The question, at least in the presence of these gentlemen, it is
said was never asked again.
Much has been said about the break between Mr. Harvey and Mr.
Wilson. The published correspondence gives a fairly accurate
picture of what happened at the Manhattan Club on the morning of
the parting. I do not believe that Mr. Wilson dropped Colonel
Harvey because he feared he was under Wall Street influence. The
Harvey version sounds more plausible. According to this the
erstwhile university professor had learned the technique of
political strategy. He no longer felt that he was in need of
guidance.
"I was not surprised at the excuse he gave a little later when the
break came," said Harvey. "I would not have been surprised at any
excuse he offered."
Mr. Harvey retired from the campaign. Harper's Weekly had been
wrecked, whether or not by the espousal of the Wilson cause, and he
sold it to Norman Hapgood who buried it in due course. George
Harvey might or might not have had visions of an appointment to the
Court of St. James at that time. It is at least certain that his
disappointment was keen, taking a form of vindictiveness which will
survive as a distinct blot upon his career. In the preconvention
campaign he aligned himself with the Champ Clark forces, but it was
too late to undo the work he had done.
This episode is necessary to an understanding of what happened
later. His transfer from the Democratic to the Republican party was
a characteristically bold move. How genuine his later allegiance
may be is a question which more than one Republican would like to
have answered, but there is no doubt of the success of his coup. He
is, at least where he wanted to be, occupying the post which he
considers, in point of importance, next to the presidency itself,
Mr. Hughes notwithstanding.
When the United States entered the war Harvey found himself in the
secluded position of editor of the North American Review. This did
not suit his disposition at all and he was very unhappy. He was too
old to fight and it was not likely that he would be invited to
Washington. In the meantime stories of mismanagement in the conduct
of the war began to trickle out of the capital in devious
undercurrents. The press, in a passive spirit of patriotism, was
silent. Here was the opportunity.
In January, 1918, the first edition of the "North American Review
War Weekly" appeared. Its editor announced that its purpose was to
help win the war by telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth. He defied the Creels, the Daniels, and the
Burlesons, adopting the motto, "To hell with the censors and
bureaucrats."
The journal was an instant success. Not only was it read with
avidity but the Washington politicians were flabbergasted at the
audacity of a man who dared to print what the press associations
and the dailies would not touch. I do not think there can be any
doubt of the genuineness of Harvey's motives at this time. His
journal was rigidly non-partisan. He spared no one whom he
considered as an encumbrance in the winning of the war.
The most striking evidence of his attitude toward the Republican
party at this time is found in the edition of the "Weekly" of March
9, 1918. Will H. Hays had just been elected chairman of the
Republican National Committee. He made a speech extolling the
virtues of his party. Of this Harvey made a stinging analysis
denouncing Hays for invoking partisan spirit at so perilous an
hour, concluding with this paragraph:
"As for Mr. Hays, with his insufferable claptrap about absolute
unity as a blanket under which to gather votes while the very
existence of the nation is threatened more ominously than anybody
west of the Alleghanies--or in Washington, for that matter,--seems
to realize, the sooner he goes home and takes his damned old party
with him, the better it will be for all creation."
Surely no uncertain language! One might have supposed that the
Chairman of the Republican Committee would have done nothing of the
kind, but he did. Again the Harvey method was effective. Hays
instead of resenting the denunciation wrote Harvey a rather abject
letter, expressing the fear that he might have made a mistake in
discussing politics during the war and asked for an interview.
Here another Harvey characteristic came into play. He did not
assume the lofty role of mentor or prophet; he very tactfully and
gently tucked the young Indianian under his wing. Thenceforth there
were no more oratorical blunders.
Mr. Hays began to exhibit some capacity for leadership; his
speeches improved. From that day until the election of 1920 he
never made one without George Harvey's counsel and approval.
This is as typical of Harvey as his audacity. He has a gentleness
and charm quite unexpected in so savage a commentator. He will
discuss and advise but he will not argue; and all of the time he
will probe with uncanny accuracy for the weaknesses of those with
whom he is dealing. It is rather by the weaknesses of others than
by his own strength that he triumphs.
Eight months after his meeting with Hays, Harvey came to Washington
where his shadow was cast over the destinies of the Republican
party, which at that time consisted of a dozen elements with little
in common except a hatred of Woodrow Wilson.
It was an ideal situation for the exercise of Harvey's peculiar
talents. He met various factional leaders and before many weeks his
house became their rendezvous, the G. H. Q. of the forces who were
to encompass the defeat of Wilson. Harvey flattered and cajoled and
counselled, enjoying himself immensely all of the time. This
diversion was much more to his liking than the academic dignity of
the editorship of the "North American Review".
When President Wilson sailed away on his disastrous mission to
Paris, Harvey's "Weekly" threw aside all restraint. It cut and
slashed indiscriminately the President's policies. For the first
time Harvey took on the guise of a Republican among Republicans. He
even aided and abetted, with amused cynicism, the groping and
fumbling of Republican leaders who were dazzled at the sudden break
in the political clouds which had so long enshrouded them. He
helped raise the funds used to counteract the league propaganda and
toured the country in opposition to it.
The next shift in scenes was as much beyond Mr. Harvey's power of
manipulation as it was beyond most of the Republicans who now
sagaciously give the impression that their hands were on the ropes.
Stories have been told of the great part Mr. Harvey played in the
nomination of Mr. Harding. Mr. Harvey did not go to Chicago with
the intention of supporting Mr. Harding any more than any other of
the candidates, except Wood and Hiram Johnson, whom he despised.
He and the Senate oligarchy that coyly took the credit for
nominating Mr. Harding turned to him when it was manifest that the
machinery was stalled. Mr. Harding owes his nomination to a mob of
bewildered delegates. It was not due to a wisely conceived nor
brilliantly executed plan.
I doubt very much that George Harvey and President Harding had much
in common until Harvey was invited to Marion. At that time the
"irreconcilables" were beginning to be afraid that Elihu Root and
William H. Taft were about to induce Mr. Harding to accept a
compromise on the League of Nations. Harvey served the purpose of
restoring the equilibrium. At the same time it is quite probable
that the President was impressed by a mind so much more agile than
his own. It was reasonably certain that it would not be diverted or
misled by the intricacies of European diplomacy. And there was
never any doubt of Harvey's Americanism.
The President's selection of Mr. Harvey for the London post is, of
course, accounted for in other ways. There are some persons who
profess to believe that Mr. Harding preferred to have the militant
editor in London and his "Weekly" in the grave rather than to have
him as a censor of Washington activities under the new regime. It
can be said definitely that a sigh of relief went up from many a
Republican bosom when the sacrilegious journal was brought to a
timely end. And this did not happen, it is to be observed, until
the nomination of George Harvey to the Court of St. James was duly
ratified and approved by the Senate of the United States.
But if the "Weekly" has passed, the Republicans are still acutely
conscious that Mr. Harvey is alive,--has he not reminded them of it
in his first ambassadorial utterances?--and the journal is not
beyond resuscitation. That is why Washington does not know whether
to be chagrined or angry, whether to disavow or to condone. The
discomfited Republicans frankly do not know what to think of it and
probably will not so long as the amazing ambassador makes his own
rules.