IRELAND
To one standing on the side-lines in the capital of the nation and
witnessing the play of the ardent passions of the people of the Irish
race, demanding that some affirmative action be taken by our government to
bring about the realization of the right of self-determination for
Ireland, it seemed as if the American President, Woodrow Wilson, who first
gave utterance to the ideal of self-determination for all the oppressed
peoples of the world, was woefully unmindful of the age-long struggle that
Irishmen had been making to free their own beloved land from British
domination. But to those, like myself, who were on the inside of affairs,
it was evident that in every proper and legitimate way the American
President was cautiously searching for efficient means to advance the
cause of self-government in Ireland and to bring about a definite and
satisfactory solution of this complicated problem.
Embarrassed as he was by a delicate diplomatic situation, which to a great
extent governed his conduct, he was not free openly to espouse the cause
of Ireland. To have done so would have been to add difficulties to an
already chaotic world situation. He was compelled in what he was seeking
to do for Ireland to move quietly and by informal conferences impressively
to lay the case of Ireland before those who sought his counsel in the
matter. Unfortunately, these quiet methods of helpfulness which he brought
to the task were the things that drew the fire of criticism and even
distrust of many men of the Irish race in America, who in their passionate
devotion to the cause which lay so close to their hearts could see only a
direct route to accomplishing what they had in mind.
Long before the European war the President and I had often discussed the
Irish cause and how to make his influence felt in a way that would bring
results without becoming involved in diplomatic snarls with Great Britain.
He was of the opinion that the Irish problem could not be settled by
force, for the spirit of Ireland, which for centuries had been demanding
justice, was unconquerable. He pointed out to me on many occasions when we
discussed this delicate matter, that the policy of force and reprisal
which the English Government had for centuries practised in had but
strengthened the tenacious purpose of the Irish people and had only
succeeded in keeping under the surface the seething dissatisfaction of
that indomitable race.
I recall that at the conclusion of one of our talks after a Cabinet
meeting, shaking his head as if he despaired of a settlement, the
President said: "European statesmen can never learn that humanity can be
welded together only by love, by sympathy, and by justice, and not by
jealousy and hatred." He was certain that the failure of England to find
an adjustment was intensifying feeling not only in our own country, but
throughout the world, and that the agitation for a settlement would spread
like a contagion and would inevitably result in a great national crisis.
An interesting comment on the President's attitude toward the Irish
question appears in an article in the _Atlantic Monthly_ for October,
1921. The article is by Joseph Fort Newton, in his series, "Preaching in
London." The comment is as follows:
To-day a distinguished London minister told me a story about the
President, for which he vouches. He had it from the late Sylvester
Horne--Member of Parliament and minister of Whitefield's Chapel--who
had known the President for years before he was elevated to his high
office. Home happened to be in America--where he was always a welcome
guest--before the war, shortly after the President was inaugurated,
and he called at the White House to pay his respects. In the course of
the talk, he expressed satisfaction that the relations between England
and America would be in safe hands while the President was in office.
The President said nothing, and Horne wondered at it. Finally he
forced the issue, putting it as a question point-blank. The President
said, addressing him in the familiar language of religious fellowship:
"Brother Horne, one of the greatest calamities that has befallen
mankind will come during my term of office. It will come from Germany.
Go home and settle the Irish question, and there will be no doubt as
to where America will stand."
In discussing the matter with me, he said: "The whole policy of Great
Britain in its treatment of the Irish question has unfortunately been
based upon a policy of fear and not a policy of trusting the Irish people.
How magnificently the policy of trust and faith worked out in the case of
the Boers. Unfortunately, the people of Ireland now believe that the basis
of England's policy toward them is revenge, malice, and destruction. You
remember, Tumulty, how the haters of the South in the days of
reconstruction sought to poison Lincoln's mind by instilling into it
everything that might lead him in his treatment of the South toward a
policy of reprisal, but he contemptuously turned away from every
suggestion as a base and ignoble thing. Faith on the part of Great Britain
in the deep humanity and inherent generosity of the Irish people is the
only force that will ever lead to a settlement of this question. English
statesmen must realize that in the last analysis force never permanently
settles anything. It only produces hatreds and resentments that make a
solution of any question difficult and almost impossible. I have tried to
impress upon the Englishmen with whom I have discussed this matter that
there never can be a real comradeship between America and England until
this issue is definitely settled and out of the way."
