A HECTIC FORTNIGHT--AND OTHERS
The Mitchel campaign was an incident--important and affecting, but only
an incident--in the stirring summer and fall of 1917, when we had just
entered the war. My trip to Europe that summer, on a government mission,
fixed a new and broader purpose in my mind. While in Turkey in 1914 to
1916 I had seen only the German machinations and listened to the German
apologies. Now I had observed the devastation wrought in France and
heard from French and British lips their version of the war. Moreover,
my talks with Joffre, Painlevé, Sir Douglas Haig, Sir Arthur Currie, and
others, showed me how fearfully low the spirits of the Allies had fallen
before we entered the struggle. Prussianism had defied and all but
conquered the world; its victims were at the very edge of despair; as
for America, it was not yet fully cognizant of the sad conditions
prevailing in Europe, because censorship, guided by political
considerations, prevented the full truth from crossing the Atlantic.
When I returned in September, I was impressed not only with the
necessity of continuing my activities to alleviate the suffering of the
Armenians and the Jews and of doing all I could to eliminate the cause
of that suffering, but I was much more impressed with the bigger thought
of also doing all in my power to rouse American sentiment to the fact
that this great struggle was dependent upon our activities to replenish
the diminishing resources, both physical and moral, of the countries
which were immersed in this tremendous conflict. I determined to make
use of this special knowledge, which it had been my fortune to acquire,
to help defeat the Germans.
This dual determination made the ensuing period one of intense
activities, varied, yet not conflicting. Things happened pell-mell, but
are more coherent if grouped topically rather than chronologically.
The Armenian outrages were constantly in my mind, and I wrote for the
_Red Cross Magazine_ an article on the Turkish massacres concluding:
I wonder if four hundred million Christians, in full control of all
the governments of Europe and America, are again going to condone
these offenses by the Turkish Government! Will they, like Germany,
take the bloody hand of the Turk, forgive him and decorate him, as
Kaiser Wilhelm has done, with the highest orders? Will the
outrageous terrorizing--the cruel torturing--the driving of women
into the harems--the debauchery of innocent girls--the sale of many
of them at eighty cents each--the murdering of hundreds of
thousands and the deportation to and starvation in the desert of
other hundreds of thousands--the destruction of hundreds of
villages and cities--will the wilful execution of this whole
devilish scheme to annihilate the Armenian, Greek, and Syrian
Christians of Turkey--will all this go unpunished? Will the Turks
be permitted, aye, even encouraged by our cowardice in not striking
back, to continue to treat all Christians in their power as
“unbelieving dogs”? Or will definite steps be promptly taken to
rescue permanently the remnants of these fine, old, civilized,
Christian peoples from the fangs of the Turk?
That was a tragic story, but it had its lighter phase. Following a
common custom, the editors of the _Red Cross Magazine_ printed on the
front cover of their publication my name and the title of the article.
The juxtaposition was unfortunate and startling:
“_Henry Morgenthau--The Greatest Horror in History!_”
“That’s pretty rough,” wrote the New York _Sun_. “We always realized
fully that the former Ambassador to Turkey was not a handsome man, but
the _Red Cross Magazine_ really has gone too far.”
The Jewish question interested me quite as deeply, and on December 12,
1917, I published in the New York _Times_ a carefully considered
statement.
This was the fruit of my thirty months’ experience with the problem of
the Jews in Turkey and of my observations at first hand of their status
and projects in Palestine, and was in line with my purpose to do more
than alleviate the present sufferings of the Jews. Because this
statement is important in its bearing upon my chapter on Zionism, I am
reproducing it here in full. As my present opinion on Zionism is the
outgrowth of years of sympathetic reflection, continuous observation,
and conscientious personal study of the facts, I should like to
emphasize the date of this publication, and thus indicate the progress
of my views toward their settled conviction regarding Zionism:
_To the Editor of the New York_ Times:
The fall of Jerusalem, its recapture by Christian forces after
twelve centuries of almost uninterrupted Mohammedan rule, is surely
an event of the greatest significance to us all. American
Christians, and indeed Christians everywhere, will rejoice that the
Holy Land, so well known to them through both the Old and New
Testaments, has been restored to the civilized world.
I, with my co-religionists, rejoice not only as an American but as
a cosmopolitan who recognizes the fertile seeds of civilization in
all truly religious faith and experience. For the whole civilized
world, the 10th of December, 1917, will be remembered as a day of
profound historical interest, and, I hope also, of large meaning
for the future.
