diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/1379-h/1379-h.htm')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/1379-h/1379-h.htm | 5384 |
1 files changed, 5384 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/old/1379-h/1379-h.htm b/old/1379-h/1379-h.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..579bb46 --- /dev/null +++ b/old/1379-h/1379-h.htm @@ -0,0 +1,5384 @@ +<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> + +<!DOCTYPE html + PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" + "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd" > + +<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" lang="en"> + <head> + <title> + A Straight Deal, by Owen Wister + </title> + <style type="text/css" xml:space="preserve"> + + body { margin:5%; background:#faebd0; text-align:justify} + P { text-indent: 1em; margin-top: .25em; margin-bottom: .25em; } + H1,H2,H3,H4,H5,H6 { text-align: center; margin-left: 15%; margin-right: 15%; } + hr { width: 50%; text-align: center;} + .foot { margin-left: 20%; margin-right: 20%; text-align: justify; text-indent: -3em; font-size: 90%; } + blockquote {font-size: 97%; font-style: italic; margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%;} + .mynote {background-color: #DDE; color: #000; padding: .5em; margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 95%;} + .toc { margin-left: 10%; margin-bottom: .75em;} + .toc2 { margin-left: 20%;} + div.fig { display:block; margin:0 auto; text-align:center; } + div.middle { margin-left: 20%; margin-right: 20%; text-align: justify; } + .figleft {float: left; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 1%;} + .figright {float: right; margin-right: 0%; margin-left: 1%;} + .pagenum {display:inline; font-size: 70%; font-style:normal; + margin: 0; padding: 0; position: absolute; right: 1%; + text-align: right;} + pre { font-style: italic; font-size: 90%; margin-left: 10%;} + +</style> + </head> + <body> +<pre xml:space="preserve"> + +The Project Gutenberg EBook of A Straight Deal, by Owen Wister + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere 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 + + +Title: A Straight Deal + or The Ancient Grudge + +Author: Owen Wister + +Release Date: September 14, 2008 [EBook #1379] +Last Updated: October 8, 2016 + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: UTF-8 + +*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK A STRAIGHT DEAL *** + + + + +Produced by Bill Brewer, and David Widger + + + + + +</pre> + <p> + <br /><br /> + </p> + <h1> + A STRAIGHT DEAL <br /> OR <br /> THE ANCIENT GRUDGE + </h1> + <p> + <br /> + </p> + <h2> + By Owen Wister + </h2> + <p> + <br /><br /> + </p> +<pre xml:space="preserve"> + To Edward and Anna Martin who give help in time of trouble +</pre> + <p> + <br /> <br /> + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <br /> <br /> + </p> + <blockquote> + <p class="toc"> + <big><b>CONTENTS</b></big> + </p> + <p> + <br /> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2HCH0001"> Chapter I: Concerning One’s Letter Box </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2HCH0002"> Chapter II: What the Postman Brought </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2HCH0003"> Chapter III: In Front of a Bulletin Board </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2HCH0004"> Chapter IV: “My Army of Spies” </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2HCH0005"> Chapter V: The Ancient Grudge </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2HCH0006"> Chapter VI: Who Is Without Sin? </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2HCH0007"> Chapter VII: Tarred with the Same Stick </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2HCH0008"> Chapter VIII: History Astigmatic </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2HCH0009"> Chapter IX: Concerning a Complex </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2HCH0010"> Chapter X: Jackstraws </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2HCH0011"> Chapter XI: Some Family Scraps </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2HCH0012"> Chapter XII: On the Ragged Edge </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2HCH0013"> Chapter XIII: Benefits Forgot </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2HCH0014"> Chapter XIV: England the Slacker! </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2HCH0015"> Chapter XV: Rude Britannia, Crude Columbia </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2HCH0016"> Chapter XVI: An International Imposture </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2HCH0017"> Chapter XVII: Paint </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2HCH0018"> Chapter XVIII: The Will to Friendship—or + the Will to Hate? </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2HCH0019"> Chapter XIX: Lion and Cub </a> + </p> + </blockquote> + <p> + <br /> <br /> + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <br /> <br /> <a name="link2HCH0001" id="link2HCH0001"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <h2> + Chapter I: Concerning One’s Letter Box + </h2> + <p> + Publish any sort of conviction related to these morose days through which + we are living and letters will shower upon you like leaves in October. No + matter what your conviction be, it will shake both yeas and nays loose + from various minds where they were hanging ready to fall. Never was a time + when so many brains rustled with hates and panaceas that would sail wide + into the air at the lightest jar. Try it and see. Say that you believe in + God, or do not; say that Democracy is the key to the millennium, or the + survival of the unfittest; that Labor is worse than the Kaiser, or better; + that drink is a demon, or that wine ministers to the health and the cheer + of man—say what you please, and the yeas and nays will pelt you. So + insecurely do the plainest, oldest truths dangle in a mob of disheveled + brains, that it is likely, did you assert twice two continues to equal + four and we had best stick to the multiplication table, anonymous letters + would come to you full of passionate abuse. Thinking comes hard to all of + us. To some it never comes at all, because their heads lack the machinery. + How many of such are there among us, and how can we find them out before + they do us harm? Science has a test for this. It has been applied to the + army recruit, but to the civilian voter not yet. The voting moron still + runs amuck in our Democracy. Our native American air is infected with + alien breath. It is so thick with opinions that the light is obscured. + Will the sane ones eventually prevail and heal the sick atmosphere? We + must at least assume so. Else, how could we go on? + </p> + <p> + <a name="link2HCH0002" id="link2HCH0002"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + Chapter II: What the Postman Brought + </h2> + <p> + During the winter of 1915 I came to think that Germany had gone + dangerously but methodically mad, and that the European War vitally + concerned ourselves. This conviction I put in a book. Yeas and nays pelted + me. Time seems to show the yeas had it. + </p> + <p> + During May, 1918, I thought we made a mistake to hate England. I said so + at the earliest opportunity. Again came the yeas and nays. You shall see + some of these. They are of help. Time has not settled this question. It is + as alive as ever—more alive than ever. What if the Armistice was + premature? What if Germany absorb Russia and join Japan? What if the + League of Nations break like a toy? + </p> + <p> + Yeas and nays are put here without the consent of their writers, whose + names, of course, do not appear, and who, should they ever see this, are + begged to take no offense. None is intended. + </p> + <p> + There is no intention except to persuade, if possible, a few readers, at + least, that hatred of England is not wise, is not justified to-day, and + has never been more than partly justified. It is based upon three + foundations fairly distinct yet meeting and merging on occasions: first + and worst, our school histories of the Revolution; second, certain + policies and actions of England since then, generally distorted or + falsified by our politicians; and lastly certain national traits in each + country that the other does not share and which have hitherto produced + perennial personal friction between thousands of English and American + individuals of every station in life. These shall in due time be + illustrated by two sets of anecdotes: one, disclosing the English traits, + the other the American. I say English, and not British, advisedly, because + both the Scotch and the Irish seem to be without those traits which + especially grate upon us and upon which we especially grate. And now for + the letters. + </p> + <p> + The first is from a soldier, an enlisted man, writing from France. + </p> + <p> + “Allow me to thank you for your article entitled ‘The Ancient Grudge.’ ... + Like many other young Americans there was instilled in me from early + childhood a feeling of resentment against our democratic cousins across + the Atlantic and I was only too ready to accept as true those stories I + heard of England shirking her duty and hiding behind her colonies, etc. It + was not until I came over here and saw what she was really doing that my + opinion began to change. + </p> + <p> + “When first my division arrived in France it was brigaded with and + received its initial experience with the British, who proved to us how + little we really knew of the war as it was and that we had yet much to + learn. Soon my opinion began to change and I was regarding England as the + backbone of the Allies. Yet there remained a certain something I could not + forgive them. What it was you know, and have proved to me that it is not + our place to judge and that we have much for which to be thankful to our + great Ally. + </p> + <p> + “Assuring you that your... article has succeeded in converting one who + needed conversion badly I beg to remain....” + </p> + <p> + How many American soldiers in Europe, I wonder, have looked about them, + have used their sensible independent American brains (our very best + characteristic), have left school histories and hearsay behind them and + judged the English for themselves? A good many, it is to be hoped. What + that judgment finally becomes must depend not alone upon the personal + experience of each man. It must also come from that liberality of outlook + which is attained only by getting outside your own place and seeing a lot + of customs and people that differ from your own. A mind thus seasoned and + balanced no longer leaps to an opinion about a whole nation from the + sporadic conduct of individual members of it. It is to be feared that some + of our soldiers may never forget or make allowance for a certain insult + they received in the streets of London. But of this later. The following + sentence is from a letter written by an American sailor: + </p> + <p> + “I have read... ‘The Ancient Grudge’ and I wish it could be read by every + man on our big ship as I know it would change a lot of their attitude + toward England. I have argued with lots of them and have shown some of + them where they are wrong but the Catholics and descendants of Ireland + have a different argument and as my education isn’t very great, I know + very little about what England did to the Catholics in Ireland.” + </p> + <p> + Ireland I shall discuss later. Ireland is no more our business to-day than + the South was England’s business in 1861. That the Irish question should + defeat an understanding between ourselves and England would be, to quote + what a gentleman who is at once a loyal Catholic and a loyal member of the + British Government said to me, “wrecking the ship for a ha’pennyworth of + tar.” + </p> + <p> + The following is selected from the nays, and was written by a business + man. I must not omit to say that the writers of all these letters are + strangers to me. + </p> + <p> + “As one American citizen to another... permit me to give my personal view + on your subject of ‘The Ancient Grudge’... + </p> + <p> + “To begin with, I think that you start with a false idea of our kinship—with + the idea that America, because she speaks the language of England, because + our laws and customs are to a great extent of the same origin, because + much that is good among us came from there also, is essentially of English + character, bound up in some way with the success or failure of England. + </p> + <p> + “Nothing, in my opinion, could be further from the truth. We are a + distinctive race—no more English, nationally, than the present King + George is German—as closely related and as alike as a celluloid comb + and a stick of dynamite. + </p> + <p> + “We are bound up in the success of America only. The English are bound up + in the success of England only. We are as friendly as rival corporations. + We can unite in a common cause, as we have, but, once that is over, we + will go our own way—which way, owing to the increase of our shipping + and foreign trade, is likely to become more and more antagonistic to + England’s. + </p> + <p> + “England has been a commercially unscrupulous nation for generations and + it is idle to throw the blame for this or that act of a nation on an + individual. Such arguments might be kept up indefinitely as regards an act + of any country. A responsible nation must bear the praise or odium that + attaches to any national action. If England has experienced a change of + heart it has occurred since the days of the Boer Republic—as wanton + a steal as Belgium, with even less excuse, and attended with sufficient + brutality for all practical purposes.... + </p> + <p> + “She has done us many an ill turn gratuitously and not a single good turn + that was not dictated by selfish policy or jealousy of others. She has + shown herself, up till yesterday at least, grasping and unscrupulous. She + is no worse than the others probably—possibly even better—but + it would be doing our country an ill turn to persuade its citizens that + England was anything less than an active, dangerous, competitor, + especially in the infancy of our foreign trade. When a business rival + gives you the glad hand and asks fondly after the children, beware lest + the ensuing emotions cost you money. + </p> + <p> + “No: our distrust for England has not its life and being in pernicious + textbooks. To really believe that would be an insult to our intelligence—even + grudges cannot live without real food. Should England become helpless + tomorrow, our animosity and distrust would die to-morrow, because we would + know that she had it no longer in her power to injure us. Therein lies the + feeling—the textbooks merely echo it.... + </p> + <p> + “In my opinion, a navy somewhat larger than England’s would practically + eliminate from America that ‘Ancient Grudge’ you deplore. It is England’s + navy—her boasted and actual control of the seas—which + threatens and irritates every nation on the face of the globe that has + maritime aspirations. She may use it with discretion, as she has for + years. It may even be at times a source of protection to others, as it has—but + so long as it exists as a supreme power it is a constant source of danger + and food for grudges. + </p> + <p> + “We will never be a free nation until our navy surpasses England’s. The + world will never be a free world until the seas and trade routes are free + to all, at all times, and without any menace, however benevolent. + </p> + <p> + “In conclusion... allow me to again state that I write as one American + citizen to another with not the slightest desire to say anything that may + be personally obnoxious. My own ancestors were from England. My personal + relations with the Englishmen I have met have been very pleasant. I can + readily believe that there are no better people living, but I feel so + strongly on the subject, nationally—so bitterly opposed to a + continuance of England’s sea control—so fearful that our people may + be lulled into a feeling of false security, that I cannot help trying to + combat, with every small means in my power, anything that seems to + propagate a dangerous friendship.” + </p> + <p> + I received no dissenting letter superior to this. To the writer of it I + replied that I agreed with much that he said, but that even so it did not + in my opinion outweigh the reasons I had given (and shall now give more + abundantly) in favor of dropping our hostile feeling toward England. + </p> + <p> + My correspondent says that we differ as a race from the English as much as + a celluloid comb from a stick of dynamite. Did our soldiers find the + difference as great as that? I doubt if our difference from anybody is + quite as great as that. Again, my correspondent says that we are bound up + in our own success only, and England is bound up in hers only. I agree. + But suppose the two successes succeed better through friendship than + through enmity? We are as friendly, my correspondent says, as two rival + corporations. Again I agree. Has it not been proved this long while that + competing corporations prosper through friendship? Did not the Northern + Pacific and the Great Northern form a combination called the Northern + Securities, for the sake of mutual benefit? Under the Sherman Act the + Northern Securities was dissolved; but no Sherman act forbids a Liberty + Securities. Liberty, defined and assured by Law, is England’s gift to the + modern world. Liberty, defined and assured by Law, is the central purpose + of our Constitution. Just as identically as the Northern Pacific and Great + Northern run from St. Paul to Seattle do England and the United States aim + at Liberty, defined and assured by Law. As friends, the two nations can + swing the world towards world stability. My correspondent would hardly + have instanced the Boers in his reference to England’s misdeeds, had he + reflected upon the part the Boers have played in England’s struggle with + Germany. + </p> + <p> + I will point out no more of the latent weaknesses that underlie various + passages in this letter, but proceed to the remaining letters that I have + selected. I gave one from an enlisted man and one from a sailor; this is + from a commissioned officer, in France. + </p> + <p> + “I cannot refrain from sending you a line of appreciation and thanks for + giving the people at home a few facts that I am sure some do not know and + throwing a light upon a much discussed topic, which I am sure will help to + remove from some of their minds a foolish bigoted antipathy.” + </p> + <p> + Upon the single point of our school histories of the Revolution, some of + which I had named as being guilty of distorting the facts, a correspondent + writes from Nebraska: + </p> + <p> + “Some months ago... the question came to me, what about our Montgomery’s + History now.... I find that everywhere it is the King who is represented + as taking these measures against the American people. On page 134 is the + heading, American Commerce; the new King George III; how he interfered + with trade; page 135, The King proposes to tax the Colonies; page 136, + ‘The best men in Parliament—such men as William Pitt and Edmund + Burke—took the side of the colonies.’ On page 138, ‘William Pitt + said in Parliament, “in my opinion, this kingdom has no right to lay a tax + on the colonies... I rejoice that America has resisted”’; page 150, ‘The + English people would not volunteer to fight the Americans and the King had + to hire nearly 30,000 Hessians to help do the work.... The Americans had + not sought separation; the King—not the English people—had + forced it on them....’ + </p> + <p> + “I am writing this... because, as I was glad to see, you did not mince + words in naming several of the worse offenders.” (He means certain school + histories that I mentioned and shall mention later again.) + </p> + <p> + An official from Pittsburgh wrote thus: + </p> + <p> + “In common with many other people, I have had the same idea that England + was not doing all she could in the war, that while her colonies were in + the thick of it, she, herself, seemed to be sparing herself, but after + reading this article... I will frankly and candidly confess to you that it + has changed my opinion, made me a strong supporter of England, and above + all made me a better American.” + </p> + <p> + From Massachusetts: + </p> + <p> + “It is well to remind your readers of the errors—or worse—in + American school text books and to recount Britain’s achievements in the + present war. But of what practical avail are these things when a man so + highly placed as the present Secretary of the Navy asks a Boston audience + (Tremont Temple, October 30, 1918) to believe that it was the American + navy which made possible the transportation of over 2,000,000 Americans to + France without the loss of a single transport on the way over? Did he not + know that the greater part of those troops were not only transported, but + convoyed, by British vessels, largely withdrawn for that purpose from such + vital service as the supply of food to Britain’s civil population?” + </p> + <p> + The omission on the part of our Secretary of the Navy was later quietly + rectified by an official publication of the British Government, wherein it + appeared that some sixty per cent of our troops were transported in + British ships. Our Secretary’s regrettable slight to our British allies + was immediately set right by Admiral Sims, who forthwith, both in public + and in private, paid full and appreciative tribute to what had been done. + It is, nevertheless, very likely that some Americans will learn here for + the first time that more than half of our troops were not transported by + ourselves, and could not have been transported at all but for British + assistance. There are many persons who still believe what our politicians + and newspapers tell them. No incident that I shall relate further on + serves better to point the chief international moral at which I am driving + throughout these pages, and at which I have already hinted: Never to + generalize the character of a whole nation by the acts of individual + members of it. That is what everybody does, ourselves, the English, the + French, everybody. You can form no valid opinion of any nation’s + characteristics, not even your own, until you have met hundreds of its + people, men and women, and had ample opportunity to observe and know them + beneath the surface. Here on the one hand we had our Secretary of the + Navy. He gave our Navy the whole credit for getting our soldiers overseas. + </p> + <p> + He justified the British opinion that we are a nation of braggarts. On the + other hand, in London, we had Admiral Sims, another American, a splendid + antidote. He corrected the Secretary’s brag. What is the moral? Look out + how you generalize. Since we entered the war that tribe of English has + increased who judge us with an open mind, discriminate between us, draw + close to a just appraisal of our qualities and defects, and possibly even + discern that those who fill our public positions are mostly on a lower + level than those who elect them. + </p> + <p> + I proceed with two more letters, both dissenting, and both giving very + typically, as it seems to me, the American feeling about England—partially + justified by instances mentioned by my correspondent, but equally + mentioned by me in passages which he seems to have skipped. + </p> + <p> + “Lately I read and did not admire your article... ‘The Ancient Grudge.’ + Many of your statements are absolutely true, and I recognize the fact that + England’s help in this war has been invaluable. Let it go at that and + hush! + </p> + <p> + “I do not defend our own Indian policy.... Wounded and disabled in our + Indian wars... I know all about them and how indefensible they are..... + </p> + <p> + “England has been always our only legitimate enemy. 1776? Yes, call it + ancient history and forget it if possible. 1812? That may go in the same + category. But the causes of that misunderstanding were identically + repeated in 1914 and ‘15. + </p> + <p> + “1861? Is that also ancient? Perhaps—but very bitter in the memory + of many of us now living. The Alabama. The Confederate Commissioners (I + know you will say we were wrong there—and so we may have been + technically—but John Bull bullied us into compliance when our hands + were tied). Lincoln told his Cabinet ‘one war at a time, Gentlemen’ and + submitted.... + </p> + <p> + “In 1898 we were a strong and powerful nation and a dangerous enemy to + provoke. England recognized the fact and acted accordingly. England + entered the present war to protect small nations! Heaven save the mark! + You surely read your history. Pray tell me something of England’s policy + in South Africa, India, the Soudan, Persia, Abyssinia, Ireland, Egypt. The + lost provinces of Denmark. The United States when she was young and + helpless. And thus, almost to—infinitum. + </p> + <p> + “Do you not know that the foundations of ninety per cent of the great + British fortunes came from the loot of India? upheld and fostered by the + great and unscrupulous East India Company? + </p> + <p> + “Come down to later times: to-day for instance. Here in California... I + meet and associate with hundreds of Britishers. Are they American + citizens? I had almost said, ‘No, not one.’ Sneering and contemptuous of + America and American institutions. Continually finding fault with our + government and our people. Comparing these things with England, always to + our disadvantage...... + </p> + <p> + “Now do you wonder we do not like England? Am I pro-German? I should laugh + and so would you if you knew me.” + </p> + <p> + To this correspondent I did not reply that I wished I knew him—which + I do—that, even as he, so I had frequently been galled by the + rudeness and the patronizing of various specimens, high and low, of the + English race. But something I did reply, to the effect that I asked nobody + to consider England flawless, or any nation a charitable institution, but + merely to be fair, and to consider a cordial understanding between us + greatly to our future advantage. To this he answered, in part, as follows: + </p> + <p> + “I wish to thank you for your kindly reply.... Your argument is that as a + matter of policy we should conciliate Great Britain. Have we fallen so + low, this great and powerful nation?... Truckling to some other power + because its backing, moral or physical, may some day be of use to us, even + tho’ we know that in so doing we are surrendering our dearest rights, + principles, and dignity!... Oh! my dear Sir, you surely do not advocate + this? I inclose an editorial clipping.... Is it no shock to you when + Winston Churchill shouts to High Heaven that under no circumstances will + Great Britain surrender its supreme control of the seas? This in reply to + President Wilson’s plea for freedom of the seas and curtailment of + armaments.... But as you see, our President and our Mr. Daniels have + already said, ‘Very well, we will outbuild you.’ Never again shall Great + Britain stop our mail ships and search our private mails. Already has + England declared an embargo against our exports in many essential lines + and already are we expressing our dissatisfaction and taking means to + retaliate.” + </p> + <p> + Of the editorial clipping inclosed with the above, the following is a + part: + </p> + <p> + “John Bull is our associate in the contest with the Kaiser. There is no + doubt as to his position on that proposition. He went after the Dutch in + great shape. Next to France he led the way and said, ‘Come on, Yanks; we + need your help. We will put you in the first line of trenches where there + will be good gunning. Yes, we will do all of that and at the same time we + will borrow your money, raised by Liberty Loans, and use it for the + purchase of American wheat, pork, and beef.’ + </p> + <p> + “Mr. Bull kept his word. He never flinched or attempted to dodge the + issue. He kept strictly in the middle of the road. His determination to + down the Kaiser with American men, American money, and American food never + abated for a single day during the conflict.” + </p> + <p> + This editorial has many twins throughout the country. I quote it for its + value as a specimen of that sort of journalistic and political utterance + amongst us, which is as seriously embarrassed by facts as a skunk by its + tail. Had its author said: “The Declaration of Independence was signed by + Christopher Columbus on Washington’s birthday during the siege of + Vicksburg in the presence of Queen Elizabeth and Judas Iscariot,” his + statement would have been equally veracious, and more striking. + </p> + <p> + As to Winston Churchill’s declaration that Great Britain will not + surrender her control of the seas, I am as little shocked by that as I + should be were our Secretary of the Navy to declare that in no + circumstances would we give up control of the Panama Canal. The Panama + Canal is our carotid artery, Great Britain’s navy is her jugular vein. It + is her jugular vein in the mind of her people, regardless of that new + apparition, the submarine. I was not shocked that Great Britain should + decline Mr. Wilson’s invitation that she cut her jugular vein; it was the + invitation which kindled my emotions; but these were of a less serious + kind. + </p> + <p> + The last letter that I shall give is from an American citizen of English + birth. + </p> + <p> + “As a boy at school in England, I was taught the history of the American + Revolution as J. R. Green presents it in his Short History of the English + People. The gist of this record, as you doubtless recollect, is that + George III being engaged in the attempt to destroy what there then was of + political freedom and representative government in England, used the + American situation as a means to that end; that the English people, in so + far as their voice could make itself heard, were solidly against both his + English and American policy, and that the triumph of America contributed + in no small measure to the salvation of those institutions by which the + evolution of England towards complete democracy was made possible. + Washington was held up to us in England not merely as a great and good + man, but as an heroic leader, to whose courage and wisdom the English as + well as the American people were eternally indebted.... + </p> + <p> + “Pray forgive so long a letter from a stranger. It is prompted... by a + sense of the illimitable importance, not only for America and Britain, but + for the entire world, of these two great democratic peoples knowing each + other as they really are and cooperating as only they can cooperate to + establish and maintain peace on just and permanent foundations.” + </p> + <p> + <a name="link2HCH0003" id="link2HCH0003"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + Chapter III: In Front of a Bulletin Board + </h2> + <p> + There, then, are ten letters of the fifty which came to me in consequence + of what I wrote in May, 1918, which was published in the American Magazine + for the following November. Ten will do. To read the other forty would + change no impression conveyed already by the ten, but would merely repeat + it. With varying phraseology their writers either think we have hitherto + misjudged England and that my facts are to the point, or they express the + stereotyped American antipathy to England and treat my facts as we mortals + mostly do when facts are embarrassing—side-step them. What best + pleased me was to find that soldiers and sailors agreed with me, and not + “high-brows” only. + </p> + <p> + May, 1918, as you will remember, was a very dark hour. We had come into + the war, had been in for a year; but events had not yet taken us out of + the well-nigh total eclipse flung upon our character by those blighting + words, “there is such a thing as being too proud to fight.” The British + had been told by their General that they were fighting with their backs to + the wall. Since March 23rd the tread of the Hun had been coming steadily + nearer to Paris. Belleau Wood and Chateau-Thierry had not yet struck the + true ring from our metal and put into the hands of Foch the one further + weapon that he needed. French morale was burning very low and blue. Yet + even in such an hour, people apparently American and apparently grown up, + were talking against England, our ally. Then and thereafter, even as + to-day, they talked against her as they had been talking since August, + 1914, as I had heard them again and again, indoors and out, as I heard a + man one forenoon in a crowd during the earlier years of the war, the + miserable years before we waked from our trance of neutrality, while our + chosen leaders were still misleading us. + </p> + <p> + Do you remember those unearthly years? The explosions, the plots, the + spies, the Lucitania, the notes, Mr. Bryan, von Bernstorff, half our + country—oh, more than half!—in different or incredulous, + nothing prepared, nothing done, no step taken, Theodore Roosevelt’s and + Leonard Wood’s almost the only voices warning us what was bound to happen, + and to get ready for it? Do you remember the bulletin boards? Did you + grow, as I did, so restless that you would step out of your office to see + if anything new had happened during the last sixty minutes—would + stop as you went to lunch and stop as you came back? We knew from the + faces of our friends what our own faces were like. In company we pumped up + liveliness, but in the street, alone with our apprehensions—do you + remember? For our future’s sake may everybody remember, may nobody forget! + </p> + <p> + What the news was upon a certain forenoon memorable to me, I do not + recall, and this is of no consequence; good or bad, the stream of + by-passers clotted thickly to read it as the man chalked it line upon line + across the bulletin board. Citizens who were in haste stepped off the curb + to pass round since they could not pass through this crowd of gazers. Thus + this on the sidewalk stood some fifty of us, staring at names we had never + known until a little while ago, Bethincourt, Malancourt, perhaps, or + Montfaucon, or Roisel; French names of small places, among whose crumbled, + featureless dust I have walked since, where lived peacefully a few hundred + or a few thousand that are now a thousand butchered or broken-hearted. + Through me ran once again the wonder that had often chilled me since the + abdication of the Czar which made certain the crumbling of Russia: after + France, was our turn coming? Should our fields, too, be sown with bones, + should our little towns among the orchards and the corn fall in ashes + amongst which broken hearts would wander in search of some surviving stick + of property? I had learned to know that a long while before the war the + eyes of the Hun, the bird of prey, had been fixed upon us as a juicy + morsel. He had written it, he had said it. Since August, 1914, these + Pan-German schemes had been leaking out for all who chose to understand + them. A great many did not so choose. The Hun had wanted us and planned to + get us, and now more than ever before, because he intended that we should + pay his war bills. Let him once get by England, and his sword would cut + through our fat, defenseless carcass like a knife through cheese. + </p> + <p> + A voice arrested my reverie, a voice close by in the crowd. It said, + “Well, I like the French. But I’ll not cry much if England gets hers. + What’s England done in this war, anyway?” + </p> + <p> + “Her fleet’s keeping the Kaiser out of your front yard, for one thing,” + retorted another voice. + </p> + <p> + With assurance slightly wobbling and a touch of the nasal whine, the first + speaker protested, “Well, look what George III done to us. Bad as any + Kaiser.” + </p> + <p> + “Aw, get your facts straight!” It was said with scornful force. “Don’t you + know George III was a German? Don’t you know it was Hessians—they’re + Germans—he hired to come over here and kill Americans and do his + dirty work for him? And his Germans did the same dirty work the Kaiser’s + are doing now. We’ve got a letter written after the battle of Long Island + by a member of our family they took prisoner there. And they stripped him + and they stole his things and they beat him down with the butts of their + guns—after he had surrendered, mind—when he was surrendered + and naked, and when he was down they beat him some more. That’s Germans + for you. Only they’ve been getting worse while the rest of the world’s + been getting better. Get your facts straight, man.” + </p> + <p> + A number of us were now listening to this, and I envied the historian his + ingenious promptness—I have none—and I hoped for more of this + timely debate. But debate was over. The anti-Englishman faded to silence. + Either he was out of facts to get straight, or lacked what is so pithily + termed “come-back.” The latter, I incline to think; for come-back needs no + facts, it is a self-feeder, and its entire absence in the anti-Englishman + looks as if he had been a German. Germans do not come back when it goes + against them, they bleat “Kamerad!”—or disappear. Perhaps this man + was a spy—a poor one, to be sure—yet doing his best for his + Kaiser: slinking about, peeping, listening, trying to wedge the Allies + apart, doing his little bit towards making friends enemies, just as his + breed has worked to set enmity between ourselves and Japan, ourselves and + Mexico, France and England, France and Italy, England and Russia, between + everybody and everybody else all the world over, in the sacred name and + for the sacred sake of the Kaiser. Thus has his breed, since we occupied + Coblenz, run to the French soldiers with lies about us and then run to us + with lies about the French soldiers, overlooking in its providential + stupidity the fact that we and the French would inevitably compare notes. + Thus too is his breed, at the moment I write these words, infesting and + poisoning the earth with a propaganda that remains as coherent and as + systematically directed as ever it was before the papers began to assure + us that there was nothing left of the Hohenzollern government. + </p> + <p> + <a name="link2HCH0004" id="link2HCH0004"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + Chapter IV: “My Army of Spies” + </h2> + <p> + “You will desire to know,” said the Kaiser to his council at Potsdam in + June, 1908, after the successful testing of the first Zeppelin, “how the + hostilities will be brought about. My army of spies scattered over Great + Britain and France, as it is over North and South America, will take good + care of that. Even now I rule supreme in the United States, where three + million voters do my bidding at the Presidential elections.” + </p> + <p> + Yes, they did his bidding; there, and elsewhere too. They did it at other + elections as well. Do you remember the mayor they tried to elect in + Chicago? and certain members of Congress? and certain manufacturers and + bankers? They did his bidding in our newspapers, our public schools, and + from the pulpit. Certain localities in one of the river counties of Iowa + (for instance) were spots of German treason to the United States. The + “exchange professors” that came from Berlin to Harvard and other + universities were so many camouflaged spies. Certain prominent American + citizens, dined and wined and flattered by the Kaiser for his purpose, + women as well as men, came back here mere Kaiser-puppets, hypnotized by + royalty. His bidding was done in as many ways as would fill a book. + Shopkeepers did it, servants did it, Americans among us were decorated by + him for doing it. Even after the Armistice, a school textbook “got by” the + Board of Education in a western state, wherein our boys and girls were to + be taught a German version—a Kaiser version—of Germany. + Somebody protested, and the board explained that it “hadn’t noticed,” and + the book was held up. + </p> + <p> + We cannot, I fear, order the school histories in Germany to be edited by + the Allies. German school children will grow up believing, in all + prob-ability, that bombs were dropped near Nurnberg in July, 1914, that + German soil was invaded, that the Fatherland fought a war of defense; they + will certainly be nourished by lies in the future as they were nourished + by lies in the past. But we can prevent Germans or pro-Germans writing our + own school histories; we can prevent that “army of spies” of which the + Kaiser boasted to his council at Potsdam in June, 1908, from continuing + its activities among us now and henceforth; and we can prevent our school + textbooks from playing into Germany’s hand by teaching hate of England to + our boys and girls. Beside the sickening silliness which still asks, “What + has England done in the war?” is a silliness still more sickening which + says, “Germany is beaten. Let us forgive and forget.” That is not + Christianity. There is nothing Christian about it. It is merely + sentimental slush, sloppy shirking of anything that compels national + alertness, or effort, or self-discipline, or self-denial; a moral + cowardice that pushes away any fact which disturbs a shallow, torpid, + irresponsible, self-indulgent optimism. + </p> + <p> + Our golden age of isolation is over. To attempt to return to it would be a + mere pernicious day-dream. To hark back to Washington’s warning against + entangling alliances is as sensible as to go by a map of the world made in + 1796. We are coupled to the company of nations like a car in the middle of + a train, only more inevitably and permanently, for we cannot uncouple; and + if we tried to do so, we might not wreck the train, but we should + assuredly wreck ourselves. I think the war has brought us one benefit + certainly: that many young men return from Europe knowing this, who had no + idea of it before they went, and who know also that Germany is at heart an + untamed, unchanged wild beast, never to be trusted again. We must not, and + shall not, boycott her in trade; but let us not go to sleep at the switch! + Just as busily as she is baking pottery opposite Coblenz, labelled “made + in St. Louis,” “made in Kansas City,” her “army of spies” is at work here + and everywhere to undermine those nations who have for the moment delayed + her plans for world dominion. I think the number of Americans who know + this has increased; but no American, wherever he lives, need travel far + from home to meet fellow Americans who sing the song of slush about + forgiving and forgetting. + </p> + <p> + Perhaps the man I heard talking in front of the bulletin board was one of + the “army of spies,” as I like to infer from his absence of “come-back.” + But perhaps he was merely an innocent American who at school had studied, + for instance, Eggleston’s history; thoughtless—but by no means + harmless; for his school-taught “slant” against England, in the days we + were living through then, amounted to a “slant” for Germany. He would be + sorry if Germany beat France, but not if she beat England—when + France and England were joined in keeping the wolf not only from their + door but from ours! It matters not in the least that they were fighting + our battle, not because they wanted to, but because they couldn’t help it: + they were fighting it just the same. That they were compelled doesn’t + matter, any more than it matters that in going to war when Belgium was + invaded, England’s duty and England’s self-interest happened to coincide. + Our duty and our interest also coincided when we entered the war and + joined England and France. Have we seemed to think that this diminished + our glory? Have they seemed to think that it absolved them from gratitude? + </p> + <p> + Such talk as that man’s in front of the bulletin board helped Germany + then, whether he meant to or not, just as much as if a spy had said it—just + as much as similar talk against England to-day, whether by spies or + unheeding Americans, helps the Germany of to-morrow. The Germany of + yesterday had her spies all over France and Italy, busily suggesting to + rustic uninformed peasants that we had gone to France for conquest of + France, and intended to keep some of her land. What is she telling them + now? I don’t know. Something to her advantage and their disadvantage, you + may be sure, just as she is busy suggesting to us things to her advantage + and our disadvantage—jealousy and fear of the British navy, or + pro-German school histories for our children, or that we can’t make dyes, + or whatever you please: the only sure thing is, that the Germany of + yesterday is the Germany of to-morrow. She is not changed. She will not + change. The steady stream of her propaganda all over the world proves it. + No matter how often her masquerading government changes costumes, that + costume is merely her device to conceal the same cunning, treacherous wild + beast that in 1914, after forty years of preparation, sprang at the throat + of the world. Of all the nations in the late war, she alone is pulling + herself together. She is hard at work. She means to spring again just as + soon as she can. + </p> + <p> + Did you read the letter written in April of 1919 by her Vice-Chancellor, + Mathias Erzberger, also her minister of finance? A very able, compact + masterpiece of malignant voracity, good enough to do credit to Satan. + Through that lucky flaw of stupidity which runs through apparently every + German brain, and to which we chiefly owe our victory and temporary + respite from the fangs of the wolf, Mathias Erzberger posted his letter. + It went wrong in the mails. If you desire to read the whole of it, the + International News Bureau can either furnish it or put you on the track of + it. One sentence from it shall be quoted here: + </p> + <p> + “We will undertake the restoration of Russia, and in possession of such + support will be ready, within ten or fifteen years, to bring France, + without any difficulty, into our power. The march towards Paris will be + easier than in 1914. The last step but one towards the world dominion will + then be reached. The continent is ours. Afterwards will follow the last + stage, the closing struggle, between the continent and the over-seas.” + </p> + <p> + Who is meant by “overseas”? Is there left any honest American brain so + fond and so feeble as to suppose that we are not included in that highly + suggestive and significant term? I fear that some such brains are left. + </p> + <p> + Germans remain German. I was talking with an American officer just + returned from Coblenz. He described the surprise of the Germans when they + saw our troops march in to occupy that region of their country. They said + to him: “But this is extraordinary. Where do these soldiers of yours come + from? You have only 150,000 troops in Europe. All the other transports + were sunk by our submarines.” “We have two million troops in Europe,” + replied the officer, “and lost by explosion a very few hundred. No + transport was sunk.” “But that is impossible,” returned the burgher, “we + know from our Government at Berlin that you have only 150,000 troops in + Europe.” + </p> + <p> + Germans remain German. At Coblenz they were servile, cringing, fawning, + ready to lick the boots of the Americans, loading them with offers of + every food and drink and joy they had. Thus they began. Soon, finding that + the Americans did not cut their throats, burn their houses, rape their + daughters, or bayonet their babies, but were quiet, civil, disciplined, + and apparently harmless, they changed. Their fawning faded away, they + scowled and muttered. One day the Burgomaster at a certain place replied + to some ordinary requisitions with an arrogant refusal. It was quite out + of the question, he said, to comply with any such ridiculous demands. Then + the Americans ceased to seem harmless. Certain steps were taken by the + commanding officer, some leading citizens were collected and enlightened + through the only channel whereby light penetrates a German skull. Thus, by + a very slight taste of the methods by which they thought they would cow + the rest of the world, these burghers were cowed instantly. They had + thought the Americans afraid of them. They had taken civility for fear. + Suddenly they encountered what we call the swift kick. It educated them. + It always will. Nothing else will. + </p> + <p> + Mathias Erzberger will, of course, disclaim his letter. He will say it is + a forgery. He will point to the protestations of German repentance and + reform with which he sweated during April, 1919, and throughout the weeks + preceding the delivery of the Treaty at Versailles. Perhaps he has done + this already. All Germans will believe him—and some Americans. + </p> + <p> + The German method, the German madness—what a mixture! The method + just grazed making Germany owner of the earth, the madness saved the + earth. With perfect recognition of Belgium’s share, of Russia’s share, of + France’s, Italy’s, England’s, our own, in winning the war, I believe that + the greatest and mast efficient Ally of all who contributed to Germany’s + defeat was her own constant blundering madness. Americans must never + forget either the one or the other, and too many are trying to forget + both. + </p> + <p> + Germans remain German. An American lady of my acquaintance was about to + climb from Amalfi to Ravello in company with a German lady of her + acquaintance. The German lady had a German Baedeker, the American a + Baedeker in English, published several years apart. The Baedeker in German + recommended a path that went straight up the ascent, the Baedeker in + English a path that went up more gradually around it. “Mine says this is + the best way,” said the American. “Mine says straight up is the best,” + said the German. “But mine is a later edition,” said the American. “That + is not it,” explained the German. “It is that we Germans are so much more + clever and agile, that to us is recommended the more dangerous way while + Americans are shown the safe path.” + </p> + <p> + That happened in 1910. That is Kultur. This too is Kultur: + </p> +<pre xml:space="preserve"> + + “If Silesia become Polish + Then, oh God, may children perish, like beasts, in their mothers’ womb. + Then lame their Polish feet and their hands, oh God! + Let them be crippled and blind their eyes. + Smite them with dumbness and madness,both men and women.” + + From a Hymn of German hate for the Poles. +</pre> + <p> + Germany remains German; but when next she springs, she will make no + blunders. + </p> + <p> + <a name="link2HCH0005" id="link2HCH0005"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + Chapter V: The Ancient Grudge + </h2> + <p> + It was in Broad Street, Philadelphia, before we went to war, that I + overheard the foolish—or propagandist—slur upon England in + front of the bulletin board. After we were fighting by England’s side for + our existence, you might have supposed such talk would cease. It did not. + And after the Armistice, it continued. On the day we celebrated as + “British Day,” a man went through the crowd in Wanamaker’s shop, asking, + What had England done in the War, anyhow? Was he a German, or an Irishman, + or an American in pay of Berlin? I do not know. But this I know: perfectly + good Americans still talk like that. Cowboys in camp do it. Men and women + in Eastern cities, persons with at least the external trappings of + educated intelligence, play into the hands of the Germany of to-morrow, do + their unconscious little bit of harm to the future of freedom and + civilization, by repeating that England “has always been our enemy.” Then + they mention the Revolution, the War of 1812, and England’s attitude + during our Civil War, just as they invariably mentioned these things in + 1917 and 1918, when England was our ally in a struggle (or life, and as + they will be mentioning them in 1940, I presume, if they are still alive + at that time). + </p> + <p> + Now, the Civil War ended fifty-five years ago, the War of 1812 one hundred + and five, and the Revolution one hundred and thirty-seven. Suppose, while + the Kaiser was butchering Belgium because she barred his way to that + dinner he was going to eat in Paris in October, 1914, that France had + said, “England is my hereditary enemy. Henry the Fifth and the Duke of + Wellington and sundry Plantagenets fought me”; and suppose England had + said, “I don’t care much for France. Joan of Arc and Napoleon and sundry + other French fought me”—suppose they had sat nursing their ancient + grudges like that? Well, the Kaiser would have dined in Paris according to + his plan. And next, according to his plan, with the Channel ports taken he + would have dined in London. And finally, according to his plan, and with + the help of his “army of spies” overseas, he would have dined in New York + and the White House. For German madness could not have defeated Germany’s + plan of World dominion, if various nations had not got together and + assisted. Other Americans there are, who do not resort to the Revolution + for their grudge, but are in a commercial rage over this or that: wool, + for instance. Let such Americans reflect that commercial grievances + against England can be more readily adjusted than an absorption of all + commerce by Germany can be adjusted. Wool and everything else will belong + to Mathias Erzberger and his breed, if they carry out their intention. And + the way to insure their carrying it out is to let them split us and + England and all their competitors asunder by their ceaseless and ingenious + propaganda, which plays upon every international prejudice, historic, + commercial, or other, which is available. After August, 1914, England + barred the Kaiser’s way to New York, and in 1917, we found it useful to + forget about George the Third and the Alabama. In 1853 Prussia possessed + one ship of war—her first. + </p> + <p> + In 1918 her submarines were prowling along our coast. For the moment they + are no longer there. For a while they may not be. But do you think Germany + intends that scraps of paper shall be abolished by any Treaty, even though + it contain 80,000 words and a League of Nations? She will make of that + Treaty a whole basket of scraps, if she can, and as soon as she can. She + has said so. Her workingmen are at work, industrious and content with a + quarter the pay for a longer day than anywhere else. Let those persons who + cannot get over George the Third and the Alabama ponder upon this for a + minute or two. + </p> + <p> + <a name="link2HCH0006" id="link2HCH0006"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + Chapter VI: Who Is Without Sin? + </h2> + <p> + Much else is there that it were well they should ponder, and I am coming + to it presently; but first, one suggestion. Most of us, if we dig back + only fifty or sixty or seventy years, can disinter various relatives over + whose doings we should prefer to glide lightly and in silence. + </p> + <p> + Do you mean to say that you have none? Nobody stained with any shade of + dishonor? No grandfather, great-grandfather, great-great-etc. grandfather + or grandmother who ever made a scandal, broke a heart, or betrayed a + trust? Every man Jack and woman Jill of the lot right back to Adam and Eve + wholly good, honorable, and courageous? How fortunate to be sprung + exclusively from the loins of centuries of angels—and to know all + about them! Consider the hoard of virtue to which you have fallen heir! + </p> + <p> + But you know very well that this is not so; that every one of us has every + kind of person for an ancestor; that all sorts of virtue and vice, of + heroism and disgrace, are mingled in our blood; that inevitably amidst the + huge herd of our grandsires black sheep as well as white are to be found. + </p> + <p> + As it is with men, so it is with nations. Do you imagine that any nation + has a spotless history? Do you think that you can peer into our past, turn + over the back pages of our record, and never come upon a single blot? + Indeed you cannot. And it is better—a great deal better—that + you should be aware of these blots. Such knowledge may enlighten you, may + make you a better American. What we need is to be critics of ourselves, + and this is exactly what we have been taught not to be. + </p> + <p> + We are quite good enough to look straight at ourselves. Owing to one thing + and another we are cleaner, honester, humaner, and whiter than any people + on the continent of Europe. If any nation on the continent of Europe has + ever behaved with the generosity and magnanimity that we have shown to + Cuba, I have yet to learn of it. They jeered at us about Cuba, did the + Europeans of the continent. Their papers stuck their tongues in their + cheeks. Of course our fine sentiments were all sham, they said. Of course + we intended to swallow Cuba, and never had intended anything else. And + when General Leonard Wood came away from Cuba, having made Havana healthy, + having brought order out of chaos on the island, and we left Cuba + independent, Europe jeered on. That dear old Europe! + </p> + <p> + Again, in 1909, it was not any European nation that returned to China + their share of the indemnity exacted in consequence of the Boxer troubles; + we alone returned our share to China—sixteen millions. It was we who + prevented levying a punitive indemnity on China. Read the whole story; + there is much more. We played the gentleman, Europe played the bully. But + Europe calls us “dollar chasers.” That dear old Europe! Again, if any + conquering General on the continent of Europe ever behaved as Grant did to + Lee at Appomattox, his name has escaped me. + </p> + <p> + Again, and lastly—though I am not attempting to tell you here the + whole tale of our decencies: Whose hands came away cleanest from that + Peace Conference in Paris lately? What did we ask for ourselves? + Everything we asked, save some repairs of damage, was for other people. + Oh, yes! we are quite good enough to keep quiet about these things. No + need whatever to brag. Bragging, moreover, inclines the listener to + suspect you’re not so remarkable as you sound. + </p> + <p> + But all this virtue doesn’t in the least alter the fact that we’re like + everybody else in having some dirty pages in our History. These pages it + is a foolish mistake to conceal. I suppose that the school histories of + every nation are partly bad. I imagine that most of them implant the germ + of international hatred in the boys and girls who have to study them. + Nations do not like each other, never have liked each other; and it may + very well be that school textbooks help this inclination to dislike. + Certainly we know what contempt and hatred for other nations the Germans + have been sedulously taught in their schools, and how utterly they + believed their teaching. How much better and wiser for the whole world if + all the boys and girls in all the schools everywhere were henceforth to be + started in life with a just and true notion of all flags and the peoples + over whom they fly! The League of Nations might not then rest upon the + quicksand of distrust and antagonism which it rests upon today. But it is + our own school histories that are my present concern, and I repeat my + opinion—or rather my conviction—that the way in which they + have concealed the truth from us is worse than silly, it is harmful. I am + not going to take up the whole list of their misrepresentations, I will + put but one or two questions to you. + </p> + <p> + When you finished school, what idea had you about the War of 1812? I will + tell you what mine was. I thought we had gone to war because England was + stopping American ships and taking American sailors out of them for her + own service. I could refer to Perry’s victory on Lake Erie and Jackson’s + smashing of the British at New Orleans; the name of the frigate + Constitution sent thrills through me. And we had pounded old John Bull and + sent him to the right about a second time! Such was my glorious idea, and + there it stopped. Did you know much more than that about it when your + schooling was done? Did you know that our reasons for declaring war + against Great Britain in 1812 were not so strong as they had been three + and four years earlier? That during those years England had moderated her + arrogance, was ready to moderate further, had placated us for her brutal + performance concerning the Chesapeake, wanted peace; while we, who had + been nearly unanimous for war, and with a fuller purse in 1808, were now, + by our own congressional fuddling and messing, without any adequate army, + and so divided in counsel that only one northern state was wholly in favor + of war? Did you know that our General Hull began by invading Canada from + Detroit and surrendered his whole army without firing a shot? That the + British overran Michigan and parts of Ohio, and western New York, while we + retreated disgracefully? That though we shone in victories of single + combat on the sea and showed the English that we too knew how to sail and + fight on the waves as hardily as Britannia (we won eleven out of thirteen + of the frigate and sloop actions), nevertheless she caught us or blocked + us up, and rioted unchecked along our coasts? You probably did know that + the British burned Washington, and you accordingly hated them for this + barbarous vandalism—but did you know that we had burned Toronto a + year earlier? + </p> + <p> + I left school knowing none of this—it wasn’t in my school book, and + I learned it in mature years with amazement. I then learned also that + England, while she was fighting with us, had her hands full fighting + Bonaparte, that her war with us was a sideshow, and that this was + uncommonly lucky for us—as lucky quite as those ships from France + under Admiral de Grasse, without whose help Washington could never have + caught Cornwallis and compelled his surrender at Yorktown, October 19, + 1781. Did you know that there were more French soldiers and sailors than + Americans at Yorktown? Is it well to keep these things from the young? I + have not done with the War of 1812. There is a political aspect of it that + I shall later touch upon—something that my school books never + mentioned. + </p> + <p> + My next question is, what did you know about the Mexican War of 1846-1847, + when you came out of school? The names of our victories, I presume, and of + Zachary Taylor and Winfield Scott; and possibly the treaty of Guadalupe + Hidalgo, whereby Mexico ceded to us the whole of Texas, New Mexico, and + Upper California, and we paid her fifteen millions. No doubt you know that + Santa Anna, the Mexican General, had a wooden leg. Well, there is more to + know than that, and I found it out much later. I found out that General + Grant, who had fought with credit as a lieutenant in the Mexican War, + briefly summarized it as “iniquitous.” I gradually, through my reading as + a man, learned the truth about the Mexican War which had not been taught + me as a boy—that in that war we bullied a weaker power, that we made + her our victim, that the whole discreditable business had the extension of + slavery at the bottom of it, and that more Americans were against it than + had been against the War of 1812. But how many Americans ever learn these + things? Do not most of them, upon leaving school, leave history also + behind them, and become farmers, or merchants, or plumbers, or firemen, or + carpenters, or whatever, and read little but the morning paper for the + rest of their lives? + </p> + <p> + The blackest page in our history would take a long while to read. Not a + word of it did I ever see in my school textbooks. They were written on the + plan that America could do no wrong. I repeat that, just as we love our + friends in spite of their faults, and all the more intelligently because + we know these faults, so our love of our country would be just as strong, + and far more intelligent, were we honestly and wisely taught in our early + years those acts and policies of hers wherein she fell below her lofty and + humane ideals. Her character and her record on the whole from the + beginning are fine enough to allow the shadows to throw the sunlight into + relief. To have produced at three stages of our growth three such men as + Washington, Lincoln, and Roosevelt, is quite sufficient justification for + our existence + </p> + <p> + <a name="link2HCH0007" id="link2HCH0007"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + Chapter VII: Tarred with the Same Stick + </h2> + <p> + The blackest page in our history is our treatment of the Indian. To speak + of it is a thankless task—thankless, and necessary. + </p> + <p> + This land was the Indian’s house, not ours. He was here first, nobody + knows how many centuries first. We arrived, and we shoved him, and shoved + him, and shoved him, back, and back, and back. Treaty after treaty we made + with him, and broke. We drew circles round his freedom, smaller and + smaller. We allowed him such and such territory, then took it away and + gave him less and worse in exchange. Throughout a century our promises to + him were a whole basket of scraps of paper. The other day I saw some + Indians in California. It had once been their place. All over that region + they had hunted and fished and lived according to their desires, enjoying + life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We came. To-day the hunting + and fishing are restricted by our laws—not the Indian’s—because + we wasted and almost exterminated in a very short while what had amply + provided the Indian with sport and food for a very long while. + </p> + <p> + In that region we have taken, as usual, the fertile land and the running + water, and have allotted land to the Indian where neither wood nor water + exist, no crops will grow, no human life can be supported. I have seen the + land. I have seen the Indian begging at the back door. Oh, yes, they were + an “inferior race.” Oh, yes, they didn’t and couldn’t use the land to the + best advantage, couldn’t build Broadway and the Union Pacific Railroad, + couldn’t improve real estate. If you choose to call the whole thing + “manifest destiny,” I am with you. I’ll not dispute that what we have made + this continent is of greater service to mankind than the wilderness of the + Indian ever could possibly have been—once conceding, as you have to + concede, the inevitableness of civilization. Neither you, nor I, nor any + man, can remold the sorry scheme of things entire. But we could have + behaved better to the Indian. That was in our power. And we gave him a raw + deal instead, not once, but again and again. We did it because we could do + it without risk, because he was weaker and we could always beat him in the + end. And all the while we were doing it, there was our Bill of Rights, our + Declaration of Independence, founded on a new thing in the world, + proclaiming to mankind the fairest hope yet born, that “All men are + endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights,” and that these + were now to be protected by law. Ah, no, look at it as you will, it is a + black page, a raw deal. The officers of our frontier army know all about + it, because they saw it happen. They saw the treaties broken, the thieving + agents, the trespassing settlers, the outrages that goaded the deceived + Indian to despair and violence, and when they were ordered out to kill + him, they knew that he had struck in self-defense and was the real victim. + </p> + <p> + It is too late to do much about it now. The good people of the Indian + Rights Association try to do something; but in spite of them, what little + harm can still be done is being done through dishonest Indian agents and + the mean machinery of politics. If you care to know more of the long, bad + story, there is a book by Helen Hunt Jackson, A Century of Dishonor; it is + not new. It assembles and sets forth what had been perpetrated up to the + time when it was written. A second volume could be added now. + </p> + <p> + I have dwelt upon this matter here for a very definite reason, closely + connected with my main purpose. It’s a favorite trick of our anti-British + friends to call England a “land-grabber.” The way in which England has + grabbed land right along, all over the world, is monstrous, they say. + England has stolen what belonged to whites, and blacks, and bronzes, and + yellows, wherever she could lay her hands upon it, they say. England is a + criminal. They repeat this with great satisfaction, this land-grabbing + indictment. Most of them know little or nothing of the facts, couldn’t + tell you the history of a single case. But what are the facts to the man + who asks, “What has England done in this war, anyway?” The word + “land-grabber” has been passed to him by German and Sinn Fein propaganda, + and he merely parrots it forth. He couldn’t discuss it at all. “Look at + the Boers,” he may know enough to reply, if you remind him that England’s + land-grabbing was done a good while ago. Well, we shall certainly look at + the Boers in due time, but just now we must look at ourselves. I suppose + that the American who denounces England for her land-grabbing has + forgotten, or else has never known, how we grabbed Florida from Spain. The + pittance that we paid Spain in one of the Florida transactions never went + to her. The story is a plain tale of land-grabbing; and there are several + other plain tales that show us to have been land-grabbers, if you will + read the facts with an honest mind. I shall not tell them here. The case + of the Indian is enough in the way of an instance. Our own hands are by no + means clean. It is not for us to denounce England as a land-grabber. + </p> + <p> + You cannot hate statistics more than I do. But at times there is no + dodging them, and this is one of the times. In 1803 we paid Napoleon + Bonaparte fifteen millions for what was then called Louisiana. Napoleon + had his title to this land from Spain. Spain had it from France. France + had it—how? She had it because La Salle, a Frenchman, sailed down + the Mississippi River. This gave him title to the land. There were people + on the bank already, long before La Salle came by. + </p> + <p> + It would have surprised them to be told that the land was no longer theirs + because a man had come by on the water. But nobody did tell them. They + were Indians. They had wives and children and wigwams and other + possessions in the land where they had always lived; but they were red, + and the man in the boat was white, and therefore they were turned into + trespassers because he had sailed by in a boat. That was the title to + Louisiana which we bought from Napoleon Bonaparte. + </p> + <p> + The Louisiana Purchase was a piece of land running up the Mississippi, up + the Missouri, over the Divide, and down the Columbia to the Pacific. + Before we