such at a very early period. Benjamin Franklin made the
discovery before the Revolutionary War, and he was provoked to an
extent surprising in that suave diplomatist.” In a letter to Peter
Collinson, dated Philadelphia, May 9, 1753, Franklin says:
I am perfectly of your mind that measures of great temper
are necessary with the Germans, and am not without
apprehension that through their indiscretion, or ours, or
both, great disorders may one day among us.
Then he speaks of the ignorance of the Germans, their incapability
of using the English language, the impossibility of removing their
prejudices--“not being used to liberty, they know not how to make a
modest use of it,” etc.
They are under no restraint from any ecclesiastical
government; they behave, however, submissively enough to
the civil government, which I wish they may continue to do,
for I remember when they modestly declined to meddle in our
elections, but now they come in droves and carry all before
them except in one or two counties.
The last sentence, comments Faust, betrays the learned writer of
the letter; the uncertainty of their votes is the cause for his
accusations of ignorance and prejudice.
On the point of ignorance we get contradictory evidence in the same
letter. “Few of their children in the country know English. They
import many books from Germany and of the six printing houses in
the province, two are entirely German, two are half-German, half
English, and but two entirely English. (This large use and production
of books disproves want of education. Their lack of familiarity with
the English language was popularly looked upon as ignorance.--Faust.)
They have one German newspaper and one half German. Advertisements
intended to be general are now printed in Dutch (German) and English.
The signs in our streets have inscriptions in both languages, and
in some places, only German. They begin of late to make all their
bonds and other legal instruments in their own language, which
(though I think it ought not to be) are allowed good in our courts,
where the German business so increases that there is continued need
of interpreters; and I suppose within a few years they will also
be necessary in the Assembly, to tell one half of our legislators
what the other half say. In short, unless the stream of importation
could be turned from this to other colonies, as you very judiciously
propose, they will soon so outnumber us that the advantages we have
will, in my opinion, be not able to preserve our language, and even
our government will become precarious.”
Illustration: GERMAN PIONEERS
Group of the Monument Erected to the Memory of the Settlers
of Germantown, Pa., by Albert Jaegers.
It is obvious from many indications that Benjamin Franklin did not
adhere to his point of view and learned to regard the Germans in a
far more favorable light than in 1753, twenty-three years before the
Declaration of Independence. The Revolution, as Bancroft relates,
found no Tories among the German settlers of Pennsylvania, but
a unanimous sentiment for independence, and their full quota of
fighting men in the American ranks.
When queried before the English Parliament concerning the
dissatisfaction of the Americans with the Stamp Act, he was asked how
many Germans were in Pennsylvania. His answer was, “About one-third
of the whole population, but I cannot tell with certainty.” Again the
question was put whether any part of them had seen service in Europe.
He answered, “Many, as well in Europe as America.”
When asked whether they were as dissatisfied with the Stamp Act
as the native population, he said, “Yes, even more, as they are
justified, because in many cases they must pay double for their stamp
paper and parchments.”
If the German element felt the injustice of the Stamp Act more
keenly than their neighbors, the conclusion is patent that they
could not have been ignorant, as the illiterate and ignorant were
least affected by its harshness. Even the honor of being the first
printer of German books belongs to Franklin, for he furnished three
volumes of mystical songs in German for Conrad Beissel, 1730-36. When
the Philosophical Society of Philadelphia (1743) agitated for the
foundation of the “Public Academy of the City of Philadelphia,” the
institution that later developed into the University of Pennsylvania,
Franklin designed its curriculum and recommended the study of German
and French, besides English. In 1766 he attended a meeting of the
Royal Society of Science in Göttingen while on a trip through
Germany and visited Dr. Hartmann in Hanover to see his apparatus for
electrical experiments. He was made a member of the Göttingen learned
society.
Conclusive proof of Franklin’s change of view is furnished by his
testimony before a committee of the British House of Commons in
1766. Referring to the Germans, who, he said, constituted about
one-third of the population of 160,000 whites in Pennsylvania, he
described them as “a people who brought with them the greatest
of wealth--industry and integrity, and characters that had been
superpoised and developed by years of suffering and persecution.”
(Penn. Hist. Magazine, iv, 3.)
=Frederick the Great and the American Colonies.=--Because Frederick
the Great was a Hohenzollern and a Prussian, it became the fashion
early in the course of the war to frown upon all mention of
his connection with the revolutionary struggle of our American
forefathers, and his statue before the military college, which was
unveiled with so much ceremony during President Roosevelt’s term, was
discreetly taken from its pediment and consigned to the obscurity of
a cellar as soon as we entered the war. Yet Frederick was the sincere
friend of the Colonies and contributed largely if not vitally to
the success of the struggle for American independence. The evidence
rests upon something better than tradition. A more just opinion of
his interest in the success of the Colonies than has been expressed
of late by his detractors is contained in the works of English and
American writers of history having access to the facts, who were
not under the spell of active belligerency and the influence of a
propaganda that has magically transformed George III into a “German
king.”
Had Russia in 1778 formed an alliance with England, Russian troops
would have swelled the forces arrayed against the American patriots
to such proportions that the result of the struggle presumably would
have been different. The influence of Prussia in that relation is
a chapter of history practically closed to most students. But for
immense bribes to Count Panin, Catherine the Great’s premier, paid
by Frederick the Great, as testified by British authorities, Russia
would have extended aid to England in her struggle with the Colonies
which might have proved decisive.
It was England’s interest to secure, if possible, the alliance
of Russia, and, as in the Seven Years War, to involve France in
continental complications. In 1778 there seemed every reason to
expect the outbreak of hostilities in Europe. The continuance of
the war gave an increased importance to an alliance with Russia,
and while the Dutch appealed to Catherine on the ground that Great
Britain had broken with Holland solely on account of the armed
neutrality, the English government offered to hand over Minorca as
the price of a convention.
In 1778 Catherine was approached by the English government through
Sir James Harris and invited to make a defensive and offensive
alliance. But the opposition of the Premier, Nikolai Ivanovich, Count
Panin, influenced by Frederick the Great, prevented any rapprochement
between England and Russia, and Catherine declared her inability
to join England against France unless the English government bound
itself to support her against the Turks.
“The Prussian party, headed by Panin at St. Petersburg,” writes
Arthur Hassall, M. A., in “The Balance of Power, 1715-1789,” p.
338; (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1907), “had won its last
triumph, and all chance for an Anglo-Russian alliance had for the
moment disappeared.... Since 1764 Count Panin had been the head of
the Prussian party at the Russian capital, and the Prussian alliance
had been the keystone of Catherine’s policy.... =Frederick the
Great, partly by immense bribes to Panin, had kept Catherine true
to the existing political system, and had contributed to prevent
Russian assistance from being given to England during the American
struggle.=” (P. 361.)
Writing to his minister in Paris, Goltz, in August and September,
1777, Frederick said: “You can assure M. de Maurepas that I have
no connection whatever with England, nor do I grudge France any
advantage she may gain in the war with the Colonies.... Her first
interest requires the enfeeblement of Great Britain, and the way
to do this is to make it lose its colonies in America.... The
present opportunity is more favorable than ever before existed, and
more favorable than is likely to occur in three centuries.... The
independence of the colonies will be worth to France all which the
war will cost.”
Bancroft writes: “While Frederick was encouraging France to strike
a decisive blow in favor of the United States, their cause found an
efficient advocate in Marie Antoinette.” On April 7, 1777, Frederick
wrote: “France knows perfectly well that it has absolutely nothing
to apprehend from me in case of war with England.... =If it= (the
English crown) =would give me all the millions possible I would
not furnish it two small files of my troops to serve against the
colonies.= Neither can it expect from me a guaranty of its electorate
of Hanover.”
Bancroft comments: “The people of England cherished the fame of the
Prussian king as in some measure their own. Not aware how basely
Bute had betrayed him, they unanimously desired the renewal of his
alliance; and the ministry sought to open the way for it through his
envoy in France.” Frederick replied, “No man is further removed than
myself from having connections with England. We will remain on the
same footing on which we are with her.” Bancroft says: “Frederick
expressed more freely his sympathy with the United States.”
The port of Emden could not receive their cruisers for want of a
fleet or a fort to defend them from insult; =but he offered them an
asylum in the Baltic at Danzig=. He attempted, though in vain, to
dissuade the Prince of Anspach from furnishing troops to England,
and he forbade the subsidiary troops both of Anspach and Hesse to
pass through his domains. The prohibition which was made as public as
possible, and just as the news arrived of the surrender of Burgoyne,
resounded through Europe; and he announced to the Americans that it
was given him “to testify his good will to them.”
Every facility was afforded to the American commissioners to purchase
and ship arms from Prussia. Before the end of 1777 he promised not to
be the last to recognize the independence of the United States, and
in January, 1778, his minister, Schulenburg, wrote officially to one
of the commissioners in Paris: “The king desires that your generous
efforts may be crowned with complete success. He will not hesitate
to recognize your independency when France, which is more directly
interested in the event of the contest, shall have given the example.”
“I have no wish to dissemble,” Frederick wrote in answer to the
suggestion of an English alliance; “whatever pains may be taken, I
will never lend myself to an alliance with England. I am not like
so many German princes, to be gained for money.” Of the Landgrave
of Hesse, he said: “Do not attribute his education to me. Were he
a graduate of my school he would never have sold his subjects to
the English as they drive cattle to the shambles. He a preceptor of
sovereigns? The sordid passion for gain is the only motive of his
vile procedure.”
Foerster, in “Friederich der Grosse” (1871, viii) quotes the great
King as follows: “This subject leads me to speak of princes who
conduct a dishonorable traffic in the blood of their people. Their
troops belong to the highest bidder. It is a sort of auction at
which those paying the highest subsidies lead the soldiers of these
unworthy rulers to the shambles. Such princes ought to blush at their
baseness in selling the lives of people whom, as fathers of their
countries, they ought to protect. These little tyrants should hear
the opinion of mankind, which is one of contempt for the misuse of
their power.”
=The “Fourteen Points.”=--On January 8, 1917, less than sixty days
before we found ourselves in a state of war with Germany, President
Wilson presented to Congress the following fourteen specific
considerations as necessary to world peace:
1. Open covenants of peace without private international
understandings.
2. Absolute freedom of the seas in peace or war, except as they may
be closed by international action.
3. Removal of all economic barriers and establishment of equality of
trade conditions among nations consenting to peace and associating
themselves for its maintenance.
4. Guarantees for the reduction of national armaments at the lowest
point consistent with domestic safety.
5. Impartial adjustment of all colonial claims based upon the
principle that the peoples concerned shall have equal weight with the
interest of the government.
6. Evacuation of all Russian territory and opportunity for Russia’s
political development.
7. Evacuation of Belgium without any attempt to limit her sovereignty.
8. All French territory to be freed and restored, and France must
have righted the wrong done in the taking of Alsace-Lorraine.
9. Readjustment of Italy’s frontiers along clearly recognizable lines
of nationality.
10. Freest opportunity for the autonomous development of the peoples
of Austria-Hungary.
11. Evacuation of Rumania, Servia and Montenegro, with access to
the sea for Servia, and international guarantees of economic and
political independence and territorial integrity of the Balkan States.
12. Secure sovereignty for Turkey’s portion of the Ottoman Empire,
but with other nationalities under Turkey’s rule assured security of
life and opportunity for autonomous development, with the Dardanelles
permanently opened to all nations.
13. Establishment of an independent Polish State, including
territories inhabited by indisputably Polish population, with free
access to the sea and political and economic independence and
territorial integrity guaranteed by international covenant.
14. General association of nations under specific covenants for
mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity
to large and small states alike.
This was the programme laid down for the attainment of peace and was
accepted by both sides, the Allied powers as well as Germany and
Austria-Hungary.
The total disregard of the Fourteen Points in the peace treaty proved
a grievous disappointment to the majority of the thinking people
of America. In the final analysis of the work of the Paris peace
conference it was found that we had achieved not a single point of
our programme, except as to the last provision, from which evolved
the so-called League of Nations, subsequently defeated in the Senate.
Instead of “open covenants openly arrived at,” the treaty was made
in secret conference; we did not gain the freedom of the seas,
but helped Great Britain to strengthen her command of the seas by
eliminating her greatest rival; we witnessed no removal of economic
barriers--not even among the Allies, as the President himself
recommended an American tariff on dyes; disarmament was decreed for
Germany and Austria only; self-determination of small nations became
a dead letter at once as to Ireland, German Austria, the German
Tyrol, Danzig, Egypt, India, the Boers, Korea, Persia, and numerous
others, especially where the question involved the self-determination
of Germans; Hungary’s borders were at once invaded by Rumania, Serbia
and Czecho-Slovakia; Russia was not permitted to determine her own
fate, as Kolchak was formally recognized and supported by the powers;
Belgium remains a vassal of England and France; in addition to
righting the wrong of 1871 by the recession of Alsace-Lorraine, the
Saar Valley was taken away from Germany and a plebiscite was ordered
in Schleswig, Silesia, and German-Poland under the guns of the
Entente; Italy’s borders were not readjusted along national lines,
for the Brenner Pass, the Voralsberg, parts of Dalmatia and a lease
on Fiume provided; the autonomous development of Austria-Hungary
was interpreted to mean that the German-speaking part of Austria
was forbidden to unite with Germany; the independence of the Balkan
States was made subject to the invisible government of the Big Four;
autonomy for Turkish vassal states and the internationalization of
the Dardanelles was construed to mean that these States should become
mandatories of the Allies and the strait to be under Allied control;
Polish freedom celebrated its advent with Jewish pogroms, while the
League of Nations became a league of victors, in which Japan was
bribed to enter by the cession to her of the Shantung peninsula.
“Germany has accepted President Wilson’s fourteen points,” said Dr.
Mathias Erzberger, “but so have the Allies.”
That President Wilson fully recognized his responsibility and that of
his European associates under the Fourteen Points is shown by his own
statement. On December 2, 1918, he said in addressing Congress:
“=The Allied Governments have accepted the bases of peace which I
outlined to the Congress on the 8th of January last, as the Central
Empires also have=, and very reasonably desire my personal counsel in
their interpretation and application, and it is highly desirable that
I should give it =in order that the sincere desire of our government
to contribute without selfish aims of any kind to settlements that
will be of common benefit to all the nations concerned may be fully
manifest=.”
In an interview printed in the Paris “Temps” of March 25, 1919, Count
Bernstorff, former Ambassador to the United States, said:
“The armistice of November 11 was signed when all the Powers
interested had accepted the program of peace proposed by President
Wilson. Germany is determined to keep to this agreement, which
history will regard, in a way, as the conclusion of a preliminary
peace. She herself is ready to submit to the conditions arising from
it, and she expects all the interested Powers to do the same.”
The President’s reversal was diplomatically covered under various
specious pretexts by the staff of English journalists at the peace
conference. Sir J. Foster Frazer put it this way: “Mr. Wilson has
broadened in vision since he came to Paris. He has abandoned his
purely national point of view.”
The same writer discoursed entertainingly of the methods pursued in
the conference. “Except at intervals,” he wrote, “the conferences
are not in public, that is when a certain number of journalists are
permitted to be present. The great things are debated in private,
and at these private conversations in M. Pichon’s room at the French
Foreign Office, the full representation of the five powers is not
in attendance.... The full conferences of the seventy delegates
will have but little option but to acquiesce with the conclusion of
the ten.... It is a perfectly open secret that the three men who
are ‘running the show’ are M. Clemenceau, Mr. Wilson and Mr. Lloyd
George.”
The noble writer frankly admits that the conferences revolved around
the secret treaties among the Allies instead of the Fourteen Points.
He reports:
“We already know there were three secret treaties made
during the war and to all of which Great Britain was a
party; (1) conceding to Italy the Dalmatian coast in return
for her help, (2) the concession of the former German
islands in the North Pacific to Japan, (3) the promise of
Damascus to the King of Hedjaz.”
Again he says: “Japan is in possession of the Marshall and Caroline
groups of islands in the Pacific, and has a document signed by both
France and Britain that she shall retain them.”
So much for “open covenants openly arrived at,” though they do not
cover all the secret pacts which determined the conditions of peace.
Only once Mr. Wilson rose to the importance of his mission, when
he declared that Fiume must go to the Jugo-Slav Republic. His
announcement was soon followed by an invasion of Fiume under
d’Annunzio, the Italian poet-patriot, with the apparent secret
connivance of our associates in the war.
At the peace conference, when it was Germany’s turn to be heard, it
was decided that the interests of all concerned were best served by
precluding any discussion, and the German delegates, with revolution
and starvation in their back, and with arms wrested from their hands
by a promise, were left no alternative but to affix their signatures
to the most violent peace treaty ever consummated. The commission,
headed by Brockdorf-Rantzau and Scheidemann, resigned rather than
sign, and a new delegation was named, which signed the treaty without
being given an opportunity to discuss it. In the streets the German
delegates were stoned.
Thus was realized the golden promise held out in the speech Mr.
Wilson made on the very day that Congress met to declare war:
“=We have no quarrel with the German people. We have no
feeling toward them but one of sympathy and friendship.= It
was not upon their impulse that their government acted in
entering the war. It was not with their previous knowledge
or approval. It was a war determined upon as wars used to
be determined upon in the old unhappy days when people were
nowhere consulted by their rulers and wars were provoked
and waged in the interests of dynasties or of little groups
of ambitious men who were accustomed to use their fellow
men as pawns and tools.”
When Germany, in 1871, had France prostrate at her feet, the French
people were represented at the peace conference by their statesmen,
just as France was represented at the Peace of Vienna after the fall
of Napoleon in 1815. Mr. Wilson had said peace must not be determined
as it was in the Congress of Vienna. Sir Foster Frazer furnishes the
answer. In 1871 the terms of peace were arranged by Bismarck on one
side and a full delegation of French statesmen on the other. Bismarck
relented so far as to release back to France the great fortress
of Belfort, claiming only the recession of Alsace-Lorraine and a
war indemnity of five billion francs. So far from seeking to crush
France, everything possible on the German side was done to enable her
to recover from the war, and no sooner had Paris surrendered, than
trainloads of foodstuffs were rushed into the city by the Germans to
feed the starving population.
The European allies had first starved Germany, with a loss of
1,000,000 souls by famine, then severed portions of her territory
whose possession antedated the American Revolution, on the ground
of Mr. Wilson’s point in behalf of the self-determination of small
nations, and on top of all left the country in helpless vassalage to
her enemies, under a war indemnity that staggers humanity. Erzberger
cried out in despair:
“I appeal to the conscience of America by reminding her of the
American famine conditions in the years 1862-65. At that time it was
Germany who sprang to America’s aid, and steadied her, sending her
not only money, but clothes, shoes and machinery as well, thus making
it possible for the United States to recuperate economically.
“Today, after half a century, the situation is reversed. Germany
needs American wheat, fats, meats, gasoline, cotton and copper.
“Germany’s credit is low. If America today stood by Germany as
Germany stood by America fifty years ago, she could furnish us
foodstuffs and raw materials against German credits and thus help us
to work ourselves out of debt--and, besides, make money in doing so.
“The German people cannot live on the promises they are getting.”
=Fritchie, Barbara.=--Immortalized by Whittier in a patriotic poem
bearing her name, in which her defense of the Union flag during the
Civil War is celebrated, came of an old German family which settled
in Pennsylvania in colonial times, and her own life spanned the two
great crises in the history of her country, the founding of the
republic and the struggle for the preservation of the Union. She was
born in Lancaster, Pa., December 3, 1766. Her maiden name was Hauser.
=First Germans in Virginia.=--Jamestown, Va., the cradle of
Anglo-Saxon America, is the place where the Germans are met with
for the first time. The earliest incidents on record are cases of
imported contract laborers. Those sent to Virginia in 1608 were
skilled workmen, glass-blowers. Capt. John Smith (“John Smith, the
Generall Historie of Virginia, New England, the Summer Isles,”
London, 1624, p. 94), characterizing his men, gives the following
account of them: “labourers ... that neuer did know what a dayes
work was: except the Dutch-men (Germans) and Poles, and some dozen
others.” In 1620 four millwrights from Hamburg were sent to the
same settlement to erect saw mills. (“The Records of the Virginia
Company,” ed. S. M. Kingsbury, Washington, 1906, I, pp. 368, 372,
428.) In England timber was still sawed by hand. (Edward Eggleston,
“The Beginners of a Nation,” New York, 1896, p. 82.) The Germans who
settled in the Cavalier colony in large numbers about the middle
of the seventeenth century seem to have been attracted chiefly by
the profitable tobacco business. The most highly educated citizen
of Northampton county in 1657 was probably Dr. George Nicholas
Hacke, a native of Cologne. (Philip Alexander Brue, “Social Life in
Virginia in the Seventeenth Century,” Richmond, Va., 1907, p. 260.)
Thomas Harmanson, founder of one of the most prominent Eastern Shore
families, a native of Brandenburg, was naturalized October 24, 1634,
by an act of the Assembly. (William and Mary College Quarterly, ed.
L. G. Tyler. Williamsburg. Va., I, 1892, p. 192.) Johann Sigismund
Cluverius, owner of a considerable estate in York County, was
ostensibly also of German birth. (From “The First Germans in North
America and the German Element of New Netherlands,” by Carl Lohr, G.
E. Stechert & Co., New York, 1912.)
=First German Newspapers.=--The oldest German newspaper in the U.
S., the weekly “Republikaner,” at Allentown, Pa., ceased publication
December 21, 1915, after an existence of 150 years. Another old paper
in the German language, the “Reading Adler” ceased in 1913, after
continuous publication since November 29, 1796.
=German Americans in Art, Science and Literature.=--An analysis
of a comparatively recent edition of “Who’s Who in America” shows
a list of 385 German-born persons in the United States who have
achieved fame in art, science and literature, against a total of
424 English-born persons so distinguished, a remarkable bit of
evidence, considering that the former were initially handicapped by
the necessity of having to learn a new language in their struggle for
recognition. Nor does this list include a number of Germans credited
to Austro-Hungary by reason of their birth.
Dating back to the early decades of 1600 down to the present day,
the German element has produced a formidable literature, ranging
from travel descriptions to political works, like Schurz’s “Life of
Henry Clay,” von Holst’s important work on American constitutional
government, George von Bosse’s comprehensive volume on the German
element, A. B. Faust’s “The German Element in the United States,”
Seidensticker’s and Kapp’s books on the early settlements of
Pennsylvania and New York, and further including scientific books
by eminent authorities, original explorations, discussions of the
fauna and zoology of certain regions, novels and contributions to the
poetry of America in both languages.
One of the most active minds in political circles was Carl Nordhoff,
who came to the United States with his father in 1835 at the age of
five, and in his later years represented the New York “Herald” as its
Washington correspondent through numerous sessions of Congress. At
the age of nineteen he enlisted in the United States Navy, visited
many parts of the world during his term of three years’ service,
and after publishing some books about the sea, he worked for many
years for Harper Brothers in a literary capacity and for ten years
was employed in the editorial department of the New York “Evening
Post.” In the interval he published several books, notably his
popular “Politics for Young Americans” and then acted as Washington
correspondent of the New York “Herald.” His chief literary work was
published in 1876 as the result of a six months tour of the South,
“The Cotton States,” in which he exposed the Republican misrule in
the South.
While Steinmetz, Mergenthaler and Berliner rank high among American
inventors, Herman George Scheffauer, George Sylvester Viereck and
Herman Hagedorn are among the foremost poets of the present day, to
cite those writing in the English language, without taking account
of a generation of German-writing poets of the distinguished lineage
of Conrad Kretz and Konrad Nies. Theodore Dreiser is one of the
best-known novelists. Bret Harte had a strong German strain in his
blood; Bayard Taylor had a German mother; the second name in Oliver
Wendell Holmes indicates German relationship; Joaquin Miller was of
German extraction; Owen Wister owns to German antecedance, while one
of America’s greatest actors, Edwin Forrest, was the son of a German
mother, and Mary Anderson is likewise credited with this racial
admixture; Maude Powell, the famous violinist, had a German mother to
whom she attributed her genius for music.
The greatest American historical painter is still Emanuel Leutze,
whose “Washington Crossing the Delaware” and “Westward the Star of
Empire” are among the most cherished art possessions of the American
people. Save Remington, none has pictured the stirring life of the
frontier as Charles Schreyvogel, notably in his painting, “My Bunky,”
while a host of others, like Albert Bierstadt, Carl Marr, Carl Wimar,
Toby Rosenthal, Henry Mosler, Henry Twachtman, F. Dielman, Robert
Blum and Gari Melchers, have permanently taken their place in the
gallery of famous artists. A. Nahl was selected to perpetuate in
historic paintings the frontier days of California, and his works may
be seen in the capitol at Sacramento and in the Crocker Art Gallery
of that city.
Hiram Powers’ name is one of the most familiar in the art history
of America, but few are aware that the sculptor’s instructor was
Friedrich Eckstein, who went to Cincinnati in 1825 and opened an
academy where Powers obtained the training that enabled him to create
his masterwork, “The Greek Slave.” In fact, one of the most enduring
influences exercised by the German element has at all times been as
teachers and instructors.
American musical history would have had an entirely different aspect
had it not been for the pioneer work of Theodore Thomas in carrying
the cult of classic music into the remotest corners of the land under
all kinds of physical discouragements, and had it not been for the
numerous brilliant conductors who passed various periods in America
to give it the best products of their genius, but particular credit
is due to the host of individual Germans who scattered throughout
the country and became part of town and village life as tireless
instructors in music and art. Their influence was similar to that
of the countless thousands of skilled chemists and mechanics who
contributed so vastly to the development of our industries.
The number of distinguished architects, sculptors and engineers
is legion, though a few can be named here, famous architects
like Johannes Smithmeyer and Paul J. Pelz, the architects of the
Congressional Library in Washington, and other public buildings;
Alfred Ch. H. C. Vioch, Ernest Helffenstein, G. L. Heins, Otto
Eidlitz and Carl Link. Famous sculptors: Karl Bitter, Joseph Sibbel,
Charles Niehaus, Albert Weinmann, Albert Jaegers, F. W. Ruckstuhl,
Otto Schweitzer and Prof. Bruno Schmitz, the designer of the
Indianapolis monument.
The great engineers and bridge builders of America are Johann August
Roebling and Gustav Lindenthal. The former built the first suspension
bridge over Niagara Falls, the Brooklyn bridge and Ohio River
suspension bridge, and was the first manufacturer of bridge cables;
Lindenthal constructed the new railway bridge across Hellgate from
Manhattan to Long Island, said to be the most perfect piece of bridge
construction in the United States.
Famous among novelists, whose works were translated into all
languages, was Charles Sealsfield (Karl Postel) who wrote equally
well in both languages, writing in English “Tokeah, or The White
Rose,” and several other works. Friedrich Gerstaecker and Otto
Ruppius lived many years in the United States and wrote novels of
American life which were translated into English, French and Spanish.
A female writer of considerable repute was the wife of Professor
Robinson, known by her pen-name of “Talvj.” She was born in Halle,
Germany, and was a friend of Washington Irving, and, after publishing
“Ossian not Genuine,” a story of Captain John Smith and a work on
the colonization of New England, wrote in English “Heloise, or The
Unrevealed Secret,” “The Exiles” and “Woodhill.”
Such names are selected at random out of hundreds, like that of
Julius Reinhold Friedlander, of Berlin, who founded the first
institute for the blind in Philadelphia in 1834, subsequently taken
over by the State. He is called the father of the institutions
for the blind in America. Dr. Konstantin Hering was the father of
homeopathy in America. Friedrich List was one of the pioneers in
the advocacy of a protective tariff, writing in 1827 “Outlines of a
New System of Political Economy,” which attracted wide attention.
Philip Schaff soon after his arrival in 1844, attained fame in
miscellaneous and religious literature, writing in English “The
Principles of Protestantism,” “America, Its Political, Social and
Religious Character,” “Lectures on the Civil War in America,” etc.
Demetrius Augustin Gallitizin, better known as Father Schmidt,
founded the Catholic mission Loretto in Cambria County, Pennsylvania,
in 1798, and his life is commemorated by a statue. Johann N. Neumann
wrote “The Ferns of the Alleghanies” and the “Rhododendrons of the
Pennsylvania and Virginia Mountains”--and so an almost endless
array of German names troop in review before our minds to show the
influence of this element on our literature and our institutions.
From no European source have we received a stronger accession of
intellectual currents than from Germany, and whether the field be
literature, art, science or music, among their foremost figures are
men with German names. They never belonged to the coolie class; they
were never identified with the various movements for the suppression
of rights, they have had fewer of their race figure in the crime
records and more in the ranks of those who stood for liberty,
education and progress than any others. Their literature would fill
a library, and as Professor Scott Nearing has shown, the American
people are a conquering race because they are composed of the
descendants of conquerors, the English and Germans.
=German-American Captains of Industry.=--Kreischer, Balthasar,
of Kreischerville, Staten Island, N. Y., born March 13, 1813, at
Hornbach, Bavaria. In December, 1835, occurred the great fire which
destroyed more than 600 buildings in the business part of New York
City. Young Kreischer, who had learned brick manufacture, was struck
with the opportunity that the disaster afforded to one of his trade.
He arrived in New York June 4, 1836, and helped to rebuild the burned
district. Discovered in New Jersey suitable species of clay for the
making of fire brick, which, up to this time had been imported from
England. Kreischer began to fight against the British monopoly, and
after discovering further valuable clay beds in Staten Island, drove
the English fire brick from the American market. He soon established
large works in New Jersey, Staten Island, Philadelphia and New York,
and by a constant study of new improvements built up the industry on
a lasting foundation. He was not only the discoverer of the valuable
deposits of clay, but became the founder of the fire brick industry
in the United States.
Seligman, Joseph, founder and head of the banking house of J. W.
Seligman & Co., New York, New Orleans and San Francisco, was born in
Bayersdorf, Bavaria, September 22, 1819. At the age of nineteen he
came to America. In 1862 he and his brothers founded their banking
house, which soon acquired a high reputation. During the darkest
hours of the rebellion, Mr. Seligman never swerved in his allegiance
to the National Government. In 1863, when the National credit was in
its most precarious condition, and when many even of the stoutest
hearts, began to fear for the ability of the Federal authorities to
successfully maintain the National integrity, Mr. Seligman introduced
the United States bonds to the people of Germany. His attempt was
crowned with the most gratifying success, and resulted in securing
for the Federal cause not merely money, but also foreign sympathy,
of which, it will be remembered, the nation had till then received
but little. The Government gratefully recognized the Seligmans as
government bankers.
Steinway, Henry Engelhard, of New York City, who, with his sons,
became founder of America’s greatest piano manufacturing industry
and inventor of the “grand piano,” was born February 15, 1797,
in Wolfshagen, Duchy of Brunswick, North Germany. The original
spelling of the name was Steinweg. He came to this country on June
5, 1850, with his family. “Steinway & Sons” were destined to become
the leading piano manufacturers in this country, whose fame became
world-wide, whose house was the rendezvous of the leading musicians
and whose activities are felt to this day. (Encyclopaedia of
Contemporary Biography of New York, Vol. II, 1882.)
Starin, Hon. John Henry, ex-member of Congress, whose name for many
decades was so prominently identified with New York’s railroad
and steamboat transportation, was born in Sammonsville, N. Y. His
paternal ancestor, Nicholas Starin (or Sterne, as the name was then
spelled), was a native of Germany, and came to America about the year
1720, and settled in the Mohawk Valley, upon the German Flats. John
Starin, his seventh son, fought in the Revolutionary War, being one
of ten members of the Starin family who served in the American army
under Washington.
William Havemeyer, founder of America’s great sugar refining
industry, came here from Germany in 1799, and settled in New York.
He brought with him a knowledge of his business from Bückenburg,
Germany, and started what was one of the earliest refineries in New
York, and has later developed into the Sugar Trust with which his
descendants have been identified as leaders. (Makers of New York,
Hamersly & Co., Philadelphia, 1895.)
Bergh, Henry, founder of the first society in America for the
prevention of cruelty to animals, was born in New York, 1823. He was
of German descent, the family having come to America about 1740.
Christian Bergh, father of the philanthropist, was a ship builder.
(Makers of New York, Hamersly & Co., Philadelphia, 1895.)
Gunther, Charles Godfred, mayor of New York in 1864, was born in that
city in 1822. His father, Christian G. Gunther, a German by birth,
was for more than half a century the leading fur merchant in the
metropolis. (Makers of New York, Hamersly & Co., Philadelphia, 1895.)
Mayer, Charles Frederick, former president of the Baltimore & Ohio
Railroad Co., was a son of Lewis Mayer, one of the first men to
develop the anthracite coal regions of Pennsylvania. The father of
Lewis Mayer was Christian Mayer, who emigrated from Germany and
settled in Baltimore, where he became one of the leading merchants.
(Makers of New York, Hamersly & Co., Philadelphia, 1895.)
Ottendorfer, Oswald, was born at Zwittau and educated at Vienna. He
came to New York in 1850, having been involved in the revolutionary
outbreak in Vienna. He became eminent as the editor and proprietor of
the “New Yorker Staats-Zeitung.” (Makers of New York, Hamersly & Co.,
Philadelphia, 1895.)
Ziegler, William, born of German parents, in Beaver County, Pa., in
1843, was the founder of the baking powder industry in this country,
in which he accumulated a fortune. (Makers of New York, Hamersly &
Co., Philadelphia, 1895.)
Windmueller, Louis, a prominent merchant and reformer of New York,
was born in Westphalia, emigrating to this country in 1853. He was
one of the founders of the Reform Club and of many of the leading
banking institutions in the city.
Eberhard Faber, founder of the American lead pencil industry, born
near Nuremberg in 1820; Friedrich Meyerhaeuser, the American lumber
king, born 1834 in Hessia; Klaus Spreckels, founder of the American
beet sugar industry, in Hanover in 1828; G. Martin Brill, largest car
manufacturer, born February, in Cassel.
John Valentin Steger, for whom a well-known piano is named, came
to the United States from Germany at the age of 17 in the steerage
and died in Chicago, June 14, 1916, aged 62, founder of the town of
Steger and president of the J. V. Steger & Sons Mfg. Co., and of
the Singer Piano Mfg. Co., the Reed & Sons Mfg. Co., the Thompson
Piano Mfg. Co., and of the Bank of Steger; also vice-president of
the Flanner Land & Lumber Co. In his will he left a large sum for a
hospital and library for his employees.
From the earliest period of New York’s financial district, Germans
and men of German blood have occupied a predominant part in the
financial life of this country, firstly because fundamental banking
principles are taught in Germany as nowhere else, and secondly for
the reason that subjects, such as foreign exchange, necessitate such
deep technical knowledge that it would appear only German minds can
thoroughly grasp them. It is an actual fact that even today, the
foreign exchange business of Wall Street, even that part of the
business handled and controlled by Morgan & Company and the National
City Bank, is in the hands of Germans.
Among the greatest of Wall Street operators of the end of the last
century, the days of Jay Gould, Russell Sage, Addison Cammack, etc.,
Germans predominated and were triumphant victors in most of the
great Wall Street speculative battles. Henry Villard, who came to
this country from Germany, was the chief center of American railroad
finance in the historic period from 1879 to 1884. He it was who
captured the Northern Pacific Railroad from the Wall Street banking
groups.
Another figure of this time was the great bear operator, probably the
most powerful and successful bear operator that Wall Street has ever
seen, Charles Frederick Woerishoffer, who died in 1886. He was born
in Gelnshausen, Germany, and coming to this country, founded the firm
of Woerishoffer & Company. He was connected with the famous campaigns
in Wall Street conducted by James R. Keene, Jay Gould, Russell Sage,
Addison Cammack, etc., for the control of the Kansas Pacific Railroad
in 1879. Henry Clews, the English stockbroker, says of him in his
reminiscences of Wall Street: “Woerishoffer had the German idea of
fighting in the open, as against the secret operations of Commodore
Vanderbilt and the others. He lost some battles but won most of those
in which he engaged and made millions out of the conflicts.”
Joseph Drexel came to this country from Germany in 1787. He is the
real founder of the house of Morgan & Company. Drexel founded the
banking house of Drexel and Company in Philadelphia and Drexel,
Morgan & Company, New York. He built up a successful banking
business, in which his sons became interested, and at his death they
inherited his fortune.
August Belmont, the elder, was born in Alzey, Prussia, in 1816,
and died in 1890, leaving his son to manage the banking house he
founded. He had been a clerk in the Rothschild banking house in
Frankfort-on-the-Main, Germany, and when he came to this country, he
was the American representative of that world historic firm, which
position his son of the same name occupies today. The elder Belmont
was the founder of the Manhattan Club in New York.
Henry Bischoff, founder of the banking house of Bischoff & Company,
was born in Baden, Germany. Lazarus Hallgarten, of Mayence, Germany,
was the founder of the banking house of Hallgarten & Company. Isaac
Ickelheimer, a native of Frankfort, Germany, was the founder of the
banking firm of Heidelbach, Ickelheimer & Company. Frederick Kuehne,
who was born in Magdeburg, Germany, established the banking house of
Knauth, Nachod & Kuehne. Jacob Schiff, one of the foremost bankers
of Wall Street at the present time, was also born in Frankfort. He
is the head of Kuhn, Loeb and Company. Ernst Thalmann, who died
recently, was one of the founders of Ladenburg, Thalmann & Company.
He was also of German birth. James Speyer, head of Speyer & Company,
is a member of the old Frankfort family of that name, and obtained
his financial education in Germany. In fact, the majority of banking
houses in Wall Street as they exist today were founded by Germans.
Adolphus Busch, the great brewer and philanthropist, was born at
Mayence-on-the-Rhine, July 10, 1839; education at gymnasium, Mayence,
and academy, Darmstadt, and high school, Brussels. Came to United
States, 1857. Served in the Union army under Gen. Lyon and became
associated with his father-in-law, E. Anheuser, in the Anheuser
Brewing Co., and later became president of the famous Anheuser-Busch
Brewing Assn. of St. Louis, largest brewing concern in the world. At
the time of his death was president of five large concerns, including
a local bank and Diesel Engine Co., and director St. Louis Union
Trust Co., Third National Bank, Kinloch Telephone Co., Equitable
Surety Co., and several other strong organizations. Mr. Busch was
a high type of the self-made German-American. He gave a large sum
(twice) to the Harvard German Museum, the Germanistic Society of
Columbia University, and to other public institutions of science and
learning, and his death, Oct. 10, 1913, was universally regretted.
John D. Rockefeller and John Wanamaker are both descendants of German
immigrants. The forefather of the Standard Oil King, Johann Peter
Roggenfelder, came over in 1735 from Bonnefeld, Rhenish Prussia,
and is buried at Larrison Corners, N. J., while Mr. Wannamaker,
former Postmaster General and the father of the department store, is
descended from a Pennsylvania German family named Wannenmacher.
=The German American Vote.=--The following table shows the vote of
the Germans, Austrians and Hungarians (according to the census of
1910) in ten states where their vote is above 40,000, the figures
being compounded of those naturalized and those having applied for
their first papers:
Germans Austrians Hungarians Total
New York 163,881 41,466 16,123 221,470
Illinois 124,430 30,461 5,374 160,265
Wisconsin 92,655 11,385 1,620 105,660
Ohio 68,576 12,342 8,757 89,675
Michigan 52,510 4,113 1,011 57,634
Minnesota 46,281 9,515 1,022 56,718
New Jersey 44,899 7,403 4,448 56,750
Iowa 39,348 4,802 249 44,399
Missouri 35,267 4,115 1,835 41,217
California 34,911 5,135 1,065 41,111
These figures are but remotely representative of what is called “the
German vote” or the vote of the Austro-Hungarians, as no account is
here taken of the first generation born in the United States, the
sons of these naturalized Americans, nor of their grandsons.
With the first generation of German Americans, the total vote in 1916
of this element in New York, Illinois, Wisconsin, Ohio, Missouri,
Michigan, Iowa, Minnesota, Indiana, New Jersey, California, Nebraska,
Kansas and the two Dakotas amount to 1,860,500.
New England, which was the center of anti-German sentiment as it is
the center of puritanism and Anglo-American hyphenation, contains the
smallest number of Germans and the largest number of aliens of any
section in the United States; in other words, the lowest percentage
of naturalized citizens among the foreign-born white men of the age
of 21 and over--40.7 per cent. The highest proportion of naturalized
foreign-born above 21 years was in the West North Central division,
that is Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota,
Nebraska and Kansas, where the Teutonic element is largely settled.
Table 25 of the U. S. Census Bulletin on Population (1910) “Voting
Age, Military Age, and Naturalization,” shows that the German aliens
21 years and over, all told, number only 127,103, and the Germans
stand at the foot of the list of twenty-nine (alien immigrants) or
9.9 per cent., the highest being 83 per cent. The French aliens in
the United States numbered 27.8 per cent., the Scotch 21.8, and the
English 19.6. In other words, only 9.9 in every hundred of Germans
could not be forced to go to war, but nearly 28 out of every hundred
Frenchmen, 21.5 out of every hundred Scotchmen, and more than 19 out
of every hundred Englishmen were immune from military duty in the
United States, also from the payment of taxes.
There are more German-born persons in the United States of the age of
21 and over than there are persons of any other foreign nationality.
Of the total number of foreign-born (6,646,817), Germany is
represented by 1,278,667, of whom 69.5 per cent. had been naturalized
in 1910. Russia comes next, with 737,120, of whom only 26.1 per cent.
were naturalized. There were 437,152 Englishmen of voting age, 59.4
of whom were naturalized, while only 49.6 per cent. out of a total of
59,661 Frenchmen of voting age were entitled to vote.
The following table shows the States containing the largest number of
Germans of voting age of all foreign-born citizens:
By Sections:--
Germans Austrians Hungarians
East North Central 461,038 166,037 90,577
West ” ” 228,262 63,686 ----
South Atlantic 32,143 10,961 6,007
East South Central 15,154 1,719 ----
Pacific 73,302 23,500 ----
By States:--
Germans Austrians Hungarians
New Jersey 60,380 26,082 22,773
Ohio 87,013 38,400 47,852
Indiana 32,123 7,356 9,383
Illinois 159,112 81,883 20,391
Wisconsin 117,661 20,700 6,014
Iowa 52,393 8,580 ----
Missouri 47,038 8,819 5,834
South Dakota 11,964 3,099 ----
Nebraska 31,008 12,184 ----
Kansas 18,910 6,178 ----
Maryland 17,370 3,397 967
Colorado 9,558 8,221 ----
Oregon 10,786 3,622 ----
California 44,712 11,125 ----
In the following States the German-born citizens of voting age
constitute the second largest number of foreign-born citizens:
Germans Austrians Hungarians
Michigan 65,129 17,698 6,937
Minnesota 57,789 22,261 ----
Texas 24,039 9,767 ----
In Michigan the Germans and Austrians together outnumbered the
Canadians 3,588. In Minnesota the Swedes came first, with a total of
67,003, and in Texas the Germans were outnumbered only by Mexicans.
The German-born of voting age in New York State are outnumbered by
Russians and Italians, but as 68.2 per cent. of the 215,310 are
citizens, only 17.5 per cent. of the Italians and only 24.4 of the
Russians had acquired the franchise in 1910, the Germans outclass
them numerically as voters. They are third also in Washington with a
total of 17,804, next after the Canadians with 20,395 and the Swedes
with 19,727. Of the Germans, however, 66.9 per cent. were naturalized
while only 55.1 per cent. of the Canadians had their franchise,
giving the Germans the advantage when the votes are counted.
Germans Austrians Hungarians
New York 215,310 105,889 39,577
Washington 19,727 9,675 ----
In Pennsylvania Germans of voting age are outnumbered by Austrians,
Russians and Italians in the order named; but only 12.4 per cent.
of the Austrians, 21.9 per cent. of the Russians and 13.7 per cent.
of the Italians had the franchise, whereas 66.5 of the Germans were
citizens.
In North Dakota the Norwegians, Russians and Canadians outnumbered
the Germans in the order named, and here all had become citizens in
fairly relative proportion, as also in Montana, where the Germans of
voting age were outnumbered by the Canadians, Irish and Austrians.
Germans Austrians Hungarians
Pennsylvania 95,539 145,528 68,522
North Dakota 9,160 2,565 1,096
Montana 5,419 6,067 ----
In New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut the
total number of German-born voters was only 33,011, Austrians 29,686
and Hungarians 6,377, and these were principally in Massachusetts and
Connecticut. Maine had none.
The following table shows the number of Germans, Austrians and
Hungarians who were citizens in 1910, including those who had taken
out their first papers:
Germans 1,017,037
Austrians 208,550
Hungarians 62,366
---------
Total 1,287,953
In addition, the citizenship of a total of 240,953 Germans, Austrians
and Hungarians had not been reported. The following shows the number
of Irish, Swedes, Swiss and Hollanders of voting age in 1910,
including those who had applied for their first citizenship papers:
Irish 439,973
Swedes 259,305
Hollanders 40,332
Swiss 49,364
--------
Total 788,974
Other States in which German-born naturalized males of 21 or over
lead all other foreign-born are:
Kentucky 7,380
Tennessee 1,509
Alabama 1,255
Mississippi 647
Arkansas 2,203
Louisiana 2,739
Oklahoma 4,071
Idaho 2,133
Wyoming 1,091
New Mexico 804
Arizona 852
Nevada 922
Delaware 903
District of Columbia 1,952
Virginia 1,547
North Carolina 365
South Carolina 570
Georgia 1,174
West Virginia 2,137
Florida 925
In West Virginia the total number of Italians was 11,561 against only
3,392 Germans, but only 748 Italians had become citizens against
2,137 Germans; and in Arizona there were 2,196 English as compared
with 1,324 Germans, but 825 Germans had become citizens as compared
with 832 English-born.
Of the 234,285 Russians in New York only 92,269 had become
naturalized and taken out their first papers. In Minnesota were
52,133 Swedish voters, in Illinois 43,618, in Iowa 10,636, in
Wisconsin 11,532, in Nebraska 10,000, in Washington 13,393, and in
California 11,076.
=The German Element in American Life.=--The following commentary of
Carl Schurz on the influence of the Germans in America is worthy of
note:
“Friedrich Kapp, in his ‘History of the Germans in the State of New
York,’ says: ‘In the battle waged to subdue the new world, the Latins
supplied officers without an army, the English an army with officers,
and the Germans an army without officers.’ This is signally true as
regards the Germans. They emigrated to America and settled here as
squatters without eminent official leadership. They became parts of
already existing communities, in which a majority population of other
nationality played a dominant role. Unlike ‘the army with officers,’
they possessed no official writers of history to record their deeds
and sayings in regular reports. They had lost their political
connection with their native land, and whatever interest they
inspired at home was of a personal or family nature. Besides this,
they were strongly isolated from communion with the predominating
nationality by the difference in language and frequently were
forced into the unfavorable position of an alien element. These
various circumstances combined to accord them a rather superficial,
stepmotherly treatment in the history of the American people, as
written by the dominant nationality.”--From the introduction to
Kapp’s “Die Deutschen im Staate New York.”
While Prof. Nearing, Douglas Campbell, Dr. Griffis and others
have shown that the Americans are not an English people, the
latter--including Scotch and Welsh--constituting only 30 per cent.
of the American people, the advantage as historians, which the
English-speaking element enjoyed from the beginning of our life as a
nation, prompted them to assume the name of “Americans” and to regard
the people of all other races and their descendants as usurping an
unwarranted right in calling themselves Americans, so that today an
American with a German name, as the war has shown, is somehow in a
tolerated class distinct from his Anglo-American neighbors.
“Yet the first distinctive American frontier was not created alone
by the movement of population westward from the older settlements;
like every successive frontier in our history it became the Mecca
of emigrants from British and Continental lands. Before 1700 exiled
Huguenots and refugees from the (German) Palatinate began to seek the
new world, and during the eighteenth century men of non-English stock
poured by thousands into the up-country of Pennsylvania and of the
South. In 1700 the foreign population of the colonies was slight; in
1775 it is estimated that 225,000 Germans and 385,000 Scotch-Irish,
together nearly one-fifth of the entire population, lived within the
provinces that won independence.”--“The Beginning of the American
People,” by Prof. Carl L. Becker, University of Kansas; Houghton
Mifflin & Co., 1915; p. 177.
Elson, in his “History of the United States,” p. 198, says that in
New England and the South the people were almost wholly of English
stock, though New England was of more purely English stock than was
the South, with a sprinkling of Scotch-Irish and other nationalities,
and especially in the South, of French Huguenots and Germans. “In the
middle colonies less than half the population was English; the Dutch
of New York, the Germans of Pennsylvania, the Swedes of Delaware and
the Irish of all these colonies, together with small numbers of other
nationalities, made up more than half the population.” He gives the
total population of the colonies in 1760 at approximately 1,600,000.
Pennsylvania is sometimes called “The American German’s Holy Land.”
Let us see why. Today, as the tourist visits Heidelberg on the
Neckar, sails down the Rhine from Spires or Mannheim to Cologne,
he sees many ivy-mantled ruins, which show how terribly Louis XIV
of France desolated this region during his ferocious wars. Angry
at the Germans and Dutch for sheltering his hunted Huguenots, he
invaded the Rhine Palatinate, which became for a whole generation the
scene of French fire, pillage, rapine and slaughter. Added to these
troubles of war and politics, were those of religious persecutions;
for, according as the prince electors were Protestants or Catholics,
so the people were expected to change as suited their rulers, who
compelled their subjects to be of the same faith. Tired of their
long-endured miseries, the Palatine Germans, early in the eighteenth
century, fled to England. Under the protection and kindly care of the
British government, they were aided to come to America. About 5,000
settled in the Hudson, Mohawk and Schoharie valleys in New York, and
over 25,000 in Pennsylvania, chiefly in the Schuylkill and Swatara
region between Bethlehem and Harrisburg. Later came Germans from
other parts of the Fatherland, making Colonists rich in the sturdy
virtues of the Teutonic race.
Though poor, these Germans were very intelligent, holding on to
their Bibles and having plenty of schools and schoolmasters. In
the little Mennonite meeting house at Germantown, on the 18th of
February, 1688, they declared against the unlawfulness of holding
their fellowmen in bondage, and raised the first ecclesiastical
protest against slavery in America. In Penn’s Colony also the first
book written and published in America against slavery was by one of
these German Christians. The Penn Germans also published the first
Bible in any European tongue ever printed in America. It was they
who first called Washington “the father of his country.” In their
dialect, still surviving in some places, made up of old German and
modern expressions, some pretty poems and charming stories have
been written. Tenacious in holding their lands, thorough in method,
appreciative of most of what is truest and best in our nation’s life,
but not easily led away by mere novelties and justly distrustful of
what is false and unjust, even though called “American,” the Germans
have furnished in our national composite an element of conservatism
that bodes well for the future of the republic.... Here worked
and lived the first American astronomer, Rittenhouse, and here
(Pennsylvania) originated many first things which have so powerfully
influenced the nation at large.... Here lived Daniel Pastorius,
then the most learned man in America. (“The Romance of American
Colonization,” by Dr. William Elliot Griffis.)
