Читать книгу History of the American Negro in the Great World War - William Allison Sweeney - Страница 25

PRESIDENT CLINGS TO NEUTRALITY—MONROE DOCTRINE AND WASHINGTON'S WARNING—GERMAN CRIMES AND GERMAN VICTORIES—CARDINAL MERCIER'S LETTER—MILITARY OPERATIONS—FIRST SUBMARINE ACTIVITIES—THE LUSITANIA OUTRAGE—EXCHANGE OF NOTES—UNITED STATES AROUSED—ROLE OF PASSIVE ONLOOKER BECOMES IRKSOME—FIRST MODIFICATION OF PRINCIPLES OF WASHINGTON AND MONROE—OUR DESTINY LOOMS.

August 4, 1914, President Wilson proclaimed the neutrality of the United States. A more consistent attempt to maintain that attitude was never made by a nation. In an appeal addressed to the American people on August 18th, the president implored the citizens to refrain from "taking sides." Part of his utterance on that occasion was:

"We must be impartial in thought as well as in action, must put a curb upon our sentiments as well as upon every transaction that might be construed as a preference of one party to the struggle before another.

"My thought is of America. I am speaking, I feel sure, the earnest wish and purpose of every thoughtful American that this great country of ours, which is, of course, the first in our thoughts and in our hearts, should show herself in this time of peculiar trial a nation fit beyond others to exhibit the fine poise of undisturbed judgment, the dignity of self-control, the efficiency of dispassionate action; a nation that neither sits in judgment upon others, nor is disturbed in her own counsels, and which keeps herself fit and free to do what is honest and disinterested and truly serviceable for the peace of the world.

American poise had been somewhat disturbed over the treatment of American tourists caught in Germany at the outbreak of the war. American sentiment was openly agitated by the invasion of Belgium and the insolent repudiation by Germany of her treaty obligations. The German chancellor had referred to the treaty with Belgium as "a scrap of paper." These things had created a suspicion in American minds, having to do with what seemed Germany's real and ulterior object, but in the main the people of this county accepted the president's appeal in the spirit in which it was intended and tried to live up to it, which attitude was kept to the very limit of human forbearance.

A few editors and public men, mostly opposed to the president politically, thought we were carrying the principle of neutrality too far; that the violation of Belgium was a crime against humanity in general and that if we did not at least protest against it, we would be guilty of national stultification if not downright cowardice. Against this view was invoked the time-honored principles of the Monroe Doctrine and its great corollary, Washington's advice against becoming entangled in European affairs. Our first president, in his farewell address, established a precept of national conduct that up to the time we were drawn into the European war, had become almost a principle of religion with us. He said:

"Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government—Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concern. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities."

The Monroe Doctrine was a statement of principles made by President Monroe in his famous message of December 2, 1823. The occasion of the utterance was the threat by the so-called Holy Alliance to interfere forcibly in South America with a view to reseating Spain in control of her former colonies there. President Monroe, pointing to the fact that it was a principle of American policy not to intermeddle in European affairs, gave warning that any attempt by the monarchies of Europe "to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere" would be considered by the United States "as dangerous to our peace and safety." This warning fell in line with British policy at the time and so proved efficacious.

OFFICIAL RED CROSS PHOTOGRAPHS NEGRO SOLDIERS AND RED CROSS WORKERS IN FRONT OF CANTEEN, HAMLET, N.C.

PHOTO FROM UNDERWOOD & UNDERWOOD, N.Y. COLORED RED CROSS WORKERS FROM THE CANTEEN AT ATLANTA, GA., FEEDING SOLDIERS AT RAILWAY STATION.

OFFICIAL RED CROSS PHOTOGRAPHS COLORED WOMEN IN HOSPITAL GARMENTS CLASS OF BRANCH NO. 6. NEW ORLEANS CHAPTER, AMERICAN RED CROSS. LOUISE J. ROSS, DIRECTOR.

PHOTO FROM UNDERWOOD & UNDERWOOD, N.Y. RED CROSS WORKERS. PROMINENT COLORED WOMEN OF ATLANTA, GA., WHO ORGANIZED CANTEEN FOR RELIEF OF NEGRO SOLDIERS GOING TO AND RETURNING FROM WAR.

THE GAME IS ON. A BASEBALL MATCH BETWEEN NEGRO AND WHITE TROOPS IN ONE OF THE TRAINING AREAS IN FRANCE.

OFFICIAL PHOTOGRAPHS, U.S. ARMY COL. WILLIAM HAYWARD OF 369TH INFANTRY PLAYING BASEBALL WITH HIS NEGRO SOLDIERS AT ST. NAZAIRE, FRANCE.