Many times in informal discussions with British representatives that came
to the White House the President sought to impress upon them the necessity
for a solution, pointing out to them how their failure was embarrassing
our relations with Great Britain at every point. I am sure that if he
could with propriety have done so, Woodrow Wilson would long ago have
directly suggested to Great Britain a settlement of the Irish question,
but, unfortunately, serious diplomatic obstacles lay in the way of an open
espousal of the Irish cause. He was sadly aware that under international
law no nation has the right to interest itself in anything that directly
concerns the affairs of another friendly nation, for by the traditions of
diplomacy such "interference" puts in jeopardy the cordial relations of
the nations involved in such controversy.
Long before he became president, Woodrow Wilson had eloquently declared
his attitude with reference to self-government for Ireland and had openly
espoused the cause of Irish freedom. In a speech delivered at New
Brunswick, New Jersey, on October 26, 1910, he said:
Have you read the papers recently attentively enough to notice the
rumours that are coming across the waters? What are the rumours? The
rumours are that the English programme includes, not only self-
government for Ireland, but self government for Scotland, and the
drawing together in London or somewhere else of a parliament which
will represent the British Empire in a great confederated state upon
the model, no doubt, of the United States of America, and having its
power to the end of the world. What is at the bottom of that
programme? At the bottom of it is the idea that no little group of men
like the English people have the right to govern men in all parts of
the world without drawing them into real substantial partnership,
where their voice will count with equal weight with the voice of other
parts of the country.
This voice that has been crying in Ireland, this voice for home rule,
is a voice which is now supported by the opinion of the world; this
impulse is a spirit which ought to be respected and recognized in the
British Constitution. It means not mere vague talk of men's rights,
men's emotions, and men's inveterate and traditional principles, but
it means the embodiment of these things in something that is going to
be done, that will look with hope to the programme that may come out
of these conferences.
If those who conduct the Government of Great Britain are not careful
the restlessness will spread with rapid agitation until the whole
country is aflame, and then there will be revolution and a change of
government.
In this speech he plainly indicated that his plan for the settlement of
the Irish question was the establishment of some forum to which the cause
of Ireland might be brought, where the full force of the public opinion of
the world, including the United States, could be brought to play in a
vigorous and whole-hearted insistence upon a solution of this world-
disturbing question.
As we read the daily papers, containing accounts of the disturbances in
Ireland, what a prophetic vision underlay the declaration contained in the
speech of Woodrow Wilson in 1910!
If those who conduct the Government of Great Britain are not careful
the restlessness will spread with rapid agitation until the whole
country is aflame, and then there will be revolution and a change of
government.
I recall his passionate resentment of the attitude and threats of Sir
Edward Carson, leader of the Unionist forces in the British Parliament,
when he read the following statement of Carson carried in the American
Press, after the passage of Home Rule through the House of Lords: "In the
event of this proposed parliament being thrust upon us, we solemnly and
mutually pledge ourselves not to recognize its authority. I do not care
two pence whether this is treason or not."
Discussing Carson's utterance the President said: "I would like to be in
Mr. Asquith's place. I would show this rebel whether he would recognize
the authority of the Government or flaunt it. He ought to be hanged for
treason. If Asquith does not call this gentleman's bluff, the contagion of
unrest and rebellion in Ireland will spread until only a major operation
will save the Empire. Dallying with gentlemen of this kind who openly
advocate revolution will only add to the difficulties. If those in
authority in England will only act firmly now, their difficulties will be
lessened. A little of the firmness and courage of Andrew Jackson would
force a settlement of the Irish question right now."
The President did not agree with the friends of Irish freedom in America
that coercive methods put upon England through the instrumentality of the
United States could accomplish anything. When he left for the other side
to take part in the Peace Conference, the future of Ireland was much in
his thoughts, but his solution of the problem lay in the establishment of
a forum under the League of Nations before which not only the cause of
Ireland but the cause of any oppressed people might be brought to the
judgment of mankind.
Ireland's affairs were always in the background of the President's
thoughts and he welcomed conversations with those who were in a position
to offer helpful suggestions. I append a correspondence, intimate in
character and now for the first time "exposed to the public view," between
the President, Mr. Sidney Brooks, a noted English writer, and myself:
Friday, April 20, 1917.
DEAR MR. PRESIDENT:
After several months in America I am now returning to England,
returning, I need not say, in a very happy mood and with the
consciousness that the relations between our two countries are at
length set fair. There is nothing nearer to my heart than improving
them, and I believe I see how they could be improved and particularly
how the last great obstacle to their betterment--I mean, of course,
Ireland--could be lessened, if not removed. I should very greatly
value an opportunity of setting before you some views I have formed on
the matter, if an opportunity could be found before the arrival of the
British Commission.
I leave Washington on Sunday and sail for England on the following
Saturday, but not, I trust, without being able to pay you my respects
and say my adieux in person.
Believe me, dear Mr. President,
Yours very sincerely,
SIDNEY BROOKS.
THE PRESIDENT,
The White House.
In forwarding this letter to the President, I accompanied it by the
following note:
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 20, 1917.
DEAR GOVERNOR:
I just had a little talk with Sidney Brooks who says he has been in
correspondence with Lloyd George and Lord Northcliffe with reference
to the Home Rule question. He believes that just a little push by you
in your private talk with Mr. Balfour would put over home rule. He
says if you could bring home to Balfour the amount of American public
sentiment which favours it and how a denial of it is working to the
disadvantage of England in this country, it would make a great
impression. He says after the war there will of course be a great and
generous cooperation between England and this country; but that there
will never be genuine cooperation between the people of America and
the people of England until the Irish question is settled.
Sincerely yours,
TUMULTY.
The President replied to me in the following note:
DEAR TUMULTY:
Confidentially (for I beg that you will be careful not to speak of or
intimate this), I have been doing a number of things about this which
I hope may bear fruit.
THE PRESIDENT.
Mr. John D. Crimmins, a leading Irish sympathizer, addressed the following
letter to the President:
Washington, D. C., April 28, 1917.
MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT:
The press this morning leads to the impression that at some timely
hour, in your own manner, you will have a word on the Irish problem
that at this moment appears to be near solution.
It would be most timely and would have the heartfelt gratitude of
millions of people in this and other lands who have long hoped, and
many prayed, for Ireland as a small nation to have autonomy, thereby
establishing peace with England and among English-speaking people.
Then if an emergency should arise there would be all for one and one
for all. Mr. President, you have gone a long step in that direction in
declaring the rights of small nations--another step may be the means
of reaching the goal for the Irish people.
Faithfully yours,
JOHN D. CRIMMINS.
His Excellency,
Woodrow Wilson.
The President read this letter with a great deal of interest and sent me
the following note, evidencing his sincere interest in all that Mr.
Crimmins had said:
DEAR TUMULTY:
You are right about Mr. Crimmins having been a good friend, but I
don't like to write any letters on this subject at present. I would
appreciate it very much if you would assure him of my interest and of
your knowledge of the fact that I am showing in every way I possibly
can my sympathy with the claim of Ireland for home rule.
THE PRESIDENT.
On December 3, 1919, Bishop Shahan, of the Catholic University, addressed
a letter to the President in behalf of the rector and faculties of the
Catholic University of America with reference to the question of Home
Rule, to which the President replied:
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
3 December, 1919.
MY DEAR BISHOP SHAHAN:
Allow me to acknowledge your letter of November 30th written in behalf
of the rector and faculties of the Catholic University of America, and
to say that it will be my endeavour in regard to every question which
arises before the Peace Conference to do my utmost to bring about the
realization of the principles to which your letter refers. The
difficulties and delicacy of the task are very great, and I cannot
confidently forecast what I can do. I can only say that I shall be
watchful of every opportunity to insist upon the principles I have
enunciated.
Cordially and sincerely yours,
WOODROW WILSON.
The Rt. Rev. Thomas J. Shahan, Rector,
Catholic University of America,
Washington, D. C.
On December 3, 1918, he addressed a letter to Senator Thomas J. Walsh, of
Montana, as follows:
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
3 December, 1919.
MY DEAR SENATOR:
I appreciate the importance of a proper solution of the Irish question
and thank you for the suggestions of your letter of yesterday. Until I
get on the other side and find my footing in delicate matters of this
sort I cannot forecast with any degree of confidence what influence I
can exercise, but you may be sure that I shall keep this important
interest in mind and shall use my influence at every opportunity to
bring about a just and satisfactory solution.
I greatly value the expressions of your confidence and feel very much
strengthened by them.
With the best wishes,
Cordially and sincerely yours,
WOODROW WILSON.
Hon. Thomas J. Walsh,
United States Senate.
While the President was in Paris, I constantly kept him in touch with the
situation in this country, and that he was interested in bringing to the
attention of the Peace Conference the cause of Ireland is made clear by
the following cables that were exchanged between us.
On June 7, 1919, I cabled Admiral Grayson, for the President as follows:
The White House, Washington,
7 June, 1919.
You cannot overestimate real intensity of feeling behind Irish
question here. It is growing every day and is not at all confined to
Irishmen. The passage of resolution of sympathy with almost unanimous
vote in Senate last night is but a slight evidence of interest here. I
wish the President could do just a little for I fear reaction here
upon League of Nations. If this situation could be straightened out,
it would help a great deal.
TUMULTY.
The President himself replied to this cable, showing the depth of his
interest in the matter:
Paris, 8 June, 1919.
I have tried to help in the Irish matter, but the extraordinary
indiscretion of the American delegation over here has almost
completely blocked everything.
WOODROW WILSON.
On June 9, 1919, I received a further cable from the President, as
follows:
Paris, 9 June, 1919.
The American Committee of Irishmen have made it exceedingly difficult,
if not impossible, to render the assistance we were diligently trying
to render in the matter of bringing the Irish aspirations to the
attention of the Peace Conference. By our unofficial activity in the
matter we had practically cleared the way for the coming of the Irish
Representatives to Paris when the American Commission went to Ireland
and behaved in a way which so inflamed British opinion that the
situation has got quite out of hand, and we are utterly at a loss how
to act in the matter without involving the Government of the United
States with the Government of Great Britain in a way which might
create an actual breach between the two. I made an effort day before
yesterday in this matter which shows, I am afraid, the utter futility
of further efforts. I am distressed that the American Commission
should have acted with such extreme indiscretion and lack of sense,
and can at the moment see nothing further to do.
WOODROW WILSON.
To this cable I replied as follows:
The White House, Washington,
9 June, 1919.
Thanks for message about Ireland, Hope you will not allow
indiscretions of American Commission to influence your judgment
against Ireland. Lloyd George's mistakes in handling this will be his
undoing, for it has in it the elements of a revolution. It is our own
political situation here and the fate of the Treaty itself that
concern me. In this country the Irish are united in this matter and in
every large city and town are carrying on a propaganda, asking that
Ireland be given the right of self-determination. George Creel, in a
powerful article yesterday in the newspapers, said: _Quote_ The
question of Ireland cannot be ignored, either in honour or decency
_End quote_. I trust you can say a word. Could you not ask that Irish
delegates be given a chance to present their case to the Conference?
TUMULTY.
On June 25, 1919, I sent the following cable to the President:
General Maurice, in wonderful article in New York _Times_ on League of
Nations, says about Ireland: _Quote_ One obvious need to complete the
process of bringing all nations together is that we should show that
we know what America did in the war, but there is another obvious
need, which presents greater difficulties. We must have a policy in
regard to Ireland, which we can explain to the American people. At
present Ireland threatens to reopen all the rifts which comradeship in
the war is closing _End quote_.
The New York Evening _Post_ of last night prints the following
editorial:
_Quote_ Self-Government for the Irish people, short of independence,
is a right and a necessity, and it is a satisfaction that once more a
movement is under way for the establishment of Ireland on the basis
which logic and history have determined--a dominion on an equal
footing with the other dominions under the British crown _End quote_.
Frankly, this represents the opinion of the average man in America,
without regard to race or religion. The arrival of De Valera in
America is going to intensify the feeling and the Republicans will
take full advantage of it. Now that the League of Nations is on its
feet, we should take the lead in this matter. It would do more toward
bringing about a real comradeship between England and America than
anything that could happen. I think that the situation in Africa,
India, and the seriousness of the situation in Canada, will inevitably
force England to consider these matters. It is in anticipation of this
that I am anxious to have you play a leading part in this situation.
It would do much to make the League of Nations a living, vital force
in the affairs of the world. There are no boundary lines between free
peoples any more.
TUMULTY.
* * * * *
TUMULTY,
White House, Washington.
Paris,
June 27, 1919.
I entirely agree with the general tenor of your cable of the twenty-
fifth about the Irish question and I firmly believe when the League of
Nations is once organized it will afford a forum not now available for
bringing the opinion of the world and of the United States in
particular to bear on just such problems.
WOODROW WILSON.
Of course, the thing which lay close to Woodrow Wilson's heart was the
setting up of the League of Nations. Unless England and France should
consent to the establishment of a league as part of a world settlement,
any solution of the Irish question through the influence of world opinion
was not in the reckoning. The wise, prudent thing, therefore, to do was
first to establish a world court before which the cause of any oppressed
peoples might be brought. This is just what he had in mind and what he
succeeded in doing. To have thrust a settlement of Ireland's affairs into
the foreground of the Peace Conference and to have made it a _sine qua
non_ would have been futile and foolish and might have resulted in
disaster. Unfortunately, the friends of Irish freedom, deprecating and
bitterly resenting well-considered methods like this, were desirous of
having the matter thrust into the early conferences at Paris. The
President knew that England would never consent to this and would resent
any attempt on his part to carry out idea. If the President had done so,
England would undoubtedly have withdrawn from the Conference and thus the
great cause of the League of Nations, which formed the foundation stone
upon which the Armistice was based, would have gone by the board. The
President was looking far beyond a mere recognition of the Irish Republic.
He was seeking to accomplish its security and guarantee its permanency
through the instrumentality of a world court like the League of Nations.
What would it have availed Ireland to have been granted Dominion
government or independence unless contemporaneously with the grant there
was set up an instrumentality that would guarantee and protect it? The
only thing upon which the Peace Conference functioned was the settlement
of the affairs of those nations affected by the war.
Why didn't Wilson bring Ireland's cause to the attention of the Peace
Conference? was the query which frequently reached us at the White House.
The President in his Western speeches discussed this matter in the
following way:
"It was not within the privilege of the Conference of peace to act upon
the right of self-determination of any peoples except those which had been
included in the territories of the defeated empires--that is to say, it
was not then within their power--but the moment the Covenant of the League
of Nations is adopted it becomes their right. If the desire for self-
determination of any people in the world is likely to affect the peace of
the world or the good understanding between nations it becomes the
business of the League; it becomes the right of any member of the League
to call attention to it; it becomes the function of the League to bring
the whole process of the opinion of the world to bear upon that very
matter.
"Article XI is the favourite article in the Treaty so far as I am
concerned. It says that every matter which is likely to affect the peace
of the world is everybody's business; that it shall be the friendly right
of any nation to call attention of the League to anything that is likely
to affect the peace of the world or the good understanding between
nations, upon which the peace of the world depends, whether that matter
immediately concerns the nation drawing attention to it or not. In other
words, at present we have to mind our own business, under the rules of
diplomacy and established custom. Under the covenant of the League of
Nations we can mind other people's business, and anything that affects the
peace of the world, whether we are parties to it or not, can by our
delegates be brought to the attention of mankind. We can force a nation on
the other side of the globe to bring to that bar of mankind any wrong that
is afoot in that part of the world which is likely to affect the good
understanding between nations, and we can oblige them to show cause why it
should not be remedied. There is not an oppressed people in the world
which cannot henceforth get a hearing at that forum, and you know what a
hearing will mean if the cause of those people is just. The one thing that
those doing injustice have most reason to dread is publicity and
discussion. At present what is the state of international law and
understanding? No nation has the right to call attention to anything that
does not directly affect its own affairs. If it does, it cannot only be
told to mind its own business, but it risks the cordial relationship
between itself and the nation whose affairs it draws under discussion;
whereas, under Article XI, which I had the honour of advocating, the very
sensible provision is made that the peace of the world transcends all the
susceptibilities of nations and governments, and that they are obliged to
consent to discuss and explain anything which does affect the good
understanding between nations."
Sir Frederick Pollock, in his valuable work on the League of Nations,
comments pointedly on this privilege:
Various Irish writers, including some who deserve serious attention,
have raised the question whether the standing problem of Irish
autonomy can come before the League of Nations. There is only one way
in which this could happen--namely, that the Government of the United
States should declare Irish-American sympathy with unsatisfied
nationalist claims in Ireland to be capable of disturbing good
understanding between Great Britain and the United States. That is a
possible event if a solution is not reached within a reasonable time,
but it is more likely that a confidential intimation from the United
States would not only precede a formal reference to the Council, but
avoid the necessity for it.
The friends of Ireland in this country have often asked me the question:
"Would Woodrow Wilson have intervened in behalf of Ireland?"
I can answer this question only by saying that Ireland has never had a
truer friend than Woodrow Wilson. From the day that we went to war it has
been his steadfast purpose to induce the Government of England to settle
the Irish question justly and permanently. His statesmanlike approach to a
settlement of the problem is the only one that holds hope of success.
As I completed this chapter, an article appeared in a Washington
newspaper apparently confirmatory of the President's foresight, showing
that by September, 1921, Mr. De Valera had arrived at the same view. The
article seems to show Mr. De Valera as insisting that the British
Government grant Ireland membership in the League of Nations as one of the
guarantees of autonomy.
As for myself, I believe that Ireland is going to be free in company with
the rest of the world and in accordance with a new world order which shall
function through the machinery for justice and liberty which is provided
for in the Covenant of the League of Nations, and is provided for nowhere
else.