Part 24
=Rittenhouse, David.=--The first noted American scientist, born of a poor Pennsylvania German, son of a farmer, at Germantown, April 8, 1732. Owing to a feeble constitution was apprenticed to a clock and mechanical instrument-maker, where he followed the bent of his mechanical and mathematical genius, though too poor to keep informed concerning the progress of science in Europe. While Newton and Leibnitz were warmly disputing the honor of first discoverer of Fluxion, writes Lossing, Rittenhouse, entirely ignorant of what they had done, became the inventor of that remarkable feature of algebraical analysis. Applying the knowledge which he derived from study and reflection to the mechanic arts, he produced a planetarium, or an exhibition of the movements of the solar system by machinery. That work of art is in possession of the College of New Jersey at Princeton. It gave him a great reputation, and in 1770 he went to Philadelphia, where he met members of the Philosophical Society to whom he had two years before communicated that he had calculated with great exactitude the transit of Venus which occurred June 3, 1769. Rittenhouse was one of those whom the society appointed to observe it. Only three times before, in the whole range of human observation, had mortal vision beheld the orb of Venus pass across the disc of the sun. Upon the exactitude of the performance according to calculations depended many astronomical problems, and the hour was looked forward to by philosophers with intense interest. As the moment approached, according to his calculations, Rittenhouse became greatly excited. When the discs of the planets touched at the expected moment the philosopher fainted. His highest hopes were realized and on November 9th following he was blessed with a sight of the transit of Mercury. When Benjamin Franklin died Rittenhouse was appointed president of the American Philosophical Society to fill his place. His fame now was world wide and many official honors awaited his acceptance. He held the office of treasurer of Pennsylvania for many years, and in 1792 he was appointed director of the Mint. Died 1797, aged 64.
Of the origin of the first great American scientist we get an interesting amount of data from the pages of Pennypacker’s “The Settlement of Germantown, Pa., and the Beginning of German Emigration to North America.” According to this authority, his ancestor, William Rittenhouse (Rittinghausen), was born in the year 1664, in the principality of Broich, near the city of Muhlheim on the Ruhr, where his brother Heinrich Nicholaus, and his mother, Maria Hagerhoffs, were living in 1678. At this time he was a resident of Amsterdam. We are told that his ancestors had long been manufacturers of paper at Arnheim. However this may be, it is certain that this was the business to which he was trained, because when he took the oath of citizenship in Amsterdam, June 23, 1678, he was described as a paper maker from Muhlheim.
He emigrated to New York, but since there was no printing in that city, and no opportunity, therefore, for carrying on his business of making paper, in 1688, together with his sons, Gerhard and Klaus, and his daughter Elizabeth, who subsequently married Heivert Papen, he came to Germantown. There, in 1690, upon a little stream flowing into the Wissahickon, he erected the first paper mill in America, an event which must ever preserve his memory in the recollection of men. “He was the founder of a family which in the person of David Rittenhouse, the astronomer, philosopher and statesman, reached the very highest intellectual rank.”
“Here dwelt a printer, and I find That he can both print books and bind; He wants not paper, ink nor skill; He’s owner of a paper mill.” --John Holme, 1696.
=Roebling, John August.=--One of the greatest engineers and America’s leading bridge builder. Among his famous achievements are the Pennsylvania Canal Aqueduct, across the Alleghany River (1842), Niagara Suspension Bridge (1852), the Cincinnati-Covington bridge, with a span of 1,200 feet, and the famous Brooklyn Bridge across the East River, completed by his son, Washington, upon the death of its designer. Roebling was born June 12, 1806, at Muehlhausen, Thuringia, and learned engineering at Erfurt and Berlin.
=Rassieur, Leo.=--The only German ever elected Commander of the G. A. R. Served as major throughout the Civil War.