JAZZ AND SOUTHERN MELODIES HASTEN CURE. NEGRO SAILOR ENTERTAINING DISABLED NAVY MEN IN HOSPITAL FOR CONVALESCENTS.

ENJOYING A BIT OF CAKE BAKED AT THE AMERICAN RED CROSS CANTEEN AT IS-SUR-TILLE, FRANCE.

CORPORAL FRED. McINTYRE OF 369TH INFANTRY, WITH PICTURE OF THE KAISER WHICH HE CAPTURED FROM A GERMAN OFFICER.

LIEUT. ROBERT L. CAMPBELL, NEGRO OFFICER OF THE 368TH INFANTRY WHO WON FAME AND THE D.S.C. IN ARGONNE FOREST. HE DEVISED A CLEVER PIECE OF STRATEGY AND DISPLAYED GREAT HEROISM IN THE EXECUTION OF IT.

EMMETT J. SCOTT, APPOINTED BY SECRETARY BAKER, AS SPECIAL ASSISTANT DURING THE WORLD WAR. HE WAS FORMERLY CONFIDENTIAL SECRETARY TO THE LATE BOOKER T. WASHINGTON.

(TOP)—GENERAL DIAZ, COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF ITALIAN ARMIES. MARSHAL FOCH, COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF ALLIED FORCES. (CENTER)—GENERAL PERSHING, COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF AMERICAN ARMIES. ADMIRAL SIMS, IN CHARGE OF AMERICAN NAVAL OPERATIONS OVERSEAS. (BOTTOM)—KING ALBERT, COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF BELGIAN ARMY. FIELD MARSHAL HAIG, HEAD OF BRITISH ARMIES.

In a later section of the same message the proposition was also advanced that the American continent was no longer subject to colonization. This clause of the doctrine was the work of Monroe's secretary of state, John Quincy Adams, and its occasion was furnished by the fear that Russia was planning to set up a colony at San Francisco, then the property of Spain, whose natural heir on the North American continent, Adams held, was the United States. It is this clause of the document that has furnished much of the basis for its subsequent development.

In 1902 Germany united with Great Britain and Italy to collect by force certain claims against Venezuela. President Roosevelt demanded and finally, after threatening to dispatch Admiral Dewey to the scene of action, obtained a statement that she would not permanently occupy Venezuelan territory. Of this statement one of the most experienced and trusted American editors, avowedly friendly to Germany, remarked at the time, that while he believed "it was and will remain true for some time to come, I cannot, in view of the spirit now evidently dominant in the mind of the emperor and among many who stand near him, express any belief that such assurances will remain trustworthy for any great length of time after Germany shall have developed a fleet larger than that of the United States." He accordingly cautioned the United States "to bear in mind probabilities and possibilities as to the future conduct of Germany, and therefore increase gradually our naval strength." Bismarck pronounced the Monroe Doctrine "an international impertinence," and this has been the German view all along.

Dr. Zorn, one of the most conservative of German authorities on international affairs, concluded an article in Die Woche of September 13, 1913, with these words: "Considered in all its phases, the Monroe Doctrine is in the end seen to be a question of might only and not of right."

The German government's efforts to check American influence in the Latin American states had of late years been frequent and direct. They comprised the encouragement of German emigration to certain regions, the sending of agents to maintain close contact, presentation of German flags in behalf of the Kaiser, the placing of the German Evangelical churches in certain South American countries under the Prussian State Church, annual grants for educational purposes from the imperial treasury at Berlin, and the like.

The "Lodge resolution," adopted by the senate in 1912, had in view the activities of certain German corporations in Latin America, as well as the episode that immediately occasioned it; nor can there be much doubt that it was the secret interference by Germany at Copenhagen that thwarted the sale of the Danish West Indies to the United States in 1903.

In view of a report that a Japanese corporation, closely connected with the Japanese government, was negotiating with the Mexican government for a territorial concession off Magdalena Bay, in lower California, the senate in 1912 adopted the following resolution, which was offered by Senator Lodge of Massachusetts:

"That when any harbor or other place in the American continent is so situated that the occupation thereof for naval or military purposes might threaten the communications or the safety of the United States, the government of the United States could not see without grave concern, the possession of such harbor or other place by any corporation or association which has such a relation to another government, not American, as to give that government practical power of control for naval or military purposes."

All of the above documents, arguments and events were of the greatest importance in connection with the great European struggle. America was rapidly awakening, and the role of a passive onlooker became increasingly irksome. It was pointed out that Washington's message said we must not implicate ourselves in the "ordinary vicissitudes" of European politics. This case rapidly was assuming something decidedly beyond the "ordinary." As the carnage increased and outrages piled up, the finest sensibilities of mankind were shocked and we began to ask ourselves if we were not criminally negligent in our attitude; if it was not our duty to put forth a staying hand and use the extreme weight of our influence to stop the holocaust.

