Villard, Henry.Villard, Henry.—A distinguished war correspondent during the Civil War, afterwards built the Northern Pacific Railroad, largely with German capital. Born in Speyer, 1835. His real name was Heinrich Hillgard. Married a daughter of William Lloyd Garrison, famous abolitionist. Father of Oswald Garrison Villard, editor of “The Nation.”
Villard, Henry.—A distinguished war correspondent during the Civil War, afterwards built the Northern Pacific Railroad, largely with German capital. Born in Speyer, 1835. His real name was Heinrich Hillgard. Married a daughter of William Lloyd Garrison, famous abolitionist. Father of Oswald Garrison Villard, editor of “The Nation.”
Vote on War in Congress.Vote on War in Congress.—A resolution declaring the United States in a state of war “with the imperial German Government” on the grounds that the imperial German government had committed repeatedacts of war against the government and the people of the United States and that in consequence of these acts war had been thrust upon the United States, was passed in the Senate on April 5 and in the House on April 6, 1917.In neither the Senate nor the House of Representatives was the resolution passed by a unanimous vote.In the Senate on April 5 it passed by a vote of 82 to 6, and in the House by a vote of 373 to 50. No obstructions were resorted to, and comparatively a short time was consumed on both sides in speeches devoted to individual explanations.In the Senate 43 Democrats and 39 Republicans voted aye and in the House 193 Democrats, 177 Republicans and three Independents (Fall of Massachusetts, Martin of Louisiana and Schall of Minnesota) voted affirmatively, while 16 Democrats and 32 Republicans, 1 Socialist and 1 Independent (Randall) voted in the negative. Miss Rankin, the first woman member of the lower House of Congress, voted against war.The Senators voting “no” were Lane, Stone and Vardaman, Democrats, and Gronna, La Follette and Norris, Republicans.In the lower House the members who voted against war were the following:Alabama—Almon, Burnett.California—Church, Hayes, Randall.Colorado—Hilliard, Keating.Illinois—Britten, Rodenberg, Fuller, Wheeler, King, Mason.Iowa—Haugen, Woods, Hull.Kansas—Connelly, Little.Michigan—Bacon.Minnesota—Davis, Knutson, Van Dyke, Lundeen.Missouri—Decker, Igoe, Hensley, Shackleford.Montana—Rankin.Nebraska—Kinkaid, Reavis, Sloan.Nevada—Roberts.New York—London.North Carolina—Kitchin.Ohio—Sherwood.South Carolina—Dominick.South Dakota—Dillon, Johnson.Texas—McLemore.Washington—Dill, La Follette.Wisconsin—Browne, Cary, Cooper, Esch, Frear, Nelson, Stafford, Davidson, Voight.Paired, 6; absent by illnesses, 2; not voting, 2; vacancies, 2.Speaker Clark did not vote.The debate in both Houses will rank among the most memorable in the history of the country. With a degree of courage amounting to heroism, Senators La Follette of Wisconsin, Stone of Missouri and Norris of Nebraska spoke in opposition to the adoption of the resolution; but the surprise came in the House when the Democratic floor leader, Kitchin, announced his opposition to the measure. It should not be assumed that any of the men in either branch of Congress took the position in a spirit of light-hearted opposition. Not one among them but realized the heavy responsibility of his action. With a newspaper clamor for war unequaled in the history of the United States, with the bitter denunciation of Senators who voted against the armed ship bill in March still ringing in their ears, and with the widespread propaganda carried to the doors of Congress by those anxious for war, every legislator felt the gravity of his step in refusing to sanction the necessary authority which would plunge the country into the European conflagration.An analysis of the vote shows that not a single representative of the people from an Eastern State (except New York, London, Socialist) voted against war. Every negative vote came from the West and South. The favorite slogan that the agitation against war emanated wholly from German sources was not verified by facts. It is said that there is hardly a German vote in the North Carolina district represented by Kitchin. No such influence operated upon Senator Vardaman of Mississippi, nor upon the two members from Alabama.The largest vote against war came from Wisconsin, where, aside from Senator La Follette, nine members of the lower House were found on the negative side and but two on the affirmative, exclusive of Senator Husting. The latter went out of his way to make a bitter attack on the German-Americans and called the people of his State disloyal if they refused “to back up the President in the course he has decided to take.” He said this was the only question at issue, as he believed that if the question of peace or war only were submitted to the people war would be voted down.Sentiment in his State on the war question was indicated by the large anti-war vote of the Wisconsin delegation and the referendum votes taken in Sheboygan and Monroe on April 3. In the former place only 17 out of 4,000 votes cast were for war, and in the latter 954 votes were against and 95 for war. A relative result was recorded from a Minnesota referendum.Several incidents of interest out of the common marked the greatdebate, but there was a noticeable absence of the high feeling that accompanied the declaration of war against Spain. For part of the day the House was half empty while the debate was in progress and comparatively few people appeared in the galleries.Representative Kitchin declared that he expected his vote against war to end his political career, but that he nevertheless could not act against his conscientious convictions. A rampant Southern fire-eater named Heflin, hailing from Alabama, attacked Kitchin and declared that the latter’s attitude should prompt him to resign from Congress, as he did not represent the opinion of the country.The answer to this suggestion was a volley of hisses from the Democratic side of the House; and while Miss Rankin, tears in her eyes as she found herself confronted with the serious problem of doing a popular thing or following her convictions, declared in a broken voice, “I want to stand by my country, but I cannot vote for war—I vote no,” applause greeted her decision even from those who were voting the other way.Kitchin was chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, which has in charge the appropriations necessary to carry on the war. He distinctly announced that if war were declared he would present no obstructions to its successful conduct but would do all that was required of him as a member of the House.In the main the debate was conducted with marked decorum. Little acrimonious discussion developed. The supporters of the resolution calmly and seriously declared that a state of war really existed as a result of German violations of American rights, while the opponents of war insisted that the German submarine campaign was forced by the illegal British blockade, which was as much a violation of American rights as submarine warfare.The same apathy which characterized the situation on the floor in general marked the reception of the speeches. Applause at best was scattered, and the absence of patriotic display was noticeable. Members were in a serious mood and talked and voted with great solemnity. Kitchin, before delivering his stirring anti-war speech, had spent six hours in consultation with proponents and opponents of war, and decided to oppose the resolution only after he had carefully weighed his action.The only member from Texas who voted against war was Representative McLemore, the author of the famous McLemore resolution, whose adoption was intended to forestall the possibility of war with Germany.In the House the opening speech against the resolution was delivered by Representative Cooper, of Wisconsin, who made an eloquent plea in behalf of his contention that the United States should proceedagainst England as well as against Germany, as both had equally acted illegally and indefensibly in violating American rights. If we had cause for war against one we had as just cause against the other offender. Mr. Cooper was the ranking Republican member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs in the House.The only vote against war from Ohio, out of a total of 24 in both Houses, including Nicholas Longworth, the son-in-law of Theodore Roosevelt, was cast by Representative Sherwood of Toledo. He enlisted in the Union Army April 16, 1861, as a private and was mustered out as Brigadier-General October 8, 1865; was in 43 battles and 123 days under fire and was six times complimented in special orders by commanding generals for gallant conduct in battle; commanded his regiment in all the battles of the Atlanta campaign, and after the battles of Franklin and Nashville, Tenn., upon the recommendation of the officers of his brigade and division, he was made brevet brigadier general by President Lincoln for long and faithful service and conspicuous gallantry at the battles of Resaca, Atlanta, Franklin and Nashville.
Vote on War in Congress.—A resolution declaring the United States in a state of war “with the imperial German Government” on the grounds that the imperial German government had committed repeatedacts of war against the government and the people of the United States and that in consequence of these acts war had been thrust upon the United States, was passed in the Senate on April 5 and in the House on April 6, 1917.
In neither the Senate nor the House of Representatives was the resolution passed by a unanimous vote.
In the Senate on April 5 it passed by a vote of 82 to 6, and in the House by a vote of 373 to 50. No obstructions were resorted to, and comparatively a short time was consumed on both sides in speeches devoted to individual explanations.