During my recent visit to Palestine, I was greatly impressed by the
progress made by the Jewish colonies. These colonies had developed
under most adverse circumstances, and had demonstrated fully that,
when real opportunity is given, the people of the Jewish faith can
create most creditable self-governing units. With Palestine
liberated from the curse of Turkish misgovernment, this work will
go on with ever greater success. All Jews, both the Zionists and
those of us who do not take part in the advocacy of the entire
programme of the Zionists, rejoice at the prospect which is now
open. Many Jews will wish to settle in Palestine. Many others, as
well as great numbers of Christians from all lands, will wish to
visit the Holy Land, and there undertake studies in history and
religion. Many of us hope that the Hebraic language and the
elements of the Hebraic culture will develop there sufficiently to
be again, in a new way, of genuine service to the moral and
cultural life of the world.
But at this point I wish to sound a note of warning to my
coreligionists on the one hand, and on the other strongly emphasize
to all my American fellow-citizens that certain positive facts
should not be overlooked at this time. I believe that the leaders
of the Zionists have always perceived that it would be impossible
to have all the Jews return to Palestine, and that the others who
hold to that Utopia will soon be disillusioned. It is almost
unnecessary to refer to the fact that it is economically impossible
to settle 13,000,000 people upon the narrow and impoverished lands
which were the ancient soil of our people. But this is not what I
wish to emphasize chiefly. The fact that has vital significance to
me, and, I believe, to a majority of those of my faith in America,
is that we are 100 per cent. Americans, and wish to remain so,
irrespective of the fact that some of our blood is Jewish and some
of our clay is German, Russian, or Polish. To us and our children
America, too, is veritably a Holy Land.
It has been a great mission of the Jewish people, through their
religious faith, to teach the whole Western world that there is one
God. The great moral and spiritual mission of the American people,
in my opinion, is to teach the world that there must be one
brotherhood of humanity. I hold that it has been nothing short of
providential in the history of the human race to have had America
preserved as an undeveloped continent until this later period. We
are making it the experimental station for the intergrafting of
various peoples. The ideal of America is, through freedom and equal
opportunity, to permit the complete physical, intellectual, and
spiritual development of all our citizens. The American people are
not the descendents of the original English, French, Dutch, or
Spanish settlers. The American people to-day are composed of every
inhabitant within our borders who loyally supports the principles
which form the roots of our national life and well-being. To me it
seems clear that the principles embodied in the Declaration of
Independence, the Constitution, the laws and, above all, in the
moral attitude of mind which marks the true American, require much
of us. Above all, they require mutual service, equality as regards
the highest as well as the less important goods of life, and, high
above all, complete toleration and mutual respect. These are the
veritable foundations of human brotherhood. This is America’s
fundamental contribution to the world’s civilization. It is not
essential in this connection, even if space permitted, for me to
indicate and emphasize the part which the Hebraic laws, Hebraic
morals, and the Hebraic religion, through the Old and New
Testaments, have had upon the American mind and the American soul.
I leave that to the historian. I am here referring to the present
and the future, rather than to the past.
We have now come to a great crisis in the history of the world. The
essential thing for us is to fight for universal peace as a basis
for a practical world brotherhood. This great result is not only
possible, it is necessary if civilization is to endure. Let me ask
my co-religionists, face to face and heart to heart, how many of
you would be willing to forswear the great duty we have here and
the great task which history gives us of being true, real,
unalloyed American citizens in this time of resplendent ideals and
momentous deeds, in order to devote your entire lives to the
upbuilding of Hebraic institutions in Palestine. I, for one, do not
see that it is at all necessary to ignore the lesser in order to
serve the greater purpose. But let me repeat most emphatically, we
Jews, in America, are Jews in religion and Americans in
nationality. It is through America and her institutions that we
shall work out our part in bringing better ideals and morals and
sounder principles of policy to the whole world. Likewise the Jews
of the British Empire, that is probably 99 per cent. of them, have
not the slightest intention of deserting their British
fellow-citizens. The same holds good as to France and Italy. If
Russia maintains, as we all hope and pray that she may maintain, a
republican form of government in which the elements of liberty are
saved to her people, the Jews of Russia will very soon come to feel
the same fellowship with all their Russian neighbours that we now
have as regards our fellow-Americans.
And yet Zionism is more than a mere dream. Its theories, upon which
so much emphasis has been placed during the last generation,
contain practical elements which are not above realization. I have
reflected much upon this matter and I have had the privilege of
discussing it with leading Jews the world over. I most sincerely
trust that those of my religious faith who are now imbued with
this idea will not permit impracticable schemes to make impossible
the realization of the good that is in Zionism. The Jewish
communities in Palestine should be given every opportunity for
development. Some Jews now in America will wish to live there
permanently; many others, who have not the slightest intention of
surrendering their citizenship in the countries where their
children are to live and work, will still wish to have a share in
the preservation and development of a free, Jewish Palestine. But
not only Jews are interested in Palestine; every truly educated and
liberal-minded person in the world will wish to see the ancient
Jewish culture given an opportunity for expression and growth.
Furthermore--and this is what I beg my Jewish fellow religionists
not to lose sight of for a moment--all Christendom, too, looks upon
Palestine as the Holy Land, in which every believing Christian has
a deep religious interest and a right to share. The thousands of
Christians who will annually visit Palestine will wish to feel that
they have a part in all the holy traditions which cluster about the
sacred localities and the remaining monuments.
As regards the administration of Palestine, this phase of the
subject does not seem to me to present any insurmountable
difficulties. Under an international and inter-religious commission
there could be a very large measure of self-government on the part
of the local citizenship. The whole world is now moving away from
the emphasis hitherto placed upon extreme nationalism. The forces
of internationalism must be developed practically and
systematically. What an error it would be, at the very time when
the primary message to the world of the Jewish people and their
religion should be one of peace, brotherhood and the international
mind, to set up a limited nationalist State and thereby appear to
create a physical boundary to their religious influence. Let us
give the strictly Hebraic culture a better chance than this would
imply. Let us permit it in its original form and purity to test out
its strength with other religions amid twentieth century
surroundings. Whatever value it may have for the world’s
civilization will thus be fully realized. Meanwhile nothing should
draw our attention from the infinitely greater opportunities of the
age in which we live. After the many centuries of restrictions,
persecutions and cruelties suffered by our people we are at last
sharing the blessings of freedom and of universal fellowship in all
the great democratic countries of the world.
HENRY MORGENTHAU.
New York, Dec. 11, 1917.
Sunday, March 3, 1918, was the last day for me to function as presiding
officer of the Free Synagogue. Dr. Wise had asked me to occupy his
pulpit on that date, because he had to go to Washington on business of
the nature of which I was then unaware. The next day, the New York
_Times_ contained the following statement, telegraphed from Washington,
March 3rd:
Approval of the plans of the Zionist leaders for the creation of a
national Jewish Commonwealth in Palestine was given to-night by
President Wilson to a delegation of representative Jewish leaders
who spent an hour at the White House in conference with the
President over the international status of the Jews around the
world. The delegation was headed by Rabbi Stephen S. Wise of New
York....
It affected me strangely to think that while I was taking Dr. Wise’s
place in the pulpit, he should be helping to secure the approval of the
President of the United States for a plan of which, because of my
knowledge of conditions in Palestine, I totally disapproved. I
telephoned Dr. Wise that this occurrence determined me to resign the
presidency of the Free Synagogue. He called at my house and tried to
dissuade me, but my duty seemed clear.
In effect, I said to the doctor: “You are entitled to your views, and I
to mine, which I propose to express as forcibly as I know how, whenever
I think they will do the most good for the welfare of the Jews. I still
hope it will never fall to my lot to attack Zionism in public, but I
assure you now that I will not shirk the responsibility if the time ever
comes when it seems right that I should handle it without gloves. It
would then be a great embarrassment for me to be president of your
Synagogue.”
The resignation read thus:
March 3, 1918.
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE,
Free Synagogue.
DEAR SIRS:
After twelve years of incumbency of the office of President of the
Free Synagogue of New York, I am impelled to resign that office.
Much as I have enjoyed the honour of filling this position and the
happy and inspiring association with its Rabbi, Dr. Wise, I feel
that our views of Zionism, in the advocacy of which he is one of
the leaders, are so divergent and apparently irreconcilable, that
it seems necessary for me to withdraw from what may be called the
lay leadership of the congregation.
I would have no question arise as to Dr. Wise’s freedom or my own
freedom regarding Zionism.
With the sincere hope that the friendly and cordial relations which
have long obtained between Dr. Wise and myself will be unaffected
by this decision, I am
Yours cordially,
HENRY MORGENTHAU.
On March 10th, at a dinner given by the Executive Committee of the Isaac
M. Wise Centenary Fund, which was attended by about fifty rabbis, I made
the following speech, which was published in the next day’s _Times_:
The greatest fight in history has just been fought between
democracy and autocracy. It was so important that we should centre
our attention upon it. We should give all the consideration we can
to awaken ideals.
You have that chance now. Zionism is going to do you some good. It
is going to arouse you from your complacency. You must realize that
it will turn you back a thousand years. Why _surrender_ all you
have gained during that time? Reformed Judaism must assert itself.
If American democracy can annihilate autocracy and anarchy, we Jews
cannot accept the foolish argument that you must have Zionism to
keep the Jews as Jews. We must have something, but it is not
Zionism. The Rabbis and people must spread Judaism in America and
they must be militant.
I believe that to-day there is a religious revival in the world.
Why should our patriotism be doubted if at the same time we are to
have a moral awakening? I have been delighted as I have travelled
over this country in order to promote various causes, such as the
Jewish Welfare Campaign, to find the Rabbis honoured in their
communities, and that everywhere they held important positions. We
can have a Jewish revival in this country, which is our Zion, and
not Palestine.
I have no objection to the founding of a Jewish university in
Palestine. I think it is a fine thing. But when we realize the
opportunities that the men who sit at this table have had in this
country, it seems a stupid and ridiculous notion not to admit that
this is the Promised Land. Let us wake up and, as the Christians
have done, be a militant religion.
Everywhere I have been, people have told me that they were not for
Zionism, but that they were afraid to assert themselves. All the
Zionists want they have gotten. President Wilson has assured us
that full civil and religious rights would be granted to the Jews
everywhere. It did not require Zionism to get that. They will get
it as the result of the conduct of the Jews throughout the world.
The League of Nations would be imperfect if it did not include it.
You cannot make a good American out of anybody unless he is
religious; and as we want a fine morality, we are looking to you
ministers of the Jewish faith to give it to us.
To the moral strength of our nation, American Judaism must
contribute in the greater measure. In times of adversity and
prosperity the moral and spiritual courage of the Jew has become
proverbial. Now, in this new era for America and for the world,
this strength and courage, the roots of which are imbedded in our
religion, must be fostered and made a living force more than ever
before. The Isaac M. Wise Centenary gives us the opportunity to
establish the institution of American Judaism on a firm foundation.
This we must do, lest we fail to contribute in the fullest measure
our share to the spiritual rebuilding of the world.
Extended trips for the Near East and Jewish Relief Committees, and also
for the Liberty Loan and United War Work Drive, had taken me during
these months into almost every part of the country, addressing
gatherings in cities as far scattered as Lewiston, Me., Atlanta, Ga.,
and Portland, Ore. The itinerary included most places of any size in the
Middle West and frequently demanded speeches for two or three of the
causes the same day.
The meetings were usually preceded by dinners or luncheons or followed
by receptions, at which the leading men of the cities gathered. A more
inspiring experience it would be hard to imagine than seeing every
prejudice and hatred laid aside for labour in a common cause. Wherever
my way led there were revealed, as national characteristics, an intense
moral enthusiasm, warm-hearted response to human suffering, open-handed
generosity, and mutual tolerance.
Nevertheless, contact with voters in these drives had intensified my
realization that a large number of our citizens were still Pacifists and
that many of the German-Americans and their friends were protesting that
the German Empire, innocent of having caused the world struggle, was
fighting in self-defense. As I had positive information through Baron
Wangenheim and the Marquis Pallavicini, my German and Austrian
colleagues at Constantinople, that the war was premeditated, I consulted
my friend, Frank I. Cobb, of the New York _World_, how best to make this
fact public. The result was his collaboration and the appearance in that
paper on October 14, 1917, of an article in which it was declared:
This war was no accident. Neither did it come through the temporary
break-down of European diplomacy. It was carefully planned and
deliberately executed in cold blood.... It was undertaken in the
furtherance of a definite programme of Prussian imperialism.
Proceeding to give my reasons for such a statement, as cause and effect
had been revealed to me by Von Wangenheim himself, the article included
the first authoritative confirmation of the rumour that the Kaiser had
indeed held the now famous Potsdam Conference, at which the German
financiers, as early as the first week of July, 1914, had been
instructed to complete the concentration of the Empire’s resources for
war. The disclosure of these facts, copied in newspapers throughout the
country, created a sensation and profoundly influenced American public
opinion.
A number of friends urged me to write a book, giving my evidence more
fully and revealing how Germany had dominated Turkish policy and forced
the Sublime Porte into the war. Hesitancy as to the propriety of an
Ambassador using his information publicly led me to consult President
Wilson. In doing so I expressed the opinion that the Congressional
election of 1918 was in grave doubt and that everything should be done
to prove that the Executive had been right in entering the war. The
following letter resolved my doubts and confirmed my inclination:
THE WHITE HOUSE
27 November, 1917.
MY DEAR MR. MORGENTHAU:
I have just received your letter of yesterday and in reply would
say that I think you get impressions about public opinion in New
York which by no means apply to the whole country, but nevertheless
I think that your plan for a full exposition of some of the
principal lines of German intrigue is an excellent one and I hope
you will undertake to write and publish the book you speak of.
I am writing in great haste, but not in hasty judgment you may be
sure.
Cordially and sincerely yours,
WOODROW WILSON.
I then wrote “Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story.”
On September 30, 1917, I had contributed to the New York _Times_ an
article headed, “Emperor William Must Go.” Then followed the _World_
interview already referred to, and, on October 18th, less than a month
before the Armistice, I delivered at Cooper Union an address in which I
said:
There is only one way to chasten Germany and that is to defeat her
so completely that the memory will not pass out of her mind for
many generations. Such a defeat is absolutely essential to her
reeducation along the lines of civilization and democracy. I will
regard her utter defeat in a military sense, and the elimination of
her war-lords, as the essential preliminaries to the new German
democratic state. These changes are necessary to re-establish that
healthy and normal mentality which is the first requirement if she
is to emerge from the present war a nation with which the rest of
the world can consent to associate as a brother.
On March 8, 1918, I had a meeting with Lord Reading, Lord Chief Justice
of England, whom Lloyd George had sent as special Ambassador to this
country. In our conversation, he revealed a fact of great historic
interest.
The day before, at a luncheon given him by the Merchants’ Association of
New York, Lord Reading had used what seemed a singular expression for an
official representative of Great Britain. Referring to the gravity of
the military situation and the necessity for America to exert her full
strength, he described the tremendous sacrifices of his own people and
then declared:
“You must take up the burden. We _have_ done all we can do.”
Recalling this in our talk, I suggested that it must have been a slip of
the tongue, and asked: “Did you not mean to say, ‘We (Great Britain)
_are doing_ all we can?’”
“Quite the contrary,” Lord Reading instantly replied. “I said it
deliberately, and it is the fact. Every Englishman that is fit for
military service has been called to the colours; we have even combed our
civil service. We have no reserve man-power left.”
Nevertheless, public utterance of such a statement at such a time
revealed a misconception of our national psychology. I pointed out to
Lord Reading that we Americans were not yet far enough advanced in
experience of war to react favourably to such a message.
Nor were the women that we met in these war activities less interesting
than the men. Mrs. Emma Bailey Speer, president of the Y. W. C. A.,
sent a car to take me over to Tenafly, N. J., to make the dedicatory
address at a new hostess house. In the car was a lady wearing the Y. W.
C. A. uniform. She said that Mrs. Speer, being unable to come herself,
had sent her as a substitute--and it was splendid to see how this, the
daughter of Senator Aldrich, and the wife of John D. Rockefeller, Jr.,
could be just a good private in the Y. W. C. A. ranks, taking her
position and doing her duties with seriousness and efficiency.
Soon after this, we gave a dinner in honour of Dr. Henry Pratt Judson,
president of Chicago University, who had recently returned from Persia
on behalf of the Near East Relief Committee. An amusing incident
occurred which partly spoiled the evening for Mr. Schiff, the great
financier and much beloved leader of the Jews, and recognized as one of
the most eminent citizens of America. He sat next to Mrs. Rockefeller
and accidentally caused the spilling of a cup of coffee over her dress.
She tactfully said that the dress had been cleaned before and could be
cleaned again. Nevertheless, it depressed Mr. Schiff to think that he
should have been so awkward as to raise his elbow while the coffee was
being passed. A week later he showed me with great satisfaction a letter
from Mrs. Rockefeller, accepting the beautiful lace scarf which he had
sent her with the explanation that it was to cover the spot on her
dress. The incident again proves that the biggest men devote the
required time and thought to straightening out even such little mishaps
as that here related.
* * * * *
The signing of the Armistice abruptly terminated hostilities a year
earlier than most people had expected. Public opinion was far from
clarified upon the question as to the kind of peace treaty which should
be drawn up. The public did realize, however, that it was confronted
with an issue perhaps even more vital than the issues of war. A peace
must be devised to end this war and prevent a recurrence of so terrible
a disaster. At this time, the only powerful and organized body of men
which had studied this subject and had a solution to offer was the
League to Enforce Peace. The leaders of this league felt that it was a
public duty to place their solution before the nation, and give it the
utmost publicity in the hope that it might be serviceable in directing
the course of investigations at Paris into channels of permanent benefit
to humanity.
They worked out an ingenious and effective plan. Not content with merely
announcing their ideas through the press or on the platform, they
organized nine “congresses” in as many cities, each the centre of an
important section. They arranged to have district delegates sent to the
sessions of the congresses, and from five thousand to ten thousand
delegates attended every one; besides, numerous audiences flocked to
overflow meetings. A group of public men, headed by ex-President Taft,
was organized to address the sessions, as representatives of the League.
I was asked to be one of that group.
Mr. Wilson was in Paris. Fearing that this campaign might in some way
embarrass him, or conflict with his plans, I consulted several Cabinet
members: Secretaries Lane and Houston applauded the wisdom of the
proposed campaign. Secretary Baker wrote:
December 21, 1918.
MY DEAR MR. MORGENTHAU:
I return herewith the letter which you enclosed with yours of the
twentieth.
I have not agreed to speak for the League to Enforce Peace, nor
have I any idea of speaking under the auspices of that society; not
that I have any objection to it but simply that I doubt very much
the wisdom of anybody connected with the Administration at this
time associating himself with a society which has a particular
mode of assuring future peace. So far as I am personally concerned,
I am for any way the President can work out. I did say to Mr.
Filene and some other gentlemen who called upon me as
representatives of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States,
that I would be very glad to attend a couple of dinners held under
the auspices of the Chamber of Commerce, and incidentally would say
something in favour of a league of nations, but with the distinct
understanding that I was not speaking for the Administration and
was not speaking for any plan or programme whatever. Since making
this promise I have even more doubted the wisdom of doing it, for
exactly the reasons you state in your letter. It seems to me
entirely possible for us here, with the best of good intentions,
deeply to embarrass the President in his very delicate task, and so
far as I am concerned, I have no intention of doing it. Unless I
change my mind, I will beg off from the engagements already made,
and I am sure it would be better for all of us to refrain from that
kind of discussion just now.
Cordially yours,
(Signed) NEWTON D. BAKER,
_Secretary of War_.
I was assured that I was expected to speak only in the general terms of
an association of nations without outlining any detailed plan therefor.
On receipt of this assurance, I decided to go.
The party comprised ex-President Taft, President Lowell of Harvard; Dr.
Henry van Dyke of Princeton; Dr. Elmer R. Brown, Dean of the Yale
Divinity School; George Grafton Wilson, Professor of International Law
at Harvard; Edward A. Filene, of Boston; and Mrs. Philip North Moore, of
St. Louis, president of the National Council of Women. The three weeks,
passed in a tour of the country with such able and delightful people,
was thoroughly enjoyed.
On this journey, my acquaintance with Mr. Taft was transformed into a
genuine friendship. On the first day out, it was “Mr. Morgenthau”; on
the second, “Henry Morgenthau”; and on the third it became, and has
since remained, “Henry.” He was a most delightful travelling companion
and fellow-worker, good-humoured under all circumstances, uncomplaining
under the heaviest tasks, the soul of friendliness and consideration:
“To know him was to love him.” One day, as we were sitting in his
compartment, discussing some details of the trip, he broke into one of
his characteristic little chuckles:
“Here you have been opposing me politically all these years,” he said,
“and now we’re together on the same platform for the good of the whole
world. Doesn’t public service make strange compartment companions?”
Our trip was filled with hard work, exhausting hours, and not a few
discomforts, but it brought us many moments of inspiration and some of
amusement. Of the latter, one stands clear in my memory. We were
standing unobserved at the railroad station of a small town in the
Dakotas, when President Lowell thought we ought to do something “to get
our blood in circulation” and challenged me to a foot race on the
station platform.
“I’ll take a handicap--I’ll run backwards.”
His challenge was accepted, and he won the race. Then he confessed that
running backwards was one of his accomplishments from undergraduate
days.
The outstanding moments of the trip were those which immediately
followed our receipt of the first draft of the League Covenant. We were
steaming through Utah, when it was handed aboard. At once it was given
the stenographers for manifolding, and none of us is likely to forget
the impatience with which each awaited his copy, the eagerness with
which each took it to his own compartment for study.
That evening President Lowell, Dr. Van Dyke, and myself were called to
Mr. Taft’s compartment. He sat there, his face all aglow with
satisfaction. He put his hand on his copy of the Covenant, which was
lying on the table, and said:
“I am delighted to find it has teeth in it.”
We had a long discussion, concluding that we ought to prepare a
pronouncement for publication. Mr. Taft asked us three to draw up a
statement. We complied and called in Professors Brown and Wilson, who
were very useful in condensing it. Mr. Taft read the result, approved of
it, but added the concluding sentence:
The alternative to a League of Nations is the heavy burden and the
constant temptation of universal armament.
That addition made, the signatures were affixed, and the train stopped
at a little station to telegraph our statement to the Associated Press.
The local telegrapher doubted his ability to transmit accurately a
message that he considered so important as this one, but he notified the
operator at the next town to be ready for us, and from there the
statement was sent out in the following terms:
AN APPEAL TO OUR FELLOW CITIZENS
The war against military autocracy has been won because the great
free nations acted together, and its results will be secured only
if they continue to act together. The forces making for autocratic
rule on the one hand, and for the violence of Bolshevism on the
other are still at work.
In fifty years the small states of Prussia so organized central
Europe as to defy the world. In the present disorganized state of
central and eastern Europe, that can be done again on a still
larger scale and menace all free institutions. The death of
millions of men and the destruction and debt in another world war
would turn civilization backward for generations. In such a war we
shall certainly be involved, and our best young men will be
sacrificed as the French and English have been sacrificed in the
last four years. Such a catastrophe can be prevented only by the
reconstruction of the small states now seeking self-government, on
the basis of freedom and justice; but this is impossible without a
league, for divided its members are not strong enough for the
task. Should the victorious nations fail to form a league, German
imperialists would have a clearer field for their designs.
By the abundance of its natural resources, by the number,
intelligence, and character of its people, the United States has
become a world power. It cannot avoid the risks and must assume the
responsibilities of its position. It cannot stand aloof, but must
face boldly the facts of the day, with confidence in itself and in
its future among the great nations of the earth.
United as never before, our people have fought this war. United and
above party we must consider the problems of peace, resolved that
so far as in us lies, war shall no more scourge mankind. The
Covenant reported to the Paris Conference has come since the last
election, and the people have had no chance to pass judgment upon
it. In this journey from coast to coast we have looked into the
faces of more than 100,000 typical Americans, and believe that the
great majority of our countrymen desire to take part in such a
league as is proposed in that document. We appeal to our fellow
citizens, therefore, to study earnestly this question, and express
their opinions with a voice so clear and strong that our
representatives in Congress may know that the people of the United
States are determined to assume their part in this crisis of human
history. The alternative to a League of Nations is the heavy burden
and the constant temptation of universal armament.
February 23, 1919.
(Signed)
WILLIAM H. TAFT.
HENRY MORGENTHAU.
A. LAWRENCE LOWELL.
HENRY VAN DYKE.
Mr. Taft’s endorsement of the Covenant as then drawn moved me, at our
journey’s end, to telegraph to Washington suggesting that he join
President Wilson in an exposition of the League before a great mass
meeting. The reply came back that such a plan was already being put into
execution. It was carried out at the gathering on March 4, 1919, in the
Metropolitan Opera House, New York, on the eve of Mr. Wilson’s return to
Paris.
That night, when the Democratic President of the United States walked on
the stage with the Republican ex-President, the audience seemed almost
justified in thinking that the Covenant had been lifted above
partisanship and that the Magna Charta of the Nations was secure.
This conviction was strengthened by Mr. Taft’s address. He delivered it
without any apparent exertion. He had thoroughly mastered the general
subject during his long connection with the League to Enforce Peace, he
had secured the draft of the Covenant, locked himself up with it,
analyzed and digested it. He had “tried out” the subject in conferences
with specialists, and presented it before popular meetings across the
Continent. Now, for one hour and a half, he discussed this historic
document in all its national and international phases. His address,
given with natural and admirable simplicity, the quintessence of deep
thought, was complete, technical, erudite, judicial: the reading of a
momentous interpretation by the future Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court of the United States. The speaker injected some of his native
geniality into his delivery; but not for that reason alone did the vast
audience listen ninety minutes without a sign of restlessness: the
believers, the doubters, and the active opponents were spellbound by his
logical and convincing argument.
During all this time it was more than interesting to watch the fixed
attention that the President was giving to the address. We all wondered
what was going on in his battling brain. Some of us noticed for the
first time a nervous twitching in his cheek, undoubtedly a reflex of the
tremendous harassment that he had undergone in Washington.
He had come back to America to sign some bills before the expiration of
Congress on March 4th, and brought with him this Covenant. Now, before
his departure for Europe, he listened to the fine approval of his ideal
by his predecessor, who, though prominent in his party and highly
esteemed by all Americans, was not speaking with final authority: the
Senate had to approve the Covenant before it could become binding on the
United States.
So Woodrow Wilson, whom the peoples of the world were ready to accept as
their leader, had to return to Paris knowing that the thirty-seven
Senators who had signed the “round robin” were pledged against him in
terms which could have no other purpose than to notify our Associates at
the Peace Conference that the Senate would not confirm any League of
Nations projected by him. With this fear in his heart, he was on his way
to resume his participation in the greatest diplomatic struggle of
modern times. This evening, he saw again unmistakable evidence that if
the American people possessed the authority and could express it, they
would undoubtedly grant him the necessary power, without restrictions or
reservations, to enter into an agreement, which would help to lift the
world out of the mire of militarism to a higher plane, where wars would
disappear, where international peace and justice would prevail, and
where the combined efforts of mankind, purified and energized by its
moral elevation, would be diverted from its destructive pursuits and
concentrated on the promotion of happiness.
That evening I brought Homer Cummings home with me. We were both buoyed
up, tingling from the enthusiasm of that great meeting, yet fearing that
this League of Nations might be shattered by partisan politics.
As we settled down in my library, I said to Cummings:
“Homer, you are really neglecting your duty as National Chairman unless
you undertake immediately to present to the American people the attitude
of the Democratic Party toward this League of Nations, and denounce, in
the unmeasured terms that it deserves this violent opposition that has
developed against it.” I told him that it required a real Philippic, and
then related to him my own recent experience with Demosthenes, which
occurred at a dinner given to some Greeks, when Dr. Talcott Williams
told an anecdote of Hellenic influence on modern life.
Williams said that some twenty-five years ago he had asked a Princeton
college professor whether there was, in his opinion, any way of
affecting current thought except through the pulpit or the press. The
professor replied that there was the forum, and that, for his own part,
he was fitting himself for the forum by a careful study of Demosthenes.
Years passed, and Dr. Williams met the professor again and reminded him
of his youthful conviction.
“I haven’t changed my opinion,” said the Princetonian, “and only
recently I had to brush up my Greek to enable me to refresh my
recollection of some of the Philippics.”
The Princeton professor was Woodrow Wilson.
When I told this story to my wife, who was both my kindest and severest
critic, she immediately secured and placed on my desk, without any
comment, a translation of Demosthenes. Inspired by its perusal, I dared
to face a great audience in Buffalo and deliver an opening address for
the Liberty Loans.
I said to Cummings: “Now, as President Wilson is returning to Europe,
you, Homer, ought to be the Demosthenes of the Democratic Party.”
Cummings took fire. “I believe I can do it,” he cried.
He was the man for it. Physically big, with a commanding presence and a
good delivery, his experience as a member of the Democratic National
Committee, his campaigns for Mayor of Stamford and Senator from
Connecticut, and his successful service as state’s attorney for
Fairfield County in that state, had qualified him long since for
brilliant public speaking, and latterly for public speaking of the
denunciatory sort.
We consulted Demosthenes. We analyzed the Fourth Philippic.
Cummings’s eyes flashed, as he exclaimed:
“I can do it! I can do it!”
The opening was to be a vindication of the Democratic Party throughout
the war and the subsequent peace negotiations: the peroration, a
denunciation of the opposition.
The question remained: what forum should be selected? We canvassed the
possibilities: the Economic Club, of which I was then president, and a
number of others. One by one, all were dismissed. Finally, it was
decided to give a small dinner at the National Democratic Club on the
evening of March 14th, and to follow that immediately by a large
reception, at which the speech in its first form was to be delivered.
This plan was carried to a successful conclusion, and what Cummings said
that night was the basis or skeleton of his soon-famous speech at San
Francisco. “The rest is history.”
Meantime, my period at home was drawing to a close. I had written for
the New York _Times_ “A Vision of the Red Cross After the War.” On March
7th, I received a cablegram from Henry P. Davison. It asked me to serve
as delegate to the Conference at Cannes for the formation of the
International League of Red Cross Societies. Mr. Taft and Jacob Schiff
both gave me advice that matched my inclinations. On March 15th, the
_Times_ published an interview giving my point of View in regard to this
trip:
I am going to Europe to assist Henry P. Davison in his work of
organizing the Red Cross for the great mission which I believe it
is called upon to perform in the world.
We have a very definite vision of what this work is to be. The
League of Nations, when it is formed, will necessarily confine its
administration to the more material aspects of government, such as
boundaries, armament, and economic questions. There is need,
therefore, for a League to care for the human wants and moral
aspirations of all peoples. This other “League of Nations” may well
be the International Red Cross, which enlightened men and women are
now engaged in forming. I am to assist in that work. It is a work
dear to my heart, something for which for many years I have felt
there is a definite need.
The Red Cross, in the new and more splendid opportunity that has
come to it, because of its services in the great war, is the
medium, I believe, through which all true lovers of mankind may aid
in making the world a better place to live in.
I came home from the Democratic Club’s reception to Cummings, snatched a
few hours’ sleep, and, on the following morning, boarded the ship that
was to take me on the journey which began with the International Red
Cross Conference and ended in my investigation of the Jewish massacres
in Poland.