From August 4 to 26, Germany overran Belgium. Liege was occupied August 9; Brussels, August 20, and Namur, August 24. The stories of atrocities committed on the civil population of that country have since been well authenticated. At the time it was hard to believe them, so barbaric and utterly wanton were they. Civilized people could not understand how a nation which pretended to be not only civilized, but wished to impose its culture on the remainder of the world, could be so ruthless to a small adversary which had committed no crime and desired only to preserve its nationality, integrity and treaty rights.

Germany did not occupy Antwerp until October 9, owing to the stiff resistance of the Belgians and engagements with the French and British elsewhere. But German arms were uniformly victorious. August 21–23 occurred the battle of Mons-Charleroi, a serious defeat for the French and British, which resulted in a dogged retreat eventually to a line along the Seine, Marne and Meuse rivers.

The destruction of Louvain occurred August 26, and was one of the events which inflamed anti-German sentiment throughout the world. The beautiful cathedral, the historic cloth market, the library and other architectural monuments for which the city was famed, were put to the torch. The Belgian priesthood was in woe over these and other atrocities. Cardinal Mercier called upon the Christian world to note and protest against these crimes. In his pastoral letter of Christmas, 1914, he thus pictures Belgium's woe and her Christian fortitude:

"And there where lives were not taken, and there where the stones of buildings were not thrown down, what anguish unrevealed! Families hitherto living at ease, now in bitter want; all commerce at an end, all careers ruined; industry at a standstill; thousands upon thousands of workingmen without employment; working women; shop girls, humble servant girls without the means of earning their bread, and poor souls forlorn on the bed of sickness and fever crying: 'O Lord, how long, how long?'—God will save Belgium, my brethren; you can not doubt it. Nay, rather, He is saving her—Which of us would have the heart to cancel this page of our national history? Which of us does not exult in the brightness of the glory of this shattered nation? When in her throes she brings forth heroes, our mother country gives her own energy to the blood of those sons of hers. Let us acknowledge that we needed a lesson in patriotism—For down within us all is something deeper than personal interests, than personal kinships, than party feeling, and this is the need and the will to devote ourselves to that most general interest which Rome termed the public thing, Res publica. And this profound will within us is patriotism."

Meanwhile there was a slight offset to the German successes. Russia had overrun Galicia and the Allies had conquered the Germany colony of Togoland in Africa. But on August 26 the Russians were severely defeated in the battle of Tannenburg in East Prussia. This was offset by a British naval victory in Helgoland Bight. (August 28.) So great had become the pressure of the German armies that on September 3 the French government removed from Paris to Bordeaux. The seriousness of the situation was made manifest when two days later Great Britain, France and Russia signed a treaty not to make peace separately. Then it became evident to the nations of the earth that the struggle was not only to be a long one, but in all probability the most gigantic in history.

The Germans reached the extreme point of their advance, culminating in the Battle of the Marne, September 6–10. Here the generalship of Joffre and the strategy of Foch overcame great odds. The Germans were driven back from the Marne to the River Aisne. The battle line then remained practically stationary for three years on a front of three hundred miles.

The Russians under General Rennenkampf were driven from East Prussia September 16. Three British armored cruisers were sunk by a submarine September 22. By September 27 General Botha had gained some successes for the Allies, and had under way an invasion of German Southwest Africa. By October 13 Belgium was so completely occupied by the Germans that the government withdrew entirely from the country and established itself at Le Havre in France. By the end of the year had occurred the Battle of Yser in Belgium (October 16–28); the first Battle of Ypres (decisive day October 31), in which the British, French and Belgians saved the French channel ports; De Wet's rebellion against the British in South Africa (October 28); German naval victory in the Pacific off the coast of Chile (November 1); fall of Tsingtau, German possession in China, to the Japanese (November 7); Austrian invasion of Serbia (Belgrade taken December 2, recaptured by the Serbians December 14); German commerce raider Emden caught and destroyed at Cocos Island (November 10); British naval victory off the Falkland Islands (December 8); South African rebellion collapsed (December 8); French government returned to Paris (December 9); German warships bombarded West Hartlepool, Scarborough and Whitby on the coast of England (December 16). On December 24 the Germans showed their Christian spirit in an inauguration of the birthday of Christ by the first air raid over England. The latter part of the year 1914 saw no important action by the United States excepting a proclamation by the president of the neutrality of the Panama canal zone.

The events of 1915 and succeeding years became of great importance to the United States and it is with a record of those having the greatest bearing on our country that this account principally will deal.