In the Senate 43 Democrats and 39 Republicans voted aye and in the House 193 Democrats, 177 Republicans and three Independents (Fall of Massachusetts, Martin of Louisiana and Schall of Minnesota) voted affirmatively, while 16 Democrats and 32 Republicans, 1 Socialist and 1 Independent (Randall) voted in the negative. Miss Rankin, the first woman member of the lower House of Congress, voted against war.
The Senators voting “no” were Lane, Stone and Vardaman, Democrats, and Gronna, La Follette and Norris, Republicans.
In the lower House the members who voted against war were the following:
Alabama—Almon, Burnett.
California—Church, Hayes, Randall.
Colorado—Hilliard, Keating.
Illinois—Britten, Rodenberg, Fuller, Wheeler, King, Mason.
Iowa—Haugen, Woods, Hull.
Kansas—Connelly, Little.
Michigan—Bacon.
Minnesota—Davis, Knutson, Van Dyke, Lundeen.
Missouri—Decker, Igoe, Hensley, Shackleford.
Montana—Rankin.
Nebraska—Kinkaid, Reavis, Sloan.
Nevada—Roberts.
New York—London.
North Carolina—Kitchin.
Ohio—Sherwood.
South Carolina—Dominick.
South Dakota—Dillon, Johnson.
Texas—McLemore.
Washington—Dill, La Follette.
Wisconsin—Browne, Cary, Cooper, Esch, Frear, Nelson, Stafford, Davidson, Voight.
Paired, 6; absent by illnesses, 2; not voting, 2; vacancies, 2.
Speaker Clark did not vote.
The debate in both Houses will rank among the most memorable in the history of the country. With a degree of courage amounting to heroism, Senators La Follette of Wisconsin, Stone of Missouri and Norris of Nebraska spoke in opposition to the adoption of the resolution; but the surprise came in the House when the Democratic floor leader, Kitchin, announced his opposition to the measure. It should not be assumed that any of the men in either branch of Congress took the position in a spirit of light-hearted opposition. Not one among them but realized the heavy responsibility of his action. With a newspaper clamor for war unequaled in the history of the United States, with the bitter denunciation of Senators who voted against the armed ship bill in March still ringing in their ears, and with the widespread propaganda carried to the doors of Congress by those anxious for war, every legislator felt the gravity of his step in refusing to sanction the necessary authority which would plunge the country into the European conflagration.
An analysis of the vote shows that not a single representative of the people from an Eastern State (except New York, London, Socialist) voted against war. Every negative vote came from the West and South. The favorite slogan that the agitation against war emanated wholly from German sources was not verified by facts. It is said that there is hardly a German vote in the North Carolina district represented by Kitchin. No such influence operated upon Senator Vardaman of Mississippi, nor upon the two members from Alabama.
The largest vote against war came from Wisconsin, where, aside from Senator La Follette, nine members of the lower House were found on the negative side and but two on the affirmative, exclusive of Senator Husting. The latter went out of his way to make a bitter attack on the German-Americans and called the people of his State disloyal if they refused “to back up the President in the course he has decided to take.” He said this was the only question at issue, as he believed that if the question of peace or war only were submitted to the people war would be voted down.
Sentiment in his State on the war question was indicated by the large anti-war vote of the Wisconsin delegation and the referendum votes taken in Sheboygan and Monroe on April 3. In the former place only 17 out of 4,000 votes cast were for war, and in the latter 954 votes were against and 95 for war. A relative result was recorded from a Minnesota referendum.
Several incidents of interest out of the common marked the greatdebate, but there was a noticeable absence of the high feeling that accompanied the declaration of war against Spain. For part of the day the House was half empty while the debate was in progress and comparatively few people appeared in the galleries.
Representative Kitchin declared that he expected his vote against war to end his political career, but that he nevertheless could not act against his conscientious convictions. A rampant Southern fire-eater named Heflin, hailing from Alabama, attacked Kitchin and declared that the latter’s attitude should prompt him to resign from Congress, as he did not represent the opinion of the country.
The answer to this suggestion was a volley of hisses from the Democratic side of the House; and while Miss Rankin, tears in her eyes as she found herself confronted with the serious problem of doing a popular thing or following her convictions, declared in a broken voice, “I want to stand by my country, but I cannot vote for war—I vote no,” applause greeted her decision even from those who were voting the other way.
Kitchin was chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, which has in charge the appropriations necessary to carry on the war. He distinctly announced that if war were declared he would present no obstructions to its successful conduct but would do all that was required of him as a member of the House.
In the main the debate was conducted with marked decorum. Little acrimonious discussion developed. The supporters of the resolution calmly and seriously declared that a state of war really existed as a result of German violations of American rights, while the opponents of war insisted that the German submarine campaign was forced by the illegal British blockade, which was as much a violation of American rights as submarine warfare.
The same apathy which characterized the situation on the floor in general marked the reception of the speeches. Applause at best was scattered, and the absence of patriotic display was noticeable. Members were in a serious mood and talked and voted with great solemnity. Kitchin, before delivering his stirring anti-war speech, had spent six hours in consultation with proponents and opponents of war, and decided to oppose the resolution only after he had carefully weighed his action.
The only member from Texas who voted against war was Representative McLemore, the author of the famous McLemore resolution, whose adoption was intended to forestall the possibility of war with Germany.
In the House the opening speech against the resolution was delivered by Representative Cooper, of Wisconsin, who made an eloquent plea in behalf of his contention that the United States should proceedagainst England as well as against Germany, as both had equally acted illegally and indefensibly in violating American rights. If we had cause for war against one we had as just cause against the other offender. Mr. Cooper was the ranking Republican member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs in the House.
The only vote against war from Ohio, out of a total of 24 in both Houses, including Nicholas Longworth, the son-in-law of Theodore Roosevelt, was cast by Representative Sherwood of Toledo. He enlisted in the Union Army April 16, 1861, as a private and was mustered out as Brigadier-General October 8, 1865; was in 43 battles and 123 days under fire and was six times complimented in special orders by commanding generals for gallant conduct in battle; commanded his regiment in all the battles of the Atlanta campaign, and after the battles of Franklin and Nashville, Tenn., upon the recommendation of the officers of his brigade and division, he was made brevet brigadier general by President Lincoln for long and faithful service and conspicuous gallantry at the battles of Resaca, Atlanta, Franklin and Nashville.
War of 1870-71.War of 1870-71.—What may be expected from the process of rewriting our school histories of American events by the friends of England is patent from the manner in which some of the most vital historical data of the world’s history was distorted during the war. For example, it has been persistently dinned into the minds of Americans that France was trapped into war with Prussia in 1870 by the subtle diplomatic strategy of Bismarck, who is represented as having forged a dispatch. The facts are easily accessible in “Bismarck, the Man and the Statesman,” published by Harper Brothers in 1899, in which the episodes and events, including the manner of the alleged dispatch, are treated with a degree of candor that can leave no doubt as to the responsibility for the war. It can be found in Chapter XXVII, entitled “The Ems Dispatch.”The facts in the case are that France desired war with Prussia, but was taken by surprise when it found the South German states allied with Prussia, instead of rushing to the aid of France, as Napoleon III had confidently expected. If a nation can be inflamed to go to war by a dispatch which simply recorded that King William of Prussia had refused to intermeddle with the succession to the Crown of Spain and declined to continue the discussion of the subject with the French minister, Benedetti, it is hardly probable that the war could have been prevented under any circumstances. Accordingly, France declared war, not Prussia. Napoleon III at the time was regulating affairs throughout the universe, in Italy as well as in Mexico, where he set up a throne supported by French arms, which violated the Monroe Doctrine and almost brought us to grips with France.The popular description of France as a peace-loving nation is not borne out by many centuries of her history, as even Frenchmen admit. The Cock of Gaul is a fighting cock, declares Deputy Pierre Brizon in a recent (1919) issue of the French periodical, “La Vague:”They fired cannon to announce Peace!What would you have done? They are used to blood! They are the sons of the “Cock of Gaul.”And the “Cock of Gaul” through the centuries has carried war over the whole world—into Italy, into Germany, into Spain, into England, into Switzerland, into Austria, into Ireland, into the Scandinavian countries, into Russia, into Syria, to the Indies, to Mexico, into Algeria, into Tunis, to the Antilles, to Senegal, into the Congo, to Madagascar, into China, to Morocco, to the Ends of the Earth.No people for a thousand years have been more warlike than the French. No one has had to an equal degree with them the silly vanity of “glory” and of “victory.” No one has caused more blood to run over the earth.Of course, this does not furnish an excuse for the Vandals, the Mongols, the Turks, the Russians, the English or the Prussians.No, but—they fired cannon in Paris to announce Peace!The absurdity that Prussia lured France into a war in 1870 is repudiated by no less an authority than Premier Georges Clemenceau. In an article which he contributed to the “Saturday Evening Post,” of October 24, 1914, under the title, “The Cause of France,” (p. 1, col. 2), he states:In 1870 Napoleon III in a moment of folly declared war on Germany [should be Prussia] without even having the excuse of being in a state of military preparedness.No true Frenchman has ever hesitated to admit that the wrongs of that day were committed by our side. Dearly we have paid for them.