=Roosevelt, Col. Theodore.=--Ex-President Roosevelt’s early position on the war has never been cleared up satisfactorily. For more than two months after the outbreak of the war, August, 1914, he held that we were not called upon to interfere on account of the invasion of Belgium. During this time he was not only accounted neutral, but rather friendly to the German side, as was generally understood. He had been cordially received by the Kaiser, whom he allotted the chief credit for his success in bringing about peace between Russia and Japan, and during his term of President one of his most intimate friends was Baron Speck von Sternburg, the German ambassador. He was publicly charged by Mr. Andre Tardieu, the French editor, with trying to influence the Algeciras convention of the powers to favor Germany’s claims in Morocco, although, as M. Tardieu intimated in an article, he must have known of the secret understanding between this government and Great Britain. At all events, in the fall of 1914, Col. Roosevelt wrote in the Outlook Magazine that we had no concern with the invasion of Belgium. In September, 1914, the great war then being in its second month, Col. Roosevelt wrote:
It is certainly desirable that we should remain entirely neutral, and nothing but urgent need would warrant breaking our neutrality and taking sides one way or other.
Still later Col. Roosevelt wrote:
I am not passing judgment on Germany’s action.... I admire and respect the German people. I am proud of the German blood in my veins. When a nation feels that the issue of a contest in which, from whatever reason, it finds itself engaged will be national life or death, it is inevitable that it should act so as to save itself from death and to perpetuate its life.... What has been done in Belgium has been done in accordance with what the Germans unquestionably sincerely believed to be the course of conduct necessitated by Germany’s struggle for life.
Col. Roosevelt’s neutrality was a subject of newspaper comment, as indicated by an article in the New York “Times” of September 14, 1914, headed: “Roosevelt Neutral--Confers with Oscar Straus Again, Presumably about Mediation--Is the Kaiser’s Friend.” The lines gave the import of a dispatch from Oyster Bay, Roosevelt’s place of residence, and related that “Mr. Straus’s talks with Roosevelt, coupled with the diplomatic activity of Mr. Straus in diplomatic circles in Washington and New York, have given rise to rumors that Roosevelt’s aid is being sought by those who are endeavoring to pave the way for a settlement of the war.”
The true import of Mr. Straus’s mission to Oyster Bay in September, 1914, has not yet been made public, though it precludes the suggestion that it was to persuade Roosevelt to pave the way to a settlement of the war, since Mr. Straus soon revealed himself as one of the most active partisans of the Allies in America. It was within a short time after that visit that Roosevelt reversed himself, and from an avowed neutral became a pronounced militant in the cause of the allied powers, denouncing the invasion of Belgium as an act that compelled the United States legally and morally to take up arms against Germany. Although his contention was persistently opposed by papers like the New York “Sun” and “World,” which showed that the article of the Hague convention which guaranteed the neutrality of Belgium had never been signed by England or France, and therefore was inoperative as to all other signatories.
Col. Roosevelt’s view of the invasion seems to have been that of the British government at the beginning. The official English White Book, (edited September 28, 1914), Article 6 of the Preface, is contained in “The Diplomatic History of the War,” by M. P. Price, p. vii (“Great Britain and the European Crises”), Charles Scribner’s Sons. It says:
=Germany’s position must be understood. She has fulfilled her treaty obligations in the past; her action now was not wanton. Belgium was of supreme importance in a war with France. If such a war occurred it would be one of life and death. Germany feared that if she did not occupy Belgium, France might do so. In the face of this suspicion there was only one thing to do.=
Col. Roosevelt’s ultimate extremely indignant attitude, in which he identified himself with every form of violent anti-German invective then current, even turning against his former most loyal supporters, professed to be primarily based upon Germany’s invasion of Belgium; yet had he lived a little longer he would have been apprised by subsequent revelations that England, about 1886, offered to let Germany invade Belgium in an attack on France. On November 7, 1914, he wrote a long letter to Dr. Edmund von Mach, an extract from which seems well placed here. He said:
As regards all the great nations involved, I can perfectly understand each feeling with the utmost sincerity that its cause is just and its action demanded by vital consideration.... I have German, French and English blood in my veins. On the whole, I think that I admire Germany more than any other nation, and most certainly it is the nation from which I think the United States has most to learn. On the whole, I think that of all the elements that have come here during the past century, the Germans have on the average represented the highest type. I do not say this publicly, for I do not think it well to make comparisons which may cause ill will among the various strains that go to make up our population.... I should feel it a world calamity if the German Empire were shattered or dismembered.