On January 20 Secretary of State Bryan found it necessary to explain and defend our policy of neutrality. January 28 the American merchantman William P. Frye was sunk by the German cruiser Prinz Eitel Friedrich. On February 10 the United States dispatched a note to the German government holding it to a "strict accountability if any merchant vessel of the United States is destroyed or any American citizens lose their lives." Germany replied February 16 stating that her "war zone" act was an act of self-defense against illegal methods employed by Great Britain in preventing commerce between Germany and neutral countries. Two days later the German official blockade of Great Britain commenced and the German submarines began their campaign of piracy and pillage.

The United States on February 20 sent an identic note to Germany and Great Britain suggesting an agreement between them respecting the conduct of naval warfare. The British steamship Falaba was sunk by a submarine March 28, with a loss of 111 lives, one of which was an American. April 8 the steamer Harpalyce, in the service of the American commission for the aid of Belgium, was torpedoed with a loss of 15 lives. On April 22 the German embassy in America sent out a warning against embarkation on vessels belonging to Great Britain. The American vessel Cushing was attacked by a German aeroplane April 28. On May 1 the American steamship Gullflight was sunk by a German submarine and two Americans were lost. That day the warning of the German embassy was published in the daily papers. The Lusitania sailed at 12:20 noon.

Five days later occurred the crime which almost brought America into the second year of the war. The Cunard line steamship Lusitania was sunk by a German submarine with a loss of 1,154 lives, of which 114 were Americans. After the policy of frightfulness put into effect by the Germans in Belgium and other invaded territories, the massacres of civilians, the violation of women and killing of children; burning, looting and pillage; the destruction of whole towns, acts for which no military necessity could be pleaded, civilization should have been prepared for the Lusitania crime. But it seems it was not. The burst of indignation throughout the United States was terrible. Here was where the terms German and Hun became synonomous, having in mind the methods and ravages of the barbaric scourge Attilla, king of the Huns, who in the fifth century sacked a considerable portion of Europe and introduced some refinements in cruelty which have never been excelled.

The Lusitania went down twenty-one minutes after the attack. The Berlin government pleaded in extenuation of the sinking that the ship was armed, and German agents in New York procured testimony which was subsequently proven in court to have been perjured, to bolster up the falsehood. In further justification, the German government adduced the fact that the ship was carrying ammunition which it said was "destined for the destruction of brave German soldiers." This contention our government rightly brushed aside as irrelevant.

The essence of the case was stated by our government in its note of June 9 as follows:

"Whatever be the other facts regarding the Lusitania, the principal fact is that a great steamer, primarily and chiefly a conveyance for passengers, and carrying more than a thousand souls who had no part or lot in the conduct of the war, was sunk without so much as a challenge or a warning, and that men, women and children were sent to their death in circumstances unparalleled in modern warfare."

Three notes were written to Germany regarding the Lusitania sinking. The first dated May 13 advanced the idea that it was impossible to conduct submarine warfare conformably with international law. In the second dated June 9 occurs the statement that "the government of the United States is contending for something much greater than mere rights of property or privileges of commerce. It is contending for nothing less high and sacred than the rights of humanity." In the third note dated July 21, it is asserted that "the events of the past two months have clearly indicated that it is possible and practicable to conduct submarine operations within the so-called war zone in substantial accord with the accepted practices of regulated warfare." The temper of the American people and the president's notes had succeeded in securing a modification of the submarine campaign.

It required cool statesmanship to prevent a rushing into war over the Lusitania incident and events which had preceded it. There was a well developed movement in favor of it, but the people were not unanimous on the point. It would have lacked that cooperation necessary for effectiveness; besides our country was but poorly prepared for engaging in hostilities. It was our state of unpreparedness continuing for a long time afterwards, which contributed, no doubt, to German arrogance. They thought we would not fight.

But the United States had become thoroughly awakened and the authorities must have felt that if the conflict was to be unduly prolonged, we must eventually be drawn into it. This is reflected in the modified construction which the president and others began to place on the Monroe Doctrine. The great underlying idea of the doctrine remained vital, but in a message to congress delivered December 7, 1915, the president said:

"In the day in whose light we now stand there is no claim of guardianship, but a full and honorable association as of partners between ourselves and our neighbors in the interests of America." Speaking before the League to Enforce Peace at Washington, May 27, 1916, he said: "What affects mankind is inevitably our affair, as well as the affair of the nations of Europe and of Asia." In his address to the senate of January 22, 1917, he said: "I am proposing, as it were, that the nations should with one accord adopt the doctrine of President Monroe as the doctrine of the world—that no nation should seek to extend its policy over any other nation or people, but that every people should be left free to determine its own policy, its own way of development, unhindered, unthreatened, unafraid, the little along with the great and powerful." This was a modifying and enlarging of the doctrine, as well as a departure from Washington's warning against becoming entangled with the affairs of Europe.