War of 1870-71.—What may be expected from the process of rewriting our school histories of American events by the friends of England is patent from the manner in which some of the most vital historical data of the world’s history was distorted during the war. For example, it has been persistently dinned into the minds of Americans that France was trapped into war with Prussia in 1870 by the subtle diplomatic strategy of Bismarck, who is represented as having forged a dispatch. The facts are easily accessible in “Bismarck, the Man and the Statesman,” published by Harper Brothers in 1899, in which the episodes and events, including the manner of the alleged dispatch, are treated with a degree of candor that can leave no doubt as to the responsibility for the war. It can be found in Chapter XXVII, entitled “The Ems Dispatch.”
The facts in the case are that France desired war with Prussia, but was taken by surprise when it found the South German states allied with Prussia, instead of rushing to the aid of France, as Napoleon III had confidently expected. If a nation can be inflamed to go to war by a dispatch which simply recorded that King William of Prussia had refused to intermeddle with the succession to the Crown of Spain and declined to continue the discussion of the subject with the French minister, Benedetti, it is hardly probable that the war could have been prevented under any circumstances. Accordingly, France declared war, not Prussia. Napoleon III at the time was regulating affairs throughout the universe, in Italy as well as in Mexico, where he set up a throne supported by French arms, which violated the Monroe Doctrine and almost brought us to grips with France.
The popular description of France as a peace-loving nation is not borne out by many centuries of her history, as even Frenchmen admit. The Cock of Gaul is a fighting cock, declares Deputy Pierre Brizon in a recent (1919) issue of the French periodical, “La Vague:”
They fired cannon to announce Peace!What would you have done? They are used to blood! They are the sons of the “Cock of Gaul.”And the “Cock of Gaul” through the centuries has carried war over the whole world—into Italy, into Germany, into Spain, into England, into Switzerland, into Austria, into Ireland, into the Scandinavian countries, into Russia, into Syria, to the Indies, to Mexico, into Algeria, into Tunis, to the Antilles, to Senegal, into the Congo, to Madagascar, into China, to Morocco, to the Ends of the Earth.No people for a thousand years have been more warlike than the French. No one has had to an equal degree with them the silly vanity of “glory” and of “victory.” No one has caused more blood to run over the earth.Of course, this does not furnish an excuse for the Vandals, the Mongols, the Turks, the Russians, the English or the Prussians.No, but—they fired cannon in Paris to announce Peace!
They fired cannon to announce Peace!
What would you have done? They are used to blood! They are the sons of the “Cock of Gaul.”
And the “Cock of Gaul” through the centuries has carried war over the whole world—into Italy, into Germany, into Spain, into England, into Switzerland, into Austria, into Ireland, into the Scandinavian countries, into Russia, into Syria, to the Indies, to Mexico, into Algeria, into Tunis, to the Antilles, to Senegal, into the Congo, to Madagascar, into China, to Morocco, to the Ends of the Earth.
No people for a thousand years have been more warlike than the French. No one has had to an equal degree with them the silly vanity of “glory” and of “victory.” No one has caused more blood to run over the earth.
Of course, this does not furnish an excuse for the Vandals, the Mongols, the Turks, the Russians, the English or the Prussians.
No, but—they fired cannon in Paris to announce Peace!
The absurdity that Prussia lured France into a war in 1870 is repudiated by no less an authority than Premier Georges Clemenceau. In an article which he contributed to the “Saturday Evening Post,” of October 24, 1914, under the title, “The Cause of France,” (p. 1, col. 2), he states:
In 1870 Napoleon III in a moment of folly declared war on Germany [should be Prussia] without even having the excuse of being in a state of military preparedness.No true Frenchman has ever hesitated to admit that the wrongs of that day were committed by our side. Dearly we have paid for them.
War Lies Repudiated by British Press.War Lies Repudiated by British Press.—The following article deals with venerable subjects that have done much to inflame international hatred and misunderstandings. It is taken from the Glasgow “Forward,” of Glasgow, Scotland (1919), and will have a tendency, it is hoped, to enlighten the minds of many who have believed everything that was printed about war’s atrocities:We are continually receiving requests for information about the Lusitania, poison gas, aerial bombs, corpse fat, and other popular stock-in-trade of the warmonger. We cannot keep repeating our exposures of wartime falsehoods and delusions, and we ask our readers to keep the following facts beside them, and refrain from subjecting us to a continual stream of postal queries.“Was the Lusitania armed?”No. But she was carrying munitions of war. Lord Mersey, chairman of the Court of Enquiry into the sinking of the Lusitania, said:“The 5,000 cases of ammunition on board were 50 yards away from where the torpedo struck the ship” (Glasgow “Evening Citizen” report, July 17, 1915).“Did the German people rejoice?”No. There was neither hilarity nor medals nor school beflagging. The London “Times” reported that “Vorwarts” “deeply deplored” the sinking. So did the German naval critic, Captain Persius.Mr. John Murray, the publisher, issued last October an authoritative book from the pen of the correspondent of the Associated Press of America in Germany, Mr. George A. Schreiner, who was in Germany during the Lusitania period. Mr. Schreiner’s dispatches were extensively quoted in the patriotic British press, and his testimony is above suspicion. His book, “The Iron Ration” (pp. 291-2), says:The greatest shock the German public received was the news that the Lusitania had been sunk.For a day or two a minority held that the action was eminently correct. But even that minority dwindled rapidly.For many weeks the German public was in doubt as to what it all meant. The thinking element was groping about in the dark. What was the purpose of picking out a ship with so many passengers on board? Then the news came that the passengers had been warned not to travel on the steamer. That removed all doubt that the vessel had been singled out for attack.The government remained silent. It had nothing to say. The press, standing in fear of the censor and his power to suspend publication, was mute. Little by little it became known that there had been an accident. The commander of the submarine sent out to torpedo the ship had been instructed to fire at the forward hold, so that the passengers could get off before the vessel sank. Either a boiler of the ship or (they continued) an ammunition cargo had given unlooked-for assistance to the torpedo. The ship had gone down. Nothing weaned the German public so much away from the old order of government as did the Lusitania affair. The act seemed useless, wanton, ill-considered. The doctrine of governmental infallibility came near to being wrecked. The Germans began to lose confidence in the wisdom of the men who had been credited in the past with being the very quintessence of all knowledge, mundane and celestial. Admiral Tirpitz had to go. Germany’s allies, too, were not pleased. In Austria and Hungary the act was severely criticized, and in Turkey I found much disapproval of the thing.“The ‘Old Contemptible’ Lie.”The “New Illustrated” (Lord Northcliffe’s latest journalistic venture) declared, in March of this year:The story that the Kaiser called General French’s force a “contemptible little army” served a useful purpose in workingup fierce anger against the enemy in Britain, but it was an invention. The Kaiser was not so foolish as to say what the German General Staff would have known to be nonsense.“The Corpse Fat Lie.”The “Times” started the lie that the Germans had built factories for extracting grease from the bodies of dead soldiers. This grease was used as margarine.Lord Robert Cecil latterly admitted in the House of Commons that there was no evidence of the story; but, of course, he believed the Germans capable of it. The London comic (?) papers issued cartoons of a German looking at a pot of grease and soliloquizing: “Alas! my poor brother!” But the lie was finally exposed and disappeared even from the stock-in-trade of the British Workers’ League—and, God knows, they were loth to let anything go.“Who first bombed from the sky?”The National War Savings Committee issued synopses of their lantern lectures last year for propaganda purposes. Here are the synopses of the two slides dealing with the first bomb dropped on towns:A lantern picture, entitled “War in the Air,” by C. G. Grey (editor of “Aeroplane”), issued by the National War Savings Committee, Salisbury Square, London, E. C. 4 (page 7).