colleagues, old boy! However, we did you in the eye over
the battle cruisers, and I know you’ve said you’ll never
forgive me for it when bang went the Blucher and von Spee
and all his host!
Cheer up, old chap! Say “Resurgam!” You’re the one German
sailor who understands war! Kill your enemy without being
killed yourself. =I don’t blame you for the submarine
business.= I’d have done the same myself, only our idiots
in England wouldn’t believe it when I told ‘em.
Well! So long!
Yours till hell freezes,
FISHER.
29/3/16.
An interview with the former German Ambassador, Count Bernstorff,
which Hayden Talbot had in Berlin, as printed in the New York
“American” of October 26, 1919, casts an interesting sidelight on the
question. Count Bernstorff is quoted as follows:
Do you know what Col. House told me one day? We had been
discussing the submarine issue. This was early in the war.
I had defended the German use of submarines on the ground
that it was our only possible method against the British
blockade, illegal and inhuman as it was. I had pointed out
that Great Britain had given the United States repeatedly
greater cause for declaring war than in 1812.
“But we can’t declare war on England,” Col. House said. “A
war with England would be too unpopular in this country.”
American vessels in the War of 1812 sank and destroyed 74 English
merchant ships under instructions to the commanders of our squadrons
“to destroy all or capture, unless in some extraordinary cases that
shall clearly warrant an exception.... Unless your prize should be
very valuable and near a friendly port it will be imprudent and
worse than useless to attempt to send them in.... A single cruiser
destroying every captured vessel has the capacity of continuing in
full vigor her destructive power.” This, we think, disposes of the
question involved whether a submarine should be required to abstain
from sinking a captured vessel of the enemy.
Admiral Sir Perry Scott in the London “Times” of July 16, 1914,
justified the work of destruction of the submarines, and quoting
reports on the treatment of vessels which tried to break the blockade
of Charleston during the Civil War, said: “The blockading cruisers
seldom scrupled to fire on the ships which they were chasing or to
drive them aground and then overwhelm them with shell and shot after
they were ashore.”
=Schurz, Carl.=--The most distinguished German American, author,
diplomat, Union general, United States Senator, Cabinet officer and
founder of the Civil Service system. Born March 2, 1829, at Liblar,
near Cologne. Educated at Bonn. Participated in the Baden revolution,
and after the romantic rescue of Prof. Gottfried Kinkel from Spandau,
he and his old instructor escaped to London, and in 1853 came to
Philadelphia with his wife. Later moved to Watertown, Wisconsin,
completed his law studies at the State University at Madison, and was
admitted to practice.
His eloquent speeches in the campaign of 1857 made him the leader
of the German Americans. At twenty-eight he became a candidate for
vice-governor and came within 107 votes of election. In 1858 he
delivered his famous speech in English, “The Irrepressible Conflict,”
and stumped Illinois to send Lincoln to the Senate against Douglas.
In the Republican Convention of 1860 at Chicago he led the Wisconsin
delegation in nominating Lincoln for President and stumped the
country for his election.
Schurz was sent to Madrid as American Minister, but resigned and
entered the Union army, rising to rank of major general. After the
war he was elected to the United States Senate (1869) from Missouri.
After a temporary estrangement from the Republican Party he supported
General Hayes for President in the campaign of 1876, and was
appointed Secretary of the Interior; in this office he introduced
many reforms which have been adopted. Later he became editor of the
New York “Evening Post,” and associate editor of “Harper’s Weekly,”
then the leading periodical in America. His “Life of Henry Clay”
is one of the standard books of American biographies. After the
Spanish American War he was bitterly assailed for his uncompromising
hostility to the policy of expansion, the acquisition of colonies,
etc. He died May 14, 1906, in New York City, rated one of the
greatest political thinkers and statesmen.
A strong misconception has been created with regard to Schurz and the
German revolutionists who came to the United States in 1848 as to the
cause of their grievance. It is generally represented that they were
fighting to establish a German republic, whereas the truth is, they
were primarily fighting for German unity. The facts are contained in
“The Reminiscences of Carl Schurz,” Vol. I, Chap. XIV, p. 405:
The German revolutionists of 1848 ... fought for German
unity and free government, and were defeated mainly by
Prussian bayonets. Then came years of stupid political
reaction and national humiliation, in which all that the
men of 1848 had stood for seemed utterly lost. Then a
change. Frederick William IV, who more than any man of his
time had cherished a mystic belief in the special divine
inspiration of kings--Frederick William IV fell insane
and had to drop the reins of government. The Prince of
Prussia, whom the revolutionists of 1848 had regarded as
the bitterest and most uncompromising enemy of their cause,
followed him, first as regent, then as king--destined to
become the first Emperor of the new German empire. He
called Bismarck to his side as prime minister--Bismarck who
originally had been the sternest spokesman of absolutism
and the most ardent foe of the revolution. And then German
unity with a national parliament was won, not through a
revolutionary uprising, but through monarchical action and
foreign wars.
Thus, if not all, yet a great and important part of the
objects struggled for by the German revolutionists of 1848,
was accomplished--much later, indeed, and less peaceably,
and less completely than they had wished, and through the
instrumentality of persons and forces originally hostile to
them, but producing new conditions which promise to develop
for the united Germany political forms and institutions of
government much nearer the ideals of 1848 than those now
(1852) existing. And many thoughtful men now frequently ask
the question--and a very pertinent question it is--whether
all these things would have been possible had not the great
national awakening of the year 1848 prepared the way for
them. But in the summer of 1852 the future lay before us in
a gloomy cloud. Louis Napoleon seemed firmly seated on the
neck of his submissive people. The British government under
Lord Palmerston shook hands with him. All over the European
continent the reaction from the liberal movements of the
last four years celebrated triumphant orgies. How long it
would prove irresistible nobody could tell. That some of
its very champions would themselves become the leaders of
the national spirit in Germany even the most sanguine would
in 1851 not have ventured to anticipate.
We think this extract speaks for itself and needs no comment. The
chief aim of the revolutionists was to see Germany unified, and
Schurz is not remiss in expressing his esteem for the “leaders of
the national spirit in Germany” who had once been the champions of
reaction.
=Scheffauer, Herman George.=--One of the foremost American poets,
translators, and dramatists, born in San Francisco 1878, traveled in
Europe and Africa and spent two years in London. Author of “Of Both
Worlds” (poems); “Looms of Life” (poems); “Sons of Baldur,” forest
play; “Masque of the Elements,” “Drake in California,” “The New
Shylock,” a play. Translator of Heine’s “Atta Troll” and “The Woman
Problem,” both from the German.
=Schell, Johann Christian and His Wife.=--One of the most inspiring
stories of the Revolutionary war centers around this brave Palatine
couple and their six sons, who tenanted a lonely cabin three miles
northeast of the town of Herkimer, N. Y., and who in August,
1781, while at work in the fields were attacked by 16 Tories and
48 Indians. The marauders captured two of the younger boys, the
remainder of the family gaining the shelter of the cabin. Here they
successfully defended their home all day. With dusk the chief of the
raiders, Capt. McDonald, succeeded in evading the vigilance of the
defenders and to reach the door, which he tried to pry open with a
lever. A shot struck him in the leg, and before he could effect his
escape Schell opened the door and dragged the wounded man inside,
where he held him as a hostage against the attempt to fire the house.
The defenders now awaited the next move of the enemy and burst into
singing Luther’s famous battle hymn of the Reformation, “Eine Feste
Burg ist unser Gott.” In the midst of the song the attacking party
rushed toward the house, gained the walls so that they were able to
thrust their guns through the loopholes to fire at those within.
Quick as thought Mrs. Schell seized an axe and beat upon the gun
barrels until they were useless, while the men directed their fire so
well that the miscreants were driven to flight, leaving eleven dead
and twelve seriously wounded on the field.
=Schley, Winfield Scott.=--American admiral who conquered Cervera’s
Spanish Squadron in Santiago Bay during the Spanish-American war,
was descended from Thomas Schley, who immigrated into Maryland in
1735 at the head of 100 German Palatines and German Swiss families.
Founded Friedrichstadt, afterwards Frederickstown, Md. Thomas Schley
was a schoolmaster, and Pastor Schlatter of St. Gall, in the story
of his travels (1746-51), wrote: “It is a great advantage of this
congregation that it has the best schoolmaster whom I have met
in America.” Admiral Schley graduated from the Naval Academy and
participated immediately upon his leaving the Academy in numerous
naval engagements during the Civil War. He was then attached to
various squadrons and distinguished himself during the Corean
Revolution in the bombardment of the forts.
When the Greeley North Pole expedition was practically given up
for lost Captain Schley one day modestly presented himself to
Secretary of the Navy Chandler and said: “Mr. Secretary, I realize
that by rank I am not entitled to the honor of commanding a relief
expedition, but, seeing that no volunteers have offered themselves
for such command, I want to offer my services in order that it may
not be said that the navy was found wanting.” Schley’s manner made a
strong impression on the Secretary, and in a short time he received
orders to head an expedition. The relief of Lieutenant Greeley by
Schley when the exploring expedition was practically down to a few
starving survivors forms one of the heroic chapters in the history
of the American navy. Schley’s rapid rise and success at Santiago,
together with his popularity with the rank and file of the navy,
raised a cabal against him among the bureaucrats, and he was brought
to trial for his manouvering of the Brooklyn in the Santiago battle.
Cervera, the Spanish commander, when taken prisoner, attributed the
failure of the Spanish squadron to escape to the famous “loop” of
the Brooklyn, but a court martial found a contrary verdict. Admiral
Dewey dissented. The verdict had no perceptible effect on Schley’s
popularity, and the American people give him unqualified credit for
the battle.
=Steinmetz, Charles P.=--One of the greatest scholars and scientists
in the electrical field of today, Chief Consulting Engineer of the
General Electric Company, and professor of electro-physics at Union
College; Socialist president of the City Council and president Board
of Education of Schenectady. Intimate associate and collaborator of
Thomas A. Edison, and to whose genius many of the most important
developments in electrical science are due. A native of Breslau,
Germany; born April 9, 1865.
The New York “Times” of March 12, 1916, says: “Everybody knows
that applied industrial chemistry would be a comparatively barren
thing if everything that had come to it as the result of this man’s
research should be taken away.” Fled Germany to escape prosecution
for his Socialist writings. Came over in the steerage and worked
as a draughtsman at $2 a day. In the “Times” he was quoted as
having buried all resentment for his experience of thirty years
ago. “Germany,” he said, “is so different now. I would not know
the country if I went back to it. When I left it was merely an
agricultural country. Now it is the greatest industrial country in
the world.”
=Sauer, Christopher.=--The first to print a book (the Bible) in
a foreign tongue (German) on American soil; famous printer and
publisher of German and American books. Born in Germany, arrived in
the Colonies in the fall of 1724, settling in Germantown. Published
the first newspaper in the German language, “Der Hochdeutsche
Pennsylvanische Geschichts Schreiber, oder Sammlung Wichitiger
Nachrichten aus dem Natur und Kirchen Reich.” His magnificent quarto
edition of the Bible, issued in 1743, after three years of endless
toil, has never, in completeness and execution, been excelled in
this country. He died in September, 1758, leaving an only son,
also named Christopher, who continued his father’s business but
gave it additional importance by employing two or three mills in
manufacturing paper, casting his own type, making his own printers’
ink and engraving his own woodcuts as well as binding his own books,
many of which passed through five or six editions. (Simpson’s “Lives
of Eminent Philadelphians.”)
=Starving Germany.=--(Lord Courtney in Manchester “Guardian”)--“The
attempt of England to starve Germany is a violation of the
Declaration of London and a brutal offense against humanity. For
these two reasons--if not for many others--it is a dishonorable
proceeding.” (Dispatch of March 21, 1915.)
The silent policy of starving people into subjection is eloquently
shown in the history of Ireland, of India, of the South African
republics and of the Central Powers, and, strangely, the one country
that has achieved this distinction is England.
We said that the blockade of Germany was “illegal, ineffective and
indefensible,” but Sir Robert Cecil about the same time declared
that England and the United States had an understanding, and he
boasted that “we have our hands at the throat of Germany” and
scorned the suggestion to relax a grip that meant the starvation
of women, children and the aged. Germany was told to give up her
U-boat sinking of merchant ships and answered that she had no other
weapon to make England take her grip off the German throat, and
when she was forced to surrender, the full magnitude of the policy
of starving non-combatants was revealed. The picture is presented
in the uncolored official statements of unprejudiced observers. The
Stockholm “Tidningen” of March 29, 1919:
The Swedish Red Cross delegates sent to Germany in order
to make arrangements for getting over to Sweden underfed
German children have now returned to Stockholm. The first
transport will contain 500 Berlin children.
The delegates describe the want in Germany as appalling.
During the revolution days =nothing at all could be got for
the babies in some places except hot water, and many died,
but this was nothing unusual in Berlin=. The children were
underfed, feeble and rachitic everywhere. Often children
four or five years old were unable to walk. In many places
the schools had had to be closed because of the general
want. =Tuberculosis has increased by 60 per cent.= Because
of this older children than at first proposed must be
sent to Sweden.... There are also negotiations going on
regarding children from the other famishing countries. The
German Government has promised to transport the Belgian
children free of charge from Belgium to Sassnitz.
The interest in Sweden for the war children is immense.
One thousand five hundred invitations have already been
made from single peasants’ homes, and about £3,000 has been
collected, mostly in small contributions from the poorer
classes. Thus willingness to sacrifice is great, but, of
course, much more money is still needed.
Henry Nevison, an eminent journalist, recently presented in the
London “Daily News” a tragic description of what he saw in the
hospitals of Cologne: “Although I have seen many horrible things,”
he writes, “I have seen nothing so pitiful as these rows of babies,
feverish from want of food, exhausted by privations to the point that
their little limbs were slender wands, their expressions hopeless and
their eyes full of pain.”--“The Nation.”
Prof. Johansson, of the Neutral Commission, who visited
Germany in January, reports: “About 1,600,000 people were
killed in the war, but almost half this number, or rather
=700,000, fell victims to the food shortage produced by the
blockade=. The population has decreased in an unprecedented
degree by reason of the declining birth-rate. At the
present moment Germany has 4,000,000 fewer children than in
normal pre-war times.”--“Dagens Nyheter,” Stockholm, Lib.,
March 30, 1919.
Dr. Rubner writes in the “German Medical Weekly” on the
effects of the blockade. He gives the figures of deaths of
army and civil population since 1914 as:
Army, all causes, 1,621,000.
Civil population, through blockade, 763,000, of which
260,000 is for 1917 and 294,000 to the end of 1918. He
comes to the conclusion that even now any improvement in
the condition, as regards nourishment of the German people,
will be possible only in a very partial degree; above
all, capacity for work will not increase to the needed
extent.--“Vorwaerts,” April 11, 1919.
In a report made by five doctors of neutral lands, Swedish,
Norwegian and Dutch, dated April 11, 1919, after they had
collected information in Berlin, Halle and Dresden, they
say: “The food concessions under the Brussels agreement are
altogether inadequate. The most they do is to maintain the
present necessitous food conditions.... Immediate help is
necessary. Every day of delay risks immeasurable injury not
only to the whole of Europe, but to the whole world.”
Evidence of the same import is furnished by Jane Adams and charitable
English persons, and the liberal periodicals, as distinct from the
daily newspapers, have printed columns showing the terrible ravages
of an illegal and indefensible blockade which inflicted the horrors
of war upon the feeble and helpless, those recognized by the laws
of nations and humanity as entitled to protection when not within
the sphere of military operations and in no way responsible for or
contributing to them.
The armistice was signed November 11, 1918, but so relentless was the
English policy of crushing the German people that Winston Churchill,
on March 3, 1919, declared in the House of Commons: “We are enforcing
the blockade with rigor.... This weapon of starvation falls mainly
upon the women and children, upon the old, the weak, and the poor,
after all the fighting has stopped.” (“The Nation,” June 21, 1919; p.
980.)
The appalling heartlessness which, not content with inflicting
starvation on a whole nation--for we will not mention Austria in this
connection--designed to add to its horrors still added injuries, is
exposed in the terms of the treaty, by which the German people were
required to give up 140,000 milch cows and other livestock. Witness
the following Associated Press dispatch:
Paris, July 24 (Associated Press).--Germany will have to
surrender to France 500 stallions, 3,000 fillies, =90,000
milch cows=, 100,000 sheep and 10,000 goats, according to a
report made yesterday before the French Peace Commission,
sitting under the presidency of Rene Viviani, by M. Dubois,
economic expert for the commission, in commenting on the
peace treaty clauses.
Two hundred stallions, 5,000 mares, 5,000 fillies, =50,000
cows, and 40,000 heifers=, also are to go to Belgium from
Germany. The deliveries are to be made monthly during a
period of three months until completed.
A total of 140,000 milch cows! Forty thousand heifers! To be
surrendered by a country in which little children were dying for lack
of milk, and babies were brought into the world blind because of the
starved conditions of the mothers!
=Steuben, Baron Frederick William von.=--Major General in the
Revolutionary army. Descended from an old noble and military family
of Prussia. Entered the service of Frederick the Great as a youth,
and fought with distinction in the bloodiest engagements of the
Seven Years War, being latterly attached to the personal staff of
the great King. After the war, was persuaded by friends of the
American Colonies and admirers of his ability in France to offer his
services to Congress, and on September 26, 1777, set sail aboard
the twenty-four gun ship “l’Heureaux” at Marseilles, arriving at
Portsmouth, N. H., December 1, 1777.
Found the American army full of spirit and patriotism, but badly
disciplined, and was appointed Inspector General. Wrote the first
book of military instruction in America, which was approved by
General Washington, authorized by Congress and used in the drilling
of the troops. Distinguished himself especially in perfecting the
light infantry, his method being subsequently copied by several
European armies and by Lord Cornwallis himself during the Revolution.
With General DeKalb and other foreign-born officers he encountered
much opposition and annoyance from native officers on account of
jealousy and prejudice, and though supported by General Washington,
Hamilton and other influential men, had difficulty in obtaining from
Congress what he was legally entitled to claim, not as a reward for
his conspicuous services, but to enable him to support life. When
threatening to take his discharge, Washington sought to dissuade
him on the ground that his service was well-nigh indispensable to
the cause of the colonists, and in justifying a memorandum of sums
advanced to Steuben in excess of the $2,000 per annum promised him,
the commander-in-chief wrote to Congress:
“It is reasonable that a man devoting his time and service to the
public--and by general consent a very useful one--should at least
have his expenses borne. His established pay is certainly altogether
inadequate to this,” showing that Steuben was not actuated by
mercenary motives in serving the Colonists.
“Your intention of quitting us,” wrote Col. Benjamin Walker, March
10, 1780, to Steuben, “cannot but give me much concern, both as an
individual and as a member of the Commonwealth, convinced as I am
of the necessity of your presence to the existence of order and
discipline in the army. I cannot but dread the moment when such event
shall take place, for much am I afraid we should again fall into that
state of absolute negligence and disorder from which you have in some
manner drawn us.”
It was Steuben who taught the Americans the value of bayonet
fighting. The engagement at Stony Point proved the value of the
bayonet as an arm. Previous to this time Steuben preached in vain on
the usefulness of this weapon. The soldiers had no faith in it. But
when Stony Point Fort was captured without firing a shot and when,
the next day, Steuben with General Washington appeared on the scene,
“Steuben was surrounded by all his young soldiers and they assured
him unanimously that they would take care for the future not to lose
their bayonets, nor roast beefsteaks with them, as they used to do.”
By his personal kindness and popularity Steuben was able to bring
about marked reforms, and to convert the forces from untrained
volunteers with no sense of order into a well-disciplined army which
enabled Washington to win some of his chief battles. Speaking on a
resolution before Congress to pay Steuben the sum of $2,700 due him,
a member, Mr. Page, cited as proof of the efficiency which had been
inculcated into the army by the distinguished German-American, an
interesting incident in the following words: