Colonel and Mrs. Roosevelt had gone to visit their daughter Mrs.
Derby. “Darling Corinne:--Indeed it would be the greatest pleasure--I
mean that exactly,--to have you bring little Douglas to Sagamore in
the holidays. [He refers to my grandson, the son of Theodore Douglas
Robinson.] All the people here are most considerate and the children a
comfort. Little Edie is as pretty as a picture and a little darling;
she has been very much of a chimney swallow this morning, clinging to
whoever will take her up and cuddle her.” In the latter part of the
letter he refers to my own great loss nine years before of my youngest
son in his twentieth year, and says: “Your burden was even harder to
bear than ours, for Stewart’s life was even shorter than Quentin’s and
he had less chance to give shape to what there was in him, but, after
all, when the young die at the crest of their life, in their golden
morning, the degrees of difference are merely degrees in bitterness;
and yet, there is nothing more cowardly than to be beaten down by
sorrows which nothing we can do will change. Love to Douglas, Helen
and Teddy, and to Fanny if she is with you.” The sentence of this
brave letter in which my brother speaks of its being “cowardly to be
beaten down by sorrows which nothing we do can change” is typical of
the attitude which he had preserved through his whole life. Theodore
Roosevelt was a great sharer and a great lover, but above all else he
was essentially the courageous man who faced squarely whatever came,
and by so facing conquered.
A few days later, again a dear letter came from Dark Harbor, and once
more he dwells upon the baby girl who comforted him with her sweet,
unconscious merriment. He says: “She is such a pretty little baby
and with such cunning little ways. I fear I am not an unprejudiced
witness. The little, curly-headed rascal is at this moment, crawling
actively around my feet in her usual, absurd garb of blue overalls,
drawn over her dainty dresses, because otherwise, she would ruin
every garment she has on and skin her little bare knees. I heartily
congratulate Teddy on going to camp. Give Corinne and Helen my dearest
love and to all the others too.” The congratulations sent to my eldest
son were indeed deserved, for the serious break to his leg having at
last fully recovered, and a new camp near Louisville, Ky., having
been started for men above the draft age, my son with real sacrifice
resigned from his position in the Senate (having just been nominated
for a second term), and started for Camp Taylor, where later he
received his commission. My brother was very proud of the fact that,
with hardly an exception, each son, nephew, or cousin of the Roosevelt
and Robinson family was actively enrolled in the country’s service.
On August 18, having returned to Sagamore Hill, a little line comes
to me of appreciation of a poem that I had written called “Italy.”
“I am particularly glad you wrote it,” he says, and referring to my
son-in-law, he continues: “Joe and Corinne lunched here yesterday; they
were dear,--I admire them both so much.” He never failed, as I have
said before, in giving me the joy of knowing when he admired those
most dear to me. The following day, August 19, Mr. Colgate Hoyt, a
generous neighbor, wrote to Colonel Roosevelt making the suggestion
that a monument should be erected in honor of Quentin in some permanent
place in the village of Oyster Bay, as Mr. Hoyt thought it would have
an educational influence and value, as Quentin was the first resident
of Oyster Bay (and the first officer) to make the supreme sacrifice
in giving his life for his country. Mr. Hoyt wished to start this
movement, but Colonel Roosevelt sent the following reply, a copy of
which Mr. Hoyt gave me:
“My dear Mr. Hoyt:--That is a very nice letter of yours, but I do not
think it would be advisable to try to put up a monument for Quentin. Of
course, individually, our loss is irreparable but to the country he is
simply one among many gallant boys who gave their lives for the great
Cause. With very hearty thanks, Faithfully yours.”
The above letter and his statement that he and Quentin’s mother would
prefer that their boy should lie where he fell were but what would have
naturally been expected of Colonel and Mrs. Roosevelt.
In September, 1918, Theodore Roosevelt made an address on Lafayette
Day, part of which ran as follows:
“Lafayette Day commemorates the service rendered to America in the
Revolution by France. I wish to insist with all possible emphasis that
in the present war, France, England, and Italy and the other Allies
have rendered us similar services.... They have been fighting for us
when they were fighting for themselves. [My brother was only repeating
in 1918 what he had stanchly declared from the autumn of 1914.] Our
army on the other side is now repaying in part our debt. It is now
time and it is long behind time for America to bear her full share
of the common burden.... It is sometimes announced that part of the
Peace Agreement must be a League of Nations which will avert all war
for the future and put a stop to the need of this nation preparing its
own strength for its own defense. In deciding upon proposals of this
nature, it behooves our people to remember that competitive rhetoric
is a poor substitute for the habit of resolutely looking facts in the
face. Patriotism stands in national matters as love of family does in
private life. Nationalism corresponds to the love a man bears for his
wife and children. Internationalism corresponds to the feeling he has
for his neighbors generally. The sound nationalism is the only type of
really helpful internationalism, precisely as in private relations,
it is the man who is most devoted to his own wife and children who
is apt in the long run to be the most satisfactory neighbor. The
professional pacifist and the professional internationalist are equally
undesirable citizens. The American pacifist has in the actual fact
shown himself to be the ally of the German militarist. We Americans
should abhor all wrong-doing to other nations. We ought always to
act fairly and generously by other nations, but, we must remember
that our first duty is to be loyal and patriotic citizens of our
_own_ nation. Any such League of Nations would have to depend for its
success upon the adhesion of nine other nations which are actually or
potentially the most powerful military nations; and these nine nations
include Germany, Austria, Turkey, and Russia. The first three have
recently and repeatedly violated and are now actively and continuously
violating not only every treaty but every rule of civilized warfare
and of international good faith. During the last year, Russia under
the dominance of the Bolshevist has betrayed her Allies, has become
the tool of the German autocracy and has shown such utter disregard of
her national honor and plighted word and her international duties that
she is now in external affairs the passive tool and ally of her brutal
conqueror, Germany.
“What earthly use is it to pretend that the safety of the world would
be secured by a League in which these four nations would be among the
nine leading partners? Long years must pass before we can again trust
in promises these four nations make. Therefore, unless our folly is
such that it will not depart from us until we are brayed in a mortar,
let us remember that any such treaty will be worthless unless our own
prepared strength renders it unsafe to break it.... Let us support
any reasonable plan whether in the form of a League of Nations or
in any other shape which bids fair to lessen the probable number of
future wars and to limit their scope, but let us laugh at all or any
assertions that any such plan will guaranty Peace and Safety to the
foolish, weak, or timid characters who have not the will and the power
to prepare for their own defense. Support any such plan which is
honest and reasonable, but support it as a condition to and never as
a substitute for the policy of preparing our own strength for our own
defense.
“I believe that this preparation should be, by the introduction in
this country of the principle of universal training and universal
service, as practised in Switzerland, and modified, of course, along
the lines enacted in Australia, and in accordance with our needs. There
will be no taint of Prussian militarism in such a system. It will
merely mean to fit ourselves for self-defense and a great democracy in
which order, law, and liberty are to prevail.”
I have quoted this speech because I am under the impression that it was
his first actual declaration of any attitude toward a proposed League
of Nations. In the early autumn of 1914 Theodore Roosevelt himself
had written an article for the New York _Times_ syndicate in which he
suggested the possibility of a League of Nations, and the fact that he
did make that suggestion was frequently used after his death--and, I
think, in an unjustifiable manner--by the adherents of the Wilsonian
League of Nations, with the desire to make the American public feel
that my brother would have been in favor of Mr. Wilson’s league. In
every pronouncement in connection with a tentative or possible league,
my brother invariably laid stress upon an absolutely Americanized type
of association. I asked him once about his article written in 1914, and
he told me that while still hoping that some good might come from a
league or association of nations, his serious study of world situations
during the Great War had made him less optimistic as to the possibility
of reaching effective results through such a possible league or
association.
In another speech at about the same time, he said, in characteristic
fashion: “I frequently meet one of those nice gentry in whom softness
of heart has spread to the head, who say: ‘How can we guaranty that
everybody will love one another at the end of the war?’ The first step
in guarantying it is to knock Germany out!”
On September 12 my husband, Douglas Robinson, the unfailing friend
and devoted brother of Theodore Roosevelt, died very suddenly, and
my brother and sister-in-law hurried to the old home on the Mohawk
Hills which my husband had loved so well. Putting themselves and
their own grief for Mr. Robinson and their own late personal sorrow
entirely aside, they did all that could be done by those we love to
help me in every way. My brother had always cared for Henderson House,
its traditions and its customs, and even in the midst of the sorrow
which now hung over the old place, he constantly spoke to me of his
appreciation of its atmosphere. At the time of my husband’s death my
eldest son came quickly back for two days from the camp where he was
training, to his own home adjoining mine, and his children were with
us constantly during those days, as were the children of my nephew and
niece, Hall and Margaret Roosevelt, who occupied a little cottage on my
place. I remember with what tender thoughtfulness my brother withdrew
himself on the Sunday afternoon after the funeral and wrote a long
letter to my second son, Monroe, a captain in the 77th Division, then
in the Argonne Forest in France. Just as he had found comfort in his
own little grandchildren during those hard days at Dark Harbor, Maine,
so, while facing the great loss of his lifelong and devoted friend
and brother-in-law, he turned to an affectionate intercourse with the
little ones of the youngest generation of the family, and on September
19, when he had left me and gone to Oyster Bay, he writes: “I think of
you with tenderest love and sympathy all the time. I cannot get over my
delight in Helen and Teddy’s darling children; and I loved Margaret’s
brace of little strappers also. Archie and Gracie have hired a little
apartment in town.” His son Captain Archibald Roosevelt had returned
from France sorely wounded in both arm and leg, wounds and disabilities
which he bore with undaunted patience and courage.
On October 13, in response to a letter of mine in which I told him that
a Monsieur Goblet had wished the honor of dedicating to him a poem, and
at the same time had also asked the privilege of translating my verses
“To France” into the French language, he writes to me:
“I have written to M. Goblet as you suggested; I feel that you have
every right to be really pleased with what he says about your poem--a
noble little poem.
“How admirably Monroe has done. It is astonishing how many men I meet
who speak of Douglas [my husband] not only with deep affectionate
regard but with a keen sense of the loss of an exceptionally vigorous
and powerful personality. Tell Helen that I am really counting on that
visit from her delightful children. Their attitude touched me very
much. I am much concerned at what you tell me about gallant Bye’s
health. Give her my dearest love.”
My sister, Mrs. Cowles, was even more delicate than usual that
autumn, and I was with her at the time he wrote me the above letter.
His admiration for our older sister was unbounded, and her splendid
dauntless attitude toward the physical pain she suffered, and her
unbroken patience through suffering, never failed to awake in him a
responsive appreciation.
About that time President Wilson entered into a correspondence with
Germany of which my brother disapproved. On October 13 he dictated the
following statement at his home on Sagamore Hill:
“I regret greatly that President Wilson has entered into these
negotiations, and I trust they will be stopped. We have announced that
we will not submit to a negotiated Peace, and under such conditions, to
begin negotiations is bad faith with ourselves and our Allies.”
Again on October 25, in an open letter to his intimate friend Senator
Henry Cabot Lodge, “Let us,” he says, “amongst other things, dictate
Peace by the hammering of guns, and not talk about Peace to the
accompaniment of the clicking of typewriters.”
Although the extracts which follow were written and published several
weeks later than the above quotations, I prefer to give them in
this connection, for Colonel Roosevelt’s attitude toward “Peace
without victory” and a probable League of Nations has been so often
misrepresented. The Kansas City _Star_, the newspaper with which
Colonel Roosevelt had actual connection during the last year of his
life, published an editorial after his death in answer to a remark made
by Senator Hitchcock, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, in
which he expressed the opinion that if Colonel Roosevelt were alive,
“he would be found supporting the League of Nations as ardently as
President Wilson.”
_The Star_ denied this assertion, and said:
“From the beginning of the discussion of the proposed League, _The
Star_ has been anxious to find practical features which it could
support as a real defense toward lasting peace. In the last weeks of
1918, the matter was taken up with Colonel Roosevelt who proved to be
of the same mind. He recognized the war weariness of the world,--a
weariness in which he shared to the full--and was anxious to further
any practical step in international organization. The difficulty was
to find the practical basis. After his first editorial approving
certain principles of a League, a member of _The Star_ staff discussed
the matter with him late in December at the Roosevelt Hospital. The
suggestion was made that in a contribution he might point out certain
things which a loosely organized League might accomplish. He replied
that he could see so little that it might accomplish, in comparison
with the rosy pictures that had been painted of its possibilities, that
he hesitated to write on that line.
“In the course of correspondence, he wrote under date of December 28th,
1918: ‘In substance, or as our friends the diplomats say, in number,
I am in hearty accord with you.... But remember that you are freer to
write unsigned editorials than I am when I use my signature. If you
propose a little more than can be carried out, no harm comes, but if I
do so, it may hamper me for years. However, I will do my best to write
you such an article as you suggest and then, probably, one on what I
regard as infinitely more important, viz., our business to prepare
for our own self-defense.’ A few days later, almost on the eve of his
death, he wrote the following article printed in _The Star_ on January
13th. It was dictated at his home in Oyster Bay on January 3rd, the
Friday before his death, and his secretary expected to take the typed
copy to him for correction the following Monday, the very Monday of his
death. The following then, his final article, represents his matured
judgment based on protracted discussion and correspondence. It is of
peculiar importance as the last message of a man who, above every other
American of his generation, combined high patriotism, practical sense
and a positive genius for international relations.”
BY THEODORE ROOSEVELT
“It is, of course, a serious misfortune that our people are not
getting a clear idea of what is happening on the other side. For
the moment, the point as to which we are foggy is the League of
Nations. We all of us earnestly desire such a league, only we wish
to be sure that it will help and not hinder the cause of world
peace and justice. There is not a young man in this country who has
fought, or an old man who has seen those dear to him fight, who
does not wish to minimize the chance of future war. But there is
not a man of sense who does not know that in any such movement if
too much is attempted the result is either failure or worse than
failure.
* * * * *
“Would it not be well to begin with the league which we actually
have in existence, the league of the Allies who have fought
through this great war? Let us at the peace table see that real
justice is done as among these Allies, and that while the sternest
reparation is demanded from our foes for such horrors as those
committed in Belgium, northern France, Armenia, and the sinking
of the _Lusitania_, nothing should be done in the spirit of mere
vengeance. Then let us agree to extend the privileges of the
league as rapidly as their conduct warrants it to other nations,
doubtless discriminating between those who would have a guiding
part in the league and the weak nations who would be entitled to
the privileges of membership, but who would not be entitled to a
guiding voice in the councils. Let each nation reserve to itself
and for its own decision, and let it clearly set forth questions
which are non-justiciable. Let nothing be done that will interfere
with our preparing for our own defense by introducing a system of
universal obligatory military training modelled on the Swiss plan.
“Finally make it perfectly clear that we do not intend to take a
position of an international Meddlesome Matty. The American people
do not wish to go into an overseas war unless for a very great
cause and where the issue is absolutely plain. Therefore, we do
not wish to undertake the responsibility of sending our gallant
young men to die in obscure fights in the Balkans or in Central
Europe, or in a war we do not approve of. Moreover, the American
people do not intend to give up the Monroe Doctrine. Let civilized
Europe and Asia enforce some kind of police system in the weak and
disorderly countries at their thresholds. But let the United States
treat Mexico as our Balkan peninsula and refuse to allow European
or Asiatic powers to interfere on this continent in any way that
implies permanent or semi-permanent possession. Every one of our
Allies will with delight grant this request if President Wilson
chooses to make it, and it will be a great misfortune if it is not
made.
“I believe that such an effort made moderately and sanely but
sincerely and with utter scorn for words that are not made good by
deeds, will be productive of real and lasting international good.”
No one has the right to declare what Theodore Roosevelt would or would
not have done or said in connection with international problems as they
arose, after his death, but every one has the right to quote his own
words, written under his own signature, and no words could be stronger
than those in which he made his plea for America First and for sound
nationalism. But I have voluntarily gone far afield from my actual
narrative.
Events continued to move with astounding rapidity in that autumn of
1918. My heart, like the heart of many another mother, was wrung by the
news of the terrible fighting in the Argonne Forest, and again wrung
by alternate hopes and fears as the October days drew to a close. On
the 27th day of October my brother celebrated his sixtieth birthday
under the quiet portal of his beloved home. As usual, I had sent to him
my yearly message, in which I always told him what that day meant to
me--the day when into this world, this confused, strange world that we
human beings find so difficult to understand, there came his clarifying
spirit, his magnetic personality, his great heart, ready always to help
the weak and lift the unfortunate who were trying to lift themselves.
I used to tell him that as long as he lived, no matter what my own
personal sorrows were, life would retain not only happiness but also
glamour for me.
In answer to my birthday letter, an answer written on his very birthday
in his own handwriting, he sends me the following message. Intimate as
it is, I give it in full, for in these few short lines there seems to
breathe the whole spirit of my brother--the unswerving affection, the
immediate response to my affection, and the wish to encourage me to
face sorrows that were hard to bear by reminding me of the rare joys
which I had also tasted. The manner in which he joined his own sorrows
and joys to mine, the sweet compliment of the words which infer that
for him I still had youthfulness, and at the end the type of humor
which brought always a savor into his own life and into the lives of
those whom he closely touched, all were part of that spirit.
Sagamore Hill, October 27, 1918.
DARLING PUSSIE:--
It was dear of you to remember my birthday. Darling, after all, you
and I have known long years of happiness, and you are as young as I
am old.
Ever yours,
METHUSALEH’S UNDERSTUDY.
XVIII
“THE QUIET QUITTING”[C]
For those who must journey
Henceforward alone,
Have need of stout convoy
Now Great-Heart is gone.
--Rudyard Kipling.
On November 11, 1918, the armistice with Germany was signed by General
Foch. The war was over! So many years had passed since that fateful
August 1, 1914, that at first the mind of the world was not attuned to
peace. It now seemed as incomprehensible that we should be at peace
as it had seemed impossible that we should be at war. Just before the
armistice was signed the United States had proved by the ballots cast
on Election day that the request of President Wilson that a Democratic
Congress should be returned was not in accord with the wishes of the
American people.
[C] Title of a poem written on the death of Theodore Roosevelt
by J. Fries, an old veteran of the Civil War.
Theodore Roosevelt, in a vivid speech at Carnegie Hall just before
Election day, had defined the issues of the future in sharp, terse
sentences, and had pleaded for preparedness for peace (for the signs
of those days showed that peace was not far off), as he had pleaded
so long ago for preparedness for war. He was far from well on the
night when he made that speech, which was to prove the last that
he would ever make in the hall in which he had so often aroused his
fellow citizens to a sense of their civic and national duty. I was
ill and could not be present, but Mrs. Roosevelt told me afterward
that she had been much concerned for him, for a trouble which he
thought was sciatica in his leg was giving him intense pain. No one
would have suspected that fact, however, and many in the audience told
me afterward that that speech in Carnegie Hall was one of the most
convincing and thrilling appeals to patriotism ever made by Theodore
Roosevelt.