The disposition of the New England school of historians, with some
distinguished exceptions, to glorify everything of Puritan origin
and belittle everything of non-English origin in American life,
is strongly manifest in their writings about the early Palatine
immigration. They were merely hewers of wood and drawers of water, or
coolies. But the evidence of Franklin, Washington and Jefferson is to
the contrary, and their history in New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia
and North and South Carolina puts the New England historians to
shame. With their disparaging comments may be contrasted the words in
which Macaulay describes the same people:
Honest, laborious men, who had once been thriving burghers
of Mannheim and Heidelberg, or who had cultivated the wine
on the banks of the Neckar and the Rhine. Their ingenuity
and their diligence could not fail to enrich any land which
should afford them an asylum.
Sanford H. Cobb says: “The story of the Palatines challenges our
sympathy, admiration and reverence, and is as well worth telling
as that of any other colonial immigration. We may concede that
their influence on the future development of the country and its
institutions was not equal to the formative power exerted by some
other contingents. Certainly, they have not left so many broad and
deep marks upon our history as have the Puritans of New England, and
yet their story is not without definite and permanent monuments of
beneficence toward American life and institutions. At least one among
the very greatest of the safeguards of American liberty--the Freedom
of the Press--is distinctly traceable to the resolute boldness of a
Palatine.” (“The Story of the Palatines,” Putnam’s Sons, 1897, p. 5,
Introduction.)
And very emphatic are the words of Judge Benton in his “History of
Herkimer County:”
The particulars of the immigration of the Palatines are
worthy of extended notice. The events which produced the
movement in the heart of an old and polished European
nation to seek a refuge and a home on the western
continent, are quite as legitimate a subject of American
history as the oft-repeated relation of the experience of
the Pilgrim Fathers.
Germans were among the first immigrants in the South along with
the English, and many a proud Virginian has German blood in his
veins. President Wilson’s second wife is a Bolling. The first
attempts to colonize Virginia were discouraging failures. Of the
first 105 bachelor colonists sent out from England in 1606, half
called themselves “gentlemen,” young men without a trade and with
no practical experience as colonists. The others were laborers,
tradesmen and mechanics, and two singers and a chaplain. Among the
leaders Capt. John Smith was the most noted as he was the most able.
The Jamestown colony was reduced to forty men when Captain Newport
on his return from England brought additional numbers of colonists,
and the “Phoenix” later arrived with seventy more settlers and the
languishing colony was still later reinforced by seventy immigrants,
among whom were two women. The marriage of John Laydon and Ann Burras
was the occasion of the first wedding in Virginia.
“Better far than a batch of the average immigrants,” writes Dr.
Griffis, “was the reinforcements of some German and Polish mechanics
brought over to manufacture glass. These Germans were the first
of a great company that have contributed powerfully to build up
the industry and commerce of Virginia--the mother of states and
statesmen! There still stands on the east side of Timber Neck Bay,
on the north side of the York River, a stone chimney with a mighty
fireplace nearly eight feet wide, built by these Germans.”
American’s great historian, George Bancroft, in his introduction
to Kapp’s “Life of Steuben,” writes: “The Americans of that day,
who were of German birth or descent, formed a large part of the
population of the United States; they cannot well be reckoned at
less than a twelfth of the whole, and perhaps formed even a larger
proportion of the insurgent people. At the commencement of the
Revolution we hear little of them, not from their want of zeal in the
good cause, but from their modesty. They kept themselves purposely
in the background, leaving it to those of English origin to discuss
the violations of English liberties and to decide whether the time
for giving battle had come. But when the resolution was taken, no
part of the country was more determined in its patriotism than the
German counties of Pennsylvania and Virginia. Neither they nor their
descendants have laid claim to all the praise that was their due.”
In 1734 a number of German Lutheran communities were flourishing in
Northern Virginia, and in a work dealing with Virginia conditions,
which appeared in London in 1724, Governor Spotswood is mentioned
as having founded the town of Germania, named for the Germans whom
Queen Anne had sent over, but who abandoned that region, it seems,
on account of religious intolerance. The same work mentions a colony
of Germans from the Palatinate who had been presented with a large
section of land and who were prosperous, happy and exceedingly
hospitable. Many of their descendants attained to fame and fortune,
as B. William Wirt, remembered as one of the most distinguished
jurists in America, and Karl Minnigerode, for many years rector of
St. Paul’s Church in Richmond, among whose parishioners was Jefferson
Davis.
Many Germans immigrated to the Carolinas from Germany as well as
Pennsylvania, before the Revolution. A large number came from
Pennsylvania in 1745, and in 1751 the Mennonites bought 900,000 acres
from the English government in North Carolina and founded numerous
colonies which still survive. One colony on the Yadkin, known as
the Buffalo Creek Colony, at the time sent abroad $384 for the
purchase of German books. After 1840 the interrupted flow of German
immigration was resumed.
When the German immigration into South Carolina began is a matter
of dispute, but when a colony of immigrants from Salzburg reached
Charleston in 1743, they found there German settlers by whom they
were heartily welcomed. As early as 1674 many Lutherans, to escape
the oppression of English rule in New York, settled along the Ashley,
near the future site of Charleston.
It is probable from printed evidence that the first German in South
Carolina was Rev. Peter Fabian, who accompanied an expedition sent by
the English Carolina Company to that colony in 1663.
In 1732, under the leadership of John Peter Purry, 170 German-Swiss
founded Purrysburg on the Savannah River, and were followed in a year
or two by 200 more. Orangeburg was founded about the same time by
Germans from Switzerland and the Palatinate. Likewise Lexington was
founded by Germans, and in 1742 Germans founded a settlement on the
island of St. Simons, south of Savannah. In 1763 two shiploads of
German immigrants arrived at Charleston from London.
Before the Revolution the Gospel was preached in sixteen German
churches in the colony, and at the outbreak of the Revolution the
German Fusiliers was the name given to an organization of German
and German-Swiss volunteers which still exists. As early as 1766 a
German Society was founded in Charleston and numbered upward of 100
members at the beginning of the Revolution. It gave 2,000 pounds to
the patriotic cause, and after the conclusion of peace erected its
own school, at which annually twenty children of the poor were taught
free of charge. Dr. Griffis speaks of the ship “Phoenix,” from New
York, “which brought Germans, who built Jamestown on the Stone River.”
Many of the Palatine Germans and Swiss had already settled in the
Carolinas, he continues; now into Georgia came Germans from farther
East, besides many of the Moravians. In the Austrian Salzburg,
prelatical bigotry had become unbearable to the Lutherans. Thirty
thousand of these Bible-reading Christians had fled into Holland and
England. Being invited to settle in Georgia, they took the oath of
allegiance to the British King and crossed the Atlantic Ocean.
In March, 1734, the ship “Purisburg,” having on board 87 Salzburgers
with their ministers, arrived in the colony. Warmly welcomed, they
founded the town of Ebenezer. The next year more of these sober,
industrious and strongly religious people of Germany came over. The
Moravians, who followed quickly began missionary work among the
Indians. After them again followed German Lutherans, Moravians,
English immigrants, Scotch-Irish, Quaker, Mennonites and others.
“Thus in Georgia, as in the Carolinas and Virginia, there was formed
a miniature New Europe, having a varied population, with many
sterling qualities.”
The first whites to settle within the territory comprising the
present State of Ohio were the German Moravians who founded the towns
of Schoenbrunn, Gnadenhütten, Lichtenau and Salem. David Zeisberger
on May 3, 1772, with a number of converted Indians, founded the first
Christian community in Ohio. Mrs. Johann George Jungmann was the
first white married woman. She and her husband came from Bethlehem,
Pa. At Schoenbrunn and Gnadenhütten, Zeisberger wrote a spelling book
and reader in the Delaware language which was printed in Philadelphia.
In Gnadenhütten was born July 4, 1773, the first white child in Ohio,
John Ludwig Roth; the second child was Johanna Maria Heckewelder,
April 16, 1781, at Schoenbrunn, and the third was Christian David
Seusemann, at Salem, May 30, 1781. The Communities, largely composed
of baptized Indians, in 1775 numbered 414 persons, and their record
of industry and peaceful development is preserved in Zeisberger’s
diary, now in the archives of the Historical and Philosophical
Society of Ohio at Cincinnati.
The peaceful settlements excited the jealousy of powerful interests,
and the British Commissioners, McKee and Elliot, and the renegade,
Simon Girty, reported to the commander at Detroit that Zeisberger and
his companions were American spies. The German settlers and their
Indian converts were carried to Sandusky in 1781, where they suffered
great privations until permitted, after winter had come, to send back
150 of their Indian wards--all of whom spoke the German language--to
gather what of their planting remained in the fields. But a number
of lawless American bordermen under Col. David Williamson, acting
on a false report that the peaceful Indians had been concerned in a
raid, surprised the men in the fields and after disarming them by a
trick, murdered men, women and children in cold blood. The details,
as related by Eickhoff (“In der Neuen Heimath,” Steiger, New York,
1885, and by Col. Roosevelt in “The Winning of the West”) are among
the most ghastly on record and make the blood run cold. Some of
these slain had German fathers and all were peaceful, industrious
and well-behaved natives who had learned to sing Christian hymns and
German songs in their humble meeting houses.
Independent of these communities, the first settlement of Ohio
at Marietta was the work of New Englanders, in April, 1788; but
the second, that of Columbia, was under the direction of a German
Revolutionary officer, Major Benjamin Steitz, the name being later
changed by his descendants to Stites.
Space is lacking for fuller details regarding the great share of
the Germans in settling the Middle West and West. German names
predominate in the history of early border warfare in the fights
with the French and the Indians; the Germans were among the most
conspicuous of the pioneers, as they continued to be for generations
in settling the Far West and Northwest, the great number of Indian
massacres culminating in that of New Ulm in 1862, in which German
settlers again formed the outposts of American civilization.
One thing is notable in the annals of our early history, the
striking fact that the frontier settlements in Pennsylvania and the
West and also the Northwest teemed with Germans, and that every
Indian massacre and every border fight with the French, before the
Revolution as well as after, brings into prominence German names. In
the defense of the borders against Indians and French, forts were
built by the German settlers above Harrisburg, at the forks of the
Schuylkill, on the Lehigh and on the Upper Delaware. They bore the
brunt of the Tulpehocken massacre in 1755, just after Braddock’s
defeat; the barbarities perpetrated in Northampton county in 1756,
and the attack on the settlements near Reading in 1763. Against
these forays the Germans under Schneider and Hiester made stout
resistance. As early as 1711 a German battalion, mainly natives of
the Palatinate, was part of the force, a thousand strong, which was
to take part in the expedition against Quebec.
Berks, Bucks, Lancaster, York and Northampton were then the
Pennsylvania frontier counties, and from them came the men who filled
the German regiments and battalions in the Revolutionary War. In the
South, Law’s Mississippi scheme brought more than 17,000 Germans from
the Palatinate, who made settlements throughout what was then the
French colony. Theirs was a life of hardship and constant battle with
the Indians.
In 1773 Frankfort and Louisville, Kentucky, were settled by Germans,
the former by immigrants from North Carolina, and led to “Lord
Dinsmore’s war” in which they fought the Indians and gained a
foothold.
In 1777 Col. Shepherd (Schaefer), a Pennsylvania German, successfully
defended Wheeling from a large Indian force. In the operations under
Gen. Irvine, to avenge the massacre of the Moravian settlers in Ohio,
his adjutant, Col. Rose, was a German, Baron Gustave von Rosenthal.
At the outbreak of the Old French War (1756-1763), the British
government, under an act of Parliament, organized the Royal American
regiment for service in the Colonies. It was to consist of four
battalions of one thousand men each. Fifty of the officers were to
be foreign Protestants, while the enlisted men were to be raised
principally from among the German settlers in America. The immediate
commander, General Bouquet, was a Swiss by birth, an English officer
by adoption, and a Pennsylvanian by naturalization. This last
distinction was conferred on him as a reward for his services in
his campaign in the western part of Pennsylvania, where he and his
Germans atoned for the injuries that resulted from Braddock’s defeat
in the same border region.
The German settlers were ardent American patriots before and during
the Revolution. In 1775, says Rosengarten, the vestries of the German
Lutheran and Reformed churches at Philadelphia sent a pamphlet of
forty pages to the Germans of New York and North Carolina, stating
that the Germans in the near and remote parts of Pennsylvania have
distinguished themselves by forming not only a militia, but a select
corps of sharp shooters, ready to march wherever they are required,
while those who cannot do military service are willing to contribute
according to their ability. They urged the Germans of other colonies
to give their sympathy to the common cause, to carry out the measures
taken by Congress, and to rise in arms against the oppression and
despotism of the English Government. The volunteers in Pennsylvania
were called “Associators” and the Germans among them had their
headquarters at the Lutheran schoolhouse in Philadelphia. In 1750 the
German settlers in Pennsylvania were estimated at nearly 100,000 out
of a total population of 270,000, and in 1790 at 144,600.
The Springfield (Mass.) “Republican,” although an outspoken
pro-British paper, since the outbreak of the war paid deserved
tribute to the share of the German settlers in the early history of
the Republic, rebuking the spirit of envy and detraction evinced in
certain quarters, by saying that those who hold these belittling
views can have no knowledge of the history of the Palatines who
settled the Mohawk Valley. Anyone having a cursory acquaintance with
the elementary text books of American history, the paper thinks, must
recall the massacre of Wyoming and the Cherry Valley. Neither in New
York, nor in Pennsylvania nor in the South did the Germans evade the
dangers and hardships of the wilderness. It is not generally known
how large a share they had in the settling of the West. They poured
into Ohio from the Mohawk Valley as well as from Pennsylvania. On the
dark and bloody ground of Kentucky they vied with Daniel Boone in
fighting the Indians--Steiner and the German Pole, Sandusky, preceded
Boone in Kentucky. One of the most famous among the pioneers was the
“tall Dutchman,” George Yeager (Jaeger), who was killed by Indians in
1775, continues the “Republican.” In the valleys of Virginia there
were more German pioneers than any other nationality. Along the whole
border line from Maine to Georgia they occupied the most advanced
positions in the enemy’s territory, and their large families included
more younger sons who went forth to look for new lands than of all
others. A Kentucky observer declared at the close of the eighteenth
century that of every twelve families, nine Germans, seven Scotchmen
and four Irishmen succeeded when all others failed.
Michael Fink and his companions were the first to descend the
Mississippi on a trading expedition to New Orleans, where the
officials in 1782 had never heard of their starting point, Pittsburg.
Germans again--Rosenvelt, Becker and Heinrich--were the first to
descend the Ohio in a steamboat in 1811. (Rosengarten.)
“In our Colonial Period almost the entire western border of our
country was occupied by Germans,” writes Prof. Burgess. “It fell to
them, therefore, to defend, in first instance, the colonists from the
attack of the French and the Indians. They formed what was known in
those times as the Regiment of Royal Americans, a brigade rather than
a regiment, numbering some 4,000 men, and the bands led by Nicholas
Herkimer and Conrad Weiser.”
=Germany and England During the Civil War.=--The attitude of England
during the Civil War contrasted strangely with that of the German
States, and this attitude is rather clearly shown by the “Investment
Weekly,” of New York, for June 21, 1917, though not intended as a
reproach to England. In the course of an article, headed “Bond Market
of the Civil War,” the “Investment Weekly” says:
Another difference is that the United States until recently
had been the greatest neutral nation in the world, whereas
then Great Britain was the greatest neutral nation. Still
a third difference is that whereas Great Britain was able
to borrow freely from us even before we entered the war,
our government during the Civil War was unable to obtain
any help from Great Britain. In March, 1863, an attempt
was made to negotiate a loan of $10,000,000 there, but the
negotiations utterly failed.
The significance of this paragraph will appear from reflection
on the state of distress prevailing in 1863, a period when the
outlook for the success of the Union was veiled in gloom, and many
of the most stout-hearted trembled for the outcome. England was
sending fully-equipped and English-manned warships over to aid the
Confederacy; the “Alabama” and the “Florida” were sinking our ships
and sweeping American commerce from the seas. Justin McCarthy, in
“The Cruise of the ‘Alabama’” (“A History of Our Own Times,” II,
Chap. XLIV), says:
The “Alabama” had got to sea; her cruise of nearly two
years began. She went upon her destroying course with the
cheers of English sympathizers and the rapturous tirades of
English newspapers glorifying her. Every misfortune that
befell an American merchantman was received in this country
with a roar of delight.
At that time England was on the eve of entering the war on the side
of the South, and only the news of General Grant’s decisive victory
at Vicksburg and Lee’s defeat at Gettysburg brought the House of
Commons to a more sober reflection.
McCarthy shows that a motion for the recognition of the Southern
Confederacy, which Minister Adams had said would mean a war with the
Northern States, was already in process of passing in the House of
Commons, for he writes:
The motion was never pressed to a division; for during its
progress there came at one moment the news that General
Grant had taken Vicksburg, on the Mississippi, and that
General Meade had defeated General Lee, at Gettysburg, and
put an end to all thought of a Southern invasion.... There
was no more said in this country about the recognition of
the Southern Confederation, and the Emperor of the French
was thenceforth free to follow out his plans as far as he
could, and alone.
It was during these dismal hours of trembling hope that Germany
proved herself the friend of the Union. Whereas England would not
loan the Lincoln administration $10,000,000, six times that amount
was forthcoming from Germany.
When in 1870 a disposition developed here to supply France with arms
against Germany, some heated debates took place in the Senate, in
which events of 1861-65 were naturally brought up for review, and it
is interesting to quote from the debates of that period as reported
in the “Globe Congressional Record,” 3rd Session, 41st Congress. Part
II. From pp. 953-955:
Mr. Stewart, Senator from Nevada: “Allow me to call the
attention of the Senator from Tennessee to the fact, which
he must recollect, of the amount of our bonds that were
taken in Germany at the time we needed that they should be
taken, and =when they were prohibited from the Exchange in
London and from the Bourse in Paris, and not allowed to be
on the markets there at all= on account of the state of
public opinion there, =while Germany alone came in and took
five or $600,000,000 at a time when we needed money more
than anything else, to sustain our credit=. That is a fact
showing sympathy, certainly.”
Senator Pomeroy, of Kansas, quoted on p. 954, said:
They (the Germans) sent us men; they recruited our armies
with men; they helped to save the life of this nation.
Though the French were our ancient allies, the Germans have
been our modern allies.
And well did Senator Charles Sumner put it when he declared in the
United States Senate, (“Congressional Record,” 3rd Session, 41st
Congress, Page 956): “We owe infinitely to Germany.”
A formal acknowledgement of our debt to Germany during the most
critical stage of our history was made by Secretary of State William
H. Seward through the American Minister at Berlin, in May, 1863, as
follows:
You will not hesitate to express assurance of the constant
good will of the United States toward the king and the
people who have dealt with us in good faith and great
friendship during the severe trials through which we have
been passing.
At the close of the war, the Prussian deputies, some 260 in number,
on April 26, 1865, submitted an address to the American Minister in
Berlin, in which the following language occurs:
Living among us you are witness of the heartfelt sympathy
which this people have ever preserved for the people of the
United States during the long and severe conflict. You are
aware that Germany has looked with pride and joy on the
thousands of her sons, who, in this struggle, have arrayed
themselves on the side of law and justice. You have seen
with what joy the victories of the Union have been hailed
and how confident our faith in the final triumph of the
great cause of the restoration of the Union in all its
greatness has ever been, even in the midst of adversity.
While there is a strong tendency in certain directions to ignore
or obscure the facts of American history by imputing some vaguely
unpatriotic motive to those who prefer to see the United States
travel the same conservative path which has made it the dominating
power of the world, after 140 years of devotion to the patriotic
standards established by the founders of the Republic, it shall not
deter us from calling attention to the testimony of a great American,
James G. Blane, by quoting certain passages from his book, “Twenty
Years in Congress,” which leave no doubt what his attitude would be
to-day. The quotations are taken from Vol. II, p. 447:
From the government of England, terming itself liberal
with Lord Palmerston at its head, Earl Russel as Foreign
Secretary, Mr. Gladstone as Chancellor of the Exchequer,
the Duke of Argyll as Lord Privy Seal, and Earl Cranville
as Lord President of the Council, not one friendly word
was sent across the Atlantic. A formal neutrality was
declared by government officials, while its spirit was
daily violated. If the Republic had been a dependency of
Great Britain, like Canada or Australia, engaged in civil
strife, it could not have been more steadily subjected to
review, to criticism, and to the menace of discipline.
The proclamations of President Lincoln, the decisions of
Federal Courts, the orders issued by commanders of the
Union armies, were frequently brought to the attention of
Parliament, as if America were in some way accountable to
the judgment of England. Harsh comment came from leading
British statesmen; while the most ribald defamers of the
United States met with cheers from a majority of the House
of Commons and indulged in the bitterest denunciation of
a friendly government without rebuke from the Ministerial
benches.
(Vol. II, Chap. 20): March 7, 1862, Lord Robert Cecil,
in discussing the blockade of the southern coast, said:
“The plain matter of fact is, as every one who watches
the current of history must know, that the =Northern
States of America never can be our sure friends=, for
this simple reason: not merely because the newspapers
write at each other, or that there are prejudices on each
side, but because we are rivals, rivals politically,
rivals commercially. We aspire to the same position. We
both aspire to the government of the seas. We are both
manufacturing people, and in every port, as well as at
every court, we are rivals to each other.”
March 26, 1863, Mr. Laird of Birkenhead: “The institutions
of the United States are =of no value whatever=, and have
reduced the very name of liberty to an utter absurdity.” He
was loudly cheered for saying this.
April, 1863, Mr. Roebuck declared: “That the whole conduct
of the people of the North is such as proves them not only
unfit for the government of themselves, but unfit for the
courtesies and the community of the civilized world.”
Lord Palmerston, Prime Minister of England, asserted that:
“As far as my influence goes, I am determined to do all
I can =to prevent the reconstruction of the Union=.”--“I
hold that it will be of the greatest importance that the
reconstruction of the Union should not take place.”
February 5, 1863, Lord Malmesbury spoke disdainfully of
treating with so extraordinary a body as the government
of the United States, and referred to the horrors of the
war--“=horrors unparalleled even in the wars of barbarous
nations=.”
England confidently believed that the North would suffer a crushing
defeat, and the same opinion was held by the French government.
Napoleon the Third felt absolutely confident that the South would
triumph. (See “France’s Friendship for the United States.”)
The London “Times” in 1862 voiced English sentiment against the Union
in a manner that has been paralleled only by its denunciations of
Germany at the present time. It said:
“To bully the weak, to triumph over the helpless, to
trample on every law of country and customs, wilfully to
violate the most sacred interests of human nature--to defy
as long as danger does not appear, and as soon as real
peril shows itself, to sneak aside and run away--these are
the virtues of the race which presumes to announce itself
as the leader of civilization and the prophet of human
progress in these latter days.”
A clear statement of the English Parliament’s attitude toward the
United States in the Civil War is contained in the autobiography of
Sir William Gregory, K. C. M. G. (Member of Parliament and one-time
Governor of Ceylon), edited by Lady Gregory (London, 1894), pp.
214-6: “The feeling of the upper classes undoubtedly predominated in
favor of the South, so much so that when I said in a speech that the
adherents of the North in the House of Commons might all be driven
home in one omnibus, the remark was received with much cheering.”
Among those who invested in the Confederate bonds were many Members
of Parliament and editors of London newspapers. Prominent among them
was Gladstone. “Donahoe’s Magazine,” April, 1867, published a list of
prominent investors in Confederate bonds, which shows that 29 persons
lost a total of $4,490,000 in such investments. The list follows:
Lbs.
Sir Henry de Hington, Bart 180,000
Isaac Campbell & Co. 150,000
Thomas Sterling Begley 140,000
Marquis of Bath 50,000
James Spence 50,000
Beresford Hope 50,000
George Edward Seymour 40,000
Charles Joice & Co. 40,000
Messrs. Ferace 30,000
Alexander Colie & Co. 20,000
Fleetwood, Polen, Wilson & Schuster, Directors
of Union Bank of London, together 20,000
W. S. Lindsay 20,000
Sir Coutts Lindsay, Bart 20,000
John Laced, M. P. from Birkenhead 20,000
M. B. Sampson, Editor of Times 15,000
John Thadeus Delane, Editor of Times 10,000
Lady Georgianna Time, Sister of Lord
Westmoreland 10,000
J. S. Gillet, Director of the Bank of England 10,000
D. Forbes Campbell 8,000
George Peacock, M. P. 5,000
Lord Warncliff 5,000
W. H. Gregory, M. P. 4,000
W. J. Rideout, London Morning Post 4,000
Edward Ackroyd 1,000
Lord Campbell 1,000
Lord Donoughmore 1,000
Lord Richard Grosvenor
Hon. Evelyn Ashley, Priv. Sec. to Lord
Palmerston 500
Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone 20,000
--------
Total Losses £898,000
The present holders of these bonds have never despaired of being able
some day to collect the amounts from the United States Treasury,
and it will only need a closer alliance between the United States
and Great Britain, as proposed by the advocates of an Anglo-Saxon
amalgamation, to bring these claims to the front.
=Germans in Civil War.=--Four authors have dealt exhaustively with
the subject of the German-born soldiers in the Union army. They
are Wilhelm Kaufmann in his valuable work, “The Germans in the
American Civil War” (R. Oldenbourg, Berlin and Munich, 1911), J. G.
Rosengarten, “The German Soldier in the Wars of the United States”
(J. B. Lippincott Company, Philadelphia, 1890), Frederic Phister,
“Statistical Record of the Armies of the United States” (Charles
Scribner’s Sons, 1883) and B. A. Gould, “Investigations in the
Statistics of American Soldiers” (New York, 1869).
The first three are more or less founded on the latter, but in
Kaufmann, particularly, many errors of computation on the part
of Gould are shown up which increase the number credited to the
German participants in the Civil War. Rosengarten is particularly
valuable as reference in regard to the share of the Germans in the
Revolutionary War. According to Gould, more Germans served in the
Union army than any other foreigners. This is substantiated by all
the writers. Kaufmann proves that the colossal total of 216,000
native-born Germans fought in the Union army. In addition the army
included 300,000 sons of German-born parents and 234,000 Germans
of remoter extraction. Besides the Germans fighting in the ranks,
Kaufmann holds that the roster of generals and other high officers
of the Union army contained more names of German than of any foreign
nationality. He also calls attention to the fact that a large number
of German aristocrats, including such eminent names as von Steuben,
Count Zeppelin, von Sedlitz, von Wedel, von Schwerin, and one German
prince (Prinz zu Salm-Salm) took the field in behalf of the Union.
Prince Salm-Salm was accompanied by his wife who performed valuable
service as a nurse.
Professor Burgess writes: “The German and German American contingent
in our armies amounted, first and last, to some 500,000 soldiers.
They were led by such men as Heintzelmann, Rosecrans, Schurz, Sigel,
Osterhaus, Willich, Hartranft, Steinwehr, Wagner, Hecker and a
thousand others. Mrs. Jefferson Davis, the wife of the Confederate
President has often said to me that without the Germans the North
could never have overcome the armies of the Confederacy; and unless
that had been accomplished then, this continent would have been,
since then, the theatre of continuous war instead of the home of
peace.”
Gould’s figures of the relative number of foreign-born soldiers in
the Union army are as follows:
Germans 187,858
British Americans 53,532
English 45,508
Irish 144,221
Other foreigners 48,410
Foreigners not otherwise designated 26,145
According to these figures, the Germans constituted upward of 37%
of the foreign-born soldiers in the Union army, while the English
numbered less than 8%. The Anglo-Saxon, therefore, is not represented
in a critical stage of the nation’s struggle for survival in
proportion to the importance assigned him in our affairs at the
present day.
Kaufmann, in analyzing these figures, shows that the number was
understated as regards the Germans and overstated as regards the
Canadians. More than 36 per cent. of the Union troops furnished
by the State of Missouri were born in Germany, and the Germans
furnished more troops pro rata, according to the census of 1860, than
any other racial element, including native born Americans. It is
interesting to note that the States in which the Germans were largely
represented made the largest response to President Lincoln’s first
call for volunteers. The call, issued April 15, 1861, was for 75,000
volunteers to serve three months. New England was the center of the
agitation and the hot-bed of the abolition movement. Lincoln’s call
was responded to by 91,816 men.
New England was represented by only 11,987
New York 12,357
Pennsylvania 20,175
Ohio 12,357
Missouri 10,591
Taking Gould’s figures, the State of Missouri and the State of New
York each sent more German-born soldiers to the war than either
Vermont, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Delaware,
Maryland, District of Columbia, West Virginia, Minnesota or Kansas
sent native-born troops, and the German-born Union soldiers from
these two states together (67,579 men) formed a larger contingent
than the native-born contingent of either New Jersey or Maine, and
larger than New Hampshire, Vermont and Delaware together (64,600
men). Pennsylvania furnished more German-born troops than Delaware,
District of Columbia or Kansas separately furnished native Americans.
Six States--New York, Ohio, Illinois, Missouri, Pennsylvania and
Wisconsin--furnished more German-born soldiers to defend the
country than Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Connecticut did
native sons. More German-born Union soldiers came from New York,
Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois and Missouri than native-born from
Massachusetts. The effort of Provost Marshal Fry to charge about
200,000 desertions and innumerable cases of bounty jumpers to the
account of foreign-born element in the Union army leaves the Germans
unscathed, since he showed that “especially in Massachusetts,
Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York and New Jersey the number of
deserters is especially large.” In the New England States there were
but 5,077 German enlistments out of 369,800 (Gould) all told, and
the desertions in those states as well as New York and New Jersey,
in view of the large German enlistments in the Western States not
named as noted for desertions, must be charged to some other element.
It was the practice to blame all the evils during the war on the
foreign-born and to shift to their patient shoulders the sins of
commission and omission of others.
It is impossible for lack of space to name more than a comparatively
few of the Germans who as officers distinguished themselves in the
Civil War. Several omitted in the list below will be found under
their names in separate paragraphs. In many instances the German
officers who by their efficiency and splendid training in Germany had
laid the foundation of notable victories were callously deprived of
all credit, and in the case of others jealousy and a deeply grounded
racial antipathy intervened to prevent them from obtaining the
rank to which they were by education, experience and achievements
entitled. In any case where it was an issue between a native and a
foreigner, the latter was sure to suffer. Those named below were born
in Germany and do not include American-born Germans like Generals
Rosecrans, Heintzelmann, Hartrauft, Custer, etc.
Franz Sigel, Major General and Corps Commander; born 1824, at
Sinsheim, Baden; died in New York in 1902. His memory is honored by
two equestrian statues. A detailed account of his achievements is not
considered necessary here. His name has been a household word.
Adolf von Steinwehr, probably the best-grounded military officer
among the Germans in the Union army, Division Commander and Brigadier
General; born 1822 in Blankenburg, in the Harz, died 1877 in Buffalo.
Prussian officer and military instructor in Potsdam. Served in
the Mexican war. Distinguished himself at Gettysburg, where he
held Cemetery Hill, (for which Gen. Howard received the thanks of
Congress), gathered the remnants of the 11th and 1st corps, and
continued the defense July 2 and 3.
August von Willich, one of the most famous fighters in the Union
army, a typical “Marshal Forward.” Brevet Major General and Division
Commander; born in Posen 1810, died at St. Marys, Ohio, 1878. Made
possible the advance of Rosecrans’s army upon Chattanooga by taking
Liberty and Hoover’s Gap in the Alleghanies. Earned laurels at
Chickamauga and set an heroic example to the whole army by leading
his nine regiments up Missionary Ridge and sharing the great victory
with Sheridan.
Julius Stahel, German-Hungarian. Perfected the organization of the
Union Cavalry. Generals Hooker and Heintzelmann pronounced Stahel’s
cavalry regiment to be the best they had ever seen. At Lincoln’s
request, to this cavalry was confided the defense of Washington. Was
made Major General simultaneously with Schurz. Commanded the vanguard
of Hunter’s army in the Shenandoah Valley, was attacked by the
Confederate Cavalry under Jones on the march to Staunton, repulsed
the attack and pursued his opponent to Piedmont, where he found the
enemy strongly entrenched. Stahel repulsed all attacks until Hunter’s
arrival and won the medal for bravery. Though seriously wounded, he
led his squadron in a brilliant assault, broke through the enemy’s
lines and scattered the opposing forces.
Gottfried Weitzel; Major General and Corps Commander; born in the
Palatinate; educated at West Point; lieutenant in the engineer corps,
U. S. A. Commanded a division under Grant, and at the head of the
25th army corps was the first to enter Richmond, April 3, 1865, where
the next day he received President Lincoln. The following dispatch
explains itself:
WAR DEPARTMENT,
Washington, April 3, 10 A. M.
To Major General Dix:
It appears from a dispatch of General Weitzel, just
received by this Department, that our forces under his
command are in Richmond, having taken it at 8:30 this A. M.
E. M. STANTON, Sec’y of War.
August V. Kautz; Brevet Major General; born in Pfarzheim,
distinguished cavalry leader. Served during the Mexican war.
Commanded the 24th army corps, with which he entered Richmond with
Weitzel. Became Major General in the regular army after the war.
Admiral Albert Kautz was his brother.
Colonel Asmussen, Chief of Staff to General O. O. Howard; former
Prussian officer. Resigned as the result of serious wounds.
Ludwig Blenker, born 1812 in Worms, died 1863 in Pennsylvania. Served
in Greece and in the Baden revolution. Became famous for covering the
retreat at the first battle of Bull Run.
Heinrich Bohlen, born 1810 in Bremen; killed in battle at Freeman’s
Ford on the Rappahannock, August 21, 1862. Brigade Commander under
Blenker; distinguished himself at Cross Keys.
Adolf Buschbeck, Brigadier General; a Prussian officer from Coblenz;
military instructor at Potsdam. Died 1881. Distinguished himself
in the two battles of Bull Run and at Cross Keys, and became the
real hero of Chancellorsville; fought gallantly at Gettysburg and
Missionary Ridge, and was in Sherman’s march through Georgia, gaining
new laurels in the bloody battles of Peachtree Creek, and at Ezra
Church, July 28, 1864, where Buschbeck repulsed the enemy three
times. With Willich and Wangelin the most noted German American
fighter in the Union army.
Hubert Dilger, a former artillery officer in Baden, although never
attaining a rank beyond that of captain, distinguished himself
in numerous battles for the Union. By many considered the ablest
artillery officer in the northern army. Commanded the only gun which
was effectively served in the defense of Buschbeck’s brigade at
Chancellorsville. Its escape from destruction was almost miraculous.
Was famous throughout the army.
Leopold von Gilsa, former Prussian officer; brigadier general;
rendered distinguished service in numerous campaigns, but failed of
promotion through the admitted intrigues of the Princess Salm-Salm.
Wilhelm Grebe; born in Hildersheim. Received from Congress medal for
personal bravery; was cashiered for fighting a duel, but restored
twenty years after by an act of Congress.
Franz Hassendeubel, one of the most distinguished engineer officers
in the Northern army; born 1817 in Germersheim, Palatinate. Came
to America in 1842; engineer officer in Mexican war; built the ten
forts that defended St. Louis. Brigadier General in 1863. Fatally
wounded on a tour of inspection around Vicksburg, died July 17, 1863.
Hassendeubel Post, G. A. R., St. Louis, perpetuates his memory.
Ernst F. Hoffmann, former Prussian engineer officer, born in Breslau.
Chief engineer 11th army corps. Highly praised by General J. H.
Wilson.
George W. Mindel, brevet major general, twice awarded the medal for
bravery, the first time for directing the assault of a regiment
which pierced the enemy’s center in the battle of Williamsburg,
May 3, 1862, the second time in the march through Georgia; officer
on McClellan’s and Phil Kearney’s staffs; distinguished himself at
Missionary Ridge. Born in Frankfort and buried in Arlington.
Edward G. Salomon, brevet brigadier general, organized a Hebrew
company in Hecker’s 82d Illinois, and became its Colonel when Hecker
was wounded; rendered distinguished service throughout the war, and
was appointed governor of Washington territory.
Alexander von Schimmelpfennig, one of the most noted German-American
fighting generals; died 1865 from the hardships of the war. Former
Prussian officer. Recruited the 74th Pennsylvania regiment, one of
the elite regiments in the Army of the Potomac. In the second battle
of Bull Run his brigade hurled General Jackson’s crack troops back
over the railroad beyond Cushing’s Farm. Fought with distinction
at Chancellorsville and Gettysburg and was the first to enter the
hotbed of secession, Charleston, S. C. He was an officer, one of many
Germans, whose memory deserved to live for their deeds, and whose
deserts were minimized by those who envied them.
Theodore Schwan, general in the regular army, from Hanover; rose
from the ranks; fought against the Mormons and took part in twenty
battles during the Civil War. Received the medal for personal bravery
from Congress, and after the war became an Indian fighter; military
attache to the American embassy in Berlin 1892; published his
military studies, which were highly praised. Was the real conqueror
of Porto Rica, Spanish-American War, in which he commanded a division
of 20,000 men under General Miles.
Hugo von Wangelin descended from an old Mecklenburg noble family;
educated in a Prussian military school; came to America at the age of
16. Fought almost continually alongside of Osterhaus throughout the
war. His brigade earned undying glory at Vicksburg, Lookout Mountain,
Missionary Ridge, and Ringgold, Ga., where he lost an arm. He
whistled “Yankee Doodle” while the surgeons were sawing through the
bone. Wangelin held Bald Hill before Atlanta, after the Union troops
had been previously driven off. Engaged in fifty battles and was four
years continually on the firing line. His “vacations” were periods of
convalescense from wounds.
Max von Weber; fought under Sigel in the Baden revolution. Colonel of
the 20th New York (Turners) 1861, until appointed brigadier general.
Commanded Fortress Monroe and won distinction in the fights around
Norfolk. At Antietam he commanded the third brigade of the third
division French in Sumner’s corps, and still held the position at
Rulett’s House after Sedgwick’s left had been enveloped, exposed
to a murderous fire until relieved by Kimball’s brigade and after
repeatedly repulsing the enemy. He was seriously wounded.
=Germans in the Confederate Army.=--Among the German-born officers
in the Confederate army the most distinguished was General Jeb
Stuart’s chief of staff, Heros von Borcke, a brilliant cavalry
leader. Prussian officer. Came to America 1862 to offer his services
to the Confederacy and was immediately assigned to duty with the
great Confederate cavalry chief, Gen. Stuart, and became his right
hand. Was seriously wounded at Middleburg and for months his life
hung by a thread; was rendered unfit for service and in the winter
of 1864 was sent to England on a secret mission by the Confederate
government, but peace interrupted his activity. Was highly popular
in the army and received more recognition than any German officer
on the Northern side; his visit to the South twenty years after the
close of the war was turned into a public ovation. His sword hangs
in the Capitol at Richmond.--John A. Wagener, brigadier general and
later mayor of Charleston, S. C. Born in Bremerhaven 1824. Defended
Fort Walker, which he had built. Two of his sons, one aged 15,
here served under their father. Half of the garrison was killed or
wounded. It was Wagener who surrendered Charleston to his countryman,
General Schimmelpfennig.--Gust. Adolf Schwarmann; Colonel in Gen.
Wise’s Legion.--J. Scheibert; major in the Prussian Engineer Corps;
came over as an observer but became an officer in Stuart’s Cavalry.
Wrote a military book on the war, published in Germany. Gen. Lee
told him on the battlefield of Chancellorsville: “Give me Prussian
discipline and Prussian formation for my troops and you would see
quite different results.”--Gustav Schleicher, born in Darmstadt.
Well-known Congressman from Texas, after the war; commemorated in a
memorial speech by President Garfield; chiefly active in devising
fortifications.--Baron von Massow (see under “M.”).--Schele de
Ver, Maximillian; born in Pommerania; Prussian reserve officer;
professor at the Virginia State University, Richmond; Colonel of
a Confederate regiment and emissary to Germany to espouse the
Confederate cause.--R. M. Streibling; battery chief in Longstreet’s
Corps; former Brunswick artillery officer.--August Reichard;
former Hanoverian officer, tried to form a unit of German militia
companies and after many disappointments succeeded in organizing
a German battalion consisting of Steuben Guards, Capt. Kehrwald;
Turner Guards, Capt. Baehncke; Reichard Sharpshooters, Capt. Muller;
Florence Guards, Capt. Brummerstadt. The battalion with four Irish
companies was merged into the 20th Louisiana with Reichard as Colonel
and served with distinction in many battles, the regiment suffered
frightful losses at Shiloh.--Karl F. Henningsen, in 1860, appointed
advisor to Governor Wise of Virginia; born in Hanover; fought in
the Carlist army in Spain at 17, then in Russia, participated in
the Hungarian revolution and became leader of a filibuster party
in Nicaragua.--August Buechel, Confederate brigadier general,
former officer at Hesse-Darmstadt, killed in the battle of Pleasant
Hill, La., struck by seven bullets; also served in the Mexican
war.--W. K. Bachmann, Captain, Charleston German artillery; rendered
distinguished service.
=Germantown Settlement.=--On March 4, 1681, a royal charter was
issued to William Penn for the province of Pennsylvania, and on March
10, 1682, Penn conveyed to Jacob Telner, of Crefeld, Germany, doing
business as a merchant in Amsterdam; Jan Streypers, a merchant of
Kaldkirchen, a village in the vicinity of Holland, and Dirck Sipmann,
of Crefeld, each 5,000 acres of land, to be laid out in Pennsylvania.
On June 11, 1683, Penn conveyed to Gavert Remke, Lenard Arets and
Jacob Isaac Van Bebber, a baker, all of Crefeld, 1,000 acres of
land each, and they, together with Telner, Streypers and Sipmann,
constituted the original Crefeld purchasers.
The present generation is indebted to former Governor Samuel Whitaker
Pennypacker, LL.D., of Pennsylvania, at one time presiding judge of
the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, and senior vice president of
the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, for important information
on the settlement of Germantown, and directly to his book, “The
Settlement of Germantown, Pa., and the Beginning of German Emigration
to North America,” a valuable historical compilation, now out of
print. “The settlement of Germantown, in 1683,” he writes, “was
the initial step in the great movement of people from the regions
bordering on the historic and beautiful Rhine, extending from its
source in the mountains of Switzerland to its mouth in the lowlands
of Holland, which has done so much to give Pennsylvania her rapid
growth as a colony, her almost unexampled prosperity, and her
foremost rank in the development of the institutions of the country.”
From the pages of his book we learn that the “Concord,” which bore
the Germantown settlers to our shores, was a vessel of 500 tons,
William Jeffries, master. She sailed July 24, 1683, from Gravesend,
with the following passengers and their families:
Lenard Arets, Abraham Op den Graeff, Dirck Op den Graeff, Hermann Op
den Graeff, William Streypers, Thonas Kunders, Reynier Tyson, Jan
Seimens, Jan Lensen, Peter Keurlis, Johannes Bleikers, Jan Lucken and
Abraham Tunes, all Low Germans. The date of her arrival was October
6, 1683.
The three Op den Graeffs were brothers. Herman was a son-in-law of
Van Bebber; they were accompanied by their sister Margaretha, and
their mother, and they were cousins of Jan and William Streypers,
who were also brothers. The wives of Thonas Kunders and Lenard Arets
were sisters of the Streypers, and the wife of Jan was the sister
of Reynier Tyson (Theissen). Peter Keurlis was also a relative, and
the location of the signatures of Jan Lucken and Abraham Tunes on
the certificate of the marriage of the son of Thonas Kunders with
a daughter of William Streypers in 1700 indicates that they, too,
were connected with the group by family ties. “It is now ascertained
definitely,” writes Governor Pennypacker, “that eleven of these
thirteen emigrants were from Crefeld, and the presumption that their
two companions, Jan Lucken and Abraham Tunes, came from the same
city is consequently strong. This presumption is increased by the
indication of relationship and the fact that the wife of Jan Seimens
was Mercken Williamsen Lucken.”
Pastorius had sailed six weeks earlier and had arrived in
Philadelphia August 20, 1683. Governor Pennypacker has traced with
remarkable minuteness the movements of the first concrete German
settlement, and his invaluable work should not be allowed to slumber
in a few surviving copies, now selling as high as $50 as literary
curiosities, on the shelves of a few large libraries, but should
be reprinted and made accessible to a larger reading public. The
influence of this settlement in later generations is discussed
elsewhere. (See under “Pastorius.”) The history of the “Concord” is
given in Seidensticker’s “Bilder aus der Deutsch-Pennsylvanischen
Geschichte” and valuable information is contained in “The German
Element in the United States,” by Albert B. Faust, (Houghton Mifflin
Company), who has done more than any other American author to gather
the scattered records of German immigration, culture and influence
and to present them within the convenient compass of two volumes.
Illustration: THONAS KUNDERS’ HOUSE,
5109 Main Street, Germantown, Pa.
Thonas Kunders’ house, 5109 Main street, Germantown, is the only
house of the original settlers that can be accurately located. Thonas
Kunders was a dyer by trade. His death occurred in the fall of 1729.
He was the ancestor of the Conard and Conrad families. Among his
descendants is included Sir Samuel Cunard, founder of the Cunard
line of steamships. Here the first meeting of the Society of Friends
in Germantown was held, and it was from the members of this little
meeting that a public protest against slavery was issued early in
1688. Following is a summary of Germantown events:
1683--August 16--Pastorius reaches Philadelphia.
1683--October 6--Thirteen families from Crefeld reach
Philadelphia and settle Germantown.
1688--First protest against slavery issued here.
1690--First paper mill in America established here.
1705--First portrait in oil painted in America, made in
Germantown by Dr. Christopher Witt.
1708--First Mennonite meeting house in America built in
Germantown.
1719--February 17--Death of Pastorius.
1732--April 8--David Rittenhouse born at Germantown.
1743--First Bible in America in a foreign tongue printed in
Germantown by Christopher Sauer.
1760--Germantown Academy founded.
1764--Sauer begins publication of first religious magazine in
America.
1770--First American book on pedagogy published.
1772-73--First type ever cast in America made in Germantown.
--(“Guidebook to Historic Germantown.”)
=Why Germany Strengthened Her Army, Told by Asquith.=--(From a London
dispatch by Marconi wireless to the New York “Times” under date of
January 1, 1914): “The ‘Daily Chronicle’ this morning publishes the
conversation with the Chancellor’s consent.... Another reason which
the Chancellor (Asquith) gave was that the continental nations were
directing their energies more and more to strengthening their land
forces. =‘The German army,’ he said, ‘was vital to the very life
and independence of the nation itself, surrounded as Germany was
by nations each of which possessed armies almost as powerful as
her own.... Hence Germany was spending huge sums of money on the
expansion of her military resources.’=”
=Hagner, Peter.=--First to hold the position of Third Auditor of
the U. S. Treasury upon the creation of that office in 1817 under
President Monroe. Served the government 57 years and died at
Washington, July 16, 1849, aged seventy-seven. Born in Philadelphia,
October 1, 1772.
=Hartford Convention, The.=--In no section of the country was
there louder acclaim of President Wilson’s public insinuations of
disloyalty against German Americans than in New England. The Boston
papers particularly distinguished themselves in applauding this
unwarranted sentiment. And it came with particularly bad grace from
this section, which long antedated the South in measures designed
to embarrass and disrupt the Union. During the War of 1812 the New
England banks sought to cripple the federal government in securing
the necessary money to prosecute the war against England, and late
in 1814 the legislature of Massachusetts called a convention of the
New England states to meet at Hartford in December of that year. The
sessions were secret and while the discussion was never published
they were commonly held to be treasonable and intended to destroy
the Union. The Convention recognized the principle of secession by
proclaiming that “a severence of the Union by one or more states,
against the will of the rest and especially in the time of war,
can be justified only by absolute necessity.” The Convention made
demands, the apparent intention of which was “to force these demands
upon an unwilling administration while it was hampered by a foreign
war, or in case of refusal to make such refusal a pretext for
dismembering the Union.... An additional object of the Convention
was to hamper and cripple the administration to the last degree,
and at a moment when the country was overrun by a foreign foe, to
overthrow the party in power, or to break up the Union. The men of
this Convention were among the leading Federalists of the country,
and with all their good qualities it is evident that their patriotism
was shallow.” (“History of the United States” by Henry William Elson,
Ph. D., Litt. D., The MacMillan Company, p. 446-447.) The work of the
Convention came to naught. Peace put a stop to its intended mischief.
=Hempel.=--German American inventor of the much patented iron
“quoin,” used to lock type in the form, and in common use by printers.
=New York Herald Urges Hanging of German Americans.=--The New York
“Herald,” owned and directed by James Gordon Bennett, since deceased;
who for thirty-five years was a resident of Paris, in its issue
of July 12, 1915, advocated the lynching of German Americans by
referring to them as “Hessians” and adding: “A rope attached to the
nearest lamp post would soon bring to an end their career of crime.”
=Hereshoffs and Cramps.=--Who in the great yachting world of America
has not heard of the Hereshoffs, the famous builders of racing yachts
whose achievements won international fame for the United States? The
original Hereshoff, Karl Friedrich, was born in Minden, Germany, and
came to this country an accomplished engineer in 1800, establishing
himself at Providence, R. I., where he married the daughter of John
Brown, a shipbuilder. Their son and their grandsons took up naval
architecture, and their remarkable achievements culminated in the
fast racing yachts designed by John B., famous as the blind yacht
builder, whose vessels successfully defended the American Cup against
English contestants in several great international trials. The
Cramps, great American ship builders, are also of German descent.
Johann Georg Krampf, the founder, was a native of Baden, who came
to the U. S. in the middle of the 17th century, and members of the
family established what is now one of the greatest shipbuilding firms
in the world.
=Herkimer, General Nicholas.=--Won the battle of Oriskany, which
many regard as the decisive battle of the Revolution. Was the eldest
son of Johann Jost Herkimer (or Herchheimer), a native of the German
Palatinate, and one of the original patentees of what is now part
of Herkimer County, N. Y. Was commissioned a lieutenant in the
Schenectady militia, January 5, 1758, and commanded Fort Herkimer
that year when the French and Indians attacked the German Flats.
Appointed colonel of the first battalion of militia in Tryon County
in 1775, and represented his district in the County Committee of
Safety, of which he was chairman. Was commissioned brigadier general
Sept. 5, 1776, by the Convention of the State of New York, and August
6, 1777, commanded the American forces at the battle of Oriskany,
where he received a mortal wound but directed the battle from under
a tree until its successful conclusion, dying ten days later at his
home, the present town of Danube, N. Y.
Congress testified its appreciation of his service by twice passing
resolutions requesting New York to erect a monument at the expense
of the United States. A statue of the famous German American has
finally been erected at Herkimer, N. Y., through the liberality
of former U. S. Senator Warner Miller. The battle of Oriskany was
fought by the Mohawk Valley Germans without assistance, other reports
notwithstanding. A part of the American troops under Herkimer refused
to co-operate and left the Germans to the number of only 800 to
engage the enemy alone.
