Sir Uncle Sam: Knight of the British Empire
by John T. Whiteford, (1940)
In these days of national and
international confusion and conflict there is one issue on which the American
people are substantially in agreement -- We do not want war.
This great desire to keep out of war is perfectly
logical. We know the cost of war from bitter experience. We
are no more responsible for the outbreak of the present hostilities than
we were in 1914. We are not an aggressor nation and we have no designs
on foreign territory. We have nothing to gain and much to lose if
we again take part in foreign wars. We have enough vital problems
at home that require all of our attention and efforts. When and if
the time should ever arrive, we shall be fully able and willing to defend
our shores agains foreign invasion.
There are, indeed, a thousand-and-one good reasons
why we should stay out of foreign wars.
With all the self-evident advantages of peace for
America as against the horrors of war in Europe and Asia, and with an overwhelming
majority of our people against war, there still remains the ominous fact
that there is a definate danger of this country drifting toward war. Even
as in 1914, we are again being deluged and directed by foreign propaganda,
only to a much larger extent. Again we have no clear understanding of the
real issues involved. In our confusion we are agin taking sides, mentally
so far, but that is a ripe condition for expert foreign propagandists to
lead us toward active participation in the present conflicts.
I would like to say to every American, "There is
only one side we can take, and that is the American side." With this
in mind, let us try to find out what are the real facts behind these foreign
made conflicts, what are the basic issues at stake, and what are the forces
that are so desperately working to again involve the United States in a
world war. Only by facing facts and clearing our minds from the fog of
selfish foreign propaganda can we arrive at the right answer to the question,
"What is best for America?"
For all our so-called civilization, the impelling
force behind the present struggles in Europe and in Asia is still the law
of the jungle --the survival of the fittest. Whether we like to admit
it or not, that same force guided the early settlers of New England and
Virginia when they had to fight for their very existence in a strange and
hostile land where they were not invited. In the conquest of this new continent
our forefathers proved themselves the strongest--the fittest--and the original
owners, the Indians, lost. Only by the process of applying their superior
fitness could our ancestors have built themselves a new home, gained their
independence, and created a rich and powerful nation. We, as their descendants,
stand ready to defend our country with all our might if ever the time should
come when we are called upon to show our fitness to "have and to hold"
wha we have gained. .
The struggle of the building of America is only
one example of the struggle of mankind since the beginning. The greatest
example of all time is the building of the greatest empire in history --
the British Empire -- covering roughly one-fourth of the world's land surface
and inhabited by a quarter of the world's population.
When we speak of the British Empire we must bear
in mind a much larger picture than just 13,300,000 square miles of land
and 500,000,000 people. It is a huge international institution of world
production, consumption, and distribution, with all the related activities
of commerce, finance, shipping, industry, and so forth. This vast undertaking
is not limited to the geographical borders of the Empire. It's influence
extends to every port of the globe, from Hong Kong to Durban, from Gibralter
to Cairo, from Singapore to Aden, from Melbourne to Montreal, from Bombay
to Bermuda, from London everywhere.
The very vastness of the British Empire and it's
operations constitutes a constant danger to itself and to the peace of
the world. Whenever any other nation feels the urge to expand, for whatever
reasons and in whatever direction, it automatically comes in conflict with
the broad interests of the British Empire.
In the Orient the Sino-Japanese conflict is not
only a local matter between China and Japan. It is in reality, a threat
to British interests in China; to British "concessions" in China; to the
huge British investments in China; to British control of Chinese railways
and revenues; to British trade and shipping and even to the British port
of Hong Kong in China. It is a blow to British prestige and power in the
Orient, with repurcussions throughout the world. It is actually a challenge
to the British Empire. It brought from Britain a cry of outraged justice
while at the same time she tried to deposit the Sino-Japanese problem into
the lap of the United States.
When Italy marched into Ethiopia, Britain again
became highly indignant. This was not because of a profound love for the
Ethiopians, nor because Ethiopia might bring Italy great wealth. If Ethiopia
had really been very valuable, that country could have been , and probably
would have been , annexed to the British Empire long ago. The real reason
for Britain's agitation was the fact that Italy dare challenge British
power in the Mediterranean and endanger British control of the vital Suez
Canal regions.