“Slide 32—The navy’s land machines went over to Belgium and it is to the credit of the R. N. A. S. thatthe first hostile missiles which fell on German soil were bombs dropped by R. N. A. S. pilots on Cologne and Dusseldorf....“Slide 35—It is interesting to note that these early raids by the R. N. A. S. were the first example of bomb-dropping attacks from the air in any way, and the only pity is that we had not at the beginning of the war enough aeroplanes.”“Priority in poison gas.”The Glasgow “Evening News” (January 26, 1918) frankly admitted that:It appears that mustard gas, generally believed to have been invented by the Germans, was discovered by the late Professor Guthrie at the Royal College, Mauritius.The London “Times,” on August 2, 1914, reproduced from the French government organ, “Le Temps,” a paragraph reporting that M. Turpin has offered to the French Ministry of War a shell filled with a chemical compound discovered by him, and called Turpinite. Numbers of these shells seem to have been used by the French artillery, and they were essentially such gas shells as the Germans are now using. Numerous correspondents, claiming to be eye-witnesses,reported their terrible effects in the British press during October and November, 1914. We learned that the gas liberated from the explosion of one of these shells was enough to asphyxiate an entire platoon of Germans. After death they were observed to be standing erect and shoulder to shoulder in their trenches, and, after killing them with this marvelous celerity, the gas would roll on and stifle entire flocks of sheep feeding in fields in their rear. The British press writers saw nothing to blame in the use against Germans of Turpinite; on the contrary, they openly exulted in its terrible effects. Subsequently, much to their regret, Turpinite was given up, because it was so dangerous to the munition workers who had to pour it into the shell cases. Some weeks later the Germans began to use with more success the same expedient.The London “Illustrated News” (May 13, 1915) published a “thrilling” picture of 5 German officers asphyxiated by British lyddite. The descriptive lines below the picture say:“One of the correspondents at the front tells a thrilling story of the havoc wrought by lyddite shells used by our artillery in Flanders. The fumes of the lyddite are very poisonous, so much so that some of our troops wore masks for the nose and mouth. After one battle, in which the German trenches had been shelled with lyddite, an officer found a card party of five officers stone dead. Looking at them in the bright moonlight, he was struck by their resemblance to waxwork figures. They were in perfectly natural poses, but the bright yellow of their skins showed the manner of their death—asphyxiation by lyddite.”The first inventor of poison gas was Lord Dundonald during the Crimean war (see “The Panmure Papers,” published in 1908 by Hodder & Stoughton, and the “Candid Review,” August, 1915). It was at the time of the Crimean war rejected by the English as “too horrible.”There were, of course, atrocities during the war—German, Austrian, Italian, British, Serbian, French. All war is an atrocity, butthe hatewas fanned and the murder kept going by the steady press campaigns of mendacity in every country, and here in Britain we were subjected to more than our fair share of it.
War Lies Repudiated by British Press.—The following article deals with venerable subjects that have done much to inflame international hatred and misunderstandings. It is taken from the Glasgow “Forward,” of Glasgow, Scotland (1919), and will have a tendency, it is hoped, to enlighten the minds of many who have believed everything that was printed about war’s atrocities:
We are continually receiving requests for information about the Lusitania, poison gas, aerial bombs, corpse fat, and other popular stock-in-trade of the warmonger. We cannot keep repeating our exposures of wartime falsehoods and delusions, and we ask our readers to keep the following facts beside them, and refrain from subjecting us to a continual stream of postal queries.
“Was the Lusitania armed?”
No. But she was carrying munitions of war. Lord Mersey, chairman of the Court of Enquiry into the sinking of the Lusitania, said:“The 5,000 cases of ammunition on board were 50 yards away from where the torpedo struck the ship” (Glasgow “Evening Citizen” report, July 17, 1915).
“Did the German people rejoice?”
No. There was neither hilarity nor medals nor school beflagging. The London “Times” reported that “Vorwarts” “deeply deplored” the sinking. So did the German naval critic, Captain Persius.
Mr. John Murray, the publisher, issued last October an authoritative book from the pen of the correspondent of the Associated Press of America in Germany, Mr. George A. Schreiner, who was in Germany during the Lusitania period. Mr. Schreiner’s dispatches were extensively quoted in the patriotic British press, and his testimony is above suspicion. His book, “The Iron Ration” (pp. 291-2), says:
The greatest shock the German public received was the news that the Lusitania had been sunk.For a day or two a minority held that the action was eminently correct. But even that minority dwindled rapidly.For many weeks the German public was in doubt as to what it all meant. The thinking element was groping about in the dark. What was the purpose of picking out a ship with so many passengers on board? Then the news came that the passengers had been warned not to travel on the steamer. That removed all doubt that the vessel had been singled out for attack.The government remained silent. It had nothing to say. The press, standing in fear of the censor and his power to suspend publication, was mute. Little by little it became known that there had been an accident. The commander of the submarine sent out to torpedo the ship had been instructed to fire at the forward hold, so that the passengers could get off before the vessel sank. Either a boiler of the ship or (they continued) an ammunition cargo had given unlooked-for assistance to the torpedo. The ship had gone down. Nothing weaned the German public so much away from the old order of government as did the Lusitania affair. The act seemed useless, wanton, ill-considered. The doctrine of governmental infallibility came near to being wrecked. The Germans began to lose confidence in the wisdom of the men who had been credited in the past with being the very quintessence of all knowledge, mundane and celestial. Admiral Tirpitz had to go. Germany’s allies, too, were not pleased. In Austria and Hungary the act was severely criticized, and in Turkey I found much disapproval of the thing.
The greatest shock the German public received was the news that the Lusitania had been sunk.
For a day or two a minority held that the action was eminently correct. But even that minority dwindled rapidly.
For many weeks the German public was in doubt as to what it all meant. The thinking element was groping about in the dark. What was the purpose of picking out a ship with so many passengers on board? Then the news came that the passengers had been warned not to travel on the steamer. That removed all doubt that the vessel had been singled out for attack.
The government remained silent. It had nothing to say. The press, standing in fear of the censor and his power to suspend publication, was mute. Little by little it became known that there had been an accident. The commander of the submarine sent out to torpedo the ship had been instructed to fire at the forward hold, so that the passengers could get off before the vessel sank. Either a boiler of the ship or (they continued) an ammunition cargo had given unlooked-for assistance to the torpedo. The ship had gone down. Nothing weaned the German public so much away from the old order of government as did the Lusitania affair. The act seemed useless, wanton, ill-considered. The doctrine of governmental infallibility came near to being wrecked. The Germans began to lose confidence in the wisdom of the men who had been credited in the past with being the very quintessence of all knowledge, mundane and celestial. Admiral Tirpitz had to go. Germany’s allies, too, were not pleased. In Austria and Hungary the act was severely criticized, and in Turkey I found much disapproval of the thing.
“The ‘Old Contemptible’ Lie.”
The “New Illustrated” (Lord Northcliffe’s latest journalistic venture) declared, in March of this year:
The story that the Kaiser called General French’s force a “contemptible little army” served a useful purpose in workingup fierce anger against the enemy in Britain, but it was an invention. The Kaiser was not so foolish as to say what the German General Staff would have known to be nonsense.
“The Corpse Fat Lie.”
The “Times” started the lie that the Germans had built factories for extracting grease from the bodies of dead soldiers. This grease was used as margarine.
Lord Robert Cecil latterly admitted in the House of Commons that there was no evidence of the story; but, of course, he believed the Germans capable of it. The London comic (?) papers issued cartoons of a German looking at a pot of grease and soliloquizing: “Alas! my poor brother!” But the lie was finally exposed and disappeared even from the stock-in-trade of the British Workers’ League—and, God knows, they were loth to let anything go.
“Who first bombed from the sky?”
The National War Savings Committee issued synopses of their lantern lectures last year for propaganda purposes. Here are the synopses of the two slides dealing with the first bomb dropped on towns:
A lantern picture, entitled “War in the Air,” by C. G. Grey (editor of “Aeroplane”), issued by the National War Savings Committee, Salisbury Square, London, E. C. 4 (page 7).
“Slide 32—The navy’s land machines went over to Belgium and it is to the credit of the R. N. A. S. thatthe first hostile missiles which fell on German soil were bombs dropped by R. N. A. S. pilots on Cologne and Dusseldorf....
“Slide 35—It is interesting to note that these early raids by the R. N. A. S. were the first example of bomb-dropping attacks from the air in any way, and the only pity is that we had not at the beginning of the war enough aeroplanes.”
“Priority in poison gas.”
The Glasgow “Evening News” (January 26, 1918) frankly admitted that:
It appears that mustard gas, generally believed to have been invented by the Germans, was discovered by the late Professor Guthrie at the Royal College, Mauritius.
The London “Times,” on August 2, 1914, reproduced from the French government organ, “Le Temps,” a paragraph reporting that M. Turpin has offered to the French Ministry of War a shell filled with a chemical compound discovered by him, and called Turpinite. Numbers of these shells seem to have been used by the French artillery, and they were essentially such gas shells as the Germans are now using. Numerous correspondents, claiming to be eye-witnesses,reported their terrible effects in the British press during October and November, 1914. We learned that the gas liberated from the explosion of one of these shells was enough to asphyxiate an entire platoon of Germans. After death they were observed to be standing erect and shoulder to shoulder in their trenches, and, after killing them with this marvelous celerity, the gas would roll on and stifle entire flocks of sheep feeding in fields in their rear. The British press writers saw nothing to blame in the use against Germans of Turpinite; on the contrary, they openly exulted in its terrible effects. Subsequently, much to their regret, Turpinite was given up, because it was so dangerous to the munition workers who had to pour it into the shell cases. Some weeks later the Germans began to use with more success the same expedient.
The London “Illustrated News” (May 13, 1915) published a “thrilling” picture of 5 German officers asphyxiated by British lyddite. The descriptive lines below the picture say:
“One of the correspondents at the front tells a thrilling story of the havoc wrought by lyddite shells used by our artillery in Flanders. The fumes of the lyddite are very poisonous, so much so that some of our troops wore masks for the nose and mouth. After one battle, in which the German trenches had been shelled with lyddite, an officer found a card party of five officers stone dead. Looking at them in the bright moonlight, he was struck by their resemblance to waxwork figures. They were in perfectly natural poses, but the bright yellow of their skins showed the manner of their death—asphyxiation by lyddite.”
The first inventor of poison gas was Lord Dundonald during the Crimean war (see “The Panmure Papers,” published in 1908 by Hodder & Stoughton, and the “Candid Review,” August, 1915). It was at the time of the Crimean war rejected by the English as “too horrible.”
There were, of course, atrocities during the war—German, Austrian, Italian, British, Serbian, French. All war is an atrocity, butthe hatewas fanned and the murder kept going by the steady press campaigns of mendacity in every country, and here in Britain we were subjected to more than our fair share of it.
Washington’s Bodyguard.Washington’s Bodyguard.—At the outbreak of the war of independence Herkimer, Muhlenberg and Schlatter gathered the Germans in the Mohawk Valley and the Virginia Valley together and organized them into companies for service. Baron von Ottendorff, another German soldier, recruited and drilled the famous Armand Legion. And when Washington’s first bodyguard was suspected of treasonable sentiments and plans it was dismissed and a new bodyguard, consisting almost entirely of Germans, was formed. This new bodyguard was supported by a troop of cavalry consisting entirely of Germans,under the command of Major Barth von Heer, one of Frederick the Great’s finest cavalry officers. This troop stood by Washington during the entire war, and twelve of them escorted him to Mt. Vernon when he retired.—(“The European War of 1914,” by Prof. John W. Burgess, Chap. IV, p. 115.)
Washington’s Bodyguard.—At the outbreak of the war of independence Herkimer, Muhlenberg and Schlatter gathered the Germans in the Mohawk Valley and the Virginia Valley together and organized them into companies for service. Baron von Ottendorff, another German soldier, recruited and drilled the famous Armand Legion. And when Washington’s first bodyguard was suspected of treasonable sentiments and plans it was dismissed and a new bodyguard, consisting almost entirely of Germans, was formed. This new bodyguard was supported by a troop of cavalry consisting entirely of Germans,under the command of Major Barth von Heer, one of Frederick the Great’s finest cavalry officers. This troop stood by Washington during the entire war, and twelve of them escorted him to Mt. Vernon when he retired.—(“The European War of 1914,” by Prof. John W. Burgess, Chap. IV, p. 115.)
Washington’s Tribute.Washington’s Tribute.—The Philadelphia German Lutherans held a memorial service on May 27, 1917, made doubly impressive at Zion’s Church, by the circulation of a letter written to the congregation by George Washington, in reply to congratulations on his first election as President of the United States. The letter concludes with the following words:From the excellent character for dilligence, sobriety and virtue which the Germans in general, who are settled in America have ever maintained, I cannot forbear felicitating myself on receiving from respectable a number of them such strong assurance of their affection for my person, confidence in my integrity, and real zeal to support me in my endeavors for promoting the welfare of our common country.Similar expressions are contained in a letter written by Jefferson, which see elsewhere. The church to whose congregation Washington’s letter was addressed, is the most historic church in the northern part of the United States, since it was built in 1742, under the direction of the patriarch of the Lutheran Church in America, Heinrich M. Muhlenberg, father of General Muhlenberg, of Revolutionary fame. For 178 years the service has been conducted in the German language.
Washington’s Tribute.—The Philadelphia German Lutherans held a memorial service on May 27, 1917, made doubly impressive at Zion’s Church, by the circulation of a letter written to the congregation by George Washington, in reply to congratulations on his first election as President of the United States. The letter concludes with the following words:
From the excellent character for dilligence, sobriety and virtue which the Germans in general, who are settled in America have ever maintained, I cannot forbear felicitating myself on receiving from respectable a number of them such strong assurance of their affection for my person, confidence in my integrity, and real zeal to support me in my endeavors for promoting the welfare of our common country.
Similar expressions are contained in a letter written by Jefferson, which see elsewhere. The church to whose congregation Washington’s letter was addressed, is the most historic church in the northern part of the United States, since it was built in 1742, under the direction of the patriarch of the Lutheran Church in America, Heinrich M. Muhlenberg, father of General Muhlenberg, of Revolutionary fame. For 178 years the service has been conducted in the German language.
Weiser, Conrad.Weiser, Conrad.—Along with Franz Daniel Pastorius, Jacob Leisler and John Peter Zenger, the name of Conrad Weiser deserves to be commemorated as one of the outstanding figures of early American history, for no man of his period exercised such influence with the Indians or did so much to promote the peaceful development of the settlements by insuring the friendship of the Six Nations. The following sketch of this famous character in American history is taken from “Eminent Americans” by Benson J. Lossing:“One of the most noted agents of communication between the white men and the Indians was Conrad Weiser, a native of Germany, who came to America in early life and settled with his father in the present Schoharie County, N. Y., in 1713. They left England in 1712 and were seventeen months on the voyage. Young Weiser became a great favorite with the Iroquois Indians in the Schoharie and Mohawk valleys, with whom he spent much of his life.Late in 1714 the elder Weiser and about thirty other families who had settled in Schoharie, becoming dissatisfied with attempts to tax them, set out for Tulpehocken in Pennsylvania, by way of the Susquehanna River, and settledthere. But young Weiser was enamoured of the free life of the savage. He was naturalized by them and became thoroughly versed in the language of the whole Six Nations, as the Iroquois Confederacy in New York was called. He became confidential interpreter and messenger for the Province of Pennsylvania among the Indians and assisted at many important treaties. The governor of Virginia commissioned him to visit the grand council at Onondago in 1737 and with only a Dutchman and three Indians he traversed the trackless forest for 500 miles for that purpose. He went on a similar mission from Philadelphia to Shamokin (Sunbury) in 1744. At Reading he established an Indian agency and trading post. When the French on the frontier made hostile demonstrations in 1755 he was commissioned a colonel of a volunteer regiment from Berks County, and in 1758 he attended the great gathering of Indian chiefs in council with white commissioners at Easton. Such was the affection of the Indians for Weiser that for many years after his death they were in the habit of visiting his grave and strewing flowers upon it. Mr. Weiser’s daughter married Henry Melchior Muhlenberg, D. D., the founder of the Luthern Church in America.”One of his grandsons was General Muhlenberg, another was the first Speaker of the House of Congress. General Washington said of him: “Posterity will not forget his just deserts.”