=Roosevelt and Taft Praise the Kaiser as an Agent of Peace.=--Theodore Roosevelt in 1913: “The one man outside this country from whom I obtained help in bringing about the Peace of Portsmouth was His Majesty William II. From no other nation did I receive any assistance, but the Emperor personally and through his Ambassador in St. Petersburg, was of real aid in helping induce Russia to face the accomplished fact and come to an agreement with Japan. =This was a real help to the cause of international peace, a contribution that outweighed any amount of mere talk about it in the abstract.=”
William H. Taft, 1913: “=The truth of history requires the verdict that, considering the critically important part which has been his among the nations, he has been, for the last quarter of a century, the greatest single individual force in the practical maintenance of peace in the world.=”
“=Scraps of Paper.=”--The frequency with which England has accused us of the violation of solemn treaties was shown in a light not flattering to the accuser by the late Major John Bigelow, U. S. A., in his last book, “Breaches of Anglo-American Treaties” (Sturgis & Walton Company).
Only a few years ago, incidentally to the public discussion of the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty, the United States was arraigned by the British press as lacking in the sense of honor that holds a nation to its promise. The “Saturday Review” could not expect “to find President Taft acting like a gentleman.” “To imagine,” it said, “that American politicians would be bound by any feeling of honor or respect for treaties, if it would pay to violate them, was to delude ourselves. The whole course of history proves this.”
The London “Morning Post” charged the United States with various infractions of the Treaty and said: “That is surely a record even in American foreign policy; but the whole treatment of this matter serves to remind us that we had a long series of similar incidents in our relations with the United States. Americans might ask themselves if it is really a good foreign policy to lower the value of their written word in such a way as to make negotiations with other powers difficult or impossible. The ultimate loss may be greater than the immediate gain. There might come a time when the United States might desire to establish a certain position by treaty, and might find her past conduct a serious difficulty in the way.” More recently, and presumably with more deliberation, a British author (Sir Harry Johnston, “Common Sense in Foreign Policy,” p. 89), says: “Treaties, in fact, only bind the United States as long as they are convenient. They are not really worth the labor they entail or the paper they are written on. It is well that this position should be realized, as it may save a great deal of fuss and disappointment in the future.”
The most remarkable chapter in the book deals with the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty. Major Bigelow shows how the British Ambassador spirited a spurious document into the files of the State Department. This spurious document has had an important bearing on the interpretation of our treaty with England affecting the Panama Canal.
=Schleswig-Holstein.=--The case of Schleswig-Holstein, though one of the most complicated problems for statesmen of the last century, is perfectly clear as to the vital factors involved. Some centuries ago the Duke of Schleswig-Holstein--which may be described as the original seat of the Anglo-Saxons who peopled Britain--conquered Denmark and was proclaimed King of Denmark. As Duke of Schleswig-Holstein the duchies became attached to the crown of Denmark, but were never incorporated as parts of the Danish State. The relationship was similar to that of the early Georges, who were kings of Hanover, a distinctly German State, but which was never considered belonging to Great Britain for all that.
The two German duchies were given a charter that they were “one and indivisible,” and this held good for centuries. Early in 1840, a quarrel ensued between the government of Denmark and the German duchies. King Frederick VII had no children; the succession was about to descend to the female line of the family. The duchies protested. Their charter provided distinctly for a male line of rulers, and they would maintain their rights as well as the provision guaranteeing their unity. Accordingly, they rejected (January 28, 1848) the new constitution of the government embracing every section of the monarchy and stood out for their constitutional guarantees.
Underlying these constitutional questions was the stronger racial impulse to be united with their kindred of Germany, where the desire for national unity was making itself felt in revolutionary demonstrations. The first note of discord in the German national parliament was occasioned by the Schleswig-Holstein question. In order to prevent the incorporation of the duchies in the Danish State, the communities elected a provisional government and appealed to the German parliament to be admitted into the German confederation; at the same time the provisional government appealed to the King of Prussia for aid. The same men who have been pronounced the most ardent German revolutionists of 1848 were equally ardent in their desire to rescue two sister States from being absorbed by a government of alien blood and sympathy.
The Prussian general, Wrangel, led a force into the duchies, drove out the Danes and occupied Jutland. Before any further blows were struck, Russia, England and Sweden intervened, and Prussia withdrew her troops in accordance with an armistice provision signed August 26. All public measures proclaimed by the provisional government were thereupon nullified, and a common government for the duchies was created, partly by Denmark and partly by the German Confederation, and the Schleswig troops were separated from those of Holstein.
This decision was regarded in Schleswig-Holstein as a betrayal of its cause and was never accepted by a considerable minority of the German parliament. In 1849 revolt in the duchies broke out afresh, and gained many adherents in Germany. A stadtholder was appointed for the duchies, and an army composed of mixed German troops was sent to support the revolutionists under command of Gen. Bonin. An attack of the Danes at Eckernfoerde was repelled, the fortifications of Duppel were taken by storm and Kolding was captured. But the Schleswig-Holstein army was beaten by the Danes in a sortie from Fredericia, and Prussia, again under pressure from Russia and England, was compelled to abandon the Schleswig-Holsteiners and sign the armistice of July 10, 1849, with Denmark.
By this agreement Schleswig was abandoned to Denmark, but not Holstein. The Schleswig-Holstein government, however, refused to recognize this treaty of peace and placed a new army in the field under General Willisen. It was defeated at Idstedt, and in conformity with the treaty of Olmutz, Holstein was occupied by Austrian and Prussian troops, while Schleswig was abandoned to the Danes, under the London protocol, which recognized Prince Christian of Glucksberg as the future king of the monarchy.
This, however, did not dispose of the question. In 1863 King Christian signed the new constitution which incorporated Schleswig in the Danish State and separated it from Holstein, contrary to the ancient charter of the two duchies. This action also conflicted with the London protocol and vitiated the treaty as well for those who signed it (Prussia and Austria) as for those who did not, the two duchies and the German Confederation, in so far as the recognition of King Christian as duke of Schleswig-Holstein was concerned. The duchies thereupon declared for the Prince of Augustenburg as their rightful ruler, who had been unjustly put aside in the London protocol, and appealed to the German Confederation for help.
In order to protect Holstein as part of the German Confederation, the latter sent 12,000 Saxons and Hanoverians into the duchy. The Danes fell back across the Eider river, and the Prince of Augustenburg, proclaimed the rightful ruler, took up his residence in Kiel. Prussia recognized King Christian, but with the distinct reservation that he adhere to the London protocol and surrender his claim to Schleswig. Under the belief that he would receive help from other sources, King Christian rejected the offer, and Prussia, in conjunction with Austria, decided to settle the Schleswig-Holstein question in conformity with the wishes of its people, and German national interests. This brought on the war of 1864, in which Denmark formally renounced her claims to the two duchies.
