The use of this text or audio material is subject to the TR American Patriot user agreement located at: TR American Patriot.com 

CHAPTER TWENTY SIX 

Of Theodore Roosevelt And his Time Volume 2

 EARLY ATTITUDE  TOWARD THE EUROPEAN WAR: 

roosevelt's intense interest in the European War and his anxiety about the attitude of the United States toward it are revealed in many letters that he wrote in the period immediately after its outbreak. An effort was made later by his critics to show that he had been at the outset of the war friendly to the Germans and the Kaiser, but this was short lived. How baseless it was, I am able to show by the report of a conversation which Mr. E. A. Van Valkenberg, editor of the Philadelphia North American, had with him on Sept. 5, 1914, only a few weeks after Germany's declaration of war. Mr. Van Valkenberg wrote an account of the conversation in a letter to a friend on Sept. 8, 1914, from which I make the following extracts:
"Dean Lewis and I rode from New York to Philadelphia last Saturday afternoon with Colonel Roosevelt.
"The Colonel, as you know, is a personal friend of the Kaiser and an ardent admirer of the Germans. There seems to be a widespread belief that he sides with Germany on this conflict. 'Germany is absolutely wrong,' was almost his first utterance after we joined him in his stateroom. The White Paper Book, he declared, places her squarely in the wrong from which nothing she can possibly do in the future will extricate her.
"He expressed the opinion that if Germany were to subjugate England in this war, Germany would invade the United States within five years. He said he would look for an early alliance between Germany and Japan in case the power of Great Britain were broken. The great 'engines' of war which have been perfected by the Kaiser's government profoundly fascinate him. He gave unstinted praise to the genius of the German people, but said that he could see but one possible outcome of the contest—that was, the defeat of Germany.''
Roosevelt's chief desire at the beginning of the European struggle was to uphold the hands of President Wilson and to do nothing to embarrass him in formulating a policy. With this desire in mind he published an article in the Outlook, of September 23, 1914, which was quoted afterwards, in garbled form, to show that he had at first upheld Wilson's policy of "neutrality even in thought," and had been inconsistent in his subsequent criticism of it. He said of it to his friends that when he wrote it he hoped the President would become convinced that an official protest should be made against the invasion of Belgium and he did not wish to put any obstruction in his way, while reserving the right to criticize him in case he failed to make the protest. The article is susceptible of this construction, as the following passage shows:
"Neutrality may be of prime necessity in order to preserve our own interests, to maintain peace in so much of the world as is not affected by the war, and to conserve our influence for helping toward the reestablishment of general peace when the time comes; for if any outside Power is able at such time to be the medium for bringing peace, it is more likely to be the United States than any other. But we pay the penalty .of this action on behalf of peace for ourselves, and possibly for others in the future, by forfeiting our right do anything on behalf of peace for the Belgians in the present. We can maintain our neutrality only by refusal to do anything to aid unoffending weak Powers which are dragged into the gulf of bloodshed and misery through no fault of their own.''
His letters of the period are far more explicit in defining his real views. I quote a few from a very large number as fair samples of all.
October 3, 1914.
To Sir Cecil Spring-Rice, British Ambassador at Washington: "If I had been President, I should have acted on the thirtieth or thirty-first of July, as head of a signatory power of The Hague treaties, calling attention to the guaranty of Belgium's neutrality and saying that I accepted the treaties as imposing a serious obligation which I expected not only the United States but all other neutral nations to join in enforcing. Of course I would not have made such a statement unless I was willing to back it up. I believe that if I had been President the American people would have followed me. But whether I am mistaken or not as regards this, I am certain that the majority are now following Wilson. Only a limited number of people could or ought to be expected to make up their minds for themselves in a crisis like this; and they tend, and ought to tend, to support the President in such a crisis. It would be worse than folly for me to clamor now about what ought to be done, when it would be mere clamor and nothing more.
"The above is only for yourself. It is a freer expression of opinion than I have permitted myself in any letter hitherto."
October 5, 1914.
To Elbert Francis Baldwin, London, England: "I am very sad over this war. I believe that, in a way, it was fatally inevitable as regards the continental nations, and that each was right, from its own standpoint, under conditions as they actually were. But, to my mind, as regards Belgium, there is absolutely no question that all the right was on her side and all the wrong was committed against her, and she will have to receive full redress and assurance against the repetition of the wrongs, or else our civilization is to that extent broken down. England could not have done other than she did, in interfering for her."
November 8, 1914.
To Charles McCarthy, Madison, Wisconsin: "As for my being popular, my dear fellow, I take the liberty to doubt it, more especially because I suppose my fellow citizens of German descent will resent my attitude about Belgium. I admire the men of German descent more than almost any other men in this country, but if we really believe in world righteousness and in our duty as a nation to do something for international decency, then we are not to be excused if we fail to protest against such action as that by Germany in regard to Belgium. I felt it was my duty to act, although I very sincerely regret that I had to do so."
January 16, 1915.
To Rudyard Kipling, England: "I do not like to bother the men who are at the helm, and I kept silent as long as I thought there was any chance that Wilson was really developing a worthy policy. I came to the conclusion that he had no policy whatever; that what he did was mischievous; and that the bulk of my fellow citizens were inclined to support him in his actions. Therefore, it seemed to me well that some man should speak to them frankly and as only one of their own countrymen should speak to them. I do not believe I have spoken intemperately; but I have put the emphasis with all clearness where I thought it ought to be put. If this country is going to take the position of China, then I at least desire that the bulk of the citizens shall understand what they are doing, and I also wish it understood that I will not be a party to the transaction.''
January 22, 1915.
To Sir Edward Grey, England: "To me the crux of the situation has been Belgium. If England or France had acted toward Belgium as Germany has acted I should have opposed them, exactly as I now oppose Germany. I have emphatically approved your action as a model for what should be done by those who believe that treaties should be observed in good faith and that there is such a thing as international morality. I take this position as an American who is no more an Englishman than he is a German, who endeavors loyally to serve the interests of his own country, but who also endeavors to do what he can for justice and decency as regards mankind at large, and who therefore feels obliged to judge all other nations by their conduct on any given occasion."
February 6, 1915.
To Sir George Otto Trevelyan, England: "Have you seen a copy of the little book I have published, called 'America and the World War?' I believe that you will like the stands I there take. I am sick at heart over the actions of Wilson and Bryan. Tell your son George that I have been quoting again and again the extracts he gives of John Bright's letters to Sumner when Palmerston and Gladstone went wrong in our Civil War and am doing all that I can now to preach the same doctrine that John Bright did at that time. Of course, if I had been President, I would have gone to any extreme necessary to put the United States on the side of justice and humanity and civilization in this contest."
April 2, 1915.
To His Excellency, Jules J. Jusserand, Washington, D. C.: "Will you present my very warm thanks to M. Renault for the essay of 'War and International Law,' which he has sent me ? I entirely agree with his thesis that neutrals who sign conventions have a duty to stand up for them. I shall never accept the view that neutrality between right and wrong is proper. I shall never accept the view that all wars are to be condemned alike, or that all kinds of peace are to be glorified. I put righteousness as the end. Usually peace is the means to righteousness; but occasionally war offers the only means by which righteousness can be achieved."
April 6, 1915.
To F. W. Whitridge, New York: "It is all I can do to control myself in writing. Of course what ought to have been done by this Administration was to have taken the Eitel Frederick and announced that we would hold her until we were ourselves satisfied with the reparation for the sinking of the Frye; and when Germany torpedoed these steamers and the passengers were drowned by the scores, we should have notified Germany that as a neutral power and a signatory of The Hague Conventions we would decline longer to tolerate a return to the crimes of warfare which we had supposed outgrown since the days of the sacks of Drogheda and Magdeburg; and then of course, if Germany refused at once to yield to the protest, we should have made our words good by actions. But inasmuch as I cannot act and as my aim is to get my fellow-countrymen into the proper mental attitude, I continually strive to keep myself in such shape that I won't alienate good uninformed people of slightly timid or sluggish mind, who simply are utterly unable to face the new questions. These people I would tend to lose by a proper violence of statement!"
The news of the sinking of the Lusitania on May 7, 1915, reached Roosevelt while he was engaged in the Barnes trial at Syracuse. The news came to him first in the court room and was in the form of a telegram saying merely that the Lusitania had been sunk by a submarine, giving no details. He was visibly disturbed by it, and, on the adjournment of the court, he went to the house of his friend, Horace, Wilkinson, whose guest he was during the trial. To comprehend fully the courage of his subsequent deliverance it is necessary to take into account the situation at the moment. As I have said in the preceding chapter, the testimony in the suit was practically all in and the case was ready for submission to the jury. In the opinion of Roosevelt's counsel, the jury was an assured unit for a verdict in his favor. There were two, possibly three, men of German birth upon it. During the trial Roosevelt had received evidence of a growing German antagonism to him in the country. Several photographs of himself, with his autograph, that he had sent to German admirers, had been returned to him with bitter words of repudiation because of his condemnation of Germany for sinking with submarines American merchant vessels. If he were to denounce Germany anew for the Lusitania sinking, the chances were strong that he would alienate the German jurors and lose the suit.
I am indebted to Mr. Wilkinson for an account of what occurred after the arrival at the house. Roosevelt walked up and down in much agitation, going over with his host the points of the situation. Finally he exclaimed: "Well, it doesn't make any difference. It is more important that I be right than to win this suit. I've got to be right in this matter.''
He went to his room early, reading as usual before going to bed. About midnight a telephone call came to the house from New York saying that a newspaper reporter wished to get from Roosevelt a statement of his views upon the sinking of the Lusitania. Mr. Wilkinson went to his room and aroused him from sleep, telling him what was wanted. "All right," he said. "I'll speak to him. I always talk with the boys." As details of the outrage came to him over the telephone, he exclaimed: "That's murder! Will I make a statement! Yes, yes. I'll make it now. Just take this." And he dictated the following:
"This represents not merely piracy, but piracy on a vaster scale of murder than old-time pirates ever practised. This is the warfare which destroyed Louvain and Dinant and hundreds of men, women and children in Belgium. It is warfare against innocent men, women and children, traveling on the ocean, and our own fellow-countrymen and country-women, who are among the sufferers. It seems inconceivable that we can refrain from taking action in this matter, for we owe it not only to humanity but to our own self-respect.''
On the morning on which this statement was published, May 8,1915, Roosevelt walked into the room where his chief counsel, John M. Bowers, was seated with his son, Spots-wood D. Bowers, who was associated with his father in the case, and said, as the son quotes his words to me:
"Gentlemen, I am afraid that I have made the winning of this case impossible. I appreciate, of course, that we have two German-American jurors, whose sympathies I have likely alienated by the utterances I gave to the press last night concerning the sinking of the Lusitania, but I cannot help it if we lose the case. There is a principle here at stake which is far more vital to the American people than my personal welfare is to me."
He had not consulted his counsel on the subject for the reason, as he explained subsequently, that he had decided on his course and did not wish to be in the position of having to go counter to their advice in case they recommended silence. The self-sacrificing patriotism of his utterances needs no comment. His counsel spoke of it ever afterwards as the most courageous act they had ever known—the supreme revelation of Roosevelt's character.
To his first condemnation of Germany's conduct he added others, day by day, steadily increasing in vigor. On May 8,1915, he prepared a fuller statement which was published as follows on May 9:
"On the night of the day that the disaster occurred I called the attention of our people to the fact that the sinking of the Lusitania was not only an act of piracy, but that it represented piracy accompanied by murder on a vaster scale than any old-time pirate had ever practiced before being hung for his misdeeds.
"I called attention to the fact that this was merely the application on the high seas, and, at our expense, of the principles which when applied on land had produced the innumerable hideous tragedies that have occurred in Belgium and in Northern France.
"I said that not only our duty to humanity at large, but our duty to preserve our own national self-respect demanded instant action on our part and forbade all delay. I can do little more than reiterate what I then said.
'' When the German decree establishing the war zone was issued, and of course plainly threatened exactly the type of tragedy which has occurred, our Government notified Germany that in the event of any such wrongdoing at the expense of our citizens we would hold the German Government to 'a strict accountability.'
"The use of this phrase, 'strict accountability,' of course, must mean, and can only mean, that action will be taken by us without an hour's unnecessary delay. It was emiently proper to use the exact phrase that was used, and having used it our own self-respect demands that we forthwith abide by it.''
On May 9, also, he gave out to the press advance copies of an editorial article, entitled "Murder on the High Seas," that he had written for the Metropolitan Magazine, with which he was associated, in which, after enumerating the outrages committed by Germany on American vessels, culminating with the Lusitcmia, he said:
"In the teeth of these things, we earn as a nation measureless scorn and contempt if we follow the lead of those who exalt peace above righteousness, if we heed the voice of those feeble folk who bleat to high Heaven for peace when there is no peace. For many months our Government has preserved between right and wrong a neutrality which would have excited the emulous admiration of Pontius Pilate—the arch-typical neutral of all time. . . . Unless we act with immediate decision and vigor we shall have failed in the duty demanded by humanity at large and demanded even more clearly by the self-respect of the American Republic."
On the same day that these publications appeared in the press, May 9, there appeared side by side with them this statement which had been issued from the White House on the previous evening:
"Of course the President feels the distress and the gravity of the situation to the utmost, and is considering very earnestly, but very calmly, the right course of action to pursue. He knows that the people of the country expect him to act with deliberation as well as with firmness."
One day later, May 10, 1915, President Wilson, addressing an audience of 15,000 naturalized citizens in Philadelphia, uttered the famous phrase which immediately became immortal:
"There is such a thing as a man being too proud to fight. There is such a thing as a nation being so right that it does not need to convince others by force that it is right."
These utterances of the two men at this supreme moment in the life of the nation show very clearly how far apart they were in regard to the course which the national Government should pursue, and why it was that Roosevelt was fairly compelled to enter the lists as the open critic of the President's policies and acts. He said to me at the time: "I would have thrown up my hat for Wilson if only he had given me the chance by acting in the Presidency as a sound American of rugged strength and patriotism. When he trailed the honor of the United States in the dust, I, as a good American, had no alternative but to oppose him."
No one was more surprised than Roosevelt was, when, in spite of his utterances, the jury agreed upon a verdict in his favor. His remarks to the jury at the close of the trial, quoted in the preceding chapter, show how deeply he was touched by it. Yet important as the verdict was to him, it occupied only slight place in his mind at the time. I have searched his letters in vain for any except casual reference to it. He had no thought for anything except the nation and its attitude .toward the European war.