acquired it, our area was over a quarter, but not half, a + million square miles. This added nearly a million square miles more. But + what had we really bought? Nothing but stolen goods. The Indians were + there before La Salle, from whose boat-sailing the title we bought was + derived. “But,” you may object, “when whites rob reds or blacks, we call + it Discovery; land-grabbing is when whites rob whites—and that is + where I blame England.” For the sake of argument I concede this, and refer + you to our acquisition of Texas. This operation followed some years after + the Florida operation. “By request” we “annexed” most of present Texas—in + 1845. That was a trick of our slaveholders. They sent people into Texas + and these people swung the deal. It was virtually a theft from Mexico. A + little while later, in 1848, we “paid” Mexico for California, Arizona, and + Nevada. But if you read the true story of Fremont in California, and of + the American plots there before the Mexican War, to undermine the + government of a friendly nation, plots connived at in Washington with a + view to getting California for ourselves, upon my word you will find it + hard to talk of England being a land-grabber and keep a straight face. + And, were a certain book to fall into your hands, the narrative of the + Alcalde of Monterey, wherein he sets down what of Fremont’s doings in + California went on before his eyes, you would learn a story of treachery, + brutality, and greed. All this acquisition of territory, together with the + Gadsden Purchase a few years later, brought our continent to its present + area—not counting Alaska or some islands later acquired—2,970,230 + square miles. + </p> + <p> + Please understand me very clearly: I am not saying that it has not been + far better for the world and for civilization that we should have become + the rulers of all this land, instead of its being ruled by the Indians or + by Spain, or by Mexico. That is not at all the point. I am merely + reminding you of the means whereby we got the land. We got it mostly by + force and fraud, by driving out of it through firearms and plots people + who certainly were there first and who were weaker than ourselves. Our + reason was simply that we wanted it and intended to have it. That is + precisely what England has done. She has by various means not one whit + better or worse than ours, acquired her possessions in various parts of + the world because they were necessary to her safety and welfare, just as + this continent was necessary to our safety and welfare. Moreover, the + pressure upon her, her necessity for self-preservation, was far more + urgent than was the pressure upon us. To make you see this, I must once + again resort to some statistics. + </p> + <p> + England’s area—herself and adjacent islands—is 120,832 square + miles. Her population in 1811 was eighteen and one half millions. At that + same time our area was 408,895 square miles, not counting the recent + Louisiana Purchase. And our population was 7,239,881. With an area less + than one third of ours (excluding the huge Louisiana) England had a + population more than twice as great. Therefore she was more crowded than + we were—how much more I leave you to figure out for yourself. I + appeal to the fair-minded American reader who only “wants to be shown,” + and I say to him, when some German or anti-British American talks to him + about what a land-grabber England has been in her time to think of these + things and to remember that our own past is tarred with the same stick. + Let every one of us bear in mind that little sentence of the Kaiser’s, + “Even now I rule supreme in the United States;” let us remember that the + Armistice and the Peace Treaty do not seem to have altered German nature + or German plans very noticeably, and don’t let us muddle our brains over + the question of the land grabbed by the great-grandfathers of present + England. + </p> + <p> + Any American who is anti-British to-day is by just so much pro-German, is + helping the trouble of the world, is keeping discord alight, is doing his + bit against human peace and human happiness. + </p> + <p> + There are some other little sentences of the Kaiser and his Huns of which + I shall speak before I finish: we must now take up the controversy of + those men in front of the bulletin board; we must investigate what lies + behind that controversy. Those two men are types. One had learned nothing + since he left school, the other had. + </p> + <p> + <a name="link2HCH0008" id="link2HCH0008"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + Chapter VIII: History Astigmatic + </h2> + <p> + So far as I know, it was Mr. Sydney Gent Fisher, an American, who was the + first to go back to the original documents, and to write from study of + these documents the complete truth about England and ourselves during the + Revolution. His admirable book tore off the cloak which our school + histories had wrapped round the fables. He lays bare the political state + of Britain at that time. What did you learn at your school of that + political state? Did you ever wonder able General Howe and his manner of + fighting us? Did it ever strike you that, although we were more often + defeated than victorious in those engagements with him (and sometimes he + even seemed to avoid pitched battles with us when the odds were all in his + favor), yet somehow England did seem to reap the advantage she should be + reaped from those contests, didn’t follow them, let us get away, didn’t in + short make any progress to speak of in really conquering us? Perhaps you + attributed this to our brave troops and our great Washington. Well, our + troops were brave and Washington was great; but there was more behind—more + than your school teaching ever led you to suspect, if your schooling was + like mine. I imagined England as being just one whole unit of fury and + tyranny directed against us and determined to stamp out the spark of + liberty we had kindled. No such thing! England was violently divided in + sentiment about us. Two parties, almost as opposed as our North and South + have been—only it was not sectional in England—held very + different views about liberty and the rights of Englishmen. The King’s + party, George the Third and his upholders, were fighting to saddle + autocracy upon England; the other party, that of Pitt and Burke, were + resisting this, and their sentiments and political beliefs led them to + sympathize with our revolt against George III. “I rejoice,” writes Horace + Walpole, Dec. 5, 1777, to the Countess of Upper Ossory, “that the + Americans are to be free, as they had a right to be, and as I am sure they + have shown they deserve to be.... I own there are very able Englishmen + left, but they happen to be on t’other side of the Atlantic.” It was + through Whig influence that General Howe did not follow up his victories + over us, because they didn’t wish us to be conquered, they wished us to be + able to vindicate the rights to which they held all Englishmen were + entitled. These men considered us the champions of that British liberty + which George III was attempting to crush. They disputed the rightfulness + of the Stamp Act. When we refused to submit to the Stamp Tax in 1766, it + was then that Pitt exclaimed in Parliament: “I rejoice that America has + resisted.... If ever this nation should have a tyrant for a King, six + millions of freemen, so dead to all the feelings of liberty as voluntarily + to submit to be slaves, would be fit instruments to make slaves of the + rest.” But they were not willing. When the hour struck and the war came, + so many Englishmen were on our side that they would not enlist against us, + refused to fight us, and George III had to go to Germany and obtain + Hessians to help him out. His war against us was lost at home, on English + soil, through English disapproval of his course, almost as much as it was + lost here through the indomitable Washington and the help of France. That + is the actual state of the case, there is the truth. Did you hear much + about this at school? Did you ever learn there that George III had a fake + Parliament, largely elected by fake votes, which did not represent the + English people; that this fake Parliament was autocracy’s last ditch in + England; that it choked for a time the English democracy which, after the + setback given it by the excesses of the French Revolution, went forward + again until to-day the King of England has less power than the President + of the United States? I suppose everybody in the world who knows the + important steps of history knows this—except the average American. + From him it has been concealed by his school histories; and generally he + never learns anything about it at all, because once out of school, he + seldom studies any history again. But why, you may possibly wonder, have + our school histories done this? I think their various authors may + consciously or unconsciously have felt that our case against England was + not in truth very strong, that in fact she had been very easy with us, far + easier than any other country was being with its colonies at that time. + The King of France taxed his colonies, the King of Spain filled his purse, + unhampered, from the pockets of Mexico and Peru and Cuba and Porto Rico—from + whatever pocket into which he could put his hand, and the Dutch were doing + the same without the slightest question of their right to do it. Our + quarrel with the mother country and our breaking away from her in spite of + the extremely light rein she was driving us with, rested in reality upon + very slender justification. If ever our authors read of the meeting + between Franklin, Rutledge, and Adams with General Howe, after the Battle + of Long Island, I think they may have felt that we had almost no grievance + at all. The plain truth of it was, we had been allowed for so long to be + so nearly free that we determined to be free entirely, no matter what + England conceded. Therefore these authors of our school textbooks felt + that they needed to bolster our cause up for the benefit of the young. + Accordingly our boys’ and girls’ sense of independence and patriotism must + be nourished by making England out a far greater oppressor than ever she + really had been. These historians dwelt as heavily as they could upon + George III and his un-English autocracy, and as lightly as they could upon + the English Pitt and upon all the English sympathy we had. Indeed, about + this most of them didn’t say a word. + </p> + <p> + Now that policy may possibly have been desirable once—if it can ever + be desirable to suppress historic truth from a whole nation. But to-day, + when we have long stood on our own powerful legs and need no bolstering up + of such a kind, that policy is not only silly, it is pernicious. It is + pernicious because the world is heaving with frightful menaces to all the + good that man knows. They would strip life of every resource gathered + through centuries of struggle. Mad mobs, whole races of people who have + never thought at all, or who have now hurled away all pretense of thought, + aim at mere destruction of everything that is. They don’t attempt to offer + any substitute. Down with religion, down with education, down with + marriage, down with law, down with property: Such is their cry. Wipe the + slate blank, they say, and then we’ll see what we’ll write on it. Amid + this stands Germany with her unchanged purpose to own the earth; and Japan + is doing some thinking. Amid this also is the Anglo-Saxon race, the race + that has brought our law, our order, our safety, our freedom into the + modern world. That any school histories should hinder the members of this + race from understanding each other truly and being friends, should not be + tolerated. + </p> + <p> + Many years later than Mr. Sydney George Fisher’s analysis of England under + George III, Mr. Charles Altschul has made an examination and given an + analysis of a great number of those school textbooks wherein our boys and + girls have been and are still being taught a history of our Revolution in + the distorted form that I have briefly summarized. His book was published + in 1917, by the George H. Doran Company, New York, and is entitled The + American Revolution in our School Textbooks. Here following are some of + his discoveries: + </p> + <p> + Of forty school histories used twenty years ago in sixty-eight cities, and + in many more unreported, four tell the truth about King George’s pocket + Parliament, and thirty-two suppress it. To-day our books are not quite so + bad, but it is not very much better; and-to-day, be it added, any + reforming of these textbooks by Boards of Education is likely to be + prevented, wherever obstruction is possible, by every influence visible + and invisible that pro-German and pro-Irish propaganda can exert. + Thousands of our American school children all over our country are still + being given a version of our Revolution and the political state of England + then, which is as faulty as was George III’s government, with its fake + parliament, its “rotten boroughs,” its Little Sarum. Meanwhile that “army + of spies” through which the Kaiser boasted that he ruled “supreme” here, + and which, though he is gone, is by no means a demobilized army, but a + very busy and well-drilled and well-conducted army, is very glad that our + boys and girls should be taught false history, and will do its best to see + that they are not taught true history. + </p> + <p> + Mr. Charles Altschul, in his admirable enterprise, addressed himself to + those who preside over our school world all over the country; he received + answers from every state in the Union, and he examined ninety-three + history textbooks in those passages and pages which they devoted to our + Revolution. These books he grouped according to the amount of information + they gave about Pitt and Burke and English sympathy with us in our quarrel + with George III. These groups are five in number, and dwindle down from + group one, “Textbooks which deal fully with the grievances of the + colonists, give an account of general political conditions in England + prior to the American Revolution, and give credit to prominent Englishmen + for the services they rendered the Americans,” to group five, “Textbooks + which deal fully with the grievances of the colonists, make no reference + to general political conditions in England prior to the American + Revolution, nor to any prominent Englishmen who devoted themselves to the + cause of the Americans.” Of course, what dwindles is the amount said about + our English sympathizers. In groups three and four this is so scanty as to + distort the truth and send any boy or girl who studied books of these + groups out of school into life with a very imperfect idea indeed of the + size and importance of English opposition to the policy of George III; in + group five nothing is said about this at all. The boys and girls who + studied books in group five would grow up believing that England was + undividedly autocratic, tyrannical, and hostile to our liberty. In his + careful and conscientious classification, Mr. Altschul gives us the books + in use twenty years ago (and hence responsible for the opinion of + Americans now between thirty and forty years old) and books in use to-day, + and hence responsible for the opinion of those American men and women who + will presently be grown up and will prolong for another generation the + school-taught ignorance and prejudice of their fathers and mothers. I + select from Mr. Altschul’s catalogue only those books in use in 1917, when + he published his volume, and of these only group five, where the facts + about English sympathy with us are totally suppressed. Barnes’ School + History of the United States, by Steele. Chandler and Chitword’s Makers of + American History. Chambers’ (Hansell’s) A School History of the United + States. Eggleston’s A First Book in American History. Eggleston’s History + of the United States and Its People. Eg-gleston’s New Century History of + the United States. Evans’ First Lessons in Georgia History. Evans’ The + Essential Facts of American History. Estill’s Beginner’s History of Our + Country. Forman’s History of the United States. Montgomery’s An Elementary + American History. Montgomery’s The Beginner’s American History. White’s + Beginner’s History of the United States. + </p> + <p> + If the reader has followed me from the beginning, he will recollect a + letter, parts of which I quoted, from a correspondent who spoke of + Montgomery’s history, giving passages in which a fair and adequate + recognition of Pitt and our English sympathizers and their opposition to + George III is made. This would seem to indicate a revision of the work + since Mr. Altschul published his lists, and to substantiate the hope I + expressed in my original article, and which I here repeat. Surely the + publishers of these books will revise them! Surely any patriotic American + publisher and any patriotic board of education, school principal, or + educator, will watch and resist all propaganda and other sinister + influence tending to perpetuate this error of these school histories! + Whatever excuse they once had, be it the explanation I have offered above, + or some other, there is no excuse to-day. These books have laid the + foundation from which has sprung the popular prejudice against England. It + has descended from father to son. It has been further solidified by many + tales for boys and girls, written by men and women who acquired their + inaccurate knowledge at our schools. And it plays straight into the hands + of our enemies. + </p> + <p> + <a name="link2HCH0009" id="link2HCH0009"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + Chapter IX: Concerning a Complex + </h2> + <p> + All of these books, history and fiction, drop into the American mind + during its early springtime the seed of antagonism, establish in fact an + anti-English “complex.” It is as pretty a case of complex on the wholesale + as could well be found by either historian or psychologist. It is not so + violent as the complex which has been planted in the German people by + forty years of very adroitly and carefully planned training: they were + taught to distrust and hate everybody and to consider themselves so + superior to anybody that their sacred duty as they saw it in 1914 was to + enslave the world in order to force upon the world the priceless benefits + of their Kultur. Under the shock of war that complex dilated into a form + of real hysteria or insanity. Our anti-English com-plex is fortunately + milder than that; but none the less does it savor slightly, as any nerve + specialist or psychological doctor would tell you—-it savors + slightly of hysteria, that hundreds of thousands of American men and women + of every grade of education and ignorance should automatically exclaim + whenever the right button is pressed, “England is a land-grabber,” and + “What has England done in the War?” + </p> + <p> + The word complex has been in our dictionary for a long while. This + familiar adjective has been made by certain scientific people into a noun, + and for brevity and convenience employed to denote something that almost + all of us harbor in some form or other. These complexes, these lumps of + ideas or impressions that match each other, that are of the same pattern, + and that are also invariably tinctured with either a pleasurable or + painful emotion, lie buried in our minds, unthought-of but alive, and lurk + always ready to set up a ferment, whenever some new thing from outside + that matches them enters the mind and hence starts them off. The + “suppressed complex” I need not describe, as our English complex is by no + means suppressed. Known to us all, probably, is the political complex. + Year after year we have been excited about elections and candidates and + policies, preferring one party to the other. If this preference has been + very marked, or even violent, you know how disinclined we are to give + credit to the other party for any act or policy, no matter how excellent + in itself, which, had our own party been its sponsor, we should have been + heart and soul for. You know how easily we forget the good deeds of the + opposite party and how easily we remember its bad deeds. That’s a good + simple ordinary example of a complex. Its workings can be discerned in the + experience of us all. In our present discussion it is very much to the + point. + </p> + <p> + Established in the soft young minds of our school boys and girls by a + series of reiterated statements about the tyranny and hostility of England + towards us in the Revolution, statements which they have to remember and + master by study from day to day, tinctured by the anxiety about the + examination ahead, when the students must know them or fail, these + incidents of school work being also tinctured by another emotion, that of + patriotism, enthusiasm for Washington, for the Declaration of + Independence, for Valley Forge—thus established in the regular way + of all complexes, this anti-English complex is fed and watered by what we + learn of the War of 1812, by what we learn of the Civil War of 1861, and + by many lesser events in our history thus far. And just as a Republican + will admit nothing good of a Democrat and a Democrat nothing good of a + Republican because of the political complex, so does the great—the + vast—majority of Americans automatically and easily remember + everything against England and forget everything in her favor. Just try it + any day you like. Ask any average American you are sitting next to in a + train what he knows about England; and if he does remember anything and + can tell it to you, it will be unfavorable nine times in ten. The mere + word “England” starts his complex off, and out comes every fact it has + seized that matches his school-implanted prejudice, just as it has + rejected every fact that does not match it. There is absolutely no other + way to explain the American habit of speaking ill of England and well of + France. Several times in the past, France has been flagrantly hostile to + us. But there was Lafayette, there was Rochambeau, and the great service + France did us then against England. Hence from our school histories we + have a pro-French complex. Under its workings we automatically remember + every good turn France has done us and automatically forget the evil + turns. Again try the experiment yourself. How many Americans do you think + that you will find who can recall, or who even know when you recall to + them the insolent and meddlesome Citizen Genet, envoy of the French + Republic, and how Washington requested his recall? Or the French + privateers that a little later, about 1797-98, preyed upon our commerce? + And the hatred of France which many Americans felt and expressed at that + time? How many remember that the King of France, directly our Revolution + was over, was more hostile to us than England? + </p> + <p> + <a name="link2HCH0010" id="link2HCH0010"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + Chapter X: Jackstraws + </h2> + <p> + Jackstraws is a game which most of us have played in our youth. You empty + on a table a box of miniature toy rakes, shovels, picks, axes, all sorts + of tools and implements. These lie under each other and above each other + in intricate confusion, not unlike cross timber in a western forest, only + instead of being logs, they are about two inches long and very light. The + players sit round the table and with little hooks try in turn to lift one + jackstraw out of the heap, without moving any of the others. You go on + until you do move one of the others, and this loses you your turn. + European diplomacy at any moment of any year reminds you, if you inspect + it closely, of a game of jackstraws. Every sort and shape of intrigue is + in the general heap and tangle, and the jealous nations sit round, each + trying to lift out its own jackstraw. Luckily for us, we have not often + been involved in these games of jackstraw hitherto; unluckily for us, we + must be henceforth involved. If we kept out, our luck would be still + worse. + </p> + <p> + Immediately after our Revolution, there was one of these heaps of + intrigue, in which we were concerned. This was at the time of the + negotiations leading to the Treaty of Paris, to which I made reference at + the close of the last section. This was in 1783. Twenty years later, in + 1803, occurred the heap of jackstraws that led to the Louisiana Purchase. + Twenty years later, in 1823, occurred the heap of jackstraws from which + emerged the Monroe Doctrine. Each of these dates, dotted along through our + early decades, marks a very important crisis in our history. It is well + that they should be grouped together, because together they disclose, so + to speak, a coherent pattern. This coherent pattern is England’s attitude + towards ourselves. It is to be perceived, faintly yet distinctly, in 1783, + and it grows clearer and ever more clear until in 1898, in the game of + jackstraws played when we declared war upon Spain, the pattern is so clear + that it could not be mistaken by any one who was not willfully blinded by + an anti-English complex. This pattern represents a preference on England’s + part for ourselves to other nations. I do not ask you to think England’s + reason for this preference is that she has loved us so much; that she has + loved others so much less—there is her reason. She has loved herself + better than anybody. So must every nation. So does every nation. + </p> + <p> + Let me briefly speak of the first game of jackstraws, played at Paris in + 1783. Our Revolution was over. The terms of peace had to be drawn. + Franklin, Jay, Adams, and Laurens were our negotiators. The various + important points were acknowledgment of our independence, settlement of + boundaries, freedom of fishing in the neighborhood of the Canadian coast. + We had agreed to reach no settlement with England separately from France + and Spain. They were our recent friends. England, our recent enemy, sent + Richard Oswald as her peace commissioner. This private gentleman had + placed his fortune at our disposal during the war, and was Franklin’s + friend. Lord Shelburne wrote Franklin that if this was not satisfactory, + to say so, and name any one he preferred. But Oswald was satisfactory; and + David Hartley, another friend of Franklin’s and also a sympathizer with + our Revolution, was added; and in these circumstances and by these men the + Treaty was made. To France we broke our promise to reach no separate + agreement with England. We negotiated directly with the British, and the + Articles were signed without consultation with the French Government. When + Vergennes, the French Minister, saw the terms, he remarked in disgust that + England would seem to have bought a peace rather than made one. By the + treaty we got the Northwest Territory and the basin of the Ohio River to + the Mississippi. Our recent friend, the French King, was much opposed to + our having so much territory. It was our recent enemy, England, who agreed + that we should have it. This was the result of that game of jackstraws. + </p> + <p> + Let us remember several things: in our Revolution, France had befriended + us, not because she loved us so much, but because she loved England so + little. In the Treaty of Paris, England stood with us, not because she + loved us so much, but because she loved France so little. We must cherish + no illusions. Every nation must love itself more than it loves its + neighbor. Nevertheless, in this pattern of England’s policy in 1783, where + she takes her stand with us and against other nations, there is a deep + significance. Our notions of law, our notions of life, our notions of + religion, our notions of liberty, our notions of what a man should be and + what a woman should be, are so much more akin to her notions than to those + of any other nation, that they draw her toward us rather than toward any + other nation. That is the lesson of the first game of jackstraws. + </p> + <p> + Next comes 1803. Upon the Louisiana Purchase, I have already touched; but + not upon its diplomatic side. In those years the European game of + diplomacy was truly portentous. Bonaparte had appeared, and Bonaparte was + the storm centre. From the heap of jackstraws I shall lift out only that + which directly concerns us and our acquisition of that enormous territory, + then called Louisiana. Bonaparte had dreamed and planned an empire over + here. Certain vicissitudes disenchanted him. A plan to invade England also + helped to deflect his mind from establishing an outpost of his empire upon + our continent. For us he had no love. Our principles were democratic, he + was a colossal autocrat. He called us “the reign of chatter,” and he would + have liked dearly to put out our light. Addington was then the British + Prime Minister. Robert R. Livingston was our minister in Paris. In the + history of Henry Adams, in Volume II at pages 52 and 53, you may find more + concerning Bonaparte’s dislike of the United States. You may also find + that Talleyrand expressed the view that socially and economically England + and America were one and indivisible. In Volume I of the same history, at + page 439, you will see the mention which Pichon made to Talleyrand of the + overtures which England was incessantly making to us. At some time during + all this, rumor got abroad of Bonaparte’s projects regarding Louisiana. In + the second volume of Henry Adams, at pages 23 and 24, you will find + Addington remarking to our minister to Great Britain, Rufus King, that it + would not do to let Bonaparte establish himself in Louisiana. Addington + very plainly hints that Great Britain would back us in any such event. + This backing of us by Great Britain found very cordial acceptance in the + mind of Thomas Jefferson. A year before the Louisiana Purchase was + consummated, and when the threat of Bonaparte was in the air, Thomas + Jefferson wrote to Livingston, on April 18, 1802, that “the day France + takes possession of New Orleans, we must marry ourselves to the British + fleet and nation.” In one of his many memoranda to Talleyrand, Livingston + alludes to the British fleet. He also points out that France may by taking + a certain course estrange the United States for ever and bind it closely + to France’s great enemy. This particular address to Talleyrand is dated + February 1, 1803, and may be found in the Annals of Congress, 1802-1803, + at pages 1078 to 1083. I quote a sentence: “The critical moment has + arrived which rivets the connexion of the United States to France, or + binds a young and growing people for ages hereafter to her mortal and + inveterate enemy.” After this, hints follow concerning the relative + maritime power of France and Great Britain. Livingston suggests that if + Great Britain invade Louisiana, who can oppose her? Once more he refers to + Great Britain’s superior fleet. This interesting address concludes with + the following exordium to France: “She will cheaply purchase the esteem of + men and the favor of Heaven by the surrender of a distant wilderness, + which can neither add to her wealth nor to her strength.” This, as you + will perceive, is quite a pointed remark. Throughout the Louisiana + diplomacy, and negotiations to which this diplomacy led, Livingston’s + would seem to be the master American mind and prophetic vision. But I must + keep to my jackstraws. On April 17, 1803, Bonaparte’s brother, Lucien, + reports a conversation held with him by Bonaparte. What purposes, what + oscillations, may have been going on deep in Bonaparte’s secret mind, no + one can tell. We may guess that he did not relinquish his plan about + Louisiana definitely for some time after the thought had dawned upon him + that it would be better if he did relinquish it. But unless he was lying + to his brother Lucien on April 17, 1803, we get no mere glimpse, but a + perfectly clear sight of what he had come finally to think. It was + certainly worth while, he said to Lucien, to sell when you could what you + were certain to lose; “for the English... are aching for a chance to + capture it.... Our navy, so inferior to our neighbor’s across the Channel, + will always cause our colonies to be exposed to great risks.... As to the + sea, my dear fellow, you must know that there we have to lower the + flag.... The English navy is, and long will be, too dominant.” + </p> + <p> + That was on April 17. On May 2, the Treaty of Cession was signed by the + exultant Livingston. Bonaparte, instead of establishing an outpost of + autocracy at New Orleans, sold to us not only the small piece of land + which we had originally in mind, but the huge piece of land whose + dimensions I have given above. We paid him fifteen millions for nearly a + million square miles. The formal transfer was made on December 17 of that + same year, 1803. There is my second jackstraw. + </p> + <p> + Thus, twenty years after the first time in 1783, Great Britain stood + between us and the designs of another nation. To that other nation her + fleet was the deciding obstacle. England did not love us so much, but she + loved France so much less. For the same reasons which I have suggested + before, self-interest, behind which lay her democratic kinship with our + ideals, ranged her with us. + </p> + <p> + To place my third jackstraw, which follows twenty years after the second, + uninterruptedly in this group, I pass over for the moment our War of 1812. + To that I will return after I have dealt with the third jackstraw, namely, + the Monroe Doctrine. It was England that suggested the Monroe Doctrine to + us. From the origin of this in the mind of Canning to its public + announcement upon our side of the water, the pattern to which I have + alluded is for the third time very clearly to be seen. + </p> + <p> + How much did your school histories tell you about the Monroe Doctrine? I + confess that my notion of it came to this: President Monroe informed the + kings of Europe that they must keep away from this hemisphere. Whereupon + the kings obeyed him and have remained obedient ever since. Of George + Canning I knew nothing. Another large game of jackstraws was being played + in Europe in 1823. Certain people there had formed the Holy Alliance. + Among these, Prince Metternich the Austrian was undoubtedly the master + mind. He saw that by England’s victory at Waterloo a threat to all + monarchical and dynastic systems of government had been created. He also + saw that our steady growth was a part of the same threat. With this in + mind, in 1822, he brought about the Holy Alliance. The first Article of + the Holy Alliance reads: “The high contracting Powers, being convinced + that the system of representative government is as equally incompatible + with the monarchical principle as the maxim of sovereignty of the people + with the Divine right, engage mutually, in the most solemn manner, to use + all their efforts to put an end to the system of representative + governments, in whatever country it may exist in Europe, and to prevent + its being introduced in those countries where it is not yet known.” + </p> + <p> + Behind these words lay a design, hardly veiled, not only against South + America, but against ourselves. In a volume entitled With the Fathers, by + John Bach McMaster, and also in the fifth volume of Mr. McMaster’s + history, chapter 