Weiser, Conrad.—Along with Franz Daniel Pastorius, Jacob Leisler and John Peter Zenger, the name of Conrad Weiser deserves to be commemorated as one of the outstanding figures of early American history, for no man of his period exercised such influence with the Indians or did so much to promote the peaceful development of the settlements by insuring the friendship of the Six Nations. The following sketch of this famous character in American history is taken from “Eminent Americans” by Benson J. Lossing:
“One of the most noted agents of communication between the white men and the Indians was Conrad Weiser, a native of Germany, who came to America in early life and settled with his father in the present Schoharie County, N. Y., in 1713. They left England in 1712 and were seventeen months on the voyage. Young Weiser became a great favorite with the Iroquois Indians in the Schoharie and Mohawk valleys, with whom he spent much of his life.Late in 1714 the elder Weiser and about thirty other families who had settled in Schoharie, becoming dissatisfied with attempts to tax them, set out for Tulpehocken in Pennsylvania, by way of the Susquehanna River, and settledthere. But young Weiser was enamoured of the free life of the savage. He was naturalized by them and became thoroughly versed in the language of the whole Six Nations, as the Iroquois Confederacy in New York was called. He became confidential interpreter and messenger for the Province of Pennsylvania among the Indians and assisted at many important treaties. The governor of Virginia commissioned him to visit the grand council at Onondago in 1737 and with only a Dutchman and three Indians he traversed the trackless forest for 500 miles for that purpose. He went on a similar mission from Philadelphia to Shamokin (Sunbury) in 1744. At Reading he established an Indian agency and trading post. When the French on the frontier made hostile demonstrations in 1755 he was commissioned a colonel of a volunteer regiment from Berks County, and in 1758 he attended the great gathering of Indian chiefs in council with white commissioners at Easton. Such was the affection of the Indians for Weiser that for many years after his death they were in the habit of visiting his grave and strewing flowers upon it. Mr. Weiser’s daughter married Henry Melchior Muhlenberg, D. D., the founder of the Luthern Church in America.”
One of his grandsons was General Muhlenberg, another was the first Speaker of the House of Congress. General Washington said of him: “Posterity will not forget his just deserts.”
Wetzel, Lou.Wetzel, Lou.—The present generation is not too old to recall the flood of Indian stories of their youth, for in the ‘70s the Indian was still a factor in the contest for the development of the West and the papers at times contained thrilling accounts of battles with Indians on our frontier. Cooper was still a much-read novelist, and less famous writers still sought their inspiration in the French and Indian wars, the wars which the English and Tories, with their Indian allies, carried into the valleys of the Schoharie and the Mohawk, as well as in the bloody conflicts in Kentucky and Ohio. In these stories no names were of more frequent occurrence than those of Lou Wetzel, the scout and Indian fighter, and Simon Girty, the renegade. Both these names are strictly historic. Wetzel, was next to Daniel Boone, the most famous frontiersman of our early middle west history. His father was born in the Palatinate and came to Pennsylvania, settling afterwards in Ohio, where each of his four sons won fame as frontiersmen, scouts and guides, but above all, Lou, who after an eventful career and many hairbreadth escapes, died in Texas and was buried on the banks of the Brazos. Other noted Indian fighters of the period who were of German descent were Peter Nieswanger, Jacob Weiser, Carl Bilderbach, John Warth and George Rufner. The Poes, too, were well known in early border history, and were the sons of German settlers from Frederick County, Md. The elder,Frederick Poe, who moved west in 1774, and died in 1840 at the age of 93, was, like his younger brother, Andrew, a typical backwoodsman, contesting for every foot of ground with the native Indian.
Wetzel, Lou.—The present generation is not too old to recall the flood of Indian stories of their youth, for in the ‘70s the Indian was still a factor in the contest for the development of the West and the papers at times contained thrilling accounts of battles with Indians on our frontier. Cooper was still a much-read novelist, and less famous writers still sought their inspiration in the French and Indian wars, the wars which the English and Tories, with their Indian allies, carried into the valleys of the Schoharie and the Mohawk, as well as in the bloody conflicts in Kentucky and Ohio. In these stories no names were of more frequent occurrence than those of Lou Wetzel, the scout and Indian fighter, and Simon Girty, the renegade. Both these names are strictly historic. Wetzel, was next to Daniel Boone, the most famous frontiersman of our early middle west history. His father was born in the Palatinate and came to Pennsylvania, settling afterwards in Ohio, where each of his four sons won fame as frontiersmen, scouts and guides, but above all, Lou, who after an eventful career and many hairbreadth escapes, died in Texas and was buried on the banks of the Brazos. Other noted Indian fighters of the period who were of German descent were Peter Nieswanger, Jacob Weiser, Carl Bilderbach, John Warth and George Rufner. The Poes, too, were well known in early border history, and were the sons of German settlers from Frederick County, Md. The elder,Frederick Poe, who moved west in 1774, and died in 1840 at the age of 93, was, like his younger brother, Andrew, a typical backwoodsman, contesting for every foot of ground with the native Indian.
Wirt, William.Wirt, William.—Famous jurist and author. During three presidential terms Attorney General of the United States; appointed by President Monroe to that office in 1817-18; resigned under John Quincy Adams, March 3, 1829. Born at Bladensburg, Md., November 18, 1772, becoming a poor orphan at an early age. Learned Latin and Greek and studied law at Montgomery Court House, being licensed to practice in the fall of 1792. Commenced his professional career at Culpeper Courthouse, Va., the same year and soon became eminent socially and professionally. In 1802 received the appointment of chancellor of the eastern district of Virginia. Wrote his beautiful essays under the name of “The British Spy” and in 1807 prosecuted Aaron Burr for treason. His great speech on that occasion made him famous. Was a member of the Virginia Legislature in 1808, and from that time until after the war pursued his profession successfully until summoned into the Cabinet of President Monroe. In 1832 he was nominated by the anti-Masonic party for President of the United States, but received only the electoral vote of Vermont. He died February 18, 1834. The most famous production of his pen is a “Life of Patrick Henry.” Mr. Wirt never forgot his German antecedance and during 1833 engaged in founding a colony of Germans in Florida, but the venture was not successful. Lossing says “he was greatly esteemed in Richmond for his talents and social accomplishments.”
Wirt, William.—Famous jurist and author. During three presidential terms Attorney General of the United States; appointed by President Monroe to that office in 1817-18; resigned under John Quincy Adams, March 3, 1829. Born at Bladensburg, Md., November 18, 1772, becoming a poor orphan at an early age. Learned Latin and Greek and studied law at Montgomery Court House, being licensed to practice in the fall of 1792. Commenced his professional career at Culpeper Courthouse, Va., the same year and soon became eminent socially and professionally. In 1802 received the appointment of chancellor of the eastern district of Virginia. Wrote his beautiful essays under the name of “The British Spy” and in 1807 prosecuted Aaron Burr for treason. His great speech on that occasion made him famous. Was a member of the Virginia Legislature in 1808, and from that time until after the war pursued his profession successfully until summoned into the Cabinet of President Monroe. In 1832 he was nominated by the anti-Masonic party for President of the United States, but received only the electoral vote of Vermont. He died February 18, 1834. The most famous production of his pen is a “Life of Patrick Henry.” Mr. Wirt never forgot his German antecedance and during 1833 engaged in founding a colony of Germans in Florida, but the venture was not successful. Lossing says “he was greatly esteemed in Richmond for his talents and social accomplishments.”
Wirtz, Captain H., of Andersonville Prison.Wirtz, Captain H., of Andersonville Prison.—For many years after the Civil War, Andersonville Prison served as the outstanding symbol of the atrocities practiced upon Union prisoners by the Southern Confederacy. The prison was commanded by Captain Wirtz, who was subsequently tried by a court martial at Washington and hanged. General Lee’s nephew, and his biographer, has stated that General Lee used his influence to save him by showing that Wirtz was not primarily responsible for the sufferings of Union prisoners under his care, but that these were in a large measure due to the blockade against Southern ports, which prevented the landing of medicines and supplies. Because of his name, Wirtz has been cited by Prof. John D. Lawson, of Columbia, Mo., and others, as a typical personal embodiment of German brutality. Mr. Louis Benecke, a prominent attorney, of Brunswick, Mo., who himself was for seven months a Union prisoner in a Confederate prison, and who afterwards became the historian of the Association of Ex-Union Prisoners of War, has shown that Wirtz was not a native of Germany. Mr. Benecke says: “As the record shows, his grandfather was a French wine merchant at Bonnerville, France, and his name was there spelled with a ‘V’instead of a ‘W.’ The father of Wirtz located in Switzerland, near Geneva, and while there changed his name to Wirtz, conforming to the phonetic of the French ‘V.’ It is further shown that the mother of Captain H. Wirtz was a French Italian. A prisoner of German descent, believing Wirtz to be a German, applied to him for a favor, and insinuated that his nationality entitled him to some consideration, to which Wirtz replied, ‘Je ne suis allemagne; je suis Suis.’ Wirtz at no time or place ever claimed to be anything but a Swiss or French descent.”
Wirtz, Captain H., of Andersonville Prison.—For many years after the Civil War, Andersonville Prison served as the outstanding symbol of the atrocities practiced upon Union prisoners by the Southern Confederacy. The prison was commanded by Captain Wirtz, who was subsequently tried by a court martial at Washington and hanged. General Lee’s nephew, and his biographer, has stated that General Lee used his influence to save him by showing that Wirtz was not primarily responsible for the sufferings of Union prisoners under his care, but that these were in a large measure due to the blockade against Southern ports, which prevented the landing of medicines and supplies. Because of his name, Wirtz has been cited by Prof. John D. Lawson, of Columbia, Mo., and others, as a typical personal embodiment of German brutality. Mr. Louis Benecke, a prominent attorney, of Brunswick, Mo., who himself was for seven months a Union prisoner in a Confederate prison, and who afterwards became the historian of the Association of Ex-Union Prisoners of War, has shown that Wirtz was not a native of Germany. Mr. Benecke says: “As the record shows, his grandfather was a French wine merchant at Bonnerville, France, and his name was there spelled with a ‘V’instead of a ‘W.’ The father of Wirtz located in Switzerland, near Geneva, and while there changed his name to Wirtz, conforming to the phonetic of the French ‘V.’ It is further shown that the mother of Captain H. Wirtz was a French Italian. A prisoner of German descent, believing Wirtz to be a German, applied to him for a favor, and insinuated that his nationality entitled him to some consideration, to which Wirtz replied, ‘Je ne suis allemagne; je suis Suis.’ Wirtz at no time or place ever claimed to be anything but a Swiss or French descent.”
Wistar, Caspar.Wistar, Caspar.—In 1717 emigrated to America from Hilspach, Germany, where he was born in 1696, and established what is supposed to be the first glass factory in America in New Jersey, thirty miles from Philadelphia. (It is believed that an earlier glass factory was established by Germans in Virginia.)
Wistar, Caspar.—In 1717 emigrated to America from Hilspach, Germany, where he was born in 1696, and established what is supposed to be the first glass factory in America in New Jersey, thirty miles from Philadelphia. (It is believed that an earlier glass factory was established by Germans in Virginia.)
Zane, Elizabeth.Zane, Elizabeth.—Described as the handsome and vivacious daughter of Col. Zane (Zahn), founder of Wheeling, W. Va. In 1782 a fort near Zane’s loghouse on the site of the present city was attacked by a band of British soldiers and 186 Indian savages. The defenders of the fort were reduced from 42 to 12, and as the supply of powder was running low, the little garrison seemed doomed. The enemy was covering every approach to Zane’s loghouse, about sixty yards distant, where a full keg of powder was stored. It was to get this powder that Miss Zane responded when volunteers were called for, arguing that not a man could be spared while a girl would not be missed. Despite every protest she set out on her daring journey, leisurely opened the back gate and crossed the ground as coolly as though for a stroll. The British and Indians were dumbfounded, and did not realize what her plan was until she returned, carrying the keg under a table cloth. They then opened fire on her, several bullets passing through her clothing, but the heroic girl reached the blockhouse unscathed and enabled the defenders to hold out until relief came.
Zane, Elizabeth.—Described as the handsome and vivacious daughter of Col. Zane (Zahn), founder of Wheeling, W. Va. In 1782 a fort near Zane’s loghouse on the site of the present city was attacked by a band of British soldiers and 186 Indian savages. The defenders of the fort were reduced from 42 to 12, and as the supply of powder was running low, the little garrison seemed doomed. The enemy was covering every approach to Zane’s loghouse, about sixty yards distant, where a full keg of powder was stored. It was to get this powder that Miss Zane responded when volunteers were called for, arguing that not a man could be spared while a girl would not be missed. Despite every protest she set out on her daring journey, leisurely opened the back gate and crossed the ground as coolly as though for a stroll. The British and Indians were dumbfounded, and did not realize what her plan was until she returned, carrying the keg under a table cloth. They then opened fire on her, several bullets passing through her clothing, but the heroic girl reached the blockhouse unscathed and enabled the defenders to hold out until relief came.
Ziegler, David, Revolutionary Soldier and Indian Fighter.Ziegler, David, Revolutionary Soldier and Indian Fighter.—American soldier and first mayor of Cincinnati; born at Heidelberg, August 18, 1748; served under General Weismann in the Russian army under Catharine II and took part in the Turkish-Russian campaign which ended with the capture of the Krim in 1774. Came to America in the same year and settled in Lancaster, Pa.Joined the battalion of General William Thompson which appeared before Boston, August 2, 1775, where it was placed under command of General Washington. Ziegler was adjutant and the soul of the battalion, more than half of which was composed of German Americans, and which was the second regiment, after that of Massachusetts, to be enlisted under Washington’s standard.Ziegler served throughout the War of Independence as an officer and was repeatedly mentioned for distinguished service. On account of his ability was appointed by General St. Clair, Commissioner-General for the Department of Pennsylvania. Rendered great service in drilling troops and introducing discipline. Major Denny, in his diary, refers to him in these words: “As a disciplinarian, he has no superior in the whole army.”After the Revolution he resided at Carlisle, Pa., until the outbreak of the Indian War in the West, when he served as captain in the then existing only regiment of regulars under Col. Harmar. His own company was composed of a majority of Pennsylvania Germans. Manned Fort Harmar (Marietta, O.); built Fort Finney at the mouth of the Big Miami, and subsequently took part in the expedition of General George Roger Clark against the Kickapoos on the Wabash, and in 1790, in the disastrous expedition of Gen. Harmar against the Indians on the upper Miami.In the battle of the Maumee he distinguished himself for personal bravery, and St. Clair dispatched Ziegler with two companies to succor the distressed settlers in and around Marietta following the defeat of Harmar. He soon obtained the upper hand of the hordes of Indians, and in restoring order gained such decisive advantages that he was hailed as the most popular soldier in the Northwest. In the fall of 1791, Ziegler took part in the bloody and disastrous campaign under St. Clair, in which he commanded a battalion of Federal troops. Being prevented from taking part in the actual battle by reason of special service elsewhere, was assigned to cover the headlong retreat of the demoralized troops, and by ceaseless vigilance and strict discipline succeeded in the face of furious attacks by the Indians, drunk with victory, in leading the scattered American forces back to Fort Washington (Cincinnati). This feat earned for him the unqualified praise of all concerned, and materially increased his popularity.His dash and efficiency in the campaign of the previous year had caused his advancement to the rank of major in the regular army, and new honors awaited him. When General St. Clair, as commander-in-chief, was summoned to Philadelphia to defend his conduct before Congress, he invested Ziegler with the “ad interim” authority of commander-in-chief of the whole army, passing over the heads of officers of higher rank, Wilkinson, Butler and Armstrong. Thus a German, for a period of six weeks, acted as commander-in-chief of the American army. This distinction resulted in a cabal of native officers to get rid of a detested “foreigner,” and Col. Jacob Wilkinson (afterward general and highest commanding officer), and Col. Armstrong preferred charges of insubordination and drunkenness against the veteran.Ziegler in disgust thereupon resigned his command and retired from the army. But the people insisted on testifying their admiration and loyalty to their hero, and when Cincinnati in 1802 became an incorporated town he was elected its first mayor by a large majority and subsequently re-elected “in recognition,” according to Judge Burnett in “Notes on the Settlement of the Northwest Territory,” “of his services in protecting the settlements in 1791 and 1792 as well as in reprisal for the unjust treatment accorded him by the government.” Ziegler died in Cincinnati, September 24, 1811, universally mourned by his fellow citizens.