Quoting an American writer: “The battle of Oriskany was one of the
most important battles of the Revolution, and General Washington said
it was ‘the first ray of sunshine.’ The British forces, under Col.
St. Leger, had landed at Oswego, coming from Canada, under orders to
march through the Mohawk Valley to Albany, there to join Burgoyne,
who was coming down from Canada with a large army, by way of Lake
Champlain. These two forces were to meet at Albany and then go down
the Hudson River, thus dividing the forces of the Americans. If
this plan had succeeded doubtless the Revolution would have failed.
However, the defeat of St. Leger at Oriskany sent his army back to
Canada, and the defeat of Burgoyne later at Saratoga ended the entire
movement and led to the final victory at Yorktown.”
H. W. Elson, in his “History of the United States of America,” says,
“Oriskany was without exception the bloodiest single conflict in the
war of the Revolution.... Nothing more horrible than the carnage of
that battle has ever occurred in the history of warfare.”
Illustration: GENERAL HERKIMER
In the Magazine of American History for August, 1884, was printed
an exhaustive article, “The Story of a Monument,” dealing largely
with General Herkimer, the Battle of Oriskany, the character of its
hero and the details of his personality and his surroundings. The
author, S. W. D. North, quotes ex-Governor Dorsheimer as declaring
at the Centennial Celebration: “Oriskany was a German fight. The
words of warning and encouragement, the exclamations of praise and
of pain, the shouts of battle and of victory, and the command which
the wounded Herkimer spoke and the prayers of the dying, were in
the German language.” The author holds, however, that even then the
admixture of races had played pranks with the German names, until
today the descendants of many of the participants in that “German
fight” would not know the names of their ancestors if spelled on
the roster as they were spelled correctly at the time Oriskany was
fought. The problem was further complicated by the fact, says North,
that the original Palatinates and their descendants who comprised the
bulk of the yeomanry of the Mohawk Valley in the Revolution, were not
an educated people. General Herkimer would be called an ignorant man
these days. One of the most curious of the few existing specimens of
his manuscript is preserved by the Oneida Historical Society, and
throws a strange light on the mixed jargon in which even the hero of
Oriskany issued his military orders and incidentally proves that the
present spelling of his name was not his own way:
“Ser you will order your bodellyen do merchs immeedeetleh
do fordedward weid for das brofiesen and amonieschen fied
for on betell. Dis yu will dis ben your berrell--from frind.
NICOLAS HERCHHEIMER.
“To Cornell pieder bellinger
“ad de flets
“Ochdober 18, 1776”
Rendered into English, the order reads as follows:
“Sir: You will order your battalion to march immediately to
Fort Edward with four days’ provisions and ammunition fit
for one battle. This you will disobey (at) your peril.
From (your) Friend,
NICOLAS HERCHHEIMER.
“To Colonel Peter Bellinger, at the Flats.
“October 18, 1776.”
The Herkimer homestead is still preserved, and has now become an
institution under the care of the State of New York. Agitation to
bring this about was initiated by the German American Alliance, which
raised the money to make the homestead a national memorial. The
legislature granted a charter placing it under the care of the German
American Alliance and the Daughters of the American Revolution, who
for years co-operated peacefully in the loving task entrusted to
them. Late in December, 1919, the last German American connected with
the committee was forced out as a result of the desire to obliterate
every reminder of the share of the German element in the memorial.
(See “Palatine Declaration of Independence” elsewhere.)
=The Hessians.=--The bitter partisan feeling during the war has led
to a widespread misrepresentation of the share which the Germans took
in the Revolutionary War. The employment by England of some thousands
of mercenaries recruited in Anspach and Hessia against the American
colonies has been extended to include all Germany, regardless of the
fact that there was no more ardent supporter of the cause of the
colonists in Europe than the King of Prussia. The Hessians were sold
to Great Britain at so much per head by their ruler. Their traffic
was scathingly denounced by Frederick and the infamous transaction
severely condemned by Schiller in his play, “Cabal and Love.”
Hessia represented to the rest of Germany, at that time composed
of Austria, Prussia, Bavaria, Saxony and other States, about what
Delaware represents to the whole of the United States. To blame
all Germany for the misconduct of an unconscionable princeling
is the extreme of injustice. Counting the German regiments under
Rochambeau, nominally designated as Frenchmen, and the large number
of German settlers in the ranks of Washington’s army under Herkimer,
Muhlenberg, Steuben, Woedtke, Pulaski, etc., the Hessian-Anspach
contingent was more than offset by the Germans fighting for the cause
of American independence.
Thousands of Hessians were induced by their German countrymen to come
over and enlist under the banner of the colonists. Pulaski’s flying
squadron was recruited from these deserters. Some of the best troops
in Washington’s immediate surrounding were former Hessians, and a
Hessian deserter became one of Washington’s most trusted messengers
in matters of war.
At the end of the war the country was full of Hessians. Many settled
in Lebanon, Lancaster and Reading, Pa., and about 1,600 settled four
miles from Winchester, Va., in 1781. Some of the sterling troops
which made up Jackson’s Stonewall brigade in the Civil War were made
up of the descendants of the Germans, many of them Hessians, who
settled in the Shenandoah Valley.
If the Hessians, fighting reluctantly for a cause in which they
had no heart, must be condemned by public sentiment, what shall be
said of the native Americans, the Tory element, 26,000 of whom fled
to Canada, while thousands of others fought in the English ranks
against their own kin? Among the troops surrendered at Yorktown under
Lord Cornwallis and General O’Hara, we find enumerated a body of
South Carolina militiamen called “Volunteers,” “the Royal American
Rangers,” etc., not counting the American deserters who had joined
Cornwallis during the siege. (See “Frederick the Great and the
American Colonies.”)
=Hillegas, Michael.=--First Treasurer of the United States, appointed
July 29, 1776; son of German parents; born in Philadelphia, where
his father was a well-to-do merchant. Served till Sept. 2, 1789.
Hillegas with several other patriotic citizens came to the aid of the
government in the Spring of 1780 with his private means to relieve
the distress of Washington’s soldiers, and in 1781 became one of
the founders of the Bank of North America, which afforded liberal
support to the government during its financial difficulties. When a
man named Philip Ginter submitted to him a piece of coal which he had
found on Mauch-Chunk Hill, Hillegas pronounced it genuine coal, and
with several others founded the Lehigh Coal Mining Co. and acquired
10,000 acres of coal land from the State of Pennsylvania. Died in
Philadelphia, Sept. 29, 1804.
=House, Col. E. M.=--It is claimed that the part played by Col. E. M.
House in the diplomatic history of the war has been correctly gauged
by but few persons, and these attribute to him the exercise of a
greater influence in shaping the program of the Wilson administration
than any one else, not excepting the President. Some have sought to
trace an intimate connection between the policies that invested the
Chief Executive with more power than any president before him with an
anonymous novel, “Philip Dru, Administrator,” generally attributed to
Colonel House, in which a comprehensive program is laid down for the
government of the United States by Dru after finishing a successful
war.
It is undeniable that a more than casual analogy may be found between
the lines of policy defined in the novel and those seemingly followed
by the administration down to the Versailles conference.
“Philip Dru” is the story of an American Cromwell, who prevented an
alliance between England and Germany and made one between England and
the United States. In the novel Dru wages a successful civil war and
sets himself up as the administrator of the country, establishing
a dictatorship, remodels our system of government, conquers and
incorporates Mexico, remodels our relations with Canada, establishes
a close bond with England, wipes out all memories of the Civil War by
having Grant and Lee clasp hands on the same pediment, elects his own
president and assigns to each of the powers its allotted space in the
universe, after which he disappears like the good fairy of the books.
A passage from the novel affords fair insight into its philosophy.
On page 156 the author makes Dru say: “For a long time I have known
that this hour would come, and there would be those of you who stand
affrighted at the momentous change from constitutional government
to despotism, no matter how pure and exalted you might believe my
intentions to be. But in the long watches of the night I conceived a
plan of government which, =by the grace of God=, I hope to be able to
give to the American people. My life is consecrated to our cause and,
hateful as the thought of assuming supreme power, I can see no other
way clearly, and I would be recreant to my trust if I faltered in my
duty.”
The book thus takes on a strange prophetic character, considering
that it was published in 1912, two years before the outbreak of the
war, as though the writer had laid down a great plan of action which
he was in the process of carrying out when the elections of 1918
raised an unexpected obstacle to its further execution.
The close friendship between President Wilson and Colonel House,
according to the latter’s biographer, dates from the time when,
after having considered Mayor Gaynor of New York and found himself
disappointed in his expectations, Colonel House decided to make
Wilson President in 1912. In the selection for the Cabinet two
prominent Texans, Attorney General Gregory and Postmaster General
Burleson, were named, and many others were by him designated for
responsible positions. It has been pointed out in certain quarters
that many of the most important measures leading up to and including
the war bear a more or less striking resemblance to those outlined
in “Philip Dru,” even to the investment of the President with almost
absolute powers. Colonel House’s residence in New York became the
calling place of foreign ambassadors, where vital questions of
State and our international relations were dealt with before they
reached the President. Count Bernstorff, former German ambassador
to the United States, testified before the Reichstag Commission
investigating the war that he handed Colonel House an important note
on peace which was never heard of afterward.
Colonel House has been called “the mysterious;” he seeks distinction
in doing his work in secrecy, rewarding his friends and punishing his
enemies in ways not readily apparent, laying out his policies without
revealing his hand and executing well-devised plans without the noise
and trumpery of cheap publicity. In this manner he is credited with
shaping the policies of the administration at the peace conference,
where he was, next to the President, the principal representative
of the United States, working congenially with Clemenceau and Lloyd
George and acting as moderator on the President in the latter’s
earlier demands for a stricter observance on the part of the Allies
of his Fourteen Points. As related in a Paris correspondence in
the New York “Tribune,” dated April 16, 1919, “President Wilson,
realizing that he had not sufficient ground for further refusing to
meet the demands of the three European allies, accepted the formula
which Clemenceau and Lloyd George had worked out for reparations and
accepted the plan which Colonel House had previously approved for the
surrender of the Saar Valley by Germany for a long period of years,
after which a plebiscite shall be held.”
A biographer of Colonel House says that the colonel’s father was
born in England and came to the United States during the Texas war
for independence against Mexico, in which he participated. Texas
having attained its independence, the elder House wanted Texas to
become a colony of England, a project which, fortunately, did not
materialize. During the Civil War, it is claimed, he acted for
England in facilitating British blockade runners. As a boy Colonel
House attended a school in England taught by the father of Lloyd
George and the friendship between the latter and Colonel House dates
back to their youth. During his stay in England he formed many close
attachments for prominent young Englishmen, and, on coming into his
father’s extensive property in Texas, he led the life of an English
country gentleman and entertained many English gentlemen of family
and fortune. His brother-in-law is Dr. Sydney Mezes, president of New
York City College, who acted as chairman of the Frontier Commission
at the Paris Peace Conference, and his son-in-law is Gordon
Auchincloss, who acted as secretary to Colonel House.
=The Humanity of War.=--About the time of the sinking of the
Lusitania, our official notes on this and other subjects in the
negotiations with Germany teemed with appeals to humanity. No such
view was accepted by England. In the British note of March 13, 1915,
Sir Edward Grey, Secretary of Foreign Affairs, told the President:
“There can be no universal rule based on considerations of morality
and humanity.”
=Illiteracy.=--As a related element of interest in the study of the
war from a cultural as well as a military angle the illiteracy of
some of the contesting and neutral nations bears strongly on the
question:
France 14.1%
Belgium 12.7%
Greece 57.2%
Italy 37.0%
Portugal 68.9%
Roumania 60.6%
Russia 69.0%
Serbia 78.9%
United Kingdom 1.0%
Austria-Hungary 18.7%
Germany 0.05%
Denmark 0.0?%
Netherlands 0.08%
Prussia 0.02%
Switzerland 0.03%
Sweden 0.0?%
United States, 7.7% population over 10 years. Of this, the native
white population of native parents furnished 3.7% of the illiterates;
the native white of foreign or mixed parentage, 1.1%. The negroes are
down with 30.4% illiteracy, less than that of Italy or Greece and
several other European States engaged in the task of making the world
safe for democracy. Even our Indian population (45.3%) shows less
illiteracy than Greece, Serbia or Roumania. The illiteracy of our
white foreign-born population is recorded at 12.7%.
=Immigration.=--How much does the United States owe to immigration,
as regards the growth of population? Frederick Knapp, worked out a
table covering the period from 1790 to 1860, the beginning of the
Civil War, intended to show what the normal white population at the
close of each decade would have been as a result of only the surplus
of births over deaths of 1.38 percent each year, compared with the
result as established by the official census figures.
“Natural” Growth Census Figures
1790 3,231,930
1800 3,706,674 4,412,896
1810 4,251,143 6,048,450
1820 4,875,600 8,100,056
1830 5,591,775 10,796,077
1840 6,413,161 14,582,008
1850 7,355,422 19,987,563
1860 8,435,882 27,489,662
The natural increase of the white population in 160 years would
have been only 5,203,952, whereas it was 24,257,732, an increase of
19,053,780 over the natural growth. Statistics show that in 1790 an
American family averaged 5.8; in 1900 but 4.6. During the earlier
period each family averaged 2.8 children, in 1900 but 1.53, a decline
of nearly 50 per cent.
Wilhelm Kaufmann (“Die Deutschen im Am. Burgerkriege,”) makes
an ingenious calculation of the value of the immigration of the
nineteenth century to the U. S. in dollars and cents. Fifty years
ago, he says, a human being had a market price. An adult slave
about 1855 was valued at an average of $1,100. Estimating, for
the sake of argument, a white immigrant at the same price, the
19,500,000 immigrants for the stated period would represent a value
of $21,450,000,000; but as a white man performed three times as
much work as a slave, besides having a larger claim on life and a
much higher intelligence, a white immigrant represented four times
the value of a slave. What value, for instance, was an Ericson to
the Union army in the summer of 1862, or a Lieber, a Schurz, a
Mergenthaler or a Carnegie? But 22 percent of the total immigration
was made up of children under 15 years of age. According to the New
York Immigration authorities (1870) every German immigrant averaged a
possession of $150 cash on his arrival, representing a total value,
as regards German immigration alone, of $750,000,000. A famous
English economist says: “One of the imports of the U. S., that of
the adult and trained immigrants, would be in an economic analysis
underestimated at £100,000,000 ($500,000,000) a year.”--Thorold
Rogers, Lectures in 1888, “Economic Interpretations of History,” (p.
407). And the American, James Ford Rhodes (Vol. I, p. 355): “The
South ignored, or wished to ignore, the fact that able-bodied men
with intelligence enough to wish to better their conditions are the
most valuable products on earth, and that nothing can redound more to
the advantage of a new country than to get men without having been at
the cost of rearing them.”
Because the working conditions in Germany were exceptionally
favorable, immigration from the German Empire before the war had
reached by far the smallest stage of that of any of the leading
nations, save France, where the birthrate has been stationary
for many years. The figures for 1914 were only 35,734, while the
immigration from Greece was 35,832; Italian immigration in that year
reached a total of 283,738 and from Russia 255,660, while England
sent us 35,864, Scotland 10,682 and Wales 2,183. In 1915 only 7,799
Germans arrived, while England sent us 21,562. The money brought
by the Germans totaled $1,786,130, or $221.50 a head, while money
brought by the English totaled $3,467,458, a little over $160 a head.
German immigration was never a pauper immigration and of itself
refutes the assertion that German immigration was due to fear of
military service or political oppression.
The first German immigration from the Palatinate, 237 years ago, was
mainly due to the criminal ravages of the French under Louis XIV;
that of 1848 was incident mainly to the revolution in Baden, based
upon a longing of all thinking Germans for a united Germany, and
that of the subsequent period was the spontaneous outpouring of an
overpopulated country not yet adjusted to commercial and industrial
expansion and the great spread of German enterprise in ship-building
and manufacture. As soon as this development had reached a decisive
stage, immigration practically ceased. Those who came here obeyed a
great economic law by which every man seeks to supply an existing
vacancy for his industry; they did not come as beggars, but were
welcomed because they were needed. There was no religious oppression
in Germany, and in Prussia Frederick the Great proclaimed in the
middle of the eighteenth century the doctrine, “In my country every
man can serve God in his own way.” If immigration is an infallible
sign of the dissatisfaction of the immigrant with conditions at home
which drives him to go to another country, the fact that less than
36,000 German immigrants arrived in America in 1914 against a total
of 73,417 from England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales, proves that
conditions were vastly better in Germany than in the United Kingdom.
(The figures are from the “New York World Almanac” for 1916.)
Anthony Arnoux gives the following table of the total German
immigration into the United States for five years, from 1908 to 1912:
1908 17,951
1909 19,980
1910 22,773
1911 18,900
1912 13,706
The latest statistics available, made public in December, 1919, place
the total number of immigrants arriving at American ports for the
past 100 years at 33,200,103.
From Great Britain (including Irish) 24.7% 8,206,675
From Germany, 16.6% 5,494,539
From Italy, 12.4% 4,100,740
From Russia, 10% 3,311,400
From Scandinavia, 6.4% 2,134,414
For the fiscal year ending in June, 1919, 237,021 immigrants were
admitted and 8,626 were turned back, a net total of 245,647. During
the same period 216,231 immigrants left the country. The immigrants
arriving totaled a per capita wealth of $112, a total of $15,831,247.
Foreign-born soldiers serving in the army during the war were given
citizenship to the number of 128,335.
=Indians, Tories and the German Settlements.=--The descendants and
successors of those who form the very foundation of the government
of the United States, bled and died for its existence, cannot suffer
themselves to be segregated into a class of tolerated citizens whose
voices may be silenced at will. The history of the German element is
too closely interwoven with the records of the past and as an element
it is too much a part of the bone and muscle of the American nation
to remain silent when told that the history of the United States
is to be rewritten and the deeds of their forefathers are to be
forgotten for the glorification of the Tories who, with their Indian
allies, burned the homes of German settlers and dragged their women
and children into captivity.
A gruesome chapter of their endurance is supplied by the events in
New York State during the Revolutionary War, and notably those events
that transpired in the Schoharie and Mohawk valleys. It was the
German element in New York State which stood the brunt of the forages
of Joseph Brant, the Indian chief, educated by Sir William Johnson
and renowned as no other Indian in the history of America for his
atrocities under the direction of his English and Tory patrons.
He began operations in July, 1778, by surprising a little settlement
of only seven families at Andrustown, Herkimer County, killing two
and dragging the women into captivity. It was followed by the attack
on the German Flats. This was a settlement of nearly 1,000 souls
with about 70 houses, protected by two forts, Fort Dayton and Fort
Herkimer. The rich harvest of summer had just been gathered when
Brant invaded the valley. Three of the four scouts sent out to report
his movements were killed by the Indians; the fourth, John Helmer,
returned the last day of August, 1778, and reported the approach of
the enemy. The inhabitants, so far as they were able, fled to the
protection of the forts with everything movable. With the approach of
darkness the next day Brant arrived near the forts with 300 Indians
and 152 Tories. He immediately set fire to the abandoned houses with
their barns, stables and other buildings and drove off the horses and
cattle without daring to attack the forts. The attack resulted in the
destruction of 63 houses, 57 barns, three flour and two saw mills,
and the loss of 235 horses, 229 head of cattle, 269 sheep and 93
oxen. Two men only lost their lives.
In the Schoharie Valley the summer of 1778 passed without any notable
events, but the Indians under Brant in June of that year destroyed
Cobelskill. The Indians lured the local company of defenders under
Captain Braun into an ambush and practically wiped it out. No less
than 23 of the men were killed, others were seriously wounded and
only six escaped. The women and children fled into the woods, from
which they were able to watch the Indians set fire to their homes and
barns. Brant here did not follow up his success, but returned to the
Susquehanna, where he and his loyalists wrought the fearful historic
carnage among the settlements in the Wyoming Valley, and in July
attacked the Mohawk Valley settlements.
=About this time the English government offered a prize of $8 for
every American scalp.= In consequence of this barbarous edict, the
border war, which had so far been mainly conducted between regular
military forces, degenerated into a series of savage melees. Indians
and Tories sought to bring in as many scalps as possible, and
murdered children, mothers and old men in order to earn the promised
reward of eight dollars. More than one German settler found, on
returning home from his fields in the evening, his family butchered,
wife and children lying scalped and mutilated in their dwellings or
in front of their doorsteps, their skulls crushed if the scalping
process was too slow. Scalping became a recognized industry and was
conducted for business.
In the evening, after a successful raid, the Indians would stretch
the scalps on sticks to dry during the night, while the captured
relatives, bound hand and foot, were compelled to witness the
revolting process, exposed to a similar fate at the least betrayal of
grief, or doomed to suffer a slow death by torture from fire.
An entire bundle of dried scalps, amounting to 1,062 in number,
taken by the Seneca Indians, fell into the hands of a New England
expedition against the Indians. It was accompanied by a prayer and
a complete inventory addressed to the British Governor, Handimand.
There were eight items, as follows:
Lot 1: 43 scalps of soldiers of Congress killed in
battle. 62 scalps of farmers killed in their houses.
Lot 2: 92 scalps of farmers killed in their houses
surprised by day, not by night, as the first lot.
The red color, applied to the hoops of wood, which
were used to stretch the scalp, indicated the
difference.
Lot 3: 97 scalps of farmers killed in their fields,
different colors denoting whether killed with
tomahawk or rifle ball.
Lot 4: 102 scalps of farmers, mostly young men.
Lot 5: 88 scalps of women, those with blue hoops cut
from the heads of mothers.
Lot 6: 193 scalps of boys of different ages killed with
clubs or hatchets, some with knives or bullets.
Lot 7: 121 scalps of girls, large and small.
Lot 8: 122 scalps of various kinds, among them 29
babies’ scalps, carefully stretched on small white
hoops.
The accompanying prayer was worded as follows:
Father, we wish that you send these scalps to the Great
King that he may look at them and be refreshed at their
sight--recognize our fidelity and be convinced that his
presents have not been bestowed upon a thankless people.
It was written by James Crawford (spelled Craufurd), January 3, 1782,
from Tioga, seeming to indicate that most of the scalps came from the
New York frontier. The information is based on Campbell’s “Annals of
Tryon County,” pp. 67-70 (appendix).
During 1779 the Schoharie and Mohawk valleys were not molested. In
order to punish the Indians for their atrocities in the Wyoming
Valley, as well as the western part of New York, Washington had
induced Congress to fit out an expedition against the Indians under
Sullivan. In August, 1779, General Sullivan and his aide, General
Clinton, invaded the valley with 5,000 men, moved against the Six
Nations and devastated their territory, crushing them August 29 at
Newton, near Elmira, and pursuing them as far as the Genesee Valley,
where he destroyed more than forty of their villages. The lack of
provisions drove the Indians and their Tory friends into Canada,
where they remained quiescent until 1780.
But Sullivan’s course had lacked the requisite energy and, while they
had suffered severely, the Indians were by no means discouraged, but,
on the contrary, filled with bitter resentment, and as early as the
spring of 1780 they reappeared in New York and resumed their former
raids.
On April 3 they surprised Riemenschneider’s Bush, a few miles north
of Little Falls, burned the flour mill and carried off nineteen
prisoners, among them John Windecker, George Adler, Joseph Neumann
and John Garter. The latter died from mistreatment; the others were
taken to Canada, but released when peace was restored.
During a scouting expedition commanded by Lieutenant Woodworth of
Fort Dayton the Americans came into contact with Indians double their
number. A fierce hand to hand conflict ensued and only 15 of the
Germans escaped; several were taken prisoners and Woodworth fell with
more than half his men, who were later buried in a common grave on
the spot.
This encouraged the Indians to new atrocities, as this style of
warfare was most to their liking. No settler was henceforth safe from
surprise and attack; he slept with his gun beside him and at the
least sound bounded from his bed to be prepared and to sell his life
at least as dearly as possible. Now and then more extensive raids
occurred. Brant was the soul and inspiration of every enemy movement.
His real purposes were always disguised by skilful manouvers. His
spies were everywhere and he was always well informed of everything
going on in the valley. He would pretend to attack one place while,
in reality, reserving his blow for another, thus keeping the settlers
in a constant state of terror and doubt.
In this manner he learned, toward the end of July, 1780, that General
Clinton had sent the troops in Canajoharie to Fort Schuyler for
the protection of the stored supplies at that place, and on August
2, at the head of 500 Indians and Tories, suddenly hurled himself
upon Canajoharie and instituted a perfect bloodbath. No effective
resistance could be rendered, as the entire male population capable
of bearing arms was absent. Sixteen men remained dead where they
had fallen, 60 women and children were taken prisoners, the church,
63 houses, with their barns and stables, were reduced to ashes,
upward of 300 cattle were killed or driven off. All the agricultural
implements and tools were lost, so that the survivors were even
prevented from gathering their crops ripening in the fields. The
fate of Canajoharie was impending over the heads of every other
settlement, and nowhere was there the least hope of assistance or the
least prospect of peace and quiet.
It would be tiresome to enumerate the many Indian attacks on German
settlers in the valley, and these examples out of innumerable
instances of heroic deeds (see “Schell”) performed by our German
ancestors must suffice.
The frontier history of our country abounds in such examples down to
the period of the Civil War, when the Germans of New Ulm, Minnesota,
again, practically for the last time as settlers, were exposed to
Indian massacres in their march to extend our far-flung battle
line of civilization into the regions of the primeval wilderness.
This border history is dominated by the names of the German, Dutch
and English race. No Frenchmen, Russians, Italians or any of the
races of southwestern Europe have any share in the reduction of
the forests and prairies to the spirit of American sovereignty.
French and Spanish settlements remained always a thing apart with
never diminishing attachments to Europe, and before and after the
Revolution the French were our enemies.
=Inventions.=--Among the many evidences of German moral and
intellectual obliquity cited to justify our indignation was their
lack of inventive genius, Prof. Brander Matthews in particular
alleging that the Germans had contributed nothing to making possible
the automobile, the aeroplane, the telephone, the submarine, the art
of photography, etc.
The aeroplane, the automobile and the submarine were each made
possible by the invention of the gas engine, and the gas engine was
invented by Gottlieb Daimler. By combining Lillienthal’s “glider”
with Daimler’s gas engine, the aeroplane became feasible. The first
employment of the modern gas engine was by Daimler in running a
motorcycle.
Wilhelm Bauer, a Bavarian corporal, in 1850 constructed a submersible
craft at Kiel, which though it eventually came to grief, was
practically operated and served to spread terror in the Danish navy,
which discreetly withdrew from its blockading operations. It was
equipped with torpedoes but was navigated by manual operation, no
other power being available at that early period. (Boston Transcript.)
The first man to speak over a wire with the aid of electric power
and to call his instrument a “telephone,” was Philipp Reis, of
Frankfort. In 1868 the inventor wrote as follows: “Incited thereto by
my lessons in physics in the year 1860, I attacked a work begun much
earlier concerning the organs of hearing, and soon had the joy of
seeing my pains rewarded with success, since I succeeded in inventing
an apparatus by which it is possible to make clear and evident the
functions of the organs of hearing, but with which one can also
reproduce tones of all kinds at any desired distance by means of the
galvanic current. I named the instrument ‘telephone.’” In Manchester,
before the Literary and Philosophical Society, Reis’ telephone was
shown in 1865 by Professor Cliften. The invention was however too
soon for the world. To Reis’ great disappointment, the Physical
Society of Frankfort took no further notice of the invention, the
luster of which shone upon them. Other societies treated it as a
scientific toy. The Naturalists’ Assembly, including all the leading
scientific men of Germany, had, indeed, welcomed him at Giesen; but
too late. His sensitive temperament had met with too many rebuffs,
and the fatal disease with which he was already stricken told upon
his energies. In 1873 he disposed of all his instruments and tools to
Garnier’s Institute. To Herr Garnier he made the remark that he had
shown the world the way to a great invention which must now be left
to others to develop. On January 14, 1874, he was released by death.
In December, 1878, a monument was erected to him in the cemetery of
Friedricksdorf with the inscription under a medallion portrait: “Here
rests Philipp Reis, born January 7, 1834; died January 14, 1874. To
its deserving member, the Inventor of the Telephone, by the Physical
Society of Frankfort-on-Main. Erected 1878.” (See “Philipp Reis,
Inventor of the Telephone; a Biographical Sketch with Documentary
Testimony, Translation of the Original Papers of the Inventor and
Contemporaneous Publications,” by Sylvanus Thompson, B. A. DSc.,
Professor of Experimental Physics in University College, Bristol.)
The first modern photographic lens was invented by J. Petzval,
of Vienna; the rectilinear lens by Steinheil; the Jena glass and
anastigmatic lens by Abbe and Schott, of Jena, Prussia.
=English View of Paul Jones.=--In the process of rewriting the
history of the United States, as now in progress, in what light
will American school children be taught to regard their great
naval hero, John Paul Jones, whose remains in a Paris cemetery
were exhumed about twenty years ago by order of our government
and brought back to America with all the solemn pomp paid to the
greatest of men? England’s estimate of him is evidenced by clippings
of the contemporary English press, which Don C. Seitz a few years
ago compiled into “Paul Jones, His Exploits in English Seas.” It
contains clippings of three types: first, slanders on Jones’ personal
character; secondly, false reports as to his activities and capture;
thirdly, editorial comment in which political morals are deduced or
the consequences of his raids are touched upon.
In the first category come such passages as the following:
“Morning Chronicle and London Advertiser,” May 8, 1778: The
captain of the Ranger, John Paul, was some time ago master
of a vessel called the John, belonging to Kirkudbright,
stood a trial in London for the murder of his carpenter and
was found guilty, but made his escape.
This is the seed, evidently, from which grew the following tale:
“Morning Post and Daily Advertiser,” Thursday, September
30, 1779: “Paul Jones, or John Paul, which is his real
name, is a man of savage disposition. He was for many
years a commander of a coasting vessel, in which time he
committed many barbarities upon his crew--one of which will
forever stamp his character as a dark assassin. Between
Whitehaven and Bristol he took a deep dislike to one of
his crew and meditated revenge, which he performed as
follows: One evening upon deck he behaved with more than
common civility toward him, and calling him aside to do
something of the ship’s duty, the unsuspecting man went,
when Jones desired him to lay hold of a rope which was out
of reach; Jones then desired him to stand on a board (the
board having been so balanced that a small weight would
overturn it), which he did, when he fell into the sea and
was drowned.... Thus he got rid of an innocent man without
being suspected of murder.”
This story was repeated in a number of other papers with suitable
variations, and once, on the authority of a “reliable lady of our
acquaintance,” the then equivalent of our “reliable, well-informed
sources.” Some of the news sheets accuse him, moreover, of being the
son of a gardener, of owing his watchmaker money for several years,
of knocking down his schoolmaster with a club, of cold-bloodedly
sinking a boat-load of deserters with solid shot; of cowardice
in refusing to fight a duel; of dishonesty in money matters; of
“concealing a quantity of lead in his clothes to sink himself, should
he be overcome by the English.”
=Jefferson on English Hyphenates and English Perfidy.=--Thomas
Jefferson to Horatio Gates, Pennsylvania: “Those who have no wish but
for the peace of their country and its independence of all foreign
influence have a hard struggle indeed, overwhelmed by a cry as loud
and imposing as if it were true, of being under French influence, and
=this raised by a faction composed of English subjects residing among
us=, or such as are =English in all their relations and sentiments=.
However, patience will bring all to rights, and we shall both live to
see the mask taken from their faces and our citizens be made sensible
on which side true liberty and independence are sought.”
Thomas Jefferson to John Langdon, the Governor of New Hampshire:
“But the Anglo-men, it seems, have found out a much safer means than
to risk chances of death or disappointment. That is that we should
first =let England plunder us=, as she has been doing for years, and
then ally ourselves with her and enter into the war. This, indeed,
is making us a mighty people and what is to be our security, that
when embarked for her in the war she will not make a separate peace,
and leave us in the lurch. Her good faith! The faith of a nation
of merchants! The PUNCIA FIDES of modern Carthage! Of the friend
and protectress of Copenhagen! Of a nation which never admitted the
chapter of morality in her political code and is now avowing that
whatever she can make hers, is hers by right! Money and not morality
is the principle of commerce and commercial nations. But in addition
to this the nature of the English nation forbids of its reliance upon
her engagements and it is well known that =she has been the least
faithful to her alliances of all nations of Europe=, since the period
of her history wherein she has been distinguished for her commerce
and corruption and that is to say, under the Houses of Stewart and
Brunswick.”
=Jefferson’s Tribute to German Immigration.=--From Thomas Jefferson’s
letter to Gov. Claiborne: “Of all foreigners I should prefer Germans.”
=“Kultur” in Brief Statistical Form.=--A brief statistical abstract
of comparative data which vitally illustrates German “kultur” before
the war, has been compiled by D. Trietsch and published by Lehmann of
Munich under the title of “Germany: A Statistical Stimulant.”
Basis of Comparison Germany England France
Standard of civilization:
Illiterates among every 10,000
recruits 2 100 320
Expenditure for education in
million dollars 219 96 65.25
Books published (1912) 34,800 12,100 9,600
Nobel prizes for scientific
achievements 14 3 3
Economy and public intercourse:
Grain harvest in million tons 25.8 6.10 16.6
Production of wheat in hectares 23.6 21.0 13.3
Potato harvest in million tons 54.0 6.8 16.7
Foreign trade (not including
colonies), in million dollars 2.51 1.71 1.18
Post offices, in thousands, 1912 51.2 24.5 14.6
Telephones, in thousands, 1912 1310 733 304
State of prosperity, etc.:
Public wealth, in billion
dollars, 1914 53.75 86.25 61.25
Annual income in billion dollars 10.75 8.75 6.25
Saving bank deposits, in billion
dollars, 1911 4,475 1,175 1,125
Aver. savings bank deposits, in
dollars 200 82.25 78
Taxes, dollars, per capita 10 18.25 20
State of peace and amount of
armament:
Number of years of war between
1800 and 1896 12 21 27
Expenditure for armament in 1913,
in dollars, per capita 5.46 8.26 7.46
=Knobel, Caspar.=--It was Caspar Knobel, a German-American, eighteen
years of age, who, in command of a detachment of fourteen men of
the Fourth Michigan Cavalry, arrested President Jefferson Davis
of the Southern Confederacy, near Abbeville, Ga., and it was a
German-American, Maj. August Thieman, who was in command of Fortress
Monroe while Mr. Davis was confined there. Knobel, after two days’
march without food, discovered the camp of the Confederate leader,
and, throwing back the flap of his tent, placed him under arrest.
He received a part of the reward offered by the Union for President
Davis’ capture, and was given a gold medal. (Washington “Herald,”
May 10, 1908.) Maj. August Thieman died at Valentine, Nebr., in
utter destitution. He had served as an enlisted man and officer
continuously for over forty-two years. His record, on file in the War
Department, shows that he took active part in 242 battles, and was
wounded seven times. He served in the United States, Mexico, Egypt,
and other places, and held autograph letters from, and was well
acquainted with Lincoln, Davis and Stonewall Jackson. It was Gov.
Thieman who was in charge of Fortress Monroe while Mr. Davis and his
family were prisoners there.
=Know Nothing or American Party.=--A political party which came into
prominence in 1853. Its fundamental principle was that the government
of the country should be in the hands of native citizens. At first
it was organized as a secret oath bound fraternity; and from their
professions of ignorance in regard to it, its members received
the name of Know Nothings. In 1856 it nominated a presidential
ticket, but disappeared about 1859, its Northern adherents becoming
Republicans, while most of its Southern members joined the
short-lived Constitutional Union party. It was preceded by the Native
American party, formed about 1842, an organization based on hostility
to the participation of foreign immigrants in American politics, and
to the Roman Catholic Church. In 1844 it carried the city elections
in New York and Philadelphia, and elected a number of Congressmen. It
disappeared within a few years, after occasioning destructive riots
against Catholics in Philadelphia and other places. In St. Louis a
Know Nothing mob, led by E. C. Z. Judson (“Ned Buntline”), attempted
to destroy Turner Hall, the German Athletic Club, but was easily
repelled by a group of resolute Germans, who guarded the approaches
by stationing guns at the four street corners and riflemen on top
of the adjacent houses. T. W. Barnes, in his life of Thurlow Weed,
writes: “If a member of the order was asked about its practices, he
answered that he knew nothing about them, and ‘Americans’ for that
reason soon came to be called Know Nothings!”
=Koerner, Gustav.=--One of the most conspicuous fighters in the Civil
War period, “whose important life is well documented,” Prof. A. B.
Faust, of Cornell University, says, “in his two-volume memoirs.
They furnish abundant evidence of the fact, well established by
recent historical monographs, that the balance of power securing
the election of Lincoln, with all its far-reaching consequences,
lay with the German vote of the Middle West. Koerner’s modesty and
unselfishness were extraordinary. He repeatedly sacrificed his chance
for political preferment in deference to others less capable, and he
surprised his political friends at the opening of the war by refusing
high military rank, because, he said, he had not had the training
needed for an officer. Koerner was elected lieutenant-governor of the
State of Illinois, 1853-56, and in 1861 was appointed by Lincoln to
succeed Schurz as minister to Spain. Koerner had the honor of being
one of Lincoln’s pall-bearers, for few men had been closer to the
martyr President before the election. Schurz, Koerner and Lieber,”
declares Prof. Faust, “represent at their best, the idealism and
independence, the honest, unselfish patriotism, and the intelligent
action of the Germans in American politics. =Their existence in
American politics had not been marked by the holding of many offices,
but on great national issues their presence has always been strongly
felt. In the fact that they were not seeking anything for themselves
lay their strength, their independence and their power for good. The
independent voter is the despair of the politician and the salvation
of the country.=”
=Kudlich, Dr. Hans, the Peasant Emancipator.=--The name of Dr. Hans
Kudlich has been coupled with that of Abraham Lincoln as “the great
emancipator.” Through measures carried by him through the Austrian
Parliament, attended with revolutionary outbreaks, violence and
bloodshed--he himself being wounded in the struggle--14,000,000
Austrian peasants were finally relieved from serfdom. Dr. Kudlich
fled to the United States in 1854 and died at Hoboken, N. J.,
November 11, 1917, aged 94.
He was born in Lohenstein, Austrian Silesia, October 23, 1823.
He studied jurisprudence at the University of Vienna and joined
the students’ revolutionary movement, and, failing to secure
consideration for a petition for the freedom of the press, of
religion and of speech, he participated in the students’ revolt in
1848 against Metternich. The government’s draft of a constitution
affording no satisfaction, the Academic Legion and the workmen
marched under arms and forced the suspension of the constitution
and of the popular assembly. He was sent as delegate to the first
Austrian Parliament when still under 25 years of age after being
severely wounded.
In his three-volume “Memoirs and Reviews,” published in Vienna in
1873, he describes the peasant as simply without rights, bound to the
soil--half serfs--ruled by nobles who were nearly free to do with
them as they liked, compelled to work on their landlord’s estates
without wages three days a week, boarding themselves and furnishing
their own implements, horses, wagons, plows and other tools. Added to
this were countless interests, money and titles, all of which were
paid by the poor peasant to his rich master. The heirs of a peasant
who died had to pay to the landlord 10 per cent. of the realized value
of the farm. On top of this the landlord was at the same time his own
policeman and court of last resort, with power to incarcerate the
peasant and even to condemn him to be flogged, while the suffering
peasants were further subjected to the assessment of tithes by the
church and to payment of taxes to the communes, road improvements and
quartering of troops.
“In near-by Prussia,” he writes, “those oppressive measures had long
been abolished. Looking across the border, the Austrian peasants of
Silesia became still more clearly conscious of their degradations.”
His first parliamentary act was to introduce a bill to abolish
involuntary servitude. It was debated six weeks in open session, but
in the end a fully satisfactory law was passed and approved by the
Emperor.
The bold course of the young parliamentarian created a sensation
throughout Austria, and a colossal ovation to the “peasant
emancipator” was instituted in Vienna, taking the form of a
torchlight procession with twenty-four deputations of peasants from
all parts of Austria participating.
A new revolutionary movement was soon inaugurated because of the
course of the government toward Hungary. In the riots Count Latour,
the Minister of War, was brutally murdered and the ungovernable
populace scored a temporary victory until Vienna was invested and
taken by Field Marshal Windischgraetz. Kudlich’s attempt to recruit
a peasant legion to relieve Vienna ended dismally and led to his
indictment for high treason. Parliament was forcibly dissolved
and Kudlich fled to Germany, where he was joined by one of his
confederates, Oswald Ottendorfer. The young revolutionist was
received with open arms by the revolutionary party of Baden, and he
was appointed secretary to the Minister of Justice, Fries. Here he
made the acquaintance of his later friends, Carl Schurz and Franz
Sigel. The revolution failed and Dr. Kudlich, with the remainder
of Sigel’s Baden army, fled to Switzerland. Here he remained four
years, studying medicine, but even here the long arm of the Austrian
reactionary government reached him, and, being ordered by the Swiss
government to leave the country, he came to the United States and at
Hoboken established a lucrative practice. He was active in politics
and an outspoken abolitionist before the Civil War, but never
accepted an office.
Repeatedly he revisited his old home across the sea; first in 1872,
after the passage of the amnesty act of 1867, on which occasion he
was received with princely ovations in many cities. Everywhere pains
were taken to commemorate his service as the peasant emancipator by
monuments and other evidences of the respect and love with which he
was regarded.
=Langlotz, Prof. C. A.=--Composer of famous Princeton College
song, “Old Nassau,” one of the songs of which it is said that they
will never die, and sung by fifty-four Princeton classes. Was born
in Germany, the son of a court musician at Saxe-Meiningen. Prof.
Langlotz came to the United States in 1856, already a distinguished
musician, opened a studio in Philadelphia, and later became
instructor of German at Princeton. He composed “Old Nassau” in 1859.
Died at Trenton, N. J., November 25, 1915.
=Lehman, Philip Theodore.=--Born in the electorate of Saxony,
emigrated to this country and became one of the secretaries of
William Penn; and in that capacity wrote the celebrated letter to
the Indians of Canada, dated June 23, 1692, the original of which is
framed and hung up in the Capitol at Harrisburg.
=Lehmann, Frederick William.=--Solicitor General of the United
States, December, 1910-12, and prominent lawyer, resident of St.
Louis. Born in Prussia, February 28, 1853. Government delegate and
chairman committee on plan and scope Universal Congress of Lawyers
and Jurists, St. Louis, 1904; chairman commissions on congresses and
anthropology, Louisiana Purchase Exposition Company; president St.
Louis Public Library, 1900-10; chairman Board of Freeholders City of
St. Louis; president American Bar Association; second vice president
Academy of Jurisprudence.
=Leisler, Jacob.=--The first American rebel against the British
misrule in America to die for his principles. When the people of
the Colonies heard of the revolution in England, they at once made
movements to regain law and freedom. In New York, on May 31, 1689,
Jacob Leisler a (German) Commissioner of the Court of Admiralty, took
the fort on Manhattan Island, declared for the Prince of Orange, and
planted six cannon within the fort, from which the place was ever
afterwards called “The Battery.” A committee of safety was formed
which invested Leisler with the powers of a governor. When, however,
a dispatch arrived from the authorities of Great Britain, directed to
“such person as, for the time being, takes care for preserving the
peace and administering the laws in his majesty’s province in New
York,” Leisler, considering himself governor, dissolved the Committee
of Safety and organized the government throughout the whole province.
There was division among the New Yorkers. The minority, being mostly
the English aristocracy, were against Leisler; but the people in
great majority were in sympathy with him. It was the old conflict
between the few and the many, with “all the people” sure to win in
the end.... Jacob Leisler was probably among the first of far-sighted
men to see the necessity of union against the French.... To him, the
importance of a federation of all the colonies seemed vital. After
vainly trying to get other governors to unite with him, Leisler,
early in 1690, sent a small fleet against Quebec.
From the very first New York was infested with that sentiment for
unison which she has shown in all political disturbances and wars
throughout all her history. Very appropriately, on her soil, was
held the first Congress to propose an elaborate plan of union.... A
hard-drinking Englishman, named Sloughter, was appointed the royal
governor of New York. On his arrival Leisler refused to surrender
the fort and government, until convinced that Sloughter was the
regularly appointed agent of the King. Those who hated Leisler
seized this opportunity of having him and Milborne, his son-in-law,
imprisoned. After a short and absurd trial, they were condemned,
and the governor, when drunk, signed an order of execution. On May
16, 1691, Leisler and Milborne were hanged on the spot east of the
Park in New York City where stands the “Tribune” building, opposite
which are the statues of Benjamin Franklin and Nathan Hale, and near
which the figure of Leisler may yet come to resurrection in bronze.
The outrageous act of the King was disapproved. In 1695, by an act
of Parliament, Leisler’s name was honored, indemnity was paid to
his heirs, and the remains of these victims of judicial murder were
honorably buried within the edifice of the Reformed Dutch Church. No
unprejudiced historian can but honor Leisler, the lover of union,
and the champion of the people’s rights. (“The Romance of American
Colonization,” by William Elliot Griffis, D. D.)
A bust of Leisler was unveiled a few years ago at New Rochelle, N.
Y., as Governor Leisler had given welcome to the French refugees
coming to New York, and made provision for them by purchasing land
at New Rochelle. Leisler sought in 1690 to do what Benjamin Franklin
tried to accomplish in 1740 toward a union of the colonies for mutual
protection.
Benson J. Lossing calls Leisler “the first martyr to the democratic
faith of America.”
=Lieber, Francis.=--One of the most distinguished German Americans of
the Civil War period, was born in Berlin in 1793, and as a schoolboy
enlisted under Blücher and participated in the battle of Ligny,
which immediately preceded the battle of Waterloo, and was wounded,
returning home to resume his work as a schoolboy. Studied at Jena,
Halle and Dresden, and taking part in public movements which were
characterized as dangerous, was twice arrested, and at twenty-one
took part in the Greek struggle. He left Germany in 1825 and spent
a year in England, after which he came to the United States. After
passing a short time in Boston, he went to Philadelphia, where
he engaged in the preparation of the “Encyclopedia Americana,”
modeled upon “Brockhau’s Conversations Lexikon;” it was published in
Philadelphia. After preparing an elaborate scheme for the management
of Girard College, he engaged on independent authorship, went to the
University of South Carolina in 1835 as Professor of History and
Political Economy, and there wrote and taught until 1857, when he
gladly left the South.
At the outbreak of the Civil War he was quietly settled at Columbia
College in New York, but one of his sons entered the Confederate
service, another joined the Illinois troops in the Union army, and a
third was given a commission in the regular army, while he himself
began the work of legal adviser to the Government on questions of
military and international law. In this capacity he prepared a code
of instructions for the government of the armies of the United States
in the field, and thenceforth was in constant employment in that
direction, putting his vast store of learning at the disposal of
the authorities on every fitting occasion. Although at an earlier
period he had written in a somewhat disparaging tone of the aims and
status of the German Americans, he saw that his apprehensions were at
fault, as some 200,000 German-born Americans and above 300,000 German
Americans of the second and third generations served in the Union
Army.
He maintained a close correspondence with the leading German
professors, Bluntschli, Mohl and Holtzendorff, and did much to secure
in Germany a proper appreciation of the great work done for the world
by securing the perpetuation of the American Union, and later on to
make America alive to the merits of the struggle with France which
secured German unity. His busy life ended in 1872.
His services, says one biographer, were of a kind not often within
the reach and range of a single life, and his memory deserves to be
honored and kept green in both his native and his adopted country.
He was well represented on the battlefields for the Union by his two
sons, Hamilton, who served in the 92nd Illinois, and died in 1876, an
officer in the regular army, and Guido, who long after perpetuated
Lieber’s name in the register of the regular army institution. The
death of another son on the Confederate side was another sacrifice to
the Union cause.
His “Instructions for the Armies in the Field,” General Order No.
100, published by the government of the United States, April 24,
1863, was the first codification of international articles of war,
and marked an epoch in the history of international law and of
civilization, says Rosengarten, and his contributions to military
and international law, published at various times during the Civil
War, together with his other miscellaneous writings on political
science, were reprinted in two volumes of his works, issued by J.
B. Lippincott & Co., in 1881, and these, with his memoirs and the
tributes paid him by President Gilman and Judge Thayer, are his best
monuments. A memoir by T. S. Perry also deserves attention.
=Light Horse Harry Lee.=--Delivered the famous eulogy on Washington,
in which occur the words, “First in peace, first in war, and first in
the hearts of his countrymen,” Dec. 27, 1799, in the German Lutheran
Church in Philadelphia. (Representative Acheson of Pennsylvania.)
=Lincoln of German Descent.=--For some years a very interesting
discussion has been going on among historians as to the ancestry of
President Lincoln. Some claim that he was of English descent and
others that his forebears were German. Each disputant gives facts
to uphold his theory and is unconvinced by the other, so that the
discussion is not yet closed.
When Lincoln became a candidate for President, one Jesse W. Fell
prepared his campaign biography. When he asked Lincoln for details
as to his ancestors he received this reply: “My parents were born
in Virginia of undistinguished families--second families, perhaps
I should say. My parental grandfather emigrated from Rockingham
County, Va., to Kentucky, about 1781 or 1782. His ancestors, who were
Quakers, went to Virginia from Berks County, Pennsylvania. An effort
to identify them with the New England family of the same name ended
in nothing more definite than a similarity of Christian names in
which both families, such as Enoch, Levi, Mordecai, Solomon, Abraham,
etc.”
Nicolay and Hay, who were secretaries to the President and intimate
with him, published an extensive biography in 1890. Prof. M. D.
Learned, editor of the German-American Annals, made a special study
of the subject, and published the results in 1910. Both of these
authorities uphold the English descent. L. P. Hennighausen, of
Baltimore, is the leading advocate of the German descent.
Both parties agree that the grandfather of the President was
also named Abraham; that he came from Rockingham County, Va.,
to Kentucky; that his father, John, came to Virginia from Berks
County, Pennsylvania; and that these ancestors were Quakers, or
non-combatants. Grandfather Abraham bought 400 acres in Kentucky, and
on his Land Warrant in 1780, and also in the Surveyor’s Certificate
in 1785, the name is spelled “Linkhorn” in each instance.
The first named biographers claim that John’s father was Mordecai,
who came from Hingham, Mass., to Berks County, Pennsylvania, in 1725.
His father was Samuel Lincoln, who emigrated from England in 1635,
and settled in the above named New England town. The descendants of
this family spread over New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Kentucky
and Tennessee. The German name “Linkhorn” is brushed aside as the
blunder of a clerk.
The argument for a German ancestry does not go so far back in
genealogy, and bases itself more on geography and spelling. It so
happens that Berks County and Rockingham County were solid German
settlements. In the Pennsylvania county the German dialect is
still in general use, and the “Reading Adler,” a German newspaper
established in 1796, was issued until 1913, still being one of the
few journalistic centenarians in the country. When Washington, as
a young man, was surveying Rockingham County, “he was attended by
a great concourse of people, who followed him through the woods
and would speak none but German.” Many of these settlers were
non-combatants, that is, Quakers or Mennonites.
That the name “Linkhorn” in the two documents mentioned is not a
mistake is shown by the fact that in the Surveyor’s Certificate is
the signature, “Abraham Linkhorn.” And what is even more puzzling and
curious, the two witnesses sign as “Josiah Lincoln” and “Hananiah
Lincoln.” A search of Virginia records from 1766 to 1776 shows that
Clayton Abraham Linkhorn was the youngest officer in the militia, and
his name, appearing on many different pages, is always spelled in
that manner. On the census lists and tax lists in Pennsylvania the
names Benjamin, John, Michael, and Jacob Linkhorn appear, and Nicolay
and Hay state that in Tennessee and Kentucky the family name is also
thus spelled.
This divergence of opinion is not confined to historians, but has
even innoculated the Lincoln family. Some years ago David J. Lincoln,
of Birdsboro, Berks Co., Pa., published a pedigree of the Lincoln
family. This was at once challenged by Geo. Lincoln, of Hingham,
Mass., who published a wholly different pedigree.
The evidence in favor of Lincoln’s German descent cannot be waved
aside as the error of a clerk. The purchaser of a strip of land
would not expose his title to future legal complications without
insisting on a correction of his name, whereas five years and two
months elapsed between the issue of the landoffice warrant and the
surveyor’s certificate, in which the alleged error is distinctly
duplicated. Again the name “Linkhorn” appears under the name of two
witnesses spelling their names “Lincoln,” conclusive proof that
the distinction was a conscious performance and not an accident. A
reasonable conclusion would be that other members of the family had
begun to spell their name “Lincoln” instead of “Linkhorn,” probably
following popular use in a community predominantly of English
ancestry, as is the case of so many names in the German counties
of Pennsylvania. When Koester is anglicised into Custer, Hauk into
Hawke, Reyer into Royer, Greims into Grimes and Brauer into Brower,
as evidenced by many tombstones of long-dead ancestors, it is a most
plausible inference that the same process evolved “Lincoln” from
“Linkhorn.”
Illustration: Land Warrant No. 3334, Issued to Abraham
Linkhorn, 1780. The Original in Possession of Colonel
R. T. Durrett, Louisville, Ky.
Illustration: Surveyor’s Certificate Issued to Abraham
Linkhorn, 1785, from Record Book “B,” Page 60, in
the Office of Jefferson County, Ky.
A bit of interesting collateral evidence in favor of the Linkhorn
hypothesis is supplied the editor of the present book by Mrs. G.
W. Garvey, who resided in Hoboken, N. J., until 1919, when she
removed to California. Mrs. Garvey’s maiden name was Bennett.
Her grandparents resided in close proximity to the family of the
Lincolns in Illinois. Her grandmother, Mrs. Dameron, often spoke of
the Lincolns as neighbors who were referred to as “Dutch” people,
“because the Lincolns were in the habit of killing a hog in the fall
and making sausages and sauerkraut,” which were among the delicacies
exchanged among their neighbors and friends, a typical German custom.
=Leutze, Eugene Henry Cozzens.=--Rear Admiral, U. S. N., born in
Dusseldorf, Germany, 1847. Appointed to U. S. Naval Academy by
President Lincoln, 1863; graduated 1867. While on leave of absence
from academy volunteered on board “Monticello” on N. Atlantic
Squadron in 1864. Served on numerous surveys, at Naval Academy,
1886-90; Washington Navy Yard, 1892-96; commander “Michigan,”
“Alert,” “Monterey,” and participated in taking city of Manila;
commandant Navy Yard, Cavite, P. I., 1898-1900; sup’t naval gun
factory, Washington, 1900-02; commander “Maine,” then member Board
of Inspection and Survey; then commandant Navy Yard, Washington, and
sup’t naval gun factory; retired by operation of law, Nov. 16, 1909,
but continued on active duty; commandant Navy Yard and Station, New
York, 1910.
=Long, Francis L.=--Was a sergeant in Custer’s command. On the day
before the massacre, Long volunteered to carry a message from Gen.
Custer through the Indian lines to Major Reno, calling for help. Long
got through and Reno moved, but camped at night, and thus failed to
save the heroic command. Long was the first trooper to arrive on the
scene of the massacre. He was also one of the six survivors of the
ill-fated Greely arctic expedition. The New York “Sun” said of him
the day after his death, June 8, 1916.:
His Viking constitution and an utter absence of nervousness
rendered him almost impervious to the ills of most
explorers put on a short diet in a desolate land. He became
the hunter of the Greely party, and it was chiefly through
him that the commander himself was saved. He never tired
of adventure, making several Arctic trips after his first
hazardous polar experiment, the last being when he was past
50. Except Rear Admiral Peary, it is said he spent more
time north of the Arctic circle than any other white man.
For the last dozen or more years Sergeant Long had charge
of the local weather bureau at night, making up the chart
and telling the newspapers what folks hereabouts might
expect next day. He was an expert meteorologist and
frequently made better local predictions than his superiors
at Washington.
Born at Wurtemberg, Germany. Came to the United States as a boy and
entered the army at 18.
=Ludwig, Christian.=--Purveyor of the Revolutionary Army. Born in
Giessen, Germany, 1720; fought in the Austrian army against the
Turks, and under Frederick the Great against Austria. Sailed the
oceans for seven years and settled in Philadelphia in 1754. Served on
numerous committees during the Revolution, and was popularly called
the “governor of Latitia Court,” where he owned a bakery. When a
resolution was passed by the Convention of 1776 to raise money for
arms, and grave doubt was expressed in regard to the feasibility of
the plan, Ludwig addressed the President of the Convention in these
words: “Although I am only a poor ginger-bread baker, put me down
for £200,” which silenced all further objection. By a resolution of
Congress (May 3, 1777), Ludwig was given the contract to supply the
American army with bread. Here he demonstrated his sterling honesty.
His predecessors had furnished 100 pounds of bread to 100 pounds of
flour. He declared: “Christoph Ludwig does not intend to get rich
out of the war; 100 pounds of flour make 135 pounds of bread, and
I shall furnish that.” He was very friendly with Washington, and
the commander in chief repeatedly entertained him at table, calling
him his “honest friend.” Ludwig bequeathed his not inconsiderable
fortune to the object of establishing a fund for a free school for
poor children without distinction as regards religion or previous
condition.
=Liberty Loan Subscriptions.=--The German element passed heroically
the test of their loyalty in the amounts subscribed to the Third
Liberty Loan for the prosecution of the war, and, as usual, they
far exceeded the record of other racial elements. The Central Loan
Committee gave out a summary on May 3, 1918, which showed the
following subscriptions:
Germans $18,000,000
Polish 9,500,000
Bohemians 440,000
Italians 8,500,000
Swedish 420,000
South Slavs 149,000
Russians 145,000
Lithuanians 66,500
Danes 281,000
Armenians 190,000
Belgians 700,000
South Americans 5,825,000
Chinese 31,000
The subscriptions of the English and French are not given. A letter
addressed to the Central Committee for a more complete report,
embodying the subscriptions of all foreign-born citizens, brought
the reply that the figures were not available, and no comparison is
therefore possible of the relative amounts given by the French and
English-born.
=Ideals of Liberty.=--When discussing the question of liberty
and the ideals of political freedom, it is safer to consult the
recognized authorities on ancient and modern history, famous students
of constitutional affairs, than to accept the dictum of political
opportunists whose judgments and pronouncements vary with the shift
of the wind.
The World War over night transformed the stupid, slow-going,
dull-witted German, the “Hans Breitmann” of Leland, and the familiar
“Fritz and his little dog Schneider,” into a world figure of
adroitness and supernatural finesse in all the arts of deception.
From a sodden, beer-guzzling, sauerkraut-eating Falstaff, he was
suddenly changed into a finished product of macchiavelian cleverness,
or into a knight errant charging around the world to suppress other
people’s liberty, and the embodiment of all that stands for autocracy.
While we were at war a good deal of this sort of figure painting was
tolerable; but long before we entered the war, it was dangerous for
the plain American citizen to express any view that did not describe
every German as a Hun and Boche. Yet all the time our libraries were
littered with the Latin classics, with Hume, Montesquieu, Guizot
and other famous authors, who actually contradicted this verdict of
Rudyard Kipling and his followers, and who, we presume, may now be
safely taken from the shelf and opened without exposing one to the
risk of being prosecuted for high treason, since they speak rather
well of our late enemies.
“Liberty,” said the Roman poet Lucanus, “is the German’s birthright.”
“It is a privilege,” wrote the Roman historian Florus, “which nature
has granted to the Germans, and which the Greeks, with all their art,
knew not how to obtain.” Hume, the great English historian, says: “If
our part of the world maintain sentiments of liberty, honor, equity
and valor, superior to the rest of mankind, it owes these advantages
to the seed implanted by those generous barbarians.” “Liberty,”
observed Montesquieu, “that lovely thing, was discovered in the wild
forests of Germany.” And Guizot, the French historian and statesman,
in his “History of Civilization” (Lecture II), makes this observation:
It was the rude barbarians of Germany who introduced this
sentiment of personal independence, this love of personal
liberty, into European civilization; it was unknown among
the Romans, it was unknown in the Christian Church; it
was unknown in nearly all the civilizations of antiquity.
The liberty that we meet with in ancient civilizations is
political liberty; it is the liberty of the citizen. We are
indebted for it to the barbarians who introduced it into
European civilization, in which, from its first rise it has
played so considerable a part and has produced such lasting
and beneficial results that it must be regarded as one of
the fundamental principles.
Mr. Walter S. McNeill tells us that “in some respects the German
(Constitution) is more democratic than our own,” while Professor
Burgess (author of the standard work, “Political Science and
Comparative Constitutional Law”) teaches us that “of the three
European constitutions which we are examining, only that of Germany
contains in any degree the guarantees of individual liberty which
the Constitution of the United States so richly affords” (Book
II, chapter 1, page 179, Vol. 1), whereas his opinion of England,
as expressed in “The European War of 1914,” is that “there is
no longer a British Constitution according to the American idea
of constitutional government.... In this only true sense of
constitutional government, the British Government is a despotism....
The Russian economic and political systems have more points of
likeness with the British than is usually conceived.”
Frank Harris (“England or Germany?” p. 30) writes: “Great Britain is
among the least free of modern nations. Her chief titles to esteem
belong to the past.” Prof. Yandell Henderson (Yale): “Modern Germany
is as unlike the Germany of Frederick the Great, out of which it
has developed, as America of to-day is unlike the America of the
stagecoach.”
Germany cannot be at once the country painted by Mr. Wilson in 1917
and the country he painted in 1919. In his speech before the A. F. of
L. convention in November, 1917, he said:
“All the intellectual men of the world went to school to her. As a
university man I have been surrounded by men trained in Germany; men
who have resorted to Germany because nowhere else could they get such
thorough and searching training, particularly in the principles of
science and the principles that underlie modern material achievement.
Her men of science had made her industries perhaps the most competent
industries of the world, and the label ‘Made in Germany’ was a
guarantee of good workmanship and sound material.”
In his address to the French Academy of Moral and Political Science,
Paris, May 10, 1919, the same speaker said:
“A great many of my colleagues in American university life got their
training, even in political science, as so many men in civil circles
did, in German universities.... And it has been a portion of my
effort to disengage the thought of American university teachers from
the misguided instruction which they had received on this side of the
sea.”
And this is the tribute he pays to Prussia in his chapter on Prussian
government in his “The State:”
“Prussia has achieved a greater perfection in administrative
organization than any other European State.... The modern Prussian
constitution is one which may be said to rest on a scientific basis.”
=Marix, Adolph.=--Rear Admiral U. S. N. Born at Dresden, Germany,
1848. Graduated Naval Academy 1868. Served on various European
and Asiatic stations; Judge Advocate of “Maine” court of inquiry;
Captain of port of Manila, 1901-03; commanded “Scorpion” during
Spanish-American war and was promoted for conspicuous bravery;
chairman Lighthouse Board, retired May 10, 1910. Died in 1919.
=Massachusetts Bay Colony Contained Germans.=--The first Germans
in New England arrived, as far as we know, with the founding of
Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1630. The proof of this fact, as well
as the influence of this first small group, is found in one of the
most important pamphlets published in connection with New England
colonization, “The Planter’s Plea” (1630). This tract, published
in London shortly after the departure of Winthrop’s Puritan fleet,
and supposed to have been written by John White, the “patriarch of
Dorchester,” and the “father of Massachusetts Bay Colony,” contains
the following statement: “It is not improbable that partly for their
sakes, and partly for respect to some Germans that are gone over
with them, and more that intend to follow after, even those which
otherwise would not much desire innovation, of themselves yet for
maintaining of peace and unity (the only solder of a weak, unsettled
body) will be won to consent to some variations from the forms and
customs of our church.”
Some of the early New England Germans reached there via New
Amsterdam; we find them in Connecticut, Rhode Island, Boston, etc. In
1661 the ship surgeon, Felix Christian Spoeri, of Switzerland, paid a
visit to Rhode Island. His narrative of New England (“Amerikanische
Reisebeschreibung Nach den Caribes Inseln und Neu Engelland”) is
one of the few of German pen on early American colonial times still
extant--(From “First Germans in North America and the German Element
of New Netherland,” by Otto Lohr, G. E. Stechert & Co., New York,
1912.)
=Massow, Baron Von.=--Member of Mosby’s Men on the Confederate side
during Civil War. According to a statement of Gen. John S. Mosby,
Baron von Massow joined his command on coming to this country from
Prussia, where he was attached to the general staff; was severely
wounded in an engagement with a California regiment in Fairfax County
near Washington, D. C., on which occasion he displayed conspicuous
gallantry. He was then discharged and returned to Germany, serving
later in the Austro-Prussian and the Franco-Prussian wars. The last
that Col. Mosby heard of him was that he was commanding the Ninth
Corps in the German army. (From a statement of Gen. Mosby, Feb. 12,
1901.)
=McNeill, Walter S.=--Prominent lawyer and law lecturer at Richmond,
Va., discussing the “Burgerliches Gesetzbuch,” which is the codified
common law of Germany, says:
“As a crystallization of human, not divine, justice, let our lawyers
compare the German Code with the Federal statutes and decisions, or
the legislative or judicial law of any of our States. Then we can get
at something definite, not imaginary, concerning civil liberty in
Germany.... The less said by way of comparing German with American
criminal law the better.”
=Memminger, Christoph Gustav.=--Secretary of the Treasury in the
Confederate Cabinet, appointed 1861. Born in Mergentheim, Wurtemberg.
=Mergenthaler, Ottmar.=--Inventor of the Mergenthaler Linotype
machine, used in almost every printing office throughout the world.
Born in Wurtemberg, Germany, and arrived in Baltimore in 1872,
working at his trade of clock and watch manufacturer. The Linotype
was the result of years of study and experimentation and represents
as great an advance over hand composition as the sewing machine does
over the sewing needle.
=Military Establishments of Warring Nations.=--Germany, occupying
the third place in population of eight leading powers, stood in the
second place in regard to enlistment in her army and navy, behind
Russia and England, respectively. Her expenditures for maintaining
the armed force, however, were surpassed by those of England, Russia
and France, and in the case of the navy, by those of the United
States as well. The per capita cost of her armaments was $4.54, while
that of France was $7.91 and that of England $9.97, or twice the
capita expenditure of Germany. The following table gives a comparison
of population and enlistment in army and navy of eight of the leading
countries: (E. Dallmer.)
Enlistment
(Peace strength)
Population Army Navy
England 45,000,000 254,500 137,500
Russia 160,100,000 1,290,000 52,463
France 39,300,000 720,000 60,621
Germany 64,900,000 810,000 66,783
United States 94,800,000 89,000 64,780
Italy 33,900,000 250,000 33,095
Austria-Hungary 49,400,000 390,000 17,581
Japan 52,200,000 250,000 51,054
The estimated expenditure for the year 1913-14 was as follows:
Per
Army Navy Total Capita
England $224,300,000 $224,140,000 $448,440,000 $9.97
Russia 317,800,000 122,500,000 440,300,000 2.75
France 191,431,580 119,571,400 311,002,980 7.91
Germany 183,090,000 111,300,000 294,390,000 4.54
United States 94,266,145 140,800,643 235,066,788 3.30
Italy 82,928,000 51,000,000 133,928,000 3.95
Austria-Hungary 82,300,000 42,000,000 124,300,000 2.52
Japan 49,000,000 46,500,000 95,500,000 1.85
Germany maintained a navy larger than that of the United States and
a standing army of 810,000, at an expense of but $1.24 per capita
more than that of the United States with a standing army of 75,000.
In addition the United States is burdened with a pension system
involving large expenditures.
Under President Wilson the United States in peace outstripped the
great military powers of the world in militarism, and the 64th
Congress passed bills appropriating a larger sum of money for army
and navy purposes than Germany did in anticipation of being attacked
by a coalition of France, England, Russia and Japan, as will appear
from the following table of comparative appropriations:
United States, 1917 $294,565,623
Germany, 1914 294,390,000
-----------
$175,623
=Minuit, or Minnewit, Peter.=--Director General of the New
Netherlands, purchased the island of Manhattan, the present site of
New York City, from the Indians for 60 guldens. Born in Wesel on the
lower Rhine. According to a report of Pastor Michaelis, who opened
the first divine service in the Dutch language in New Amsterdam in
1623, Peter Minuit acted as deacon of the Reformed Church in Wesel
and accepted a similar assignment in the newly founded church of
Manhattan. Later entered the service of Sweden, and in 1637 commanded
an expedition which founded New Sweden in the Delaware River region
near Cape Henlopen and Christian Creek. (See “Dutch and German.”)
=Morgan, J. Pierpont.=--American banker and financier, appointed by
the British Government to look after British interests in America
and known as “Great Britain’s ammunition agent.” In a speech in
Parliament, Lloyd George stated that D. A. Thomas would “co-operate
with Messrs. Morgan & Co., the accredited agents of the British
Government.” Morgan floated the famous Russian ruble and $500,000,000
English-French loans and was the chief promoter of the arms and
ammunition industry to supply the Allies. The trade in munitions
before we entered the war was upward of two billion dollars, of
which the Morgan interests received 2 per cent., or $40,000,000 in
commissions, exclusive of large additional profits from the companies
engaged in the manufacture of munitions in which he and his friends
were interested. Under a just construction of neutrality, for Morgan
to act against a friendly power under a commission from a foreign
government would subject him to arrest under a specific statute
of the United States. His niece, nee Burns, is the wife of First
Viscount Lewis Harcourt of Nuneham Park, Oxford.
=Missouri, How Kept in the Union.=--Everyone, even only slightly
acquainted with the history of the Civil War, knows that the question
of first and greatest importance which arose and demanded solution
was that of the position in the struggle of the border slave
states, namely, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri, writes Prof. John
W. Burgess. Mr. Lincoln’s administration gave its attention most
seriously and anxiously to the work of holding these slave states
back from passing secession ordinances, and preventing them from
being occupied by the armies of the Southern Confederacy.
The most important among these states was Missouri. It was the
largest; it reached away up into the very heart of the North; it
commanded the left bank of the Mississippi for some 500 miles, and
the great United States arsenal of the west, containing the arms and
munitions for that whole section of our country, was located in St.
Louis. It had been stocked to its utmost capacity by the Secretary
of War of the preceding administration, Mr. Floyd of Virginia, in
the expectation that it would certainly fall into the hands of the
South. The Governor of the State, C. F. Jackson, manifested the
stand he would take in his reply to President Lincoln’s requisition
for Missouri’s quota of the first call for troops. He defied the
President in the words: “Your requisition, in my judgment, is
illegal, unconstitutional and revolutionary in its object; inhuman
and diabolical and cannot be complied with.”
It happened most fortunately, however, that the Commandant of the
arsenal was a staunch Unionist, Nathaniel Lyon. He immediately
recognized the peril of the situation. He had only three men to guard
the arsenal and there was in the city a full company of secessionist
militia calling themselves Minute Men. Moreover, two companies of the
State Militia composed of Germans had shortly before been disarmed by
the general of the state militia. Under these conditions Lyon turned
to F. P. Blair for advice. Blair was acquainted with the views and
sympathies of the inhabitants perfectly, and knew that he could rely
only upon the Germans to save the arsenal and then the city and the
State for the Union.
Thus far Prof. Burgess. The first step toward secession was the
establishment of Camp Jackson, at St. Louis, with a view to taking
the State out of the Union. General Lyon, who had been recently
transferred from Fort Riley, resolved to leave nothing undone to
thwart the Confederate plot, and soon had his plans ready. The
officers in command of the first four regiments loyal to the Union
were Frank P. Blair, Heinrich Baernstein, then publisher of “Der
Anzeiger des Westens;” Franz Sigel, of the revolutionary army of
Baden, who had distinguished himself at Heppenheim, in Hessia, and
at Waghausel and Kuppenheim, and Col. Schuttner. The Turn Verein,
located on Tenth, between Market and Walnut streets, was animated
by a fighting spirit. Four companies of Turners had assembled early
in the night at the St. Louis Arsenal and placed themselves at the
disposition of General Lyon. A constant stream of German volunteers
added to the regiment, who were provided with arms by the commander.
There were approximately 800 men, of whom nine-tenths were of direct
German blood.
This was the situation on May 10, 1861. A council of war was held
by General Lyon, Blair, Sigel and their associates, and General
Lyon decided to strike a blow before the rebels were ready to act.
The volunteers were assigned to their posts during the night. By 10
o’clock the next morning Camp Jackson found itself surrounded and
General Lyon demanded its surrender. There was no way out, but the
full wrath of the defeated rebels turned upon the Germans. As the
prisoners were being marched to the arsenal, street riots broke out
at many places along the line, and the Germans were assailed on every
hand with cries of “dirty Dutch” and other insulting epithets. Almost
at the first movement on Camp Jackson, Constantin Standanski, the
master-at-arms of the St. Louis Turn Verein, was wounded from ambush,
and died several days later.
After the capture of Camp Jackson, Lyon took his troops to Jefferson
City, capital of the State, and forced the Governor to fly. Jackson
never returned. Lyon took Boonville, where he was reinforced by the
First Iowa, and two weeks later moved on Sedalia by way of Tipton. He
was there joined by two regiments from Kansas, and went into camp at
Springfield.
Meanwhile, General Sigel, with the Second and Third Missouri, took
a course toward the southwestern part of the State, coming up with
the rebels at Carthage. His artillery, largely composed of the Baden
artillerists of 1848, soon got the better of the enemy. A battle took
place August 10 at Wilson’s Creek, where the heroic Lyon, recklessly
exposing himself, was killed. An imposing monument marks his memory
in St. Louis.
This is in brief the story of how Missouri was saved to the Union.
=Muhlenberg, Frederick August.=--German-American patriot, brother of
General Peter Muhlenberg. Elected to the Continental Congress by the
Assembly of Pennsylvania 1779 and 1780; Speaker of the Assembly 1781
and 1782; Chairman Pennsylvania Convention to ratify the Constitution
of the United States 1787. Member of Congress for four terms, and the
first Speaker of the American House of Representatives; also Speaker
in the third Congress.
=Muhlenberg, Heinrich Melchior.=--Founder of the Lutheran Church
in America. Born Sept. 6, 1711, at Eimbeck, Hanover. Sailed 1742,
and after paying a visit to the Salzburg Protestants near Savannah,
Georgia, settled in Pennsylvania. Erected what is known as the oldest
Lutheran Church of brick in America at Trappe, where it is still
preserved. He built the Zions Church, dedicated 1769, in which by
order of Congress the memorial services to George Washington were
held, attended by the Senate, House and Supreme Court and many
generals, and where Light Horse Harry Lee first used the phrases
“First in peace, first in war and first in the hearts of his
countrymen.” Muhlenberg’s three sons, all German Lutheran pastors,
became famous in war, politics and natural science.
=Muhlenberg, Johann Gabriel Peter.=--American general in the
Revolutionary war. Born in Montgomery Co., Pa., October 1, 1746,
son of Heinrich M. Muhlenberg. With his two younger brothers,
Frederick August and Heinrich Ernst, he went in 1763 to Halle,
Germany, to study for the ministry, returning to Philadelphia in
1766. At the outbreak of the Revolution he was pastor of the German
Lutheran Community of Woodstock, Virginia. Participated actively
in the measures preceding armed resistance to the unjust measures
of Parliament, and on the recommendation of Washington and Patrick
Henry was appointed Colonel of the Eighth (or German) regiment of
Virginia. He preached to his congregation for the last time in
January, 1776, on the duty of the citizen to his country, concluding
with the memorable words: “There is a time for everything, for
prayer, for preaching and also for fighting. The time for fighting
has arrived.” He had scarcely concluded the benediction when he
cast off his clerical gown and stood revealed in full regimentals.
An indescribable scene of patriotic enthusiasm followed, and many
of his parishioners crowded around him and enlisted for service. On
February 21, 1777, he was promoted to brigadier general by order
of Congress. After the defeat of the American army at Brandywine,
his brigade covered the retreat with invincible bravery, and in the
battle of Germantown he performed his duty with distinction, causing
the enemy’s right wing to give way but unable to prevent the loss of
the battle. In the storming of the redoubts at Yorktown he played a
conspicuous part, commanding the light infantry which captured the
left bulwarks of the British fortifications and decided the battle.
After the war he was vice-president of the high executive Council of
Pennsylvania and was elected to a seat in the first, second and sixth
Congress. He was elected eight times to the position of president of
the German Society of Pennsylvania. He is represented in Statuary
Hall in the Capitol at Washington by a monument of marble presented
by the State of Pennsylvania.
The following interesting story of the career of General Muhlenberg,
by Mrs. Elizabeth Gadsby, Historian of the Daughters of the American
Revolution, is taken from the Washington “Post” of July 5, 1903:
The father, John Peter Gabriel Muhlenberg, located at Trappe, Pa.,
and was the founder of the Lutheran Church in America.
During the Revolution the armies passed and repassed their home so
frequently they never knew when the table was set whether the food
prepared for themselves would be eaten by the English or American
soldiers. They were frequently in great danger from the skirmishing
which constantly took place all around them, and often suffered the
pangs of hunger, every field of grain and forage being devastated by
the armies.
Peter was sent to the University of Halle, in Prussia, where, tiring
of his studies and the strict confinement, he ran away and joined
the Prussian dragoons, which gave him his first military ardor and
ambition. After several years of hardship he left the army and
studied for the ministry. He returned to America, going back to
Europe to be ordained in England in 1771, and was then called to the
pastorate at Woodstock, Va., to preach to the Germans who had settled
on the frontier of that State.
In March, 1773, the Virginia Assembly recommended a committee of
correspondence, and the House of Burgesses passed a resolution making
the first day of June a day of fasting and prayer in sympathy with
Boston, whose port Parliament had ordered closed. Governor Dunmore
declared this resolution treason, and indignantly dissolved the House
of Burgesses. Great excitement prevailed. The governor, finding the
people of his colony in great sympathy with the cause of freedom,
aroused himself for immediate action, and endeavored to bring the
Indians in hostile array against the colonists, also causing a rumor
to be spread that the slaves would rise in insurrection against the
colonists.
In April he removed the powder from the old magazine at the Capitol.
His ships were laden and ready for flight or defense. The powder was
put on board the governor’s ship.
The people demanded the return of the powder to Williamsburg.
Dunmore became alarmed when Patrick Henry marched at the head of his
volunteers toward the Capitol to capture the powder. Arriving at
Great Bridge, the first conflict took place between the English and
the colonists.
Dunmore kept the powder, but ordered the Receiver General to pay its
full value, which sum Patrick Henry turned into the public treasury.
The closing of the port of Boston caused great indignation throughout
the land; memorable resolutions were introduced by George Mason, and
were adopted by the Assembly.
Jefferson truly said, “The closing of the port of Boston acted as an
electric shock, placing every man in Virginia on his feet.”
Patrick Henry was warmly supported by the Rev. Muhlenberg, who had
been quietly working among his people. A meeting of patriots was
called in the assembly room of the old Apollo Tavern at Williamsburg,
where delegates were appointed to meet in Fairfax County, where a
convention was determined upon. Muhlenberg was chosen colonel of
the Eighth Regiment, he and Henry being the only civilians of the
Virginia line to whom regiments were assigned.
Muhlenberg was at this time only twenty-nine years of age. His
well-known character gave the convention confidence that he was
worthy of the trust.
Hence he abandoned the altar for the sword. His people were scattered
miles along the frontier of Virginia, but the news spread like fire,
and the Sunday he was to preach his last sermon the rude country
church could not hold the tenth of them. The surrounding woods were
filled with people, horses and every sort of vehicle. It was a scene
long depicted in their memories and oft told to their descendants
until every schoolboy is familiar with the story.
The decided step was taken by their pastor; the exciting times called
forth the highest feelings in man, the love of country! Patriotism!
and “Liberty or death!” was the cry.
They needed but the spark to burst into flame and needless to say he
supplied the flint and tinder to kindle that spark.
His concluding words were:
“There is a time for everything, a time to preach and a
time to pray, but that time has passed away. There is a
time to fight, and that time has now come.”
He pronounced the benediction, and, turning back his robe, appeared
in martial array, his soldierly form clad in the uniform of a colonel.
The scene beggars description and has no parallel in history.
The people flocked around him, eager to be ranked among his followers.
The drummers struck up for volunteers and over 300 enlisted that day.
Throughout the war for independence General Washington depended on
him to recruit the army in Virginia, which he never failed to do
under the most trying circumstances; men seemed to spring up like
mushrooms when he needed them to replenish his oft depleted ranks.
Lord Dunmore was ravishing the country; Colonel Muhlenberg followed
closely on his heels. Dunmore built Great Bridge and took up quarters
in Norfolk; finding himself closely hemmed in, he burned the town,
then one of the finest cities in the South, for which act he was
severely criticized by the British. After his defeat he took refuge
in Portsmouth, still holding command of the sea, harrowing the
people, destroying property, until, finding his quarters too hot, he
hurriedly set sail for Grogans Island in the bay. Gen. Andrew Lewis
drove him from there, and he sailed for New York, and soon after
returned to England.
The North now claimed the attention and eager eyes were watching
there, the South resting comparatively quiet.
At this time General Clinton marched South, Ben. Lee following
closely in his tracks, arriving at Williamsburg March 29, 1776, just
twelve days after the surrender of Boston.
Colonel Muhlenberg had been in command at Suffolk. He now joined
General Lee, with him following up Clinton to South Carolina. This
led on to the battle of Sullivan’s Island, and Charleston, which was
so disastrous to the enemy they returned at once to New York.
General Lee, in his official report, says:
“I know not which corps I have the greatest reason to be pleased
with, Colonel Muhlenberg’s Virginians or the North Carolina troops;
both are equally alert, zealous and spirited.”
These, too, were raw recruits which drew such praise from the finest
military critic of the day.
It was well indeed for Muhlenberg to have such praise, for the usual
jealousies, bickering and wrongly placed commendations followed him
throughout the war, but his keen sense of duty, his noble Christian
spirit ever made him forget self and kept him above petty strife
throughout the long and bitter struggle.
At the battles of Brandywine and Germantown Muhlenberg’s troops were
ever foremost in action, and the one regiment which used the bayonet.
They had no words of commendation above the other regiments from
their commander. Yet the English spoke highly of their daring and
bravery. Riding at the rear of his brigade, it being the last in
retreat, his tired horse was too jaded to jump a fence, and he, after
many weary hours in the saddle, worn with fatigue, was aroused by a
ball whistling past his head and the cry running along the enemy’s
line: “Pick off that officer on the white horse!” The general turned
and saw a young officer single him out, only waiting for a musket,
which was being loaded for him, to shoot. He drew his pistol and
though at some distance, shot him through the head.
General Washington chose General Muhlenberg to be with him in that
terrible winter at Valley Forge. His troops were stationed along
the river, in consequence, nearer the British and in more exposed
condition from both cold and the enemy.
His intrepid valor and endurance seemed to communicate to his
soldiers, who were frequently throughout the campaign without tents,
clothing or food sufficient to maintain life, and when their time
of enlistment was up would return to their homes in wretched rags,
be clothed by loving hands from the fruit of domestic looms and, at
their beloved commander’s request, return and take up the burden of
war again.
His parents resided at Trappe, not far from Valley Forge, and he
sometimes rode off alone at night to visit them, returning by early
dawn. He several times narrowly escaped capture.
In 1777 he was promoted to the rank of brigadier general.
He was often called from Virginia, the base of his actions, to assist
Washington at other points when that wise head needed a strong hand.
In 1779, after one of those hard marches and months of labor, after
an absence of three years from his family, while on his way home to
a much-needed rest, he was ordered to Richmond and in the time of
Virginia’s direst need was put at the head of all forces needed for
her defense.
The enemy who said, “The root of all resistance lies in the
Commonwealth of Virginia and must be destroyed.”
So the Americans considered it most important to be defended. The
advance of General Gates was already decided upon, but without the
help of the organized troops and supplies it could not be done.
And Muhlenberg was again called on to collect recruits. This was
no trifling task, as the militia were scattered and unpaid; but it
required a man of great military skill and personal influence to
fulfill this mission.
His whole force, with the exception of one regiment at Fort Pitt,
were prisoners at Charleston, which had been recaptured by Clinton in
May, 1780. Virginia now became the seat of war. A fleet sailed up the
James, ravaging with fire and sword.
Illustration: MAJ. GEN. PETER MUHLENBERG
General Muhlenberg began his march to meet them with 800 raw
recruits, urging his officers to lose no opportunity to instruct and
fit them for the oncoming struggle. He sent Generals Gregory and
Benbury to Great Bridge, and as soon as he received reinforcements he
advanced upon Portsmouth and drove the enemy in, so harrassing them
that they were forced to withdraw, and embarked for New York. This
repulse of their boasted descent in Virginia proved very humiliating.
The enemy being withdrawn, Governor Jefferson, with his economic
views, saw fit to disband the troops. After they were disbanded
General Muhlenberg’s command was about 1,000, of which General
Green detached 400 for the Southern army, leaving Virginia in this
defenseless condition at a most critical time, as General Phillips’
invasion with 2,200 and Benedict Arnold’s with 2,000 landed at
Portsmouth January 2, 1781. At the death of General Phillips, Arnold
took command; then sailed up the James to Richmond, desolating the
country. A bloody record on the page of history.
After driving Governor Jefferson from his capital at Richmond,
General Steuben, being the only force at hand, was not able to attack
or resist this onslaught.
Arnold sailed down the tortuous James and fell back to Portsmouth,
where he strongly intrenched himself, threatening to give the rebels
such a blow as would shake the whole continent. General Greene
returned to Virginia, and, with General Steuben, began to collect
forces and supplies, leaving Muhlenberg to watch Arnold and keep him
from further depredations.
There was a project set on foot to capture Arnold personally.
“Conscience makes cowards of us all,” so he who had once been brave
and fearless surrounded himself with a trusty guard day and night.
The attempt proved futile, as it had in New York.
A detachment of the fleet under M. de Lilly arriving at this time
gave General Muhlenberg great hopes of capturing the traitor. All
plans were made, but the French commander deemed the Elizabeth River
too shallow for his boats, and just as they were well on the eve of
accomplishing this greatly desired object M. de Lilly set sail for
Newport, thus dashing the revived hopes of General Muhlenberg, who
had set himself to capture the traitor.
The importance of capturing Arnold and dislodging the enemy in
Virginia was deeply felt by Washington, and he urged on his officers
to leave no means untried to accomplish that purpose. He induced
Admiral Detouches to set sail for the Chesapeake, and the Marquis
de Lafayette was dispatched with 1,200 of the continental line to
co-operate with the fleet and take command in Virginia.
General Muhlenberg and General Gregory, with a reinforcement of 800
men, were in charge at West Landing.
Matters were now hastening on to the near close of hostilities.
Lafayette was in command in Virginia, and Muhlenberg, as usual, was
taking a heavy hand at the game.
Cornwallis was being hemmed in at Yorktown, and Muhlenberg was put
in command of the advance guard, which required the utmost military
skill and tact, for had Cornwallis attempted to escape the whole
weight of the battle would have fallen on this line, and no doubt
would have proved fatal by overwhelming numbers.
The British commander waited in vain for help from without, and was
at last compelled to surrender on that memorable day, October 12,
1781, at Yorktown.
General Muhlenberg continued in the army until the treaty of peace
in 1783. The trusted warm friend of General Washington, who had ever
relied on him to add to the volunteers in recruiting the army at
the briefest possible notice since the first volunteers the day he
forsook the altar for the sword.
After the treaty of peace had been signed at Versailles he retired
to a much-needed rest in the bosom of his family, where he found his
home had suffered severely from the misfortunes of war.
Himself broken in health and fortune, but happy in the consciousness
of a duty well done, he could say with Baron Steuben, “If we win the
great prize we fight for the struggle cannot be too great.”
His former congregation implored him to return and take up his
pastoral duties among them, but he said: “It would never do to mount
the parson after the soldier.”
He was then called to serve the political side of his country, and
was elected to Congress in 1789, and served in that capacity until
1801. His brother was elected the first Speaker of the House of
Representatives.
In 1801 he was elected Senator, and in 1803 he was appointed
collector of the port of Philadelphia. Until the day of his death he
served his country with honor and distinction.
The Luthern Church in which Muhlenberg preached was torn down about
seventy-five years ago.
There is a house in Woodstock, on North Main Street, partly built
of the logs from the old church. On the site of the old church has
been erected an Episcopal church. As Muhlenberg had taken Episcopal
orders, they claim him, as well as the cemetery, which they have sold
in lots. A Presbyterian Church and chapel and several business houses
are on this lot.
One of the oldest citizens, now eighty-four years of age, says he
remembers well the old pulpit, which stood upon the lot some years
after the church had been torn down.
The house in which Muhlenberg lived, and in which tradition says he
entertained General Washington, was torn down about twelve years ago.
=Nagel, Charles.=--Secretary of Commerce and Labor under President
Taft, 1909-13. Born in Colorado County, Texas, August 9, 1849, son of
Hermann and Friedericke (Litzmann) N. Prominent lawyer, resident in
St. Louis. Studied Roman law, political economy, etc., University of
Berlin, 1873; (LL.D. Brown U., 1913, also Villanova U., Pa. and Wash.
U., St. Louis). Admitted to bar 1873; lecturer St. Louis Law School,
1885-09. Member Missouri House of Representatives, 1881-3; president
St. Louis City Council, 1893-7; member Republican National Committee
1908-12. Trustee Washington U., St. Louis.
=Nast, Thomas.=--America’s foremost political cartoonist, originator
of the Elephant, the Donkey and the Tiger as symbols for the
Republican, Democratic and Tammany organizations, whom Lincoln,
Grant, Mark Twain delighted to honor as their guest, the critic
whose broadsides shattered the careers of hosts of political crooks
and swindlers, the patriot whose faithful service won support for
the cause of the country. One of the greatest fighters for truth
and decency known in American history. He it was who took up the
cudgel single handed against the Tweed Ring, the gang that stole
four hundred millions from the New York City treasury, who answered
a banker’s offer of a half million bribe with the answer: “I made up
my mind not long ago to put some of those fellows behind the bars,
and I am going to do it.” He did it at the peril of his life. His
cartoons roused the public conscience and prodded the police into
action. Boss Tweed, the looter chief, called out in despair: “Let’s
stop them damned pictures. I don’t care so much what the papers write
about me--my constituents can’t read; but, damn it, they can see
pictures!” The pitiless cartooning of Nast finally broke up the gang,
with most of them ending in jail. During the Civil War his cartoons
roused the nation as nothing else. When Grant was asked what man in
civil life had done the best work for America, he answered: “Thomas
Nast. He did as much as any man to save the Union and bring the war
to an end.” This he did by his cartoons in “Harper’s” that carried
messages of cheer and patriotism to the humblest cottages in the
prairie. Thousands of recruits were won for the Northern cause by
the simple patriotism of Nast’s cartoons. His work proved a treasure
trove, during the present war, for pilfering cartoonists, who lifted
copies bodily from the old volumes of “Harper’s.” Nast was born in
1840 at Landau, Bavaria. His great work in the end was ill rewarded,
for having been sent to fill the consulate in Ecuador, he lost his
life through fever contracted in the service of his country.
=National Security League.=--An organization of active patriots who,
with the American Defense Society and the American Protective League,
spread rapidly to all parts of the country during the war to report
acts of disloyalty and soon became synonymous with repression and
terror. It ultimately took on a political character and with its
backing of men interested in war contracts and general profiteering,
started in to defeat the re-election to Congress of members who
had not voted “right.” At the instance of Representative Frear of
Wisconsin, a special Congressional committee was appointed and the
officers and members were summoned to appear before the committee
to give testimony. The investigation revealed the fact that the
secretary of the League had been a Washington lobbyist and that its
backers comprised a group of financiers and heads of trusts who were
using the organization to intimidate or defeat members of the House
who did not vote as they were expected to vote on war measures. The
list was a long one, but included J. P. Morgan, John D. Rockefeller,
Nicholas F. Grady, director of fifty large corporations interested
in war profits; H. C. Frick, of the United States Steel Corporation;
Arthur Custis James, of the Phelps-Dodge Company; Mortimer L. and
Jacob Schiff, H. H. Rogers, of the Amalgamated and Anaconda Copper
Companies; Charles Hayden, representing twenty-six corporations;
the Guggenheimers, Cleveland H. Dodge, William Hamlin and Eversley
Childs, W. K. and E. W. Vanderbilt, George W. Perkins, Clarence H.
Mackay, T. Coleman Dupont, the powder king, and many others. Among
the officers of the League were the late Col. Theodore Roosevelt and
Elihu Root.
Most of these names were connected with the $2,000,000 fund
subscribed, contrary to the laws of the State of New York, to
re-elect John Purroy Mitchel mayor of New York in November, 1917.
The scandal formed the subject of an investigation by the District
Attorney for the southern district of New York, and Assistant
District Attorney Kilroe told the reporters that at a luncheon given
by Cleveland H. Dodge during the campaign to a group of millionaires
one of the participants declared: “The patriotic issue of the
campaign is not doing as well as expected,” and that one member at
the luncheon said: “If between that date and the election a terrible
catastrophe happened to the American forces it would insure Mitchel’s
election--a catastrophe such as the sinking of a transport.”
Mitchel’s campaign was conducted on a purely alarmist platform,
in which the Kaiser was represented as having his whole attention
concentrated on whether Mitchel, the patriot, or Hylan, accused of
disloyalty and pro-Germanism, would be elected; but Mitchel was
buried under an avalanche of votes.
Testifying before the Congressional investigating committee,
Representative Cooper, of Wisconsin, declared: “This organization is
financed by corporations worth hundreds of millions of dollars, and
can hire college professors and secure publication in the newspapers
of articles designed to deliberately mislead public opinion,” and,
referring to the denial of Elihu Root and other officials of the
organization that it had engaged in politics, he said: “If they
are willing to testify under oath, in public, so foolishly, there
is nothing they will not do in secret to serve the great, powerful
corporations which they represent.” Representative Reavis read into
the record a statement that 40 per cent. of the league’s “honor roll”
of forty-seven Representatives voted against measures which would
have made the big interests receiving tremendous war profits bear
their burden of war expenses. All of those who voted for the McLemore
resolution, against war and against the Julius Kahn conscription bill
were put down in a “disloyalty chart,” and large sums were expended
to defeat them.
S. Stanwood Menken, an early president of the league, in his
testimony stated that he favored an American navy which, combined
with that of Great Britain, would “surpass any other two-power navy
in the world,” but that, on the other hand, “he favored a reduction
of armaments.”
The succeeding president of the league, Charles D. Orth, was forced
to admit that in publishing the league’s Congressional “disloyalty
chart” he had conveyed a false impression by recording the vote on
the McLemore resolution as on the merits of the resolution instead
of on the vote to table it. There were innumerable other counts
against the league. One was that it sent its literature to 1,400
newspapers and then read what these newspapers printed in arriving at
the opinion of “the great majority of the people.” In other words,
they first circulated the opinion and then accepted it as that of the
people. Orth was asked if there was any good sound American stock in
Illinois.
“There surely is,” he answered.
“Then how do you reconcile that with the fact that the men who voted
against war were returned to Congress with an overwhelming majority?”
he was asked by Representative Saunders, but failed to reply.
Among the activities of this league was that of dictating the things
to be taught in the public schools. In New York $50,000,000 is
annually spent for the public school system, raised by taxes paid
by all the people, and the schools should represent the people who
pay for them. A New York paper of April 4, 1919, in an editorial,
said: “It has been shown during the past few days that a course
of economics has been adopted by our educators under the tutelage
of an outside body. This outside body is the National Security
League, an organization financed by the big war profiteers, whose
political activity in connection with the last Congressional election
constituted a grave scandal.”
The Congressional committee on March 3, 1919, filed a report
arraigning the Security League, calling it “a menace to
representative government,” “conceived in London,” “nursed to power
by foreign interests,” “used in elections by same interests,”
and revealing “the hands of Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, Morgan, du
Pont, suggesting steel, oil, money bags, Russian bonds, rifles and
radicals.”
In regard to Frederic C. Coudert, a prominent New York lawyer, one of
the league’s leading lights, Mr. Menken testified that he represented
Great Britain, France and Russia in international matters and is
counsel for the British ambassador.
The originator of the league was S. Stanwood Menken, who testified
that he conceived the idea while listening to a debate in the House
of Commons on August 5, 1914. He is a member of the firm of Beekman,
Menken & Griscom, New York lawyers, who represent a large number of
corporations controlling railways and public utilities; also the
Liverpool, London and Globe insurance companies, which proceeded
early in the war to force the German insurance companies out of
business. The firm also represents “some sugar companies and also the
Penn-Seaboard Steel Company.”
Charles D. Orth is a member of a New York firm dealing in sisal,
from which farmers’ binding twine is made, and testified before a
Senate investigating committee that he had been engaged in forming a
combination to increase the price of this product. His firm had an
office in London and he traveled all over Europe in the interest of
his sisal business.
All the heavy subscribers were shown to be men making millions in war
profits and interested in silencing every voice raised to criticise
the conduct of the war. Through the activity of this organization,
pacifists everywhere were denounced and cast into jail. What
baneful influence it was able to exercise is apparent. The Carnegie
Corporation--Andrew Carnegie, president; Elihu Root, vice-president,
holdings in United States Steel Corporation, with income over
$6,000,000--contributed $150,000 to the league. The investigation
showed that the organization had expended the following sums:
July 8, 1915, to December 31, 1915 $ 38,191.59
January 1, 1916, to December 31, 1916 94,840.43
January 1, 1917, to December 31, 1917 111,324.59
January 1, 1918, to December 31, 1918 235,667.56
-----------
$480,014.17
=Neutrality--“The Best Practices of Nations.”=--President Wilson’s
message to Congress in August, 1913:
“For the rest I deem it my duty to exercise the authority conferred
upon me by the law of March 14, 1912, to see to it that neither side
of the struggle now going on in Mexico receive any assistance from
this side of the border. =I shall follow the best practise of nations
in the matter of neutrality by forbidding the exportation of arms
and munitions of war of any kind from the United States=--a policy
suggested by several interesting precedents, and certainly dictated
by many manifest considerations of practical expediency. We cannot
in the circumstances be the partisans of either party to the contest
that now distracts Mexico, or constitute ourselves the virtual umpire
between them.”
=New Ulm Massacre.=--New Ulm, a settlement of Germans in Minnesota,
was August 18, 1862, attacked by Sioux Indians, who in resentment
of their ill treatment by Government agents and for the non-arrival
of their annuities from Washington, took advantage of the fact that
many of the male white population had departed for the war and left
the homes unprotected. The Indians adopted the ruse of entering the
houses of settlers under pretext of begging or trading for bread.
Not suspecting any treachery, they were admitted as usual, and in
an instant turned upon the friendly Germans and murdered upward of
seventy men, women and children. A squad of Germans, who were using
wagons with banners, headed by a band, to recruit for the Union army
along the frontier, were fired upon from ambush and several killed,
seven miles from New Ulm. The men were able to effect their retreat
and to alarm the countryside, while soon the smoke rising from ruined
homes was apprising the settlers in every direction of the occurrence
of extraordinary events and to hasten them into the town for common
protection. The next morning, Tuesday, August 19, the Indians were
roving in every direction throughout the neighborhood; and appearing
before the town, opened an attack on the outposts stationed west and
southwest of the settlement. Ill equipped for such engagement, the
men fell back, with the Indians forcing their way into the center of
the town, where the fighting continued until nightfall, many on both
sides giving up their lives in the fierce battle. On the following
morning the Indians had disappeared in order to surprise the small
garrison at Fort Ridgely and destroy it preparatory to a campaign of
murder and rapine along the Minnesota Valley. Meantime reinforcements
arrived from Mankato and St. Peter, 30 miles distant, and from Le
Sueur, still more remote. But the garrison held out, and strongly
reinforced and greatly embittered the Indians again marched upon
New Ulm, driving everything in their way and evidently determined
to destroy every homestead in the village, which was soon a mass of
flames. On August 23 the whites succeeded in barricading themselves
on a small area of ground, where they were in a better position to
continue the uneven struggle. The fighting was not interrupted until
nightfall, and was resumed the next morning, which was Sunday. After
several hours of fierce fighting the Indians realized that they
were at a disadvantage, and learning from their scouts that strong
reinforcements were on the way, abandoned the siege. A number of
families had either wholly or partly perished and 178 homes had been
destroyed. A train of 150 wagons carried the survivors, including
56 wounded and sick, to Mankato and St. Peter, comparatively few
returning to New Ulm, many scattering throughout the State to begin
life over again. The innocent Germans had thus paid the penalty of
crimes committed by others who were permitted to profit by their
fraudulent treatment of the Indians.
=Lord Northcliffe Controls American Papers.=--Lord Northcliffe
not only owns the London “Times,” “Mail” and “Evening News,” but
the Paris “Mail.” He also owns an important share of stock in the
Paris “Matin” and the St. Petersburg “Novoje Vremja.” His influence
in American journalism has long been known, and J. P. O’Mahoney,
editor of “The Indiana Catholic and Record,” in a statement in the
Indianapolis “Star,” directly charged Lord Northcliffe with owning
and controlling eighteen very successful American papers in order to
use them against the best interests of the American people and in the
interest of Great Britain. With many of the leading newspapers under
the control of a foreign publisher it is not difficult to account for
the persistent misrepresentation of German policies and motives, and
for the general bias of so many of the leading papers in the East.