41, you will find more amply what I abbreviate here. + Canning understood the threat to us contained in the Holy Alliance. He + made a suggestion to Richard Rush, our minister to England. The suggestion + was of such moment, and the ultimate danger to us from the Holy Alliance + was of such moment, that Rush made haste to put the matter into the hands + of President Monroe. President Monroe likewise found the matter very + grave, and he therefore consulted Thomas Jefferson. At that time Jefferson + had retired from public life and was living quietly at his place in + Virginia. That President Monroe’s communication deeply stirred him is to + be seen in his reply, written October 24, 1823. Jefferson says in part: + “The question presented by the letters you have sent me is the most + momentous which has ever been offered to my contemplation since that of + independence.... One nation most of all could disturb us.... She now + offers to lead, aid and accompany us.... With her on our side we need not + fear the whole world. With her, then, we should most seriously cherish a + cordial friendship, and nothing would tend more to unite our affections + than to be fighting once more, side by side, in the same cause.” + </p> + <p> + Thus for the second time, Thomas Jefferson advises a friendship with Great + Britain. He realizes as fully as did Bonaparte the power of her navy, and + its value to us. It is striking and strange to find Thomas Jefferson, who + wrote the Declaration of Independence in 1776, writing in 1823 about + uniting our affections and about fighting once more side by side with + England. + </p> + <p> + It was the revolt of the Spanish Colonies from Spain in South America, and + Canning’s fear that France might obtain dominion in America, which led him + to make his suggestion to Rush. The gist of the suggestion was, that we + should join with Great Britain in saying that both countries were opposed + to any intervention by Europe in the western hemisphere. Over our + announcement there was much delight in England. In the London Courier + occurs a sentence, “The South American Republics—protected by the + two nations that possess the institutions and speak the language of + freedom.” In this fragment from the London Courier, the kinship at which I + have hinted as being felt by England in 1783, and in 1803, is definitely + expressed. From the Holy Alliance, from the general European diplomatic + game, and from England’s preference for us who spoke her language and + thought her thoughts about liberty, law, what a man should be, what a + woman should be, issued the Monroe Doctrine. And you will find that no + matter what dynastic or ministerial interruptions have occurred to obscure + this recognition of kinship with us and preference for us upon the part of + the English people, such interruptions are always temporary and lie always + upon the surface of English sentiment. Beneath the surface the recognition + of kinship persists unchanged and invariably reasserts itself. + </p> + <p> + That is my third jackstraw. Canning spoke to Rush, Rush consulted Monroe, + Monroe consulted Jefferson, and Jefferson wrote what we have seen. That, + stripped of every encumbering circumstance, is the story of the Monroe + Doctrine. Ever since that day the Monroe Doctrine has rested upon the + broad back of the British Navy. This has been no secret to our leading + historians, our authoritative writers on diplomacy, and our educated and + thinking public men. But they have not generally been eager to mention it; + and as to our school textbooks, none that I studied mentioned it at all. + </p> + <p> + <a name="link2HCH0011" id="link2HCH0011"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + Chapter XI: Some Family Scraps + </h2> + <p> + Do not suppose because I am reminding you of these things and shall remind + you of some more, that I am trying to make you hate France. I am only + trying to persuade you to stop hating England. I wish to show you how much + reason you have not to hate her, which your school histories pass lightly + over, or pass wholly by. I want to make it plain that your anti-English + complex and your pro-French complex entice your memory into retaining only + evil about England and only good about France. That is why I pull out from + the recorded, certified, and perfectly ascertainable past, these few large + facts. They amply justify, as it seems to me, and as I think it must seem + to any reader with an open mind, what I said about the pattern. + </p> + <p> + We must now touch upon the War of 1812. There is a political aspect of + this war which casts upon it a light not generally shed by our school + histories. Bonaparte is again the point. Nine years after our Louisiana + Purchase from him, we declared war upon England. At that moment England + was heavily absorbed in her struggle with Bonaparte. It is true that we + had a genuine grievance against her. In searching for British sailors upon + our ships, she impressed our own. This was our justification. + </p> + <p> + We made a pretty lame showing, in spite of the victories of our frigates + and sloops. Our one signal triumph on land came after the Treaty of Peace + had been signed at Ghent. During the years of war, it was lucky for us + that England had Bonaparte upon her hands. She could not give us much + attention. She was battling with the great Autocrat. We, by declaring war + upon her at such a time, played into Bonaparte’s hands, and virtually, by + embarrassing England, struck a blow on the side of autocracy and against + our own political faith. It was a feeble blow, it did but slight harm. And + regardless of it England struck Bonaparte down. His hope that we might + damage and lessen the power of her fleet that he so much respected and + feared, was not realized. We made the Treaty of Ghent. The impressing of + sailors from our vessels was tacitly abandoned. The next time that people + were removed from vessels, it was not England who removed them, it was we + ourselves, who had declared war on England for doing so, we ourselves who + removed them from Canadian vessels in the Behring Sea, and from the + British ship Trent. These incidents we shall reach in their proper place. + As a result of the War of 1812, some English felt justified in taking from + us a large slice of land, but Wellington said, “I think you have no right, + from the state of the war, to demand any concession of territory from + America.” This is all that need be said about our War of 1812. + </p> + <p> + Because I am trying to give only the large incidents, I have intentionally + made but a mere allusion to Florida and our acquisition of that territory. + It was a case again of England’s siding with us against a third power, + Spain, in this instance. I have also omitted any account of our + acquisition of Texas, when England was not friendly—I am not sure + why: probably because of the friction between us over Oregon. But certain + other minor events there are, which do require a brief reference—the + boundaries of Maine, of Oregon, the Isthmian Canal, Cleveland and + Venezuela, Roosevelt and Alaska; and these disputes we shall now take up + together, before we deal with the very large matter of our trouble with + England during the Civil War. Chronologically, of course, Venezuela and + Alaska fall after the Civil War; but they belong to the same class to + which Maine and Oregon belong. Together, all of these incidents and + controversies form a group in which the underlying permanence of British + good-will towards us is distinctly to be discerned. Sometimes, as I have + said before, British anger with us obscures the friendly sentiment. But + this was on the surface, and it always passed. As usual, it is only the + anger that has stuck in our minds. Of the outcome of these controversies + and the British temperance and restraint which brought about such outcome + the popular mind retains no impression. + </p> + <p> + The boundary of Maine was found to be undefined to the extent of 12,000 + square miles. Both Maine and New Brunswick claimed this, of course. Maine + took her coat off to fight, so did New Brunswick. Now, we backed Maine, + and voted supplies and men to her. Not so England. More soberly, she said, + “Let us arbitrate.” We agreed, it was done. By the umpire Maine was + awarded more than half what she claimed. And then we disputed the umpire’s + decision on the ground he hadn’t given us the whole thing! Does not this + remind you of some of our baseball bad manners? It was settled later, and + we got, differently located, about the original award. + </p> + <p> + Did you learn in school about “fifty-four forty, or fight”? We were ready + to take off our coat again. Or at least, that was the platform in 1844 on + which President Polk was elected. At that time, what lay between the north + line of California and the south line of Alaska, which then belonged to + Russia, was called Oregon. We said it was ours. England disputed this. + Each nation based its title on discovery. It wasn’t really far from an + even claim. So Polk was elected, which apparently meant war; his words + were bellicose. We blustered rudely. Feeling ran high in England; but she + didn’t take off her coat. Her ambassador, Pakenham, stiff at first, unbent + later. Under sundry missionary impulses, more Americans than British had + recently settled along the Columbia River and in the Willamette Valley. + People from Missouri followed. You may read of our impatient violence in + Professor Dunning’s book, The British Empire and the United States. + Indeed, this volume tells at length everything I am telling you briefly + about these boundary disputes. The settlers wished to be under our + Government. Virtually upon their preference the matter was finally + adjusted. England met us with a compromise, advantageous to us and + reasonable for herself. Thus, again, was her conduct moderate and pacific. + If you think that this was through fear of us, I can only leave you to our + western blow-hards of 1845, or to your anti-British complex. What I see in + it, is another sign of that fundamental sense of kinship, that persisting + unwillingness to have a real scrap with us, that stares plainly out of our + whole first century—the same feeling which prevented so many English + from enlisting against us in the Revolution that George III was obliged to + get Hessians. + </p> + <p> + Nicaragua comes next. There again they were quite angry with us on top, + but controlled in the end by the persisting disposition of kinship. They + had land in Nicaragua with the idea of an Isthmian Canal. This we did not + like. They thought we should mind our own business. But they agreed with + us in the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty that both should build and run the canal. + Vagueness about territory near by raised further trouble, and there we + were in the right. England yielded. The years went on and we grew, until + the time came when we decided that if there was to be any canal, no one + but ourselves should have it. We asked to be let off the old treaty. + England let us off, stipulating the canal should be unfortified, and an + “open door” to all. Our representative agreed to this, much to our + displeasure. Indeed, I do not think he should have agreed to it. Did + England hold us to it? All this happened in the lifetime of many of us, + and we know that she did not hold us to it. She gave us what we asked, and + she did so because she felt its justice, and that it in no way menaced her + with injury. All this began in 1850 and ended, as we know, in the time of + Roosevelt. + </p> + <p> + About 1887 our seal-fishing in the Behring Sea brought on an acute + situation. Into the many and intricate details of this, I need not go; you + can find them in any good encyclopedia, and also in Harper’s Magazine for + April, 1891, and in other places. Our fishing clashed with Canada’s. We + assumed jurisdiction over the whole of the sea, which is a third as big as + the Mediterranean, on the quite fantastic ground that it was an inland + sea. Ignoring the law that nobody has jurisdiction outside the three-mile + limit from their shores, we seized Canadian vessels sixty miles from land. + In fact, we did virtually what we had gone to war with England for doing + in 1812. But England did not go to war. She asked for arbitration. + Throughout this, our tone was raw and indiscreet, while hers was + conspicuously the opposite; we had done an unwarrantable and high-handed + thing; our claim that Behring Sea was an “inclosed” sea was abandoned; the + arbitration went against us, and we paid damages for the Canadian vessels. + </p> + <p> + In 1895, in the course of a century’s dispute over the boundary between + Venezuela and British Guiana, Venezuela took prisoner some British + subjects, and asked us to protect her from the consequences. Richard + Olney, Grover Cleveland’s Secretary of State, informed Lord Salisbury, + Prime Minister of England, that “in accordance with the Monroe Doctrine, + the United States must insist on arbitration”—that is, of the + disputed boundary. It was an abrupt extension of the Monroe Doctrine. It + was dictating to England the manner in which she should settle a + difference with another country. Salisbury declined. On December 17th + Cleveland announced to England that the Monroe Doctrine applied to every + stage of our national Life, and that as Great Britain had for many years + refused to submit the dispute to impartial arbitration, nothing remained + to us but to accept the situation. Moreover, if the disputed territory was + found to belong to Venezuela, it would be the duty of the United States to + resist, by every means in its power, the aggressions of Great Britain. + This was, in effect, an ultimatum. The stock market went to pieces. In + general American opinion, war was coming. The situation was indeed grave. + First, we owed the Monroe Doctrine’s very existence to English backing. + Second, the Doctrine itself had been a declaration against autocracy in + the shape of the Holy Alliance, and England was not autocracy. Lastly, as + a nation, Venezuela seldom conducted herself or her government on the + steady plan of democracy. England was exasperated. And yet England + yielded. It took a little time, but arbitration settled it in the end—at + about the same time that we flatly declined to arbitrate our quarrel with + Spain. History will not acquit us of groundless meddling and arrogance in + this matter, while England comes out of it having again shown in the end + both forbearance and good manners. Before another Venezuelan incident in + 1902, I take up a burning dispute of 1903. + </p> + <p> + As Oregon had formerly been, so Alaska had later become, a grave source of + friction between England and ourselves. Canada claimed boundaries in + Alaska which we disputed. This had smouldered along through a number of + years until the discovery of gold in the Klondike region fanned it to a + somewhat menacing flame. In this instance, history is as unlikely to + approve the conduct of the Canadians as to approve our bad manners towards + them upon many other occasions. The matter came to a head in Roosevelt’s + first administration. You will find it all in the Life of John Hay by + William R. Thayer, Volume II. A commission to settle the matter had + dawdled and failed. Roosevelt was tired of delays. Commissioners again + were appointed, three Americans, two Canadians, and Alverstone, Lord Chief + Justice, to represent England. To his friend Justice Oliver Wendell + Holmes, about to sail for an English holiday, Roosevelt wrote a private + letter privately to be shown to Mr. Balfour, Mr. Chamberlain, and certain + other Englishmen of mark. He said: “The claim of the Canadians for access + to deep water along any part of the Alaskan coast is just exactly as + indefensible as if they should now suddenly claim the Island of + Nantucket.” Canada had objected to our Commissioners as being not + “impartial jurists of repute.” As to this, Roosevelt’s letter to Holmes + ran on: “I believe that no three men in the United States could be found + who would be more anxious than our own delegates to do justice to the + British claim on all points where there is even a color of right on the + British side. But the objection raised by certain British authorities to + Lodge, Root, and Turner, especially to Lodge and Root, was that they had + committed themselves on the general proposition. No man in public life in + any position of prominence could have possibly avoided committing himself + on the proposition, any more than Mr. Chamberlain could avoid committing + himself on the ownership of the Orkneys if some Scandinavian country + suddenly claimed them. If this embodied other points to which there was + legitimate doubt, I believe Mr. Chamberlain would act fairly and squarely + in deciding the matter; but if he appointed a commission to settle up all + these questions, I certainly should not expect him to appoint three men, + if he could find them, who believed that as to the Orkneys the question + was an open one. I wish to make one last effort to bring about an + agreement through the Com-mission.... But if there is a disagreement... I + shall take a position which will prevent any possibility of arbitration + hereafter;... will render it necessary for Congress to give me the + authority to run the line as we claim it, by our own people, without any + further regard to the attitude of England and Canada. If I paid attention + to mere abstract rights, that is the position I ought to take anyhow. I + have not taken it because I wish to exhaust every effort to have the + affair settled peacefully and with due regard to England’s honor.” + </p> + <p> + That is the way to do these things: not by a peremptory public letter, + like Olney’s to Salisbury, which enrages a whole people and makes + temperate action doubly difficult, but thus, by a private letter to the + proper persons, very plain, very unmistakable, but which remains private, + a sufficient word to the wise, and not a red rag to the mob. “To have the + affair settled peacefully and with due regard to England’s honor.” Thus + Roosevelt. England desired no war with us this time, any more than at the + other time. The Commission went to work, and, after investigating the + facts, decided in our favor. + </p> + <p> + Our list of boundary episodes finished, I must touch upon the affair with + the Kaiser regarding Venezuela’s debts. She owed money to Germany, Italy, + and England. The Kaiser got the ear of the Tory government under + Salisbury, and between the three countries a secret pact was made to repay + themselves. Venezuela is not seldom reluctant to settle her obligations, + and she was slow upon this occasion. It was the Kaiser’s chance—he + had been trying it already at other points—to slide into a foothold + over here under the camouflage of collecting from Venezuela her just debt + to him. So with warships he and his allies established what he called a + pacific blockade on Venezuelan ports. + </p> + <p> + I must skip the comedy that now went on in Washington (you will find it on + pages 287-288 of Mr. Thayer’s John Hay, Volume II) and come at once to Mr. + Roosevelt’s final word to the Kaiser, that if there was not an offer to + arbitrate within forty-eight hours, Admiral Dewey would sail for + Venezuela. In thirty-six hours arbitration was agreed to. England withdrew + from her share in the secret pact. Had she wanted war with us, her fleet + and the Kaiser’s could have outmatched our own. She did not; and the + Kaiser had still very clearly and sorely in remembrance what choice she + had made between standing with him and standing with us a few years before + this, upon an occasion that was also connected with Admiral Dewey. This I + shall fully consider after summarizing those international episodes of our + Civil War wherein England was concerned. + </p> + <p> + This completes my list of minor troubles with England that we have had + since Canning suggested our Monroe Doctrine in 1823. Minor troubles, I + call them, because they are all smaller than those during our Civil War. + The full record of each is an open page of history for you to read at + leisure in any good library. You will find that the anti-English complex + has its influence sometimes in the pages of our historians, but Professor + Dunning is free from it. You will find, whatever transitory gusts of + anger, jealousy, hostility, or petulance may have swept over the English + people in their relations with us, these gusts end in a calm; and this + calm is due to the common-sense of the race. It revealed itself in the + treaty at the close of our Revolution, and it has been the ultimate + controlling factor in English dealings with us ever since. And now I reach + the last of my large historic matters, the Civil War, and our war with + Spain. + </p> + <p> + <a name="link2HCH0012" id="link2HCH0012"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + Chapter XII: On the Ragged Edge + </h2> + <p> + On November 6, 1860, Lincoln, nominee of the Republican party, which was + opposed to the extension of slavery, was elected President of the United + States. Forty-one days later, the legislature of South Carolina, + determined to perpetuate slavery, met at Columbia, but, on account of a + local epidemic, moved to Charleston. There, about noon, December 20th, it + unanimously declared “that the Union now subsisting between South Carolina + and other States, under the name of the United States of America, is + hereby dissolved.” Soon other slave states followed this lead, and among + them all, during those final months of Buchanan’s presidency, preparedness + went on, unchecked by the half-feeble, half-treacherous Federal + Government. Lincoln, in his inaugural address, March 4, 1861, declared + that he had no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the + institution of slavery in the states where it existed. To the seceded + slave states he said: “In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, + and not mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not + assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the + aggressors. You can have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the + Government; while I shall have the most solemn one to preserve, protect + and defend it.” This changed nothing in the slave states. It was not + enough for them that slavery could keep on where it was. To spread it + where it was not, had been their aim for a very long while. The next day, + March 5th, Lincoln had letters from Fort Sumter, in Charleston harbor. + Major Anderson was besieged there by the batteries of secession, was being + starved out, might hold on a month longer, needed help. Through staggering + complications and embarrassments, which were presently to be outstaggered + by worse ones, Lincoln by the end of March saw his path clear. “In your + hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not mine, is the momentous + issue of civil war.” The clew to the path had been in those words from the + first. The flag of the Union, the little island of loyalty amid the waters + of secession, was covered by the Charleston batteries. “Batteries ready to + open Wednesday or Thursday. What instructions?” Thus, on April 1st, + General Beauregard, at Charleston, telegraphed to Jefferson Davis. They + had all been hoping that Lincoln would give Fort Sumter to them and so + save their having to take it. Not at all. The President of the United + States was not going to give away property of the United States. Instead, + the Governor of South Caro-lina received a polite message that an attempt + would be made to supply Fort Sumter with food only, and that if this were + not interfered with, no arms or ammunition should be sent there without + further notice, or in case the fort were attacked. Lincoln was leaning + backwards, you might say, in his patient effort to conciliate. And + accordingly our transports sailed from New York for Charleston with + instructions to supply Sumter with food alone, unless they should be + opposed in attempting to carry out their errand. This did not suit + Jefferson Davis at all; and, to cut it short, at half-past four, on the + morning of April 12, 1861, there arose into the air from the mortar + battery near old Fort Johnson, on the south side of the harbor, a + bomb-shell, which curved high and slow through the dawn, and fell upon + Fort Sumter, thus starting four years of civil war. One week later the + Union proclaimed a blockade on the ports of Slave Land. + </p> + <p> + Bear each and all of these facts in mind, I beg, bear them in mind well, + for in the light of them you can see England clearly, and will have no + trouble in following the different threads of her conduct towards us + during this struggle. What she did then gave to our ancient grudge against + her the reddest coat of fresh paint which it had received yet—the + reddest and the most enduring since George III. + </p> + <p> + England ran true to form. It is very interesting to mark this; very + interesting to watch in her government and her people the persistent and + conflicting currents of sympathy and antipathy boil up again, just as they + had boiled in 1776. It is equally interesting to watch our ancient grudge + at work, causing us to remember and hug all the ill will she bore us, all + the harm she did us, and to forget all the good. Roughly comparing 1776 + with 1861, it was once more the Tories, the aristocrats, the Lord Norths, + who hoped for our overthrow, while the people of England, with certain + liberal leaders in Parliament, stood our friends. Just as Pitt and Burke + had spoken for us in our Revolution, so Bright and Cobden befriended us + now. The parallel ceases when you come to the Sovereign. Queen Victoria + declined to support or recognize Slave Land. She stopped the Government + and aristocratic England from forcing war upon us, she prevented the + French Emperor, Napoleon III, from recognizing the Southern Confederacy. + We shall come to this in its turn. Our Civil War set up in England a huge + vibration, subjected England to a searching test of herself. Nothing + describes this better than a letter of Henry Ward Beecher’s, written + during the War, after his return from addressing the people of England. + </p> + <p> + “My own feelings and judgment underwent a great change while I was in + England... I was chilled and shocked at the coldness towards the North + which I everywhere met, and the sympathetic prejudices in favor of the + South. And yet everybody was alike condemning slavery and praising + liberty!” + </p> + <p> + How could England do this, how with the same breath blow cold and hot, how + be against the North that was fighting the extension of slavery and yet be + against slavery too? Confusing at the time, it is clear to-day. Imbedded + in Lincoln’s first inaugural address lies the clew: he said, “I have no + purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of + slavery where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I + have no inclination to do so. Those who elected me did so with full + knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations, and had + never recanted them.” Thus Lincoln, March 4, 1861. Six weeks later, when + we went-to war, we went, not “to interfere with the institution of + slavery,” but (again in Lincoln’s words) “to preserve, protect, and + defend” the Union. This was our slogan, this our fight, this was repeated + again and again by our soldiers and civilians, by our public men and our + private citizens. Can you see the position of those Englishmen who + condemned slavery and praised liberty? We ourselves said we were not out + to abolish slavery, we disclaimed any such object, by our own words we cut + the ground away from them. + </p> + <p> + Not until September 22d of 1862, to take effect upon January 1, 1863, did + Lincoln proclaim emancipation—thus doing what he had said twenty-two + months before “I believe I have no lawful right to do.” + </p> + <p> + That interim of anguish and meditation had cleared his sight. Slowly he + had felt his way, slowly he had come to perceive that the preservation of + the Union and the abolition of slavery were so tightly wrapped together as + to merge and be one and the same thing. But even had he known this from + the start, known that the North’s bottom cause, the ending of slavery, + rested on moral ground, and that moral ground outweighs and must forever + outweigh whatever of legal argument may be on the other side, he could + have done nothing. “I believe I have no lawful right.” There were + thousands in the North who also thus believed. It was only an extremist + minority who disregarded the Constitution’s acquiescence in slavery and + wanted emancipation proclaimed at once. Had Lincoln proclaimed it, the + North would have split in pieces, the South would have won, the Union + would have perished, and slavery would have remained. Lincoln had to wait + until the season of anguish and meditation had unblinded thousands besides + himself, and thus had placed behind him enough of the North to struggle on + to that saving of the Union and that freeing of the slave which was + consummated more than two years later by Lee’s surrender to Grant at + Appomattox. + </p> + <p> + But it was during that interim of anguish and meditation that England did + us most of the harm which our memories vaguely but violently treasure. + Until the Emancipation, we gave our English friends no public, official + grounds for their sympathy, and consequently their influence over our + English enemies was hampered. Instantly after January 1, 1863, that + sympathy became the deciding voice. Our enemies could no longer say to it, + “but Lincoln says himself that he doesn’t intend to abolish slavery.” + </p> + <p> + Here are examples of what occurred: To William Lloyd Garrison, the + Abolitionist, an English sympathizer wrote that three thousand men of + Manchester had met there and adopted by acclamation an enthusiastic + message to Lincoln. These men said that they would rather remain + unemployed for twenty years than get cotton from the South at the expense + of the slave. A month later Cobden writes to Charles Sumner: “I know + nothing in my political experience so striking, an a display of + spontaneous public action, as that of the vast gathering at Exeter Hall + (in London), when, without one attraction in the form of a popular orator, + the vast building, its minor rooms and passages, and the streets + adjoining, were crowded with an enthusiastic audience. That meeting has + had a powerful effect on our newspapers and politicians. It has closed the + mouths of those who have been advocating the side of the South. And I now + write to assure you that any unfriendly act on the part of our Government—no + matter which of our aristocratic parties is in power—towards your + cause is not to be apprehended. If an attempt were made by the Government + in any way to commit us to the South, a spirit would be instantly aroused + which would drive that Government from power.” + </p> + <p> + I lay emphasis at this point upon these instances (many more could be + given) because it has been the habit of most Americans to say that England + stopped being hostile to the North as soon as the North began to win. In + January, 1863, the North had not visibly begun to win. It had suffered + almost unvaried defeat so far; and the battles of Gettysburg and + Vicksburg, where the tide turned at last our way, were still six months + ahead. It was from January 1, 1863, when Lincoln planted our cause firmly + and openly on abolition ground, that the undercurrent of British sympathy + surged to the top. The true wonder is, that this undercurrent should have + been so strong all along, that those English sympathizers somehow in their + hearts should have known what we were fighting for more clearly than we + had been able to see it; ourselves. The key to this is given in Beecher’s + letter—it is nowhere better given—and to it I must now return. + </p> + <p> + “I soon perceived that my first error was in supposing that Great Britain + was an impartial spectator. In fact, she was morally an actor in the + conflict. Such were the antagonistic influences at work in her own midst, + and the division of parties, that, in judging American affairs she could + not help lending sanction to one or the other side of her own internal + conflicts. England was not, then, a judge, sitting calmly on the bench to + decide without bias; the case brought before her was her own, in + principle, and in interest. In taking sides with the North, the common + people of Great Britain and the laboring class took sides with themselves + in their struggle for reformation; while the wealthy and the privileged + classes found a reason in their own political parties and philosophies why + they should not be too eager for the legitimate government and nation of + the United States. + </p> + <p> + “All classes who, at home, were seeking the elevation and political + enfranchisement of the common people, were with us. All who studied the + preservation of the state in its present unequal distribution of political + privileges, sided with that section in America that were doing the same + thing. + </p> + <p> + “We ought not to be surprised nor angry that men should maintain + aristocratic doctrines which they believe in fully as sincerely, and more + consistently, than we, or many amongst us do, in democratic doctrines. + </p> + <p> + “We of all people ought to understand how a government can be cold or + semi-hostile, while the people are friendly with us. For thirty years the + American Government, in the hands, or under the influence of Southern + statesmen, has been in a threatening attitude to Europe, and actually in + disgraceful conflict with all the weak neighboring Powers. Texas, Mexico, + Central Generics, and Cuba are witnesses. Yet the great body of our people + in the Middle and Northern States are strongly opposed to all such + tendencies.” + </p> + <p> + It was in a very brief visit that Beecher managed to see England as she + was: a remarkable letter for its insight, and more remarkable still for + its moderation, when you consider that it was written in the midst of our + Civil War, while loyal Americans were not only enraged with England, but + wounded to the quick as well. When a man can do this—can have + passionate convictions in passionate times, and yet keep his judgment + unclouded, wise, and calm, he serves his country well. + </p> + <p> + I can remember the rage and the wound. In that atmosphere I began my + existence. My childhood was steeped in it. In our house the London Punch + was stopped, because of its hostile ridicule. I grew to boyhood hearing + from my elders how England had for years taunted us with our tolerance of + slavery while we boasted of being the Land of the Free—and then, + when we arose to abolish slavery, how she “jack-knived” and gave aid and + comfort to the slave power when it had its fingers upon our throat. Many + of that generation of my elders never wholly got over the rage and the + wound. They hated all England for the sake of less than half England. They + counted their enemies but never their friends. There’s nothing unnatural + about this, nothing rare. On the contrary, it’s the usual, natural, unjust + thing that human nature does in times of agony. It’s the Henry Ward + Beechers that are rare. In times of agony the average man and woman see + nothing but their agony. When I look over some of the letters that I + received from England in 1915—letters from strangers evoked by a + book called The Pentecost of Calamity, wherein I had published my + conviction that the cause of England was righteous, the cause of Germany + hideous, and our own persistent neutrality unworthy—I’m glad I lost + my temper only once, and replied caustically only once. How dreadful + (wrote one of my correspondents) must it be to belong to a nation that was + behaving like mine! I retorted (I’m sorry for it now) that I could all the + more readily comprehend English feeling about our neutrality, because I + had known what we had felt when Gladstone spoke at Newcastle and when + England let the Alabama loose upon us in 1862. Where was the good in + replying at all? Silence is almost always the best reply in these cases. + Next came a letter from another English stranger, in which the writer + announced having just read The Pentecost of Calamity. Not a word of + friendliness for what I had said about the righteousness of England’s + cause or my expressed unhappiness over the course which our Government had + taken—nothing but scorn for us all and the hope that we should reap + our deserts when Germany defeated England and invaded us. Well? What of + it? Here was a stricken person, writing in stress, in a land of + desolation, mourning for the dead already, waiting for the next who should + die, a poor, unstrung average person, who had not long before read that + remark of our President’s made on the morrow of the Lusitania: that there + is such a thing as being too proud to fight; had read during the ensuing + weeks those notes wherein we stood committed by our Chief Magistrate to a + verbal slinking away and sitting down under it. Can you wonder? If the + mere memory of those days of our humiliation stabs me even now, I need no + one to tell me (though I have been told) what England, what France, felt + about us then, what it must have been like for Americans who were in + England and France at that time. No: the average person in great trouble + cannot rise above the trouble and survey the truth and be just. In English + eyes our Government—and therefore all of us—failed in 1914—1915—1916—failed + again and again—insulted the cause of humanity when we said through + our President in 1916, the third summer of the war, that we were not + concerned with either the causes or the aims of that conflict. How could + they remember Hoover, or Robert Bacon, or Leonard Wood, or Theodore + Roosevelt then, any more than we could remember John Bright, or Richard + Cobden, or the Manchester men in the days when the Alabama was sinking the + merchant vessels of the Union? + </p> + <p> + We remembered Lord John Russell and Lord Palmerston in the British + Government, and their fellow aristocrats in British society; we remembered + the aristocratic British press—The Times notably, because the most + powerful—these are what we saw, felt, and remembered, because they + were not with us, and were able to hurt us in the days when our friends + were not yet able to help us. They made welcome the Southerners who came + over in the interests of the South, they listened to the Southern + propaganda. Why? Because the South was the American version of their + aristocratic creed. To those who came over in the interests of the North + and of the Union they turned a cold shoulder, because they represented + Democracy; moreover, a Dis-United States would prove in commerce a less + formidable competitor. To Captain Bullock, the able and energetic + Southerner who put through in England the building and launching of those + Confederate cruisers which sank our ships and destroyed our merchant + marine, and to Mason and Slidell, the doors of dukes opened pleasantly; + Beecher and our other emissaries mostly had to dine beneath uncoroneted + roofs. + </p> + <p> + In the pages of Henry Adams, and of Charles Francis Adams his brother, you + can read of what they, as young men, encountered in London, and what they + saw their father have to put up with there, both from English society and + the English Government. Their father was our new minister to England, + appointed by Lincoln. He arrived just after our Civil War had begun. I + have heard his sons talk about it familiarly, and it is all to be found in + their writings. + </p> + <p> + Nobody knows how to be disagreeable quite so well as the English + gentleman, except the English lady. They can do it with the nicety of a + medicine dropper. They can administer the precise quantum suff. in every + case. In the society of English gentlemen and ladies Mr. Adams by his + official position was obliged to move. They left him out as much as they + could, but, being the American Minister, he couldn’t be left out + altogether. At their dinners and functions he had to hear open expressions + of joy at the news of Southern victories, he had to receive slights both + veiled and unveiled, and all this he had to bear with equanimity. + Sometimes he did leave the room; but with dignity and discretion. A false + step, a “break,” might have led to a request for his recall. He knew that + his constant presence, close to the English Government, was vital to our + cause. Russell and Palmerston were by turns insolent and shifty, and once + on the very brink of recognizing the Southern Confederacy as an + independent nation. Gladstone, Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a speech at + Newcastle, virtually did recognize it. You will be proud of Mr. Adams if + you read how he bore himself and fulfilled his appallingly delicate and + difficult mission. He was an American who knew how to behave himself, and + he behaved himself all the time; while the English had a way of turning + their behavior on and off, like the hot water. Mr. Adams was no admirer of + “shirt-sleeves” diplomacy. His diplomacy wore a coat. Our experiments in + “shirt-sleeves” diplomacy fail to show that it accomplishes anything which + diplomacy decently dressed would not accomplish more satisfactorily. Upon + Mr. Adams fell some consequences of previous American crudities, of which + I shall speak later. + </p> + <p> + Lincoln had declared a blockade on Southern ports before Mr. Adams arrived + in London. Upon his arrival he found England had proclaimed her neutrality + and recognized the belligerency of the South. This dismayed Mr. Adams and + excited the whole North, because feeling ran too high to perceive this + first act on England’s part to be really favorable to us; she could not + recognize our blockade, which stopped her getting Southern cotton, unless + she recognized that the South was in a state of war with us. Looked at + quietly, this act of England’s helped us and hurt herself, for it deprived + her of cotton. + </p> + <p> + It was not with this, but with the reception and treatment of Mr. Adams + that the true hostility began. Slights to him were slaps at us, sympathy + with the South was an active moral injury to our cause, even if it was + mostly an undertone, politically. Then all of a sudden, something that we + did ourselves changed the undertone to a loud overtone, and we just grazed + England’s declaring war on us. Had she done so, then indeed it had been + all up with us. This incident is the comic going-back on our own doctrine + of 1812, to which I have alluded above. + </p> + <p> + On November 8, 1861, Captain Charles Wilkes of the American steam sloop + San Jacinto, fired a shot across the bow of the British vessel Trent, + stopped her on the high seas, and took four passengers off her, and + brought them prisoners to Fort Warren, in Boston harbor. Mason and Slidell + are the two we remember, Confederate envoys to France and Great Britain. + Over this the whole North burst into glorious joy. Our Secretary of the + Navy wrote to Wilkes his congratulations, Congress voted its thanks to + him, governors and judges laureled him with oratory at banquets, he was + feasted with meat and drink all over the place, and, though his years were + sixty-three, ardent females probably rushed forth from throngs and kissed + him with the purest intentions: heroes have no age. But presently the + Trent arrived in England, and the British lion was aroused. We had + violated international law, and insulted the British flag. Palmerston + wrote us a letter—or Russell, I forget which wrote it—a letter + that would have left us no choice but to fight. But Queen Victoria had to + sign it before it went. “My lord,” she said, “you must know that I will + agree to no paper that means war with the United States.” So this didn’t + go, but another in its stead, pretty stiff, naturally, yet still possible + for us to swallow. Some didn’t want to swallow even this; but Lincoln, + humorous and wise, said, “Gentlemen, one war at a time;” and so we made + due restitution, and Messrs. Mason and Slidell went their way to France + and England, free to bring about action against us there if they could + manage it. Captain Wilkes must have been a good fellow. His picture + suggests this. England, in her English heart, really liked what he had + done, it was in its gallant flagrancy so remarkably like her own doings—though + she couldn’t, naturally, permit such a performance to pass; and a few + years afterwards, for his services in the cause of exploration, her Royal + Geographical Society gave him a gold medal! Yes; the whole thing is comic—to-day; + for us, to-day, the point of it is, that the English Queen saved us from a + war with England. + </p> + <p> + Within a year, something happened that was not comic. Lord John Russell, + though warned and warned, let the Alabama slip away to sea, where she + proceeded to send our merchant ships to the bottom, until the Kearsarge + sent her herself to the bottom. She had been built at Liverpool in the + face of an English law which no quibbling could disguise to anybody except + to Lord John Russell and to those who, like him, leaned to the South. Ten + years later, this leaning cost England fifteen million dollars in damages. + </p> + <p> + Let us now listen to what our British friends were saying in those years + before Lincoln issued his Emancipation Proclamation. His blockade had + brought immediate and heavy distress upon many English workmen and their + families. That had been April 19, 1861. By September, five sixths of the + Lancashire cotton-spinners were out of work, or working half time. Their + starvation and that of their wives and children could be stemmed by + charity alone. I have talked with people who saw those thousands in their + suffering. Yet those thousands bore it. They somehow looked through + Lincoln’s express disavowal of any intention to interfere with slavery, + and saw that at bottom our war was indeed against slavery, that slavery + was behind the Southern camouflage about independence, and behind the + Northern slogan about preserving the Union. They saw and they stuck. + “Rarely,” writes Charles Francis Adams, “in the history of mankind, has + there been a more creditable exhibition of human sympathy.” France was + likewise damaged by our blockade; and Napoleon III would have liked to + recognize the South. He established, through Maximilian, an empire in + Mexico, behind which lay hostility to our Democracy. He wished us defeat; + but he was afraid to move without England, to whom he made a succession of + indirect approaches. These nearly came to something towards the close of + 1862. It was on October 7th that Gladstone spoke at Newcastle about + Jefferson Davis having made a nation. Yet, after all, England didn’t + budge, and thus held Napoleon back. From France in the end the South got + neither ships nor recognition, in spite of his deceitful connivance and + desire; Napoleon flirted a while with Slidell, but grew cold when he saw + no chance of English cooperation. + </p> + <p> + Besides John Bright and Cobden, we had other English friends of influence + and celebrity: John Stuart Mill, Thomas Hughes, Goldwin Smith, Leslie + Stephen, Robert Gladstone, Frederic Harrison are some of them. All from + the first supported us. All from the first worked and spoke for us. The + Union and Emancipation Society was founded. “Your Committee,” says its + final report when the war was ended, “have issued and circulated upwards + of four hundred thousand books, pamphlets, and tracts... and nearly five + hundred official and public meetings have been held...” The president of + this Society, Mr. Potter, spent thirty thousand dollars in the cause, and + at a time when times were hard and fortunes as well as cotton-spinners in + distress through our blockade. Another member of the Society, Mr. + Thompson, writes of one of the public meetings: “... I addressed a crowded + assembly of unemployed operatives in the town of Heywood, near Manchester, + and spoke to them for two hours about the Slaveholders’ Rebellion. They + were united and vociferous in the expression of their willingness to + suffer all hardships consequent upon a want of cotton, if thereby the + liberty of the victims of Southern despotism might be promoted. All honor + to the half million of our working population in Lancashire, Cheshire, and + elsewhere, who are bearing with heroic fortitude the privation which your + war has entailed upon them!... Their sublime resignation, their + self-forgetfulness, their observance of law, their whole-souled love of + the cause of human freedom, their quick and clear perception of the merits + of the question between the North and the South... are extorting the + admiration of all classes of the community ...” + </p> + <p> + How much of all this do you ever hear from the people who remember the + Alabama? + </p> + <p> + Strictly in accord with Beecher’s vivid summary of the true England in our + Civil War, are some passages of a letter from Mr. John Bigelow, who was at + that time our Consul-General at Paris, and whose impressions, written to + our Secretary of State, Mr. Seward, on February 6, 1863, are interesting + to compare with what Beecher says in that letter, from which I have + already given extracts. + </p> + <p> + “The anti-slavery meetings in England are having their effect upon the + Government already... The Paris correspondent of the London Post also came + to my house on Wednesday evening... He says... that there are about a + dozen persons who by their position and influence over the organs of + public opinion have produced all the bad feeling and treacherous con-duct + of England towards America. They are people who, as members of the + Government in times past, have been bullied by the U. S.... They are not + entirely ignorant that the class who are now trying to overthrow the + Government were mainly responsible for the brutality, but they think we as + a nation are disposed to bully, and they are disposed to assist in any + policy that may dismember and weaken us. These scars of wounded pride, + however, have been carefully concealed from the public, who therefore + cannot be readily made to see why, when the President has distinctly made + the issue between slave labor and free labor, that England should not go + with the North. He says these dozen people who rule England hate us + cordially... ” + </p> + <p> + There were more than a dozen, a good many more, as we know from Charles + and Henry Adams. But read once again the last paragraph of Beecher’s + letter, and note how it corresponds with what Mr. Bigelow says about the + feeling which our Government (for thirty years “in the hands or under the + influence of Southern statesmen”) had raised against us by its bad manners + to European governments. This was the harvest sown by shirt sleeves + diplomacy and reaped by Mr. Adams in 1861. Only seven years before, we had + gratuitously offended four countries at once. Three of our foreign + ministers (two of them from the South) had met at Ostend and later at Aix + in the interests of extending slavery, and there, in a joint manifesto, + had ordered Spain to sell us Cuba, or we would take Cuba by force. One of + the three was our minister to Spain. Spain had received him courteously as + the representative of a nation with whom she was at peace. It was like + ringing the doorbell of an acquaintance, being shown into the parlor and + telling him he must sell you his spoons or you would snatch them. This + doesn’t incline your neighbor to like you. But, as has been said, Mr. + Adams was an American who did know how to behave, and thereby served us + well in our hour of need. + </p> + <p> + We remember the Alabama and our English enemies, we forget Bright, and + Cobden, and all our English friends; but Lincoln did not forget them. When + a young man, a friend of Bright’s, an Englishman, had been caught here in + a plot to seize a vessel and make her into another Alabama, John Bright + asked mercy for him; and here are Lincoln’s words in consequence: “whereas + one Rubery was convicted on or about the twelfth day of October, 1863, in + the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of California, of + engaging in, and giving aid and comfort to the existing rebellion against + the Government of this Country, and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment, + and to pay a fine of ten thousand dollars; + </p> + <p> + “And whereas, the said Alfred Rubery is of the immature age of twenty + years, and of highly respectable parentage; + </p> + <p> + “And whereas, the said Alfred Rubery is a subject of Great Britain, and + his pardon is desired by John Bright, of England; + </p> + <p> + “Now, therefore, be it known that I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the + United States of America, these and divers other considerations me + thereunto moving, and especially as a public mark of the esteem held by + the United States of America for the high character and steady friendship + of the said John Bright, do hereby grant a pardon to the said Alfred + Rubery, the same to begin and take effect on the twentieth day of January + 1864, on condition that he leave the country within thirty days from and + after that date.” + </p> + <p> + Thus Lincoln, because of Bright; and because of a word from Bright to + Charles Sumner about the starving cotton-spinners, Americans sent from New + York three ships with flour for those faithful English friends of ours. + </p> + <p> + And then, at Geneva in 1872, England paid us for what the Alabama had + done. This Court of Arbitration grew slowly; suggested first by Mr. Thomas + Batch to Lincoln, who thought the millennium wasn’t quite at hand but + favored “airing the idea.” The idea was not aired easily. Cobden would + have brought it up in Parliament, but illness and death overtook him. The + idea found but few other friends. At last Horace Greeley “aired” it in his + paper. On October 23, 1863, Mr. Adams said to Lord John Russell, “I am + directed to say that there is no fair and equitable form of conventional + arbitrament or reference to which the United States will not be willing to + submit.” This, some two years later, Russell recalled, saying in reply to + a statement of our grievances by Adams: “It appears to Her Majesty’s + Government that there are but two questions by which the claim of + compensation could be tested; the one is, Have the British Government + acted with due diligence, or, in other words, in good faith and honesty, + in the maintenance of the neutrality they proclaimed? The other is, Have + the law officers of the Crown properly understood the foreign enlistment + act, when they declined, in June 1862, to advise the detention and seizure + of the Alabama, and on other occasions when they were asked to detain + other ships, building or fitting in British ports? It appears to Her + Majesty’s Government that neither of these questions could be put to a + foreign government with any regard to the dignity and character of the + British Crown and the British Nation. Her Majesty’s Government are the + sole guardians of their own honor. They cannot admit that they have acted + with bad faith in maintaining the neutrality they professed. The law + officers of the Crown must be held to be better interpreters of a British + statute than any foreign Government can be presumed to be...” He consented + to a commission, but drew the line at any probing of England’s good faith. + </p> + <p> + We persisted. In 1868, Lord Westbury, Lord High Chancellor, declared in + the House of Lords that “the animus with which the neutral powers acted + was the only true criterion.” + </p> + <p> + This is the test which we asked should be applied. We quoted British + remarks about us, Gladstone, for example, as evidence of unfriendly and + insincere animus on the part of those at the head of the British + Government. + </p> + <p> + Replying to our pressing the point of animus, the British Government + reasserted Russell’s refusal to recognize or entertain any question of + England’s good faith: “first, because it would be inconsistent with the + self-respect which every government is bound to feel....” In Mr. John + Bassett Moore’s History of International Arbitration, Vol. I, pages + 496-497, or in papers relating to the Treaty of Washington, Vol. II, + Geneva Arbitration, page 204... Part I, Introductory Statement, you will + find the whole of this. What I give here suffices to show the position we + ourselves and England took about the Alabama case. She backed down. Her + good faith was put in issue, and she paid our direct claims. She ate + “humble pie.” We had to eat humble pie in the affair of the Trent. It has + been done since. It is not pleasant, but it may be beneficial. + </p> + <p> + Such is the story of the true England and the true America in 1861; the + divided North with which Lincoln had to deal, the divided England where + our many friends could do little to check our influential enemies, until + Lincoln came out plainly against slavery. I have had to compress much, but + I have omitted nothing material, of which I am aware. The facts would + embarrass those who determine to assert that England was our undivided + enemy during our Civil War, if facts ever embarrassed a complex. Those + afflicted with the complex can keep their eyes upon the Alabama and the + London Times, and avert them from Bright, and Cobden, and the + cotton-spinners, and the Union and Emancipation Society, and Queen + Victoria. But to any reader of this whose complex is not incurable, or who + has none, I will put this question: What opinion of the brains of any + Englishman would you have if he formed his idea of the United States + exclusively from the newspapers of William Randolph Hearst. + </p> + <p> + <a name="link2HCH0013" id="link2HCH0013"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + Chapter XIII: Benefits Forgot + </h2> + <p> + In our next war, our war with Spain in 1898, England saved us from + Germany. She did it from first to last; her position was unmistakable, and + every determining act of hers was as our friend. The service that she + rendered us in warning Germany to keep out of it, was even greater than + her suggestion of our Monroe doctrine in 1823; for in 1823 she put us on + guard against meditated, but remote, assault from Europe, while in 1898 + she actively averted a serious and imminent peril. As the threat of her + fleet had obstructed Napoleon in 1803, and the Holy Alliance in 1823, so + in 1898 it blocked the Kaiser. Late in that year, when it was all over, + the disappointed and baffled Kaiser wrote to a friend of Joseph + Chamberlain, “If I had had a larger fleet I would have taken Uncle Sam by + the scruff of the neck.” Have you ever read what our own fleet was like in + those days? Or our Army? Lucky it was for us that we had to deal only with + Spain. And even the Spanish fleet would have been a much graver opponent + in Manila Bay, but for Lord Cromer. On its way from Spain through the Suez + Canal a formidable part of Spain’s navy stopped to coal at Port Said. + There is a law about the coaling of belligerent warships in neutral ports. + Lord Cromer could have construed that law just as well against us. His + construction brought it about that those Spanish ships couldn’t get to + Manila Bay in time to take part against Admiral Dewey. The Spanish War + revealed that our Navy could hit eight times out of a hundred, and was in + other respects unprepared and utterly inadequate to cope with a + first-class power. In consequence of this, and the criticisms of our Navy + Department, which Admiral Sims as a young man had written, Roosevelt took + the steps he did in his first term. Three ticklish times in that Spanish + War England stood our friend against Germany. When it broke out, German + agents approached Mr. Balfour, proposing that England join in a European + combination in Spain’s favor. Mr. Balfour’s refusal is common knowledge, + except to the monomaniac with his complex. Next came the action of Lord + Cromer, and finally that moment in Manila Bay when England took her stand + by our side and Germany saw she would have to fight us both, if she fought + at all. + </p> + <p> + If you saw any German or French papers at the time of our troubles with + Spain, you saw undisguised hostility. If you have talked with any American + who was in Paris during that April of 1898, your impression will be more + vivid still. There was an outburst of European hate for us. Germany, + France, and Austria all looked expectantly to England—and England + disappointed their expectations. The British Press was as much for us as + the French and German press were hostile; the London Spectator said: “We + are not, and we do not pretend to be, an agreeable people, but when there + is trouble in the family, we know where our hearts are.” + </p> + <p> + In those same days (somewhere about the third week in April, 1898), at the + British Embassy in Washington, occurred a scene of significance and + interest, which has probably been told less often than that interview + between Mr. Balfour and the Kaiser’s emissary in London. The British + Ambassador was standing at his window, looking out at the German Embassy, + across the street. With him was a member of his diplomatic household. The + two watched what was happening. One by one, the representatives of various + European nations were entering the door of the German Embassy. “Do you see + them?” said the Ambassador’s companion; “they’ll all be in there soon. + There. That’s the last of them.” “I didn’t notice the French Ambassador.” + “Yes, he’s gone in, too.” “I’m surprised at that. I’m sorry for that. I + didn’t think he would be one of them,” said the British ambassador. “Now, + I’ll tell you what. They’ll all be coming over here in a little while. I + want you to wait and be present.” Shortly this prediction was verified. + Over from the German Embassy came the whole company on a visit to the + British Ambassador, that he might add his signature to a document to which + they had affixed theirs. He read it quietly. We may easily imagine its + purport, since we know of the meditated European coalition against us at + she time of our war with Spain. Then the British Ambassador remarked: “I + have no orders from my Government to sign any such document as that. And + if I did have, I should resign my post rather than sign it.” A pause: The + company fell silent. “Then what will your Excellency do?” inquired one + visitor. “If you will all do me the honor of coming back to-morrow, I + shall have another document ready which all of us can sign.” That is what + happened to the European coalition at this end. + </p> + <p> + Some few years later, that British Ambassador came to die; and to the + British Embassy repaired Theodore Roosevelt. “Would it be possible for us + to arrange,” he said, “a funeral more honored and marked than the United + States has ever accorded to any one not a citizen? I should like it. And,” + he suddenly added, shaking his fist at the German Embassy over the way, + “I’d like to grind all their noses in the dirt.” + </p> + <p> + Confronted with the awkward fact that Britain was almost unanimously with + us, from Mr. Balfour down through the British press to the British people, + those nations whose ambassadors had paid so unsuccessful a call at the + British Embassy had to give it up. Their coalition never came off. Such a + thing couldn’t come off without England, and England said No. + </p> + <p> + Next, Lord Cromer, at Port Said, stretched out the arm of international + law, and laid it upon the Spanish fleet. Belligerents may legally take + coal enough at neutral ports to reach their nearest “home port.” That + Spanish fleet was on its way from Spain to Manila through the Suez Canal. + It could have reached there, had Lord Cromer allowed it coal enough to + make the nearest home port ahead of it—Manila. But there was a home + port behind it, still nearer, namely, Barcelona. He let it take coal + enough to get back to Barcelona. Thus, England again stepped in. + </p> + <p> + The third time was in Manila Bay itself, after Dewey’s victory, and while + he was in occupation of the place. Once more the Kaiser tried it, not + discouraged by his failure with Mr. Balfour and the British Government. He + desired the Philippines for himself; we had not yet acquired them; we were + policing them, superintending the harbor, administering whatever had + fallen to us from Spain’s defeat. The Kaiser sent, under Admiral Diedrich, + a squadron stronger than Dewey’s. + </p> + <p> + Dewey indicated where the German was to anchor. “I am here by the order of + his Majesty the German Emperor,” said Diedrich, and chose his own place to + anchor. He made it quite plain in other ways that he was taking no orders + from America. Dewey, so report has it, at last told him that “if he wanted + a fight he could have it at the drop of the hat.” Then it was that the + German called on the English Admiral, Chichester, who was likewise at + hand, anchored in Manila Bay. “What would you do,” inquired Diedrich, “in + the event of trouble between Admiral Dewey and myself?” “That is a secret + known only to Admiral Dewey and me,” said the Englishman. Plainer talk + could hardly be. Diedrich, though a German, understood it. He returned to + his flagship. What he saw next morning was the British cruiser in a new + place, interposed between Dewey and himself. Once more, he understood; and + he and his squadron sailed off; and it was soon after this incident that + the disappointed Kaiser wrote that, if only his fleet had been larger, he + would have taken us by the scruff of the neck. + </p> + <p> + Tell these things to the next man you hear talking about George III or the + Alabama. You may meet him in front of a bulletin board, or in a + drawing-room. He is amongst us everywhere, in the street and in the house. + He may be a paid propagandist or merely a silly ignorant puppet. But + whatever he is, he will not find much to say in response, unless it be + vain, sterile chatter. True come-back will fail him as it failed that man + by the bulletin board who asked, “What is England doing, anyhow?” and his + neighbor answered, “Her fleet’s keeping the Kaiser out of your front + yard.” + </p> + <p> + <a name="link2HCH0014" id="link2HCH0014"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + Chapter XIV: England the Slacker! + </h2> + <p> + What did England do in the war, anyhow? + </p> + <p> + Let us have these disregarded facts also. From the shelves of history I + have pulled down and displayed the facts which our school textbooks have + suppressed; I have told the events wherein England has stood our timely + friend throughout a century; events which our implanted prejudice leads us + to ignore, or to forget; events which show that any one who says England + is our hereditary enemy might just about as well say twice two is five. + </p> + <p> + What did England do in the war, anyhow? + </p> + <p> + They go on asking it. The propagandists, the prompted puppets, the paid + parrots of the press, go on saying these eight senseless words because + they are easy to say, since the man who can answer them is generally not + there: to every man who is a responsible master of facts we have—well, + how many?—irresponsible shouters in this country. What is your + experience? How often is it your luck—as it was mine in front of the + bulletin board—to see a fraud or a fool promptly and satisfactorily + put in his place? Make up your mind that wherever you hear any person + whatsoever, male or female, clean or unclean, dressed in jeans, or dressed + in silks and laces, inquire what England “did in the war, anyhow?” such + person either shirks knowledge, or else is a fraud or a fool. Tell them + what the man said in the street about the Kaiser and our front yard, but + don’t stop there. Tell them that in May, 1918, England was sending men of + fifty and boys of eighteen and a half to the front; that in August, 1918, + every third male available between those years was fighting, that eight + and a half million men for army and navy were raised by the British + Empire, of which Ireland’s share was two and three tenths per cent, Wales + three and seven tenths, Scotland’s eight and three tenths, and England’s + more than sixty per cent; and that this, taken proportionately to our + greater population would have amounted to about thirteen million + Americans, When the war started, the British Empire maintained three + soldiers out of every 2600 of the population; her entire army, regular + establishment, reserve and territorial forces, amounted to seven hundred + thousand men. Our casualties were three hundred and twenty-two thousand, + one hundred and eighty-two. The casualties in the British Army were three + million, forty-nine thousand, nine hundred and seventy-one—a million + more than we sent—and of these six hundred and fifty-eight thousand, + seven hundred and four, were killed. Of her Navy, thirty-three thousand + three hundred and sixty-one were killed, six thousand four hundred and + five wounded and missing; of her merchant marine fourteen thousand six + hundred and sixty-one were killed; a total of forty-eight thousand killed—or + ten per cent of all in active service. Some of those of the merchant + marine who escaped drowning through torpedoes and mines went back to sea + after being torpedoed five, six, and seven times. + </p> + <p> + What did England do in the war, anyhow? + </p> + <p> + Through four frightful years she fought with splendor, she suffered with + splendor, she held on with splendor. The second battle of Ypres is but one + drop in the sea of her epic courage; yet it would fill full a canto of a + poem. So spent was Britain’s single line, so worn and thin, that after all + the men available were brought, gaps remained. No more ammunition was + coming to these men, the last rounds had been served. Wet through, heavy + with mud, they were shelled for three days to prevent sleep. Many came at + last to sleep standing; and being jogged awake when officers of the line + passed down the trenches, would salute and instantly be asleep again. On + the fourth day, with the Kaiser come to watch them crumble, three lines of + Huns, wave after wave of Germany’s picked troops, fell and broke upon this + single line of British—and it held. The Kaiser, had he known of the + exhausted ammunition and the mounded dead, could have walked unarmed to + the Channel. But he never knew. + </p> + <p> + Surgeons being scantier than men at Ypres, one with a compound fracture of + the thigh had himself propped up, and thus all day worked on the wounded + at the front. He knew it meant death for him. The day over, he let them + carry him to the rear, and there, from blood-poisoning, he died. Thus + through four frightful years, the British met their duty and their death. + </p> + <p> + There is the great story of the little penny steamers of the Thames—a + story lost amid the gigantic whole. Who will tell it right? Who will make + this drop of perfect valor shine in prose or verse for future eyes to see? + Imagine a Hoboken ferry boat, because her country needed her, starting for + San Francisco around Cape Horn, and getting there. Some ten or eleven + penny steamers under their own steam started from the Thames down the + Channel, across the Bay of Biscay, past Gibraltar, and through the + submarined Mediterranean for the River Tigris. Boats of shallow draught + were urgently needed on the River Tigris. Four or five reached their + destination. Where are the rest? + </p> + <p> + What did England do in the war, anyhow? + </p> + <p> + During 1917-1918 Britain’s armies held the enemy in three continents and + on six fronts, and cooperated with her Allies on two more fronts. Her + dead, those six hundred and fifty-eight thousand dead, lay by the Tigris, + the Zambesi, the AEgean, and across the world to Flanders’ fields. Between + March 21st and April 17th, 1918, the Huns in their drive used 127 + divisions, and of these 102 were concentrated against the British. That + was in Flanders. Britain, at the same time she was fighting in Flanders, + had also at various times shared in the fighting in Russia, Kiaochau, New + Guinea, Samoa, Mesopotamia, Palestine, Egypt, the Sudan, Cameroons, + Togoland, East Africa, South West Africa, Saloniki, Aden, Persia, and the + northwest frontier of India. Britain cleared twelve hundred thousand + square miles of the enemy in German colonies. While fighting in + Mesopotamia, her soldiers were reconstructing at the same time. They + reclaimed and cultivated more than 1100 square miles of land there, which + produced in consequence enough food to save two million tons of shipping + annually for the Allies. In Palestine and Mesopotamia alone, British + troops in 1917 took 23,590 prisoners. In 1918, in Palestine from September + 18th to October 7th, they took 79,000 prisoners. + </p> + <p> + What did England do in the war, anyhow? + </p> + <p> + With “French’s contemptible little army” she saved France at the start—but + I’ll skip that—except to mention that one division lost 10,000 out + of 12,000 men, and 350 out of 400 officers. At Zeebrugge and Ostend—do + not forget the Vindictive—she dealt with submarines in April and + May, 1918—but I’ll skip that; I cannot set down all that she did, + either at the start, or nearing the finish, or at any particular moment + during those four years and three months that she was helping to hold + Germany off from the throat of the world; it would make a very thick book. + But I am giving you enough, I think, wherewith to answer the ignorant, and + the frauds, and the fools. Tell them that from 1916 to 1918 Great Britain + increased her tillage area by four million acres: wheat 39 per cent, + barley 11, oats 35, potatoes 50—in spite of the shortage of labor. + She used wounded soldiers, college boys and girls, boy scouts, refugees, + and she produced the biggest grain crop in fifty years. She started + fourteen hundred thousand new war gardens; most of those who worked them + had worked already a long day in a munition factory. These devoted workers + increased the potato crop in 1917 by three million tons—and thus + released British provision ships to carry our soldiers across. In that + Boston speech which one of my correspondents referred to, our Secretary of + the Navy did not mention this. Mention it yourself. And tell them about + the boy scouts and the women. Fifteen thousand of the boy scouts joined + the colors, and over fifty thousand of the younger members served in + various ways at home. + </p> + <p> + Of England’s women seven million were engaged in work on munitions and + other necessaries and apparatus of war. The terrible test of that second + battle of Ypres, to which I have made brief allusion above, wrought an + industrial revolution in the manufacture of shells. The energy of + production rose at a rate which may be indicated by two or three + comparisons: In 1917 as many heavy howitzer shells were turned out in a + single day as in the whole first year of the war, as many medium shells in + five days, and as many field-gun shells in eight days. Or in other words, + 45 times as many field-gun shells, 73 times as many medium, and 365 times + as many heavy howitzer shells, were turned out in 1917 as in the first + year of the war. These shells were manufactured in buildings totaling + fifteen miles in length, forty feet in breadth, with more than ten + thousand machine tools driven by seventeen miles of shafting with an + energy of twenty-five thousand horse-power and a weekly output of over ten + thousand tons’ weight of projectiles—all this largely worked by the + women of England. While the fleet had increased its personnel from 136,000 + to about 400,000, and 2,000,000 men by July, 1915, had voluntarily + enlisted in the army before England gave up her birthright and accepted + compulsory service, the women of England left their ordinary lives to + fabricate the necessaries of war. They worked at home while their + husbands, brothers, and sons fought and died on six battle fronts abroad—six + hundred and fifty-eight thousand died, remember; do you remember the + number of Americans killed in action?—less than thirty-six thousand;—those + English women worked on, seven millions of them at least, on milk carts, + motor-busses, elevators, steam engines, and in making ammunition. Never + before had any woman worked on more than 150 of the 500 different + processes that go to the making of munitions. They now handled T. N. T., + and fulminate of mercury, more deadly still; helped build guns, gun + carriages, and three-and-a-half ton army cannons; worked overhead + traveling cranes for moving the boilers of battleships: turned lathes, + made every part of an aeroplane. And who were these seven million women? + The eldest daughter of a duke and the daughter of a general won + distinction in advanced munition work. The only daughter of an old Army + family broke down after a year’s work in a base hospital in France, was + ordered six months’ rest at home, but after two months entered a munition + factory as an ordinary employee and after nine months’ work had lost but + five minutes working time. The mother of seven enlisted sons went into + munitions not to be behind them in serving England, and one of them wrote + her she was probably killing more Germans than any of the family. The + stewardess of a torpedoed passenger ship was among the few survivors. + Reaching land, she got a job at a capstan lathe. Those were the seven + million women of England—daughters of dukes, torpedoed stewardesses, + and everything between. + </p> + <p> + Seven hundred thousand of these were engaged on munition work proper. They + did from 60 to 70 per cent of all the machine work on shells, fuses, and + trench warfare supplies, and 1450 of them were trained mechanics to the + Royal Flying Corps. They were employed upon practically every operation in + factory, in foundry, in laboratory, and chemical works, of which they were + physically capable; in making of gauges, forging billets, making fuses, + cartridges, bullets—“look what they can do,” said a foreman, “ladies + from homes where they sat about and were waited upon.” They also made + optical glass; drilled and tapped in the shipyards; renewed electric wires + and fittings, wound armatures; lacquered guards for lamps and radiator + fronts; repaired junction and section boxes, fire control instruments, + automatic searchlights. “We can hardly believe our eyes,” said another + foreman, “when we see the heavy stuff brought to and from the shops in + motor lorries driven by girls. Before the war it was all carted by horses + and men. The girls do the job all right, though, and the only thing they + ever complain about is that their toes get cold.” They worked without + hesitation from twelve to fourteen hours a day, or a night, for seven days + a week, and with the voluntary sacrifice of public holidays. + </p> + <p> + That is not all, or nearly all, that the women of England did—I skip + their welfare work, recreation work, nursing—but it is enough + wherewith to answer the ignorant, or the fraud, or the fool. + </p> + <p> + What did England do in the war, anyhow? + </p> + <p> + On August 8, 1914, Lord Kitchener asked for 100,000 volunteers. He had + them within fourteen days. In the first week of September 170,000 men + enrolled, 30,000 in a single day. Eleven months later, two million had + enlisted. Ten months later, five million and forty-one thousand had + voluntarily enrolled in the Army and Navy. + </p> + <p> + In 1914 Britain had in her Royal Naval Air Service 64 aeroplanes and 800 + airmen. In 1917 she had many thousand aeroplanes and 42,000 airmen. In her + Royal Flying Corps she had in 1914, 66 planes and 100 men; in 1917, + several thousand planes and men by tens of thousands. In the first nine + months of 1917 British airmen brought down 876 enemy machines and drove + down 759 out of control. From July, 1917, to June, 1918, 4102 enemy + machines were destroyed or brought down with a loss of 1213 machines. + </p> + <p> + Besides financing her own war costs she had by October, 1917, loaned eight + hundred million dollars to the Dominions and five billion five hundred + million to the Allies. She raised five billion in thirty days. In the + first eight months of 1918 she contributed to the various forms of war + loan at the average rate of one hundred and twenty-four million, eight + hundred thousand a week. + </p> + <p> + Is that enough? Enough to show what England did in the War? No, it is not + enough for such people as continue to ask what she did. Nothing would + suffice these persons. During the earlier stages of the War it was + possible that the question could be asked honestly—though never + intelligently—because the facts and figures were not at that time + always accessible. They were still piling up, they were scattered about, + mention of them was incidental and fugitive, they could be missed by + anybody who was not diligently alert to find them. To-day it is quite + otherwise. The facts and figures have been compiled, arranged, published + in accessible and convenient form; therefore to-day, the man or woman who + persists in asking what England did in the war is not honest but dishonest + or mentally spotted, and does not want to be answered. They don’t want to + know. The question is merely a camouflage of their spite, and were every + item given of the gigantic and magnificent contribution that England made + to the defeat of the Kaiser and all his works, it would not stop their + evil mouths. Not for them am I here setting forth a part of what England + did; it is for the convenience of the honest American, who does want to + know, that my collection of facts is made from the various sources which + he may not have the time or the means to look up for himself. For his + benefit I add some particulars concerning the British Navy which kept the + Kaiser out of our front yard. + </p> + <p> + Admiral Mahan said in his book—and he was an American of whose + knowledge and wisdom Congress seems to have known nothing and cared less—“Why + do English innate political conceptions of popular representative + government, of the balance of law and liberty, prevail in North America + from the Arctic Circle to the Gulf of Mexico, from the Atlantic to the + Pacific? Because the command of the sea at the decisive era belonged to + Great Britain.” We have seen that the decisive era was when Napoleon’s + mouth watered for Louisiana, and when England took her stand behind the + Monroe Doctrine. + </p> + <p> + Admiral Sims said in the second installment of his narrative The Victory + at Sea, published in The World’s Work for October, 1919, at page 619: “... + Let us suppose for a moment that an earthquake, or some other great + natural disturbance, had engulfed the British fleet at Scapa Flow. The + world would then have been at Germany’s mercy and all the destroyers the + Allies could have put upon the sea would have availed them nothing, for + the German battleships and battle cruisers could have sunk them or driven + them into their ports. Then Allied commerce would have been the prey, not + only of the submarines, which could have operated with the utmost freedom, + but of the German surface craft as well. In a few weeks the British food + supplies would have been exhausted. There would have been an early end to + the soldiers and munitions which Britain was constantly sending to France. + The United States could have sent no forces to the Western front, and the + result would have been the surrender which the Allies themselves, in the + spring of 1917, regarded as a not remote possibility. America would then + have been compelled to face the German power alone, and to face it long + before we had had an opportunity to assemble our resources and equip our + armies. The world was preserved from all these calamities because the + destroyer and the convoy solved the problem of the submarines, and because + back of these agencies of victory lay Admiral Beatty’s squadrons, holding + at arm’s length the German surface ships while these comparatively fragile + craft were saving the liberties of the world.” + </p> + <p> + Yes. The High Seas Fleet of Germany, costing her one billion five hundred + million dollars, was bottled up. Five million five hundred thousand tons + of German shipping and one million tons of Austrian shipping were driven + off the seas or captured; oversea trade and oversea colonies were cut off. + Two million oversea Huns of fighting age were hindered from joining the + enemy. Ocean commerce and communication were stopped for the Huns and + secured to the Allies. In 1916, 2100 mines were swept up and 89 mine + sweepers lost. These mine sweepers and patrol boats numbered 12 in 1914, + and 3300 by 1918. To patrol the seas British ships had to steam eight + million miles in a single month. During the four years of the war they + transported oversea more than thirteen million men (losing but 2700 + through enemy action) as well as transporting two million horses and + mules, five hundred thousand vehicles, twenty-five million tons of + explosives, fifty-one million tons of oil and fuel, one hundred and thirty + million tons of food and other materials for the use of the Allies. In one + month three hundred and fifty-five thousand men were carried from England + to France. + </p> + <p> + It was after our present Secretary of the Navy, in his speech in Boston to + which allusion has been made, had given our navy all and the British navy + none of the credit of conveying our soldiers overseas, that Admiral Sims + repaired the singular oblivion of the Secretary. We Americans should know + the truth, he said. We had not been too accurately informed. We did not + seem to have been told by anybody, for instance, that of the five thousand + anti-submarine craft operating day and night in the infested waters, we + had 160, or 3 per cent; that of the million and a half troops which had + gone over from here in a few months, Great Britain brought over two thirds + and escorted half. + </p> + <p> + “I would like American papers to pay particular attention to the fact that + there are about 5000 anti-submarine craft in the ocean to-day, cutting out + mines, escorting troop ships, and making it possible for us to go ahead + and win this war. They can do this because the British Grand Fleet is so + powerful that the German High Seas Fleet has to stay at home. The British + Grand Fleet is the foundation stone of the cause of the whole of the + Allies.” + </p> + <p> + Thus Admiral Sims. + </p> + <p> + That is part of what England did in the war. + </p> + <p> + Note.—The author expresses thanks and acknowledgment to Pearson’s + Magazine for permission to use the passages quoted from the articles by + Admiral Sims. + </p> + <p> + <a name="link2HCH0015" id="link2HCH0015"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + Chapter XV: Rude Britannia, Crude Columbia + </h2> + <p> + It may have been ten years ago, it may have been fifteen—and just + how long it was before the war makes no matter—that I received an + invitation to join a society for the promotion of more friendly relations + between the United States and England. + </p> + <p> + “No, indeed,” I said to myself. + </p> + <p> + Even as I read the note, hostility rose in me. Refusal sprang to my lips + before my reason had acted at all. I remembered George III. I remembered + the Civil War. The ancient grudge, the anti-English complex, had been + instantly set fermenting in me. Nothing could better disclose its lurking + persistence than my virtually automatic exclamation, “No, indeed!” I knew + something about England’s friendly acts, about Venezuela, and Manila Bay, + and Edmund Burke, and John Bright, and the Queen, and the Lancashire + cotton spinners. And more than this historic knowledge, I knew living + English people, men and women, among whom I counted dear and even beloved + friends. I knew also, just as well as Admiral Mahan knew, and other + Americans by the hundreds of thousands have known and know at this moment, + that all the best we have and are—law, ethics, love of liberty—all + of it came from England, grew in England first, ripened from the seed of + which we are merely one great harvest, planted here by England. And yet I + instantly exclaimed, “No, indeed!” + </p> + <p> + Well, having been inflicted with the anti-English complex myself, I + understand it all the better in others, and am begging them to counteract + it as I have done. You will recollect that I said at the outset of these + observations that, as I saw it, our prejudice was founded upon three + causes fairly separate, although they often melted together. With two of + these causes I have now dealt—the school histories, and certain acts + and policies of England’s throughout our relations with her. The third + cause, I said, was certain traits of the English and ourselves which have + produced personal friction. An American does or says something which + angers an Englishman, who thereupon goes about thinking and saying, “Those + insufferable Yankees!” An Englishman does or says something which angers + an American, who thereupon goes about thinking and saying, “To Hell with + England!” Each makes the well-nigh universal—but none the less + perfectly ridiculous—blunder of damning a whole people because one + of them has rubbed him the wrong way. Nothing could show up more forcibly + and vividly this human weakness for generalizing from insufficient data, + than the incident in London streets which I promised to tell you in full + when we should reach the time for it. The time is now. + </p> + <p> + In a hospital at no great distance from San Francisco, a wounded American + soldier said to one who sat beside him, that never would he go to Europe + to fight anybody again—except the English. Them he would like to + fight; and to the astonished visitor he told his reason. He, it appeared, + was one of our Americans who marched through London streets on that day + when the eyes of London looked for the first time upon the Yankees at last + arrived to bear a hand to England and her Allies. From the mob came a + certain taunt: “You silly ass.” + </p> + <p> + It was, as you will observe, an unflattering interpretation of our + national initials, U. S. A. Of course it was enough to make a proper + American doughboy entirely “hot under the collar.” To this reading of our + national initials our national readiness retorted in kind at an early + date: A. E. F. meant After England Failed. But why, months and months + afterwards, when everything was over, did that foolish doughboy in the + hospital hug this lone thing to his memory? It was the act of an + unthinking few. Didn’t he notice what the rest of London was doing that + day? Didn’t he remember that she flew the Union Jack and the Stars and + Stripes together from every symbolic pinnacle of creed and government that + rose above her continent of streets and dwellings to the sky? Couldn’t he + feel that England, his old enemy and old mother, bowed and stricken and + struggling, was opening her arms to him wide? She’s a person who hides her + tears even from herself; but it seems to me that, with a drop of + imagination and half a drop of thought, he might have discovered a year + and a half after a few street roughs had insulted him, that they were not + all England. With two drops of thought it might even have ultimately + struck him that here we came, late, very late, indeed, only just in time, + from a country untouched, unafflicted, unbombed, safe, because of + England’s ships, to tired, broken, bleeding England; and that the sight of + us, so jaunty, so fresh, so innocent of suffering and bereavement, should + have been for a thoughtless moment galling to unthinking brains? + </p> + <p> + I am perfectly sure that if such considerations as these were laid before + any American soldier who still smarted under that taunt in London streets, + his good American sense, which is our best possession, would grasp and + accept the thing in its true proportions. He wouldn’t want to blot an + Empire out because a handful of muckers called him names. Of this I am + perfectly sure, because in Paris streets it was my happy lot four months + after the Armistice to talk with many American soldiers, among whom some + felt sore about the French. Not one of these but saw with his good + American sense, directly I pointed certain facts out to him, that his + hostile generalization had been unjust. But, to quote the oft-quoted Mr. + Kipling, that is another story. + </p> + <p> + An American regiment just arrived in France was encamped for purposes of + training and experience next a British regiment come back from the front + to rest. The streets of the two camps were adjacent, and the Tommies + walked out to watch the Yankees pegging down their tents. + </p> + <p> + “Aw,” they said, “wot a shyme you’ve brought nobody along to tuck you in.” + </p> + <p> + They made other similar remarks; commented unfavorably upon the alignment; + “You were a bit late in coming,” they said. Of course our boys had + answers, and to these the Tommies had further answers, and this encounter + of wits very naturally led to a result which could not possibly have been + happier. I don’t know what the Tommies expected the Yankees to do. I + suppose they were as ignorant of our nature as we of theirs, and that they + entertained preconceived notions. They suddenly found that we were, once + again to quote Mr. Kipling, “bachelors in barricks most remarkable like” + themselves. An American first sergeant hit a British first sergeant. + Instantly a thousand men were milling. For thirty minutes they kept at it. + Warriors reeled together and fell and rose and got it in the neck and the + jaw and the eye and the nose—and all the while the British and + American officers, splendidly discreet, saw none of it. British soldiers + were carried back to their streets, still fighting, bunged Yankees + staggered everywhere—but not an officer saw any of it. Black eyes + the next day, and other tokens, very plainly showed who had been at this + party. Thereafter a much better feeling prevailed between Tommies and + Yanks. + </p> + <p> + A more peaceful contact produced excellent consequences at an encampment + of Americans in England. The Americans had brought over an idea, + apparently, that the English were “easy.” They tried it on in sundry ways, + but ended by the discovery that, while engaged upon this enterprise, they + had been in sundry ways quite completely “done” themselves. This gave them + a respect for their English cousins which they had never felt before. + </p> + <p> + Here is another tale, similar in moral. This occurred at Brest, in France. + In the Y hut sat an English lady, one of the hostesses. To her came a + young American marine with whom she already had some acquaintance. This + led him to ask for her advice. He said to her that as his permission was + of only seventy-two hours, he wanted to be as economical of his time as he + could and see everything best worth while for him to see during his leave. + Would she, therefore, tell him what things in Paris were the most + interesting and in what order he had best take them? She replied with + another suggestion; why not, she said, ask for permission for England? + This would give him two weeks instead of seventy-two hours. At this he + burst out violently that he would not set foot in England; that he never + wanted to have anything to do with England or with the English: “Why, I am + a marine!” he exclaimed, “and we marines would sooner knock down any + English sailor than speak to him.” + </p> + <p> + The English lady, naturally, did not then tell him her nationality. She + now realized that he had supposed her to be American, because she had + frequently been in America and had talked to him as no stranger to the + country could. She, of course, did not urge his going to England; she + advised him what to see in France. He took his leave of seventy-two hours + and when he returned was very grateful for the advice she had given him. + </p> + <p> + She saw him often after this, and he grew to rely very much upon her + friendly counsel. Finally, when the time came for her to go away from + Brest, she told him that she was English. And then she said something like + this to him: + </p> + <p> + “Now, you told me you had never been in England and had never known an + English person in your life, and yet you had all these ideas against us + because somebody had taught you wrong. It is not at all your fault. You + are only nineteen years old and you cannot read about us, because you have + no chance; but at least you do know one English person now, and that + English person begs you, when you do have a chance to read and inform + yourself of the truth, to find out what England really has been, and what + she has really done in this war.” + </p> + <p> + The end of the story is that the boy, who had become devoted to her, did + as she suggested. To-day she receives letters from him which show that + nothing is left of his anti-English complex. It is another instance of how + clearly our native American mind, if only the facts are given it, thinks, + judges, and concludes. + </p> + <p> + It is for those of my countrymen who will never have this chance, never + meet some one who can “guide them to the facts”, that I tell these things. + Let them “cut out the dope.” At this very moment that I write—November + 24, 1919—the dope is being fed freely to all who are ready, whether + through ignorance or through interested motives, to swallow it. The + ancient grudge is being played up strong over the whole country in the + interest of Irish independence. + </p> + <p> + Ian Hay in his two books so timely and so excellent, Getting Together and + The Oppressed English, could not be as unreserved, naturally, as I can be + about those traits in my own countrymen which have, in the past at any + rate, retarded English cordiality towards Americans. Of these I shall + speak as plainly as I know how. But also, being an American and therefore + by birth more indiscreet than Ian Hay, I shall speak as plainly as I know + how of those traits in the English which have helped to keep warm our + ancient grudge. Thus I may render both countries forever uninhabitable to + me, but shall at least take with me into exile a character for strict, if + disastrous, impartiality. + </p> + <p> + I begin with an American who was traveling in an English train. It stopped + somewhere, and out of the window he saw some buildings which interested + him. + </p> + <p> + “Can you tell me what those are?” he asked an Englishman, a stranger, who + sat in the other corner of the compartment. + </p> + <p> + “Better ask the guard,” said the Englishman. + </p> + <p> + Since that brief dialogue, this American does not think well of the + English. + </p> + <p> + Now, two interpretations of the Englishman’s answer are possible. One is, + that he didn’t himself know, and said so in his English way. English talk + is often very short, much shorter than ours. That is because they all + understand each other, are much closer knit than we are. Behind them are + generations of “doing it” in the same established way, a way that their + long experience of life has hammered out for their own convenience, and + which they like. We’re not nearly so closely knit together here, save in + certain spots, especially the old spots. In Boston they understand each + other with very few words said. So they do in Charleston. But these spots + of condensed and hoarded understanding lie far apart, are never confluent, + and also differ in their details; while the whole of England is confluent, + and the details have been slowly worked out through centuries of getting + on together, and are accepted and observed exactly like the rules of a + game. + </p> + <p> + In America, if the American didn’t know, he would have answered, “I don’t + know. I think you’ll have to ask the conductor,” or at any rate, his reply + would have been longer than the Englishman’s. But I am not going to accept + the idea that the Englishman didn’t know and said so in his brief usual + way. It’s equally possible that he did know. Then, you naturally ask, why + in the name of common civility did he give such an answer to the American? + </p> + <p> + I believe that I can tell you. He didn’t know that my friend was an + American, he thought he was an Englishman who had broken the rules of the + game. We do have some rules here in America, only we have not nearly so + many, they’re much more stretchable, and it’s not all of us who have + learned them. But nevertheless a good many have. + </p> + <p> + Suppose you were traveling in a train here, and the man next you, whose + face you had never seen before, and with whom you had not yet exchanged a + syllable, said: “What’s your pet name for your wife?” + </p> + <p> + Wouldn’t your immediate inclination be to say, “What damned business is + that of yours?” or words to that general effect? + </p> + <p> + But again, you most naturally object, there was nothing personal in my + friend’s question about the buildings. No; but that is not it. At the + bottom, both questions are an invasion of the same deep-seated thing—the + right to privacy. In America, what with the newspaper reporters and this + and that and the other, the territory of a man’s privacy has been lessened + and lessened until very little of it remains; but most of us still do draw + the line somewhere; we may not all draw it at the same place, but we do + draw a line. The difference, then, between ourselves and the English in + this respect is simply, that with them the territory of a man’s privacy + covers more ground, and different ground as well. An Englishman doesn’t + expect strangers to ask him questions of a guide-book sort. For all such + questions his English system provides perfectly definite persons to + answer. If you want to know where the ticket office is, or where to take + your baggage, or what time the train goes, or what platform it starts + from, or what towns it stops at, and what churches or other buildings of + interest are to be seen in those towns, there are porters and guards and + Bradshaws and guidebooks to tell you, and it’s they whom you are expected + to consult, not any fellow-traveler who happens to be at hand. If you ask + him, you break the rules. Had my friend said: “I am an American. Would you + mind telling me what those buildings are?” all would have gone well. The + Englishman would have recognized (not fifty years ago, but certainly + to-day) that it wasn’t a question of rules between them, and would have at + once explained—either that he didn’t know, or that the buildings + were such and such. + </p> + <p> + Do not, I beg, suppose for a moment that I am holding up the English way + as better than our own—or worse. I am not making comparisons; I am + trying to show differences. Very likely there are many points wherein we + think the English might do well to borrow from us; and it is quite as + likely that the English think we might here and there take a leaf from + their book to our advantage. But I am not theorizing, I am not seeking to + show that we manage life better or that they manage life better; the only + moral that I seek to draw from these anecdotes is, that we should each + understand and hence make allowance for the other fellow’s way. You will + admit, I am sure, be you American or English, that everybody has a right + to his own way? The proverb “When in Rome you must do as Rome does” covers + it, and would save trouble if we always obeyed it. The people who forget + it most are they that go to Rome for the first time; and I shall give you + both English and American examples of this presently. It is good to + ascertain before you go to Rome, if you can, what Rome does do. + </p> + <p> + Have you never been mistaken for a waiter, or something of that sort? + Perhaps you will have heard the anecdote about one of our ambassadors to + England. All ambassadors, save ours, wear on formal occasions a + distinguishing uniform, just as our army and navy officers do; it is + convenient, practical, and saves trouble. But we have declared it menial, + or despotic, or un-American, or something equally silly, and hence our + ambassadors must wear evening dress resembling closely the attire of those + who are handing the supper or answering the door-bell. An Englishman saw + Mr. Choate at some diplomatic function, standing about in this evening + costume, and said: + </p> + <p> + “Call me a cab.” + </p> + <p> + “You are a cab,” said Mr. Choate, obediently. + </p> + <p> + Thus did he make known to the Englishman that he was not a waiter. + Similarly in crowded hotel dining-rooms or crowded railroad stations have + agitated ladies clutched my arm and said: + </p> + <p> + “I want a table for three,” or “When does the train go to Poughkeepsie?” + </p> + <p> + Just as we in America have regular people to attend to these things, so do + they in England; and as the English respect each other’s right to privacy + very much more than we do, they resent invasions of it very much more than + we do. But, let me say again, they are likely to mind it only in somebody + they think knows the rules. With those who don’t know them it is + different. I say this with all the more certainty because of a fairly + recent afternoon spent in an English garden with English friends. The + question of pronunciation came up. Now you will readily see that with them + and their compactness, their great public schools, their two great + Universities, and their great London, the one eternal focus of them all, + both the chance of diversity in social customs and the tolerance of it + must be far less than in our huge unfocused country. With us, Boston, New + York, Philadelphia, Chicago, San Francisco, is each a centre. Here you can + pronounce the word calm, for example, in one way or another, and it merely + indicates where you come from. Departure in England from certain + established pronunciations has another effect. + </p> + <p> + “Of course,” said one of my friends, “one knows where to place anybody who + says ‘girl’” (pronouncing it as it is spelled). + </p> + <p> + “That’s frightful,” said I, “because I say ‘girl’.” + </p> + <p> + “Oh, but you are an American. It doesn’t apply.” + </p> + <p> + But had I been English, it would have been something like coming to dinner + without your collar. + </p> + <p> + That is why I think that, had my friend in the train begun his question + about the buildings by saying that he was an American, the answer would + have been different. Not all the English yet, but many more than there + were fifty or even twenty years ago, have ceased to apply their rules to + us. + </p> + <p> + About 1874 a friend of mine from New York was taken to a London Club. Into + the room where he was came the Prince of Wales, who took out a cigar, felt + for and found no matches, looked about, and there was a silence. My friend + thereupon produced matches, struck one, and offered it to the Prince, who + bowed, thanked him, lighted his cigar, and presently went away. + </p> + <p> + Then an Englishman observed to my friend: “It’s not the thing for a + commoner to offer a light to the Prince.” + </p> + <p> + “I’m not a commoner, I’m an American,” said my friend with perfect good + nature. + </p> + <p> + Whatever their rule may be to-day about the Prince and matches, as to us + they have come to accept my friend’s pertinent distinction: they don’t + expect us to keep or even to know their own set of rules. + </p> + <p> + Indeed, they surpass us in this, they make more allowances for us than we + for them. They don’t criticize Americans for not being English. Americans + still constantly do criticize the English for not being Americans. Now, + the measure in which you don’t allow for the customs of another country is + the measure of your own provincialism. I have heard some of our own + soldiers express dislike of the English because of their coldness. The + English are not cold; they are silent upon certain matters. But it is all + there. Do you remember that sailor at Zeebrugge carrying the unconscious + body of a comrade to safety, not sure yet if he were alive or dead, and + stroking that comrade’s head as he went, saying over and over, “Did you + think I would leave yer?” We are more demonstrative, we spell things out + which it is the way of the English to leave between the lines. But it is + all there! Behind that unconciliating wall of shyness and reserve, beats + and hides the warm, loyal British heart, the most constant heart in the + world. + </p> + <p> + “It isn’t done.” + </p> + <p> + That phrase applies to many things in England besides offering a light to + the Prince, or asking a fellow traveler what those buildings are; and I + think that the Englishman’s notion of his right to privacy lies at the + bottom of quite a number of these things. You may lay some of them to + snobbishness, to caste, to shyness, they may have various secondary + origins; but I prefer to cover them all with the broader term, the right + to privacy, because it seems philosophically to account for them and + explain them. + </p> + <p> + In May, 1915, an Oxford professor was in New York. A few years before this + I had read a book of his which had delighted me. I met him at lunch, I had + not known him before. Even as we shook hands, I blurted out to him my + admiration for his book. + </p> + <p> + “Oh.” + </p> + <p> + That was the whole of his reply. It made me laugh at myself, for I should + have known better. I had often been in England and could have told anybody + that you mustn’t too abruptly or obviously refer to what the other fellow + does, still less to what you do yourself. “It isn’t done.” It’s a sort of + indecent exposure. It’s one of the invasions of the right to privacy. + </p> + <p> + In America, not everywhere but in many places, a man upon entering a club + and seeing a friend across the room, will not hesitate to call out to him, + “Hullo, Jack!” or “Hullo, George!” or whatever. In England “it isn’t + done.” The greeting would be conveyed by a short nod or a glance. To call + out a man’s name across a room full of people, some of whom may be total + strangers, invades his privacy and theirs. Have you noticed how, in our + Pullman parlor cars, a party sitting together, generally young women, will + shriek their conversation in a voice that bores like a gimlet through the + whole place? That is an invasion of privacy. In England “it isn’t done.” + We shouldn’t stand it in a theatre, but in parlor cars we do stand it. It + is a good instance to show that the Englishman’s right to privacy is + larger than ours, and thus that his liberty is larger than ours. + </p> + <p> + Before leaving this point, which to my thinking is the cause of many + frictions and misunderstandings between ourselves and the English, I + mustn’t omit to give instances of divergence, where an Englishman will + speak of matters upon which we are silent, and is silent upon subjects of + which we will speak. + </p> + <p> + You may present a letter of introduction to an Englishman, and he wishes + to be civil, to help you to have a good time. It is quite possible he may + say something like this: + </p> + <p> + “I think you had better know my sister Sophy. You mayn’t like her. But her + dinners are rather amusing. Of course the food’s ghastly because she’s the + stingiest woman in London.” + </p> + <p> + On the other hand, many Americans (though less willing than the French) + are willing to discuss creed, immortality, faith. There is nothing from + which the Englishman more peremptorily recoils, although he hates well + nigh as deeply all abstract discussion, or to be clever, or to have you be + clever. An American friend of mine had grown tired of an Englishman who + had been finding fault with one American thing after another. So he + suddenly said: + </p> + <p> + “Will you tell me why you English when you enter your pews on Sunday + always immediately smell your hats?” + </p> + <p> + The Englishman stiffened. “I refuse to discuss religious subjects with + you,” he said. + </p> + <p> + To be ponderous over this anecdote grieves me—but you may not know + that orthodox Englishmen usually don’t kneel, as we do, after reaching + their pews; they stand for a moment, covering their faces with their + well-brushed hats: with each nation the observance is the same, it is in + the manner of the observing that we differ. + </p> + <p> + Much is said about our “common language,” and its being a reason for our + understanding each other. Yes; but it is also almost as much a cause for + our misunderstanding each other. It is both a help and a trap. If we + Americans spoke something so wholly different from English as French is, + comparisons couldn’t be made; and somebody has remarked that comparisons + are odious. + </p> + <p> + “Why do you call your luggage baggage?” says the Englishman—or used + to say. + </p> + <p> + “Why do you call your baggage luggage?” says the American—or used to + say. + </p> + <p> + “Why don’t you say treacle?” inquires the Englishman. + </p> + <p> + “Because we call it molasses,” answers the American. + </p> + <p> + “How absurd to speak of a car when you mean a carriage!” exclaims the + Englishman. + </p> + <p> + “We don’t mean a carriage, we mean a car,” retorts the American. + </p> + <p> + You, my reader, may have heard (or perhaps even held) foolish + conversations like that; and you will readily perceive that if we didn’t + say “car” when we spoke of the vehicle you get into when you board a + train, but called it a voiture, or something else quite “foreign,” the + Englishman would not feel that we had taken a sort of liberty with his + mother-tongue. A deep point lies here: for most English the world is + divided into three peoples, English, foreigners, and Americans; and for + most of us likewise it is divided into Americans, foreigners, and English. + Now a “foreigner” can call molasses whatever he pleases; we do not feel + that he has taken any liberty with our mother-tongue; his tongue has a + different mother; he can’t help that; he’s not to be criticized for that. + But we and the English speak a tongue that has the same mother. This + identity in pedigree has led and still leads to countless family discords. + I’ve not a doubt that divergences in vocabulary and in accent were the + fount and origin of some swollen noses, some battered eyes, when our + Yankees mixed with the Tommies. Each would be certain to think that the + other couldn’t “talk straight”—and each would be certain to say so. + I shall not here spin out a list of different names for the same things + now current in English and American usage: molasses and treacle will + suffice for an example; you will be able easily to think of others, and + there are many such that occur in everyday speech. Almost more tricky are + those words which both peoples use alike, but with different meanings. I + shall spin no list of these either; one example there is which I cannot + name, of two words constantly used in both countries, each word quite + proper in one country, while in the other it is more than improper. Thirty + years ago I explained this one evening to a young Englishman who was here + for a while. Two or three days later, he thanked me fervently for the + warning: it had saved him, during a game of tennis, from a frightful + shock, when his partner, a charming girl, meaning to tell him to cheer up, + had used the word that is so harmless with us and in England so far beyond + the pale of polite society. + </p> + <p> + Quite as much as words, accent also leads to dissension. I have heard many + an American speak of the English accent as “affected”; and our accent + displeases the English. Now what Englishman, or what American, ever + criticizes a Frenchman for not pronouncing our language as we do? His + tongue has a different mother! + </p> + <p> + I know not how in the course of the years all these divergences should + have come about, and none of us need care. There they are. As a matter of + fact, both England and America are mottled with varying accents literate + and illiterate; equally true it is that each nation has its notion of the + other’s way of speaking—we’re known by our shrill nasal twang, they + by their broad vowels and hesitation; and quite as true is it that not all + Americans and not all English do in their enunciation conform to these + types. + </p> + <p> + One May afternoon in 1919 I stopped at Salisbury to see that beautiful + cathedral and its serene and gracious close. “Star-scattered on the + grass,” and beneath the noble trees, lay New Zealand soldiers, solitary or + in little groups, gazing, drowsing, talking at ease. Later, at the inn I + was shown to a small table, where sat already a young Englishman in + evening dress, at his dinner. As I sat down opposite him, I bowed, and he + returned it. Presently we were talking. When I said that I was stopping + expressly to see the cathedral, and how like a trance it was to find a + scene so utterly English full of New Zealanders lying all about, he looked + puzzled. It was at this, or immediately after this, that I explained to + him my nationality. + </p> + <p> + “I shouldn’t have known it,” he remarked, after an instant’s pause. + </p> + <p> + I pressed him for his reason, which he gave; somewhat reluctantly, I + think, but with excellent good-will. Of course it was the same old + mother-tongue! + </p> + <p> + “You mean,” I said, “that I haven’t happened to say ‘I guess,’ and that I + don’t, perhaps, talk through my nose? But we don’t all do that. We do all + sorts of things.” + </p> + <p> + He stuck to it. “You talk like us.” + </p> + <p> + “Well, I’m sure I don’t mean to talk like anybody!” I sighed. + </p> + <p> + This diverted him, and brought us closer. + </p> + <p> + “And see here,” I continued, “I knew you were English, although you’ve not + dropped a single h.” + </p> + <p> + “Oh, but,” he said, “dropping h’s—that’s—that’s not—” + </p> + <p> + “I know it isn’t,” I said. “Neither is talking through your nose. And we + don’t all say ‘Amurrican.’” + </p> + <p> + But he stuck to it. “All the same there is an American voice. The train + yesterday was full of it. Officers. Unmistakable.” And he shook his head. + </p> + <p> + After this we got on better than ever; and as he went his way, he gave me + some advice about the hotel. I should do well to avoid the reading room. + The hotel went in rather too much for being old-fashioned. Ran it into the + ground. Tiresome. Good-night. + </p> + <p> + Presently I shall disclose more plainly to you the moral of my Salisbury + anecdote. + </p> + <p> + Is it their discretion, do you think, that closes the lips of the French + when they visit our shores? Not from the French do you hear prompt + aspersions as to our differences from them. They observe that proverb + about being in Rome: they may not be able to do as Rome does, but they do + not inquire why Rome isn’t like Paris. If you ask them how they like our + hotels or our trains, they may possibly reply that they prefer their own, + but they will hardly volunteer this opinion. But the American in England + and the Englishman in America go about volunteering opinions. Are the + French more discreet? I believe that they are; but I wonder if there is + not also something else at the bottom of it. You and I will say things + about our cousins to our aunt. Our aunt would not allow outsiders to say + those things. Is it this, the-members-of-the-family principle, which makes + us less discreet than the French? Is it this, too, which leads us by a + seeming paradox to resent criticism more when it comes from England? I + know not how it may be with you; but with me, when I pick up the paper and + read that the Germans are calling us pig-dogs again, I am merely amused. + When I read French or Italian abuse of us, I am sorry, to be sure; but + when some English paper jumps on us, I hate it, even when I know that what + it says isn’t true. So here, if I am right in my members-of-the-family + hypothesis, you have the English and ourselves feeling free to be + disagreeable to each other because we are relations, and yet feeling + especially resentful because it’s a relation who is being disagreeable. I + merely put the point to you, I lay no dogma down concerning members of the + family; but I am perfectly sure that discretion is a quality more common + to the French than to ourselves or our relations: I mean something a + little more than discretion, I mean esprit de conduits, for which it is + hard to find a translation. + </p> + <p> + Upon my first two points, the right to privacy and the mother-tongue, I + have lingered long, feeling these to be not only of prime importance and + wide application, but also to be quite beyond my power to make lucid in + short compass. I trust that they have been made lucid. I must now get on + to further anecdotes, illustrating other and less subtle causes of + misunderstanding; and I feel somewhat like the author of Don Juan when he + exclaims that he almost wishes he had ne’er begun that very remarkable + poem. I renounce all pretense to the French virtue of discretion. + </p> + <p> + Evening dress has been the source of many irritations. Englishmen did not + appear to think that they need wear it at American dinner parties. There + was a good deal of this at one time. During that period an Englishman, who + had brought letters to a gentleman in Boston and in consequence had been + asked to dinner, entered the house of his host in a tweed suit. His host, + in evening dress of course, met him in the hall. + </p> + <p> + “Oh, I see,” said the Bostonian, “that you haven’t your dress suit with + you. The man will take you upstairs and one of mine will fit you well + enough. We’ll wait.” + </p> + <p> + In England, a cricketer from Philadelphia, after the match at Lord’s, had + been invited to dine at a great house with the rest of his eleven. They + were to go there on a coach. The American discovered after arrival that he + alone of the eleven had not brought a dress suit with him. He asked his + host what he was to do. + </p> + <p> + “I advise you to go home,” said the host. + </p> + <p> + The moral here is not that all hosts in England would have treated a guest + so, or that all American hosts would have met the situation so well as + that Boston gentleman: but too many English used to be socially brutal—quite + as much so to each other as to us, or any one. One should bear that in + mind. I know of nothing more English in its way than what Eton answered to + Beaumont (I think) when Beaumont sent a challenge to play cricket: “Harrow + we know, and Rugby we have heard of. But who are you?” + </p> + <p> + That sort of thing belongs rather to the Palmerston days than to these; + belongs to days that were nearer in spirit to the Waterloo of 1815, which + a haughty England won, than to the Waterloo of 1914-18, which a humbler + England so nearly lost. + </p> + <p> + Turn we next the other way for a look at ourselves. An American lady who + had brought a letter of introduction to an Englishman in London was in + consequence asked to lunch. He naturally and hospitably gathered to meet + her various distinguished guests. Afterwards she wrote him that she wished + him to invite her to lunch again, as she had matters of importance to tell + him. Why, then, didn’t she ask him to lunch with her? Can you see? I think + I do. + </p> + <p> + An American lady was at a house party in Scotland at which she met a + gentleman of old and famous Scotch blood. He was wearing the kilt of his + clan. While she talked with him she stared, and finally burst out + laughing. “I declare,” she said, “that’s positively the most ridiculous + thing I ever saw a man dressed in.” + </p> + <p> + At the Savoy hotel in August, 1914, when England declared war upon + Germany, many American women made scenes of confusion and vociferation. + About England and the blast of Fate which had struck her they had nothing + to say, but crowded and wailed of their own discomforts, meals, rooms, + every paltry personal inconvenience to which they were subjected, or + feared that they were going to be subjected. Under the unprecedented + stress this was, perhaps, not unnatural; but it would have seemed less + displeasing had they also occasionally showed concern for England’s plight + and peril. + </p> + <p> + An American, this time a man (our crudities are not limited to the sex) + stood up in a theatre, disputing the sixpence which you always have to pay + for your program in the London theatres. He disputed so long that many + people had to stand waiting to be shown their seats. + </p> + <p> + During deals at a game of bridge on a Cunard steamer, the talk had turned + upon a certain historic house in an English county. The talk was friendly, + everything had been friendly each day. + </p> + <p> + “Well,” said a very rich American to his English partner in the game, + “those big estates will all be ours pretty soon. We’re going to buy them + up and turn your island into our summer resort.” No doubt this millionaire + intended to be playfully humorous. + </p> + <p> + At a table where several British and one American—an officer—sat + during another ocean voyage between Liverpool and Halifax in June, 1919, + the officer expressed satisfaction to be getting home again. He had gone + over, he said, to “clean up the mess the British had made.” + </p> + <p> + To a company of Americans who had never heard it before, was told the + well-known exploit of an American girl in Europe. In an ancient church she + was shown the tomb of a soldier who had been killed in battle three + centuries ago. In his honor and memory, because he lost his life bravely + in a great cause, his family had kept a little glimmering lamp alight ever + since. It hung there, beside the tomb. + </p> + <p> + “And that’s never gone out in all this time?” asked the American girl. + </p> + <p> + “Never,” she was told. + </p> + <p> + “Well, it’s out now, anyway,” and she blew it out. + </p> + <p> + All the Americans who heard this were shocked all but one, who said: + </p> + <p> + “Well, I think she was right.” + </p> + <p> + There you are! There you have us at our very worst! And with this plump + specimen of the American in Europe at his very worst, I turn back to the + English: only, pray do not fail to give those other Americans who were + shocked by the outrage of the lamp their due. How wide of the mark would + you be if you judged us all by the one who approved of that horrible + vandal girl’s act! It cannot be too often repeated that we must never + condemn a whole people for what some of the people do. + </p> + <p> + In the two-and-a-half anecdotes which follow, you must watch out for + something which lies beneath their very obvious surface. + </p> + <p> + An American sat at lunch with a great English lady in her country-house. + Although she had seen him but once before, she began a conversation like + this: + </p> + <p> + Did the American know the van Squibbers? + </p> + <p> + He did not. + </p> + <p> + Well, the van Squibbers, his hostess explained, were Americans who lived + in London and went everywhere. One certainly did see them everywhere. They + were almost too extraordinary. + </p> + <p> + Now the American knew quite all about these van Squibbers. He knew also + that in New York, and Boston, and Philadelphia, and in many other places + where existed a society with still some ragged remnants of decency and + decorum left, one would not meet this highly star-spangled family + “everywhere.” + </p> + <p> + The hostess kept it up. Did the American know the Butteredbuns? No? Well, + one met the Butteredbuns everywhere too. They were rather more + extraordinary than the van Squibbers. And then there were the Cakewalks, + and the Smith-Trapezes’ Mrs. Smith-Trapeze wasn’t as extraordinary as her + daughter—the one that put the live frog in Lord Meldon’s soup—and + of course neither of them were “talked about” in the same way that the + eldest Cakewalk girl was talked about. Everybody went to them, of course, + because one really never knew what one might miss if one didn’t go. At + length the American said: + </p> + <p> + “You must correct me if I am wrong in an impression I have received. + Vulgar Americans seem to me to get on very well in London.” + </p> + <p> + The hostess paused for a moment, and then she said: + </p> + <p> + “That is perfectly true.” + </p> + <p> + This acknowledgment was complete, and perfectly friendly, and after that + all went better than it had gone before. + </p> + <p> + The half anecdote is a part of this one, and happened a few weeks later at + table—dinner this time. + </p> + <p> + Sitting next to the same American was an English lady whose conversation + led him to repeat to her what he had said to his hostess at lunch: “Vulgar + Americans seem to get on very well in London society.” + </p> + <p> + “They do,” said the lady, “and I will tell you why. We English—I + mean that set of English—are blase. We see each other too much, we + are all alike in our ways, and we are awfully tired of it. Therefore it + refreshes us and amuses us to see something new and different.” + </p> + <p> + “Then,” said the American, “you accept these hideous people’s invitations, + and go to their houses, and eat their food, and drink their champagne, and + it’s just like going to see the monkeys at the Zoo?” + </p> + <p> + “It is,” returned the lady. + </p> + <p> + “But,” the American asked, “isn’t that awfully low down of you?” (He + smiled as he said it.) + </p> + <p> + Immediately the English lady assented; and grew more cordial. When next + day the party came to break up, she contrived in the manner of her + farewell to make the American understand that because of their + conversation she bore him not ill will but good will. + </p> + <p> + Once more, the scene of my anecdote is at table, a long table in a club, + where men came to lunch. All were Englishmen, except a single stranger. He + was an American, who through the kindness of one beloved member of that + club, no longer living now, had received a card to the club. The American, + upon sitting down alone in this company, felt what I suppose that many of + us feel in like circumstances: he wished there were somebody there who + knew him and could nod to him. Nevertheless, he was spoken to, asked + questions about various of his fellow countrymen, and made at home. + Presently, however, an elderly member who had been silent and whom I will + designate as being of the Dr. Samuel Johnson type, said: “You seem to be + having trouble in your packing houses over in America?” + </p> + <p> + We were. + </p> + <p> + “Very disgraceful, those exposures.” + </p> + <p> + They were. It was May, 1906. + </p> + <p> + “Your Government seems to be doing something about it. It’s certainly + scandalous. Such abuses should never have been possible in the first + place. It oughtn’t to require your Government to stop it. It shouldn’t + have started.” + </p> + <p> + “I fancy the facts aren’t quite so bad as that sensational novel about + Chicago makes them out,” said the American. “At least I have been told + so.” + </p> + <p> + “It all sounds characteristic to me,” said the Sam Johnson. “It’s quite + the sort of thing one expects to hear from the States.” + </p> + <p> + “It is characteristic,” said the American. “In spite of all the years that + the sea has separated us, we’re still inveterately like you, a bullying, + dishonest lot—though we’ve had nothing quite so bad yet as your + opium trade with China.” + </p> + <p> + The Sam Johnson said no more. + </p> + <p> + At a ranch in Wyoming were a number of Americans and one Englishman, a man + of note, bearing a celebrated name. He was telling the company what one + could do in the way of amusement in the evening in London. + </p> + <p> + “And if there’s nothing at the theatres and everything else fails, you can + always go to one of the restaurants and hear the Americans eat.” + </p> + <p> + There you have them, my anecdotes. They are chosen from many. I hope and + believe that, between them all, they cover the ground; that, taken + together as I want you to take them after you have taken them singly, they + make my several points clear. As I see it, they reveal the chief whys and + wherefores of friction between English and Americans. It is also my hope + that I have been equally disagreeable to everybody. If I am to be banished + from both countries, I shall try not to pass my exile in Switzerland, + which is indeed a lovely place, but just now too full of celebrated + Germans. + </p> + <p> + Beyond my two early points, the right to privacy and the mother-tongue, + what are the generalizations to be drawn from my data? I should like to + dodge spelling them out, I should immensely prefer to leave it here. Some + readers know it already, knew it before I began; while for others, what + has been said will be enough. These, if they have the will to friendship + instead of the will to hate, will get rid of their anti-English complex, + supposing that they had one, and understand better in future what has not + been clear to them before. But I seem to feel that some readers there may + be who will wish me to be more explicit. + </p> + <p> + First, then. England has a thousand years of greatness to her credit. Who + would not be proud of that? Arrogance is the seamy side of pride. That is + what has rubbed us Americans the wrong way. We are recent. Our thousand + years of greatness are to come. Such is our passionate belief. Crudity is + the seamy side of youth. Our crudity rubs the English the wrong way. + Compare the American who said we were going to buy England for a summer + resort with the Englishman who said that when all other entertainment in + London failed, you could always listen to the Americans eat. Crudity, + “freshness” on our side, arrogance, toploftiness on theirs: such is one + generalization I would have you disengage from my anecdotes. + </p> + <p> + Second. The English are blunter than we. They talk to us as they would + talk to themselves. The way we take it reveals that we are too often + thin-skinned. Recent people are apt to be thin-skinned and self-conscious + and self-assertive, while those with a thousand years of tradition would + have thicker hides and would never feel it necessary to assert themselves. + Give an Englishman as good as he gives you, and you are certain to win his + respect, and probably his regard. In this connection see my anecdote about + the Tommies and Yankees who physically fought it out, and compare it with + the Salisbury, the van Squibber, and the opium trade anecdotes. “Treat ‘em + rough,” when they treat you rough: they like it. Only, be sure you do it + in the right way. + </p> + <p> + Third. We differ because we are alike. That American who stood in the + theatre complaining about the sixpence he didn’t have to pay at home is + exactly like Englishmen I have seen complaining about the unexpected here. + We share not only the same mother-tongue, we share every other fundamental + thing upon which our welfare rests and our lives are carried on. We like + the same things, we hate the same things. We have the same notions about + justice, law, conduct; about what a man should be, about what a woman + should be. It is like the mother-tongue we share, yet speak with a + difference. Take the mother-tongue for a parable and symbol of all the + rest. Just as the word “girl” is identical to our sight but not to our + hearing, and means oh! quite the same thing throughout us all in all its + meanings, so that identity of nature which we share comes often to the + surface in different guise. Our loquacity estranges the Englishman, his + silence estranges us. Behind that silence beats the English heart, warm, + constant, and true; none other like it on earth, except our own at its + best, beating behind our loquacity. + </p> + <p> + Thus far my anecdotes carry me. May they help some reader to a better + understanding of what he has misunderstood heretofore! + </p> + <p> + No anecdotes that I can find (though I am sure that they are to be found) + will illustrate one difference between the two peoples, very noticeable + to-day. It is increasing. An Englishman not only sticks closer than a + brother to his own rights, he respects the rights of his neighbor just as + strictly. We Americans are losing our grip on this. It is the bottom of + the whole thing. It is the moral keystone of democracy. Howsoever we may + talk about our own rights to-day, we pay less and less respect to those of + our neighbors. The result is that to-day there is more liberty in England + than here. Liberty consists and depends upon respecting your neighbor’s + rights every bit as fairly and squarely as your own. + </p> + <p> + On the other hand, I wonder if the English are as good losers as we are? + Hardly anything that they could do would rub us more the wrong way than to + deny to us that fair play in sport which they accord each other. I shall + not more than mention the match between our Benicia Boy and their Tom + Sayers. Of this the English version is as defective as our school-book + account of the Revolution. I shall also pass over various other + international events that are somewhat well known, and I will illustrate + the point with an anecdote known to but a few. + </p> + <p> + Crossing the ocean were some young English and Americans, who got up an + international tug-of-war. A friend of mine was anchor of our team. We + happened to win. They didn’t take it very well. One of them said to the + anchor: + </p> + <p> + “Do you know why you pulled us over the line?” + </p> + <p> + “No.” + </p> + <p> + “Because you had all the blackguards on your side of the line.” + </p> + <p> + “Do you know why we had all the blackguards on our side of the line?” + inquired the American. + </p> + <p> + “No.” + </p> + <p> + “Because we pulled you over the line.” + </p> + <p> + In one of my anecdotes I used the term Sam Johnson to describe an + Englishman of a certain type. Dr. Samuel Johnson was a very marked + specimen of the type, and almost the only illustrious Englishman of + letters during our Revolutionary troubles who was not our friend. Right + down through the years ever since, there have been Sam Johnsons writing + and saying unfavorable things about us. The Tory must be eternal, as much + as the Whig or Liberal; and both are always needed. There will probably + always be Sam Johnsons in England, just like the one who was scandalized + by our Chicago packing-house disclosures. No longer ago than June 1, 1919, + a Sam Johnson, who was discussing the Peace Treaty, said in my hearing, in + London: + </p> + <p> + “The Yankees shouldn’t have been brought into any consultation. They aided + and abetted Germany.” + </p> + <p> + In Littell’s Living Age of July 20, 1918, pages 151-160, you may read an + interesting account of British writers on the United States. The bygone + ones were pretty preposterous. They satirized the newness of a new + country. It was like visiting the Esquimaux and complaining that they grew + no pineapples and wore skins. In Littell you will find how few are the + recent Sam Johnsons as compared with the recent friendly writers. You will + also be reminded that our anti-English complex was discerned generations + ago by Washington Irving. He said in his Sketch Book that writers in this + country were “instilling anger and resentment into the bosom of a youthful + nation, to grow with its growth and to strengthen with its strength.” + </p> + <p> + And he quotes from the English Quarterly Review, which in that early day + already wrote of America and England: + </p> + <p> + “There is a sacred bond between us by blood and by language which no + circumstances can break.... Nations are too ready to admit that they have + natural enemies; why should they be less willing to believe that they have + natural friends?” + </p> + <p> + It is we ourselves to-day, not England, that are pushing friendship away. + It is our politicians, papers, and propagandists who are making the + trouble and the noise. In England the will to friendship rules, has ruled + for a long while. Does the will to hate rule with us? Do we prefer + Germany? Do we prefer the independence of Ireland to the peace of the + world? + </p> + <p> + <a name="link2HCH0016" id="link2HCH0016"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + Chapter XVI: An International Imposture + </h2> + <p> + A part of the Irish is asking our voice and our gold to help independence + for the whole of the Irish. Independence is not desired by the whole of + the Irish. Irishmen of Ulster have plainly said so. Everybody knows this. + Roman Catholics themselves are not unanimous. Only some of them desire + independence. These, known as Sinn Fein, appeal to us for deliverance from + their conqueror and oppressor; they dwell upon the oppression of England + beneath which Ireland is now crushed. They refer to England’s brutal and + unjustifiable conquest of the Irish nation seven hundred and forty-eight + years ago. + </p> + <p> + What is the truth, what are the facts? + </p> + <p> + By his bull “Laudabiliter,” in 1155, Pope Adrian the Fourth invited the + King of England to take charge of Ireland. In 1172 Pope Alexander the + Third confirmed this by several letters, at present preserved in the Black + Book of the Exchequer. Accordingly, Henry the Second went to Ireland. All + the archbishops and bishops of Ireland met him at Waterford, received him + as king and lord of Ireland, vowing loyal obedience to him and his + successors, and acknowledging fealty to them forever. These prelates were + followed by the kings of Cork, Limerick, Ossory, Meath, and by Reginald of + Waterford. Roderick O’Connor, King of Connaught, joined them in 1175. All + these accepted Henry the Second of England as their Lord and King, + swearing to be loyal to him and his successors forever. + </p> + <p> + Such was England’s brutal and unjustifiable conquest of Ireland. + </p> + <p> + Ireland was not a nation, it was a tribal chaos. The Irish nation of that + day is a legend, a myth, built by poetic imagination. During the centuries + succeeding Henry the Second, were many eras of violence and bloodshed. In + reading the story, it is hard to say which side committed the most crimes. + During those same centuries, violence and bloodshed and oppression existed + everywhere in Europe. Undoubtedly England was very oppressive to Ireland + at times; but since the days of Gladstone she has steadily endeavored to + relieve Ireland, with the result that today she is oppressing Ireland + rather less than our Federal Government is oppressing Massachusetts, or + South Carolina, or any State. By the Wyndham Land Act of 1903, Ireland was + placed in a position so advantageous, so utterly the reverse of + oppression, that Dillon, the present leader, hastened to obstruct the + operation of the Act, lest the Irish genius for grievance might perish + from starvation. Examine the state of things for yourself, I cannot swell + this book with the details; they are as accessible to you as the few facts + about the conquest which I have just narrated. Examine the facts, but even + without examining them, ask yourself this question: With Canada, + Australia, and all those other colonies that I have named above, satisfied + with England’s rule, hastening to her assistance, and with only Ireland + selling herself to Germany, is it not just possible that something is the + matter with Ireland rather than with England? Sinn Fein will hear of no + Home Rule. Sinn Fein demands independence. Independence Sinn Fein will not + get. Not only because of the outrage to unconsenting Ulster, but also + because Britain, having just got rid of one Heligoland to the East, will + not permit another to start up on the West. As early as August 25th, 1914, + mention in German papers was made of the presence in Berlin of Casement + and of his mission to invite Germany to step into Ireland when England was + fighting Germany. The traffic went steadily on from that time, and broke + out in the revolution and the crimes in Dublin in 1916. England discovered + the plan of the revolution just in time to foil the landing in Ireland of + Germany, whom Ireland had invited there. Were England seeking to break + loose from Ireland, she could sue Ireland for a divorce and name the + Kaiser as co-respondent. Any court would grant it. + </p> + <p> + The part of Ireland which does not desire independence, which desires it + so little that it was ready to resist Home Rule by force in 1914, is the + steady, thrifty, clean, coherent, prosperous part of Ireland. It is the + other, the unstable part of Ireland, which has declared Ireland to be a + Republic. For convenience I will designate this part as Green Ireland, and + the thrifty, stable part as Orange Ireland. So when our politicians + sympathize with an “Irish” Republic, they befriend merely Green Ireland; + they offend Orange Ireland. + </p> + <p> + Americans are being told in these days that they owe a debt of support to + Irish independence, because the “Irish” fought with us in our own struggle + for Independence. Yes, the Irish did, and we do owe them a debt of + support. But it was the Orange Irish who fought in our Revolution, not the + Green Irish. Therefore in paying the debt to the Green Irish and clamoring + for “Irish” independence, we are double crossing the Orange Irish. + </p> + <p> + “It is a curious fact that in the Revolutionary War the Germans and + Catholic Irish should have furnished the bulk of the auxiliaries to the + regular English soldiers;... The fiercest and most ardent Americans of + all, however, were the Presbyterian Irish settlers and their descendants.” + History of New York, p. 133, by Theodore Roosevelt. + </p> + <p> + Next, in what manner have the Green Irish incurred our thanks? + </p> + <p> + They made the ancient and honorable association of Tammany their own. Once + it was American. Now Tammany is Green Irish. I do not believe that I need + pause to tell you much about Tammany. It defeated Mitchel, a loyal but + honest Catholic, and the best Mayor of Near York in thirty years. It is a + despotism built on corruption and fear. + </p> + <p> + During our Civil War, it was the Green Irish that resisted the draft in + New York. They would not fight. You have heard of the draft riots in New + York in 1862. They would not fight for the Confederacy either. + </p> + <p> + During the following decade, in Pennsylvania, an association, called the + Molly Maguires, terrorized the coal regions until their reign of + assassination was brought to an end by the detection, conviction, and + execution of their ringleaders. These were Green Irish. + </p> + <p> + In Cork and Queenstown during the recent war, our American sailors were + assaulted and stoned by the Green Irish, because they had come to help + fight Germany. These assaults, and the retaliations to which they led, + became so serious that no naval men under the rank of Commander were + permitted to go to Cork. Leading citizens of Cork came to beg that this + order be rescinded. But, upon being cross-examined, it was found that the + Green Irish who had made the trouble had never been punished. Of this many + of us had news before Admiral Sims in The World’s Work for November, pages + 63-64, gave it his authoritative confirmation. + </p> + <p> + Taking one consideration with another, it hardly seems to me that our debt + to the Green Irish is sufficiently heavy for us to hinder England for the + sake of helping them and Germany. + </p> + <p> + Not all the Green Irish were guilty of the attacks upon our sailors; not + all by any means were pro-German; and I know personally of loyal Roman + Catholics who are wholly on England’s side, and are wholly opposed to Sinn + Fein. Many such are here, many in Ireland: them I do not mean. It is Sinn + Fein that I mean. + </p> + <p> + In 1918, when England with her back to the wall was fighting Germany, the + Green Irish killed the draft. Here following, I give some specific + instances of what the Roman Catholic priests said. + </p> + <p> + April 21st. After mass at Castletown, Bear Haven, Father Brennan ordered + his flock to resist conscription, take the sacrament, and to be ready to + resist to the death; such death insuring the full benediction of God and + his Church. If the police resort to force, let the people kill the police + as they would kill any one who threatened their lives. If soldiers came in + support of the draft, let them be treated like the police. Policemen and + soldiers dying in their attempt to carry out the draft law, would die the + enemies of God, while the people who resisted them would die in peace with + God and under the benediction of his Church. + </p> + <p> + Father Lynch said in church at Ryehill: “Resist the draft by every means + in your power. Any minion of the English Government who fires upon you, + above all if he is a Catholic, commits a mortal sin and God will punish + him.” + </p> + <p> + In the chapel at Kilgarvan Father Murphy said: “Every Irishman who helps + to apply the draft in Ireland is not only a traitor to his country, but + commits a mortal sin against God’s law.” + </p> + <p> + At mass in Scariff the Rev. James MacInerney said: “No Irish Catholic, + whatever his station be, can help the draft in this country without + denying his faith.” + </p> + <p> + April 28th. After having given the communion to three hundred men in the + church at Eyries, County Cork, Father Gerald Dennehy said: “Any Catholic + who either as policeman or as agent of the government shall assist in + applying the draft, shall be excommunicated and cursed by the Roman + Catholic Church. The curse of God will follow him in every land. You can + kill him at sight, God will bless you and it will be the most acceptable + sacrifice that you can offer.” + </p> + <p> + Referring to any policeman who should attempt to enforce the draft, Father + Murphy said at mass in Killenna, “Any policeman who is killed in such + attempt will be damned in hell, even if he was in a state of grace that + very morning.” + </p> + <p> + Ninety-five percent of those Irish policemen were Catholics and had to + respect the commands of those priests. + </p> + <p> + Ireland is England’s business, not ours. But the word “self-determination” + appears to hypnotize some Americans. We must not be hypnotized by this + word. It is upon the “principle” expressed in this word that our + sympathies with the Irish Republic are asked. The six northeastern + counties of Ulster, on the “principle” of self-determination, should be + separated from the Irish Republic. But the Green Irish will not listen to + that. Protestants in Ulster had to listen in their own chief city to Sinn + Fein rejoicings over German victories. The rebellion of 1916, when Sinn + Fein opened the back door that England’s enemies might enter and destroy + her—this dastardly treason was made bloody by cowardly violence. The + unarmed and the unsuspecting were shot down and stabbed in cold blood. + Later, soldiers who came home from the front, wounded soldiers too, were + persecuted and assaulted. The men of Ulster don’t wish to fall under the + power of the Green Irish. + </p> + <p> + “We do not know whether the British statesmen are right in asserting a + connection between Irish revolutionary feeling and German propaganda. But + in such a connection we should see no sign of a bad German policy.” Thus + wrote a Prussian deputy in Das Grossere Deutschland. That was over there. + This was over here:— + </p> + <p> + “The fraternal understanding which unites the Ancient Order of Hibernians + and the German-American Alliance receives our unqualified endorsement. + This unity of effort in all matters of a public nature intended to + circumvent the efforts of England to secure an Anglo-American alliance + have been productive of very successful results. The congratulations of + those of us who live under the flag of the United States are extended to + our German-American fellow citizens upon the conquests won by the + fatherland, and we assure them of our unshaken confidence that the German + Empire will crush England and aid in the liberation of Ireland, and be a + real defender of small nations.” See the Boston Herald of July 22, 1916. + </p> + <p> + During our Civil War, in 1862, a resolution of sympathy with the South was + stifled in Parliament. + </p> + <p> + On June 6, 1919, our Senate passed, with one dissenting voice, the + following, offered by Senator Walsh, democrat, of Massachusetts: + </p> + <p> + “Resolved, that the Senate of the United States express its sympathy with + the aspirations of the Irish people for a government of its own choice.” + </p> + <p> + What England would not do for the South in 1862, we now do against England + our ally, against Ulster, our friend in our Revolution, and in support of + England’s enemies, Sinn Fein and Germany. + </p> + <p> + Ireland has less than 4,500,000 inhabitants; Ulster’s share is about one + third, and its Protestants outnumber its Catholics by more than three + fourths. Besides such reprisals as they saw wrought upon wounded soldiers, + they know that the Green Irish who insist that Ulster belong to their + Republic, do so because they plan to make prosperous and thrifty Ulster + their milch cow. + </p> + <p> + Let every fair-minded American pause, then, before giving his sympathy to + an independent Irish Republic on the principle of self-determination, or + out of gratitude to the Green Irish. Let him remember that it was the + Orange Irish who helped us in our Revolution, and that the Orange Irish do + not want an independent Irish Republic. There will be none; our + interference merely makes Germany happy and possibly prolongs the existing + chaos; but there will be none. Before such loyal and thinking Catholics as + the gentleman who said to me that word about “spoiling the ship for a + ha’pennyworth of tar,” and before a firm and coherent policy on England’s + part, Sinn Fein will fade like a poisonous mist. + </p> + <p> + <a name="link2HCH0017" id="link2HCH0017"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + Chapter XVII: Paint + </h2> + <p> + Soldiers of ours—many soldiers, I am sorry to say—have come + back from Coblenz and other places in the black spot, saying that they + found the inhabitants of the black spot kind and agreeable. They give this + reason for liking the Germans better than they do the English. They found + the Germans agreeable, the English not agreeable. Well, this amounts to + something as far as it goes: but how far does it go, and how much does it + amount to? Have you ever seen an automobile painted up to look like new, + and it broke down before it had run ten miles, and you found its insides + were wrong? Would you buy an automobile on the strength of the paint? + England often needs paint, but her insides are all right. If our soldiers + look no deeper than the paint, if our voters look no further than the + paint, if our democracy never looks at anything but the paint, God help + our democracy! Of course the Germans were agreeable to our soldiers after + the armistice! + </p> + <p> + Agreeable Germany!—who sank the Lusitania; who sank five thousand + British merchant ships with the loss of fifteen thousand men, women, and + children, all murdered at sea, without a chance for their lives; who fired + on boat-loads of the shipwrecked, who stood on her submarine and laughed + at the drowning passengers of the torpedoed Falaba. + </p> + <p> + Disagreeable England!—who sank five hundred German ships without + permitting a single life to be lost, who never fired a shot until + provision had been made for the safety of passengers and crews. + </p> + <p> + Agreeable Germany!—who, as she retreated, poisoned wells and gassed + the citizens from whose village she was running away; who wrecked the + churches and the homes of the helpless living, and bombed the tombs of the + helpless dead; who wrenched families apart in the night, taking their boys + to slavery and their girls to wholesale violation, leaving the old people + to wander in loneliness and die; who in her raids upon England slaughtered + three hundred and forty-two women, and killed or injured seven hundred and + fifty-seven children, and made in all a list of four thousand five hundred + and sixty-eight, bombed by her airmen; whose trained nurses met our + wounded and captured men at the railroad trains and held out cups of water + for them to see, and then poured them on the ground or spat in them. + </p> + <p> + Disagreeable England!—whose colonies rushed to help her: Canada, who + within eight weeks after war had been declared, came with a voluntary army + of thirty-three thousand men; who stood her ground against that first + meeting with the poison gas and saved not only the day, but possibly the + whole cause; who by 1917 had sent over four hundred thousand men to help + disagreeable England; who gave her wealth, her food, her substance; who + poured every symbol of aid and love into disagreeable England’s lap to + help her beat agreeable Germany. Thus did all England’s colonies offer and + bring both themselves and their resources, from the smallest to the + greatest; little Newfoundland, whose regiment gave such heroic account of + itself at Gallipoli; Australia who came with her cruisers, and with also + her armies to the West Front and in South Africa; New Zealand who came + from the other side of the world with men and money—three million + pounds in gift, not loan, from one million people. And the Boers? The + Boers, who latest of all, not twenty years before, had been at war with + England, and conquered by her, and then by her had been given a Boer + Government. What did the Boers do? In spite of the Kaiser’s telegram of + sympathy, in spite of his plans and his hopes, they too, like Canada and + New Zealand and all the rest, sided of their own free will with + disagreeable England against agreeable Germany. They first stamped out a + German rebellion, instigated in their midst, and then these Boers left + their farms, and came to England’s aid, and drove German power from + Southwest Africa. And do you remember the wire that came from India to + London? “What orders from the King-Emperor for me and my men?” These were + the words of the Maharajah of Rewa; and thus spoke the rest of India. The + troops she sent captured Neue Chapelle. From first to last they fought in + many places for the Cause of England. + </p> + <p> + What do words, or propaganda, what does anything count in the face of such + facts as these? + </p> + <p> + Agreeable Germany!—who addresses her God, “Thou who dwellest high + above the Cherubim, Seraphim and Zeppelin”—Parson Diedrich Vorwerck + in his volume Hurrah and Hallelujah. Germany, who says, “It is better to + let a hundred women and children belonging to the enemy die of hunger than + to let a single German soldier suffer”—General von der Goltz in his + Ten Iron Commandments of the German Soldier; Germany, whose soldier obeys + those commandments thus: “I am sending you a ring made out of a piece of + shell.... During the battle of Budonviller I did away with four women and + seven young girls in five minutes. The Captain had told me to shoot these + French sows, but I preferred to run my bayonet through them”—private + Johann Wenger to his German sweetheart, dated Peronne, March 16, 1915. + Germany, whose newspaper the Cologne Volkszettung deplored the doings of + her Kultur on land and sea thus: “Much as we detest it as human beings and + as Christians, yet we exult in it as Germans.” + </p> +<pre xml:space="preserve"> +Agreeable Germany!—whose Kaiser, if his fleet had been larger, would +have taken us by the scruff of the neck. + + “Then Thou, Almighty One, send Thy lightnings! +Let dwellings and cottages become ashes in the heat of fire. Let the +people in hordes burn and drown with wife and child. May their seed be +trampled under our feet; May we kill great and small in the lust of joy. +May we plunge our daggers into their bodies, May Poland reek in the glow +of fire and ashes.” + </pre> + <p> + That is another verse of Germany’s hymn, hate for Poland; that is her way + of taking people by the scruff of the neck; and that is what Senator + Walsh’s resolution of sympathy with Ireland, Germany’s contemplated + Heligoland, implies for the United States, if Germany’s deferred day + should come. + </p> + <p> + <a name="link2HCH0018" id="link2HCH0018"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + Chapter XVIII: The Will to Friendship—or the Will to Hate? + </h2> + <p> + Nations do not like each other. No plainer fact stares at us from the + pages of history since the beginning. Are we to sit down under this + forever? Why should we make no attempt to change this for the better in + the pages of history that are yet to be written? Other evils have been + made better. In this very war, the outcry against Germany has been because + she deliberately brought back into war the cruelties and the horrors of + more barbarous times, and with cold calculations of premeditated science + made these horrors worse. Our recoil from this deed of hers and what it + has brought upon the world is seen in our wish for a League of Nations. + The thought of any more battles, tenches, submarines, air-raids, + starvation, misery, is so unbearable to our bruised and stricken minds, + that we have put it into words whose import is, Let us have no more of + this! We have at least put it into words. That such words, that such a + League, can now grow into something more than words, is the hope of many, + the doubt of many, the belief of a few. It is the belief of Mr. Wilson; of + Mr. Taft; Lord Bryce; and of Lord Grey, a quiet Englishman, whose + statesmanship during those last ten murky days of July, 1914, when he + strove to avert the dreadful years that followed, will shine bright and + permanent. We must not be chilled by the doubters. Especially is the + scheme doubted in dear old Europe. Dear old Europe is so old; we are so + young; we cause her to smile. Yet it is not such a contemptible thing to + be young and innocent. Only, your innocence, while it makes you an + idealist, must not blind you to the facts. Your idea must not rest upon + sand. It must have a little rock to start with. The nearest rock in sight + is friendship between England and ourselves. + </p> + <p> + The will to friendship—or the will to hate? Which do you choose? + Which do you think is the best foundation for the League of Nations? Do + you imagine that so long as nations do not like each other, that mere + words of good intention, written on mere paper, are going to be enough? + Write down the words by all means, but see to it that behind your words + there shall exist actual good will. Discourage histories for children (and + for grown-ups too) which breed international dislike. Such exist among us + all. There is a recent one, written in England, that needs some changes. + </p> + <p> + Should an Englishman say to me: + </p> + <p> + “I have the will to friendship. Is there any particular thing which I can + do to help?” I should answer him: + </p> + <p> + “Just now, or in any days to come, should you be tempted to remind us that + we did not protest against the martyrdom of Belgium, that we were a bit + slow in coming into the war,—oh, don’t utter that reproach! Go back + to your own past; look, for instance, at your guarantee to Denmark, at + Lord John Russell’s words: ‘Her Majesty could not see with indifference a + military occupation of Holstein’—and then see what England shirked; + and read that scathing sentence spoken to her ambassador in Russia: ‘Then + we may dismiss any idea that England will fight on a point of honor.’ We + had made you no such guarantee. We were three thousand miles away—how + far was Denmark? + </p> + <p> + “And another thing. On August 6, 1919, when Britain’s thanks to her land + and sea forces were moved in both houses of Parliament, the gentleman who + moved them in the House of Lords said something which, as it seems to me, + adds nothing to the tribute he had already paid so eloquently. He had + spoken of the greater incentive to courage which the French and Belgians + had, because their homes and soil were invaded, while England’s soldiers + had suffered no invasion of their island. They had not the stimulus of the + knowledge that the frontier of their country had been violated, their + homes broken up, their families enslaved, or worse. And then he added: ‘I + have sometimes wondered in my own mind, though I have hardly dared confess + the sentiment, whether the gallant troops of our Allies would have fought + with equal spirit and so long a time as they did, had they been engaged in + the Highlands of Scotland or on the marches of the Welsh border.’ Why + express that wonder? Is there not here an instance of that needless + overlooking of the feelings of others, by which, in times past, you have + chilled those others? Look out for that.” + </p> + <p> + And should an American say to me: + </p> + <p> + “I have the will to friendship. What can I personally do?” I should say: + </p> + <p> + “Play fair! Look over our history from that Treaty of Paris in 1783, down + through the Louisiana Purchase, the Monroe Doctrine, and Manila Bay; look + at the facts. You will see that no matter how acrimoniously England has + quarreled with us, these were always family scraps, in which she held out + for her own interests just as we did for ours. But whenever the question + lay between ourselves and Spain, or France, or Germany, or any foreign + power, England stood with us against them. + </p> + <p> + “And another thing. Not all Americans boast, but we have a reputation for + boasting. Our Secretary of the Navy gave our navy the whole credit for + transporting our soldiers to Europe when England did more than half of it. + At Annapolis there has been a poster, showing a big American sailor with a + doughboy on his back, and underneath the words, ‘We put them across.’ A + brigadier general has written a book entitled, How the Marines Saved + Paris. Beside the marines there were some engineers. And how about M + Company of the 23rd regiment of the 2nd Division? It lost in one day at + Chateau-Thierry all its men but seven. And did the general forget the 3rd + Division between Chateau-Thierry and Dormans? Don’t be like that brigadier + general, and don’t be like that American officer returning on the Lapland + who told the British at his table he was glad to get home after cleaning + up the mess which the British had made. Resemble as little as possible our + present Secretary of the Navy. Avoid boasting. Our contribution to victory + was quite enough without boasting. The head-master of one of our great + schools has put it thus to his schoolboys who fought: Some people had to + raise a hundred dollars. After struggling for years they could only raise + seventy-five. Then a man came along and furnished the remaining necessary + twenty-five dollars. That is a good way to put it. What good would our + twenty-five dollars have been, and where should we have been, if the other + fellows hadn’t raised the seventy-five dollars first?” + </p> + <p> + <a name="link2HCH0019" id="link2HCH0019"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + Chapter XIX: Lion and Cub + </h2> + <p> + My task is done. I have discussed with as much brevity as I could the + three foundations of our ancient grudge against England: our school + textbooks, our various controversies from the Revolution to the Alaskan + boundary dispute, and certain differences in customs and manners. Some of + our historians to whom I refer are themselves affected by the ancient + grudge. You will see this if you read them; you will find the facts, which + they give faithfully, and you will also find that they often (and I think + unconsciously) color such facts as are to England’s discredit and leave + pale such as are to her credit, just as we remember the Alabama, and + forget the Lancashire cotton-spinners. You cannot fail to find, unless + your anti-English complex tilts your judgment incurably, that England has + been to us, on the whole, very much more friendly than unfriendly—if + not at the beginning, certainly at the end of each controversy. What an + anti-English complex can do in the face of 1914, is hard to imagine: + Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, the Boers, all Great Britain’s + colonies, coming across the world to pour their gold and their blood out + for her! She did not ask them; she could not force them; of their own free + will they did it. In the whole story of mankind such a splendid tribute of + confidence and loyalty has never before been paid to any nation. + </p> + <p> + In this many-peopled world England is our nearest relation. From Bonaparte + to the Kaiser, never has she allowed any outsider to harm us. We are her + cub. She has often clawed us, and we have clawed her in return. This will + probably go on. Once earlier in these pages, I asked the reader not to + misinterpret me, and now at the end I make the same request. I have not + sought to persuade him that Great Britain is a charitable institution. + What nation is, or could be, given the nature of man? Her good treatment + of us has been to her own interest. She is wise, farseeing, less of an + opportunist in her statesmanship than any other nation. She has seen + clearly and ever more clearly that our good will was to her advantage. And + beneath her wisdom, at the bottom of all, is her sense of our kinship + through liberty defined and assured by law. If we were so far-seeing as + she is, we also should know that her good will is equally important to us: + not alone for material reasons, or for the sake of our safety, but also + for those few deep, ultimate ideals of law, liberty, life, manhood and + womanhood, which we share with her, which we got from her, because she is + our nearest relation in this many-peopled world. + </p> + <p> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </p> +<pre xml:space="preserve"> + + + + + +End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of A Straight Deal, by Owen Wister + +*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK A STRAIGHT DEAL *** + +***** This file should be named 1379-h.htm or 1379-h.zip ***** +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: + http://www.gutenberg.org/1/3/7/1379/ + +Produced by Bill Brewer, and David Widger + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions +will be renamed. + +Creating the works from public domain print editions 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-tm electronic works to +protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project +Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you +charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you +do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the +rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose +such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and +research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do +practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. 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-tm 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-tm License (available with this file or online at +http://gutenberg.org/license). + + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +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-tm electronic works in your possession. +If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project +Gutenberg-tm 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-tm 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-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement +and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm 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-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the +collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an +individual work is in the public domain 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-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by +freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of +this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm 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-tm 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-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning +the copyright status of any work in any country outside 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-tm License must appear prominently +whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm 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 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 + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived +from the public domain (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-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or +1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm 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-tm 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-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +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-tm 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-tm work in a format other than +“Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version +posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (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-tm +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-tm 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-tm electronic works provided +that + +- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is + owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm 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-tm + 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-tm 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-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set +forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from +both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael +Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm 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 +public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm +collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm 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-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm 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 F3. 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 MERCHANTIBILITY 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-tm electronic works in accordance +with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, +promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm 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-tm +work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any +Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. + + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm 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, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm’s +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm 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-tm 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 web page at http://www.pglaf.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. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at +http://pglaf.org/fundraising. 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 principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. +Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered +throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at +809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email +business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact +information can be found at the Foundation’s web site and official +page at http://pglaf.org + +For additional contact information: + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread 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 http://pglaf.org + +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: http://pglaf.org/donate + + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm +concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared +with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project +Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. + + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain 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 Web site which has the main PG search facility: + + http://www.gutenberg.org + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +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. + + +</pre> + </body> +</html> |