The Treaty of Versailles was in reality an instrument
for the permanent elimination of Germany as a world competitor of Great
Britain. For years after it's signing the Germany people chafed under this
yolk, to the point where, defeated and discouraged Germany became dangerously
close to becoming a communist soviet republic. Gradually German leadership
took hold and pulled the peole out of their spirit of defeatism and, as
the pendulum swings, so has Germany again become a menace to Great Britain.
The great bear of Russia is also a definate threat
to the British Empire, with it's communisitic paws uncomfortably close
to the Balkan and Suez Canal countries, to India and Burma, and already
reasting heavily upon a large section of China.
Today, denuded of all propaganda, there is only
one fundamental issue behind all the conflict in Europe and Asia -- the
survival of the British Empire. That was also the real issue of the World
War. It is the old challenge of Napoleon.
The most important international question before
the people of this country and of the world is whether Great Britain can
continue indefinitely to defend herself and her empire against all comers,
singly or in combination, and prove her fitness to "have and to hold" her
dominant world position. Therein also lies the key to the problem whether
America may or may not again be drawn into a world war.
It seems to me that the answer to the above question
is definite and indisputable -- Britain cannot win a major war in Europe
and Asia without the active assistance of the most powerful of all nations,
the United States. In their own interest the people of this country will
have to make up their minds, soon and soberly and withour being influenced
by undue sentiment, whether America shall continue to gamble with her youth
and her treasure to help defend the British Empire in every new crisis,
or whether there are saner and better ways of insuring the peace of the
world.
Today the greatest single menace to the peace of
the United States is the same as in 1914. It can be summed up in one word
- propaganda. Even as today, this country was neutral at the beginning
of the World War and managed to stay out of it from 1914 until 1917. But
during that time the foreign propaganda machines were working overtime
to get us involved in a war that was decidedly not of our making. Finally,
on April 6, 1917, America declared war on Germany and so became an active
ally of Britain. In addition to the United States, the other allies were
Belgium, Brazil, China, Cuba, France, Greece, Guatamala, Haiti, Honduras,
Italy, Japan, Nicaragua, Panama, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Serbia, and
Siam. It is true that some of the Allies, like the United States,
were active only during part of the war period while others were little
more than benevolent bystanders. But against this powerful combination,
the group of Germany, Austria-Hungary. Turkey, and Bulgaria held out for
more than 4 years, from August 1914 until November 1918, and the German
group might have won the war but for the entrance of America into the conflict.
In the present crisis the only active allies of
Britain are, so far, the British Empire units and France. If the conflict
should spread into another world war Britain cannot again count on her
former combination of allies; in fact, it is more than likely that some
of these countries will be lined up against her. Therefore, the most powerful
ally of all, the United States, must be kept in line by Britain against
eventualities. That can only be accomplished through propaganda. And the
British are past masters in the art of making gullible Americans swallow
the bait of persuasive propaganda.
Few Americans realize the magnitude of British influence
in this country. When I write frankly on this subject I fully understand
that I lay myself open to the accusation of favoring Britain's enemies.
That is not at all the case. I am only following the single track of being
pro-American, and I would be grateful to any critics if they would join
me on that straight road. I clearly see the menace of all subversive movements,
as well as the great necessity of combating all these un-American activities.
The point is that, in our justified agitation over communism, nazi-ism,
and fascism, we are overlooking another subversive movement that has actually
proven to be more destructive to our peace and welfare. In the past it
has been largely responsible for drawing this country into the world war
at a cost of thousands of our young men and billions of dollars and a long
period of depression. It does not work openly and it is not generally recognized
by the public. It does not yell from soap boxes in Union Square, call strikes,
picket, or hold parades. It operates from the top down and so it reaches
into every stratum of American life. It is the far-reaching power of British
Propaganda to make this country subservient to he interests of Great Britain
and the British Empire.
The scene is a banquet held at the Hotel Plaza,
New York City, Oct. 25, 1939. This banquet was given by the Pilgrim Society
of America in honor of the Marquess of Lothian, , British Ambassador to
the United States. It is an old custom of the American Pilgrims to extend
this honor to every newly appointed British Ambassador, the same as the
British Pilgrims invite every new American Ambassador to their midst at
a banquet in London.
There are several curious things about these Pilgrims
functions. In the first place there is present at these dinners an array
of notables such as it would be difficult to bring together under one roof
for any other purpose and by any other society. The Lothian dinner was
no exception. Presiding over this affair was Dr. Nicholas Murrey Butler,
President of Columbia University, and Chairman of the American Pilgrim
Society. Among the guests were John D. Rockefeller and J.P. Morgan, Thomas
W. Lamont and other members of the House of Morgan, Frank L. Polk, Jeremiah
Milbank, James W. Gerard (former American Ambassador to Germany), the French
Ambassador to the United States, Lt. Gen. Hugh A. Drum, U.S.A., Maj. Gen.
John G. Harbord (chairman of the Radio Corporation of America), the Secretary
of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau, and many other leading figures in government,
diplomacy, politics, finance, banking, shipping, law, industry, insurance,
and education. These men had come especially to honor Lord. Lothian and
to hear him speak. Before this important audience Lord Lothian's speech
could not merely be a light after-dinner talk of clever stories and witticisms.
It was am important speech and as such and as such it was carried by the
New York Times as front-page news.
As a highly experienced publicist, Lord Lothian
opened his remarks with the naive statement that his country has no propaganda
in America; that he would merely explain his country's position. The "explanation
of his country's position" developed into the same old theme of most British
statesmen, writers, lecturers, publicists, and other trumpeters for Anglo-American
unity. It can be summed up in one stereo-typed formula : "For your own
good and for the good of the world, these two great democracies, the British
Empire and the United States, must stick together." What this plea to America
really amounts to is this : "We have the largest empire in the world. Never
mind how we got it. The trouble is that we may not be able to hang onto
it much longer. America is rich and powerful and wants no more additional
territory. You should help us out whenever we get into trouble so that
we can continue to enjoy what we have."
Lord Lothian practically confirmed that message
when he wrote in Foreign Affairs, 1936 :
"The situation of the last century cannot be re-created
by Great Britain alone. She is not strong enough. But the United Sattes,
the South American republics, and the nations of the modern British Commonwealth
could together re-create it. * * * They also are both democratic
and territorially satisfied * * * "
And the morning after the Pilgrim dinner a front
page headline in the New York Times read : "Lothian asks unity in democratic
aims."
There is something magnetic about the word "democratic."
It is very dear to Americans and it means much to them. Once they even
went to war * * * "to make the world safe for democracy." They may
again be fooled by an appeal to democracy. Knowing this, it has become
a valuable vehicle for foreign propagandists, and it's real meaning is
lost sight of in the confusion. The Communist Party of America, for instance,
has officially adopted democracy in it's constitution, in it's literature,
in speeches, and generally as an appealing propaganda attraction
in selling their un-American ideology to the American people. * * * All
democratic workers must stick together. It is a favorable theme with the
radical labor wing.
And now we witness the weird spectacle of titled
British visitors, from Ambassadors to platform lecturers, using the same
tactics in selling their story. * * * We great democracies must stand together.
What kind of democracy are we asked to adopt and
to defend? The un-American brand of Marx, of Engels, of Lenin, of Stalin,
of the Communist International. * * * Or the democracy of imperialistic
Britain, of India, of Ceylon, of Burma, or Hong Kong, or Africa? * * *
The democracy of the soap-box orators of Union Square, or the democracy
of the Pilgrim banquets at the best hotels of London and New York?
Or shall we stand by our own conception of democracy,
safe under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which still give us
far more genuine personal liberty and opportunity than any other people
in any other country of the world? If so, let us not forget that today,
more than ever, the price of our liberty is eternal vigilance.
We must keep the bright spotlight of public opinion
on all under-cover and un-American activities so that we may learn the
truth and act accordingly. And we are entitled to know what the Pilgrim
Society is, what it stands for, and who these powerful Pilgrims are that
can call out the great to hear a British Ambassador expound to Americans
the virtues of a united democratic front.
The Pilgrim Society originated in London, July 11,
1902, as an Anglo-American club of important Englishmen and Americans.
An American branch was formed January 13, 1903, at the old Waldorf Astoria
Hotel, New York. Both Societies are commonly known as The Pilgrims.
An extract of the Pilgrim constitution reads :
"The object of the society shall be the promotion
of the sentiment of brotherhood among the nations, and especially the cultivation
of good fellowship between citizens of the United States and it's dependencies
and subjects of the British Empire.
"The members shall be citizens of the United States
or it's dependencies or subjects of the British Empire, and others
prominent for their sympathy with the objects of the society, who shall
be elected by the executive committee, and membership in the London Pilgrims
shall ipso facto constitute membership in the New York society, and vice
versa, without additional dues. The membership shall be limited to 900.
The number may be altered by the executive committee."
Nothing is more needed in the world than a "sentiment
of brotherhood among the nations. Nowhere is the promotion of that sentiment
more urgently and desperately neded than in Europe and in Asia. This was
so even in 1902. But the group of eminent men who formed the Pilgrim Society
in London did not step across the English Channel to hold out the hand
of brotherhood to the weary nations of nearby Europe. Instead they preferred
to reach out across the Atlantic for the special purpose of cultivating
"good fellowship" between leading British and American citizens. This beautiful
sentiment rose to a climax in 1917, when thousands of American good fellows
crossed the Atlantic to fight other people's battles, and when the United
States Treasury opened wide it's purse to the Allies and lent them whatever
they wanted. Then, indeed, Uncle Sam, became the good knight of the
British Empire. But when the battle was over -- over there -- and
when the same Uncle Sam timidly suggested repayment of some of the billions
of dollars of war debts, he was immediately dubbed "Uncle Shylock" by these
same Allies. "Good fellowship" is difficult to define, like friendship,
but whatever the definition is it should work both ways.
Who are these good fellows that are so deeply interested
in British-American friendship and in "united democracy"? They are
none other than the 900 of British-American aristocracy. They represent,
as a body, the most powerful combination of men of wealth and influence
on both sides of the Atlantic. They, the Pilgrims' membership in America
and Great Britain, have included and still include men in the highest position
of government, in diplomacy, in finance, in banking, in education, in the
church, in literature, in publishing, in commerce, in industry, in shipping,
and in practically all other important fields of national and international
activities.
The presiden tof the British Pilgrims is His Royal
Highness, the Duke of Connaught, great uncle of the present King. As vice
presidents are listed : The Most Reverend His Grace the Lord Archbishop
of Canterbury; The Right Hinorable ViscountHailsham, P.C.; the Lord Desbrough,
K.G., G. C. V. O.; Sir Harry E. Brittain, K. C., L. L. B., O. O. C.
The membership of the British Pilgrims reads like an index to British leadership.
The president of the American Pilgrims is Dr. Nicholas
Murray Butler, president of Columbia University. Dr. Butler has worked
long and faithfully with the British. A United Press dispatch from
London, December 6th, 1939, stated : "In the 1940 edition of the British
Who's Who, appearing today, the longest biography is that of Nicholas Murray
Butler, president of Columbia University, who occupies more than a column
and a half of small print -- the equivalent of the combined biographies
of Mussolini, Hitler, Prime Minister Chamberlain, and President Roosevelt."
Vice presidents of the New York Pilgrims are :
Herbert L. Satterlee (brother-in-law of J.P. Morgan),
James W. Gerard, G. C. B. (former American Ambassador to Germany), the
Right Reverend James DeWolf Perry, Elihu Root (deceased).
The executive committee of the New York Pilgrims
consists of : Thomas W. Lamont, Franklin Q. Brown, George W. Burleigh,
John H. Finey, Frederick R. Coudert, Edward F. Darrell, James G. Harbord,
K. C. M. G. , D. S. M., Theodore Hetzler, the Right Reverend William T.
Manning, Gates W. McGarrah, Bryce Metcalf, Frank L. Polk, William Shields,
Myron C. Taylor, Harry Edwin Ward, Charles S. Whitman, Owen D. Young.
As honorary members of the New York Pilgrims are
listed :
H. R. H. the Prince of Wales, K. G., H. R. H., the
Duke of York, K. G., the British Ambassador to the United States, His Majesty's
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, the Secretary of State of the United
States, the British Consul General in New York City.
A few prominent Pilgrim members, past and present,
are listed below :
J.P. Morgan, Russel Leffingwell, Henry P. Davison,
John W. Davis, John D. Rockefeller, Percy Rockefeller, Ogden Mills Reid,
Henry Morganthou, Otto Kahn, Robert Fulton Cutting, James B. Clews, John
B. Trevor, William Fellows Morgan, Henry W. Taft, Adolph Ochs, James Speyer,
Charles H. Sabin, Sir Ashley Sparks, George F. Trowbridge, Philip Rhinelander,
Andrew W. Mellon, Albert H. Wiggin, J. W. Hill, John F. O'Ryan, Frank L.
Polk, George L. Goethals, Julius Ochs Adler, Alfred L. Aiken, Herbert L.
Aldrich, John Whitney, W. B. Whitney, Cornelius Vanderbilt, Vincent Astor,
Julius S. Bache, Robert Low Bacon, Ancell H. Ball, David H. Bittle, Robert
W. Bigelow, Irving T. Bush, Newcomb Carlton, Joseph. H. Choate, William
M. Chadbourne, Walter P. Chrysler, Thomas W. Lamont, George F. Baker, John
Bassett Moore, Dwight W. Morrow, George W. Wickersham, John George Milburn,
Mortimer L. Shiff, Paul M. Warburg, Paul Outbridge, Ivy Lee, Chauncey Depew,
Charles M. Schwab, Frederic R. Coudert, Marshall Field, Paul D. Cravath,
Edward S. Harkness, Oliver Harriman, Edward L. Dodge, Frederick H. Ecker,
Harry Harkness Flagler, George L. Genung, Walter S. Gifford, Cass Gilbert,
Edwin H. Gould, Duncan William Fraser, Robert Erskine Ely, Harry Alanzo
Cushing, Frederick W. Budd, Henry Holt, J. G. White, Henry Johnson Fisher,
Edward Harrick Childs and William Phelps Ely.
The present membership in the American Pilgrims,
and those who have passed away, represent the leadership of America in
many important fields. We find among these a candidate for President of
the United States, a Vice President, Secretary of State, Secretary of the
Treasury, Attorney General, Ambassadors, Solicitor General, Senators and
Congressmen; presidents of the largest banks and financial institutions;
presidents and directors of the United States Steel Corporation, and many
other large industrial corporations; of the American Telephone and Telegraph
Co.; of the Radio Corporation of America; of insurance and shipping companies.
Here are also to be found the members of the leading law firms serving
these banks and industries, as well as the interpreters of international
law; editors, publishers, and owners of America's leading newspapers; experts
in publicity; social and financial leaders and generally the group of men
whose influence is capable of exerting great pressure on government and
public opinion.
At the outbreak of the present hostilities in Europe,
President Roosevelt expressed himself strongly on the necessity for maintaining
our neutrality and he promised to do all within his power to keep this
country out of war. That is also the great hope and desire of the American
people. The Pilgrims and Dr. Butler disagree with this.
At a dinner in New York, at the Biltmore Hotel,
February 9, 1928, in celebration of the twenty-fifth anniversary of the
Pilgrims, Dr. Butler said ain a speech :
"Among other things the great war has proved conclusively
that in a contest of of those colossal proportions there were no neutrals
* * * if the world should ever again become engulfed in anothertitanic
struggle there would be and there could be no neutrals."
At this particular dinner, during which Dr. Butler
expressed these sentiments so contrary to the real hopes and wishes of
the American people, three telegrams were recieved and read to the celebrating
American Pilgrims. One came from the King of England, one from the uncle
of the King, and one from the Prince of Wales, the future King, now the
Duke of Windsor.
The message from King George V was read by Sir Austin
Chamberlain :
The King has pleasure in congratulating the Pilgrims
of the United States on the occasion of their twenty-fifth anniversary
, and His Majesty takes this opportunity of conveying to them his good
wishes for the future."
The future, according to the Pilgrims, does not
include neutrality.
The message from the King's Uncle, the Duke of Connaught,
read : " * * * The cause of promoting cordial friendship between
our two great countries is one on which the future happiness of the world
in a great measure depends. Ever since I have been president of the British
Pilgrims I have realized to the full the success of the work carried on
by the two societies with this common object in view."
Here again we have the same old story, whether it
comes from an uncle of the King, from a British Ambassador, or from a platform
lecturer * * * friendship * * * two great countries * * * common
object. Here democracy was not mentioned, nor the promotion of brotherhood
among the nations.
The message from the Prince of Wales read :
"As a Pilgrim of nearly 9 years' standing I am very
glad to send my brother Pilgrims in New York my warmest congratulations
on the twenty-fifth anniversary of the club's inception in the United States.
There have been many changes in the world during the past quarter of a
century but ties which unite the Pilgrims on each side of the Atlantic
remain firm as ever * * * (signed) EDWARD."
The British Royal family certainly shows an extraordinary
interest in a group of American citizens dining in New York. Since that
yime tremendous changes have occured to Edward persoanlly, as well as to
the world, but he was right in his prediction that the Pilgrims ties "remain
firm as ever."
Since we are dining so exaltedly, let us go to London
and look at a dinner at the Savoy Hotel, April 12, 1917, of the Pilgrims
of London "on the occasion of entry of the United States into the Great
War of Freedom." The guest of honor was His Excellency, the American Ambassador,
Walter Hines Page.
The speeches at the dinner gave a clear expression
of the "ties that bind" the American Pilgrims to London and confirmed Dr.
Butler's conviction that "there were no neutrals" in the World War.
Sir Harry E. Brittain, chairman :
"I should like to read two cables which have arrived
within the last few minuted from New York. The first is from our good friends
and fellow members, the Pilgrims of America, and it reads as follows :
"At last the Union Jack and the Stars and Strips
are nailed to the same staff not to come down until the job is done. Our
boys in Khaki are anxious to rub shoulders with yours in France and share
your struggle and your triumph in Freedom's cause. The Pilgrims' dream
of 15 years at length has come ot pass. (Signed) George T. Wilson, chairman."
(Loud Cheers.)
"The other message is from one who has been frequently
and deservedly called the "Allies" best friend in America, that very excellent
Pilgrim, James M. Beck. His cable reads :
"Joyous filicitations to the British Pilgrims now
assembled to celebrate unity in blood brotherhood of English-speaking races.
The day which Prussia did not want has come, when the flags of Great Britain,
France, and the United States float together in defense of civilization.
All hail the greater Entente which opens a new and more resplendent chapter
in the history of our common race. To all who welcomed me so kindly last
summer a cordial greeting at this great hour. (Signed) James M. Beck."
[Loud and prolonged cheers] (James M. Beck, prominent attorney, born in
Philadelphia; United States Attorney for eastern district Pennsylvania;
Assistant Attorney General of the United States 1900-1903; Solicitor General
of the United States, 1921-25; Member of Congress, 1937.)
Good fellows, these American Pilgrims, or shall
we say British colonials?
The Pilgrims dream of 15 years turmed into a nightmare
for our boys in Khaki, but the unity in blood brotherhood is still the
goal of this one-way friendship between British and American aristocracy.
Viscount Bryce, former British Ambassador to the
United States, spoke as chairman of the London Pilgrims May we never have
such a speech again. He said, in part :
"When the United States of America, renouncing the
isolation which it had cherished since the days of Washington, obeyed the
supreme call of duty and set herself in arms beside the free nations of
the world in order to save the future of humanity, she took a step of full
solumn significance for all the ages to come.
"And now, gentlemen, what is America going to do
in this war? She is already doing what those who know her best expected
from her. She waited long enough to be quite satisfied that honor and duty
called her to arms. After long forbearance, when she was satisfied that
the German Government was resolved to persevere with it's barbarous and
insulting policy, and that the whole feeling of the Nation had been aroused
and concentrated as to be virtually unanimous, then America stepped to
the front; then she barred her strong arm; then she began to throw all
her resources, all her energy, all her inventive versatility, into the
development of every possible means for the vigorous prosecution of the
war.
"Gentlemen, America is in the war now for all she
is worth [hear, hear] and how much that means those best know who know
America best. (Cheers), She will persevere to the end, for she knows what
a sucessful end means to the future welfare of the world."
No one knew better than Lord Bryce how much America
was worth as an ally of Great Britain. With enormous British hypocrisy
he made it appear that America bared her strong arm to save the future
of humanity and the welfare of the world, when in reality America came
to the assistance of only one-quarter of the world, the British Empire.
Lord Robert Cecil was less diplomatic. Considering
that the Pilgrim meetings in London have almost the status of official
functions, owing to the important attendance, Lord Cecil overstepped the
limits of diplomatic decency when he said at this dinner in honor of the
America Ambassador :
"May I add one word about the staff of the American
Embassy? [Hear, hear] Many of us have had personal relations of a very
friendly kind with several members of that staff, and they have always
preserved the most accurate and correct neutrality in talking with us (laughter)
but, somehow or another, after after a conversation with any of them, we
went away feeling as one does, after having recieved a hearty grasp of
the hand from a friend and an earnest and heartfelt wish of Godspeed to
our cause. [Cheers.]
"Well, gentlemen, neutrality is no longer necessary
[Hear, hear], and we all say thank God for that." [Hear, hear.]
Dr. Butler was right. There was no neutrality, not
even in the American Embassy, before this country went into war. It was
a joke to Lord Cecil and the Pilgrims.
The guest of honor, Walter Hines Page, spoke before
this London group of British -American notables in his capacity as United
States Ambassador to Great Britain, representing the American government
and the American people. He said, in part :
"As for the particular aspects of this great subject
with which this club has from it's beginning had to do -- the closer sympathy
of the two branches of the great English-speaking peoples -- next to the
removal of the great menace to free government, which is the prime purpose
of the war, this closer sympathy will be to us the most important result
of the victory. It will be important not only to us on each side of the
Atlantic, but also to all other free nations."
And then Mr. Page made one of the strongest admissions
that any diplomat could make under the circumstances. It is taken from
the Pilgrim records as are all these quotations.
"Seven years ago an admiral of our Navy, Rear Admiral
Sims, who sits now at this table, declared in the Guildhall that if ever
the English race were pressed hard for ships, every ship that the United
States had would come to the rescue. A great prophet as well as a great
seaman, he has not been rebuked for that on this side of the water. [Cheers.]
"For my part I am stirred to the depths of my natureby
this American companionship in arms with the British and their Allies,
not only for the quicker ending of the war, but, I hope, for a moral union
which will bring a new era in international relations.
"My lords and gentlemen, your generous and great
compliment to me by making this large gathering in my honor is your way
of expressing appreciation of the action of the Government and people that
I represent and of the President at whose high command I have the honor
to be among you in these historic and immortal days. I thank you with deep
emotion."
It would have been more appropriate for the British
to thank Mr. Page, with or without emotion, and to show their appreciation
of America's participation in the great war of freedom in a more substantial
manner than by getting together an imposing array of British notables for
Pilgrim dinner. It is interesting to note that among those who accepted
the invitation of the Pilgrims so to honor Mr. Page were none other than
Neville Chamberlain and Winston Churchill who are now leading another war
for freedom, while the British Ambassador to Washington is leading another
campaign in this country for unity of democracies.
In the nature of their exclusive membership and
activities, the Pilgrims may be termed the wholesale agency for promoting
the interests of Britain in this country. It is strictly a Tory organization.
The retail outlet is the more widely knownEnglish-Speaking Union, which
has for it's avowed purpose :
"To draw together in the bond of comradeship the
English speaking people of the United States and of the British Empire
by (a) disseminating knowledge of each to the other and (b) inspiring reverence
for their common institutions."
It is interesting to note that the English-Speaking
Union originated in London in the fateful year in 1917, when America bared
her strong arm in defense of democracy. Like the Pilgrims, the English-Speaking
Union has a British organization with headquarters in London and an American
branch with central offices in New York. The purpose of the two organizations
are virtually the same and there is an interlocking directorate and membership.
The patron of the English-Speaking Union (London)
is His Majesty the King. The honorary president of the American English-Speaking
Union is the prominent Pilgrim, John W. Davis, successor to the late Walter
Hines Page as America's wartime Ambassador to the Court of St. James. Presidential
candidate in 1924, and member of J.P. Morgan and Co. As treasurer of the
American English-Speaking Union is listed Harry P. Davison, also a Morgan
partnet, whose father was instrumental in having J.P. Morgan appointed
exclusive purchasing agents for the British Government in America
during the World War. Another director of the English-Speaking Union is
Maj. Gen. James G. Harbord, chairman of the Radio Corporation of America,
and also a member of the executive committee of the Pilgrims.
As a valuable retail outlet for British propaganda,
the English-Speaking Union of the United Staes covers this country with
branches and correspondents in the following cities : Baltimore, Md.; Boston,
Mass.; Buffalo, N. Y.; Chautauqua, N. Y.; Chicago, Ill.; Cincinatti, Ohio;
Cleveland, Ohio; Columbus, Ohio; Dallas, Tx.; Denver, Colo.; Des Moines,
Iowa; Indianapolis, Ind.; Lake Placid, N.Y.; Lincoln, Nebr.; Los Angeles,
Calif.; Louisville, Ky.; Milwaukee, Wis.; New York, N. Y.; Minneapolis,
Minn.; New Orleans, La.; Philadelphia, Pa.; Princeton, N. J.; Providence,
R.I.; Richmond, Va.; St. Louis, Mo.; Salt Lake City, Utah; San Diego, Calif.;
San Francisco, Calif.; Santa Brabara, Calif.; Savannah, Ga.; Seattle Wash.;
Sewanee, Tenn.; Spokan, Wash.; Tacoma, Wash.; Washington, D.C.
The English-Speaking Union seeks to "draw together
in the bond of comradeship" the people of this country and the British
Empire. But let us not forget that in 1917 the Pilgrims spoke of "blood-brotherhood"
and "comrades in arms." And now, when Britain is again at war, Sir Evelyn
Wrench, C. M. G., LL. D., chairman of the English-Speaking Union
of London (also a Pilgrim member), addresses his fellow members of the
union in The English-Speaking World, October 1939, with the warning call
:
"The English-Speaking Union was born 21 years ago
during the Great War and it has an even greater function to play in the
present crises. We know we can count on your support."
The founders of the Republic speak to us today through
the immortal words of George Washington :
"Against the wiles of foreign influence * * * the
jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since experience
and history prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes
of republican government."
And yet, such are the times and such are the forces
a century and a half after Valley Forge that many Americans, including
many leaders of America, are advocating policies and ideologies foreign
and contrary to the very fundamentals on which this nation was founded.
There is indeed a new Declaration of Independence and a rededication to
the proven principles of our form of government.
In our position as a rich and powerful nation we
can no longer avoid the responsibility of leadership in a wilderness of
foreign conflict. President Roosevelt, in his message to Congress, January
2, 1940, said that "in almost every nation of the world there is a true
belief that the United States has been , and will continue to be, a potent
and active factor in seeking the reestablishment of peace."
If we are to accept and to act the role of peacemaker,
the first requisite should be to stand before the world with clean hands
and a cool head, fair and impartial to all, and free from any taint of
favoritism and prejudice. Without this we would hold out false hopes to
a war-weary world; we would not be entitled to the respect and cooperation
of the embattled nations; the sincerity of our motives woiuld be justifiably
questioned, and we would fall, to the detriment of all concerned, including
ourselves.
As a "potent and active" factor for world peace we cannot
in this meantime accept the one-sided doctrine of "unity" between the United
States and the British Empire"; we cannot honestly and decently pose as
an impartial apostle of world peace and at the same time act as the guardian
angle of the British Empire; we cannot look fairly at the world through
the meshes of the network of British propaganda; we cannot again allow
our statesmen, our ambassadors, our leading bankers, lawyers, industrialists,
churchmen, educators, and publishers to sway the sentiment of our Government
and our people in favor of one side, a foreign side, inherently and basically
non-American.
We have before us a costly lesson from the past to the
present as a guide to the future. Let us remember 1914, and not forget
in 1940 that a rising tide of war hysteria completely engulfed our government
and our people. The climax came on April 6, 1917, with an American declaration
of war, approved by an overwhelming majority of a joint session of Congress.
Only 56 out of 518 Senators and Representatives voted against war. Of the
members of the Senate only 6 dared cast their votes against the tides of
war. One of these few, Senator Robert La Follette, Sr. addressed the President
from the floor of the Senate with words that might well be repeated today
:
There is always lodged, and always will be, thank the
God above us, power in the people supreme. Sometimes it sleeps, sometimes
it seems the sleep of death; but, sir, the sovereign power of the people
never dies. It may be suppressed for a time, it may be misled, be fooled,
silenced. I think, Mr. President, that it is being denied expression now.
I think there will come a day when it will have expression.
"The poor sir, who are the ones colled upon to rot in
the trenches, have no organized power, have no press to voice their will
on this question of peace or war; but oh, Mr. President, at some time they
will be heard - there will come an awakening; they will have their day
and they will be heard. It will be as certain and as inevitable as the
return of the tides, and as restless, too."
Today, with a warm heart full of sympathy for all the
suffering in the world, we must firmly maintain our independence of thought
and action, free from all foreign influence and entanglements so that we
may think and speak and act as unimpaired Americans. Only then can we give
the best answer to the question, What is best for America?
Comment On This Article