Washington, June 11, 1915.
To the German-Americans:
Permit me to address a word to you, as one American citizen speaking
to fellow-citizens in whose patriotism he has entire confidence. It is
natural that in a contest between your Fatherland and other European
nations your sympathies should be with the country of your birth. It
is no cause for censure that this is true. It would be a reflection
upon you if it were not true. Do not the sons of Great Britain
sympathize with their mother country? Do not the sons of France
sympathize with theirs? Is not the same true of Russia and of Italy?
Why should it not be true of those who are born in Germany or Austria?
The trouble is that the extremists on both sides have mistaken a
natural attachment felt for birthplace for disloyalty to this country.
The President has been unjustly criticised by the partisans of both
sides--the very best evidence of his neutrality. If he had so
conducted the Government as to wholly please either side it would
excite not only astonishment, but misgivings, for partisans cannot
give an unbiased judgment; they will of necessity look at the question
from their own point of view, giving praise or blame, according as the
act, regardless of its real character, helps or hurts the side with
which they have aligned themselves.
The fact that the Administration has received more criticism from
German-Americans than from those in sympathy with the Allies is due to
the fact that, while both sides are at liberty under international law
to purchase ammunition in the United States, the Allies, because of
their control of the seas, have the advantage of being able to export
it.
It is unfortunate that partisan supporters of Germany should have
overlooked the legal requirements of the situation and have thus
misunderstood the position of the Administration. The Administration's
position has not only been perfectly neutral, but it could not have
been otherwise without a palpable and intentional violation of the
rules governing neutrality.
This Government is not at liberty to materially change the rules of
international law during the war, because every change suggested is
discussed, not upon its merits as an abstract proposition, but
according to the effect it will have upon the contest. Those who
wanted to lay an embargo upon the shipments of arms defended their
position on the ground that it would hasten peace, but it is strange
that they could have overlooked the fact that the only way in which
such action on our part could hasten peace would have been by helping
one side to overcome the other.
While the attacks made upon the President by the extremists of both
sides were very unjust, it was equally unjust to suspect the
patriotism of those who took sides. I feel well enough acquainted with
the European-born Americans to believe that in a war between this
country and any European power the naturalized citizens from that
country would be as quick to enlist as native-born citizens.
As I am now speaking to German-Americans, I am glad to repeat in
public what I have often said in private, and would have said in
public before but for the fact that it would not have been proper for
one in my official position to do so--namely, that in case of war
between the United States and Germany--if so improbable a supposition
can be considered--German-Americans would be as prompt to enlist and
as faithful to the flag as any other portion of our people. What I
have said in regard to German-Americans is an introduction to an
appeal which I feel it my duty to make to them.
First, if any of them have ever in a moment of passion or excitement
suspected the President of lack of friendship toward the German
Government and the German people, let that thought be forgotten, never
again to be recalled. I have, since my resignation, received numerous
telegrams from German-Americans and German-American societies
commending my action. I think the senders of these telegrams
understand my position; but that no one may mistake it let me restate
it. The President is not only desirous of peace, but he hopes for it,
and he has adopted the methods which he thinks most likely to
contribute toward peace.
My difference from him is as to method, not as to purpose, and my
utterances since resigning have been intended to crystallize public
sentiment in support of his efforts to maintain peace, or, to use a
similar phrase, "Peace with Honor." But remember that when I use the
phrase "Peace with Honor" I do not use it in the same sense that those
do who regard every opponent of war as favoring "peace at any price."
Peace at any price is an epithet, not a true statement of any one's
position or of the policy of any group. The words are employed by
jingoes as an expression of contempt, and are applied indiscriminately
to all who have faith in the nation's ability to find a peaceful way
out of every difficulty, so long as both nations want peace.
The alarmists of the country have had control of the metropolitan
press, and they have loudly proclaimed that the prolongation of
negotiations or the suggestion of international investigation would be
a sign of weakness--and everything is weakness that does not contain a
hint of war. The jingo sees in the rainbow of promise only one
color--red.
Second--Knowing that the President desires peace, it is our duty to
help him secure it. And how? By exerting your influence to convince
the German Government of this fact and to persuade that Government to
take no steps that would lead in the direction of war. My fear has
been that the German Government might, despairing of a friendly
settlement, break off diplomatic relations, and thus create a
condition out of which war might come without the intention of either
country.
I do not ask you to minimize the earnestness of the President's
statement--that would be unfair, both to him and to Germany. The
sinking of the Lusitania cannot be defended upon the facts as we
understand them. The killing of innocent women and children cannot be
justified, whether the killing is by drowning or starving.
No nation can successfully plead the inhumanity of her enemies as an
excuse for inhumanity on her own part. While it is true that cruelty
is apt to beget cruelty, it cannot be said that "like cures like."
Even in war, we are not absolved from the obligation to remedy evils
by the influence of a good example. "Let your light so shine" is a
precept that knows no times nor seasons as it knows neither latitude
nor longitude.
Third--Do not attempt to connect the negotiations which are going on
between the United States and Germany with those between the United
States and Great Britain. The cases are different, but, even if they
were the same, it would be necessary to treat with each nation
separately. My personal preference has been to repeat our insistence
that the Allies shall not interfere with our commerce with neutral
countries, but the difference on this point was a matter of judgment
and not a matter of principle. In the note to Great Britain, dated
March 30, this Government said:
In view of these assurances formally given to this
Government, it is confidently expected that the extensive
powers conferred by the Order in Council on the executive
officers of the Crown will be restricted by "orders issued
by the Government" directing the exercise of their
discretionary powers in such a manner as to modify in
practical application those provisions of the Order in
Council which, if strictly enforced, would violate neutral
rights and interrupt legitimate trade. Relying on the
faithful performance of these voluntary assurances by his
Majesty's Government the United States takes it for granted
that the approach of American merchantmen to neutral ports
situated upon the long line of coast affected by the Order
in Council will not be interfered with, when it is known
that they do not carry goods which are contraband of war or
goods destined to or proceeding from ports within the
belligerent territory affected.
There is no doubt that our Government will insist upon this
position--that is an important thing, the exact date of the note is
not material. My reason for desiring to have the matter presented to
Great Britain at once was not that Germany had any right to ask it,
but because I was anxious to make it as easy as possible for Germany
to accept the demands of the United States and cease to employ
submarines against merchantmen.
There is no reason why any German-Americans should doubt the
President's intentions in this matter. I am sure that every one upon
reflection recognizes that our duty to prevent loss of life is more
urgent than our duty to prevent interference with trade--loss of trade
can be compensated for with money, but no settlement that the United
States and Germany may reach can call back to life those who went down
with the Lusitania--and war would be the most expensive of all
settlements because it would enormously add to the number of the dead.
Fourth--I hope that Germany will acquiesce in the demands that have
been made, and I hope that she will acquiesce in them without
conditions. She can trust the United States to deal justly with her in
the consideration of any changes that she may propose in the
international rules that govern the taking of prizes. The more
generously she acts in this matter the greater will be the glory which
she will derive from it. She has raised a question which is now
receiving serious consideration, namely, whether the introduction of
the submarine necessitates any change in the rules governing the
capture of prizes. The position seemingly taken by Germany, namely,
that she is entitled to drown noncombatants because they ride with
contraband, is an untenable position. The most that she could insist
upon is that, in view of the introduction of this new weapon of
warfare, new rules should be adopted, separating passengers from
objectionable cargo.
If the use of the submarine justifies such a change in the law of
blockade as will permit the cordon to be withdrawn far enough from the
shore to avoid the danger of submarine attack, may it not be found
possible to secure an international agreement by which passengers
will be excluded from ships carrying contraband, or, at least, from
those carrying ammunition?
It would require but a slight change in the shipping laws to make this
separation, and belligerent nations might be restrained from
unnecessarily increasing the contraband list if they were compelled to
carry contraband on transports as they now carry troops.
Personally, I would like to see the use of submarines abandoned
entirely, just as I would like to see an abandonment of the use of
aeroplanes and Zeppelins for the carrying of explosives, but I am not
sanguine enough to believe that any effective instrument of warfare
will be abandoned as long as war continues.
The very arguments which the advocates of peace advance against the
submarine, the aeroplane, and the Zeppelin are advanced for them by
those who conduct war. The more fatal a weapon is the more it is in
demand, and it is not an unusual thing to see a new instrument of
destruction denounced as inhuman by those against whom it is employed,
only to be employed later by those who only a little while before
denounced it.
The above suggestions are respectfully submitted to those of German
birth or descent, and they are submitted in the same spirit to
naturalized citizens from other countries. To the naturalized citizen
this is the land of adoption, but in one sense it may be nearer to him
than it is to us who are native born, for those who come here are
citizens by voluntary choice, while we are here by accident of birth.
They may be said to have paid a higher compliment to the United States
than we who first saw the light under the Stars and Stripes. But, more
than that, it is the land of their children and their children's
children, no matter for what reason they crossed the ocean. They not
only share with us the shaping of our nation's destiny, but their
descendants have a part with ours in all the blessings which the
present generation can, by wise and patriotic action, bequeath to the
generations that are to follow.