Ziegler, David, Revolutionary Soldier and Indian Fighter.—American soldier and first mayor of Cincinnati; born at Heidelberg, August 18, 1748; served under General Weismann in the Russian army under Catharine II and took part in the Turkish-Russian campaign which ended with the capture of the Krim in 1774. Came to America in the same year and settled in Lancaster, Pa.
Joined the battalion of General William Thompson which appeared before Boston, August 2, 1775, where it was placed under command of General Washington. Ziegler was adjutant and the soul of the battalion, more than half of which was composed of German Americans, and which was the second regiment, after that of Massachusetts, to be enlisted under Washington’s standard.
Ziegler served throughout the War of Independence as an officer and was repeatedly mentioned for distinguished service. On account of his ability was appointed by General St. Clair, Commissioner-General for the Department of Pennsylvania. Rendered great service in drilling troops and introducing discipline. Major Denny, in his diary, refers to him in these words: “As a disciplinarian, he has no superior in the whole army.”
After the Revolution he resided at Carlisle, Pa., until the outbreak of the Indian War in the West, when he served as captain in the then existing only regiment of regulars under Col. Harmar. His own company was composed of a majority of Pennsylvania Germans. Manned Fort Harmar (Marietta, O.); built Fort Finney at the mouth of the Big Miami, and subsequently took part in the expedition of General George Roger Clark against the Kickapoos on the Wabash, and in 1790, in the disastrous expedition of Gen. Harmar against the Indians on the upper Miami.
In the battle of the Maumee he distinguished himself for personal bravery, and St. Clair dispatched Ziegler with two companies to succor the distressed settlers in and around Marietta following the defeat of Harmar. He soon obtained the upper hand of the hordes of Indians, and in restoring order gained such decisive advantages that he was hailed as the most popular soldier in the Northwest. In the fall of 1791, Ziegler took part in the bloody and disastrous campaign under St. Clair, in which he commanded a battalion of Federal troops. Being prevented from taking part in the actual battle by reason of special service elsewhere, was assigned to cover the headlong retreat of the demoralized troops, and by ceaseless vigilance and strict discipline succeeded in the face of furious attacks by the Indians, drunk with victory, in leading the scattered American forces back to Fort Washington (Cincinnati). This feat earned for him the unqualified praise of all concerned, and materially increased his popularity.
His dash and efficiency in the campaign of the previous year had caused his advancement to the rank of major in the regular army, and new honors awaited him. When General St. Clair, as commander-in-chief, was summoned to Philadelphia to defend his conduct before Congress, he invested Ziegler with the “ad interim” authority of commander-in-chief of the whole army, passing over the heads of officers of higher rank, Wilkinson, Butler and Armstrong. Thus a German, for a period of six weeks, acted as commander-in-chief of the American army. This distinction resulted in a cabal of native officers to get rid of a detested “foreigner,” and Col. Jacob Wilkinson (afterward general and highest commanding officer), and Col. Armstrong preferred charges of insubordination and drunkenness against the veteran.
Ziegler in disgust thereupon resigned his command and retired from the army. But the people insisted on testifying their admiration and loyalty to their hero, and when Cincinnati in 1802 became an incorporated town he was elected its first mayor by a large majority and subsequently re-elected “in recognition,” according to Judge Burnett in “Notes on the Settlement of the Northwest Territory,” “of his services in protecting the settlements in 1791 and 1792 as well as in reprisal for the unjust treatment accorded him by the government.” Ziegler died in Cincinnati, September 24, 1811, universally mourned by his fellow citizens.
Zenger, John Peter, and the Freedom of the Press.Zenger, John Peter, and the Freedom of the Press.—Noted in American history as the man who fought to a successful issue the problem of the freedom of the press in this country. Came over as a boy in the Palatine migration and was an apprentice to Bradford in Philadelphia. Established the New York “Weekly Journal,” November 5, 1733. Was arrested and imprisoned by Governor Cosby for his political criticisms; the paper containing them was publicly burned by the hangman, and the case was then thrown into the courts. Zenger was charged with being an immigrant who dared to attack the royal prerogatives and official representatives.Arrested in 1734, he was at first denied pen, ink and paper, notwithstanding which he continued to edit the “Journal” from his prison. The grand jury refused to find a bill for libel, and proceedings were instituted by the Attorney General by information. Zenger’s defense was entrusted to Andrew Hamilton, a Quaker lawyer of marked ability, himself an immigrant from Ireland, who came from Philadelphia especially to undertake the defense.Zenger’s case became a turning point on the great question of the truth justifying libel. Hamilton attacked the claim of the Governor, denounced the practice of information for libel, and declared that this was not the cause of a poor printer, but of liberty, which concerned every American. The triumphant result obtained by Hamilton has made his name famous in American jurisprudence. Zenger’s trial overthrew the effort of arbitrary power to suppress free speech, to control courts of justice, to rule by royal prerogative. The jury turned the judge out of court and Zenger was sustained in the right of criticising the administration, and his criticisms were declared to be true and just. Zenger therefore gained for the people the freedom of the press, and through it their rights to deliberate and act so as best to secure their rights.Dr. William Elliot Griffis, in “The Romance of American Colonization,” comments on the case in the words: “Thus one of the greatest of all victories in behalf of law and freedom ever won on this continent was secured.”
Zenger, John Peter, and the Freedom of the Press.—Noted in American history as the man who fought to a successful issue the problem of the freedom of the press in this country. Came over as a boy in the Palatine migration and was an apprentice to Bradford in Philadelphia. Established the New York “Weekly Journal,” November 5, 1733. Was arrested and imprisoned by Governor Cosby for his political criticisms; the paper containing them was publicly burned by the hangman, and the case was then thrown into the courts. Zenger was charged with being an immigrant who dared to attack the royal prerogatives and official representatives.
Arrested in 1734, he was at first denied pen, ink and paper, notwithstanding which he continued to edit the “Journal” from his prison. The grand jury refused to find a bill for libel, and proceedings were instituted by the Attorney General by information. Zenger’s defense was entrusted to Andrew Hamilton, a Quaker lawyer of marked ability, himself an immigrant from Ireland, who came from Philadelphia especially to undertake the defense.
Zenger’s case became a turning point on the great question of the truth justifying libel. Hamilton attacked the claim of the Governor, denounced the practice of information for libel, and declared that this was not the cause of a poor printer, but of liberty, which concerned every American. The triumphant result obtained by Hamilton has made his name famous in American jurisprudence. Zenger’s trial overthrew the effort of arbitrary power to suppress free speech, to control courts of justice, to rule by royal prerogative. The jury turned the judge out of court and Zenger was sustained in the right of criticising the administration, and his criticisms were declared to be true and just. Zenger therefore gained for the people the freedom of the press, and through it their rights to deliberate and act so as best to secure their rights.
Dr. William Elliot Griffis, in “The Romance of American Colonization,” comments on the case in the words: “Thus one of the greatest of all victories in behalf of law and freedom ever won on this continent was secured.”