The following is the extract from Mr. O’Mahoney’s statement referred
to as printed in the Indianapolis “Star” early in 1916.
“Talking about foreign propaganda in our midst, Lord Northcliffe
(then Sir Arthur Harmsworth), told the writer in an interview in the
Walton Hotel, Philadelphia, in April, 1900:
“‘=The syndicate of which I am head owns or controls eighteen very
successful American papers in your leading cities.= We find the
American service they send us very satisfactory, and we, of course,
furnish them with our great European service. As you see, I am not
here on pleasure only, but on business.’
“When asked to name the papers ‘owned and controlled,’ the big,
brainy, handsome Englishman cleverly ’sidestepped.’
“Now, if eighteen or more leading papers are owned and controlled
in England, is it a wonder that the ‘German plots in the United
States’ are being ‘played up,’ and the English plots in the United
States hushed up? Is it surprising that the people, through the news
service, get only the English side of the news?”
=Osterhaus, Peter Joseph.=--Regarded by some critics the foremost
German commander in the Union army, called by the Confederates “the
American Bayard.” He attained the rank of major general and corps
commander. Born in Coblenz in 1823. Served as a one-year volunteer
in the Prussian army at Coblenz and rose to the rank of an officer
of reserves. He participated in the German revolution and fled to
America, settling at Belleville, Ill., and St. Louis. In 1861, at the
outbreak of the war, he enlisted as a private in the Third German
Regiment of Missouri. He soon was appointed major of the regiment and
later was made colonel of the Twelfth Missouri (German) Regiment,
rising to brigadier general in January, 1863, and to major general
after distinguished service at Chattanooga in the same year. On
September 23, 1864, he was given command of the Fifteenth Army Corps,
which he commanded in Sherman’s march to the sea.
He retired January 16, 1866, after continuous service for five years,
rising from the pike to the highest command, never deserting the
Union flag for a day, fighting thirty-four battles without losing
one where he was in independent command. He lived to see the first
year or two of the World War, residing at the age of ninety with a
married daughter at Duisberg in the Rhinelands. His services to the
Union were forgotten and his pension was cut off. Rear Admiral Hugo
Osterhaus, retired in 1913, is his son. He was born in Belleville,
June 15, 1851, and resides in Washington.
=Palatine Declaration of Independence.=--The history of the Tryon
County Committee, identified as it is with the events in New York
State immediately preceding the Revolution and throughout the latter,
and commemorating as it does the name of General Herkimer, is the
more interesting for being probably the first, and surely among the
first, to make a declaration of independence in anticipation of the
formal Congressional announcement of the break with Great Britain of
July 4, 1776. The claim of priority is conceded by William L. Stone
in his work on the “Life of Joseph Brant-Thayendanegea,” (1830) the
Indian chief who proved himself the scourge of the New York and
Pennsylvania frontier settlers. Stone in Volume I, p. 67, says:
It is here worthy, not only of special note, but of all
admiration, how completely and entirely these border-men
held themselves amenable, in the most trying exigencies,
to the just execution of the laws. Throughout all their
proceedings, the history of the Tryon Committees will
show that they were governed by the purest dictates of
patriotism, and the highest regard to moral principle.
Unlike the rude inhabitants of most frontier settlements,
=especially under circumstances when the magistracy are,
from necessity, almost powerless, the frontier patriots
of Tryon County were scrupulous in their devotion to the
supremacy of the laws. Their leading men were likewise
distinguished for their intelligence; and while North
Carolina is disputing whether she did not in fact utter a
declaration of independence before it was done by Congress,
by recurring to the first declaration of the Palatine
Committee, noted in its proper place, the example may
almost be said to have proceeded from the Valley of the
Mohawk.=
“The Minute Book of the Committee of Safety of Tryon County, the Old
New York Frontier” (New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1905), contains the
minutes of the meeting at which this German American Declaration
of Independence was adopted. The names, reduced to their German
originals, leave no doubt of the racial character of the majority of
the members. The declaration adopted August 27, 1774, begins with
these words:
Whereas the British Parliament has lately passed an Act
for raising a Revenue in America without the consent
of our Representatives to abridging the liberties and
privileges of the American Colonies and therefore blocking
up the Port of Boston, the Freeholders and Inhabitants of
Palatine District in the County of Tryon aforesaid, looking
with Concern and heartfelt Sorrow on these Alarming and
calamitous conditions, Do meet this 27th day of August,
1774, on that purpose at the house of Adam Loucks, Esq.,
(Lux) at Stonearabia and concluded the Resolves following,
vizt.
King George is acknowledged the lawful sovereign, but
3. That we think it is our undeniable privilege to be
taxed only with our Consent, given by ourselves (or by our
Representatives). That Taxes otherwise laid and exacted
are unjust and unconstitutional. That the late Acts of
Parliament declarative of their Rights of laying internal
Taxes on the American Colonies are obvious Incroachments on
the Rights and Liberties of the British subjects in America.
Sympathy is expressed with the people of Boston, “whom we consider
brethren suffering in the Common Cause,” and that “we think the
sending of Delegates from the different Colonies to a general
continental Congress is a salutary measure necessary at this alarming
Crisis,” etc.
Section 5 of a resolution adopted nine months later, at a meeting of
the Palatine Committee, May 21, 1775, expresses the declaration in
even more specific form, as follows:
That as we abhor a state of slavery, we do Join and unite
together under all the ties of religion, honor, justice
and love for our countrymen never to become slaves, and to
defend our freedom with our lives and fortunes.
Of the 71 names attached to the declaration, 48 were distinctly
German, and six Dutch or Low German. Some of the names appear in
their anglicised form in the minutes, due to clerical errors and
gross indifference of their bearers; but their identification is
based on the careful researches of Friedrich Kapp, the historian
of the German element in New York, and others. Fuchs was changed
into Fox, Teichert into Tygart and Klock into Clock. The change
was also due to an inherent desire to hide the German origin of
the names which assume such important historical value. That the
writing of Loucks for Lux was an error is proved by the discovery
that a descendant of the same family, one Adam Lux, played quite an
important part in the Baden revolution of 1849, while descendants of
the Petrie family are living today in Wurtemberg, Germany. The list
of 54 German signers (inclusive of the Hollanders or Low Germans) is
as follows:
Adam Lux, Johann Frey, Major; Andreas Finck, Jr., Major; Andreas
Reiber, Peter Wagner, Lieutenant-Colonel; Johann Jacob Karl Klock,
Colonel; George Ecker, Nikolaus Herckheimer, Major-General; Wilhelm
Sieber, Major; Johann Pickert, Ensign; Edward Wall, Wilhelm Petrie,
Surgeon; Jacob Weber, Markus Petrie, Lieutenant; Johann Petrie,
George Wentz, Lieutenant; Johann Frank, Philipp Fuchs, Friedrich
Fuchs, Christoph Fuchs, Adjutant; August Hess, Michel Illig,
Captain; Friedrich Ahrendorf, George Herckheimer, Captain; Werner
Teichert, Lorenz Zimmermann, Peter Bellinger, Lieutenant-Colonel;
Johann Demuth, Adjutant; Wilhelm Fuchs, Christian Nellis, Heinrich
Nellis, Heinrich Harter, Hanjost Schumacher, Major; Isaak Paris,
(Elsaesser) Heinrich Heintz, Friedrich Fischer, Colonel; Johann
Klock, Lieutenant; Jacob James Klock, Major; Volker Vedder,
Lieutenant-Colonel; Fried. Hellmer, Captain; Rudolph Schuhmacher,
Hanjost Herckheimer, Colonel; Johann Eisenlord, Captain; Friedrich
Bellinger, Adam Bellinger, Second Lieutenant; Johann Keyser, First
Lieutenant; Johann Bliven, Major; Wilhelm Fuchs, Lieutenant.
Samuel Ten Broeck, Major; Antoon van Fechten, Adjutant; Harmanus van
Slyck, Major; Abraham van Horn, Quartermaster; Willem Schuyler, Gose
van Alstijn.
=Franz Daniel Pastorius and German, Dutch and English
Colonization.=--What the Mayflower is to the Puritans, the Concord is
to the descendants of the Germans who were among the pioneer settlers
of America. It was this vessel that bore to American shores the first
compact German band of immigrants, under the leadership of Franz
Daniel Pastorius.
While the first Dutch settlement, that of Manhattan Island, or New
York, was founded in 1614, and that of Plymouth by the Puritans in
1620, that of Germantown, Pennsylvania, occurred in 1683, although
long prior to that date Germans in large numbers were settled in the
New World, and there is evidence that there were Germans among the
Jamestown pioneers and those of the Massachusetts Bay colony.
But German immigration is reckoned to have begun with the arrival
of thirteen families from Crefeld under Pastorius. They embarked
July 24, 1683, on the Concord, and arrived October 6, 1683, in
Philadelphia.
Pastorius was born September 26, 1651, at Sommernhausen Franconia,
studied law and lived in Frankfort-on-the-Main. By the so-called
Germantown patent he acquired 5,350 acres near Philadelphia from
William Penn and founded Germantown. Acting for a company of Germans
and Hollanders, 22,377 additional acres were acquired under the
Manatauney Patent. Germantown was laid out October 24, 1685. (See
“Germantown Settlement.”)
The principal occupation of the settlers was textile industry,
farming and the establishment of vineyards. Pastorius was elected
mayor in 1688 and the next year the town was incorporated. In 1688
Pastorius and others issued a judicial protest against slavery. He
became a member of the Philadelphia school-board, twice was elected
to the Assembly and also acted as magistrate.
Three famous families issued from this settlement. The Rittenhausens,
who established the first flour and the first paper mill in America
and from whom was descended the great astronomer, Rittenhouse;
the Gottfrieds, from whom descended Godfrey, the inventor of the
quadrant, and the Sauers, of whom Christopher Sauer attained fame as
a printer.
There is some analogy between the Puritans and the Crefeld colony in
that they were strongly religious bodies, and of the plain people,
though the Germans, unlike the Pilgrims, were not forced to leave
their native country by intolerable conditions of oppression and
bigotry. Another notable incident is the fact that the Pilgrims
brought over the political ideas of Holland rather than of
England, as they had lived in Holland for twelve years, exiled for
conscience’s sake, earning their bread in a foreign land by the labor
of their hands.
King James had declared of the Puritans: “I will make them conform,
or I will harry them out of the land.” Their long residence in
Holland influenced their future politically, if not in the direction
of tolerance, since those who joined them soon practised in America
the oppression on their fellows which they had left England to escape.
Dr. William Elliot Griffis agrees with Lowell “that we are worth
nothing except so far as we have disinfected ourselves of Anglicism.”
Dr. Griffis says that the Dutch settlers of that period, a period
when England, even down to 1752, was in her calendar, like Russia
today, eleven days behind the rest of the world, “brought with them
something else than what Washington Irving credits them with. They
had schools and schoolmasters, ministers and churches, the best
kind of land laws, with the registration of deeds and mortgages,
toleration, the habit of treating the Indian as a man, the written
ballot, the village community of free men, and an inextinguishable
love of liberty were theirs. =They originated on American soil many
things, usually credited to the Puritans of New England, but which
the English rule abolished.= They, however who remained, assisted
by Huguenot, Scotchman and German, though in a conquered province,
fought the battle of constitutional liberty against the royal
governors of New York night and day, and inch by inch, until, in the
noble State constitution of 1778, the victory of 1648 was re-echoed.”
New York he contends, “is less the fruit of English than of Teutonic
civilization.” It was the institutions of Holland, not only directly,
but through the medium of the Puritans, that influenced the shaping
of those policies which are known as American. “They say we are
an English nation,” writes Dr. Griffis in a paper read before the
Congregational Club of Boston in 1891, “and they attempt to derive
our institutions from England, notwithstanding that our institutions
which are most truly American were never in England. The story of
Holland’s direct influence on the English-speaking world is an
omitted chapter.”
While the Puritans were persecuting those who did not share their
narrow views of heaven, setting up blue laws and the stocks,
manufacturing iron manacles for the slave trade, and enriching
themselves at the expense of the Indians, the Pastorius settlement
was spreading the light of intelligence and impressing its stamp upon
the American character in a different manner. “Here was raised the
first ecclesiastical protest against slavery,” writes Dr. Griffis,
“and here the first book condemning it was written. Here, also,
was printed the first Bible in a European tongue (German), the
first treaties on the philosophy of education, the largest and most
sumptuous piece of colonial printing; and here was the first literary
center and woman’s college established in America. Pennsylvania led
off in establishing the freedom of the press (John Peter Zenger), in
reform of criminal law, in reform of prisons, in awarding to accused
persons the right of counsel for defense. In not a few features now
deemed peculiarly American, besides that of honoring the Lord’s
day, the State founded by William Penn is the land of first things,
and the shining example. Well, who was William Penn?” continues
the writer. “He was the son of a Dutch mother, Margaret Jasper, of
Rotterdam. Dutch was his native tongue, as well as English.”
With the greater part of these civic virtues we find the Crefeld
settlement closely identified as well as the Dutch--and therefore
Germanic, in contrast to the Anglo-Saxon--influence, for Pastorius
himself was the author of the first protest against slavery on
American soil. To this historic pioneer a monument was to be erected
in 1917 at Germantown. The statue by Albert Jaegers, sculptor of
Steuben in Lafayette Park, Washington, was ready for unveiling
in that year but boarded up, as the war between Germany and the
United States had been proclaimed in the meantime. For many months
a systematic agitation was conducted by certain pseudo-patriotic
societies to prevent the unveiling of the monument, on the ground
that it was designed to serve pro-German propaganda; the proposition
was made to destroy it and fill its place with cannons captured
from the Germans by troops, including men from Germantown. Among
those so agitating were the Germantown Federation, Junior Order
United American Mechanics, the Order of Independent Americans, the
Stonemen’s Fellowship, the Patriotic Order Sons of America, the Sons
of Veterans, the Loyal Orange Lodge No. 39, the Fraternal Patriotic
Americans, and others. Petitions and resolutions of protest were
addressed to Representative J. Hampton Moore, to whose efforts
was due the appropriation of $25,000 for the monument, to Senator
Penrose and to the Secretary of War, under whose jurisdiction are
all monuments built at the expense of the people. The leader of the
campaign was one Raymond O. Bliss. This was not in the heat of the
war excitement, but in November, 1919, a year after the armistice had
been signed.
Comment is hardly necessary. It almost seems that it is deliberately
desired to deny recognition to any American historical character
not of English origin, for in Pastorius is embodied one of the
strongest spirits that reacted upon the education, refinement
and spiritual life of the American people; the protest against
human slavery--slavery for which the Puritans were forging the
shackles--adopted by the conference of German Quakers, April 18,
1688, is in the handwriting of Pastorius. A better understanding of
him and his little band was entertained by John Greenleaf Whittier,
when he wrote his “lines on reading the message of Governor Ritner of
Pennsylvania, in 1836:”
And that bold-hearted yeomanry, honest and true,
Who, haters of fraud, give to labor its due;
Whose fathers of old sang in concert with thine,
On the banks of Swatara, the songs of the Rhine,--
The German-born pilgrims, who first dared to brave
The scorn of the proud in the cause of the slave:--* * *
They cater to tyrants? They rivet the chain,
Which their fathers smote off, on the negro again?
The American author, E. Bettle, in “Notices of Negro Slavery in
America,” says of the above body of men and their action: “To this
body of humble, unpretending and almost unnoticed philanthropists
belongs the honor of having been the first association who ever
remonstrated against negro slavery.”
Though disapproving their habits of drinking and hearty feasting at
weddings and funerals, Dr. Rush, in his “Essays, Literary, Moral and
Philosophical,” page 220, says: “If they possess less refinement than
their Southern neighbors, who cultivate their land with slaves, they
possess also more republican virtue.” They introduced glass-blowing
and iron manufacture as early as colonial conditions would allow,
and the establishment of the first iron foundry in America was the
work of Baron Stiegel. They confuted Franklin’s fear of their growing
influence in determining the policy of the province by responding as
ardently to the call of patriotism in 1775-76 as Massachusetts.
The German newspaper in Philadelphia, the “Staatsbote,” published by
Henry Miller--later the official printer of Congress--was one of the
papers that fanned the flames of rebellion. It was read as far as the
Valley of Virginia. The edition of March 19, 1776, contains an appeal
to the Germans beginning: “Remember that your forefathers immigrated
to America to escape bondage and to enjoy liberty.” (Virginia
Magazine, vol. x, pp. 45 ff.)
History is strangely silent about any similar intellectual and
cultural currents emanating from the English settlements of the early
period, though latterly giving birth to a group of historians and
poets who wove the garb of romance around every green New England
hillside and embalmed every local event in poetic legend. While in
Germantown the printing press was turning out Bibles and works of
science and learning, and the people were laying the foundation
of paper mills and type foundries, a harsh spirit of intolerance,
superstition and religious asceticism was the rule in the Bay Colony.
American colonial history reveals the fact that Englishmen, while
boastful of the liberty of conscience which they claim as a divine
heritage, differed from the Dutch and other Teutonic settlers in
America as foremost in seeking to impose religious restrictions
upon others and in offending against the doctrines of personal and
religious liberty. There was very little of real democracy in the
Bay Colony, but much aristocracy, according to Dr. William Elliot
Griffis; for only church members had a right to vote. These Puritans
could not tolerate the men of other ways of thinking, like the
Quakers and the Baptists who came among them, whom they beat, branded
and hanged. Both in Holland and America, this authority continues,
the Pilgrim Fathers were better treated by the Dutch than by the
Puritans. “Toleration is a virtue which Americans have not learned
from England or from the Puritans of New England. For the origins of
the religious liberty which we enjoy we must look to the Anabaptists,
William the Silent and the Dutch republic.” But the Colony did not a
little trade in slaves, and one of its industries was the making of
manacles for the supply of the African man-stealers and traders in
human flesh.
The influence on American life which flowed from the settlements
of the Puritans and from Pennsylvania under the charter held by
William Penn, was as distinct as night and day. From the ultimate
confluence of these two divergent currents of civilization American
life and institutions received a certain character of harmony which
concretely, may be called Americanism. Had the Puritan current
remained uninfluenced by that which flowed from Pennsylvania and
New York, our country would have had the distinct stamp of bigoted
middle-class England, leavened to some extent by the gentry spirit
of slave-holding Virginia, and we should justly have been called an
English, or even Anglo-Saxon people.
But as numerous writers from other than New England regions, have
shown, those institutions which we have commonly been taught to be
English institutions, did not exist in England, but were brought
to America from Holland and the continent, or developed here. The
written ballot came from Emden in Germany; freedom of conscience was
the common possession of the Teuton peoples, and not of Englishmen.
When the Massachusetts Bay Colony numbered 3,000 settlers, there were
but 350 freemen among them, as the condition of freemanship was made,
not a property or educational test, but a religious qualification.
It was not till 1641 that a code of laws was adopted. Prior to this,
they had been governed by the common law of England and the precepts
of the Bible.
Much has been written of religious and political oppression at home
which drove many Germans to settle in Pennsylvania and New York; but
the New England settlement owed its founding and growth entirely to
religious persecutions at home. If James I chastised the Dissenters
with whips, his son Charles chastised them with scorpions. It was
William Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury, above all men, who visited
bitter persecutions upon the Puritans in the reign of Charles, and
it was Laud who caused the building of the English commonwealth in
the New World. The great migration set in with the ascendancy of
Laud. More than 1,000 came in 1630, and as the policy of the king
and Laud became more intolerable, the tide increased in volume. The
people came, not singly, nor as families merely, but frequently as
congregations, led by their pastors. On March 18, 1919, the British
Consul presented the City of Boston with a casket made from the rails
of the docks in the Old Guild Hall at Boston, England, wherein 1,620
of the Puritan refugees were tried for non-conformist proceedings.
The religious differences which the Puritans fought out--and have
never fought to a conclusion--in the New World, the Germans and
Hollanders had decided in the Thirty Years War. Politically and
religiously, the Puritans were uncompromisingly intolerant to all.
They expelled Roger Williams for denying the right of the magistrate
to punish for violation of the first table of the Decalogue; for
denying the right of compelling one to take an oath, denouncing the
union of church and state and pronouncing the King’s patent void on
the ground that the Indians were the true owners of the soil. In 1656
they persecuted the Quakers; in 1692 they hanged witches. Harvard
College was founded in 1636 by the Puritan clergy. Nowhere in the
world was paternalism carried to such extremes as in New England. The
State was founded on the Hebrew Old Testament and religion was its
life. The entire political, social and industrial policy was built on
religion, and Puritanism was painfully stern and somber.
Had this civilization been gradually extended, uninfluenced by the
institutions which were brought over from the continent by the
Hollanders, German Palatines and Delaware Swedes, we should have to
form a radically different conception of the American of today. The
influence of the Puritans continues to make itself still felt in
manifestations of bigotry and intolerance in the form of prohibition,
blue laws, race antagonism, etc. Out of its midst have arisen many
great and free minds, like beautiful orchids out of a swamp, but
rarely great minds uninfluenced by education flowing from or gained
on the continent of Europe, while the rank and file at heart remains
what it always was, an imponderable mass, excluding light, dealing
with external forms and interpreting the passions of life and the
spiritual institutions of soul and mind by the fixed standards of an
obsolete philosophy, and continues to be harsh, intolerant, hostile
and fanatical.
In 1631, Roger Williams arrived at Nantasket. He was a radical who
claimed that no one should be bound to maintain worship against his
own consent, and that the land belonged to the Indians and they ought
to be paid for it. The Massachusetts Bay Colony ordered Williams to
leave, and when he and five friends took up lands in Rhode Island,
the Plymouth men notified him that the land he had chosen was under
their control and intimated that he must move on. The next person to
come into contact with colonial intolerance was Mrs. Anne Hutchinson,
“a pure woman of much intellectual power,” but for whose preaching
and teaching there was no room in Massachusetts. The General Court,
after deciding that Mrs. Hutchinson was “like Roger Williams or
worse,” banished her. With William Codington and others she bought
Rhode Island from the Indians and began the colonies of Portsmouth
and Newport. In 1638 Rev. John Wheelwright was expelled from
Massachusetts for sympathy with Mrs. Hutchinson.
The Maryland English were more liberal, but their laws did not
protect Jews or those who rejected the divinity of Christ. When
the Commonwealth was established in England, its Commissioners in
Maryland acted in a most intolerant manner, allowing no Catholics
to have a seat in the legislature. They repealed the statute of
toleration and prohibited Catholic worship. In the Carolinas all
Christians lived harmoniously together until Lord Granville attempted
to remove the religious privileges of the Colonists, by excluding
all who were not members of the Anglican Church from the Colonial
legislature.
Massachusetts, in 1656, passed a law pronouncing the death sentence
on any Quaker who, having once been banished, should return to the
Colony. Under this law four were actually hanged. In 1692 hundreds of
people accused of witchcraft were thrown into prison; nineteen were
hanged; one, an old man, was pressed to death, and two died in jail
before the popular madness had run its course.
A valuable contribution to the history of religious intolerance in
our country, the result of English civilization, is contained in
“American State Papers Bearing on Sunday Legislation,” revised and
enlarged edition compiled and annotated by William Addison Blakely of
the Chicago Bar and lecturer at the University of Chicago; foreword
by Thomas M. Cooley. Published by “Religious Liberty,” Washington,
D. C. Here we get the text of the first Sunday law on American soil,
passed in Virginia in 1610:
Every man or woman shall repair in the morning to the
divine service and sermon preached upon the Sabbath Day,
and in the afternoon to divine service and catechising,
upon pain for the first fault to lose their provision and
allowance for the whole week following (provisions were
held in common at that day); for the second to lose the
said allowance =and also to be whipt=; for the third =to
suffer death=. Whipping meant that the offender shall by
order of such justice or justices, receive on the bare back
ten lashes well laid on.
In Massachusetts the law provided various penalties, according to the
gravity of the offense. Ten shillings or be whipped for profaning
the Lord’s day; death for presumptuous Sunday desecration; fines for
traveling on the Lord’s day; boring tongue with red-hot iron, sitting
upon the gallows with a rope around the offender’s neck, etc., at
the discretion of the Court of Assizes and General Goal Delivery.
(“Acts and Laws of the Province of Mass. Bay 1692-1719,” p. 110.) It
was pretty much the same in Connecticut, where the laws explicitly
prohibited “walking for pleasure,” while Maryland provided “death
without benefit of clergy for blasphemy.” Practically every English
colony had similar laws and ordinances. We read in Jefferson’s “Notes
on Virginia” (1788, p. 167):
The first settlers were immigrants from England, of the
English Church, just at a point of time when it was
flushed with a complete victory over the religion of other
persuasions. Possessed, as they became, of the power of
making, administering and executing the laws, they showed
equal intolerance in this country with their Presbyterian
brethren who had emigrated to the Northern government....
Several acts of the Virginia Assembly, of 1659, 1662 and
1693, had made it penal in parents to refuse to have their
children baptized, and prohibited the unlawful assembling
of Quakers, had made it penal for any master of a vessel
to bring a Quaker into the State, had ordered those
already there, and such as should come hereafter, to be
imprisoned until they should abjure the country--provided
a milder penalty for the first and second return, but
=death= for their third. If no capital executions took
place here, as did in New England, it was not owing to the
moderation of the Church, or spirit of the Legislature,
as may be inferred from the law itself; but to historical
circumstances which have not been handed down to us.
William H. Taft, when President, said: “We speak with great
satisfaction of the fact that our ancestors came to this country to
establish freedom of religion. Well, if you are to be exact, they
came to establish freedom of their own religion, and not the freedom
of anybody else’s religion. The truth is that in those days such a
thing as freedom of religion was not understood.”
Just what American freedom was at the time that English influence was
at high tide, unleavened by the liberal and tolerant ideas brought
over from the European continent, may be inferred from the following
extract from the “Columbian Sentinel” of December, 1789, quoted in
“American State Papers:”
The tithingman also watched to see that “no young people
walked abroad on the even of the Sabbath,” that is, on the
Saturday night (after sundown). He also marked and reported
all those who “lye at home” and others who “prophanely
behaved,” “lingered without dores at meeting times on the
Lord’s Daie,” all “the sons of Belial strutting about,
setting on fences, and otherwise desecrating the day.”
These last two offenders were first admonished by the
tithingman, then “sett in stocks,” and then cited before
the Court. They were also confined in the cage on the
meeting house green, with the Lord’s Day sleepers. The
tithingman could arrest any who walked or rode too fast
in pace to and from meeting, and he could arrest any who
“walked or rode unnecessarily on the Sabbath.” Great and
small alike were under his control.
Even General Washington while President was interfered with on one
occasion by “the tithingman.”
=Propaganda in the United States.=--It has been charged that though
a large number of American newspapers were controlled in England
through Lord Northcliffe, a joint commission of English, French and
Belgian propagandists was deemed necessary early in the war to create
public sentiment in the United States in favor of intervention on
the side of the European Allies through the process of “retaining” a
number of prominent speakers as attorneys and employing a staff of
well-known writers, novelists and poets to arouse us from our state
of neutrality. A similar policy was followed in other countries,
and in the course of an interview with Vicente Blasco Ibanez, the
Spanish novelist, author of “The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse”
(in which the Germans are pictured in most repellent color), the New
York “Times” of October 18, 1919, printed the following significant
paragraph:
Ibanez said the actual writing of “The Four Horsemen of the
Apocalypse” was done in four months in time spared from his
official work of writing a weekly chronicle of the war =and
directing the Allied propaganda as an agent of the French
Government=.
This frank statement will tend to cause “The Four Horsemen of the
Apocalypse,” which was hailed as “the greatest novel of the war” by
the literary critics on the newspapers, and many persons ignorant
of the design concealed within the pages of the novel, to appear in
a somewhat different light from that inspired by a belief in the
untainted integrity of the author.
The English propaganda bureau for the United States, located in
New York, was in charge of Louis Tracy, an English novelist. In an
interview with Tracy, published in the New York “Evening Sun” of
November 10, 1919, the author exposes frankly the methods pursued
by himself and staff in fostering the British cause by attacks on
the German and Irish element in the United States and in furthering
libels of the enemy through the medium of the American press.
Incidentally he is quoted as follows:
The great part of my work, of course, was the press.
We began that during the first winter of the war,
and it covered every phase of magazine and newspaper
publication.... We had at our disposal the services of
writers and scholars who made it possible for us to
find out, at any particular moment or crisis, special
information for articles about any event, place or
person.... The growth of the work of the British Bureau of
Information may be estimated by the fact that the working
force grew from a mere nine at the time of Mr. Balfour’s
installation of the office to fifty-four at the end of the
war.
For the entire two years of our participation in the war, and for a
period long antedating that event, the American people were under the
hypnosis of a propaganda conducted with serpent tongues and poisoned
pens by alien agents, spitting and hissing venom in the interest of
England and France. Mr. Tracy tells us that other means employed were
“war posters which went all over the country =and which are still
going=.”
The British Bureau of Information was the headquarters of “writers,
journalists and authors, dramatists and poets, who turned over to us
special articles or descriptions or pieces of art, to be relayed to
the periodicals.” And he adds: “There was also, perhaps most in the
public eye, the almost endless chain of English men and women who
came over during the war to speak under the auspices of the British
Government upon different aspects of the war. These did not include
the speakers and writers who came over here upon their own initiative
and for pecuniary benefit. We were not responsible for them. But we
did look after and =made arrangements for all the speakers who were
sent over by the Government. And they were legion!=”
These, in the estimation of Tracy, were as much a part of the
militant forces as the actual fighters, for he says: “No war in the
history of mankind has been fought with so many aids from the army
of intelligence, with so many pens and typewriters and cartooning
pencils conscripted in the same army with the line man, the tank and
the bird man.”
Need we be surprised that the last bulwark of resistance to this
insidious propaganda was swept away? How the British Bureau of
Information must have laughed in its sleeve and rejoiced when the
fathers, mothers, brothers and sisters of the 17,000 American boys of
German descent who bled in France were treated as criminal aliens in
their own country under the spell of the British propaganda?
The French propaganda bureau was busy in a similar manner. “The Dial”
of February 8, 1919, has this to say:
By 1916 the simple installation in the rear of the Quai
d’Orsay Ministry had evolved into the famous Maison de la
Presse, which occupied, with its many bureaus, a large
six-story building on the Rue Francois Premier. This was
one of the busiest hives of wartime Paris. There the
promising novelist, the art critic, the publicist, or the
well-recommended “belle chanteuse,” as well as the more
vulgar film operator and press agent, found directions
and material support for patriotic activities in the
“propagande.” From the Maison de la Presse were dispatched
to every neutral and entente nation select “missions.”
=The chief focus of all this Allied propaganda was the
United States=, especially Washington and New York,
though itinerant propagandists in every variety have
covered every section of the country. By this time the
English propaganda, also, was in full blast, under the
blunt leadership of Lord Northcliffe, with a Minister at
home--in the person of Lord Beaverbrook--all to itself.
In those days Fifth Avenue became a multi-colored parade
of Allied propaganda. One could scarcely dine without
meeting a fair propagandist or distinguished Frenchman or
titled Englishman (titles in war being chiefly for American
consumption!), or enter a theatre without suffering some
secret or overt stimulation from the propaganda, etc.
Chief of the French propagandists was Andre Cheradame, who, when
President Wilson at one time during the peace confab threatened to
bolt the conference, rose to the boldness of proposing to start a
conspiracy against him in his own country. According to the Paris “Le
Populaire,” early in 1919:
Cheradame, who was received and treated in a very
friendly way by Woodrow Wilson, moved that “highly paid
propagandists be sent at once to the United States to
get in touch with President Wilson’s opponents, in
particular with those who are members of the Senate, as the
Constitution of the United States gives that body power to
veto any treaty signed by the President.”
To this extent had the success of anti-German propaganda in our
country encouraged the agents of the French government! In the New
York “Evening Post” of March 3, 1919, David Lawrence, the regular
correspondent of that paper, then sojourning in Paris, speaks of
“propaganda bureaus, known to the public of America, however, as
‘bureaus of education’ or ‘committees on public information,’ are
conducted by most of the Allied governments in different parts of
the world.” He points out that in Paris the method largely followed
was that of bestowing social attention and decorations “on American
civilians to make them support all sorts of causes.”
The Vienna correspondent of the “Germania,” Berlin, writing the
latter part of June, 1919, refers to “the utterances of a French
general staff officer, who asserts that every intelligent person
in France knows that Germany did not desire the war. Germany could
not have wished anything better for herself than the preservation
of peace, but France was obliged to make propaganda for her own
cause, and it had served the purpose of gaining the accession of the
Americans.”
While English and French propaganda was thus conducted openly in
the American press, a Committee of the United States Senate headed
by Overman, was filling the newspapers with alarming accounts of
German propaganda--conducted before the United States declared war
on the Imperial German Government, the net result being a report
of glittering generalities accusing everybody indiscriminately and
convicting no one.
To what extent our own novelists, musical critics, film producers and
“belles chanteuse” were tainted, it is not intended to discuss in
this place. That some of our writers were hard put to find cause for
describing the German people as Huns, a menace to civilization and
a blot on humanity, is evidenced by a remarkable letter written to
the New York “Times” by Gertrude Atherton, one of the most outspoken
enemies of Germany, in the issue of July 6, 1915 (p. 8, cols. 7 and
8). Not to print it were an unpardonable omission, as it constitutes
an indictment of German civilization which none should miss reading.
She writes:
During the seven years that I lived in Munich, I learned
to like Germany better than any State in Europe. I liked
and admired the German people; I never suffered from an
act of rudeness, and I was never cheated of a penny. I was
not even taxed until a year before I left, because I made
no money out of the country and turned in a considerable
amount in the course of a year. When my maid went to the
Rathaus to pay my taxes (moderate enough), the official
apologized, saying that he had disliked to send me a bill,
but the increasing cost of the army compelled the country
to raise money in every way possible. This was in 1908. The
only disagreeable German I met was my landlord, and as we
always dodged each other in the house or turned an abrupt
corner to avoid encounter on the street, we steered clear
of friction. And he was the only landlord I had.
I left Munich with the greatest regret, and up to the
moment of the declaration of war I continued to like
Germany better than any country in the world except my own.
The reason I left was significant. I spent, as a rule,
seven or eight months in Munich, then a similar period in
the United States, unless I traveled. I always returned to
my apartment with such joy that when I arrived at night
I did not go to bed lest I forget in sleep how overjoyed
I was to get back to that stately and picturesque city,
so prodigal with every form of artistic and aesthetic
gratification.
But that was the trouble. For as long a time after my
return as it took to write the book I had in mind I worked
with the stored American energy I had within me; then for
months in spite of good resolutions, and some self-anathema
I did nothing. What was the use?
The beautiful German city, so full of artistic delight,
was made to live in, not to work in. The entire absence of
poverty in that city of half a million inhabitants alone
gave it an air of illusions, gave one the sense of being
the guest of a hospitable monarch who only asked to provide
a banquet for all that could appreciate. I look back upon
Munich as the romance of my life, the only place on this
globe that came near to satisfying every want of my nature.
And that is the reason why, in a sort of panic, I abruptly
pulled up stakes and left for good and all. It is not in
the true American idea to be content; it means running
to seed, a weakening of the will and the vital force. If
I remained too long in that lovely land--so admirably
governed that I could not have lost myself, or my cat,
had I possessed one--I should in no long course yield
utterly to a certain resentfully admitted tendency to
dream and drift and live for pure beauty; finally desert
my country with the comfortable reflection: Why all
this bustle, this desire to excel, to keep in the front
rank, to find pleasure in individual work, when so many
artistic achievements are ready-made for all to enjoy
without effort? For--here is the point--an American, the
American of to-day--accustomed to high speed, constant
energy, nervous tenseness, the uncertainty, and the fight,
cannot cultivate the leisurely German method, the almost
scientific and unpersonal spirit that informs every
profession and branch of art. It is our own way or none for
us Americans.
Therefore, loving Germany as I did, and with only the
most enchanting memories of her, if I had not immediately
permitted the American spirit to assert itself last August
and taken a hostile and definite stand against the German
idea (which includes, by the way, the permanent subjection
of women), I should have been a traitor, for I know out
of the menace I felt to my own future, as bound up with
an assured development under insidious influences, what
the future of my country, which stands for the only true
progress in the world today, and a far higher ideal of
mortal happiness than the most benevolent paternalism can
bestow, had in store for it, with Germany victorious, and
America (always profoundly moved by success, owing to her
very practicality) disturbed, but compelled to admire.
The Germans living here, destitute as their race seems to
be of psychology, when it comes to judging other races,
must know all this; so I say that they are traitors if they
have taken the oath of allegiance to the United States.
If they have not, and dream of returning one day to the
fatherland, then I have nothing to say, for there is no
better motto for any man than: “My country, right or wrong.”
The process of reasoning here plainly is: Germany is such a
well-governed, well-behaved, well-groomed, honest, beautiful,
seductive country that if I do not side with her enemies I shall fall
completely under her spell, and therefore, having left such a model
country, every German who comes to the United States to live must be
a traitor to America. Ingenious reasoning!
=Pitcher, Molly.=--Not only was Barbara Fritchie of German descent,
as shown elsewhere, but so also was the famous “Molly Pitcher” of
Revolutionary fame, whose story is known to every American patriot
as the woman who brought water to the fighting men in the battle
line in a large pitcher, to which she owed her name in history. Her
maiden name was Marie Ludwig, and she was born of good Palatine
stock October 13, 1754, in New Jersey. Her husband was John Hays, a
gunner, who was wounded at the battle of Monmouth. There being no man
available, Molly took his place and served the cannon so efficiently,
loading and firing with such dexterity, that after the battle
Washington appointed her to the rank of sergeant with a sergeant’s
pay.
=Press Attacks in Congress.=--Representative Calloway quoted in the
Congressional Record of February 9, 1917:
Mr. Chairman, under unanimous consent, I insert in the Record at this
point a statement showing the newspaper combination, which explains
their activity in this matter, just discussed by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Moore):
“In March, 1915, the J. P. Morgan interests, the steel, shipbuilding
and powder interests and their subsidiary organizations, got together
12 men high up in the newspaper world and employed them to select
the most influential newspapers in the United States and sufficient
number of them to control generally the policy of the daily press of
the United States.
“These 12 men worked the problem out by selecting 179 newspapers, and
then began, by an elimination process, to retain only those necessary
for the purpose of controlling the general policy of the daily press
throughout the country. They found it was only necessary to purchase
the control of 25 of the greatest papers. The 25 papers were agreed
upon; emissaries were sent to purchase the policy, national and
international, of these papers; an agreement was reached; the policy
of the papers was bought, to be paid for by the month; an editor was
furnished to each paper to properly supervise and edit information
regarding the questions of preparedness, militarism, financial
policies and other things of national and international nature
considered vital to the interests of the purchasers.
“This contract is in existence at the present time, and it accounts
for the news columns of the daily press of the country being filled
with all sorts of preparedness arguments and misrepresentations as
to the present condition of the United States army and navy and the
possibility and probability of the United States being attacked by
foreign foes.
“This policy also includes the suppression of everything in
opposition to the wishes of the interests served. The effectiveness
of this scheme has been conclusively demonstrated by the character of
stuff carried in the daily press throughout the country since March,
1915. They have resorted to anything necessary, to commercialize
public sentiment and sandbag the National Congress into making
extravagant and wasteful appropriations for the army and navy under
the false pretense that it was necessary. Their stock argument is
that it is ‘patriotism.’ They are playing on every prejudice and
passion of the American people.”
=Pathfinders.=--In reply to the question, “Who are the twelve
greatest Americans of German descent?” the following were named by a
small committee who conferred upon the matter:
Franz Daniel Pastorius, founder of Germantown and author of the first
protest against slavery on American soil.
Conrad Weiser, “the first who combined the activity of a pioneer with
the outlook of a statesman.”--Benson J. Lossing.
Governor Jacob Leisler, acting governor of New York, the first martyr
to the cause of American independence.
Heinrich Melchior Muhlenberg, founder of the Lutheran Church in
America and father of General Muhlenberg and of the first Speaker of
the House of Representatives.
John Peter Zenger, founder of the freedom of the press in America.
David Rittenhouse, America’s first great scientist.
General Frederick von Steuben, the drillmaster of the American
Revolutionary army, who received the surrender of Cornwallis at
Yorktown.
John Jacob Astor, the pioneer and pathfinder in American industrial
enterprise.
Carl Schurz, Union general, diplomat, United States Senator and
Cabinet officer; founder of the Civil Service.
Francis Lieber, politician, encyclopedist, college professor, who
first codified the laws of war for the United States government.
Ottmar Mergenthaler, inventor of the typesetting machine.
Charles P. Steinmetz, one of the world’s greatest electricians.
=Poison Gas.=--That the Germans were not the first to use poison
gas in warfare, that the practice originated with the English, and
that the French used gases in the world war before the Germans,
was well known to thousands in a position to inform others, but no
denial of this falsehood has ever been made. The first recorded use
of poison gas in modern times was in connection with the bombardment
of Colenso by the English during the Boer War. The fact is testified
to by General von der Golz in a book describing the English military
operations against the Boers, which he witnessed as German military
attache, and is verified in a number of accounts of the war against
the South African republics. The guns used against Colenso to
discharge the gas and kill the defenders by asphyxiation were brought
from the British dreadnought, “Terrible.” It was a typical English
invention. At first there was no thought of using gas in land
warfare. It was designed to be discharged by a shell which should
penetrate the armor-plate of an enemy vessel. A poisoned gas-shell
exploding inside of another vessel was expected to kill everybody
under deck. When it was found impossible to effect the surrender
of Colenso, the guns were used there for the first time in field
operations, as stated. These facts are further corroborated by Mr.
George A. Schreiner, Associated Press correspondent during the recent
war, author of “The Iron Ration,” and a participant in the defense of
Colenso, who to this day is feeling the effect of the gas.
The charge that the Germans were the first to use gas bombs and
the attempt to represent their employment of such bombs as acts of
barbarism was ridiculed by Gustav Hervé, the editor of the Paris “La
Guerre Sociale,” in these words: “There is a bit of hypocrisy in this
show of indignation against the use of asphyxiating gas. Have we
forgotten the incredible stories that were told about the effects of
turpinite when in August the Germans were marching toward Paris and
the craziest stories were in general circulation? People in fits of
ecstacy told others about the murderous effect of the asphyxiating
bombs of the celebrated inventor. ‘Why, my dear sir, 70,000 Germans
were simply stricken down; whole regiments were destroyed by
asphyxiation.’ I remember very distinctly. No one protested. As long
as we believed in the marvel of Turpin’s asphyxiating powder, Turpin
was hailed as a hero. Then why this absurd cry, this hypocritical
attempt to condemn the Germans for inventing a powder, that in
comparison with the turpinite we called to our aid in the hour of
our greatest distress, appears to be as gentle as the holy St. John.
Instead of blaming the Germans for utilizing asphyxiating gases, we
might better blame ourselves for permitting the enemy to outdo us in
inventive genius.”
General Amos A. Fries, head of the Chemical Service of the American
Expeditionary Forces, quoted in the February, 1919, issue of
“Chemical and Metallurgical Engineering,” described the use of poison
gas as “the most humane method of fighting.” Only 30 per cent. of
American casualties and 5 per cent. of the deaths were due to gas.
He held that the situation was similar to that when gunpowder was
first utilized, a practice “universally frowned upon as unfair and
unsportsmanlike, yet it endured.” In a similar vein General Sibert
testified before a Senate Committee in June, 1919.
=Penn, William.=--Founder of Pennsylvania, under whose jurisdiction
the first Pennsylvania German settlements were effected. His mother
was a Dutch woman, Margaret Jasper, of Rotterdam. Dutch was Penn’s
native tongue, as well as English. He was a scholar versed in Dutch
law, history and religion. He preached in Dutch and won thousands of
converts and settlers, inviting them to his Christian Commonwealth.
(Dr. William Elliot Griffis.) Oswald Seidensticker (“Bilder aus der
Deutsch-Pennsylvanischen Geschichte,” Steiger, New York, p. 82)
writes:
“For more than a century Germantown remained true to its
name, a German town. William Penn in 1683 preached there,
in Tunes Kunder’s house in the German language, and General
Washington in 1793 attended German service in the Reformed
Church.”
=Pilgrim Society.=--A powerful organization in New York City,
nominally for the promotion of the sentiment of brotherhood among
Englishmen and Americans, but in reality to promote a secret movement
to unite the United States with “the Mother Country,” England,
as advocated by Andrew Carnegie, the late Whitelaw Reid, and, as
provided for in the secret will of Cecil Rhodes. Among its prominent
members are the British Ambassador, J. Pierpont Morgan, Thomas W.
Lamont, partner of Morgan; John Revelstoke Rathom, British-born
editor of the Providence “Journal;” Adolph Ochs, owner of the New
York “Times;” Ogden Mills Reid, President New York “Tribune,” and
brother-in-law of the first Equerry to the King of England; James
M. Beck and numerous other Wall Street corporation lawyers, and the
underwriters of the Anglo-French war loan of $500,000,000 and Russian
ruble loan.
=Quitman, Johan Anton.=--One of the most prominent and daring
soldiers of the Mexican War; son of Friedrich Anton Quitman, a
Lutheran minister at Rhinebeck-on-Hudson. Born 1798, took part in
the war for the independence of Texas from Mexico, and in 1846 was
made brigadier general. Fought with the greatest distinction at
Monterey; first at the head of his command to reach the marketplace
of the hotly-contested city and raised the American flag on the
church steeple. Was in command of the land batteries in 1847, and
in conjunction with the American fleet bombarded Vera Cruz into
surrender. Distinguished himself at Cerro Gordo, was brevetted
Major General and voted a sword by Congress. On September 13, at
the head of his troops, stormed Chapultepec, the old fortress of
Montezuma, which was considered impregnable by the Mexicans, and on
the following day opened the attack on Mexico City, which he entered
September 15. Gen. Scott, as a mark of appreciation, appointed
Quitman governor of the city, in which capacity he served until
peace was restored. He was later elected governor of Mississippi and
elected to Congress by large majorities from 1855 to 1858, the year
of his death. General Quitman had an eventful career, beginning as a
teacher of German at Mount Airy College, Pennsylvania. He studied law
and began to practice at Chillicothe, Ohio. Proceeding to Natchez,
Miss., he became Chancellor of the Supreme Court, member of the
Senate, in the State Legislature, then its president, participating
in the Texas War for Independence, visited Germany and France, and on
his return was appointed to the Federal bench. His father was born
in Cleve, Rhenish Prussia, and was a brilliant scholar, high in the
councils of the Lutheran church.
=Representation in Congress, 1779-1912.=--Table compiled of the
membership of Congress from 1779 to and including the 62nd Congress:
Total number of members of Senate and House
from the 1st to the 62nd Congress 7,500
Total number of members of Senate and House of
foreign birth, 1st to 62nd Congress 302
Distributed as follows:
Ireland 114
England 47
Germany 42
Scotland 37
Canada 23
France 8
Austria 5
West Indies 4
Norway 4
Sweden 3
Wales 4
Holland 2
Switzerland 2
Bermuda Islands 2
Denmark 1
Brazil 1
Azore Islands 1
Madeira Islands 1
Spanish Florida 1
------
302
=Rhodes’ Secret Will and Scholarships, Carnegie Peace Fund and Other
Pan-Anglican Influences.=--It is a well-established principle of
strategy as practiced by diplomatists to arouse public attention
to a supposed danger in order to divert it from a real one. Long
antedating our association with England, secret plans were laid by
far-seeing Englishmen, and sedulously fostered by their friends in
the United States, to reclaim “the lost colonies” as a part of the
United Kingdom. While the so-called German propaganda at best was
directed toward keeping the United States out of the war, a subtle
and deceptive propaganda was being conducted to enmesh us in European
entanglements to such extent that retreat from a closer political
union with England should become impossible.
In order to arrive at a clear understanding of the sources from which
such influences are proceeding, it is necessary to call the reader’s
attention to the secret will of Cecil Rhodes. This will is printed on
pp. 68 and 69, Vol. I, Chapter VI, of “The Life of the Rt. Hon. Cecil
Rhodes,” by Sir Lewis Mitchell, and reads as follows:
To and for the establishment, promotion and development of
a secret society, the true aim of which and object whereof
shall be the extension of British rule throughout the
world, the perfecting of a system of emigration from the
United Kingdom and of colonization of British subjects of
all lands where the means of livelihood are attainable by
energy, labor and enterprise, and especially the occupation
by British settlers of the entire continent of Africa,
the Holy Land, the Valley of the Euphrates, the Islands
of Cyprus and Canadia; the whole of South America and the
Islands of the Pacific not heretofore possessed by Great
Britain, the whole of the Malay Archipelago, =the ultimate
recovery of the United States of America as an integral
part of the British Empire=; the inauguration of a system
of Colonial representation in the Imperial Parliament,
=which may tend to weld together the disjointed members
of the Empire=, and finally =the foundation of so great a
power as to hereafter render wars impossible and promote
the best interests of humanity=.
Fourteen years later, in a letter to William T. Stead, dated August
19 and September 3, 1891, Rhodes wrote as follows:
What an awful thought it is that if we had not lost
America, =or if even now we could arrange with the present
members of the United States Assembly and our own House
of Commons=, the peace of the world is secured for all
eternity. =We could hold your federal parliament five years
at Washington and five years at London.= (“The Pan-Angles,”
by Sinclair Kennedy; published by Longmans, Green and Co.,
London and New York.)
Mr. Kennedy writes further on this subject as follows:
Not alone the federation of the Britannic nations, but
the federation of the whole Pan-Angle people is the end
to be sought. Behind Rhodes’ “greater union in Imperial
matters” lay his vision of =a common government over
all English-speaking people=. If we are to preserve
our civilization and its benefits to an individual
civilization, we must avoid friction among ourselves and
take a united stand before the world. =Only a common
government will insure this.=
These words have a remarkable resemblance to a declaration made by
the late American Ambassador to Great Britain, the Hon. Whitelaw
Reid, in a speech delivered in London, July 17, 1902, when, speaking
of Anglo-American relations, he employed these significant words:
The time does visibly draw near when solidarity of race,
=if not of government, is to prevail=.
The similarity of sentiments expressed by two persons of different
race and speaking at an interval of twelve years must strike anyone
as deeply significant. We have here an agreement in that respect
between Cecil Rhodes, Sinclair Kennedy and Whitelaw Reid. All three
want a common government over the Britannic nations and the United
States.
It is known that the millions left by Cecil Rhodes for the express
object of the “ultimate recovery of the United States of America as
an integral part of the British Empire,” have been invested in such a
manner as to carry out as secretly as possible the purpose for which
they were designed. Men may well stand appalled at the working of the
Rhodes poison in the veins of American life.
To its fatal operation may be attributed the rise of societies to
promote Anglo-Saxon brotherhood, Pilgrim societies, movements to
celebrate the centenary of English and American friendship (farcical
as that pretension is), the formation of peace treaties nominally
most inclusive, but in reality designed to benefit Great Britain, and
the gradual elimination from our public school books of all reference
to the part played by England in our history, English designs against
this country and savagery against its citizens, as well as all
unpleasant diplomatic events between us and England that have been
of such frequent recurrence. To this influence may be attributed the
movement to ignore the Fourth of July and substitute the Signing
of the Magna Charta to be celebrated by American youths as the
true origin of our independence, as proposed by Andrew Carnegie in
placards which did, and possibly do yet adorn the walls of his free
libraries. In the June number of the “North American Review” for
1893, Mr. Carnegie employed the following significant words:
Let men say what they will; I say that as surely as the sun
in the heavens once shone upon Britain and America united,
so surely is it one morning to rise, shine upon and greet
again =the reunited States--the British-American Union=.
Let us recall that it was Lord Bryce, the former British Ambassador
to the United States, who advocated:
“The recognition of a common citizenship, securing to the citizen
of each, in the country of the other, certain rights not enjoyed by
others.”
And that Lord Haldane, in a speech in Canada some years ago, broadly
hinted at an ultimate union of the two countries.
We find in “The Pan-Angles” of Mr. Kennedy =a map of the world in
which Great Britain, Canada, Australia and the United States are
represented in a uniform color, to illustrate their solidarity=. In
the minds of the Pan-Angles the vision of the great Cecil Rhodes,
backed by his countless millions, is approaching its realization.
Rhodes held that “divine ideals, on which the progress of mankind
depended, were for the most part the moving influence, =if not the
exclusive possession, of the Anglo-Saxon race, of which Great Britain
is the head=.” (“The Right Hon. Cecil Rhodes,” by Sir Thos. E.
Fuller, p. 243.)
Rhodes’ published will of July 1, 1899, has a broad provision
for his American propaganda in paragraph 16: “And whereas I also
desire to encourage and foster an appreciation of the advantages
which I implicitly believe =will result from the union of the
English-speaking people throughout the world, and to encourage in the
students from the United States of North America who will benefit
from the American Scholarships to be established at the University of
Oxford under my Will, an attachment to the country from which they
have sprung=,” etc.
The effect of the Rhodes American scholarship scheme was clearly set
forth in the “Saturday Evening Post” of July 13, 1912, wherein the
writer says:
“Twenty years hence and forever afterward there will be between
two and three thousand men (Rhodes graduates) in the prime of life
scattered over the English-speaking world, each of whom will have had
impressed upon his mind at the most susceptible period the dreams of
=a union of our people=.”
In the “North American Review” for June, 1893, Mr. Carnegie already
advocated the subordination of our fiscal policy to that of England.
He said:
“I do not shut my eyes to the fact that reunion, bringing free
entrance of British products, would cause serious disturbance to many
manufacturing interests near the Atlantic Coast which have been built
up under the protective tariff system. =Judging from my knowledge of
the American manufacturers, there are few who would not gladly make
the necessary pecuniary sacrifices to bring about a reunion of the
old home and the new.=”
In a like manner Mr. Carnegie spoke at Dundee, in 1890, and in the
“North American Review” he candidly stated: “National patriotism or
pride cannot prove a serious obstacle in the way of reunion.... The
new nation would dominate the world.”
The war has blinded us to many issues that affect our political
future. With Lord Northcliffe admittedly in control of many important
American papers, there has been printed only what was approved in
London, and suppressed whatever menaced the peaceful pursuit of
the policy of the proposed merger. It cropped out in the draft of
the League of Nations, rejected by the United States Senate, which
provided for six votes for Great Britain and her colonies and only
one vote for the United States on all questions to be decided. Only a
few Senators were alive to the danger, and the misguided public was
so reluctant to hear the truth that Senator Reed of Missouri, one
of the first to protest, was for a time repudiated by the leaders
of his party in his own State, and assailed on the platform when he
attempted to speak in Oklahoma.
The movement to anglicise the United States is making rapid progress.
It had its inception in London and is conducted in this country
under the auspices of pronounced Anglophiles in the name of the
“English-Speaking Union,” headed by former President Taft, with the
following persons as vice presidents: George Haven Putnam, chairman
of the organization committee; Albert Shaw, Ellery Sedgwick, George
Wharton Pepper, John A. Stewart, Otto H. Kahn, Charles C. Burlingham,
Charles P. Howland, R. Harold Paget, Edward Harding, the Rev. Lyman
P. Powell, E. H. Van Ingen, and Frank P. Glass. In London the
organization is called the Anglo-American Society. At a meeting
held in that city on June 26, 1919, presided over by Lord Bryce, an
elaborate programme was agreed upon to carry the propaganda into the
United States and England. To that end, Washington and the Puritan
fathers, though the former headed the rebellion against England and
the latter fled its shores to escape persecution, are to be employed
as symbols of Anglo-American unity, and a great number of festivities
and memorials are included in the program, which will develop in the
course of the year. Preparations are now being made for the 300th
anniversary celebration of the landing of the Pilgrim Fathers.
A Sulgrave Institution has been organized--Sulgrave Manor being the
ancestral home of George Washington--which has raised $125,000 in
England and is raising a fund of $1,000,000 in this country. The use
of the fund was explained by John A. Stewart, chairman of the board
of governors, who said it was “to establish scholarships in English
universities and later in this country, and also to refit Sulgrave
Manor.” King George was one of the first contributors to the English
campaign, he said.
On June 28, 1919, the King of England sent by cable a message to the
President, in which he said:
Mr. President, it is on this day one of our happiest
thoughts that the American and British people, brothers in
arms, will continue forever to be brothers in peace. United
before by language, traditions, kinship and ideals, there
has been set upon our fellowship the sacred seal of common
sacrifice.
During the Paris peace conference the New York “Times” of February
13, 1919, in a Paris correspondence, declared that there was complete
Anglo-American concord, the program of the conference revealing
a fundamental identity of aims and the understanding between
English-speaking peoples being never so complete as today. Former
Attorney General Wickersham took the lead in proposing to remit
England’s enormous debt to us, explaining that we owe them that much
for “holding back the Huns,” and the proposition has been received
with great favor by many of the 18,000 additional millionaires
created by the war, meaning, of course, that England’s burden shall
be transferred to the shoulders of the American tax payers.
Among the advocates of the merger are General Pershing, Lord Balfour,
Chauncey M. Depew, James M. Beck, Lord Grey and the American
bankers and great industrials, like Charles M. Schwab. Surrounded
by distinguished men of England, General Pershing, in the Military
Committee room of the House of Commons, dwelt with special pathos on
the proposed Anglo-Saxon brotherhood. “I feel that the discharged
and demobilized soldiers will carry with them into private life,” he
said, “the necessity for closer and firmer union, =and that we may
be united as peoples likewise forever=.” Subsequently he was made a
Knight of the Bath by King George.
At a meeting of the Pilgrim Society in New York, January 22, 1919,
James M. Beck, recently made a “Bencher” in London, after reviewing
England’s achievements in the war, said:
=England’s triumphs are our triumphs, and our triumphs are
England’s triumphs.=
Lord Edward Grey, one of the principal figures in the events
preceding and throughout the war, was sent as ambassador to the
United States to foster the movement. Nominally, the movement is
for the preservation of peace, which is represented as seriously
imperiled from hour to hour unless the United States and England
unite. To this end there is to be “an exchange of journalists” as
well as scholars and professors.
“The Nation,” speaking of an address by Admiral Sims at the American
Luncheon Club, on March 14, 1919, says:
Admiral Sims referred to his remarks at the Guildhall
several years ago, when he declared that Great Britain and
the United States would be found together in the next war.
Further, he said that in 1910, while cruising in European
waters, he submitted a secret report that in his opinion
war could not be put off longer than four years. During
the war a German diplomatic official stated that there
was an understanding between Great Britain and the United
States whereby they would stand together if either went
to war with Germany. A similar statement recently came
to light in this country from a Dutch source. Professor
Roland G. Usher, in his “Pan-Germanism,” explicitly
declares that, probably before the summer of the year
1897, “an understanding was reached that in case of a war
begun by Germany or Austria for the purpose of executing
Pan-Germanism, the United States would promptly declare
in favor of England and France, and would do her utmost
to assist them.” We do not attach too great importance
to any of these statements; yet we should like to see
this matter ventilated. If such an understanding was in
force, did President Wilson know of it before Mr. Balfour
and M. Viviani made their visit? Until three days before
the war, the British Parliament knew nothing of a secret
engagement that bound them hand and foot to France, and
had been in force eight years; an engagement, moreover,
that not only eight weeks before, they had been assured
did not exist. Admiral Sims’s remark gains interest from
the fact that the regular diplomatic technique of such
engagements is by way of “conversations” between military
and naval attachés of the coquetting governments. In his
book called “How Diplomats Make War,” Mr. Francis Neilson,
a member of the war-Parliament, traces the course of
the military conversations authorized by the French and
English Governments, and shows their binding effect upon
foreign policy. We should be much interested in hearing
from Admiral Sims again; and we believe that a healthy and
vigorous public curiosity about this subject would by no
means come amiss. (“Nation.”)
The Lord High Chancellor, Viscount Finlay, after saying
that “a wholly new era has opened between England and
America,” remarked that he was now at liberty to tell
Ambassador Davis that it was he, as Attorney General, who
had drafted all the British notes exchanged with the United
States, and went on with a smile:
“Ambassador Page used to say to me, ‘My dear friend, don’t
hurry with the notes; they are not pressing.’”--New York
“Globe.”
How far has this alliance actually been realized by secret
understandings? In an article in the “Revue des Deux Mondes,” in
1907, M. Andre Tardieu, the foreign editor of the Paris “Temps,”
accusing President Roosevelt of partisanship for the German Emperor
in the Algeciras conference, distinctly charged him with bad faith in
this direction in view of the secret understanding between the United
States and England.
A formal treaty has not so far been arranged, but we may ask: In
how far are we involved in a policy looking to the abdication of
our sovereignty as an independent republic in view of statements
such as were made unchallenged by Prof. Roland G. Usher in his book,
“Pan-Germanism:”
First, that in 1897 there was a secret understanding
between this country, England, France, and Russia, that in
case of war brought on by Germany the =United States would
do its best to assist its three allies=.
Second, (page 151) that “certain events lead to the
probability that the Spanish-American war was created in
order to permit the United States to take possession of
Spain’s colonial possessions.”
Third, that =England possesses three immensely powerful
allies=--France, Russia, =and the United States=. These he
constantly speaks of as the “Coalition.”
Fourth, that the United States was not permitted by England
and France to build the Panama Canal until they were
persuaded of the dangers of Pan-Germanism.
In an interview published in the St. Louis “Star” of May 2, 1915,
Prof. Usher confirmed these statements by saying that a verbal
alliance is in existence between this country and the Allies.
Material support of the charge is furnished by the late British
Secretary of the Colonies, the Hon. Joseph Chamberlain, who, in a
statement in Parliament during the Boer war, referred to the treaty
of alliance as “an agreement, an understanding, a compact, if you
please.” On November 30, 1899, Chamberlain delivered an epochal
speech at Leicester against France for some unseemly cartooning of
Queen Victoria. In his speech he threatened France with war and
distinctly spoke of an Anglo-American union: “The =union between
England and America= is a powerful factor for peace.” (N. Murrel
Morris, “Joseph Chamberlain, The Rt. Hon.,” London, 1900, Hutchinson
& Co., publishers.) Chamberlain further supported Prof. Usher in the
latter’s assertion that the treaty was verbal, as a written treaty
must have the official sanction of the Senate. In this same Leicester
speech, Mr. Chamberlain declared:
To me it seems to matter little whether you have an
alliance which is committed to paper, or whether you have
an understanding which exists in the minds of the statesmen
of the respective countries. An understanding perhaps is
better than an alliance, which may stereotype arrangements,
which cannot be accepted as permanent, in view of the
changing circumstances from day to day. (Morris.)
Cornelia Steketee Hulst, in her pamphlet, “Our Secret Alliance,”
quotes from a speech of Chamberlain as follows:
I can go as far as to say that, terrible as war may be,
even war itself would be cheaply purchased if in a great
and noble cause the Stars and Stripes and the Union Jack
should wave together in an Anglo-Saxon alliance.
Already the thought of a merger and the loss of our identity as
a republic is coursing in a dangerous form through the minds of
the people. It has been said that if a question is harped upon
continuously for a sufficient period that people will go to war for
the mere sake of putting the question out of their minds, and even
now among the high and the low there is manifest a supine, an ominous
spirit of submission to the surrender of their political independence
rather than fight it as a form of open sedition.
The Rhodes trust fund and the Carnegie peace fund have their priests
and priestesses, witness the statement of Mrs. John Astor, chairman
of the American Red Cross in England, quoted in the New York “Times”
of March 5, 1915: “An alliance of the English-speaking nations would
be the greatest ideal toward which to work.” George Beer anticipated
Mrs. Astor in the “Forum” for May, 1915:
The only practical method is to embody the existing cordial
feeling between the United States and England in a more
or less formal alliance, so that the two countries can
bring their joint influence and pressure to bear whenever
their common interests and political principles may be
jeopardized.
In January, 1916, the late Joseph H. Choate, former ambassador to
Great Britain, drank his memorable toast at a banquet of the Pilgrim
Society: “I now ask you to all rise and drink =a good old loyal toast
to the President and the King=.”
The prevalence of such sentiments gives us something to ponder. The
war has been conducive to the propagation of seditious thought; we
were kept too busy hunting down pro-Germans and imaginary spies to
take heed of the intrigue being prosecuted under the Secret Will of
Cecil Rhodes. That great constructive statesman was too practical to
pursue an ignis fatuus; Mr. Carnegie was too much like him in that
respect to create an enormous fund nominally for the preservation
of peace, the interest on which, something like $500,000 annually,
is available to propagate the cause of Pan-Anglicism, while in the
meantime the Rhodes scholarships are filling American homes with the
apostles of his creed. Their tracks are easily found, and they will
become more frequent with the progress of time. Philipp Jourdan (John
Lane Company, New York, 1911) speaks of 100 scholarships for the
United States “to arouse love for England,” and “to encourage in the
students from the United States an attachment for the country from
which they sprung.” (pp. 75 and 328.)
What is good for Englishmen may seem good to Italians, French,
Germans and Russians. In 1914 many laughed at the thought that Uncle
Sam could be drawn into the European war and send several million
American boys over to fight in order to make the world safe for
democracy, but Colonial Secretary Chamberlain, had he lived his
normal span of years, would have seen the “Stars and Stripes and the
Union Jack” waving over something very near akin to his cherished
Anglo-Saxon alliance. (See “Propaganda.”)
Canada is being used to a great extent as a means of carrying out
insidious projects against the United States. For a number of years
special inducements have been offered Americans to settle in Canada,
and large areas of farm land are in the hands of American immigrants.
During the war many of these were compelled, in order to hold their
property, to forswear their American citizenship, and many more
served in the Canadian army as part of the British colonial forces.
They were treated as colonials subject to British jurisdiction.
A project of more far-reaching extent is embodied in the movement
to divert western traffic from New York to Montreal. The Canadian
government has shown a tenacious purpose in this enterprise and
is enthusiastically supported by the West and Northwest. It has
promised to make seaports of the cities of the Great Lakes, from
which vessels can go direct to Montreal and from there find an outlet
to the Atlantic without reloading their cargoes. The object is to
be accomplished by improving the Welland Canal and the cutting of a
30-foot channel in the St. Lawrence River. The Welland Canal connects
Lake Erie with Lake Ontario, and its locks are to be increased 800
feet in length, 80 feet in breadth and 30 in depth. Those of our own
barge canal are only 30 feet deep. The western chambers of commerce
are enthusiastically in favor of the Canadian project, in view of
the commercial advantage to be gained from this enterprise for a
large area of western territory. It is probable that it will go into
effect, and Americans will build up Canada at the expense of their
own country.
=Ringling, Al.=--One of the most successful of American circus
managers, who died at his home in Baraboo, Wis., in the early part of
1916, was the son of German immigrants, who started as a musician,
became a juggler and in 1888 organized the famous circus known by the
name of himself and four brothers, “The Ringling Brothers’ Circus.”
His circus far eclipsed any ever organized by P. T. Barnum and
his illness dated from superhuman efforts made by him to save his
property from destruction by fire. Before his death at the age of 63
he presented his native town, Baraboo, with a theatre.
=Rittenhouse, David.=--The first noted American scientist, born of
a poor Pennsylvania German, son of a farmer, at Germantown, April
8, 1732. Owing to a feeble constitution was apprenticed to a clock
and mechanical instrument-maker, where he followed the bent of
his mechanical and mathematical genius, though too poor to keep
informed concerning the progress of science in Europe. While Newton
and Leibnitz were warmly disputing the honor of first discoverer
of Fluxion, writes Lossing, Rittenhouse, entirely ignorant of what
they had done, became the inventor of that remarkable feature of
algebraical analysis. Applying the knowledge which he derived from
study and reflection to the mechanic arts, he produced a planetarium,
or an exhibition of the movements of the solar system by machinery.
That work of art is in possession of the College of New Jersey at
Princeton. It gave him a great reputation, and in 1770 he went to
Philadelphia, where he met members of the Philosophical Society to
whom he had two years before communicated that he had calculated with
great exactitude the transit of Venus which occurred June 3, 1769.
Rittenhouse was one of those whom the society appointed to observe
it. Only three times before, in the whole range of human observation,
had mortal vision beheld the orb of Venus pass across the disc of the
sun. Upon the exactitude of the performance according to calculations
depended many astronomical problems, and the hour was looked forward
to by philosophers with intense interest. As the moment approached,
according to his calculations, Rittenhouse became greatly excited.
When the discs of the planets touched at the expected moment the
philosopher fainted. His highest hopes were realized and on November
9th following he was blessed with a sight of the transit of Mercury.
When Benjamin Franklin died Rittenhouse was appointed president of
the American Philosophical Society to fill his place. His fame now
was world wide and many official honors awaited his acceptance. He
held the office of treasurer of Pennsylvania for many years, and in
1792 he was appointed director of the Mint. Died 1797, aged 64.
Of the origin of the first great American scientist we get an
interesting amount of data from the pages of Pennypacker’s “The
Settlement of Germantown, Pa., and the Beginning of German Emigration
to North America.” According to this authority, his ancestor, William
Rittenhouse (Rittinghausen), was born in the year 1664, in the
principality of Broich, near the city of Muhlheim on the Ruhr, where
his brother Heinrich Nicholaus, and his mother, Maria Hagerhoffs,
were living in 1678. At this time he was a resident of Amsterdam.
We are told that his ancestors had long been manufacturers of paper
at Arnheim. However this may be, it is certain that this was the
business to which he was trained, because when he took the oath of
citizenship in Amsterdam, June 23, 1678, he was described as a paper
maker from Muhlheim.
He emigrated to New York, but since there was no printing in that
city, and no opportunity, therefore, for carrying on his business of
making paper, in 1688, together with his sons, Gerhard and Klaus, and
his daughter Elizabeth, who subsequently married Heivert Papen, he
came to Germantown. There, in 1690, upon a little stream flowing into
the Wissahickon, he erected the first paper mill in America, an event
which must ever preserve his memory in the recollection of men. “He
was the founder of a family which in the person of David Rittenhouse,
the astronomer, philosopher and statesman, reached the very highest
intellectual rank.”
“Here dwelt a printer, and I find
That he can both print books and bind;
He wants not paper, ink nor skill;
He’s owner of a paper mill.”
--John Holme, 1696.
=Roebling, John August.=--One of the greatest engineers and America’s
leading bridge builder. Among his famous achievements are the
Pennsylvania Canal Aqueduct, across the Alleghany River (1842),
Niagara Suspension Bridge (1852), the Cincinnati-Covington bridge,
with a span of 1,200 feet, and the famous Brooklyn Bridge across the
East River, completed by his son, Washington, upon the death of its
designer. Roebling was born June 12, 1806, at Muehlhausen, Thuringia,
and learned engineering at Erfurt and Berlin.
=Rassieur, Leo.=--The only German ever elected Commander of the G. A.
R. Served as major throughout the Civil War.
=Roosevelt, Col. Theodore.=--Ex-President Roosevelt’s early position
on the war has never been cleared up satisfactorily. For more than
two months after the outbreak of the war, August, 1914, he held that
we were not called upon to interfere on account of the invasion of
Belgium. During this time he was not only accounted neutral, but
rather friendly to the German side, as was generally understood.
He had been cordially received by the Kaiser, whom he allotted the
chief credit for his success in bringing about peace between Russia
and Japan, and during his term of President one of his most intimate
friends was Baron Speck von Sternburg, the German ambassador. He
was publicly charged by Mr. Andre Tardieu, the French editor, with
trying to influence the Algeciras convention of the powers to favor
Germany’s claims in Morocco, although, as M. Tardieu intimated in an
article, he must have known of the secret understanding between this
government and Great Britain. At all events, in the fall of 1914,
Col. Roosevelt wrote in the Outlook Magazine that we had no concern
with the invasion of Belgium. In September, 1914, the great war then
being in its second month, Col. Roosevelt wrote:
It is certainly desirable that we should remain entirely
neutral, and nothing but urgent need would warrant breaking
our neutrality and taking sides one way or other.
Still later Col. Roosevelt wrote:
I am not passing judgment on Germany’s action.... I admire
and respect the German people. I am proud of the German
blood in my veins. When a nation feels that the issue
of a contest in which, from whatever reason, it finds
itself engaged will be national life or death, it is
inevitable that it should act so as to save itself from
death and to perpetuate its life.... What has been done in
Belgium has been done in accordance with what the Germans
unquestionably sincerely believed to be the course of
conduct necessitated by Germany’s struggle for life.
Col. Roosevelt’s neutrality was a subject of newspaper comment, as
indicated by an article in the New York “Times” of September 14,
1914, headed: “Roosevelt Neutral--Confers with Oscar Straus Again,
Presumably about Mediation--Is the Kaiser’s Friend.” The lines
gave the import of a dispatch from Oyster Bay, Roosevelt’s place
of residence, and related that “Mr. Straus’s talks with Roosevelt,
coupled with the diplomatic activity of Mr. Straus in diplomatic
circles in Washington and New York, have given rise to rumors that
Roosevelt’s aid is being sought by those who are endeavoring to pave
the way for a settlement of the war.”
The true import of Mr. Straus’s mission to Oyster Bay in September,
1914, has not yet been made public, though it precludes the
suggestion that it was to persuade Roosevelt to pave the way to a
settlement of the war, since Mr. Straus soon revealed himself as one
of the most active partisans of the Allies in America. It was within
a short time after that visit that Roosevelt reversed himself, and
from an avowed neutral became a pronounced militant in the cause
of the allied powers, denouncing the invasion of Belgium as an act
that compelled the United States legally and morally to take up arms
against Germany. Although his contention was persistently opposed by
papers like the New York “Sun” and “World,” which showed that the
article of the Hague convention which guaranteed the neutrality of
Belgium had never been signed by England or France, and therefore was
inoperative as to all other signatories.
Col. Roosevelt’s view of the invasion seems to have been that of the
British government at the beginning. The official English White Book,
(edited September 28, 1914), Article 6 of the Preface, is contained
in “The Diplomatic History of the War,” by M. P. Price, p. vii
(“Great Britain and the European Crises”), Charles Scribner’s Sons.
It says:
=Germany’s position must be understood. She has fulfilled
her treaty obligations in the past; her action now was not
wanton. Belgium was of supreme importance in a war with
France. If such a war occurred it would be one of life and
death. Germany feared that if she did not occupy Belgium,
France might do so. In the face of this suspicion there was
only one thing to do.=
Col. Roosevelt’s ultimate extremely indignant attitude, in which he
identified himself with every form of violent anti-German invective
then current, even turning against his former most loyal supporters,
professed to be primarily based upon Germany’s invasion of Belgium;
yet had he lived a little longer he would have been apprised by
subsequent revelations that England, about 1886, offered to let
Germany invade Belgium in an attack on France. On November 7, 1914,
he wrote a long letter to Dr. Edmund von Mach, an extract from which
seems well placed here. He said:
As regards all the great nations involved, I can perfectly
understand each feeling with the utmost sincerity that
its cause is just and its action demanded by vital
consideration.... I have German, French and English blood
in my veins. On the whole, I think that I admire Germany
more than any other nation, and most certainly it is the
nation from which I think the United States has most to
learn. On the whole, I think that of all the elements that
have come here during the past century, the Germans have on
the average represented the highest type. I do not say this
publicly, for I do not think it well to make comparisons
which may cause ill will among the various strains that
go to make up our population.... I should feel it a world
calamity if the German Empire were shattered or dismembered.
=Roosevelt and Taft Praise the Kaiser as an Agent of
Peace.=--Theodore Roosevelt in 1913: “The one man outside this
country from whom I obtained help in bringing about the Peace of
Portsmouth was His Majesty William II. From no other nation did I
receive any assistance, but the Emperor personally and through his
Ambassador in St. Petersburg, was of real aid in helping induce
Russia to face the accomplished fact and come to an agreement with
Japan. =This was a real help to the cause of international peace, a
contribution that outweighed any amount of mere talk about it in the
abstract.=”
William H. Taft, 1913: “=The truth of history requires the verdict
that, considering the critically important part which has been his
among the nations, he has been, for the last quarter of a century,
the greatest single individual force in the practical maintenance of
peace in the world.=”
“=Scraps of Paper.=”--The frequency with which England has accused
us of the violation of solemn treaties was shown in a light not
flattering to the accuser by the late Major John Bigelow, U. S. A.,
in his last book, “Breaches of Anglo-American Treaties” (Sturgis &
Walton Company).
Only a few years ago, incidentally to the public discussion of the
Hay-Pauncefote Treaty, the United States was arraigned by the British
press as lacking in the sense of honor that holds a nation to its
promise. The “Saturday Review” could not expect “to find President
Taft acting like a gentleman.” “To imagine,” it said, “that American
politicians would be bound by any feeling of honor or respect for
treaties, if it would pay to violate them, was to delude ourselves.
The whole course of history proves this.”
The London “Morning Post” charged the United States with various
infractions of the Treaty and said: “That is surely a record even
in American foreign policy; but the whole treatment of this matter
serves to remind us that we had a long series of similar incidents in
our relations with the United States. Americans might ask themselves
if it is really a good foreign policy to lower the value of their
written word in such a way as to make negotiations with other powers
difficult or impossible. The ultimate loss may be greater than the
immediate gain. There might come a time when the United States might
desire to establish a certain position by treaty, and might find
her past conduct a serious difficulty in the way.” More recently,
and presumably with more deliberation, a British author (Sir Harry
Johnston, “Common Sense in Foreign Policy,” p. 89), says: “Treaties,
in fact, only bind the United States as long as they are convenient.
They are not really worth the labor they entail or the paper they are
written on. It is well that this position should be realized, as it
may save a great deal of fuss and disappointment in the future.”
The most remarkable chapter in the book deals with the Clayton-Bulwer
Treaty. Major Bigelow shows how the British Ambassador spirited
a spurious document into the files of the State Department. This
spurious document has had an important bearing on the interpretation
of our treaty with England affecting the Panama Canal.
=Schleswig-Holstein.=--The case of Schleswig-Holstein, though
one of the most complicated problems for statesmen of the last
century, is perfectly clear as to the vital factors involved.
Some centuries ago the Duke of Schleswig-Holstein--which may be
described as the original seat of the Anglo-Saxons who peopled
Britain--conquered Denmark and was proclaimed King of Denmark. As
Duke of Schleswig-Holstein the duchies became attached to the crown
of Denmark, but were never incorporated as parts of the Danish State.
The relationship was similar to that of the early Georges, who were
kings of Hanover, a distinctly German State, but which was never
considered belonging to Great Britain for all that.
The two German duchies were given a charter that they were “one
and indivisible,” and this held good for centuries. Early in 1840,
a quarrel ensued between the government of Denmark and the German
duchies. King Frederick VII had no children; the succession was about
to descend to the female line of the family. The duchies protested.
Their charter provided distinctly for a male line of rulers, and they
would maintain their rights as well as the provision guaranteeing
their unity. Accordingly, they rejected (January 28, 1848) the
new constitution of the government embracing every section of the
monarchy and stood out for their constitutional guarantees.
Underlying these constitutional questions was the stronger racial
impulse to be united with their kindred of Germany, where the
desire for national unity was making itself felt in revolutionary
demonstrations. The first note of discord in the German national
parliament was occasioned by the Schleswig-Holstein question. In
order to prevent the incorporation of the duchies in the Danish
State, the communities elected a provisional government and
appealed to the German parliament to be admitted into the German
confederation; at the same time the provisional government appealed
to the King of Prussia for aid. The same men who have been pronounced
the most ardent German revolutionists of 1848 were equally ardent in
their desire to rescue two sister States from being absorbed by a
government of alien blood and sympathy.
The Prussian general, Wrangel, led a force into the duchies, drove
out the Danes and occupied Jutland. Before any further blows were
struck, Russia, England and Sweden intervened, and Prussia withdrew
her troops in accordance with an armistice provision signed August
26. All public measures proclaimed by the provisional government were
thereupon nullified, and a common government for the duchies was
created, partly by Denmark and partly by the German Confederation,
and the Schleswig troops were separated from those of Holstein.
This decision was regarded in Schleswig-Holstein as a betrayal of
its cause and was never accepted by a considerable minority of the
German parliament. In 1849 revolt in the duchies broke out afresh,
and gained many adherents in Germany. A stadtholder was appointed
for the duchies, and an army composed of mixed German troops was
sent to support the revolutionists under command of Gen. Bonin. An
attack of the Danes at Eckernfoerde was repelled, the fortifications
of Duppel were taken by storm and Kolding was captured. But the
Schleswig-Holstein army was beaten by the Danes in a sortie from
Fredericia, and Prussia, again under pressure from Russia and
England, was compelled to abandon the Schleswig-Holsteiners and sign
the armistice of July 10, 1849, with Denmark.
By this agreement Schleswig was abandoned to Denmark, but not
Holstein. The Schleswig-Holstein government, however, refused to
recognize this treaty of peace and placed a new army in the field
under General Willisen. It was defeated at Idstedt, and in conformity
with the treaty of Olmutz, Holstein was occupied by Austrian and
Prussian troops, while Schleswig was abandoned to the Danes, under
the London protocol, which recognized Prince Christian of Glucksberg
as the future king of the monarchy.
This, however, did not dispose of the question. In 1863 King
Christian signed the new constitution which incorporated Schleswig
in the Danish State and separated it from Holstein, contrary to the
ancient charter of the two duchies. This action also conflicted with
the London protocol and vitiated the treaty as well for those who
signed it (Prussia and Austria) as for those who did not, the two
duchies and the German Confederation, in so far as the recognition
of King Christian as duke of Schleswig-Holstein was concerned.
The duchies thereupon declared for the Prince of Augustenburg as
their rightful ruler, who had been unjustly put aside in the London
protocol, and appealed to the German Confederation for help.
In order to protect Holstein as part of the German Confederation, the
latter sent 12,000 Saxons and Hanoverians into the duchy. The Danes
fell back across the Eider river, and the Prince of Augustenburg,
proclaimed the rightful ruler, took up his residence in Kiel. Prussia
recognized King Christian, but with the distinct reservation that he
adhere to the London protocol and surrender his claim to Schleswig.
Under the belief that he would receive help from other sources,
King Christian rejected the offer, and Prussia, in conjunction
with Austria, decided to settle the Schleswig-Holstein question
in conformity with the wishes of its people, and German national
interests. This brought on the war of 1864, in which Denmark formally
renounced her claims to the two duchies.
This brief summary goes to show that the popular notion that
Schleswig-Holstein was wrested from poor little Denmark by brutal
force against the will of the people is erroneous. McCarthy, in his
“History of Our Own Times,” says: “Put into plain words, the dispute
was between Denmark, which wanted to make the duchies Danish, and
Germany, which wanted to make them German. The arrangement which
bound them up with Denmark was purely diplomatic and artificial.
Any one who would look realities in the face must have seen that
some day or other the Germans would carry their point, and that the
principle of nationalities would have its way in that case as in so
many others.” This view was held by eminent English statesmen at that
time. McCarthy tells us that Lord Russell “had never countenanced or
encouraged any of the acts which tended to the enforced absorption of
the German population into the Danish system.”
The people of the duchies fought for their own cause. When King
Frederick VII, in March, 1848, called the leaders of the Eider-Dane
party--the party which desired the Eider river to constitute the
dividing line between Denmark and Germany, thus converting Schleswig
into a Danish province and abandoning Holstein--to take the reins
of government, the issue was clearly drawn, and the result was
revolution. The troops joined the people; the revolution spread over
the provinces and the struggle for the ending of the Danish rule
began. A representative of the threatened duchies applied to the
Bundesrath at Frankfort and was seated. Volunteers from all parts
of Germany flocked to the northern border. Prussia was commissioned
to defend the German duchies, and Emerson, in his “History of the
Nineteenth Century Year by Year,” tells us that before Gen. Wrangel
could arrive to take command, “the untrained volunteer army of
Schleswig-Holsteiners suffered defeat at Bau, and a corps of students
from the University of Kiel was all but annihilated.” When Jutland
was occupied, the historian informs us, it was “in conjunction with
the volunteers of Schleswig-Holstein.” Again he says: “On July 5 the
Danes made a sortie from Fredericia and inflicted a crushing defeat
on the Schleswig-Holsteiners, capturing 28 guns and 1,500 prisoners.”
The loss was nearly 3,000 men in dead and wounded.
Heine, one of the ministers of the present German government,
speaking at Tondern, Schleswig, during the fall of 1919, said:
Here is the cradle of the purest Germanism. From here the
richest of German blood was transfused throughout our
fatherland. Fan-like, its streams coursed from West to
East. Here was laid the original foundation of the German
people. Here were born the men who have wrought great deeds
in German history.
Among the distinguished men born in Schleswig-Holstein may be noted
von Weber, the great composer; Friedrich Hebbel, next to Goethe and
Schiller, Germany’s most famous dramatist; several distinguished
novelists and poets, such as Joachim Maehl, Gustav Frensen and
Emanuel Geibel, one of the most appealing of the German poets, who
sang:
Wir wollen keine Danen sein;
Wir wollen Deutsche bleiben.
(We refuse to become Danes;
We intend to remain Germans.)
The total Danish-speaking population of the German Empire in 1900,
according to the Encyclopedia Britannica, edition of 1910, was only
141,061, about 10,000 more than Paterson, N. J., representing in
part the irreconcilables along the Danish border, and it is proposed
to let this minority decide the fate of the northernmost duchy,
ostensibly under the plebiscite, but under a plebiscite of which the
Danish government itself entertained the most serious apprehensions,
for it repeatedly entered vigorous protests which were sent to
Versailles. This plebiscite is being exercised under the guns of
British warships.
A dispatch of May 11 last, from Copenhagen, speaks of dissatisfaction
“reflected in the newspapers which declare the population of the
district is composed of Germans, whom Denmark does not desire, as
their presence within the country would lead to a future racial
conflict.” Although “entirely Germanized,” as one correspondent
expresses it, “the population possibly would vote to adhere to
Denmark to escape German taxation.”
This is the sort of self-determination that is to determine the
future boundaries of the States adjacent to the new German republic.
=Submarine Sinkings of Enemy Merchant Ships.=--Without seeking to
pass final judgment on the question whether Germany was or was not
justified by the rules of war and considerations of humanity in
sinking merchant vessels by means of her submarines, it is important
to quote briefly what those who are considered authorities on the
subject have to say about it:
New York “World,” March 21, 1919: “High officers of the British
Admiralty have justified the unrestricted use of the submarine by
Germany on the ground of military necessity.”
The following characteristic communication of Admiral Fisher is
quoted in the London “Daily Herald” of October 18, from the London
“Times” of October 17, 1919:
“On hearing of von Tirpitz’s dismissal I perpetrated the following
letter, which a newspaper contrived to print in one of its editions.
I can’t say why, but it didn’t appear any more, nor was it copied by
any other paper:”
Dear old Tirps,
We are both in the same boat! What a time we’ve been
colleagues, old boy! However, we did you in the eye over
the battle cruisers, and I know you’ve said you’ll never
forgive me for it when bang went the Blucher and von Spee
and all his host!
Cheer up, old chap! Say “Resurgam!” You’re the one German
sailor who understands war! Kill your enemy without being
killed yourself. =I don’t blame you for the submarine
business.= I’d have done the same myself, only our idiots
in England wouldn’t believe it when I told ‘em.
Well! So long!
Yours till hell freezes,
FISHER.
29/3/16.
An interview with the former German Ambassador, Count Bernstorff,
which Hayden Talbot had in Berlin, as printed in the New York
“American” of October 26, 1919, casts an interesting sidelight on the
question. Count Bernstorff is quoted as follows:
Do you know what Col. House told me one day? We had been
discussing the submarine issue. This was early in the war.
I had defended the German use of submarines on the ground
that it was our only possible method against the British
blockade, illegal and inhuman as it was. I had pointed out
that Great Britain had given the United States repeatedly
greater cause for declaring war than in 1812.
“But we can’t declare war on England,” Col. House said. “A
war with England would be too unpopular in this country.”
American vessels in the War of 1812 sank and destroyed 74 English
merchant ships under instructions to the commanders of our squadrons
“to destroy all or capture, unless in some extraordinary cases that
shall clearly warrant an exception.... Unless your prize should be
very valuable and near a friendly port it will be imprudent and
worse than useless to attempt to send them in.... A single cruiser
destroying every captured vessel has the capacity of continuing in
full vigor her destructive power.” This, we think, disposes of the
question involved whether a submarine should be required to abstain
from sinking a captured vessel of the enemy.
Admiral Sir Perry Scott in the London “Times” of July 16, 1914,
justified the work of destruction of the submarines, and quoting
reports on the treatment of vessels which tried to break the blockade
of Charleston during the Civil War, said: “The blockading cruisers
seldom scrupled to fire on the ships which they were chasing or to
drive them aground and then overwhelm them with shell and shot after
they were ashore.”
=Schurz, Carl.=--The most distinguished German American, author,
diplomat, Union general, United States Senator, Cabinet officer and
founder of the Civil Service system. Born March 2, 1829, at Liblar,
near Cologne. Educated at Bonn. Participated in the Baden revolution,
and after the romantic rescue of Prof. Gottfried Kinkel from Spandau,
he and his old instructor escaped to London, and in 1853 came to
Philadelphia with his wife. Later moved to Watertown, Wisconsin,
completed his law studies at the State University at Madison, and was
admitted to practice.
His eloquent speeches in the campaign of 1857 made him the leader
of the German Americans. At twenty-eight he became a candidate for
vice-governor and came within 107 votes of election. In 1858 he
delivered his famous speech in English, “The Irrepressible Conflict,”
and stumped Illinois to send Lincoln to the Senate against Douglas.
In the Republican Convention of 1860 at Chicago he led the Wisconsin
delegation in nominating Lincoln for President and stumped the
country for his election.
Schurz was sent to Madrid as American Minister, but resigned and
entered the Union army, rising to rank of major general. After the
war he was elected to the United States Senate (1869) from Missouri.
After a temporary estrangement from the Republican Party he supported
General Hayes for President in the campaign of 1876, and was
appointed Secretary of the Interior; in this office he introduced
many reforms which have been adopted. Later he became editor of the
New York “Evening Post,” and associate editor of “Harper’s Weekly,”
then the leading periodical in America. His “Life of Henry Clay”
is one of the standard books of American biographies. After the
Spanish American War he was bitterly assailed for his uncompromising
hostility to the policy of expansion, the acquisition of colonies,
etc. He died May 14, 1906, in New York City, rated one of the
greatest political thinkers and statesmen.
A strong misconception has been created with regard to Schurz and the
German revolutionists who came to the United States in 1848 as to the
cause of their grievance. It is generally represented that they were
fighting to establish a German republic, whereas the truth is, they
were primarily fighting for German unity. The facts are contained in
“The Reminiscences of Carl Schurz,” Vol. I, Chap. XIV, p. 405:
The German revolutionists of 1848 ... fought for German
unity and free government, and were defeated mainly by
Prussian bayonets. Then came years of stupid political
reaction and national humiliation, in which all that the
men of 1848 had stood for seemed utterly lost. Then a
change. Frederick William IV, who more than any man of his
time had cherished a mystic belief in the special divine
inspiration of kings--Frederick William IV fell insane
and had to drop the reins of government. The Prince of
Prussia, whom the revolutionists of 1848 had regarded as
the bitterest and most uncompromising enemy of their cause,
followed him, first as regent, then as king--destined to
become the first Emperor of the new German empire. He
called Bismarck to his side as prime minister--Bismarck who
originally had been the sternest spokesman of absolutism
and the most ardent foe of the revolution. And then German
unity with a national parliament was won, not through a
revolutionary uprising, but through monarchical action and
foreign wars.
Thus, if not all, yet a great and important part of the
objects struggled for by the German revolutionists of 1848,
was accomplished--much later, indeed, and less peaceably,
and less completely than they had wished, and through the
instrumentality of persons and forces originally hostile to
them, but producing new conditions which promise to develop
for the united Germany political forms and institutions of
government much nearer the ideals of 1848 than those now
(1852) existing. And many thoughtful men now frequently ask
the question--and a very pertinent question it is--whether
all these things would have been possible had not the great
national awakening of the year 1848 prepared the way for
them. But in the summer of 1852 the future lay before us in
a gloomy cloud. Louis Napoleon seemed firmly seated on the
neck of his submissive people. The British government under
Lord Palmerston shook hands with him. All over the European
continent the reaction from the liberal movements of the
last four years celebrated triumphant orgies. How long it
would prove irresistible nobody could tell. That some of
its very champions would themselves become the leaders of
the national spirit in Germany even the most sanguine would
in 1851 not have ventured to anticipate.
We think this extract speaks for itself and needs no comment. The
chief aim of the revolutionists was to see Germany unified, and
Schurz is not remiss in expressing his esteem for the “leaders of
the national spirit in Germany” who had once been the champions of
reaction.
=Scheffauer, Herman George.=--One of the foremost American poets,
translators, and dramatists, born in San Francisco 1878, traveled in
Europe and Africa and spent two years in London. Author of “Of Both
Worlds” (poems); “Looms of Life” (poems); “Sons of Baldur,” forest
play; “Masque of the Elements,” “Drake in California,” “The New
Shylock,” a play. Translator of Heine’s “Atta Troll” and “The Woman
Problem,” both from the German.
=Schell, Johann Christian and His Wife.=--One of the most inspiring
stories of the Revolutionary war centers around this brave Palatine
couple and their six sons, who tenanted a lonely cabin three miles
northeast of the town of Herkimer, N. Y., and who in August,
1781, while at work in the fields were attacked by 16 Tories and
48 Indians. The marauders captured two of the younger boys, the
remainder of the family gaining the shelter of the cabin. Here they
successfully defended their home all day. With dusk the chief of the
raiders, Capt. McDonald, succeeded in evading the vigilance of the
defenders and to reach the door, which he tried to pry open with a
lever. A shot struck him in the leg, and before he could effect his
escape Schell opened the door and dragged the wounded man inside,
where he held him as a hostage against the attempt to fire the house.
The defenders now awaited the next move of the enemy and burst into
singing Luther’s famous battle hymn of the Reformation, “Eine Feste
Burg ist unser Gott.” In the midst of the song the attacking party
rushed toward the house, gained the walls so that they were able to
thrust their guns through the loopholes to fire at those within.
Quick as thought Mrs. Schell seized an axe and beat upon the gun
barrels until they were useless, while the men directed their fire so
well that the miscreants were driven to flight, leaving eleven dead
and twelve seriously wounded on the field.
=Schley, Winfield Scott.=--American admiral who conquered Cervera’s
Spanish Squadron in Santiago Bay during the Spanish-American war,
was descended from Thomas Schley, who immigrated into Maryland in
1735 at the head of 100 German Palatines and German Swiss families.
Founded Friedrichstadt, afterwards Frederickstown, Md. Thomas Schley
was a schoolmaster, and Pastor Schlatter of St. Gall, in the story
of his travels (1746-51), wrote: “It is a great advantage of this
congregation that it has the best schoolmaster whom I have met
in America.” Admiral Schley graduated from the Naval Academy and
participated immediately upon his leaving the Academy in numerous
naval engagements during the Civil War. He was then attached to
various squadrons and distinguished himself during the Corean
Revolution in the bombardment of the forts.
When the Greeley North Pole expedition was practically given up
for lost Captain Schley one day modestly presented himself to
Secretary of the Navy Chandler and said: “Mr. Secretary, I realize
that by rank I am not entitled to the honor of commanding a relief
expedition, but, seeing that no volunteers have offered themselves
for such command, I want to offer my services in order that it may
not be said that the navy was found wanting.” Schley’s manner made a
strong impression on the Secretary, and in a short time he received
orders to head an expedition. The relief of Lieutenant Greeley by
Schley when the exploring expedition was practically down to a few
starving survivors forms one of the heroic chapters in the history
of the American navy. Schley’s rapid rise and success at Santiago,
together with his popularity with the rank and file of the navy,
raised a cabal against him among the bureaucrats, and he was brought
to trial for his manouvering of the Brooklyn in the Santiago battle.
Cervera, the Spanish commander, when taken prisoner, attributed the
failure of the Spanish squadron to escape to the famous “loop” of
the Brooklyn, but a court martial found a contrary verdict. Admiral
Dewey dissented. The verdict had no perceptible effect on Schley’s
popularity, and the American people give him unqualified credit for
the battle.
=Steinmetz, Charles P.=--One of the greatest scholars and scientists
in the electrical field of today, Chief Consulting Engineer of the
General Electric Company, and professor of electro-physics at Union
College; Socialist president of the City Council and president Board
of Education of Schenectady. Intimate associate and collaborator of
Thomas A. Edison, and to whose genius many of the most important
developments in electrical science are due. A native of Breslau,
Germany; born April 9, 1865.
The New York “Times” of March 12, 1916, says: “Everybody knows
that applied industrial chemistry would be a comparatively barren
thing if everything that had come to it as the result of this man’s
research should be taken away.” Fled Germany to escape prosecution
for his Socialist writings. Came over in the steerage and worked
as a draughtsman at $2 a day. In the “Times” he was quoted as
having buried all resentment for his experience of thirty years
ago. “Germany,” he said, “is so different now. I would not know
the country if I went back to it. When I left it was merely an
agricultural country. Now it is the greatest industrial country in
the world.”
=Sauer, Christopher.=--The first to print a book (the Bible) in
a foreign tongue (German) on American soil; famous printer and
publisher of German and American books. Born in Germany, arrived in
the Colonies in the fall of 1724, settling in Germantown. Published
the first newspaper in the German language, “Der Hochdeutsche
Pennsylvanische Geschichts Schreiber, oder Sammlung Wichitiger
Nachrichten aus dem Natur und Kirchen Reich.” His magnificent quarto
edition of the Bible, issued in 1743, after three years of endless
toil, has never, in completeness and execution, been excelled in
this country. He died in September, 1758, leaving an only son,
also named Christopher, who continued his father’s business but
gave it additional importance by employing two or three mills in
manufacturing paper, casting his own type, making his own printers’
ink and engraving his own woodcuts as well as binding his own books,
many of which passed through five or six editions. (Simpson’s “Lives
of Eminent Philadelphians.”)
=Starving Germany.=--(Lord Courtney in Manchester “Guardian”)--“The
attempt of England to starve Germany is a violation of the
Declaration of London and a brutal offense against humanity. For
these two reasons--if not for many others--it is a dishonorable
proceeding.” (Dispatch of March 21, 1915.)
The silent policy of starving people into subjection is eloquently
shown in the history of Ireland, of India, of the South African
republics and of the Central Powers, and, strangely, the one country
that has achieved this distinction is England.
We said that the blockade of Germany was “illegal, ineffective and
indefensible,” but Sir Robert Cecil about the same time declared
that England and the United States had an understanding, and he
boasted that “we have our hands at the throat of Germany” and
scorned the suggestion to relax a grip that meant the starvation
of women, children and the aged. Germany was told to give up her
U-boat sinking of merchant ships and answered that she had no other
weapon to make England take her grip off the German throat, and
when she was forced to surrender, the full magnitude of the policy
of starving non-combatants was revealed. The picture is presented
in the uncolored official statements of unprejudiced observers. The
Stockholm “Tidningen” of March 29, 1919:
The Swedish Red Cross delegates sent to Germany in order
to make arrangements for getting over to Sweden underfed
German children have now returned to Stockholm. The first
transport will contain 500 Berlin children.
The delegates describe the want in Germany as appalling.
During the revolution days =nothing at all could be got for
the babies in some places except hot water, and many died,
but this was nothing unusual in Berlin=. The children were
underfed, feeble and rachitic everywhere. Often children
four or five years old were unable to walk. In many places
the schools had had to be closed because of the general
want. =Tuberculosis has increased by 60 per cent.= Because
of this older children than at first proposed must be
sent to Sweden.... There are also negotiations going on
regarding children from the other famishing countries. The
German Government has promised to transport the Belgian
children free of charge from Belgium to Sassnitz.
The interest in Sweden for the war children is immense.
One thousand five hundred invitations have already been
made from single peasants’ homes, and about £3,000 has been
collected, mostly in small contributions from the poorer
classes. Thus willingness to sacrifice is great, but, of
course, much more money is still needed.
Henry Nevison, an eminent journalist, recently presented in the
London “Daily News” a tragic description of what he saw in the
hospitals of Cologne: “Although I have seen many horrible things,”
he writes, “I have seen nothing so pitiful as these rows of babies,
feverish from want of food, exhausted by privations to the point that
their little limbs were slender wands, their expressions hopeless and
their eyes full of pain.”--“The Nation.”
Prof. Johansson, of the Neutral Commission, who visited
Germany in January, reports: “About 1,600,000 people were
killed in the war, but almost half this number, or rather
=700,000, fell victims to the food shortage produced by the
blockade=. The population has decreased in an unprecedented
degree by reason of the declining birth-rate. At the
present moment Germany has 4,000,000 fewer children than in
normal pre-war times.”--“Dagens Nyheter,” Stockholm, Lib.,
March 30, 1919.
Dr. Rubner writes in the “German Medical Weekly” on the
effects of the blockade. He gives the figures of deaths of
army and civil population since 1914 as:
Army, all causes, 1,621,000.
Civil population, through blockade, 763,000, of which
260,000 is for 1917 and 294,000 to the end of 1918. He
comes to the conclusion that even now any improvement in
the condition, as regards nourishment of the German people,
will be possible only in a very partial degree; above
all, capacity for work will not increase to the needed
extent.--“Vorwaerts,” April 11, 1919.
In a report made by five doctors of neutral lands, Swedish,
Norwegian and Dutch, dated April 11, 1919, after they had
collected information in Berlin, Halle and Dresden, they
say: “The food concessions under the Brussels agreement are
altogether inadequate. The most they do is to maintain the
present necessitous food conditions.... Immediate help is
necessary. Every day of delay risks immeasurable injury not
only to the whole of Europe, but to the whole world.”
Evidence of the same import is furnished by Jane Adams and charitable
English persons, and the liberal periodicals, as distinct from the
daily newspapers, have printed columns showing the terrible ravages
of an illegal and indefensible blockade which inflicted the horrors
of war upon the feeble and helpless, those recognized by the laws
of nations and humanity as entitled to protection when not within
the sphere of military operations and in no way responsible for or
contributing to them.
The armistice was signed November 11, 1918, but so relentless was the
English policy of crushing the German people that Winston Churchill,
on March 3, 1919, declared in the House of Commons: “We are enforcing
the blockade with rigor.... This weapon of starvation falls mainly
upon the women and children, upon the old, the weak, and the poor,
after all the fighting has stopped.” (“The Nation,” June 21, 1919; p.
980.)
The appalling heartlessness which, not content with inflicting
starvation on a whole nation--for we will not mention Austria in this
connection--designed to add to its horrors still added injuries, is
exposed in the terms of the treaty, by which the German people were
required to give up 140,000 milch cows and other livestock. Witness
the following Associated Press dispatch:
Paris, July 24 (Associated Press).--Germany will have to
surrender to France 500 stallions, 3,000 fillies, =90,000
milch cows=, 100,000 sheep and 10,000 goats, according to a
report made yesterday before the French Peace Commission,
sitting under the presidency of Rene Viviani, by M. Dubois,
economic expert for the commission, in commenting on the
peace treaty clauses.
Two hundred stallions, 5,000 mares, 5,000 fillies, =50,000
cows, and 40,000 heifers=, also are to go to Belgium from
Germany. The deliveries are to be made monthly during a
period of three months until completed.
A total of 140,000 milch cows! Forty thousand heifers! To be
surrendered by a country in which little children were dying for lack
of milk, and babies were brought into the world blind because of the
starved conditions of the mothers!
=Steuben, Baron Frederick William von.=--Major General in the
Revolutionary army. Descended from an old noble and military family
of Prussia. Entered the service of Frederick the Great as a youth,
and fought with distinction in the bloodiest engagements of the
Seven Years War, being latterly attached to the personal staff of
the great King. After the war, was persuaded by friends of the
American Colonies and admirers of his ability in France to offer his
services to Congress, and on September 26, 1777, set sail aboard
the twenty-four gun ship “l’Heureaux” at Marseilles, arriving at
Portsmouth, N. H., December 1, 1777.
Found the American army full of spirit and patriotism, but badly
disciplined, and was appointed Inspector General. Wrote the first
book of military instruction in America, which was approved by
General Washington, authorized by Congress and used in the drilling
of the troops. Distinguished himself especially in perfecting the
light infantry, his method being subsequently copied by several
European armies and by Lord Cornwallis himself during the Revolution.
With General DeKalb and other foreign-born officers he encountered
much opposition and annoyance from native officers on account of
jealousy and prejudice, and though supported by General Washington,
Hamilton and other influential men, had difficulty in obtaining from
Congress what he was legally entitled to claim, not as a reward for
his conspicuous services, but to enable him to support life. When
threatening to take his discharge, Washington sought to dissuade
him on the ground that his service was well-nigh indispensable to
the cause of the colonists, and in justifying a memorandum of sums
advanced to Steuben in excess of the $2,000 per annum promised him,
the commander-in-chief wrote to Congress:
“It is reasonable that a man devoting his time and service to the
public--and by general consent a very useful one--should at least
have his expenses borne. His established pay is certainly altogether
inadequate to this,” showing that Steuben was not actuated by
mercenary motives in serving the Colonists.
“Your intention of quitting us,” wrote Col. Benjamin Walker, March
10, 1780, to Steuben, “cannot but give me much concern, both as an
individual and as a member of the Commonwealth, convinced as I am
of the necessity of your presence to the existence of order and
discipline in the army. I cannot but dread the moment when such event
shall take place, for much am I afraid we should again fall into that
state of absolute negligence and disorder from which you have in some
manner drawn us.”
It was Steuben who taught the Americans the value of bayonet
fighting. The engagement at Stony Point proved the value of the
bayonet as an arm. Previous to this time Steuben preached in vain on
the usefulness of this weapon. The soldiers had no faith in it. But
when Stony Point Fort was captured without firing a shot and when,
the next day, Steuben with General Washington appeared on the scene,
“Steuben was surrounded by all his young soldiers and they assured
him unanimously that they would take care for the future not to lose
their bayonets, nor roast beefsteaks with them, as they used to do.”
By his personal kindness and popularity Steuben was able to bring
about marked reforms, and to convert the forces from untrained
volunteers with no sense of order into a well-disciplined army which
enabled Washington to win some of his chief battles. Speaking on a
resolution before Congress to pay Steuben the sum of $2,700 due him,
a member, Mr. Page, cited as proof of the efficiency which had been
inculcated into the army by the distinguished German-American, an
interesting incident in the following words:
“I was told that when the Marquis de Lafayette, with a detachment
under his command, was in danger of being cut off on his return to
the army, and the commander-in-chief was determined to support that
valuable officer, the whole army was under arms and ready to march
in less than fifteen minutes from the time the signal was given.” In
the end Steuben was presented by Congress with a gold-hilted sword as
a high expression of its sense of his military talents, services and
character, and a large tract of land in New York State was given him
on which to live in his old age.
At the battle of Yorktown Steuben was so fortunate as to receive
the first overtures of Lord Cornwallis. “At the relieving hour next
morning,” relates North, “the Marquis de Lafayette approached with
his division; the baron refused to be relieved, assigning as a reason
the etiquette in Europe; that the offer to capitulate had been made
during his guard, and that it was a point of honor, of which he
would not deprive his troops, to remain in the trenches till the
capitulation was signed, or hostilities recommenced. The dispute was
referred by Lafayette to the commander-in-chief; but Steuben remained
until the British flag was struck.”
Illustration: GENERAL VON STEUBEN
Drillmaster of the American Revolutionary Armies.
Steuben died in the night of November 25, 1794, on his farm, highly
respected throughout the State and reverenced by the distinguished
men of his time as well as by the German population, having served as
president of the German Society of New York. When in 1824 Lafayette
visited the United States the inhabitants of Oneida County collected
money for erecting a monument over Steuben’s grave. They invited
Lafayette to dedicate the monument, but he refused to accede to their
request, excusing himself under some shallow pretext. (“Life of
Steuben,” by Friedrich Kapp.)
That Steuben had no mercenary motives in coming to America, is proved
by his letter to Congress. He wrote:
“The honor of serving a nation engaged in defending its rights and
liberties was the only motive that brought me to this continent. I
asked neither riches nor titles. I came here from the remotest end of
Germany at my own expense and have given up honorable and lucrative
rank. I have made no condition with your deputies in France, nor
shall I make any with you. My own ambition is to serve you as a
volunteer, to deserve the confidence of your general-in-chief, and
to follow him in all his operations, as I have done during the seven
campaigns with the King of Prussia.... I should willingly purchase at
the expense of my blood the honor of having my name enrolled among
those of the defenders of your liberty.”
Washington’s appreciation of Steuben is finally and irrevocably
attested in the following letter dated Annapolis, December 23, 1783:
“My dear Baron! Although I have taken frequent
opportunities, both in public and private, of acknowledging
your zeal, attention and abilities in performing the duties
of your office, yet I wish to make use of this last moment
of my public life to signify in the strongest terms my
entire approbation of your conduct, and to express my sense
of the obligations the public is under to you for your
faithful and meritorious service.
“I beg you will be convinced, my dear Sir, that I should
rejoice if it could ever be in my power to serve you
more essentially than by expressions of regard and
affection. But in the meantime I am persuaded you will
not be displeased with this farewell token of my sincere
friendship and esteem for you.
“This is the last letter I shall ever write while I
continue in the service of my country. The hour of my
resignation is fixed at twelve this day, after which I
shall become a private citizen on the banks of the Potomac,
where I shall be glad to embrace you, and testify the great
esteem and consideration, with which I am, my dear Baron,
your most obedient and affectionate servant.
“GEORGE WASHINGTON.”
A superb monument of General von Steuben by Albert Jaegers now
occupies one of the corners of the square opposite the White House in
Washington.
Along with the splendid tribute to the American spirit of patriotism
and unselfish devotion of Steuben, it seems fit and timely to add
here the “creed” which was adopted by the officers of the American
army at Verplanck’s Point, in 1782:
We believe that there is a great First Cause, by whose
almighty fiat we were formed; and that our business here is
to obey the orders of our superiors. We believe that every
soldier who does his duty will be happy here, and that
every such one who dies in battle, will be happy hereafter.
We believe that General Washington is the only fit man
in the world to head the American army. We believe that
Nathaniel Green was born a general. We believe that the
evacuation of Ticonderoga was one of those strokes which
stamp the man who dares to strike them, with everlasting
fame. =We believe that Baron Steuben has made us soldiers,
and that he is capable of forming the whole world into
a solid column, and displaying it from the center.= We
believe in his blue book. We believe in General Knox and
his artillery. And we believe in our bayonets. Amen.
The gratitude of the American people, many years after Steuben’s
death, was solemnly attested by Congress in dedicating a monument to
his memory at Pottsdam, with the inscription:
To the German Emperor and the German People:
This replica of the monument to the Memory of
General Friedrich Wilhelm August von Steuben.
Born in Magdeburg, 1730; died in the State of New York, 1794.
Is dedicated by the Congress of the United States as a Token
of Uninterrupted Friendship.
Erected in Washington in Grateful Appreciation of his Services
in the War of Independence of the American People.
=Sulphur King, Herman Frasch.=--Inventor of the method of pumping up
sulphur from its deposits, known as the water process, patented in
1891, which made available the large sulphur deposits in southern
Louisiana and other places, which had puzzled engineers for years.
Frasch came originally from Germany in the steerage, obtained work
sweeping out a retail drug store, became a clerk and finally was
graduated from the Philadelphia College of Pharmacy. He joined the
Standard Oil Company, and in prospecting for oil came upon abandoned
sulphur workings. The deposits were covered with quicksands which
had caused the death of several men, they exhaled noxious gases and
the attempts to mine them were called a failure. Frasch bought them
for a song on his own account, and began sinking his own perforated
pipes through which he forced steam and hot water from a battery
of boilers which he had rigged up. Frasch became a millionaire and
revolutionized sulphur mining in Sicily.
=Sutter, the Romance of the California Pioneer.=--The romance of
American colonization contains no chapter more absorbing than that
of the winning of the West. A poetic veil has been cast about the
California gold excitement and the rugged pioneers of the gulch, by
Bret Harte, Joaquin Miller and Mark Twain; but few historians have
thought it worth their pain to uncover the romance of the original
pioneer of California on whose land was found the first gold that
formed the lodestone of attraction for the millions that swept
westward on the tide of empire.
Against the historic background of the settlement of the Pacific
Coast stands out in luminous outlines the figure of Capt. John August
Sutter. Where another German, John Jacob Astor, had failed--that of
founding an American colony on the Pacific--he succeeded, even before
California, taken from Mexico as a result of the war of 1846, became
a State of the Union in 1850. His career is an inspiration to his
fellow racials wherever German veins tingle to the thrill of American
achievement.
Born 1803 at Kandern, in the Grand Duchy of Baden, Sutter received
an excellent education, graduated from the cadet school at Thun and,
after serving as an officer in the Swiss army and acquiring Swiss
citizenship, he came to the United States in 1834. He first wandered
to St. Louis, then the outfitting point for the Santa Fe trail and
center of the fur trade. Here Sutter joined an expedition to Santa
Fe and returned to St. Louis with a substantial profit. His next
trip was undertaken with an American fur expedition and, crossing
the Rocky Mountains, he reached Vancouver, the headquarters of the
Hudson Bay Fur Company on the Pacific, in September, 1838. After a
visit to the Sandwich Islands and to Sitka, Alaska, he arrived in
Monterey, California, in 1839, and determined to put into execution
a long-cherished plan of founding a colony on the Sacramento River.
Selecting a spot 120 miles northeast of San Francisco, which had been
highly recommended to him by trappers, he formed the settlement, New
Switzerland, upon a strip of land which he had acquired on favorable
terms from the Spanish governor, Alvarado. Here, of strong walls
and bastions, he built Fort Sutter and armed it with twelve cannon.
He then offered inducements to settlers to join him, broke several
hundred acres of land, built a tannery, a mill and a distillery,
fenced in a large area of grazing land between the Sacramento and
Feather rivers, employed Indians as herders and laborers and placed
them under Mexican, American and German overseers. About 1840 his
livestock consisted of 20,000 head of horses, cattle and sheep.
Fort Sutter soon attracted a desirable class of settlers, many of
them mechanics, who found ready employment here, as well as hunters
and trappers, who came to exchange furs for supplies of food, of
clothes and of powder and lead. Having complied with the terms of his
agreement, he was given title to the Alvarado grant and was appointed
by the governor the official representative of the Mexican government
for the northern part of California.
In the Mexican civil war between Santa Anna and the constitutional
president, Bustamento, he cast his lot with Santa Anna’s governor,
Manuel Micheltorena, and in 1845 received from the latter for his
services the Sobranta grant. There was almost a daily increase of his
land and pastures. His fort became too small. In 1844 he laid out the
town of Sutterville on the Sacramento River, which latterly took the
name of Sacramento. In 1848 he established vineyards on his property,
the first north of Sonoma. His wheat crop is estimated at 40,000
bushels for various years, while his large commercial and industrial
enterprises promised him a steady increase of a fortune, even then
estimated at millions. His fortune seems to have reached its apex in
1846.
Immigration into California was steadily increasing; the old
antipathy of the Spaniards and Indians against Mexico was stimulated
into new life; Major Fremont, the Pathfinder, visited Fort Sutter,
and encouraged by him, Sutter in the spring of 1846 declared his
independence and on July 11 of that year hoisted the Stars and
Stripes over his fort.
Once before the flag had been raised by a German on the Pacific
Coast, at Astoria by Astor in 1811. It was not suffered to remain
there permanently, but this time it was destined not to be hauled
down again. The war between Mexico and the United States broke out.
Commodore Stockton appeared with an American squadron, soldiers
of the Union began their invasion (see “Quitman,” elsewhere), and
California became a territory of the United States. Sutter was now
destined to experience that life is uncertain and fortune is fickle.
In January, 1848, Sutter was about to build a mill on the American
River, a tributary of the Sacramento, and, in digging the foundation,
J. W. Marshall, an agent of Sutter’s, discovered gold. Despite the
efforts of Sutter to keep the discovery secret for a while until
his mill was completed and his fields were put in order, the news
circulated with the speed of the wind. The magic word had been
spoken, and thence on no man thought of anything but gold. The
irresistible rush was on; a tide of humanity swept on to wash gold
and dig up the mountain sides farther up. Wages rose beyond all
reason, so that it was impossible to continue farming and industry,
since there were no hands to do the work. Titles were worthless.
Thousands of adventurers squatted on Sutter’s land. Countless law
suits had to be instituted, and Sutter’s property was soon covered
with mortgages. In the end the supreme court confirmed his title to
the Alvarado grant while declaring null and void that of the much
larger grant from Micheltorena. Other misfortunes came apace and
presently Sutter saw his great fortune swept away. The State of
California granted him an annuity of $3,000 for seven years in lieu
of taxes paid by him on American federal-owned property which was
immune from tax.
In the year 1865 Sutter turned his back upon California and went to
Pennsylvania, where he died poor at Litiz. But he was not forgotten.
His name was given to rivers, towns and counties and the room of the
legislative assembly was decorated with his portrait. He had been
elected major general of the State militia and in 1849 he was made a
member of the convention to adopt a constitution. In this capacity
he was active in securing the passage of measures declaring for the
abolition of slavery.
Sutter was naturally generous, hospitable and broad-minded, with
a strong adjunct of courage, shrewdness and enterprise in great
conceptions. A memorial speech delivered by Edward J. Kewen on
the occasion of a banquet of the Society of California Pioneers,
September 9, 1854, concludes with the following tribute:
In the cycle of the coming years historians will write of
the founding and settlement of this western State, and
when they shall dwell upon the virtues, the hardships, the
sufferings and courage, the fearlessness which has brought
all this about; when they describe the mighty impulse
which this commonwealth has exercised upon the progress of
free government and the development of the principles of
liberty, and when they shall adorn the annals with the name
of the founders of its fame, no name will illuminate their
records with more brilliant light than that of the immortal
Sutter--the noble example of the California pioneers.
“=Swordmaker of the Confederacy.=”--Louis Haiman, born in Colmar,
Prussia, who came to the United States at a tender age with his
family and was brought to Columbus, Georgia, then a small village.
At the outbreak of the Civil War Haiman was following the trade of
a tinner. “His work,” according to the Atlanta “Constitution,” was
successful, “and in 1861 he opened a sword factory to supply the
Confederacy a weapon that the South at the time had poor facilities
for making. Such was Haiman’s success that in a year’s time his
factory covered a block in the town of Columbus and was the most
extensive business in the place. The first sword made by Haiman was
presented to Col. Peyton H. Colquitt, and was one of the handsomest
in all the Southern army. It was inlaid with gold, and was constantly
used by Colonel Colquitt up to the time of his death. After that
Haiman made swords for the officers of the Confederate army, and
his first order came from Captain Wagner, in charge of the arsenal
at Montgomery, Ala. Later on, to supply the needs of the troops in
Southern Georgia and Alabama, he added a manufactory of firearms and
accoutrements to his establishment. When the Federal army occupied
Georgia Haiman’s property was confiscated and turned into a federal
arsenal. General Wilson, commander of the army of occupation,
proposed to restore to Haiman his property if he would take the oath
of allegiance to the Federal authority, but Haiman’s unswerving
loyalty to the cause of the South would not for a moment allow him
to brook such a suggestion, and with the departure of the troops his
factory was razed to the ground. His swords came to be famous in
the ranks of the Confederacy, and their temper and durability have
often called to mind the supreme test of swords related in ‘Ivanhoe’
between the leaders of Christendom and heathendom, Richard Coeur de
Lion and Saladin. After the war, with the resources left him, he
entered business at Columbus, that of manufacturing plows.”
=Tolstoy on American Liberty.=--Although Nicholas Murray Butler,
President of Columbia University, New York City, never surrendered
the decoration bestowed upon him by the Kaiser, and though he had
delivered sundry sound scoldings to England for her professed fears
of German aggression, in the days before the war, his name stands out
conspicuously among a considerable number of heads of colleges for
the suppression of free speech and liberty of conscience in regard to
the war. A number of the professors, several of international fame,
were compelled to resign under the pressure exercised from above, and
Columbia became known for its spirit of intolerance. Among those who
felt this was Count Ilya Tolstoy, son of the famous Russian author
and philosopher, himself a man of distinction in those fields.
In February, 1917, even before we entered the war, Tolstoy’s
engagement to deliver a lecture at a meeting of the International
Club in the assembly room of Philosophy Hall, Columbia University,
was summarily cancelled, although he had delivered the same lecture
without molestation at Princeton a few days before. In an interview
the distinguished savant said:
“The action of Columbia University was no insult to me. It was an
insult to the vaunted institution of free speech in this country. I
shall go back to Russia and tell them the story. I shall tell them
how New York prevented me from giving the lecture I gave before
thousands in Moscow. They will be astonished. My countrymen have
made your heralded freedom of speech a shibboleth of liberty--in our
land.... It matters little. I am surprised, but not hurt. Only I have
learned that Russia has much more freedom from personal prejudice, in
many ways, than this country has.”--New York “American,” February 12,
1917.
=Commercial Treaty with Germany and How it Was Observed.=--One of the
most humane and liberal treaties in the history of nations was that
entered into between the United States and Prussia in 1799. It was
renewed in 1828 and became the treaty governing the relations between
Germany and ourselves in 1871 on the establishment of the German
Empire.
This treaty was in force in 1917 when we entered the war. Some high
eulogiums have been passed upon this treaty, which was signed by
Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and John Quincy Adams, and, in
1828, by Henry Clay, on the part of the United States, and by the
authorized representative of Frederick the Great, on the other. In
his comments on this treaty, Theodore Lyman, Jr., a writer with a
strong Tory tendency and chary of praise as regards Prussia, makes
the following observations in his “The Diplomacy of the United
States” (1828):
This treaty, which has been called a beautiful abstraction,
is remarkable for the provisions which it contains:
Blockades of every description were abolished--the flag
covered the property--contrabands were exempted from
confiscation, though they might be employed for the use
of the captor on payment of their full value. This, we
believe, is the only treaty ever made by America in which
contrabands were not subject to confiscation, nor are we
aware that any other modern treaty contains this remarkable
provision. We are probably indebted to Dr. Franklin for the
articles.
It received an even higher endorsement in a message to Congress,
dated March 15, 1826, by President John Quincy Adams, who said:
They (the three American commissioners) met and resided for
that purpose about one year in Paris and the only result
of their negotiations at that time was the first treaty
between the United States and Prussia--memorable in the
diplomatic history of the world and precious as a monument
of the principles, in relation to commerce and maritime
warfare with which our country entered upon her career as
a member of the great family of independent nations....
At that time in the infancy of their political existence,
under the influence of those principles of liberty and
of right so congenial to the cause in which they had
just fought and triumphed, =they were able to obtain the
sanction of but one great and philosophical though absolute
sovereign in Europe (Frederick the Great) to their liberal
and enlightened principles. They could obtain no more.=
The two principal provisions of the treaty of 1799-1828 follow:
Article XII:
And it is declared, that neither the pretense that war
dissolves all treaties, nor any other whatever, shall be
considered as annulling or suspending this and the next
preceding article; but, on the contrary, that the state
of war is precisely that for which they are provided, and
during which they are to be as sacredly observed as the
most acknowledged articles in the law of nature and nations.
Article XXIII provides as follows:
If war should arise between the two contracting parties,
the merchants of either country then residing in the other
shall be allowed to remain nine months to collect their
debts and settle their affairs, and may depart freely,
carrying off all their effects without molestation or
hindrance; and all women and children, scholars of every
faculty, cultivators of the earth, artisans, manufacturers,
and fishermen, unarmed and inhabiting unfortified towns,
villages, or places, and in general all others whose
occupations are for the common subsistence and benefit of
mankind, shall be allowed to continue their respective
employments and shall not be molested in their persons,
nor shall their houses or goods be burnt or otherwise
destroyed, nor their fields wasted by the armed force of
the enemy, into whose power by the event of war they may
happen to fall; but if anything is necessary to be taken
from them for the use of such armed force, the same shall
be paid for at a reasonable price.
Under the foregoing, German citizens, merchants, corporations,
companies, etc., would have the right for the period of nine months
after the declaration of war to collect their debts, settle their
affairs, and, if possible, to depart safely, carrying all their
effects with them without any hindrance whatsoever. This would mean,
for instance, that the owners of the German vessels interned in our
harbors would be privileged to have full control over their property.
Under date of February 8, 1917, the State Department issued the
following statement:
It having been reported to him that there is anxiety in
some quarters on the part of persons residing in this
country who are the subjects of foreign states lest their
bank deposits or other property should be seized in the
event of war between the United States and a foreign
nation, the President authorizes the statement that all
such fears are entirely unfounded.
The Government of the United States will under no
circumstances take advantage of a state of war to take
possession of property to which under international
understandings and the recognized law of the land give it
no just claim or title. It will scrupulously respect all
private rights, alike of its own citizens and the subjects
of foreign states.
This was made public two months before we found ourselves in a state
of war with Germany. Soon after, A. Mitchell Palmer was appointed
Custodian of Alien Property and began to seize about one thousand
million dollars’ worth of German property and securities--not the
property of the Imperial German Government, with which we were at
war, but the property of German private persons.
Using the language of an editorial in one of the leading newspapers
in America of August 29, 1919, a treaty between the United States
and Germany, which had never been denounced and was in full force,
provided that in case of war between Germany and the United States,
Germany should permit American owners of property in Germany, or
Americans doing business in Germany, to have nine months in which
to wind up their business affairs, to dispose of their property and
to take themselves unhindered out of Germany. And the United States
bound itself, of course, to give the same treatment to German aliens
doing business or owning property in America. This treaty agreement
was deliberately broken by the Custodian of Alien Property. Under
international law the duty of such a custodian is to take possession
of the property of alien citizens of an enemy country, administer
that property carefully, preserve it in good faith, and hold the
earnings of the property and the property itself ready for return to
the owners whenever peace shall come. “We want,” declares the paper,
“to keep the name and reputation of the American people so clean and
honorable that no American shall ever need to apologize either to
friend or foe.” (New York “American.”)
As a result of the confiscation of hundreds of millions of dollars’
worth of alien property, a sensational scandal developed, which
was aired in the House and Senate and had a perceptible bearing on
the defeat of the League of Nations treaty in the Senate. Among
other things, Palmer, ultimately appointed Attorney General, was
charged with having sold the great Bosch magneto works, valued at
$16,000,000, for $4,000,000, giving the preference to friends; and
Representative J. Hampton Moore, referring to Francis P. Garvan, Mr.
Palmer’s successor as Custodian, demanded to know: “Why the same
Frank P. Garvan, the distinguished criminal lawyer of New York, had
recently been elected to and accepted the presidency of the Chemical
Foundation, which has taken over all the German patents in the United
States for the manufacture of dye stuffs through an arrangement
with the Alien Property Custodian, A. Mitchell Palmer, now Attorney
General?”
In his speech of June 21, 1919, in the House, Mr. Moore named a
number of big trust operators and financiers, including Cleveland
H. Dodge, as having formed the Chemical Foundation and taking over
“4,500 patents which Mr. Palmer and Mr. Garvan, this distinguished
criminal lawyer from New York, the successor of Mr. Palmer as Alien
Property Custodian, found on file in the Patent Office, and which
they seized on the ground that they belonged to certain German
patentees.” (New York “Times,” June 22, 1919.)
Hardly a pretence is made by the administration that the seizure was
legal, and the death-blow to all such pretensions was delivered when,
in urging the ratification of the Versailles treaty by the Senate,
Senator Hitchcock, the administration’s Senate leader, declared:
Through the treaty we will get very much of importance....
In violation of all international law and treaties, we
have made disposition of a billion dollars of German-owned
property here. The treaty validates all that.
It is important that Americans should know the facts in the case,
however unpopular the narrative may be, in order that they may set
themselves right before the world, or at least be prepared for the
wave of prejudice which is bound to be excited by the remarkable
proceedings. Quoting Walter T. Rose, a prominent Chicago exporter
just returned from a tour of Europe, the New York “Sun” of November
28, 1919, said: “It is an unfortunate fact that hardly anywhere
in Europe does one hear good opinions of America and Americans.”
Mr. Rose gathered his opinions in France and England as well as
in central Europe. The course of the Custodian of Alien Property
establishes a precedent that, of course, will be heeded by those
associated with us in the war no less than by our late enemies. It is
a warning that the filing of patents and patented processes insures
no immunity from confiscation in the event of war, and a warning to
foreign investors to go slow in investing their money in industries
in the United States. To counteract this policy imposes a moral task
upon every citizen of the United States who holds the honor of his
country above a dollar. For we shall have flaunted in our faces this
passage from President Wilson’s address to Congress, April 2, 1917:
We shall, I feel confident, conduct our operations as
belligerents without passion, and ourselves observe with
proud punctilio the principles of right and fair play we
profess to be fighting for.... It will be easier for us
to conduct ourselves as belligerents in a high spirit of
right and fairness because we act, not in enmity of a
people or with a desire to bring any injury or disadvantage
upon them, but only in opposition to an irresponsible
government. We are, let me say again, the sincere friends
of the German people, and shall desire nothing so much as
the early re-establishment of intimate relations of mutual
advantage between us--however hard it may be for them, for
the time being, to believe this is spoken from our hearts.
In a hearing before a Senate committee investigating his acts as
Custodian, Mr. Palmer named as his advisory committee, Otto Barnard,
Cleveland H. Dodge, George L. Ingraham and Alex Griswold, Jr. He
asserted that he had seized 40,000 German properties. Upon his list
were the names of 32 Germans and Austrian-Hungarians interned as
enemy aliens, whose property was taken over by him. Their names and
the value of their property follows:
Carl Heynan, $487,748; Adolf Pavenstedt, $1,661,408; E. K. Victor,
$274,092; Edward Lutz, $117,865; Hugo Schmidt, $89,434; F.
Stallforth, $540,408; Ad. Fischer, $477,396; F. Rosenberg, $228,484;
Max Breitung, $46,006; Isaac Straus, $36,688; Franz Bopp, $31,782;
Adolf Kessler, $205,165; Robert Tumler, $48,655; Dr. Ernst Kunwald,
$26,456; Fritz Bergmeier, $28,651; Dr. Karl Muck, $82,181; Hans Cron,
$54,436; J. H. Beckmann, $120,360; Paul Lubeke, $30,930; Johannes
Schlenzig, $58,967; Max Reinhard, $52,433; Gunther Weiske, $138,255;
M. S. Barnet, $42,766; Heinrich Beckisch, $25,811; Frank H. Meyer,
$60,928; Arthur Richter, $50,012; Herbert Clemens, $53,813; Fritz
Materna, $40,000; William H. Steinmann, $32,768; Julius Pirnitzer,
$84,656; Desider W. B. de Waray, $200,166; C. F. Banning, $44,000.
Among the amounts confiscated was $3,000 left in the will of Mrs.
Louisa Manada, of Wyoming, for the care of blind soldiers in Berlin,
her home going to a hospital in this country.
Among those mentioned as placed in charge of enemy property by
the Custodian, in his report to the Senate, March 1, 1919, appear
the names of several prominent newspaper men and politicians: Don
C. Seitz, publisher of the New York “World,” and George McAneny,
publisher of the New York “Times,” two strong administration papers,
both of whom were trustees of the Bridgeport Projectile Company.
Mr. McAneny and Henry Morgenthau, former ambassador to Turkey, were
made trustees of the American Metal Company, another enemy concern.
Gavin McNab, of San Francisco, a leading Democratic politician of
California, was made a trustee of the Charles E. Houson Estate
Company, the Marvin Estate Company and the J. H. von Schroeder
Investment Company.
In the investigation Mr. Palmer denied the various charges, and
others referred to, as well as the allegation, aired in the New York
“World,” that his name corresponded with the initials of a certain
M. P. mentioned in the captured notes of Dr. Albert, the German
agent, who was referred to as friendly to Germany. He stated that
“no other course than the seizure was compatible with the safety of
American institutions,” to which reply was made from Germany that the
$700,000,000 investments by Germans in this country did not reach
“one-half of the total value, for instance, of a single American
industrial company like the United States Steel Corporation, and
not even approximately one per cent. of the total value of American
industrial enterprises.” The immense business built up here by the
Germans was, Mr. Palmer said, lost to the Germans forever, and there
was absolutely no hope for the development of American chemical
industries under the old conditions. He defended the Bosch seizure on
the ground of a plot by the manager to promise special apparatus to
the British for their aeroplanes without intending to deliver them.
Millions of dollars’ worth of property belonging to women of American
birth, married to German and Austrian subjects, was taken over by the
Custodian. Many prominent women are in the list, including Countess
Gladys Vanderbilt-Szechenyi, whose property as taken over amounts
to nearly $4,000,000 in securities in addition to the income from a
$5,000,000 trust fund created under the will of her father.
The list includes:
Baroness Augusta Louise von Alten, Budapest, Hungary, formerly
Augusta L. De Haven, and Sarah E. von Camps Hanover, Welfel, Germany,
formerly Sarah E. De Haven, granddaughters of the late Louisa G.
Bigelow, formerly of Chicago. Estate valued at about $1,460,000.
Baroness Clara Erhart von Truchsess, Dusseldorf, Germany, formerly
Clara Erhart, of New York. Life estate in trust fund of $500,000;
securities valued at $600,000.
Gertrude, Baroness von Bocklin, Baden, Germany, formerly Gertrude
Berwind, of Philadelphia. Under the will of Charles F. Berwind, her
father, she received more than $300,000 in property, which was put in
trust with property received by the other heirs.
Baroness Olivia Louise von Rothkirch, Schlesien, Germany, formerly
Olivia Louise Brown, daughter of William John Brown, of New York.
Life interest in trust, approximating $1,000,000.
Baroness Matilda L. Bornemissa, Budapest, Austria; Baroness Margaret
von Wucherer and Anna von Dory Johahaza, both of Steiermark, Austria,
daughters of the late James Price, of Philadelphia, and Baroness
Manon Dumreicher, Baron Tibor von Berg, Baron Tassilo von Berg and
Baron Max von Berg, children of the deceased daughter, Baroness
Sallie Mae Berg. The above enemies share an income of the trust under
the will of Sarah Maria Price, valued at $275,000, and also in a
trust created under the will of Samuel Harlan, Jr., valued at $75,000.
Baroness Cornelia C. Zedlitz, Berlin, Germany, formerly Cornelia
Carnochan Roosevelt, daughter of the late Charles Y. Roosevelt, of
New York. Under a trust agreement made in 1889 in contemplation
of marriage, her property, valued at about $1,000,000, was put in
trust, reserving to her a life interest. Personal property valued at
$200,000 was also taken over.
Countess Marguerite Isabelle Eugenie Victorine de Stuers Obendorff,
wife of the former German Ambassador to Austria, and grandniece of
the late Henry Astor, grandson of the original John Jacob Astor, and
inheritor of a share in his estate. Her mother was Countess Margaret
Laura Zhorowski, daughter of Alida Astor, a sister of Henry Astor,
and daughter of William Astor. Trust fund $60,000, created by deed of
trust by her father; cash, $949,225 and eight-fifteenths interest in
New York city property.
Countess von Francken, Sierstorpff, Zyrowa Leschnitz, Prussia,
formerly Mary Knowlton, daughter of Edwin F. Knowlton, of New York.
Life interest trust fund $1,200,000, left under the will of her
father; Countess Alice Grote, Schloss Varechentin, Mecklenburg,
Germany, formerly Alice von Bergen, daughter of Anthony von Bergen of
New York. Life interest, $250,000.
Countess Gladys Vanderbilt Szechenyi, Budapest, Hungary, daughter
of the late Cornelius Vanderbilt and Alice G. Vanderbilt. Nearly
$4,000,000 in securities taken over; also income from $5,000,000
trust fund created under the will of her father.
Countess Harriet Sigray, Ivancz Nagycsakny, Hungary, daughter of the
late Marcus Daly, of Montana, a sister of Mrs. James Gerard, wife of
the former Ambassador to Germany. Securities taken over, $1,000,000.
Countess Gladys McMillan Cornet, Brussels, Belgium, formerly Gladys
McMillan, daughter of the late James H. McMillan, of Detroit. Life
interest in one-tenth of trust of $4,500,000; life interest in
two-thirds of trust of $450,000; life estate one-tenth trust of
$600,000 and securities valued at $149,725.
Countess Elizabeth T. P. de Gasquet-James, Krain, Austria, formerly
Elizabeth T. Pratt James, of Esopus, N. Y. Life estate in $135,000
and bonds, $59,000.
Lily Freifrau Treusch von Buttlar Brandenfees, Stettin, Germany,
formerly Lilly G. Stetson, daughter of the late Isaiah Stetson, of
Bangor, Me. Securities taken over valued at $250,000.
Jayta Humphreys von Wolf, Munich, Germany, daughter of the late
Frederic Humphreys, of New York. Life interest in a trust valued
about $50,000.
Rosa K. Schertel von Burtenbach, daughter of the late Frederick
Schaefer, of New York. Under trust created in will of father, she has
life interest of $200,000.
Clara von Gontard, Berlin, Germany, daughter of the late Adolphus
Busch and Lilly Busch, of St. Louis. Life interest in trust fund
created under the will of Adolphus Busch, securities valued at
$900,000, including stock holdings in Anheuser-Busch Brewing Company
of St. Louis.
Mary Trowbridge von Zepplin, Germany, formerly Mary Wilkens, Detroit,
wife of Conrad von Zepplin and daughter of the late Lizzie C.
Wilkens, of Detroit. Life estate trust fund, $40,000.
Clara Bauer von Rosenthal, Frankfort-am-Main, Germany, formerly Clara
Bauer, daughter of the late Augustus Bauer, Chicago. Life interest in
trust of $35,000.
Mary Grace von der Hellan, Hamburg, Germany, formerly Mary Grace
Meissner, Garden City, New York. Life interest in trust created
by herself just prior to her marriage, $65,000, and bank balance,
$304,472.
Charlotte von Gorrisen, Hamburg, Germany, formerly Charlotte
Anderson, daughter of the late Elbert J. Anderson, of Newport, R. I.
Small interest in the estate of her father.
Alice von Buchwaldt, Bremen, Germany, and Anna Maria von Bose,
Dresden, Germany, daughters of William Wilkens, deceased, of
Baltimore. Each has a life interest in a trust fund under the will of
her father of about $180,000.
Natalie Burleigh von Ohnesorge, Provinz Posen, Germany, daughter of
Sarah B. Conklin, of New York. Life estate in a trust under will of
her father, $140,000.
Florence Grafin von Schwerin, Munich, Germany, formerly Florence
Wann, of St. Paul, Minn. Daughter of the late John Wann, deceased.
Property taken over, $20,000; life interest in trust created under
the will of her father, $40,000. Interest in the trust created by
deed of trust of her brother, Thomas Leslie Wann, consisting of
valuable real estate in St. Paul.
Children of Sophie von Bohlen und Halbach, Baden, Germany, formerly
Sophie Bohlen, daughter of Gen. William Henry Charles Bohlen, of
Pennsylvania. She died in 1915 and her children, all residing in
Germany, became beneficiaries of her estate, including trust funds
totaling $1,500,000.
Helen H. von Stralenheim, Dresden, Germany; Louise von Trutzchler zum
Falkenstein, Vogtland, Germany, and Josephine von Arnim, Dresden,
Germany, daughters of David Leavitt, deceased, late of New York. Each
has life estate one-fifth of $225,000 trust.
Sophie von Arenstorff, Frankfort-a-Oder, Germany. Under the will
of Edward G. Halls, deceased, late of Chicago, above enemy, a
granddaughter, has a life interest in three-tenths of the estate,
valued at $267,000.
Katie von Kracker, Mecklenburg, Germany, formerly Katie Elias,
daughter of the late Henry Elias, of New York, life interest in
one-half of a trust valued at $300,000.
Mr. Palmer’s assertion that Germany set the example by seizing
American property in Germany cannot be sustained by him.
=Villard, Henry.=--A distinguished war correspondent during the Civil
War, afterwards built the Northern Pacific Railroad, largely with
German capital. Born in Speyer, 1835. His real name was Heinrich
Hillgard. Married a daughter of William Lloyd Garrison, famous
abolitionist. Father of Oswald Garrison Villard, editor of “The
Nation.”
=Vote on War in Congress.=--A resolution declaring the United States
in a state of war “with the imperial German Government” on the
grounds that the imperial German government had committed repeated
acts of war against the government and the people of the United
States and that in consequence of these acts war had been thrust upon
the United States, was passed in the Senate on April 5 and in the
House on April 6, 1917.
In neither the Senate nor the House of Representatives was the
resolution passed by a unanimous vote.
In the Senate on April 5 it passed by a vote of 82 to 6, and in the
House by a vote of 373 to 50. No obstructions were resorted to, and
comparatively a short time was consumed on both sides in speeches
devoted to individual explanations.
In the Senate 43 Democrats and 39 Republicans voted aye and in the
House 193 Democrats, 177 Republicans and three Independents (Fall of
Massachusetts, Martin of Louisiana and Schall of Minnesota) voted
affirmatively, while 16 Democrats and 32 Republicans, 1 Socialist and
1 Independent (Randall) voted in the negative. Miss Rankin, the first
woman member of the lower House of Congress, voted against war.
The Senators voting “no” were Lane, Stone and Vardaman, Democrats,
and Gronna, La Follette and Norris, Republicans.
In the lower House the members who voted against war were the
following:
Alabama--Almon, Burnett.
California--Church, Hayes, Randall.
Colorado--Hilliard, Keating.
Illinois--Britten, Rodenberg, Fuller, Wheeler, King, Mason.
Iowa--Haugen, Woods, Hull.
Kansas--Connelly, Little.
Michigan--Bacon.
Minnesota--Davis, Knutson, Van Dyke, Lundeen.
Missouri--Decker, Igoe, Hensley, Shackleford.
Montana--Rankin.
Nebraska--Kinkaid, Reavis, Sloan.
Nevada--Roberts.
New York--London.
North Carolina--Kitchin.
Ohio--Sherwood.
South Carolina--Dominick.
South Dakota--Dillon, Johnson.
Texas--McLemore.
Washington--Dill, La Follette.
Wisconsin--Browne, Cary, Cooper, Esch, Frear, Nelson, Stafford,
Davidson, Voight.
Paired, 6; absent by illnesses, 2; not voting, 2; vacancies, 2.
Speaker Clark did not vote.
The debate in both Houses will rank among the most memorable in
the history of the country. With a degree of courage amounting
to heroism, Senators La Follette of Wisconsin, Stone of Missouri
and Norris of Nebraska spoke in opposition to the adoption of the
resolution; but the surprise came in the House when the Democratic
floor leader, Kitchin, announced his opposition to the measure.
It should not be assumed that any of the men in either branch of
Congress took the position in a spirit of light-hearted opposition.
Not one among them but realized the heavy responsibility of his
action. With a newspaper clamor for war unequaled in the history of
the United States, with the bitter denunciation of Senators who voted
against the armed ship bill in March still ringing in their ears, and
with the widespread propaganda carried to the doors of Congress by
those anxious for war, every legislator felt the gravity of his step
in refusing to sanction the necessary authority which would plunge
the country into the European conflagration.
An analysis of the vote shows that not a single representative of the
people from an Eastern State (except New York, London, Socialist)
voted against war. Every negative vote came from the West and South.
The favorite slogan that the agitation against war emanated wholly
from German sources was not verified by facts. It is said that there
is hardly a German vote in the North Carolina district represented
by Kitchin. No such influence operated upon Senator Vardaman of
Mississippi, nor upon the two members from Alabama.
The largest vote against war came from Wisconsin, where, aside from
Senator La Follette, nine members of the lower House were found
on the negative side and but two on the affirmative, exclusive of
Senator Husting. The latter went out of his way to make a bitter
attack on the German-Americans and called the people of his State
disloyal if they refused “to back up the President in the course he
has decided to take.” He said this was the only question at issue, as
he believed that if the question of peace or war only were submitted
to the people war would be voted down.
Sentiment in his State on the war question was indicated by the large
anti-war vote of the Wisconsin delegation and the referendum votes
taken in Sheboygan and Monroe on April 3. In the former place only
17 out of 4,000 votes cast were for war, and in the latter 954 votes
were against and 95 for war. A relative result was recorded from a
Minnesota referendum.
Several incidents of interest out of the common marked the great
debate, but there was a noticeable absence of the high feeling that
accompanied the declaration of war against Spain. For part of the
day the House was half empty while the debate was in progress and
comparatively few people appeared in the galleries.
Representative Kitchin declared that he expected his vote against war
to end his political career, but that he nevertheless could not act
against his conscientious convictions. A rampant Southern fire-eater
named Heflin, hailing from Alabama, attacked Kitchin and declared
that the latter’s attitude should prompt him to resign from Congress,
as he did not represent the opinion of the country.
The answer to this suggestion was a volley of hisses from the
Democratic side of the House; and while Miss Rankin, tears in her
eyes as she found herself confronted with the serious problem of
doing a popular thing or following her convictions, declared in a
broken voice, “I want to stand by my country, but I cannot vote for
war--I vote no,” applause greeted her decision even from those who
were voting the other way.
Kitchin was chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, which has
in charge the appropriations necessary to carry on the war. He
distinctly announced that if war were declared he would present no
obstructions to its successful conduct but would do all that was
required of him as a member of the House.
In the main the debate was conducted with marked decorum. Little
acrimonious discussion developed. The supporters of the resolution
calmly and seriously declared that a state of war really existed as a
result of German violations of American rights, while the opponents
of war insisted that the German submarine campaign was forced by the
illegal British blockade, which was as much a violation of American
rights as submarine warfare.
The same apathy which characterized the situation on the floor in
general marked the reception of the speeches. Applause at best was
scattered, and the absence of patriotic display was noticeable.
Members were in a serious mood and talked and voted with great
solemnity. Kitchin, before delivering his stirring anti-war speech,
had spent six hours in consultation with proponents and opponents of
war, and decided to oppose the resolution only after he had carefully
weighed his action.
The only member from Texas who voted against war was Representative
McLemore, the author of the famous McLemore resolution, whose
adoption was intended to forestall the possibility of war with
Germany.
In the House the opening speech against the resolution was delivered
by Representative Cooper, of Wisconsin, who made an eloquent plea
in behalf of his contention that the United States should proceed
against England as well as against Germany, as both had equally
acted illegally and indefensibly in violating American rights. If
we had cause for war against one we had as just cause against the
other offender. Mr. Cooper was the ranking Republican member of the
Committee on Foreign Affairs in the House.
The only vote against war from Ohio, out of a total of 24 in both
Houses, including Nicholas Longworth, the son-in-law of Theodore
Roosevelt, was cast by Representative Sherwood of Toledo. He enlisted
in the Union Army April 16, 1861, as a private and was mustered out
as Brigadier-General October 8, 1865; was in 43 battles and 123
days under fire and was six times complimented in special orders by
commanding generals for gallant conduct in battle; commanded his
regiment in all the battles of the Atlanta campaign, and after the
battles of Franklin and Nashville, Tenn., upon the recommendation
of the officers of his brigade and division, he was made brevet
brigadier general by President Lincoln for long and faithful service
and conspicuous gallantry at the battles of Resaca, Atlanta, Franklin
and Nashville.
=War of 1870-71.=--What may be expected from the process of rewriting
our school histories of American events by the friends of England is
patent from the manner in which some of the most vital historical
data of the world’s history was distorted during the war. For
example, it has been persistently dinned into the minds of Americans
that France was trapped into war with Prussia in 1870 by the subtle
diplomatic strategy of Bismarck, who is represented as having forged
a dispatch. The facts are easily accessible in “Bismarck, the Man and
the Statesman,” published by Harper Brothers in 1899, in which the
episodes and events, including the manner of the alleged dispatch,
are treated with a degree of candor that can leave no doubt as to
the responsibility for the war. It can be found in Chapter XXVII,
entitled “The Ems Dispatch.”
The facts in the case are that France desired war with Prussia, but
was taken by surprise when it found the South German states allied
with Prussia, instead of rushing to the aid of France, as Napoleon
III had confidently expected. If a nation can be inflamed to go to
war by a dispatch which simply recorded that King William of Prussia
had refused to intermeddle with the succession to the Crown of Spain
and declined to continue the discussion of the subject with the
French minister, Benedetti, it is hardly probable that the war could
have been prevented under any circumstances. Accordingly, France
declared war, not Prussia. Napoleon III at the time was regulating
affairs throughout the universe, in Italy as well as in Mexico, where
he set up a throne supported by French arms, which violated the
Monroe Doctrine and almost brought us to grips with France.
The popular description of France as a peace-loving nation is not
borne out by many centuries of her history, as even Frenchmen admit.
The Cock of Gaul is a fighting cock, declares Deputy Pierre Brizon in
a recent (1919) issue of the French periodical, “La Vague:”
They fired cannon to announce Peace!
What would you have done? They are used to blood! They are
the sons of the “Cock of Gaul.”
And the “Cock of Gaul” through the centuries has carried
war over the whole world--into Italy, into Germany, into
Spain, into England, into Switzerland, into Austria, into
Ireland, into the Scandinavian countries, into Russia, into
Syria, to the Indies, to Mexico, into Algeria, into Tunis,
to the Antilles, to Senegal, into the Congo, to Madagascar,
into China, to Morocco, to the Ends of the Earth.
No people for a thousand years have been more warlike than
the French. No one has had to an equal degree with them the
silly vanity of “glory” and of “victory.” No one has caused
more blood to run over the earth.
Of course, this does not furnish an excuse for the Vandals,
the Mongols, the Turks, the Russians, the English or the
Prussians.
No, but--they fired cannon in Paris to announce Peace!
The absurdity that Prussia lured France into a war in 1870 is
repudiated by no less an authority than Premier Georges Clemenceau.
In an article which he contributed to the “Saturday Evening Post,” of
October 24, 1914, under the title, “The Cause of France,” (p. 1, col.
2), he states:
In 1870 Napoleon III in a moment of folly declared war on
Germany [should be Prussia] without even having the excuse
of being in a state of military preparedness. =No true
Frenchman has ever hesitated to admit that the wrongs of
that day were committed by our side. Dearly we have paid
for them.=
=War Lies Repudiated by British Press.=--The following article deals
with venerable subjects that have done much to inflame international
hatred and misunderstandings. It is taken from the Glasgow “Forward,”
of Glasgow, Scotland (1919), and will have a tendency, it is hoped,
to enlighten the minds of many who have believed everything that was
printed about war’s atrocities:
We are continually receiving requests for information about the
Lusitania, poison gas, aerial bombs, corpse fat, and other popular
stock-in-trade of the warmonger. We cannot keep repeating our
exposures of wartime falsehoods and delusions, and we ask our readers
to keep the following facts beside them, and refrain from subjecting
us to a continual stream of postal queries.
“Was the Lusitania armed?”
No. But she was carrying munitions of war. Lord Mersey, chairman of
the Court of Enquiry into the sinking of the Lusitania, said: “The
5,000 cases of ammunition on board were 50 yards away from where the
torpedo struck the ship” (Glasgow “Evening Citizen” report, July 17,
1915).
“Did the German people rejoice?”
No. There was neither hilarity nor medals nor school beflagging.
The London “Times” reported that “Vorwarts” “deeply deplored” the
sinking. So did the German naval critic, Captain Persius.
Mr. John Murray, the publisher, issued last October an authoritative
book from the pen of the correspondent of the Associated Press of
America in Germany, Mr. George A. Schreiner, who was in Germany
during the Lusitania period. Mr. Schreiner’s dispatches were
extensively quoted in the patriotic British press, and his testimony
is above suspicion. His book, “The Iron Ration” (pp. 291-2), says:
The greatest shock the German public received was the news
that the Lusitania had been sunk.
For a day or two a minority held that the action was
eminently correct. But even that minority dwindled rapidly.
For many weeks the German public was in doubt as to what
it all meant. The thinking element was groping about in
the dark. What was the purpose of picking out a ship with
so many passengers on board? Then the news came that the
passengers had been warned not to travel on the steamer.
That removed all doubt that the vessel had been singled out
for attack.
The government remained silent. It had nothing to say. The
press, standing in fear of the censor and his power to
suspend publication, was mute. Little by little it became
known that there had been an accident. The commander of the
submarine sent out to torpedo the ship had been instructed
to fire at the forward hold, so that the passengers could
get off before the vessel sank. Either a boiler of the
ship or (they continued) an ammunition cargo had given
unlooked-for assistance to the torpedo. The ship had gone
down. Nothing weaned the German public so much away from
the old order of government as did the Lusitania affair.
The act seemed useless, wanton, ill-considered. The
doctrine of governmental infallibility came near to being
wrecked. The Germans began to lose confidence in the wisdom
of the men who had been credited in the past with being the
very quintessence of all knowledge, mundane and celestial.
Admiral Tirpitz had to go. Germany’s allies, too, were
not pleased. In Austria and Hungary the act was severely
criticized, and in Turkey I found much disapproval of the
thing.
“The ‘Old Contemptible’ Lie.”
The “New Illustrated” (Lord Northcliffe’s latest journalistic
venture) declared, in March of this year:
The story that the Kaiser called General French’s force
a “contemptible little army” served a useful purpose in
working up fierce anger against the enemy in Britain, but
it was an invention. The Kaiser was not so foolish as to
say what the German General Staff would have known to be
nonsense.
“The Corpse Fat Lie.”
The “Times” started the lie that the Germans had built factories for
extracting grease from the bodies of dead soldiers. This grease was
used as margarine.
Lord Robert Cecil latterly admitted in the House of Commons that
there was no evidence of the story; but, of course, he believed the
Germans capable of it. The London comic (?) papers issued cartoons of
a German looking at a pot of grease and soliloquizing: “Alas! my poor
brother!” But the lie was finally exposed and disappeared even from
the stock-in-trade of the British Workers’ League--and, God knows,
they were loth to let anything go.
“Who first bombed from the sky?”
The National War Savings Committee issued synopses of their lantern
lectures last year for propaganda purposes. Here are the synopses of
the two slides dealing with the first bomb dropped on towns:
A lantern picture, entitled “War in the Air,” by C. G. Grey (editor
of “Aeroplane”), issued by the National War Savings Committee,
Salisbury Square, London, E. C. 4 (page 7).
“Slide 32--The navy’s land machines went over to Belgium and it is
to the credit of the R. N. A. S. that =the first hostile missiles
which fell on German soil were bombs dropped by R. N. A. S. pilots on
Cologne and Dusseldorf=....
“Slide 35--=It is interesting to note that these early raids by the
R. N. A. S. were the first example of bomb-dropping attacks from
the air in any way=, and the only pity is that we had not at the
beginning of the war enough aeroplanes.”
“Priority in poison gas.”
The Glasgow “Evening News” (January 26, 1918) frankly admitted that:
It appears that mustard gas, generally believed to have
been invented by the Germans, was discovered by the late
Professor Guthrie at the Royal College, Mauritius.
The London “Times,” on August 2, 1914, reproduced from the French
government organ, “Le Temps,” a paragraph reporting that M. Turpin
has offered to the French Ministry of War a shell filled with a
chemical compound discovered by him, and called Turpinite. Numbers
of these shells seem to have been used by the French artillery, and
they were essentially such gas shells as the Germans are now using.
Numerous correspondents, claiming to be eye-witnesses, reported their
terrible effects in the British press during October and November,
1914. We learned that the gas liberated from the explosion of one of
these shells was enough to asphyxiate an entire platoon of Germans.
After death they were observed to be standing erect and shoulder
to shoulder in their trenches, and, after killing them with this
marvelous celerity, the gas would roll on and stifle entire flocks
of sheep feeding in fields in their rear. The British press writers
saw nothing to blame in the use against Germans of Turpinite; on the
contrary, they openly exulted in its terrible effects. Subsequently,
much to their regret, Turpinite was given up, because it was so
dangerous to the munition workers who had to pour it into the shell
cases. Some weeks later the Germans began to use with more success
the same expedient.
The London “Illustrated News” (May 13, 1915) published a “thrilling”
picture of 5 German officers asphyxiated by British lyddite. The
descriptive lines below the picture say:
“One of the correspondents at the front tells a thrilling story
of the havoc wrought by lyddite shells used by our artillery in
Flanders. The fumes of the lyddite are very poisonous, so much so
that some of our troops wore masks for the nose and mouth. After one
battle, in which the German trenches had been shelled with lyddite,
an officer found a card party of five officers stone dead. Looking at
them in the bright moonlight, he was struck by their resemblance to
waxwork figures. They were in perfectly natural poses, but the bright
yellow of their skins showed the manner of their death--asphyxiation
by lyddite.”
The first inventor of poison gas was Lord Dundonald during the
Crimean war (see “The Panmure Papers,” published in 1908 by Hodder &
Stoughton, and the “Candid Review,” August, 1915). It was at the time
of the Crimean war rejected by the English as “too horrible.”
There were, of course, atrocities during the war--German, Austrian,
Italian, British, Serbian, French. All war is an atrocity, but =the
hate= was fanned and the murder kept going by the steady press
campaigns of mendacity in every country, and here in Britain we were
subjected to more than our fair share of it.
=Washington’s Bodyguard.=--At the outbreak of the war of independence
Herkimer, Muhlenberg and Schlatter gathered the Germans in the Mohawk
Valley and the Virginia Valley together and organized them into
companies for service. Baron von Ottendorff, another German soldier,
recruited and drilled the famous Armand Legion. And when Washington’s
first bodyguard was suspected of treasonable sentiments and plans
it was dismissed and a new bodyguard, consisting almost entirely of
Germans, was formed. This new bodyguard was supported by a troop of
cavalry consisting entirely of Germans, under the command of Major
Barth von Heer, one of Frederick the Great’s finest cavalry officers.
This troop stood by Washington during the entire war, and twelve of
them escorted him to Mt. Vernon when he retired.--(“The European War
of 1914,” by Prof. John W. Burgess, Chap. IV, p. 115.)
=Washington’s Tribute.=--The Philadelphia German Lutherans held a
memorial service on May 27, 1917, made doubly impressive at Zion’s
Church, by the circulation of a letter written to the congregation by
George Washington, in reply to congratulations on his first election
as President of the United States. The letter concludes with the
following words:
From the excellent character for dilligence, sobriety and
virtue which the Germans in general, who are settled in
America have ever maintained, I cannot forbear felicitating
myself on receiving from respectable a number of them
such strong assurance of their affection for my person,
confidence in my integrity, and real zeal to support me
in my endeavors for promoting the welfare of our common
country.
Similar expressions are contained in a letter written by
Jefferson, which see elsewhere. The church to whose congregation
Washington’s letter was addressed, is the most historic church in
the northern part of the United States, since it was built in 1742,
under the direction of the patriarch of the Lutheran Church in
America, Heinrich M. Muhlenberg, father of General Muhlenberg, of
Revolutionary fame. For 178 years the service has been conducted in
the German language.
=Weiser, Conrad.=--Along with Franz Daniel Pastorius, Jacob Leisler
and John Peter Zenger, the name of Conrad Weiser deserves to be
commemorated as one of the outstanding figures of early American
history, for no man of his period exercised such influence with
the Indians or did so much to promote the peaceful development of
the settlements by insuring the friendship of the Six Nations. The
following sketch of this famous character in American history is
taken from “Eminent Americans” by Benson J. Lossing:
“One of the most noted agents of communication between the white men
and the Indians was Conrad Weiser, a native of Germany, who came to
America in early life and settled with his father in the present
Schoharie County, N. Y., in 1713. They left England in 1712 and were
seventeen months on the voyage. Young Weiser became a great favorite
with the Iroquois Indians in the Schoharie and Mohawk valleys, with
whom he spent much of his life. Late in 1714 the elder Weiser and
about thirty other families who had settled in Schoharie, becoming
dissatisfied with attempts to tax them, set out for Tulpehocken in
Pennsylvania, by way of the Susquehanna River, and settled there.
But young Weiser was enamoured of the free life of the savage. He
was naturalized by them and became thoroughly versed in the language
of the whole Six Nations, as the Iroquois Confederacy in New York
was called. He became confidential interpreter and messenger for
the Province of Pennsylvania among the Indians and assisted at many
important treaties. The governor of Virginia commissioned him to
visit the grand council at Onondago in 1737 and with only a Dutchman
and three Indians he traversed the trackless forest for 500 miles
for that purpose. He went on a similar mission from Philadelphia
to Shamokin (Sunbury) in 1744. At Reading he established an Indian
agency and trading post. When the French on the frontier made
hostile demonstrations in 1755 he was commissioned a colonel of a
volunteer regiment from Berks County, and in 1758 he attended the
great gathering of Indian chiefs in council with white commissioners
at Easton. Such was the affection of the Indians for Weiser that for
many years after his death they were in the habit of visiting his
grave and strewing flowers upon it. Mr. Weiser’s daughter married
Henry Melchior Muhlenberg, D. D., the founder of the Luthern Church
in America.”
One of his grandsons was General Muhlenberg, another was the first
Speaker of the House of Congress. General Washington said of him:
“Posterity will not forget his just deserts.”
=Wetzel, Lou.=--The present generation is not too old to recall the
flood of Indian stories of their youth, for in the ‘70s the Indian
was still a factor in the contest for the development of the West
and the papers at times contained thrilling accounts of battles with
Indians on our frontier. Cooper was still a much-read novelist, and
less famous writers still sought their inspiration in the French and
Indian wars, the wars which the English and Tories, with their Indian
allies, carried into the valleys of the Schoharie and the Mohawk,
as well as in the bloody conflicts in Kentucky and Ohio. In these
stories no names were of more frequent occurrence than those of Lou
Wetzel, the scout and Indian fighter, and Simon Girty, the renegade.
Both these names are strictly historic. Wetzel, was next to Daniel
Boone, the most famous frontiersman of our early middle west history.
His father was born in the Palatinate and came to Pennsylvania,
settling afterwards in Ohio, where each of his four sons won fame as
frontiersmen, scouts and guides, but above all, Lou, who after an
eventful career and many hairbreadth escapes, died in Texas and was
buried on the banks of the Brazos. Other noted Indian fighters of
the period who were of German descent were Peter Nieswanger, Jacob
Weiser, Carl Bilderbach, John Warth and George Rufner. The Poes, too,
were well known in early border history, and were the sons of German
settlers from Frederick County, Md. The elder, Frederick Poe, who
moved west in 1774, and died in 1840 at the age of 93, was, like his
younger brother, Andrew, a typical backwoodsman, contesting for every
foot of ground with the native Indian.
=Wirt, William.=--Famous jurist and author. During three presidential
terms Attorney General of the United States; appointed by President
Monroe to that office in 1817-18; resigned under John Quincy
Adams, March 3, 1829. Born at Bladensburg, Md., November 18, 1772,
becoming a poor orphan at an early age. Learned Latin and Greek and
studied law at Montgomery Court House, being licensed to practice
in the fall of 1792. Commenced his professional career at Culpeper
Courthouse, Va., the same year and soon became eminent socially and
professionally. In 1802 received the appointment of chancellor of
the eastern district of Virginia. Wrote his beautiful essays under
the name of “The British Spy” and in 1807 prosecuted Aaron Burr for
treason. His great speech on that occasion made him famous. Was a
member of the Virginia Legislature in 1808, and from that time until
after the war pursued his profession successfully until summoned into
the Cabinet of President Monroe. In 1832 he was nominated by the
anti-Masonic party for President of the United States, but received
only the electoral vote of Vermont. He died February 18, 1834. The
most famous production of his pen is a “Life of Patrick Henry.” Mr.
Wirt never forgot his German antecedance and during 1833 engaged in
founding a colony of Germans in Florida, but the venture was not
successful. Lossing says “he was greatly esteemed in Richmond for his
talents and social accomplishments.”
=Wirtz, Captain H., of Andersonville Prison.=--For many years after
the Civil War, Andersonville Prison served as the outstanding symbol
of the atrocities practiced upon Union prisoners by the Southern
Confederacy. The prison was commanded by Captain Wirtz, who was
subsequently tried by a court martial at Washington and hanged.
General Lee’s nephew, and his biographer, has stated that General
Lee used his influence to save him by showing that Wirtz was not
primarily responsible for the sufferings of Union prisoners under
his care, but that these were in a large measure due to the blockade
against Southern ports, which prevented the landing of medicines
and supplies. Because of his name, Wirtz has been cited by Prof.
John D. Lawson, of Columbia, Mo., and others, as a typical personal
embodiment of German brutality. Mr. Louis Benecke, a prominent
attorney, of Brunswick, Mo., who himself was for seven months a
Union prisoner in a Confederate prison, and who afterwards became
the historian of the Association of Ex-Union Prisoners of War, has
shown that Wirtz was not a native of Germany. Mr. Benecke says:
“As the record shows, his grandfather was a French wine merchant
at Bonnerville, France, and his name was there spelled with a ‘V’
instead of a ‘W.’ The father of Wirtz located in Switzerland, near
Geneva, and while there changed his name to Wirtz, conforming to the
phonetic of the French ‘V.’ It is further shown that the mother of
Captain H. Wirtz was a French Italian. A prisoner of German descent,
believing Wirtz to be a German, applied to him for a favor, and
insinuated that his nationality entitled him to some consideration,
to which Wirtz replied, ‘Je ne suis allemagne; je suis Suis.’ Wirtz
at no time or place ever claimed to be anything but a Swiss or French
descent.”
=Wistar, Caspar.=--In 1717 emigrated to America from Hilspach,
Germany, where he was born in 1696, and established what is supposed
to be the first glass factory in America in New Jersey, thirty miles
from Philadelphia. (It is believed that an earlier glass factory was
established by Germans in Virginia.)
=Zane, Elizabeth.=--Described as the handsome and vivacious daughter
of Col. Zane (Zahn), founder of Wheeling, W. Va. In 1782 a fort near
Zane’s loghouse on the site of the present city was attacked by a
band of British soldiers and 186 Indian savages. The defenders of
the fort were reduced from 42 to 12, and as the supply of powder
was running low, the little garrison seemed doomed. The enemy was
covering every approach to Zane’s loghouse, about sixty yards
distant, where a full keg of powder was stored. It was to get this
powder that Miss Zane responded when volunteers were called for,
arguing that not a man could be spared while a girl would not be
missed. Despite every protest she set out on her daring journey,
leisurely opened the back gate and crossed the ground as coolly
as though for a stroll. The British and Indians were dumbfounded,
and did not realize what her plan was until she returned, carrying
the keg under a table cloth. They then opened fire on her, several
bullets passing through her clothing, but the heroic girl reached
the blockhouse unscathed and enabled the defenders to hold out until
relief came.
=Ziegler, David, Revolutionary Soldier and Indian Fighter.=--American
soldier and first mayor of Cincinnati; born at Heidelberg, August
18, 1748; served under General Weismann in the Russian army under
Catharine II and took part in the Turkish-Russian campaign which
ended with the capture of the Krim in 1774. Came to America in the
same year and settled in Lancaster, Pa.
Joined the battalion of General William Thompson which appeared
before Boston, August 2, 1775, where it was placed under command
of General Washington. Ziegler was adjutant and the soul of the
battalion, more than half of which was composed of German Americans,
and which was the second regiment, after that of Massachusetts, to be
enlisted under Washington’s standard.
Ziegler served throughout the War of Independence as an officer and
was repeatedly mentioned for distinguished service. On account of his
ability was appointed by General St. Clair, Commissioner-General for
the Department of Pennsylvania. Rendered great service in drilling
troops and introducing discipline. Major Denny, in his diary, refers
to him in these words: “As a disciplinarian, he has no superior in
the whole army.”
After the Revolution he resided at Carlisle, Pa., until the outbreak
of the Indian War in the West, when he served as captain in the
then existing only regiment of regulars under Col. Harmar. His own
company was composed of a majority of Pennsylvania Germans. Manned
Fort Harmar (Marietta, O.); built Fort Finney at the mouth of the Big
Miami, and subsequently took part in the expedition of General George
Roger Clark against the Kickapoos on the Wabash, and in 1790, in the
disastrous expedition of Gen. Harmar against the Indians on the upper
Miami.
In the battle of the Maumee he distinguished himself for personal
bravery, and St. Clair dispatched Ziegler with two companies to
succor the distressed settlers in and around Marietta following the
defeat of Harmar. He soon obtained the upper hand of the hordes of
Indians, and in restoring order gained such decisive advantages that
he was hailed as the most popular soldier in the Northwest. In the
fall of 1791, Ziegler took part in the bloody and disastrous campaign
under St. Clair, in which he commanded a battalion of Federal troops.
Being prevented from taking part in the actual battle by reason
of special service elsewhere, was assigned to cover the headlong
retreat of the demoralized troops, and by ceaseless vigilance and
strict discipline succeeded in the face of furious attacks by the
Indians, drunk with victory, in leading the scattered American forces
back to Fort Washington (Cincinnati). This feat earned for him the
unqualified praise of all concerned, and materially increased his
popularity.
His dash and efficiency in the campaign of the previous year
had caused his advancement to the rank of major in the regular
army, and new honors awaited him. When General St. Clair, as
commander-in-chief, was summoned to Philadelphia to defend his
conduct before Congress, he invested Ziegler with the “ad interim”
authority of commander-in-chief of the whole army, passing over the
heads of officers of higher rank, Wilkinson, Butler and Armstrong.
Thus a German, for a period of six weeks, acted as commander-in-chief
of the American army. This distinction resulted in a cabal of native
officers to get rid of a detested “foreigner,” and Col. Jacob
Wilkinson (afterward general and highest commanding officer), and
Col. Armstrong preferred charges of insubordination and drunkenness
against the veteran.
Ziegler in disgust thereupon resigned his command and retired from
the army. But the people insisted on testifying their admiration
and loyalty to their hero, and when Cincinnati in 1802 became an
incorporated town he was elected its first mayor by a large majority
and subsequently re-elected “in recognition,” according to Judge
Burnett in “Notes on the Settlement of the Northwest Territory,”
“of his services in protecting the settlements in 1791 and 1792
as well as in reprisal for the unjust treatment accorded him by
the government.” Ziegler died in Cincinnati, September 24, 1811,
universally mourned by his fellow citizens.
=Zenger, John Peter, and the Freedom of the Press.=--Noted in
American history as the man who fought to a successful issue the
problem of the freedom of the press in this country. Came over as a
boy in the Palatine migration and was an apprentice to Bradford in
Philadelphia. Established the New York “Weekly Journal,” November
5, 1733. Was arrested and imprisoned by Governor Cosby for his
political criticisms; the paper containing them was publicly burned
by the hangman, and the case was then thrown into the courts. Zenger
was charged with being an immigrant who dared to attack the royal
prerogatives and official representatives.
Arrested in 1734, he was at first denied pen, ink and paper,
notwithstanding which he continued to edit the “Journal” from
his prison. The grand jury refused to find a bill for libel, and
proceedings were instituted by the Attorney General by information.
Zenger’s defense was entrusted to Andrew Hamilton, a Quaker lawyer
of marked ability, himself an immigrant from Ireland, who came from
Philadelphia especially to undertake the defense.
Zenger’s case became a turning point on the great question of the
truth justifying libel. Hamilton attacked the claim of the Governor,
denounced the practice of information for libel, and declared that
this was not the cause of a poor printer, but of liberty, which
concerned every American. The triumphant result obtained by Hamilton
has made his name famous in American jurisprudence. Zenger’s trial
overthrew the effort of arbitrary power to suppress free speech, to
control courts of justice, to rule by royal prerogative. The jury
turned the judge out of court and Zenger was sustained in the right
of criticising the administration, and his criticisms were declared
to be true and just. Zenger therefore gained for the people the
freedom of the press, and through it their rights to deliberate and
act so as best to secure their rights.
Dr. William Elliot Griffis, in “The Romance of American
Colonization,” comments on the case in the words: “Thus one of the
greatest of all victories in behalf of law and freedom ever won on
this continent was secured.”
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A
Page
Adams, President John Quincy;
on First Treaty with Prussia, 229
Alabama, The;
Confederate Cruiser 51, 111
Allied Nations in War 11
Alsace-Lorraine 11
No Desire for French Annexation;
Linked with the German Empire;
German Character of 12
General Rapp Demands Independence of;
Germans Deported from 14
France Distrusts Her Own People in 15
American Bearers of Foreign Titles 27
“American Liberal, The” 70
American School Children and Foreign Propaganda 20
Americanization Committee of Massachusetts on;
Macaulay on George III;
King George Not Alone Responsible 21
George Haven Putnam’s London Address 22
Owen Wister in London “Times” 23
Americans Not an English People 16
William Elliot Griffis Quoted 178-179
Prof. Albert B. Faust 16
James Russell Lowell;
Douglas Campbell 17
Scott Nearing 18
James A. Garfield;
Charles E. Hughes 19
Americans Saved from Tampico Mob
by German Cruiser 19
Armstead, Major George;
Defender of Ft. McHenry 20
Astor, John Jacob;
American Pathfinder 25
Atherton, Gertrude;
on Experience in Germany 188
Atrocities, Belgian and French 28
Melville E. Stone on 29
Rev. J. F. Stillimans on;
London “Globe” on 30
London “Universe” on;
John T. McCutcheon on;
Irvin S. Cobb on;
Emily S. Hobhouse on 31
Rev. J. F. Matthews on 32
Horace Green on;
Prof. Kellogg on;
Ernest P. Bicknell on 33
American Correspondents on;
Premier Asquith Denies 34
State Department Refuses Information on;
Church Authorities Investigate 35
William K. Draper Quoted;
Why Created 36
Same Stories Told in Civil War Period;
Post Office Department Prohibits Denial of 37
B
Bancroft, George;
on Germans in American Revolution 105
Negotiates Memorable Agreement with Bismarck 38
Refers Vancouver Boundary Dispute to German Emperor;
Advises Friendship With Germany 39
Baralong, English Pirate Ship 39
Beck, James M. 199
Becker, Alfred L.,
Deputy Attorney General of New York,
Investigates German Propaganda;
Investigated by Senator Reed 71
Employed Ex-Convicts 73
Becker, Prof. Carl L.;
on Composition of American People 103
Berger, Mrs. Frances,
Victim of Mob 67
Berliner, Emile,
Inventor of the Microphone 40
Bernstorff, German Ambassador,
Quotes Col. House 131
Blaine, James G.,
Quotes English Sentiment During Civil War 112
Blockade,
“Illegal, Ineffective and Indefensible” 42
Blue Laws of Virginia 184
Boers, The;
English Treatment of 40
“Bombing Maternity Hospitals” 44
Brant, Indian Chief,
Destroys German Settlements 135, 175
C
Campbell, Douglas,
on Composition of American People 17
Carnegie, Andrew,
on British-American Union 197-8
Cavell, Edith,
Executed by Germans;
Execution Justified by Col. E. R. West 46
Chamberlain, Senator,
Speech on English Threats 74
Cheradame, Andre, French Propagandist,
Conspires Against President Wilson 187
Christiansen, Hendrik,
True Explorer of the Hudson River 48
Clemenceau, Premier Georges,
Blames France for War of 1870-71 241
Cobb, Sanford H.,
Story of the Palatines 104
Concord, The;
Brought Germantown Settlers 121
Concord Society, The;
Objects of 47
Cramb, Prof. J. A.,
on Germany’s Lofty Spirit 51
Cramps, Shipbuilders 125
Creasy, Prof. E. S.,
on the German Race 18
Creel and the Sisson Documents 44
Cromberger, Johann 45
Custer, General George A.,
a Hessian Descendant 45
D
Daimler, Gottlieb,
Inventor of the Gas Engine 138
Danzig 60, 85
DeKalb, Major General Johann von 48
“Dial, The,”
on French Propaganda 187
Dillon, Dr. E. J.,
on Alsace-Lorraine 11
Dorsheimer, Hon. William 49
Dual Citizenship 49
Dutch and German 49
E
Earling, Albert J.,
Railway President 50
Eckert, Thomas 50
Election of 1916 and the
League of Nations Covenants 51
President Wilson’s Colloquy with Senator McCumber 56
Foreign Minister Hanotaux Promised American Aid
in 1914 57
Eliot, Prof. Charles W.,
on German Civilization 50
England Plundered American Commerce 51
Refuses Loan to United States in Civil War 110
Threatens United States Through Canada 73
English Government Offers $8 for American Scalps 136
View of Paul Jones 139
First to Use Poison Gas 192
Tribute to Germany’s Lofty Spirit 51
Opinion of Prussians in 1815 58
Investment in Confederate Bonds 114
Propaganda in Public Schools 20
White Book Justifies Invasion of Belgium 207
Statesmen Denounce American Union 113
“English-Speaking Union” 198
Erzberger, Appeal to
Conscience of America 90
Espionage Act, Vote on 58
How Administered 59
Report of Civil Liberties Bureau;
New York “Sun” Quoted 63
Friends of German Democracy;
Mrs. William Jay;
German Masons in New Jersey 64
Exports and Imports in 1914 58
F
Fisher, Admiral,
Justifies German Submarines 212
Foreign Residents Assured as to
their Investments 230
Fourteen Points, The;
History of 86
France’s Historic Relations
with the United States 76
Franklin, Benjamin 80
Alarmed by German Immigration 81
Praises German Population 83
Frederick the Great and the American Colonies 84
Prevents Russian Alliance with England
Against Colonies;
Offers American Cruisers Refuge at Danzig 85
Free Masons in New Jersey
Against Language Edict 64
Fresch, Hermann, Sulphur King 224
Fricke, Albert Paul,
Tried for Treason and Acquitted 67
Friends of German Democracy 64
Fritchie, Barbara,
Immortalized by Whittier 90
G
Gas, Poison,
First Employed by English 192
George III, a “German King”? 20
Macaulay on 21
George, Lloyd,
Denounces Atrocities Against Boers 41
German American Captains of Industry 94
German Element in American Life 102
Mechanics in Jamestown Settlement 91
In Virginia 105
Moravians First Settlers in Ohio 107
On Indian Border in Pennsylvania 108
Settle Frankfort and Louisville, Ky 109
Ardent patriots in Revolution 105, 109, 175, 181
Early Western Border Occupied by 108
Protest Against Slavery 180
First Proclamation of Independence 175
Praise for Their Republican Virtues 180
In Civil War 114
In Confederate Army 120
Ideals of Liberty 154
Women Spies Executed by French 49
In American Art, Science and Literature 91
Praised by Franklin 83
Praised by Washington 245
Praised by Jefferson 141
First Newspapers 91
George Bancroft on 105
Subscriptions to Liberty Loan 153
In Massachusetts Bay Colony 156
Keeps Missouri in the Union 159
German Emperor Decides Vancouver
Boundary Dispute in Our Favor 39
Germantown Settlement 121
Germany;
Why Strengthened Her Army 124
Treatment of France After War of 1870-71 90
Conduct During Civil War 110
Buys $600,000,000 of Union Bonds 111
Bancroft Quoted 39
Sends Relief During Civil War 90
Godfrey,
Inventor of Quadrant 178
Gould, B. A.;
Civil War Statistics 115
Grey, Sir Edward,
on Humanity in War 132
Griffis, Dr. William Elliot,
on German Element 104
Early German Mechanics 105
On Jacob Leisler 146
On Teutonic Influence 178-9
On Bay Colony Aristocracy 181
On Confusing Germans with Dutch 49
Guizot,
on German Love of Liberty 154
H
Hagner, Peter 124
Haiman, Louis,
“Swordmaker of the Confederacy” 227
Hanotaux, Foreign Minister,
on Assurances Given France in 1914 by American
Ambassadors 56
Harris, Frank,
on Germany and England 155
Hartford Convention, The 124
Hempel 125
“Herald,” New York,
Urges Hanging of German Americans 125
Hereshoffs and Cramps 125
Herkimer, General Nicholas,
Hero of Oriskany 125
Hervé, Gustave,
on Alsace Lorraine 12
On Poison Gas 192
Hessians, The 125
Swell Jackson’s Stonewall Brigade; Where Settled 129
General Custer, Descended from 45
Hillegas, Michael,
First Treasurer of the United States 129
Hitchcock, Senator Gilbert M.,
on Seizure of Alien Property 232
House, Col. E. M.;
Reputed Author of “Philip Dru, Administrator” 130
Influences President on Surrender of Saar Valley 131
Friend of Lloyd George;
Attended School in England 130
I
Ibanez, Vincente Blasco,
French Propaganda Agent 185
Ideals of Liberty 154
Illiteracy of Contending Countries 132
Immigration 132
Germantown 177
Indians, Tories and German Settlements 135
Invention of Telephone, Gas Engine,
Photographic Lenses, etc. 138
“Issues and Events” 69
J
Jaeger, Pastor,
Murdered for Being German 67
Jay, Mrs. William,
Leads Campaign to Suppress German Music 64
Jefferson, Thomas,
on German Immigrants 141
On English Hyphenates 140
On Virginia Blue Laws 184
On Longing for an English King 24
Jones, John Paul;
English View of 139
K
Kapp, Frederich,
History of American People 102-4
King, Senator, of Utah,
Bill Canceling Charter of the German American
Alliance 69
Knobel, Caspar,
Captures Jefferson Davis 142
Knownothing Party 142
Koerner, Gustav,
on Political Character of German Americans 143
Krech, Alvin W.
Kudlich, Dr. Hans,
the Peasant Emancipator 143
L
Langlotz, Prof. C. A.,
Author of “Old Nassau” 145
Lee, Lighthouse Harry 148
Lehman, Philip Theodore,
William Penn’s Secretary 145
Lehmann, Frederick William 145
Leisler, Jacob,
First Martyr to Cause of American Independence 145
Lieber, Francis 146
Founder, “Encyclopedia Americana” 147
Legal Advisor to Lincoln Government;
Author of “Instructions for the
Armies in the Field” 148
Lincoln, Abraham,
of German Extraction? 148
London “Times” in 1862 113
Long, Frances L.,
One of Custer’s Sergeants and
Survivor Greeley Arctic Expedition 152
Lossing, Benson J.,
on Our Debt to France 77
On Jacob Leisler 146
On Conrad Weiser 245
Lowell, James Russell;
American People Not English 17
Ludwig, Christian,
Purveyor of the Revolutionary Army 153
M
Macaulay, Lord,
on German Immigrant Settlers 104
On George III 21
Marix, Rear Admiral Adolph 156
Massow, Baron von,
Member of Mosby’s Brigade 156
McCarthy, Justin,
on Cruise of the Alabama;
Recognition of Confederacy 111
On Schleswig-Holstein Question 210
McCumber, Senator,
Asks President About Our Entrance Into the War 56
McNeill, Walter S.,
on German Constitution 155
On German Civil Law 157
Memminger, Christoph Gustav,
Secretary of the Treasury
in the Confederate Cabinet 157
Menken, S. Stanwood,
Organizer and President National Security League 171-2
Mergenthaler, Ottmar,
Inventor of the Linotype Machine 157
Military Establishments of the
Warring Nations in 1914 157
Minnewit, Peter,
Purchased Island of Manhattan from Indians 158
Missouri, How Kept in the Union 159
Montesquieu, on Birth of Liberty 154
Morgan, J. Pierpont 158
Related to Viscount Lewis Harcourt 159
Accused in Congress of Controlling Press 190
Muhlenberg,
Heinrich Melchior,
Founder Lutheran Church in America;
Frederick August,
First Speaker House of Representative;
Peter, General;
Career of 161
N
Nagel, Charles,
Secretary of Commerce and Labor 169
Nast, Thomas,
America’s Greatest Cartoonist;
Kills the Tweed Ring;
Grant’s Opinion of 169
National Security League;
Objects of, Backers of 169
Representative Cooper of Wisconsin on 170
Interference with New York Public Schools 171
How Organized; Disbursements by 172
Denounced in Congress 171-2
Neutrality;
President Wilson on,
in Mexican Relations 172
New Ulm Massacre 173
Northcliffe, Lord;
Control of American Newspapers 174
O
Ohio;
Germans First to Settle,
First White Child in 107
Orth, Charles D.,
President National Security League 171-2
Osterhaus, General Peter Joseph,
Record in Union Army 174
His Pension Canceled 175
Overman Bill 54
P
Palatines, the;
Sanford H. Cobb on 104
Judge Benton Quoted 105
Declaration of Independence Antedates that of
Mecklenburg 175
Its Signers 176-7
Panin, Count Nikolai I, Russian Premier,
Bribed by Frederick the Great 85
Pastorius, Franz Daniel,
Founder of Germantown 121, 177
Agitation Against Unveiling of Monument to 179
Author of First Protest Against Slavery 180
Pathfinders, German American 191
Penn, William,
and Crefeld Immigrants 121
His Mother a Dutch Woman 193
Pennypacker, Ex-Governor Samuel Whitaker 121
Pilgrim Society 193
Pitcher, Molly;
Famous Heroine of German Descent 190
Poison Gas;
First Used at Colenso; French Testimony 192
Prager, Robert B.,
Lynched by Anti-German Mob 67
Press Attacked in Congress 190
Propaganda in the United States 185
Vincente Blasco Ibanez, French Agent 185
Louis Tracy, English Agent; How Conducted 186
French Described by “The Dial;” Andre Cheradame 187
Overman Committee; Gertrude Atherton 188
Prussia, First Treaty with 229
Prussian Constitution,
Praised by President Wilson 156
Puritans;
Land in 1620;
Great Migration;
Freemen;
Hang Quakers and Witches;
Blue Laws 184
Putnam, George Haven,
Repudiates the American Revolution;
Proposes to Rewrite Text Books of
American History in Public Schools 22
Regrets American Independence from England 23
Q
Quakers Hanged in Bay Colony 184
Quitman, General J. A.,
in Mexican War 194
R
Rassieur, Leo 205
Reis, Philipp,
Inventor of the Telephone 139
Representation in Congress 194
Rhodes, Cecil;
Text of Secret Will to Reclaim the United States 195
Sinclair Kennedy, on Plan 196-7
Whitelaw Reid, on Unity with English Government 196
Andrew Carnegie,
on British-American Union;
Rhodes Scholarships 197
General Pershing’s Statement;
James M. Beck’s Statement 199
Admiral Sims’s Guildhall Speech;
New York “Globe” Quotes Ambassador Page 200
Prof. Roland G. Usher,
on Secret Understanding;
Colonial Secretary Chamberlain Quoted 201
Joseph H. Choate’s Toast to the King 202
Ringling, Al 203, 207
Rittenhouse, David,
First Great American Scientist 204
Roebling, John August,
Famous Bridge Builder 205
Roosevelt, Theodore 205
Russia Approached by England for
Alliance Against the Colonies 85
S
Sauer, Christopher,
Famous Colonial Printer 217
Scheffauer, Herman George,
American Poet 215
Schell, Johann Christian:
An Episode of the Early Border 215
Schleswig-Holstein,
“One and Indivisible” 209
Wish to be German;
Revolution Against Denmark, 1848 210
Cradle of Purest Germanism 211
Total Danish-Speaking Population in Germany 212
Schley, Admiral Winfield Scott;
Rescue of Lt. Greeley 216
Schreiner, George A.,
on American Passport Discriminations 66
On Use of Poison Gas at Colenso 192
On Lusitania Sinking 242
Schurz, Carl,
on German Revolution of 1848 214
On German Element in the United States 102
Scraps of Paper 208
Secret Treaties 89
Seward, Secretary William H.,
Expresses Thanks to Prussia 112
Slavery, First Protest Against 180
Starving Germany;
Result of, and Casualties 217
State Department Note of Assurance,
February 8, 1917 230
Steinmetz, Charles P.,
Famous Electrician 217
Steuben, Baron Frederick von 220
Sutter,
the Romance of a California Pioneer 225
First to Hoist American Flag to Stay;
Founds New Switzerland on Sacramento River;
Alvarado Land Grant 225
Sides with Santa Anna;
Lays Out Town of Sutterville, now Sacramento;
Visited by Major Fremont;
Hoists the American Flag on His Fort;
Gold Discovered on His Ranch by Marshall 226
Sutter Ruined;
Dies Poor in Pennsylvania;
Tribute to 227
“Swordmaker of the Confederacy” 227
T
Taft, William H.,
on Religious Intolerance 185
Praises Kaiser 208
“Times,” London,
Denounces United States 113
Advocates British Propaganda in the United States 24
Titled Americans 27
Tolstoy on American Liberty 228
Tracy, Louis,
Head of English Propaganda Bureau 186
Treaties of 1799 and 1828,
with Germany 229-30
Treaty, Commercial,
with Germany, and How Observed;
President John Quincy Adams on First Treaty;
Treaties of 1799-1828 229
State Department Assures Foreign Residents 230
Alien Custodianship Aired in Congress;
Senator Hitchcock’s Momentous Statement;
President Wilson’s Remarks of April 2, 1917;
List of Persons Whose Property Was Seized 232
Property of Wives of Aliens Seized 233
Tryon County Committee of Safety 175
U
Usher, Prof. Roland G.,
on “Understanding” with England 200-2
V
Viereck, George Sylvester 71, 92
Villard, Henry 236
Virginia Blue Laws 184
Vote on War in Congress 236
W
War of 1870-71 240
War Lies Repudiated by English Paper 241
Washington’s Body Guard 244
Tribute to Germans 245
Weiser, Conrad,
Pioneer and Statesman 245
West, Col. E. R.,
Justifies Execution of Edith Cavell 46
Wetzel, Lou, Indian Fighter 246
Whittier, John Greenleaf,
Poem on Germantown Settlement 180
Williams, Deantor John Sharp,
on Fighting Canada 76
Wilson, Woodrow, President;
on Our Debt to France 78
On His Fourteen Points 88
Friendship for German People 90
German Intellectualism, 1917 and 1919 155
Praises Prussian Constitution 156
On “Best Practices of Nations” 172
Wirt, William,
Famous Jurist and Author 247
Wirtz, Captain Henry,
of Andersonville Prison 247
Wistar, Caspar 247
Z
Zane, Elizabeth,
Early Border Heroine 248
Zeisberger, David,
Founds First Christian Community in Ohio 107
Zenger, John Peter,
and the Freedom of the Press 250
Ziegler, David,
Revolutionary Soldier and Indian Fighter 248
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES
The following corrections have been made in the text:
Section: Alsace-Lorraine,
paragraph starting: Under date of January 17, 1917,...
- ‘inferference’ replaced with ‘interference’
(without the interference of any foreign)
Section: Alsace-Lorraine,
paragraph starting: After this, who can be scandalized....
- ‘liberatarian’ replaced with ‘libertarian’
(Does M. Clemenceau, that “old libertarian”)
Section: Americans Not An English People,
paragraph starting: In order to estimate the full....
- ‘have’ replaced with ‘gave’
(Romans gave the designation)
Section: Americans Not An English People,
paragraph starting: In a like manner Charles E. Hughes,...
- ‘spech’ replaced with ‘speech’
(in a speech at Mount Vernon)
Section: American School Children and English Propaganda,
paragraph starting: The feelings and prejudices....
- ‘boks’ replaced with ‘books’
(on text books and histories)
Section: Atrocities,
paragraph starting: The following correspondence....
- ‘correspondenece’ replaced with ‘correspondence’
(following correspondence will speak)
Section: Atrocities,
paragraph starting: The late James G. Blaine quoted....
- ‘Malmsbury’ replaced with ‘Malmesbury’
(Blaine quoted Lord Malmesbury)
Section: Baralong,
paragraph starting: An English pirate ship commanded....
- ‘Nocosian’ replaced with ‘Nicosian’
(swam alongside of the “Nicosian”)
- ‘tradegy’ replaced with ‘tragedy’
(history of the tragedy first came)
Section: Illegal, Ineffective and Indefensible Blockades,
paragraph starting: But the State Department surrendered....
- ‘Scandanavia’ replaced with ‘Scandinavia’
(commerce of Holland and Scandinavia)
Section: Illegal, Ineffective and Indefensible Blockades,
paragraph starting: The point is that future wars....
- ‘compells’ replaced with ‘compels’
(it compels us to compact our)
Section: Dutch and German,
paragraph starting: In the history of early American....
- ‘Minnewitt’ replaced with ‘Minnewit’
(Peter Minnewit, the first regular governor)
Section: Espionage Act, Vote on,
paragraph starting: The actual count showed....
- ‘resul’ replaced with ‘result’
(showed the result as follows)
Section: The “Fourteen Points,
paragraph starting: “We already know there were....
- ‘Dalmation’ replaced with ‘Dalmatian’
(conceding to Italy the Dalmatian coast)
Section: German-American Captains of Industry,
paragraph starting: John D. Rockefeller and John....
- ‘imigrants’ replaced with ‘immigrants’
(descendants of German immigrants.)
- ‘Rhennish’ replaced with ‘Rhenish’
(from Bonnefeld, Rhenish Prussia,)
Section: The German Element in American Life,
paragraph starting: Pennsylvania is sometimes called....
- ‘Heidelburg’ replaced with ‘Heidelberg’
(as the tourist visits Heidelberg)
Section: The German Element in American Life,
paragraph starting: “Better far than a batch of....
- ‘feed’ replaced with ‘feet’
(nearly eight feet wide,)
Section: The German Element in American Life,
paragraph starting: In 1734 a number of German Lutheran....
- ‘parishoners’ replaced with ‘parishioners’
(among whose parishioners was Jefferson Davis.)
Section: Germany and England During the Civil War,
table starting: Sir Henry de Hington, Bart....
- ‘Gregoty’ replaced with ‘Gregory’
(W. H. Gregory, M. P.)
Section: Germans in Civil War,
paragraph starting: Kaufmann, in analyzing these....
- ‘volunters’ replaced with ‘volunteers’
(first call for volunteers.)
Section: Germans in Civil War,
paragraph starting: Adolf Buschbeck, Brigadier General....
- ‘Gettsyburg’ replaced with ‘Gettysburg’
(fought gallantly at Gettysburg)
Section: Germans in Civil War,
paragraph starting: Hubert Dilger, a former artillery....
- ‘Bushbeck’ replaced with ‘Buschbeck’ for consistency
(in the defense of Buschbeck’s brigade)
Section: Germans in Civil War,
paragraph starting: Alexander von Schimmelpfennig,...
- ‘Schimmelpfenning’ replaced with ‘Schimmelpfennig’
(Alexander von Schimmelpfennig)
Section: Germans in the Confederate Army,
paragraph starting: Among the German-born officers....
- ‘Hanovarian’ replaced with ‘Hanoverian’
(Reichard; former Hanoverian officer)
- ‘Hannover’ replaced with ‘Hanover’
(Wise of Virginia; born in Hanover)
- ‘filbuster’ replaced with ‘filibuster’
(leader of a filibuster party)
Section: Germantown Settlement,
paragraph starting: The three Op den Graeffs....
- ‘Thones’ replaced with ‘Thonas’
(the son of Thonas Kunders)
Section: Hartford Convention,
paragraph starting: In no section of the country....
- ‘proclaimng’ replaced with ‘proclaiming’
(secession by proclaiming that)
Section: Hereshoffs and Cramps,
paragraph starting: Who in the great yachting world....
- ‘Herreshoffs’ replaced with ‘Hereshoffs’
(has not heard of the Hereshoffs,)
Section: Illiteracy,
paragraph starting: As a related element of....
- illegible numbers in table replaced with ‘?’
(Denmark 0.0?%)
(Sweden 0.0?%)
Section: Indians, Tories and the German Settlements,
paragraph starting: During 1779 the Schoharie and....
- ‘Genessee’ replaced with ‘Genesee’
(as far as the Genesee Valley,)
Section: Indians, Tories and the German Settlements,
paragraph starting: In this manner he learned,...
- ‘bloodpath’ replaced with ‘bloodbath’
(instituted a perfect bloodbath.)
Section: “Kultur” in Brief Statistical Form,
paragraph starting: A brief statistical abstract of....
- ‘Noble’ replaced with ‘Nobel’
(Nobel prizes for scientific achievements)
Section: Kudlich, Dr. Hans, the Peasant Emancipator,
paragraph starting: The name of Dr. Hans Kudlich....
- ‘Hobokon’ replaced with ‘Hoboken’
(and died at Hoboken, N. J.,)
Section: Kudlich, Dr. Hans, the Peasant Emancipator,
paragraph starting: He was born in Lohenstein,...
- ‘sudents’ replaced with ‘students’
(the students’ revolutionary movement,)
Section: Lincoln of German Descent,
paragraph starting: The evidence in favor of Lincoln’s....
- ‘lond’ replaced with ‘long’
(tombstones of long-dead ancestors,)
Section: Long, Francis L.,
paragraph starting: Born at Wurtemberg, Germany....
- ‘Wurtemburg’ replaced with ‘Wurtemberg’
(Born at Wurtemberg, Germany.)
Section: Ideals of Liberty,
paragraph starting: While we were at war....
- ‘thy’ replaced with ‘they’
(since they speak rather well)
Section: Ideals of Liberty,
paragraph starting: Mr. Walter S. McNeill tells us....
- ‘McNeil’ replaced with ‘McNeill’
(Mr. Walter S. McNeill tells us)
Section: Morgan, J. Pierpont,
paragraph starting: American banker and financier,
- ‘rubel’ replaced with ‘ruble’
(the famous Russian ruble)
Section: Muhlenberg, Johann Gabriel Peter,
paragraph starting: The following interesting story....
- ‘Daughers’ replaced with ‘Daughters’
(Historian of the Daughters of the)
Section: New Ulm Massacre,
paragraph starting: New Ulm, a settlement of Germans....
- ‘Gueur’ replaced with ‘Sueur’
(and from Le Sueur, still more remote.)
Section: Franz Daniel Pastorius and German...,
paragraph starting: Three famous families issued from....
- ‘Saurs’ replaced with ‘Sauers’
(and the Sauers,)
- ‘Saur’ replaced with ‘Sauer’
(of whom Christopher Sauer)
Section: Franz Daniel Pastorius and German...,
paragraph starting: There is some analogy between....
- ‘bigoty’ replaced with ‘bigotry’
(conditions of oppression and bigotry)
Section: Franz Daniel Pastorius and German...,
paragraph starting: American colonial history reveals....
- ‘American’ replaced with ‘America’
(settlers in America as foremost)
- ‘American’ replaced with ‘Americans’
(which Americans have not learned)
- ‘Annabaptists’ replaced with ‘Anabaptists’
(we must look to the Anabaptists,)
Section: Propaganda in the United States,
paragraph starting: By 1916 the simple installation....
- ‘patriotiotic’ replaced with ‘patriotic’
(support for patriotic activities)
Section: Rhodes’ Secret Will and Scholarships...,
paragraph starting: To its fatal operation may be....
- ‘centennary’ replaced with ‘centenary’
(celebrate the centenary of English)
Section: Rittenhouse, David,
paragraph starting: Of the origin of the first great....
- ‘Ruttinghausen’ replaced with ‘Rittinghausen’
(William Rittenhouse (Rittinghausen),)
Section: Roebling, John August,
paragraph starting: One of the greatest engineers....
- ‘Amerca’ replaced with ‘America’
(and America’s leading bridge builder.)
Section: Schleswig-Holstein,
paragraph starting: Among the distinguished men....
- ‘Poachim’ replaced with ‘Joachim’
(such as Joachim Maehl,)
Section: Schleswig-Holstein,
paragraph starting: The total Danish-speaking population....
- ‘northermost’ replaced with ‘northernmost’
(the fate of the northernmost duchy)
- ‘ostenibly’ replaced with ‘ostensibly’
(ostensibly under the plebiscite,)
Section: Schurz, Carl,
paragraph starting: Thus, if not all, yet a great....
- ‘Palmertson’ replaced with ‘Palmerston’
(British government under Lord Palmerston)
Section: Schell, Johann Christian and His Wife,
paragraph starting: One of the most inspiring....
- ‘barels’ replaced with ‘barrels’
(upon the gun barrels)
Section: Starving Germany,
paragraph starting: Evidence of the same import is....
- ‘illegel’ replaced with ‘illegal’
(ravages of an illegal and indefensible)
Section: Commercial Treaty with Germany and How it Was...,
paragraph starting: And it is declared, that....
- ‘sonsidered’ replaced with ‘considered’
(shall be considered as annulling)
Section: Weiser, Conrad,
paragraph starting: “One of the most noted agents....
- ‘Tulpehockon’ replaced with ‘Tulpehocken’
(for Tulpehocken in Pennsylvania,)
Section: TABLE OF CONTENTS,
paragraph starting: American School Children and....
- ‘Macauley’ replaced with ‘Macaulay’
(Macaulay on George III;)
Section: TABLE OF CONTENTS,
paragraph starting: Blue Laws of Virginia
- ‘40’ replaced with ‘184’
(Blue Laws of Virginia 184)
Section: TABLE OF CONTENTS,
paragraph starting: Cramps, Shipbuilders
- ‘24’ replaced with ‘125’
(Cramps, Shipbuilders 125)
Section: TABLE OF CONTENTS,
paragraph starting: German Emperor Decides....
- ‘121’ replaced with ‘39’
(Dispute in Our Favor 39)
Section: TABLE OF CONTENTS,
paragraph starting: Germantown Settlement
- ‘39’ replaced with ‘121’
(Germantown Settlement 121)
Section: TABLE OF CONTENTS,
paragraph starting: Indians, Tories and German....
- ‘125’ replaced with ‘135’
(and German Settlements 135)
Section: TABLE OF CONTENTS,
paragraph starting: Lowell, James Russell
- ‘153’ replaced with ‘17’
(American People Not English 17)
Section: TABLE OF CONTENTS,
paragraph starting: Massow, Baron von, Member....
- ‘Moseby’ replaced with ‘Mosby’
(Member of Mosby’s Brigade)
Section: TABLE OF CONTENTS,
paragraph starting: McNeill, Walter S., on German....
- ‘McNeil’ replaced with ‘McNeill’
(McNeill, Walter S., on German Constitution)
Section: TABLE OF CONTENTS,
paragraph starting: Montesquieu, on Birth of Liberty....
- ‘Montesqieu’ replaced with ‘Montesquieu’
(Montesquieu, on Birth of Liberty)
Section: TABLE OF CONTENTS,
paragraph starting: Poison Gas; First Used....
- ‘Fench’ replaced with ‘French’
(French Testimony)
Section: TABLE OF CONTENTS,
paragraph starting: Putnam, George Haven, Repudiates....
- ‘Amehican’ replaced with ‘American’
(Text Books of American History)
Section: TABLE OF CONTENTS,
paragraph starting: Scraps of Paper
- ‘216’ replaced with ‘208’
(Scraps of Paper 208)
*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "'1683-1920' - The Fourteen Points and What Became of Them—Foreign - Propaganda in the Public Schools—Rewriting the History - of the United States—The Espionage Act and How it - Worked—"Illegal and Indefensible Blockade" of the Central - Powers—1,000,000 Victims of Starvation—Our Debt to France - and to Germany—The War Vote in Congress—Truth About the - Belgian Atrocities—Our Treaty with Germany and How - Observed—The Alien Property Custodianship—Secret Will - of Cecil Rhodes—Racial Strains in American Life—Germantown - Settlement of 1683 and a Thousand Other Topics" ***
Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.