This brief summary goes to show that the popular notion that Schleswig-Holstein was wrested from poor little Denmark by brutal force against the will of the people is erroneous. McCarthy, in his “History of Our Own Times,” says: “Put into plain words, the dispute was between Denmark, which wanted to make the duchies Danish, and Germany, which wanted to make them German. The arrangement which bound them up with Denmark was purely diplomatic and artificial. Any one who would look realities in the face must have seen that some day or other the Germans would carry their point, and that the principle of nationalities would have its way in that case as in so many others.” This view was held by eminent English statesmen at that time. McCarthy tells us that Lord Russell “had never countenanced or encouraged any of the acts which tended to the enforced absorption of the German population into the Danish system.”
The people of the duchies fought for their own cause. When King Frederick VII, in March, 1848, called the leaders of the Eider-Dane party--the party which desired the Eider river to constitute the dividing line between Denmark and Germany, thus converting Schleswig into a Danish province and abandoning Holstein--to take the reins of government, the issue was clearly drawn, and the result was revolution. The troops joined the people; the revolution spread over the provinces and the struggle for the ending of the Danish rule began. A representative of the threatened duchies applied to the Bundesrath at Frankfort and was seated. Volunteers from all parts of Germany flocked to the northern border. Prussia was commissioned to defend the German duchies, and Emerson, in his “History of the Nineteenth Century Year by Year,” tells us that before Gen. Wrangel could arrive to take command, “the untrained volunteer army of Schleswig-Holsteiners suffered defeat at Bau, and a corps of students from the University of Kiel was all but annihilated.” When Jutland was occupied, the historian informs us, it was “in conjunction with the volunteers of Schleswig-Holstein.” Again he says: “On July 5 the Danes made a sortie from Fredericia and inflicted a crushing defeat on the Schleswig-Holsteiners, capturing 28 guns and 1,500 prisoners.” The loss was nearly 3,000 men in dead and wounded.
Heine, one of the ministers of the present German government, speaking at Tondern, Schleswig, during the fall of 1919, said:
Here is the cradle of the purest Germanism. From here the richest of German blood was transfused throughout our fatherland. Fan-like, its streams coursed from West to East. Here was laid the original foundation of the German people. Here were born the men who have wrought great deeds in German history.
Among the distinguished men born in Schleswig-Holstein may be noted von Weber, the great composer; Friedrich Hebbel, next to Goethe and Schiller, Germany’s most famous dramatist; several distinguished novelists and poets, such as Joachim Maehl, Gustav Frensen and Emanuel Geibel, one of the most appealing of the German poets, who sang:
Wir wollen keine Danen sein; Wir wollen Deutsche bleiben. (We refuse to become Danes; We intend to remain Germans.)
The total Danish-speaking population of the German Empire in 1900, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica, edition of 1910, was only 141,061, about 10,000 more than Paterson, N. J., representing in part the irreconcilables along the Danish border, and it is proposed to let this minority decide the fate of the northernmost duchy, ostensibly under the plebiscite, but under a plebiscite of which the Danish government itself entertained the most serious apprehensions, for it repeatedly entered vigorous protests which were sent to Versailles. This plebiscite is being exercised under the guns of British warships.
A dispatch of May 11 last, from Copenhagen, speaks of dissatisfaction “reflected in the newspapers which declare the population of the district is composed of Germans, whom Denmark does not desire, as their presence within the country would lead to a future racial conflict.” Although “entirely Germanized,” as one correspondent expresses it, “the population possibly would vote to adhere to Denmark to escape German taxation.”
This is the sort of self-determination that is to determine the future boundaries of the States adjacent to the new German republic.
=Submarine Sinkings of Enemy Merchant Ships.=--Without seeking to pass final judgment on the question whether Germany was or was not justified by the rules of war and considerations of humanity in sinking merchant vessels by means of her submarines, it is important to quote briefly what those who are considered authorities on the subject have to say about it:
New York “World,” March 21, 1919: “High officers of the British Admiralty have justified the unrestricted use of the submarine by Germany on the ground of military necessity.”
The following characteristic communication of Admiral Fisher is quoted in the London “Daily Herald” of October 18, from the London “Times” of October 17, 1919: