energy, Theodore Roosevelt went up and down the country, preaching the
doctrine of brotherhood and preparedness for self-defense. As early as
January, 1915, General Wood had asked me to have a meeting to interest
some of the men of New York in his plans for the training-camps,
which later developed into the “Plattsburg idea.” Many of the men
who in later days were patriotically ardent in their support of that
Plattsburg idea spoke to me with amused indifference at the end of
that meeting in January, 1915, and asked me why I had made such a
point of their coming to it! At the same time, Augustus P. Gardner,
in the House of Representatives, struggled to arouse the country
from its lethargy. Gradually, however, the force of the truth of the
doctrine which was being preached by the few percolated through the
minds and hearts of many of the American people, and at the beginning
of the year 1916 one could feel a certain response to a higher ideal.
In May, 1915, after the dastardly sinking of the _Lusitania_, the
country could have been easily led in the path of duty and high ideals.
The psychological moment was at hand when over a hundred women and
children, non-combatants, and over whom flew the British flag, were
hurled into the sea by the dastardly tactics of Germany,--but this is a
digression. In January, 1916, I was chosen a delegate by the National
Security League (an organization started during the first year of the
war to uphold the policy of “Preparedness”) to its first conference at
Washington, and there I was asked to read a letter from my brother,
as he could not be present at the conference. He writes me on January
22, 1916: “I was very much surprised and much pleased when I saw in
the papers that you had read my letter to the Security League.” And
again, two days later, came one of his characteristic little notes
(no one ever took such pains to do and say loving and lovely things):
“Darling Pussie,” he says this time: “Judge Nortoni and Bob Bacon have
been out here to Sagamore Hill separately, and both feel that your
speech was the feature of the Washington meeting. I will tell you all
that they say next Sunday when you come to us. I was really touched by
their enthusiastic admiration of you and the speech. _My_ letter was
apparently regarded only as the peg on which the speech was hung. Ever
yours, T. R.” Needless to say, my speech was only an insignificant
addendum to his letter, but he truly believed that his sister’s speech
was the more important of the two things!
In February he gladly lent me his name for the New York advisory
committee of “The Fatherless Children of France,” a society started by
two magnificent Englishwomen, Miss Schofield and Miss Fell, for which I
was privileged to form the New York City committee. “Of course use my
name,” he says. I do not remember ever asking him for it that he did
not lend it to me--that name which counted more than almost any other
name of his time.
In March, 1916, he sailed with Mrs. Roosevelt for Trinidad, and during
his absence there began again the rumblings of desire on the part of
the people of the United States to have him named as presidential
candidate on the Republican ticket in the forthcoming convention. A
certain faction of the Progressive party still clung to the hope that
it could achieve its heart’s desire and name him on their ticket,
but he had come more and more to the conclusion that the Republican
and the Progressive parties must amalgamate in their choice of a
nominee, for he firmly believed that Mr. Wilson’s policies had been of
sinister influence in the country, and he was convinced that nothing
was so important as to remove this, from his standpoint, unfortunate
influence. More and more he believed that our country should bear a
gallant part in the terrible adventure across the sea; more and more
he preached the doctrine that we should go to the aid of the war-worn
countries who sorely needed America’s help.
I cannot refrain from inserting here a letter written by Colonel
Roosevelt to his dear friend and classmate Charles G. Washburn, who had
just published his able book called “Theodore Roosevelt--The Logic
of His Career.” That book had special interest because, although Mr.
Washburn never wavered in his personal, loyal, and devoted attachment
to Colonel Roosevelt, his political convictions were such that he
had not found it possible to follow the Colonel into the Progressive
party. The book in question, having been written during the period
between 1912 and 1916, the period when many people felt that my brother
was politically dead, was published, strange to say, just as the
pendulum swung back again, when the people realized the need of strong
leadership in the crisis of the Great War, and Theodore Roosevelt
seemed to many to be the man of the hour.
“Dear Charlie:” writes Colonel Roosevelt, “We leave on the 10th of
this month [for Trinidad]. I am much amused to think that there is a
momentary revival of my popularity or notoriety or whatever you choose
to call it, at the very time your book is to appear, for when you
started to write it, indeed, while you were writing it, I was down at
the very nadir; and only a very devoted friendship--others would call
it a very blind friendship--would have made you write it. I, myself,
thought that it was not wise for you to publish it, that nobody would
take any interest in me, and that they would only laugh at you for your
loyalty and affection.”
The following day he writes again: “Just after I had written you,
the book came. I am immensely pleased with it, and I am very proud
that my children and grandchildren are to have it.... Of course, old
friend, you have said of me far more than I deserve, but I am glad you
said it.” The book to which he refers shows, perhaps, more than any
other book written about my brother, the accurate realization by the
author that my brother’s attitude in January, 1912, when he took the
step which directly or indirectly brought about the formation of the
Progressive party, was in no sense an erratic swerving from the path
upon which he had always walked, but, on the contrary, a direct and
logical justification of beliefs--and the actions with which he always
squared beliefs--held in his early manhood and retained in his later
years.
On March 27, after his return from Trinidad, he writes:
“Well, here we are, back from our little trip along ‘the path to
Nowhere’ [He refers here to some verses I had just published under that
title.] We did not get entirely out of the path to Somewhere--thanks
to the ‘hurrying, struggling, and striving’ of very kind people who
insisted on entertaining us--but we had, at intervals, a number of
hours on the path to Nowhere, although, in that latitude, there were
no adders’ tongues, and the lilies were less in evidence than palms,
bougainvillea, scarlet hibiscus and poinsettia in hedges, and rocks and
flowering trees, and little green cities of St. Mary’s (I wish I had
seen Masefield)--and the trade wind tossing the fronds of the palms on
the white beaches.
“I loved your letter, and read and re-read every word of it. I think
as highly of ‘Ordeal by Battle’ as you do; did I show you the letter
Oliver sent me with a copy of the first edition? He has just sent me a
copy of the second edition. I am very glad you are taking a rest cure.
You sorely needed it, but when you leave Nonkanawha, can’t you bring
Cortissoz and the Corbins out here for lunch. I am very glad you like
my book. My soul was in it. [He had just published “Fear God, and Take
Your Own Part.”] ... Well, I don’t see much chance of our doing what is
right in politics. The trouble is that we have complacently sagged back
for fifty years while Germany has surged forward and has forced her
nearest competitors to some kind of forward movement in order to avoid
death at her hands.”
Shortly afterward, when in answer to his suggestion I wrote him that I
would bring some of the friends he mentioned to luncheon, he writes:
“Three cheers--I shall expect you with the Cortissoz, Corbins, and
O’Hara.”
That letter was written on April 2, 1916, and shortly afterward I
motored those friends to Oyster Bay, and we had a peculiarly delightful
luncheon and afternoon, at which I was, as usual, struck with the
manner in which he adapted himself to the interest of the individual.
Mr. John Myers O’Hara, an American poet of classic and lyric quality,
was shown a special poem in which my brother felt that there was
similarity between his work and that of the author of the lines in
question; Mr. Cortissoz, whose delicious humor was a special delight to
my brother, found the Colonel not only sympathetic in those ways, but
also in the quality of his artistic thought; he adapted himself to each
in turn, and we all motored away from that full and rich environment
each more stimulated than before along the line of the special
achievement to which he aspired.
On his return from Trinidad, he had been beset by questions as to
whether he would consent again to be the presidential nominee. The
Progressive party, after its severe defeat in various States in
1914, still showed a grim desire to be at least a strong factor in
the nomination for a presidential candidate in the coming election,
and various combinations of individuals were already in process of
coalition in the happy thought that Theodore Roosevelt might be
the combined nominee of both Progressive and Republican forces. A
certain number of such citizens formed what they called The Roosevelt
Non-partisan League, and the secretary of that league, Guy Emerson by
name, wrote, in part, as follows to Colonel Roosevelt:
“Dear Colonel Roosevelt:--The Roosevelt Non-partisan League is a
movement inaugurated by citizens of all parties who believe that
Americanism is the great issue before the country today, and that you
are the strongest available man as leader under that issue. You stated
the platform in your Chicago speech, which, in our opinion, is vital
for the safety of the country during the four momentous years which lie
ahead.”
In answer to the above letter, my brother wrote:
“Because of your attitude, I earnestly approve your work. The safety of
this country depends upon our immediate, serious, and vigorous efforts
to square our words with our deeds, and to secure our own national
rehabilitation. The slumbering patriotism of our people must be waked
and translated into concrete and efficient action. The awakening must
be to a sense of national and international duty and responsibility.”
After going into greater length as to his personal principles and
opinions, Mr. Roosevelt continues: “Our citizens must act as Americans,
not as Americans with a prefix and qualifications.... Cowardice in a
race, as in an individual, is the unpardonable sin. The timid man who
cannot fight, and the selfish, short-sighted or foolish man who will
not take the steps that will enable him to fight, stand on almost the
same plane. Preparedness deters the foe and maintains right by the show
of ready might without the use of violence. Peace, like Freedom, is
not a gift that tarries long in the hands of cowards, or of those too
feeble or too short-sighted to deserve it, and we ask to be given the
means to insure that honorable peace which alone is worth having.”
In answering from other sources the same suggestion--namely, that he
should take anew the leadership and be himself the nominee against
President Wilson--he boldly replied that he doubted if it would be wise
to name him, for if he should be named, his followers would have to be
in a “heroic mood.”
On May 31 he announced: “I speak for universal service based on
universal training. Universal training and universal service represent
the only service and training a democracy should accept.... Performance
of international duty to others means that in international affairs, in
the commonwealth of nations, we shall not only refrain from wronging
the weak, but, according to our capacity and as opportunity offers, we
should stand up for the weak when the weak are wronged by the strong.”
Every speech by Colonel Roosevelt had again become the subject of
national discussion, and as the Democratic policy began to shape
itself, each position taken by the Republican party, as well as by the
Progressive party, followed the lines laid down in some speech made by
Colonel Roosevelt. By this time he had fully come to realize that, if
it were possible to defeat the policies which, from his standpoint,
were lulling the country into ignoble avoidance of its national and
international duty, such defeat could only be brought about by the
amalgamation of the Progressive and Republican parties, a result
extremely difficult to accomplish.
On April 14 he said: “_The Tribune_ says of the approaching convention,
‘We are choosing which way the country shall go in the era that is
now opening, just as our fathers chose the nation’s path in the days
of 1860.’ This sentence should be in the mind of every man who at
Chicago next June takes part in formulating the platform and naming
the candidate. The men at Chicago should act in the spirit of the men
who stood behind Abraham Lincoln.... There is one great issue on which
the fight is to be made if the highest service is to be rendered the
American people. That issue is that the American people must find its
own soul. National honor is a spiritual thing that cannot be haggled
over in terms of dollars. [He refers to the issue of the tariff
which had been prominently brought forward.] We must stand not only
for America First but for America first, last, and all the time and
without any second.... We can be true to mankind at large only if we
are true to ourselves. If we are false to ourselves, we shall be false
to everything else. We have a lofty ideal to serve and a great mission
to accomplish for the cause of Freedom and genuine democracy, and of
justice and fair dealing throughout the world. If we are weak and
slothful and absorbed in mere money getting or vapid excitement, we can
neither serve these causes nor any others. We must stand for national
issues, for national discipline and for preparedness--military, social
and industrial--in order to keep the soul of this nation. We stand
for Peace, but only for the Peace that comes as a right to the just
man armed, and not for the Peace which the coward purchases by abject
submission to wrong. The Peace of cowardice leads in the end to war
after a record of shame.”
Even the Democratic newspaper, the New York _Times_, spoke about that
time of Colonel Roosevelt’s capacity to rouse a true patriotism. It
said: “The passion of his Americanism, his unerring instinct for the
jugular vein, make him, in a good cause, an unrivalled compeller
of men. He has had his fill of glories, his name is blown about
the world;--by preparing America against war, to unite America in
patriotism, there are no nobler laurels.” And almost coincident with
this unexpected appreciation of a newspaper frequently the enemy of
Colonel Roosevelt came a letter from his former attorney-general,
William H. Moody, written to their mutual friend Mr. Washburn, the
author of the book which I have already mentioned. In the heat of the
controversy which was once more beginning to rage around the figure
of Theodore Roosevelt, it was interesting to read the calm and quiet
words penned by the able man who had served as attorney-general in my
brother’s cabinet, but, alas, laid low by the painful illness which
later proved the cause of his premature death. “For five years,” writes
Mr. Moody, “I was in almost daily association with him in the details
of work for a common purpose and in his relation to all sorts and
conditions of men. There are some parts of his work as President which
I think no one knew better than I did, and there are results of it
which ought to receive thorough study and be brought clearly to light.
I have here specially in mind, the effect of his acts and preachments
upon economic thought, and the development of the constitutional theory
of our government. If one contrasts the state of opinion as to the
proper relation between capital and labor, and the proper attitude of
government toward both as that opinion existed just before the war
with Spain, and as it exists today, one cannot fail to see that there
has been an extraordinary change. In this change, I believe he was the
one great leader in this country.... What was needed was a man with a
great genius for leadership, great courage, great intelligence, and
the highest purpose. That man came in Theodore Roosevelt. Perhaps,
many would scout the idea that he had been a guide in constitutional
interpretation. I remember the state of legal thought and the attitude
of the Supreme Court in the nineties toward what we called the new
internationalism. I believe no one appreciates more clearly than I
the great change that has come to both since then. By the legislation
which he, Theodore Roosevelt, promoted against great odds, there have
been drawn from the Supreme Court decisions which have declared that
nationalism which is necessary to our future national life.”
This deliberate decision on the part of a man essentially legal in
mind throws interesting light upon my brother’s actions and attitudes,
assailed as he was at the time for lack of the very devotion to the
Constitution for which Mr. Moody praises him. About the same time, from
Kansas City, on May 30, 1916, my brother writes to me: “I hope you will
like the speech I am about to make here. I have scrupulously employed
the ‘we’ in describing our governmental short-comings!”
Unless I am mistaken, it was about that time that my brother made a
speech in Arkansas which--while the quotation which I am about to give
has little to do with the issue of the moment--is so characteristic of
his own fearlessness that I cannot pass it over.
The strongest theory which I have evolved from the study of the ups
and downs of political life consists in the belief that of all factors
in permanent success (and permanent success means a place in history),
there is none so important as that of moral as well as physical
courage. More men have lost their heart’s desire because at the most
crucial moment they lacked the courage to barter that very desire for
an honest conviction than from any other cause. Theodore Roosevelt
believed that he could help not only his country but the countries of
the world were he nominated and elected in 1916, just as he firmly
believed that should Mr. Wilson be renominated and re-elected to that
position, America and the countries of the world would be worse off
rather than better off, and yet, no matter before what audience he
spoke, were it East, West, North, or South, he spoke with the ardor
of conviction, never for one moment withholding one belief, no matter
how unpalatable it might be to the section of the country to which he
was giving his message, did he feel that that belief should be clearly
demonstrated to that portion of the people.
At Little Rock, Ark., the Governor of the State (I was told of this
incident by a Methodist minister who was present on the occasion),
during a speech in which he introduced Colonel Roosevelt to his
stupendous audience, said: “We have an unwritten law in the Southland
that when a vile black wretch commits the unmentionable crime, we
hang him without judge or jury.” As Theodore Roosevelt rose to make
his address, he turned to the governor and said: “Before I make my
address to the people, Governor, I want to say to you that when any man
or set of men take the law into their own hands, and inflict summary
punishment on the ‘vile black wretch’ of whom you speak they place
themselves upon the same base level as that same ‘vile black wretch.’”
The stunned audience, silent for a moment, burst into vociferous
applause. But the governor made no response to Colonel Roosevelt’s
interpellation.
It was about this same time that in response to a letter from Mr. Guy
Emerson, Mr. Thomas A. Edison wrote of Colonel Roosevelt as follows:
“My dear Sir:--Answering your question as to my views of Colonel
Roosevelt for our next President, I would say that I believe he is
absolutely the only man that should be considered at this crucial
period. He has more real statesmanship, a better grasp of the most
important needs of this country and greater executive ability to handle
the big, international problems that will arise at the close of the
war than all the other proposed candidates put together. His energy,
capacity, and vast experience in large affairs of state and nation
for many years, together with his great patriotism, and his intense
Americanism, and his great knowledge in all lines of human endeavor,
make him decidedly the most striking figure in American life.”
Mr. Edison voiced the sentiment of hundreds of thousands of his fellow
citizens, and as the time approached for the Republican Convention
of 1916, feelings of all kinds waxed almost as hot as in those
thrilling days of 1912. In fact, in many ways, there was even a greater
excitement in the hearts of the more valiant Americans, who believed
that the time was already ripe to make the world safe for democracy.
These more valiant Americans also believed that the man most fitted to
aid in making the world thus safe was Theodore Roosevelt. On the other
hand, the stand-pat Republicans were still smarting from what they
considered, I think unjustly, his betrayal of them, and they were not
ready to enroll themselves under his banner. The Progressives, on the
other hand, were equally opposed to any compromise, and when the great
convention met in Chicago, peace between the contending factions seemed
an illusive and unattainable ideal, and so it proved. Those were days
of tragic excitement in the great auditorium, where sat, tied hand and
foot, what seemed to be a mercenary army, so little did true patriotism
appear to actuate the delegates to that important congregation of
individuals. On the other hand, near by, in a smaller hall, the almost
fanatic enthusiasm for the much higher ideal was also to make itself
a party to the defeat of its own object, although at that moment of
honest and high-minded enthusiasm it could hardly be blamed for any
attitude born of that enthusiasm.
Again the battle raged, and again the personality of Theodore Roosevelt
became the deciding factor. Conferees were chosen by both the
Republican Convention and the Progressive Convention, but they could
not find a common ground upon which to agree, and that fateful week
in early June ended with the nomination of Charles E. Hughes by the
Republican Convention, and, against his wish, with the nomination of
my brother on the Progressive ticket. Perhaps there was never a more
dramatic moment, a moment of more heartfelt disappointment, than when
the convention of the Progressive party received the statement brought
to it by John McGrath, secretary of Colonel Roosevelt, which ran as
follows (I quote from a contemporary newspaper in Chicago):
“Announcement was made here this afternoon at 4:50 o’clock that
Roosevelt has refused to accept the Progressive nomination for
President.
“Colonel Roosevelt’s statement was brought to the convention by John
McGrath, his secretary. It follows:
“‘To the Progressive Convention: I am very grateful for the honor
you confer upon me by nominating me as President. I cannot accept
it at this time. I do not know the attitude of the candidate of the
Republican party toward the vital questions of the day. Therefore, if
you desire an immediate decision, I must decline the nomination. But if
you prefer it, I suggest that my conditional refusal to run be placed
in the hands of the Progressive National Committee.
“‘If Mr. Hughes’ statements, when he makes them, shall satisfy the
committee that it is for the interest of the country that he be
elected, they can act accordingly and treat my refusal as definitely
accepted. If they are not satisfied they can so notify the Progressive
party, and at the same time, they can confer with me and then determine
on whatever action we may severally deem appropriate to meet the needs
of the country.’
“‘I move,’ said James R. Garfield, ‘that the letter of Colonel
Roosevelt be received in the spirit in which it is meant, and that it
be referred to the National Committee, with power to act thereon.’
“The motion was carried, and at 5 P. M. the Progressive Convention, the
liveliest in the history of politics, came to an end with the playing
of the national air.”