Chapter I (2)

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.