The Project Gutenberg eBook of "1683-1920"

This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

Title: "1683-1920"

Author: Frederick Franklin Schrader

Release date: September 29, 2015 [eBook #50075]

Most recently updated: October 22, 2024

Language: English

Credits: Produced by Richard Hulse and the Online Distributed

Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was

produced from images generously made available by The

Internet Archive/American Libraries.)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK "1683-1920" ***

Transcriber’s Notes

The cover image was provided by the transcriber and is placed in the public domain.

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.

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 table at the end of the book.

COPYRIGHT BY

FREDERICK FRANKLIN SCHRADER

1920

PUBLISHED BY

CONCORD PUBLISHING COMPANY

INCORPORATED

NEW YORK, U. S. A.

“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.”

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

3.0

Hebrew (one-half recent Russian)

2,500,000

3.0

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

1915

$23,320,696

1,238,669

$19,192,414

9,794,418

France

1914

1915

159,818,924

369,397,170

141,446,252

77,158,740

Germany

1914

1915

344,794,276

28,863,354

189,919,136

91,372,710

Italy

1914

1915

74,235,012

184,819,688

56,407,671

54,973,726

Russia

1914

1915

31,303,149

60,827,531

23,320,157

3,394,040

United Kingdom

1914

1915

594,271,863

911,794,954

293,661,304

256,351,675

Canada

1913

1914

1915

415,449,457

344,716,081

300,686,812

120,571,180

160,689,790

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.”

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 North Central

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.

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.”

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 24.7%

(including Irish)

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.”

Land Warrant No. 3334, Issued to Abraham Linkhorn, 1780. The Original in Possession of Colonel R. T. Durrett, Louisville, Ky.

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:

Army

Navy

Total

Per

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.

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 civilizazzzz, 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 innbsp;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.”

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

- 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:

1  —

‘inferference’ replaced with ‘interference’

(without the interference of any foreign)

2  —

‘liberatarian’ replaced with ‘libertarian’

(Does M. Clemenceau, that “old libertarian”)

3  —

‘have’ replaced with ‘gave’

(Romans gave the designation)

4  —

‘spech’ replaced with ‘speech’

(in a speech at Mount Vernon)

5  —

‘boks’ replaced with ‘books’

(on text books and histories)

6  —

‘correspondenece’ replaced with ‘correspondence’

(following correspondence will speak)

7  —

‘Malmsbury’ replaced with ‘Malmesbury’

(Blaine quoted Lord Malmesbury)

8  —

‘Nocosian’ replaced with ‘Nicosian’

(swam alongside of the “Nicosian”)

9  —

‘tradegy’ replaced with ‘tragedy’

(history of the tragedy first came)

10  —

‘Scandanavia’ replaced with ‘Scandinavia’

(commerce of Holland and Scandinavia)

11  —

‘compells’ replaced with ‘compels’

(it compels us to compact our)

12  —

‘Minnewitt’ replaced with ‘Minnewit’

(Peter Minnewit, the first regular governor)

13  —

‘resul’ replaced with ‘result’

(showed the result as follows)

14  —

‘Dalmation’ replaced with ‘Dalmatian’

(conceding to Italy the Dalmatian coast)

15  —

‘imigrants’ replaced with ‘immigrants’

(descendants of German immigrants.)

16  —

‘Rhennish’ replaced with ‘Rhenish’

(from Bonnefeld, Rhenish Prussia,)

17  —

‘Heidelburg’ replaced with ‘Heidelberg’

(as the tourist visits Heidelberg)

18  —

‘feed’ replaced with ‘feet’

(nearly eight feet wide,)

19  —

‘parishoners’ replaced with ‘parishioners’

(among whose parishioners was Jefferson Davis.)

20  —

‘Gregoty’ replaced with ‘Gregory’

(W. H. Gregory, M. P.)

21  —

‘volunters’ replaced with ‘volunteers’

(first call for volunteers.)

22  —

‘Gettsyburg’ replaced with ‘Gettysburg’

(fought gallantly at Gettysburg)

23  —

‘Bushbeck’ replaced with ‘Buschbeck’ for consistency

(in the defense of Buschbeck’s brigade)

24  —

‘Schimmelpfenning’ replaced with ‘Schimmelpfennig’

(Alexander von Schimmelpfennig)

25  —

‘Hanovarian’ replaced with ‘Hanoverian’

(Reichard; former Hanoverian officer)

26  —

‘Hannover’ replaced with ‘Hanover’

(Wise of Virginia; born in Hanover)

27  —

‘filbuster’ replaced with ‘filibuster’

(leader of a filibuster party)

28  —

‘Thones’ replaced with ‘Thonas’

(the son of Thonas Kunders)

29  —

‘proclaimng’ replaced with ‘proclaiming’

(secession by proclaiming that)

30  —

‘Herreshoffs’ replaced with ‘Hereshoffs’

(has not heard of the Hereshoffs,)

31  —

illegible numbers in table replaced with ‘?’

(Denmark 0.0?%) (Sweden 0.0?%)

32  —

‘Genessee’ replaced with ‘Genesee’

(as far as the Genesee Valley,)

33  —

‘bloodpath’ replaced with ‘bloodbath’

(instituted a perfect bloodbath.)

34  —

‘Noble’ replaced with ‘Nobel’

(Nobel prizes for scientific achievements)

35  —

‘Hobokon’ replaced with ‘Hoboken’

(and died at Hoboken, N. J.,)

36  —

‘sudents’ replaced with ‘students’

(the students’ revolutionary movement,)

37  —

‘lond’ replaced with ‘long’

(tombstones of long-dead ancestors,)

38  —

‘Wurtemburg’ replaced with ‘Wurtemberg’

(Born at Wurtemberg, Germany.)

39  —

‘thy’ replaced with ‘they’

(since they speak rather well)

40  —

‘McNeil’ replaced with ‘McNeill’

(Mr. Walter S. McNeill tells us)

41  —

‘rubel’ replaced with ‘ruble’

(the famous Russian ruble)

42  —

‘Daughers’ replaced with ‘Daughters’

(Historian of the Daughters of the)

43  —

‘Gueur’ replaced with ‘Sueur’

(and from Le Sueur, still more remote.)

44  —

‘Saurs’ replaced with ‘Sauers’

(and the Sauers,)

45  —

‘Saur’ replaced with ‘Sauer’

(of whom Christopher Sauer)

46  —

‘bigoty’ replaced with ‘bigotry’

(conditions of oppression and bigotry)

47  —

‘American’ replaced with ‘America’

(settlers in America as foremost)

48  —

‘American’ replaced with ‘Americans’

(which Americans have not learned)

49  —

‘Annabaptists’ replaced with ‘Anabaptists’

(we must look to the Anabaptists,)

50  —

‘patriotiotic’ replaced with ‘patriotic’

(support for patriotic activities)

51  —

‘centennary’ replaced with ‘centenary’

(celebrate the centenary of English)

52  —

‘Ruttinghausen’ replaced with ‘Rittinghausen’

(William Rittenhouse (Rittinghausen),)

53  —

‘Amerca’ replaced with ‘America’

(and America’s leading bridge builder.)

54  —

‘Poachim’ replaced with ‘Joachim’

(such as Joachim Maehl,)

55  —

‘northermost’ replaced with ‘northernmost’

(the fate of the northernmost duchy)

56  —

‘ostenibly’ replaced with ‘ostensibly’

(ostensibly under the plebiscite,)

57  —

‘Palmertson’ replaced with ‘Palmerston’

(British government under Lord Palmerston)

58  —

‘barels’ replaced with ‘barrels’

(upon the gun barrels)

59  —

‘illegel’ replaced with ‘illegal’

(ravages of an illegal and indefensible)

60  —

‘sonsidered’ replaced with ‘considered’

(shall be considered as annulling)

61  —

‘Tulpehockon’ replaced with ‘Tulpehocken’

(for Tulpehocken in Pennsylvania,)

62  —

‘Macauley’ replaced with ‘Macaulay’

(Macaulay on George III;)

63  —

‘40’ replaced with ‘184’

(Blue Laws of Virginia: 184)

64  —

‘24’ replaced with ‘125’

(Cramps, Shipbuilders: 125)

65  —

‘121’ replaced with ‘39’

(Dispute in Our Favor: 39)

66  —

‘39’ replaced with ‘121’

(Germantown Settlement: 121)

67  —

‘125’ replaced with ‘135’

(and German Settlements: 135)

68  —

‘153’ replaced with ‘17’

(American People Not English: 17)

69  —

‘Moseby’ replaced with ‘Mosby’

(Member of Mosby’s Brigade)

70  —

‘McNeil’ replaced with ‘McNeill’

(McNeill, Walter S., on German Constitution)

71  —

‘Montesqieu’ replaced with ‘Montesquieu’

(Montesquieu, on Birth of Liberty)

72  —

‘Fench’ replaced with ‘French’

(French Testimony)

73  —

‘Amehican’ replaced with ‘American’

(Text Books of American History)

74  —

‘216’ replaced with ‘208’

(Scraps of Paper: 208)

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK "1683-1920" ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works provided that:

- • You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”

- • You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.

- • You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work.

- • You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™

Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.

Table of Contents

“1683-1920”

PREFACE

Allied Nations in the War.

Alsace-Lorraine.

Americans Not An English People.

Americans Saved from Mexican Mob at Tampico by German Cruiser “Dresden.

Armstadt, Major George.

American School Children and Foreign Propaganda.

American School Children and English Propaganda.

Astor, John Jacob.

Titled Americans.

Atrocities.

Bancroft, George—Treaty with Germany—Vancouver Boundary Line.

Baralong.

Berliner, Emile.

The Boers—England’s Record of Infamy.

“Illegal, Ineffective and Indefensible Blockades.”

Brest-Litovsk Treaty.

“Bombing Maternity Hospitals.”

Creel and the “Sisson Documents.”

Cromberger, Johann.

Custer, General George A.

Cavell, Edith.

Concord Society, The.

Christiansen, Hendrick.

DeKalb.

Declaration of Independence.

Dorsheimer, Hon. William.

Dutch and German.

Dual Citizenship.

Earling, Albert J.

Eckert, Thomas.

Eliot, Prof. Charles W.

England Plundered American Commerce in Our Civil War.

English Tribute to Germany’s Lofty Spirit.

Election of 1916 and the League of Nations Covenant.

English Opinion of Prussians in 1813-15.

Espionage Act, Vote on.

Exports and Imports to and from the Belligerent Countries, 1914.

Under the Espionage Act—A Chapter of Persecution.

England Threatens the United States.

France’s Friendship for the United States.

Benjamin Franklin.

Frederick the Great and the American Colonies.

The “Fourteen Points.”

Fritchie, Barbara.

First Germans in Virginia.

First German Newspapers.

German Americans in Art, Science and Literature.

German-American Captains of Industry.

The German American Vote.

The German Element in American Life.

Germany and England During the Civil War.

Germans in Civil War.

Germans in the Confederate Army.

Germantown Settlement.

Why Germany Strengthened Her Army, Told by Asquith.

Hagner, Peter.

Hartford Convention, The.

Hempel.

New York Herald Urges Hanging of German Americans.

Hereshoffs and Cramps.

Herkimer, General Nicholas.

The Hessians.

Hillegas, Michael.

House, Col. E. M.

The Humanity of War.

Illiteracy.

Immigration.

Indians, Tories and the German Settlements.

Inventions.

English View of Paul Jones.

Jefferson on English Hyphenates and English Perfidy.

Jefferson’s Tribute to German Immigration.

Kultur” in Brief Statistical Form.

Knobel, Caspar.

Know Nothing or American Party.

Koerner, Gustav.

Kudlich, Dr. Hans, the Peasant Emancipator.

Langlotz, Prof. C. A.

Lehman, Philip Theodore.

Lehmann, Frederick William.

Leisler, Jacob.

Lieber, Francis.

Light Horse Harry Lee.

Lincoln of German Descent.

Leutze, Eugene Henry Cozzens.

Long, Francis L.

Ludwig, Christian.

Liberty Loan Subscriptions.

Ideals of Liberty.

Marix, Adolph.

Massachusetts Bay Colony Contained Germans.

Massow, Baron Von.

McNeill, Walter S.

Memminger, Christoph Gustav.

Mergenthaler, Ottmar.

Military Establishments of Warring Nations.

Minuit, or Minnewit, Peter.

Morgan, J. Pierpont.

Missouri, How Kept in the Union.

Muhlenberg, Frederick August.

Muhlenberg, Heinrich Melchior.

Muhlenberg, Johann Gabriel Peter.

Nagel, Charles.

Nast, Thomas.

National Security League.

Neutrality—“The Best Practices of Nations.”

New Ulm Massacre.

Lord Northcliffe Controls American Papers.

Osterhaus, Peter Joseph.

Palatine Declaration of Independence.

Franz Daniel Pastorius and German, Dutch and English Colonization.

Propaganda in the United States.

Pitcher, Molly.

Press Attacks in Congress.

Pathfinders.

Poison Gas.

Penn, William.

Pilgrim Society.

Quitman, Johan Anton.

Representation in Congress, 1779-1912.

Rhodes’ Secret Will and Scholarships, Carnegie Peace Fund and Other Pan-Anglican Influences.

Ringling, Al.

Rittenhouse, David.

Roebling, John August.

Rassieur, Leo.

Roosevelt, Col. Theodore.

Roosevelt and Taft Praise the Kaiser as an Agent of Peace.

Scraps of Paper.

Schleswig-Holstein.

Submarine Sinkings of Enemy Merchant Ships.

Schurz, Carl.

Scheffauer, Herman George.

Schell, Johann Christian and His Wife.

Schley, Winfield Scott.

Steinmetz, Charles P.

Sauer, Christopher.

Starving Germany.

Steuben, Baron Frederick William von.

Sulphur King, Herman Frasch.

Sutter, the Romance of the California Pioneer.

“Swordmaker of the Confederacy.”

Tolstoy on American Liberty.

Commercial Treaty with Germany and How it Was Observed.

Villard, Henry.

Vote on War in Congress.

War of 1870-71.

War Lies Repudiated by British Press.

Washington’s Bodyguard.

Washington’s Tribute.

Weiser, Conrad.

Wetzel, Lou.

Wirt, William.

Wirtz, Captain H., of Andersonville Prison.

Wistar, Caspar.

Zane, Elizabeth.

Ziegler, David, Revolutionary Soldier and Indian Fighter.

Zenger, John Peter, and the Freedom of the Press.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

R

S

T

U

V

W

Z

Transcriber’s Notes

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE