Professor of the History of Fine Arts, Syracuse University.
_To the Editor of The New York Times:_
Contradicting Dr. Eliot, Dr. Bernhard Dernburg says:
Schleswig-Holstein was a dual Dukedom that never belonged to
Denmark; but, having as its Duke the King of Denmark, as long
as he belonged to the elder line of the house of Oldenburg ...
Frederick VII. wanted to incorporate the two German Dukedoms
into Denmark.... Then the people stood up and expressed the
desire to remain with the German Federation.
Such an assertion is a summary, inaccurate, and unfair manner of dealing
with perhaps the most complex series of diplomatic, legal, and racial
questions that arose in the nineteenth century. It would appear from the
best evidence that Schleswig was indissolubly united with the Crown of
Denmark. To maintain this principle Christian VIII. in 1846 issued
letters patent declaring that the royal line of succession (female) was
in full force, as far as Schleswig was concerned. As to Holstein, the
King stated that he was prevented from giving an equally clear decision,
and the reason of his hesitation lay in the assumption that the law of
the Salic Saxons excluding women from the throne would naturally prevail
in Holstein, where the Germans, their customs, and their language were
dominant. Two years later, Prussia sought to restore her prestige, lost
in the Revolution of 1848, by sending troops into the Duchies in order
to enforce the principle that this territory constituted two independent
and indivisible States, the government of which was hereditary in the
male line alone. The Prussian troops were afterward withdrawn by the
hesitating Frederic William, and there followed a succession of
protocols, constitutions, and compacts until the time of Bismarck, who,
in his "Reflections," Volume II., Page 10, in writing of the Duchies,
acknowledges:
"From the beginning I kept annexation steadily before my eyes."
The master of statecraft conquered. But did the people "stand up and
express their desire to remain with the German Federation," as Dr.
Dernburg asserts?
If his assertion be true, why were the Danish "optants" subjected to
domiciliary visits, perquisitions, arrest, and expulsion? And why--only
to mention one instance of espionage--did the Prussian police confiscate
the issue of a Danish newspaper published in Schleswig because it
contained a reference to that Duchy under its historic name of South
Jutland?
The truth stands that the whole Schleswig-Holstein question is one that
involves the modern principle of "nationality," and, as such, enters of
necessity into the present European crisis. It is broadly understood by
Dr. Eliot and willfully misapprehended by his critic.
Passing on to consider Alsace-Lorraine, Dr. Dernburg declares that "it
had belonged to Germany until it was taken, against the will of the
people, under Louis XIV."
In this statement, as in the treatment of the previous question, facts
are mutilated and wrong impressions are given. Alsace, it is well known,
was included within the confines of ancient Gaul, its original
population was Celtic, and it passed, late in the fifth Christian
century, under the rule of the Franks, one of whose chieftains, Clovis,
became the founder of the first French monarchy. In dealing with its
later history Dr. Dernburg confuses the Holy Roman (Germanic) Empire
with Germany, considered in its modern sense. He appears to forget that
the reign of Louis XIV. was an age of absolutism and not of plébiscites.
He also ignores that the most strenuous efforts on the part of Germany
to strangle the French nationality and language in the imperial
territory (Alsace-Lorraine) have proved useless, although they have been
exerted constantly for almost a half century.