Historic Homer: Gateway to Heritage Tourism in Central New York

Photo of proposed Lincoln Monument Project at the 

Homer Town Hall. Photo by David P. Quinlan. Concept 

by Sculptor Frank Porcu.

By Martin Sweeney
Copyright @2015. All rights reserved by author.

Holidays are much more than festive occasions on a calendar. Thanksgiving, Christmas, Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, and Presidents Day provide an opportunity to set aside some time to remember persons and events of the past that have significantly shaped our values, traditions, and collective identity as a people. There are, however, some persons and events of the past that are worthy of on-going commemoration in a physical form. These persons and events often have public spaces set aside to honor them with plaques, markers, street names, preserved architecture, and statuary.

Residents of Central New York are or should be keenly aware that their region abounds with historical personages worthy of memorialization. Clinton Square in Syracuse has statuary recalling the famous public rescue in 1851 of William “Jerry” Henry from the enforcers of the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850. Another runaway slave, Harriet Tubman, has her final residence in Auburn dedicated to her participation as a “conductor” in the Underground Railroad movement. Auburn, too, is the site of a statue of William Henry Seward, the secretary of state in the Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson presidencies. Nearby, Seward’s residence, brimming with artifacts, has been wisely preserved and is open to public inspection.





Further down the road, at Seneca Falls, the tourist finds the Women’s Rights National Historic Park. Here the first women’s rights convention was held in 1848. Here the names of Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Frederick Douglass, Matilda Joslyn Gage, and other great figures of vision and conviction are recalled for assembling for the cause of women’s suffrage and abolition. Another attendee at the convention and Seneca Falls resident was Amelia Jenks Bloomer, the advocate for temperance and for an item of radical women’s apparel that bore her last name. “Bloomers” became synonymous with social reform and the movement for women’s rights. Her home in Seneca Falls is listed in the National Register of Historic Places. Her birthplace, Homer, New York, now boasts of 220 structures listed in the Register.

Homer’s location in the center of the state and on the I-81 corridor makes it “The Gateway to the Finger Lakes” and to Syracuse for visitors coming up from southerly directions. Those who pass through Homer’s Historic District for the first time are amazed by its well-preserved architecture and by streets lined with stately trees and with American flags patriotically fluttering in the breeze. More than once the comment has been made about its Norman Rockwell appearance, and one visitor stated, “I thought I had driven onto the set of a Civil War era movie.”

This observation is appropriate when one realizes that since “Homer’s Celebration of Lincoln in Paint and Print” in 2009 during the national observance of the bicentennial of the Civil War president’s birth, no less than five Lincoln scholars have visited and spoken in Homer. The first was Harold Holzer, the esteemed author and editor of over forty books on Lincoln and a commissioner of the national Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission that enthusiastically endorsed the Homer week-long observance. He gave two lectures. This was followed by Jason Emerson, who spoke at the Phillips Free Library on his book The Madness of Mary Lincoln. Then, the late U. S. Senator and presidential candidate George McGovern came to promote his biography of Abraham Lincoln. Thus far, as part of Homer’s observance of the Sesquicentennial of the Civil War, two other contributors to the vast knowledge of Lincoln have lectured in Homer. In September of 2011, retired Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Rhode Island and chair of The Lincoln Forum, the Honorable Frank J. Williams, spoke at the Homer Intermediate-Junior High School on “Lincoln and the Constitutionality of the Emancipation Proclamation.” Williams was followed in November by the award-winning Lincoln biographer Professor Michael Burlingame of the University of Illinois at Springfield. He spoke at Homer’s Center for the Arts, addressing the question “What New Can Possibly Be Said about Abraham Lincoln?” Williams has agreed to return to Homer in June of 2015 and to lecture again as part of a traveling exhibit on Lincoln and the Constitution during the Civil War.

What is it about Homer that magnetically draws experts on Lincoln? Why is it that Harold Holzer of The Lincoln Forum, a national organization devoted to all things dealing with the sixteenth president of the United States, has dubbed the Town of Homer “a new Lincoln mecca?” The reason is because the town lays claim to three native sons with direct connections to Lincoln’s life and legacy. Until the Lincoln bicentennial, not much was made of their roles by the bulk of the population of the town.

Though an historical marker stands on the birth site of Homer’s Eli DeVoe, few realized that private investigator DeVoe helped to thwart a possible assassination plot against Lincoln in 1861. The more famous detective, Allan Pinkerton, uncovered a conspiracy in Baltimore to murder Lincoln and prevent him from ever arriving by train to become the President. Lincoln refused to change plans after receiving Pinkerton’s report. When DeVoe infiltrated the cell of conspirators and independently corroborated Pinkerton’s fears for Lincoln, the President-elect avoided harm by sneaking into Washington, DC, on a different train. Ironically, both Lincoln and DeVoe were born in log cabins in 1809. One was destined to become a great President, and one was destined to save a great President.

William Osborn Stoddard was born in the Village of Homer in 1835. The house still stands at No. 5 Albany Street, one of the earliest brick houses built in Cortland County. Not until 2009 was there a New York State marker erected curbside to announce the birth site of the assistant personal secretary to Mr. and Mrs. Lincoln. Stoddard was responsible for opening the President’s mail each day and for making the introductions as the Lincolns greeted those who came to White House receptions and dinners. It was Stoddard who, at Lincoln’s bidding, made handwritten copies of the President’s draft of the Emancipation Proclamation. In the 1870s, it was Stoddard who testified before a Congressional committee and lobbied for the Government to accept as a gift the oil painting of “The First Reading of the Emancipation Proclamation before the Cabinet.” The image of Lincoln with sad, drooping eyes has become iconic.

The painter responsible for capturing on canvas what he called the “moment of moral grandeur” was Francis Bicknell Carpenter. Born in Homer in 1830 (there is a marker), he studied portraiture under Sanford Thayer in Syracuse and made a name for himself painting the movers and shakers of nineteenth century America, including five Presidents. Prints made of his paintings of Lincoln and his book Six Months at the White House with Abraham Lincoln: The Story of a Picture were bestsellers after the shocking assassination in 1865 elevated the president to secular sainthood in the public’s mind.

DeVoe, Stoddard, and Carpenter are Homer’s “Lincoln Trifecta.” Lincoln scholars appreciate the opportunity to visit the place where these three were born and raised and to ask “Why Homer? How do you explain that this dot on a map named after a blind Greek poet produced so many prominent names in the early nineteenth century? Did the stars align just so?”

Celestial bodies may not have aligned, but geographic, economic, educational, and religious forces did. Nestled in the heart of the state, Homer developed a robust, pioneer agrarian economy which benefited from its location on the Tioughnioga River and its proximity to the Erie Canal passing through Syracuse. These accessible water routes permitted a brisk trade of products in Homer – products that passed through The Great Western Store established in Homer by Jedediah Barber as the Wal-Mart of the early 1800s. In the1850s, more wealth in the area was stimulated by the construction of the railroad through Homer. It connected Syracuse and Binghamton and provided freight and passenger service for the merchants and farming folk of Homer.

Another significant source of revenue was from boarding out rooms to students from Central New York and further afield who came to the prestigious Cortland (later Homer) Academy. Built on the west side of the Green and chartered in 1819 by the state, the school attracted the best and the brightest to its progressive, co-educational curriculum. By the 1840s, it was graduating such luminaries as Theodore Munger, the Yale theologian and abolitionist; Dr. Stephen Smith, founder of the New York City Board of Health; and Amelia Stone Quinton, co-founder of the Women’s National Indian Association. Both Stoddard and Carpenter studied under Supervising Principal Samuel B. Woolworth before Woolworth moved on to become the secretary of the New York State Board of Regents.

Education and religion were intertwined agents of reform in the 1800s. Right next door to the Academy was (and still is) the Congregational Church, which experienced the Second Great Awakening in the form of its pastor from 1821 to 1833, the Reverend John Keep. “Father Keep” was a proponent of temperance, co-education, and abolition. He taught that slaves and social ideas should be unfettered. This radical thinker went on to help establish Oberlin College in Ohio as a co-educational school open to all “irrespective of color.”

It is amazing how, in an age devoid of email and the social media, Keep, Carpenter, Stoddard, Munger, and another native son of Homer, Cornell University’s co-founder and first president, Andrew D. White, managed to carry on communication with each other and with others. Through handwritten letters (now a dying art in the computer age) they maintained an active dialogue and collaboration on matters of art, social issues, and political affairs. For them, human freedom and dignity was a moral imperative worthy of discourse.

Today, in Homer, near the firehouse on Main Street, is a steel girder from one of the New York City towers brought down on 9/11. It is an appropriate site for a lasting memorial to the first responders of that infamous event and to American resilience in the face of attacks upon our freedom. At the other end of the village’s Main Street commercial establishments stands the stately Town Hall constructed in 1908. Here has been proposed another memorial to freedom. Known as the Lincoln Monument Project, this memorial will consist of six pieces in bronze by the renowned sculptor Frank Porcu to commemorate the three native-sons of Homer – Carpenter, Stoddard, and DeVoe – who contributed to the life and iconography of “The Great Emancipator.” The project calls for the installation of life-sized statues, plaques, and a bas-relief of Carpenter’s famous painting of the moment when Lincoln first broached freedom of the slaves to his full Cabinet – a moment that Carpenter, in his bestseller, called “an act unparalleled for moral grandeur in the history of mankind” (pp.10-11). The municipal building is an ideal spot for using public art to inform residents and visitors to Homer that the community once played a significant role at the intersection of local, regional, and national history. What a gateway to and boost for heritage tourism and to revitalizing the regional economy of Central New York State.

About the author: Mr. Sweeney, the Town of Homer historian, is the author of LINCOLN’S GIFT FROM HOMER, NEW YORK; DEATH IN THE WINTER SOLSTICE: A NARRATIVE OF A TRUE MURDER MYSTERY IN HOMER; “Historical Connections: Homer, New York and Cornell University” in the 2013 issue of NEW YORK HISTORY REVIEW; and co-author with David Quinlan of “Lincoln’s Empire State Bastion: Homer, New York,” in the Spring 2011 issue of The Lincoln Forum Bulletin.

Out of the Great Depression:The Experience of the Town of Salem, New York

By William A. Cormier 

Salem NY Town/village historian

Copyright @2015. All rights reserved by author.

The people of Salem, New York, like other people across the nation, were tossed about in the stormy sea of the Great Depression. Some people suffered more economic plight than others; some felt no hardship at all. One’s status in life at this time was often the result of Lady Luck who showed no bias in distributing both bad and good luck across all classes of society. Nevertheless, those who suffered the most emerged like hardened steel--tempered to a strong work ethic and loyal to family and neighbors in need. Born in 1936, this author was a Depression baby whose childhood days were filled with stories of the family hardships.

“Get a good job, keep it, and save your money,” my mother would admonish, and “If someone is in need--family, friend, or neighbor, help them out.” My mother wasn’t alone in her advice. My father who understood the importance of finding and holding a job said, “When you get a job, no matter how menial, do the best you can.” My parents and my siblings lived the Depression, this author heard about it--and often.

In Salem and throughout Washington County, it was not dust bowl winds of Oklahoma, like those described in John Steinbeck’s classic The Grapes of Wrath, that blew away the future of the local farmers, it was low agricultural and milk prices and banks demanding the mortgage payments. In a way, people living in small towns in rural areas often faired better than their counterparts living in the cities or those who relied on industry for work and had no farms to go back to. With the exception of the “dust bowl,” farmers who lost everything to drought and to heartless banks who literally bulldozed them off their land, those with small family farms or a barn and a garden in the back yard, such as one finds in the village of Salem today, managed to get by without much money. Growing ones own vegetables and raising ones own animals for meat, sustained many a family through out the ten-year Depression. Being self-reliant and knowing how to work the land was an asset.

 


Thelma Mitchell was eight years old in 1930 and lived on the family farm in Perkins Hollow on a dirt road that ran into Vermont. “I was an only child, and don’t remember my family struggling during the Depression, even though the life of a dairy farmer was difficult. We managed to get along. The worst thing that happened to us was the fire that year. Our house caught on fire from a spark from the open-hearth fireplace and burned the house to the ground. I was almost trapped in my second floor bedroom over the fireplace. We were lucky to get out alive, thanks to my father who had gotten up in the night and smelled the smoke. We lost everything. My father sold the farm to John Perkins and we moved over the hill to Beattie Hollow to another farm.”[ 1]

Her future husband, Vincent “Bim” Pekins, on the other hand, lived in the village of Salem at the bottom of Riley Hill Road with his ten brothers and sisters. “Both my parents worked at the shirt shop, but were often laid off during the Depression when the shop closed. To get by, my father raised chickens and had a large garden to feed our family of thirteen. He grew large cabbages for us and for sale to the public. He also raised chickens, but not for public sale. For breakfast, we ate the eggs. For Sunday dinner we ate the hens that had stopped laying the eggs. Pocket money was scarce, and I used to help the local farmers pick their crops, like strawberries on the Braymer farm on the Rupert Road. My father seldom complained. He always said, ‘You do what you have to do.’ We were a big family, but we managed tosurvive.”[2]

Despite President Herbert Hoover’s optimism in 1928 about the state of the nation, signs of coming economic and political strife were obvious before “Black Thursday,” October 13, 1929. As retold by historian Kenneth C. Davis, the farmers were in economic trouble and unemployment was high, but the corrupt Wall Street paper profiteers, like Ivan Kreuger and Samuel Insull, and the nation’s leaders ignored the underclass problems.[3]   President Hoover’s philosophy of “rugged Individualism” helped cloud the real plight of the nation. The “Crash” was only the last straw.[4]

Locally, the failing economy was already causing social unrest. Although not as popular an organization in the northeast as in the south, the Ku Klux Klan, as early as 1926, took advantage of the social unrest and held a rally at the Carson Winning farm south of the village of Salem on State Route 22. According to the Salem Press news article of July 29, “Big Klan Meeting Held in Suburbs,” from around the county, “2,000 people attended” the rally, and “500 cars parked in a semi-circle facing the speaker stand.” “Two crosses burned during the evening.”[5]   Two years later in August, an advertisement in the Salem Press announced another KKK rally, but for men only. Monk John Lyons was to be the speaker, and the rally was to be held in the East Hebron Grange Hall.[6]   The Salem Press did not report on the proceedings or the attendance at this meeting.

Not officially known is whether the KKK successfully recruited anyone locally, but in 1966, Salem resident Barbara Barber told this author that she and her husband had found a KKK sword tucked away in a back shed cupboard in village home they bought a few years earlier. Her husband Jack also said that his mother told him that during the Depression, the KKK burned crosses on a hill at the west end of the village. He remembered his mother saying that, in addition to the Klan’s nationwide terror campaign against the “Black race,” the Klan targeted the local Roman Catholics--especially the Italian immigrants.[7]   The KKK presence foreshadowed a political unrest that would last throughout the Depression.

Unemployment began to hit home, despite the opening of the local Shapiro Chain grocery Store. Most of the Hudson Valley Railroad’s Saratoga and Washington county trolley system shut down due to a lack of riders, and the Victory Cotton Mills laid-off 200 workers and moved most of its business to Alabama.[8, 9]

By 1929, according to historian Davis, “1,300 banks failed” and “5,000 banks" closed across the country. “Without banks to extend credit and capital,” Davis said, “businesses and factories closed, forcing more workers onto unemployment lines.”[10]   The Salem Press again was full of local bad news starting in January when Shapiro’s Chain grocery store, opened in May of the prior year, closed, the Delaware & Hudson Railroad sold off the last of its trolley lines, the Granville slate quarries closed for an indefinite period, and Leary’s Shoe Store closed.[11-14]  As if to add more confusion to the daily life of the farmers, the railroads and the local citizenry, Salem remained the only town in the county to reject Daylight Savings Time.[15]

The national and local economies continued to spiral downward. In 1930 more banks and businesses failed. During the four years prior to 1930, five hundred Washington county farms went out of business, according to the September 4 edition of the Salem Press, and 884 people were out of work. More trolley lines throughout the state failed.[16-17]   Stress of business failure and unemployment often was too great for some. The president of the Argyle Bank committed suicide, and the bank closed, indefinitely.[18] One bright moment of the year occurred when the Salem residents finally voted to adopt Daylight Savings Time.[19]

In 1931, following the Argyle Bank closing, the Salem People’s Bank announced that it was closing, also.[20]   Adding to the struggle to survive the terrible economy, the terrible polio epidemic disabled thousands across the country, including Franklin D. Roosevelt. The Salem Press announced that the polio epidemic, which took a local toll in nearby towns, would delay the Salem Central School opening one week.[21]   On the brighter side, Eleanor Roosevelt, wife of then Governor Franklin Delano Roosevelt, came to Salem to speak to the Salem Woman’s Club on March 26 about “Training in Citizenship.” Mrs. Roosevelt said, “The best training in citizenship is to learn local problems and this will lead to broader interests.” A large audience welcomed her.[22]   For better or worse, the Republican dominated town was becoming very familiar with the Roosevelt name.

Historian Davis wrote that in the midst of a political campaign, President Hoover in 1932 belatedly tried to revitalize the economy by introducing a series of federal programs for the banks and the railroads, specifically through the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, but he refused to give direct aid, welfare, to those out of work. His “Rugged Individualism” theme and “his distain for anything that smacked of Socialism and Communism got in the way of initiating direct welfare programs.”[23]   Bread lines and soup kitchens popped up in the large cities and the Salvation Army and local churches bore the brunt of feeding the poor and homeless. Groups of hoboes and tramps, camping along side the railroad tracks traveled the rails in the never-ending search for work. Davis, added, “Henry Ford put 75,000 men out of work and on the road as ‘hoboes,’” and an estimated two million Americans were “on the road.”[24, 25]

Among these hoboes was Woody Guthrie who wrote songs about social and economic injustices. A nation of homeless, poor and an emerging labor movement took his song “This Land is Your Land’ as their anthem (Bound for Glory).[26]   Little did I realize in 1942 that the song “So Long, It’s Been Good to Know You” my young cousins and I sang at the top of our lungs, while swinging from an old tire in the back yard, was written by the Depression’s most famous songster. President Hoover’s “trickle down” money from the nation’s wealthy never fully impacted on Salem or any other place in the United States. The concept did not work.[27]

The Salem Press continued to report that businesses continued to fall and rise in the Salem area. The Salem People’s Bank--closed in September of 1931, reopened in March of 1932, but paid only 50 cents on the dollar to its depositors.[28]   Leary’s Shoe Store had a liquidation sale.[29]   The Greenwich and Johnsonville Railroad held an abandonment hearing, and in fiscal cutbacks, the county eliminated old age allowances, putting 1200 families on welfare, and cut county salaries by 10%.[30-32]   The American Legion attempted to help the local citizens find jobs.[33]

Banking closings continued. The Farmers Bank of Granville closed, following the Granville National Bank that had closed earlier in the year.[34]   On the other had, some of Hoover’s belated public works programs did work, as reported in the 1932 Salem Press. In the form of work relief money given to the county, men were hired to build storm sewers, curbs and to pave streets. Improved were the village of Salem’s Main Street and East Broadway to the Washington County Courthouse. Unfortunately, this program was hardly enough to stem the tide of the Depression, and recovery for local businesses was mixed. One of Salem’s largest employers, the Manhattan Shirt Company, closed for several months, reopened.[35]

In 1933, the last railroad passenger service into Salem from Greenwich was eliminated when the Greenwich and Johnsonville Railroad stopped its passenger trains due to a lack of business.[36]   The federal government, as part of Roosevelt’s “New Deal,” placed all area banks on an eleven-day holiday.[37]   The Boston Store announced that it would close its doors, and County welfare rose to its highest level with 1555 families on the rolls.[38, 39]   Sadly, another local suicide took its toll. Popular Salem resident, and out of work paperhanger William Lincoln, who often threatened to “end it all,” did just that.[40]

To make matters worse, Salem residents couldn’t even drown their sorrows in a glass of cold beer. Although the 18th Amendment had been repealed, and Prohibition had ended in most communities, Salem voted to remain a dry town.[41]   Nevertheless, some small hope arose when the local newspaper noted that the Salem Slate Quarry continued to produce and was solvent, and the newly reorganized Battenville Mill resumed paper production.[42]   The Acme Machine Company reopened after having been closed many months.[43]   The new Hines Hardware Store opened, and the new Red Wood chain grocery opened up under the management of long time Salem baker, Charles Riley.[44, 45]   The Civil Works Administration hired 200 unemployed men throughout the county and planned to spend $50,000 on improving county roads.[46]   In addition, the Civil Works Authority hired 29 local Salem men and anticipated hiring a total of 1000 men across the county for other projects.47 Milk prices increased, and the Boston Store reopened.[48, 49]

History shows that failure to solve the problems of the Depression proved the undoing of President Hoover who, despite promising to balance the budget and repeal prohibition, lost the 1933 election to New York State Governor, Franklin D. Roosevelt.[50] President Roosevelt, soon after his inauguration, initiated his plans to recover the economy. He first rebuilt the nation’s morale and confidence with his radio “Fireside Chats,” telling the nation “…the only thing we have to fear is fear itself….”[51]   In response to Roosevelt’s promises and recovery programs, two Salem residents wrote him letters. Both letters are archived in the Franklin D. Roosevelt Library, Hyde Park, Duchess County.[52]

Prophetically, Mrs. L. Allen of Shushan wrote to Governor Roosevelt on March 1, 1932.

Dear Sir;

I saw quite [a] lot of your help in the paper to the poor people. I am asking a favor of you. Can’t you kindly help me out and send me $10.00 till spring work opens up. We have a large family and my school children is in need of some clothing and no work just at hand for my husband and he is willing to do work if he can get it so if you kindly help me out. Maybe when you come to need I can help you out on voting for you. That will help me get my childrens (sic) some clothing for school. I’ll be very thankful with anything. I saw that old home relief fund but I guess they are not going to kelp the poor people out if that goes through. I would like a share, or what they be willing to give one. If you feel as so you could help me out you can kindly send by mail. Thanking you very kindly. My address is Mrs. L. Allen, Shushan, Box 150.

Sincerely,

Mrs. L. Allen


In 1933, a year after Mrs. Allen sent her letter, newly elected President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 1933 “New Deal,” attempted to right what was wrong with the economy—including eliminating mass unemployment, estimated to be “15 million,” and stopping outrageous banking practices and unethical stock market manipulations on Wall Street. New banking laws, such as setting up the Federal Deposit system were set in place.[53, 54]   Perhaps the sincerity of Mrs. Allen’s letter impacted on Franklin D. Roosevelt after all.

While Mrs. Allen’s letter documented for posterity her family’s plight and mirrored the hardship of millions of other Americans, other media, including the daily newspapers and motion picture news companies, were invaluable in recording the events of the day. In small towns, however, the weekly newspapers, like the Salem Press and the Greenwich Journal were more personal in tracking local seesaw economic events during the ten-year Depression. The newspapers tracked the coming and going of local businesses, including agricultural, small retailers, banks, slate mines, railroads, manufacturers and people.

Most railroads across the country were hurt by the Depression, especially the local railroads. For example, declining railroad income forced the Delaware and Hudson Railroad to cancel passenger trains from Eagle Bridge to Rutland in 1934. The railroad had been losing passenger travel for many years and claimed a net loss of “$55,000” for the prior year.[55]   Although some Salem people traveled to Granville to attend the public hearing, regarding the elimination of passenger traffic, their protests were silenced when the moderator asked, “How many of you came to Granville on the passenger train?” The answer was “None.”[56]   Henry Ford, in fact, had supplied their transportation.

The railroad did make one concession at the meeting. According to Shushan’s Mary Hamlin, the railroad agreed to keep the passenger service going until June 24 to accommodate the high school students from Shushan and Vermont, attending Salem’s Washington Academy.[57]   Furthermore, the earlier closing for months of the slate mines in Salem and Granville had added to the D&H Railroad financial woes. Ironically, thousands of unemployed men, women and children illegally hitched freight car rides throughout the nation, going from place to place looking for work.[58]   For many, life in a hobo camp or in a migrant camp was the only way of life left to them.[59]   On a more political and philosophical level, not everyone was happy with the way the “New Deal” was being administered.

One such person was the Rev. Thomas Stevenson, Pastor of the Salem Methodist Episcopal Church who sent the second letter from Salem, dated October 8, 1935, to President Franklin D. Roosevelt.[60]   In his letter, the Rev. Stevenson criticized the handling of the Roosevelt relief programs and revealed his own social, political and religious beliefs in the process.

Dear Mr. President:

As one of the clergymen in receipt of your recent letter asking direct, first hand information as to the effects of new legislation for the greater good of the people, I readily reply with such observations as have come under my notice.

Personally I am in full sympathy with every measure that is for its aim the bringing of social justice and security to all the people. But as no law, however excellent is of greater value that its enforcement and application, so no government measure, however praiseworthy and altruistic is of greater value than its administration.

Such relief measures as have been in operation in the locality have failed to do much good because of political, partisan and Romanist control.* While saloons have increased fourfold since the repeal of the 18th Amendment, in every case by members of the party of which you are the recognized head, and relief workers are their main patrons, which is the main reason for the perpetual destitution, the Protestant churches are all working on the smallest budges ever raised.

The influences of relief measured as applied is abusive to the moral and spiritual interests of the people, because the funds have been handled largely by those who live on the fringes of honest toil.

One half of my constituency are farmers, who without exception say their condition has grown steadily worse.

If all the good that is in your program could be honestly administered, without graft and favoritism, I feel much better results would be obtained, and, perhaps, your own high ideals realized.

Most sincerely yours,

Thomas Stevenson

Whether Mrs. Allen ever got her $10 or the Rev. Thomas Stevenson ever received an answer is not known. History, however, shows that most of the Roosevelt economic acts had some merit. The Civilian Conservation Corps, run by the United States Army, was intended to give unemployed men outdoor training and work skills, and the Agricultural Adjustment Administration was intended to pay farmers not to grow certain crops and to raise farm prices. Two important banking acts, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Home Owners Loan Corporation were intended to protect savings and protect personal loans respectively. The Federal Emergency Act allotted five hundred million dollars to help the destitute--a precursor to our welfare programs today, and the National Industrial Recovery Act was passed to stimulate industrial production. The Works Progress Administration, later known as the Works Project Administration, funded small and large municipal building projects, like the new Salem School and the Boulder (now Hoover) Dam, and jobs for writers, artists, musicians and craftsmen, while the Tennessee Valley Authority put thousands back to work building dams and hydroelectric plants.[61, 62]

Despite President Roosevelt’s detractors, The Salem Press recorded that some recovery plans did impact on the local area. Railroad freight business picked up as the Salem and Granville quarries and the Battenville Paper Mill reopened.[63]  Closed stores, like Avery’s Cash Store and Hines Hardware Store reopened. [64] Unfortunately, and regardless of its broad intent, The “New Deal” did not solve all problems. Banks continue to foreclose on farmers across the country. Additional new legislation was introduced nationwide: the Federal Securities Exchange Act was intended to protect investors from Wall Street Stock Market fraud, and the Temporary Relief Agency offered jobs to the county’s unemployed. 65 County welfare costs rose to $140,000.66

In 1935, a new and different safety net for all citizens was enacted. The Social Security Act was intended to allow workers to save money for retirement at age 65. The labor unions took the government to court over the National Recovery Act of 1933, and the act intended to stimulate and protect workers was found unconstitutional. The labor unions, like the United Mine Workers of America, American Federation of Labor and the Congress of Industrial Organizations, grew in membership, resulting in increased strife between unions and management over wages and working conditions.67 Labor unrest would not be a stranger to Salem. The Board of Education in Salem learned that it could build a new school with funds available from the WPA Act. The WPA employed 400 men on relief throughout the county. Unskilled laborers were paid $44 a month, and skilled laborers were paid $69 a month to work on roads and flood control.68

A year later, the 1936 March 23 edition of the Salem Press described how the government’s new agricultural act was applied to local farmers who were paid “$10 an acre not to grow certain soil depleting crops and $1 an acre for planting soil conserving crops and plants.” In December, the Salem Press published a story about local labor unrest, putting Salem farmers on strike against the local H. P. Hood and Sons Co. who tried to break the Dairymen of New England Milk Producers association.[69]

Despite the continuing labor strife, 1937 saw the economy improving in Salem. In fact the WPA program was so successful that it caused a shortage of farm laborers who took the higher paying WPA jobs. For this reason the town of Salem offered no more WPA work.[70]  The Salem Slate Quarry was still being successfully worked, and Public Works Administrator Harold Ickes, announced that $200,250 was to be granted for the erection of the new school. The citizens of Salem were to raise the rest.[71, 72]

But by 1938, the fortunes of the Delaware and Hudson Railroad and some other Salem businesses were no better. The railroad declared that it was nearly bankrupt from having to pay both New York State and Vermont taxes.[73]   The Acme Machinery Company closed and was purchased by the village of Salem for $3,500 from Dallas E. Winslow Inc.[74]   Salem’s largest employer, the struggling Manhattan Shirt Shop, closed for good and would not reopen until 1940 when C. A. Baltz of Kingston leased and then purchased the building to produce ladies nightwear.[75]   On the other hand, plans to build the new school were completed, and the New York State Board of Regents approved bonding of $445,000.[76]  The building project was a boon to area contractors seeking work, and 50 companies bid on the project. Contract bids totaled $394,709, well under the anticipated cost.[77]

The year 1939 brought another mixed bag of good and bad. When war broke out in Europe, the nation became the goods supplier for its allies, helping the economy to grow toward recovery. The bad side was that the United States faced the possibility of going to war itself. The Works Progress Administration changed its name to the Works Project Administration and “was responsible for 10 percent of the new roads in the United States as well as new hospitals, city halls, courthouse, and schools.”[78]

In 1939, the newly completed school became the gemstone in the town and symbolized Salem’s emergence from the Depression. No attention to detail in the construction was spared. Included in the Greek revival architecture plans were stained glass windows, representing the subject taught in each room. Architect Carl W. Clark of Cortland, said to this author in 1968, “I always considered the Salem school building my flag ship.”[79]   The result was an exceptionally well-built, aesthetically pleasing and functional structure that continues to serve the community today.

Working at the Salem Central School in 1968 was Kermit White of West Hebron. Kermit was a former forester, and at this time a carpenter, custodian and grounds keeper at the school. In conversations with Kermit, this author learned that Kermit was a Depression survivor who had participated in the Civilian Conservation Corps, generally considered one of the more successful work training recovery programs initiated by President Roosevelt. County CCC camps were located in the area of Argyle and Fort Ann near the Adirondack Mountains where Kermit honed his conservation skills.[80]   By this time, the enlistment ages had been expanded beyond 25 years of age, but most of the recruits were 18 to 25 year olds who had never been away from home.[81]

“I was 31 years old in 1935 with a wife and two children when I commenced my CCC experience. We CCC men logged, fished, built forest shelters, planted trees, stopped soil erosion, built public camping grounds and forest roads, and in general kept ourselves busy. Twenty-five dollars a month was our pay, and we were glad of it. We all got a place to sleep and three meals a day for up to a year if we wanted it. It was a steady job.”[82]

Kermit never forgot his skills, and more than once while he and this author were bass fishing, he talked about his philosophy of stocking the local ponds and lakes with bass, northern pike and walleye, while pointing out the kinds of flora and fauna found in and around the lake. His CCC experience and work ethic permeated his life. He was a true conservationist. He never stopped advocating conservation.

Whether by 1939 the economy had turned the corner for everyone is debatable, but, without a doubt, out of the Great Depression came a generation that found the strength and self-reliance to make the best of what Lady Luck dealt them. This is the same generation, honed on the challenges of life, which two short years later came to the defense of their country in WW II. The people of Salem saw their duty in this crisis, too--but that’s another story.


About the author: William “Al” Cormier was born in Massachusetts where he earned his B.A. at the University of Massachusetts. He later earned his M. Ed. at Cornell University. In 1984 he became the Salem, NY town and village historian, writing books of local history and articles for the local newspapers.

END NOTES

1. Conversation with Thelma Mitchell Pekins, May 2005.
2. Conversation with Vincent “Bim” Pekins,. May 2005.
3. Davis, Kenneth C. Don’t Know Much About History, (New York: Avon, 1990), p. 271.
4. Ibid. p. 276.
5. Salem Press, July 29, 1926.
6. Ibid., August 16, 1928.
7. Conversation with Barbara and Jack Barber, May 2005.
8. Salem Press, May 3, 1928.
9. Ibid., June 21, 1928.
10. Davis, p. 271.
11. Salem Press., January 10, 1929.
12. Ibid., March 27, 1929.
13. Ibid., April 4, 1929.
14. Ibid., July 11, 1929.
15. Ibid., May 30, 1929.
16. Ibid., September 4, 1930.
17. Ibid., February 27, 1930.
18. Ibid., August 14, 1930.
19. Ibid., March 20, 1930.
20. Ibid., September 10, 1931.
21. Ibid., September 17, 1931.
22. Ibid., April 2, 1931.
23. Davis, p. 274.
24. Ibid.
25. Ibid., p. 275.
26. Guthrie, Woody. Bound For Glory. New York: E. P. Dutton. 1943.
27. Davis, p. 269.    
28. Salem Press, April 28, 1932.
29. Ibid., July 14, 1932.
30. Ibid., April 28, 1932.
31. Ibid., January 7, 1932.
32. Ibid., July 28, 1932.
33. Ibid., February 25, 1932.
34. Ibid., January 7, 1932.
35. Ibid., September 29, 1932.
36. Ibid., February 9, 1933.
37. Ibid., March 9, 1933.
38. Ibid., February 2, 1933.
39. Ibid., April 6, 1933.
40. Ibid., January 12, 1933.
41. Ibid., April 6, 1933.
42. Ibid., August 3, 1933.
43. Ibid., April 6, 1933.
44. Ibid., November 23, 1933.
45. Ibid., January 26, 1933.
46. Ibid., November 30, 1933.
47. Ibid., December 28, 1933.
48. Ibid., July 13, 1933.
49. Ibid., April 6, 1933.
50. Davis, p. 275.
51. Ibid., p. 277.
52. Conversation with Patricia Niles, May 2005, copies of letters from FDR Library.
53. “Depression, major.” Family Encyclopedia of American History, 1975 ed.
54. Davis, p. 279.
55. Salem Press, June 21, 1934.
56. Conversation with Robert Thompson, Town Supervisor, 1980.
57. Conversation with Mary Hamlin, 1990.
58. Davis, p. 275.
59. Fleischhauer, Carl, and Beverly W. Brannon, eds. Documenting America. Berkley: University of California Press, 1988. p. 188-190.
60. Niles conversation.
61. Davis, p. 281.
62. Ibid., p. 278.
63. Salem Press, August 3, 1933.
64. Ibid., November 23, 1933.
65. Davis, p. 279.
66. Salem Press, December 6, 1934.
67. Davis, p. 279-280.
68. Salem Press, July 25, 1935.
69. Ibid., December 14, 1936.
70. Ibid., June 10, 1937.
71. Ibid., July 8, 1937.
72. Ibid., August 8, 1937.
73. Ibid., December 12, 1938.
74. Ibid., May 19, 1938.
75. The Village of Salem. p. 348-349.
76. Salem Press, January 31, 1938.
77. Ibid., March 10, 1938.
78. Davis, p. 281.
79. Conversation with Carl W. Clark, Architect, 1980.
80. Salem Press, May 2, 1935.
81. Hoyt, Ray. “We Can Take It” A Short Story of the CCC. New York: American Book Company. 1935. p. 21.
82. Conversation with Kermit White, July 1970.

 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cormier, William A. Personal recollections.

Davis, Kenneth C. Don’t Know Much About History. New York: Avon. 1990.

“Depressions, major.” Family Encyclopedia of American History. Pleasantville: The Reader’s Digest

 Association, Inc. 1975.

Fleischhauer, Carl and Beverly W. Brannon, eds. Documenting America. Berkley: University of California

            Press. 1988.

Guthrie, Woody. Bound For Glory. New York: E.P Dutton. 1943.

Hoyt, Ray. “We Can Take It” A Short Story of the CCC. New York: American Book Company. 1935.

Niles, Patrick. Private collection. Copies of letters from the Franklin D. Roosevelt Library.

            Original papers of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt Library, Hyde Park, New York.

Letter, Mrs. L. Allen to Governor Franklin D. Roosevelt, March 1, 1932..

            Letter, The Rev. Thomas Stevenson to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, October 8, 1935.

Salem Press. 1926-1939. Bancroft Library, Salem, New York.

Steinbeck, John. The Grapes of Wrath. New York: Viking Press. 1939.

Terkel, Studs. Hard Times. An Oral History of the Great Depression. New York: Pantheon Books. 1986.

Tomasi, Katharine, The Village of Salem, 1761-1994. Glens Falls: Conico Litho Graphics. 1995.

---

* Clergyman Stevenson’s use of the term “Romanist control” appears to be a throwback reference to the Al Smith presidential campaign slogans opposing him. The slogans said, “Rum, Romanism, and  Ruin” and “A Voter for Smith is a Vote for the Pope.”  New York State Governor Smith was a Roman Catholic Democratic presidential candidate who ran on a platform to drop Prohibition. Republic incumbent President Hoover rode to victory on the back of his “rugged individualism” and the continuation of Prohibition platform. 

“plunged into bloody strife”New York State and the Outbreak of War in 1914

By Robert G. Waite
©Copyright 2015. All rights reserved by the author.

                                                                                   

“All Europe Prepares for a Mighty War,” read the headline on the front page of New York City’s The Evening World on July 28, 1914, as tensions on the continent moved steadily from threats toward open combat. The same issue of the New York City daily announced that “Actual War Begun by Austria” when the Dual Monarchy rejected England’s call for a peace conference. A number of New York newspapers began publishing on their front page a “War Bulletins” or “War Crisis At Glance,” which offered its readers a capsule summary of the most recent developments, an aid to those eager for a quick over-view.[1] A few days later, on August 1, 1914, the German ambassador to Czarist Russia delivered the declaration of war to his Russian counterpart that set in motion the conflict that quickly spread from a squabble in the Balkans to a European wide war of attrition.[2] That same day a special “War Extra!” edition of The Evening World carried big front page headlines announcing: “Germany Declares War; All Europe in Arms.” Already more than 7.4 million men in the belligerent nations had already answered the call to arms and the newspaper told readers that the warring states could field 32.5 million soldiers. This threatened to be a war of unprecedented dimensions. “A huge European war staggers the imagination,” the editor of The Binghamton Press observed.[3] The entire front page of The New York Tribune was devoted to news of the war and the headline read “Germany Declares War on Russia.”[4]

Throughout the first months of the conflict the American public and especially readers throughout New York State followed closely the rapidly developing events through their major sources of information, local newspapers and magazines. And for good reasons did the press offer a continuous and comprehensive coverage. “Our interest in the European struggle has its broadest basis in the fact that we are a nation of European immigrants,” an editor of The Literary Digest observed in the August 15th issue as he explained the extensive press coverage.[5] New York’s Governor, Martin Henry Glynn, reminded an assembly of workers in late August that there was “not a single European nation involved in the present struggle which is not bound to this country by ties of blood and national esteem.”[6] This deep-seated interest was genuine, and New York’s press moved quickly to keep abreact of the breaking news. The New York Times had already stationed correspondents throughout Europe and the articles they submitted to their home papers were picked up and reprinted in small towns far and wide. Reporters for the Associated Press, United Press, Reuters, and the International News Service based in Europe sent back accounts daily and these too were transmitted to newspapers across the nation. Each day, many of the newspapers in the smaller, regional markets throughout the state carried up to several articles on the growing diplomatic crisis and the outbreak of war. The editors shared the mounting and widespread concern, plus news of war sold newspapers. Albany, New York’s newspaper the Times-Union, a daily that served the Capital District, a cluster of several mid- sized cities in upstate New York, ran front-page stories on the war throughout the summer of 1914, even a regular article entitled simply “The War News For Busy Readers.” It termed the conflict “appalling and disastrous” in an August 4th editorial. Local newspapers across the state that served a smaller readership and appeared only weekly carried “War Bulletins,” front page summaries of the events of the conflict.[7]
Over the next several months, the articles and reports from Europe were crucial in molding views across the Empire State on the war. Throughout the summer and fall of 1914 the public relied on newspapers for their information on events beyond their own community. The daily and weekly press as well as a number of magazines fed the widespread interest for news, and New York had a thriving press. The media had considerable influence over public opinion, for these publications not only provided the news, but also shaped how its readers viewed the events of the world. In 1914 there were no public opinion polls to sample and gauge sentiment, however. The response of the public in New York State, its commercial and political leaders to “this terrible European war,” “the most devastating war in European history,” can, therefore, best be assessed by a broad survey of the news media, namely a closer look at those vehicles that did so much to shape public views and opinions, the newspapers and magazines.[8]

During the initial months of the conflict the belligerents waged a vigorous publicity campaign in the United States targeting the press, the public and political leaders. Much of this was directed toward New York State with its large German immigrant population. The European powers strived to sway public opinion and to gain at least the tacit support of this major economic and political power which was closely linked with Europe economically but which chose to remain distant with its diplomatic connections.[9] Belgium sent an official commission to present its case before President Wilson, and this too gained widespread coverage. The French president called the White House and asserted that German troops had used the dreaded and banned dum-dum bullets. Kaiser Wilhelm sent a personal dispatch to Washington defending the conduct of his troops and their actions at Louvaine. German academics and German-Americans were especially active in this concerted effort to sway American public opinion.[10] The German chancellor issued a statement that he addressed directly to the American people. The president of the Reichstag and the leaders of other influential organizations released a pamphlet entitled “The Truth About Germany.” The German government distributed across America a pamphlet entitled “How the Franco German Conflict Could Have Been Avoided” which included a host of diplomatic cables and other relevant documents.[11]

How did the residents of New York State, its business and political leaders, react to the outbreak of war in Europe in August 1914? How effective were the efforts of the belligerents to influence their views on the war? Can one speak of a consensus in public sentiment?[12] Did the media place the responsibility, the blame for launching a European wide war, on any one particular nation? Other questions need also to be addressed. How can public opinion best be measured and gauged? What did the leading figures in commerce and trade see as the war’s impact on New York and the United States?

When war broke out in Europe and spread rapidly across the European continent New Yorkers had already been following the diplomatic crises that had paved the way for a major conflagration. The frequent reports in the leading newspapers of New York City and the other major urban centers were reprinted often in the small, regional press, thereby reaching a much larger audience throughout the state and across the nation. Editors of local newspapers put their own spin on the unfolding war in Europe. Most of the media initially presented the system of European diplomatic relations as inherently unstable and troublesome, and therefore largely responsible for war. The weekly and monthly magazines carried thoughtful analyses. Among these journals some were decidedly pacifist, while others envisioned an active role for America in European affairs. Much of the discussion in the press reflected the editor’s view of America’s role in the world and how the conflict affected American national security. The outbreak of war in Europe also sparked a vigorous debate about militarism, power politics, preparedness, and national security in the United States, issues reflected in the press coverage.[13]

During the several years leading up to the outbreak of war, the press had often published accounts of political and diplomatic developments in Europe and the mounting threats to peace. On the range of American sentiment toward the European powers, James Davenport Whelpley, a prominent journalist, offered a thoughtful overview in his 1914 book American Public Opinion. He dealt with most European nations and a variety of issues. An original study and one of the few attempts to measure public sentiment, Whelpley’s book described the sentiment toward England as “amicable and understanding.” He, nevertheless, devoted a full chapter to the often uneasy relationship between the US and Great Britain. In contrast, he wrote that the “relations between Germany and the United States are excellent and always have been.” Whelpley went on to survey the public’s views of other European and Asian nations. Nowhere did he see hints of an impending crisis nor widespread alarm among the American public.[14]

During the months leading up to the outbreak of war in 1914 the coverage of affairs in Europe intensified in the media, in the newspapers and magazines that New Yorkers read most and often turned to. In April 1914, for example, Alexander Konta in a New York Times’ article described at length the recent increases in the size of the Russian army, its improved weaponry, and the massing of troops on its western border earlier that month. He described “the stupendous military preparations on the German and Austro-Hungarian frontiers.” But Konta was optimistic. “The resources of diplomacy prove ever richer as world politics grows more complicated,” he wrote. Still, he cautioned, “playing with fire in a powder magazine was never more dangerous than now.”[15]

In late July 1914, as tensions mounted, New Yorkers and their political leaders, were simply uncertain what would happen next in Europe. To be sure, newspapers throughout the state closely followed the unfolding diplomatic crisis. Many journalists were hopeful that a conflict crisis could be averted but no one ventured to predict what would come. A headline in Albany’s Times-Union announced “Financiers Serve Notice On Powers There Will Be No Money to Carry on General War,” and that offered a glimmer of hope.[16] As the threat of war came closer, most continental nations curbed over-sea’s telegram traffic so America’s media had only official statements and public announcements to provide its readers with information. Reporters, seeking any information, turned to tourists returning from Europe and eagerly published their observations, however inadequate or narrow the perspective.[17] The mood in the press began to darken. “A feeling of depression, of sadness, almost of bitterness, must possess every thinking person as Europe flames into war,” penned a reporter for the New York City’s The Sun newspaper.[18]

Once war broke out, widely circulated and influential periodicals voiced their deep despair over the events in Europe, as did the editors of local newspapers throughout New York State. “Forecasts as to what may happen, now that all Europe has decided to halt the progress of civilization by going in for wholesale murder on a more terrible scale than the world has witnessed, would be utterly futile,” cautioned The Nation, a view that reflected the cables from American diplomats in Europe.[19] “All Europe is in the swiftest and most desperate war in history,” telegrammed the U.S. ambassador from London.[20] The outbreak of war in Europe caught most by surprise and the press which had followed closely the escalation of events did little to clarify the situation. Coverage did intensify, as newspaper editors across the state reacted to the mounting preparations for military conflict. Already on July 30th, the front page of The Binghamton Press was filled with articles on the war. “Austria Bombards Servia,” ran a headline. Other front-page article read “France Makes Preparations For War” and “Kaiser Rushes to Mobilize German Army.” The Binghamton newspaper served the southern tier of the state and it carried quotes from a handful of New York City newspapers on Austria’s declaration of war. The next day, the newspaper announced simply: “Europe Is Ready to Plunge Into Abyss of War” and its editors devoted the entire front-page to news of the war. “Germany Rushes to Mobilize” was the headline on August 1st as tensions rose dramatically and the war in Europe spread.[21]

The front page of the Buffalo Courier carried photos from the Serbian front, and the biggest headline on the front page of the July 30th edition read: “Austrian Troops Take Belgrade.” Albany’s Times-Union told readers on July 31st “Not the Slightest Hope That a General Conflict Can Now be Averted,” as Russia announced mobilization of its armed forces and the German Kaiser “Announces State of War.” Furthermore, the newspaper announced on the front page, “England Prepares To Assist France,” as the nations prepared to expand the conflict rapidly across Europe. To aid its readers at the start of military action, the Times-Union published a summary of “How They’ll Compare in Soldiers,” a tally of each nation’s active army and the reserves.[22] “Reports of Ultimatum by Kaiser Offset Peace Hope,” read an August 1st headline on the front page of The New York Times, as the media struggled to stay abreast of the rapidly unfolding developments in Europe.[23] The editor of The Madrid Herald, a weekly serving St. Lawrence county, offered his view on the outbreak of war. “When men are miserable and at the mercy of forces they do not understand, they strike out blindly, like all creatures in torment, and set out in a red rage when the war drum sounds to kill men as unhappy and deluded as themselves,” he wrote. “This is the true meaning of war madness in Europe today.”[24]

As soon as the fighting started, the media jumped in to keep its readers informed. The New York Times began a regular series entitled “How the War Rages” and “Summary of War News” which carried abbreviated dispatches from reporters in the various theaters of war. Regional newspapers, such as Albany’s Times-Union, ran a front page column entitled “The War News for Busy Readers.” It also turned to the former European manager of the United Press news service to write a “Review of the War Developments,” a summation of war news for the newspaper’s front page. Initial reports described the gains made by Germany’s armed forces. Newspapers carried thorough accounts of the bloody battles the troops were engaged in.[25] Monthly journals, such as Current Opinion, offered in-depth analysis. Its September edition ran a long article headlined “The Greatest War of History Breaks Over Europe.” As an editor of The Atlantic Monthly wrote, “The sudden transformation of Europe from a peaceful continent to a great battle field is something that so bewilders American public opinion that denunciations of a war so ‘senseless,’ so ‘insane,’ so ‘utterly without cause,’ have been heard on every hand.”[26] Even local newspapers voiced despair. “Particularly appalling and disastrous as must be a war of such proportions,” observed an editor for the Times-Union newspaper in the August 4th issue as he described the expanding conflict in Europe.[27]

The press and the public throughout New York State struggled to make sense out of these events, of the rapidly escalating combat that the armed forces of the European powers were engaged in. “We have nothing in our common experience with which to measure it,” observed the editor of The Binghamton Press on August 1st. “Simply to compute the direct cost of supporting the armies in the field is almost impossible,” he wrote. The estimated expense was $54 million, and that “would be only the smallest part of the total loss.” Property would be destroyed, securities depreciated, and millions of men “removed from peaceful production.” Added to that was the cost of equipping the combat troops and sustaining them in the field. “And all this takes no account of the loss of life.” He added prophetically, “some of these nations not only will be reduced to the verge of bankruptcy, but many suffer a fatal loss of national energy through the crushing of the flower of their manhood.”[28]

During August and September reports and first-hand accounts from correspondents in Europe circulated widely and these confirmed the worst fears--the nature and extent of the conflict and the fighting was unprecedented. “The magnitude of the forces involved staggers the imagination; besides them the armies of the Napoleonic era fade into significance,” noted a journalist. A Times-Union editor called the conflict “appalling and disastrous.” The impact of the sheer numbers of the troops in arms, the resources mobilized to support them will, wrote an editor of The Nation, “in every country…enormously increase those economic factors which have so much to do with the outcome of any prolonged struggle.” In a frank assessment of the belligerents’ military strength, he concluded simply: these forces make “inevitable the greatest battles the world has yet seen.”[29] The New York media--the daily newspapers and the weekly/monthly magazines-- followed the events in Europe closely as the local conflict spread rapidly across the continent, a chain reaction of events seemingly set in motion by Austria’s ultimatum.[30] Most recognized the complexity of the situation, the intricacies of the diplomatic system that had developed in the late 19th century, and journalists attempted to explain them to their readers. “The war on Servia [sic]…supplied the spark which set in motion those irresistible forces which are dragging five of the greatest nations in the world into a war of annihilation,” commented a reporter for The New York Herald newspaper. Herbert Templin, the European manager of the International News Service concurred. “It had been smoldering for years, seeking an opportunity to break out, and it was bound to occur,” he wrote.[31]

Shortly after the declarations of war and the initial battles between the newly mobilized armed forces, the belligerents launched another campaign, one to gain the favor of the American public and their political leaders. They made concerted efforts to influence this powerful and neutral nation as they strived to get the United States to take their side or at least remain fully uninvolved. Here, New York State was of particular importance because of its position as a center of finance and the sheer size of the ethnic German population. The German Reich was especially active.[32] This eagerness on the part of Germany to show the American public how it conducted the war as well as the rightness of its decision to declare war in the first place was but an element of a broader effort to court public opinion. The American media, the newspapers and the weekly/monthly magazines that did much to shape public opinion were not persuaded. Already in mid-August, The Outlook magazine published an article entitled “The German Point of View of the War” which stated simply that Germany had “no friends or well-wishers” in Europe or America. Its author wrote that if the hostile feelings long shown Germany by France, Russia, and England, had been reported in the American press, “the American public might not have been so surprised at the rapid development of events in the last few days; it would understand that the Germans did not think it safe to wait until the Czar had finished his mobilization, and that the German people, including the Socialists, are ready to risk their all in what they consider their supreme struggle for existence.” Albany’s Times-Union newspaper ran a headline “Berlin Is Gone War Mad.” And one of its reporters wrote that “Patriotic mobs filled the streets during the night, shouting for war with both Russia and France.” An estimated “fifty thousand men and women” rallied in front of the Kaiser’s palace and “cheered repeatedly for Emperor William and the German empire.” The Kaiser appeared at the window and addressed the crowd with “a ringing appeal to the patriotic sentiment of the throng.”[33] New York newspapers reported that the Kaiser penned a long, personal letter to President Wilson, explaining and defending his nation’s position.[34]

Influential magazines commented on the outcry over the media coverage of Germany’s role in precipitating war and the conduct of its troops during the first weeks of the fighting. In its August 22, 1914, issue, the widely read The Literary Digest responded to what it termed “bitter protests” from German newspapers, German societies and prominent German-Americans over the alleged “unfair treatment,” the “anti-German editorials,” and the “abysmal ignorance concerning German conditions.”[35] The editors pulled together a selection of the comments from critics of the press coverage, in particularly the influential weeklies such as The Outlook, The Independent, and Harper’s Weekly. While many editorial writers made a distinction between the German people, whom they generally applauded, and the German government, which they held largely responsible for the war, most responses from Germany rejected the effort to distinguish between the people and the rulers. The Literary Digest’s editor quoted a number of different sources, including dozens of newspapers, particularly letters to the editor published in prominent newspapers, as well as official pronouncements from German spokesmen. These pro-German responses, the editor concluded, had a broad unanimity among them – the war was forced upon Germany and the military conflict was an epic fight between “the Slavic world and the German world.”[36] The New York Times put a satirical spin on this view. “As we understand the theory of the holy war, the Kaiser had a divine mission to rescue England, France and Belgium from the impending menace of Slav domination. They were pig-headed about it and refused to be rescued. So, with a heavy heart, the Kaiser was compelled to thrash them in order to save them.”[37]

Already in late August ethnic Germans in New York City rallied in support of their home country. “Mass Meeting Hears Hard Words for Kaiser’s Foes and Hate for Britain,” reported The New York Times. The “militant German mass meeting” was held at Terrace Garden and the speakers who addressed the crowd urged the press to halt its criticism of Germany. Alphonse G. Koelbe, President of the United German Societies, presided. He urged “fair play,” an even handed treatment of Germany. Those who followed were more vociferous. One denounced Great Britain as “the Pecksniff among nations” and called Russia “a barbarian and enslaver.” The tone of the rally turned even harsher and at its conclusion adopted resolutions condemning England and the American press.[38]

Backers of the German Reich kept up their public relations’ campaign. Magazines and newspapers throughout New York State and across the nation received “by every mail,” an editor of The Nation wrote in mid-October 1914, “masses of printed matter, specially marked, and prepared and intended to convince us of the correctness of Germany’s position, and of the cruel injustices that has been done her by the failure of American public opinion to support her cause.”[39] The press was not the only recipient of materials from Germany which attempted to shape American attitudes. Teachers of German were “bombarded” with letters and materials from individuals and societies in Germany, reams of information justifying their war stand. These were, The Nation reported in mid-October, sent to “every ascertainable address” in America. These materials identified what they termed “misrepresentations” and presented “their holy cause,” and often they came from one of the newly established “______ Society for the Spreading Abroad the Truth about Germany” which sprang up in many German cities and targeted communities in the United States. In addition, German newspapers published special issues that were handed to Americans leaving Berlin during the first weeks of the war “with the request that each copy be preserved and sent to an American newspaper.” What an editor of The New York Times termed “a wretched defense of Germany’s crime against international morality,” was a booklet entitled “The Truth About Germany. Facts About the War.” This was distributed widely by mail and even offered at newsstands in New York City. A city newspaper even published it in full. Early in the text which ran to 86 pages it was asserted: “We are soldiers, because we have to be soldiers, because otherwise Germany and German civilization would be swept away from the face of the earth.” The booklet included chapters on such topics as “How the War Came About,” “The Attitude of Germany’s Enemies,” and “Lies About Germany.” It concluded: “To know that we have American friendship in this struggle will mean a great deal moral support for us in the coming trying days, for we know that the country of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln places itself on the side of a just cause and one worth of humanity’s blessing,” as it attempted to rally support by the plea to America’s most revered leaders.[40] Hermann Ridder, the editor of New York City’s German language newspaper the Staats-Zeitung, added his voice to those contesting German responsibility for the outbreak of war. “The assertion that German wanted war [is] ridiculous and absurd,” he asserted.[41]

Another pro-German action, a so-called “war rally” at New York City’s Terrace Garden, took place in late September. Organized by the United German Societies of New York, a branch of the German-Alliance which boasted some three million members across the nation, the rally drew more than 10,000 to speeches and music. Those in attendance contributed $2,400 to aid widows and children of German and Austrian soldiers. This was, however, not simply a fund raising event. “The speakers flayed England in particular and extolled the work of the German army and navy,” reported The New York Times. Congressman Richard Bartholdt (Republican, Missouri) addressed the audience and the newspaper wrote that he called Germany “the victim of a conspiracy by Russia, France and England, and a victory by Germany would guarantee the peace of the world.” The Congressman criticized the US press for what he termed its “unneutrality.”[42] Pro-German sentiment took other forms. Newspapers and journals ran letters to the editor from German scholars and diplomats who vigorously defended their nation’s position. They urged Americans to view the justness of Germany’s actions in the war.[43] “The deluge of pro-German literature,” a magazine editor wrote, persisted because of the widely held belief “that the German side is not getting a hearing in the American press,” that this nation’s links to England and its willingness to accept what a German professor termed “the infamous lies of the British press” colored the news’ coverage.[44]

The widespread distribution of pro-German materials, the extensive coverage of Germany’s perception of the events leading to the military confrontation had little impact on American public opinion which from the outbreak of war was decidedly pro-British. As an editor of The Nation explained in mid-October, “The judgment of this country was based upon a calm consideration of the facts leading up to the war, and upon the invasion of Belgium as set forth by the Germans themselves. American good opinion was forfeited when the Kaiser rejected Sir Edward Grey’s two distinct offers to assure peace, when the ‘scrap of paper’ incident occurred, and the Chancellor admitted the flagrant violation of the law of nations.”[45] In the court of American public opinion the decision went clearly against Germany, against an autocratic state, and against its aggressive leadership. This sentiment marked the decided rejection of the archaic system of international relations that had placed so much emphasis on the balance of power which, it was now widely believed, had in fact fueled international tensions.[46]

How well informed was the public of New York State on the complex issues surrounding the outbreak of war in August 1914 and the spread of the military conflict across Europe? During these fateful months, from August through October, the major newspapers in New York City ran articles daily from correspondents based in Europe who had received regular briefings from government representatives or who had less formal but nevertheless meaningful contact with policy makers. Newspapers in the small cities and towns of the state reprinted many of these articles or relied on the news services, the United Press for example. They too carried daily accounts of the war. Leading magazines published in-depth and lengthy articles.[47] The intensive press coverage led an editor with the magazine The Living Age to assert in early November 1914 that “no people in the world are getting more information about the war than Americans.” He argued strongly in support of the soundness of the judgment of the American people and for the balanced and even handed coverage of the war in the media. “Public opinion in any country is a matter of delicate adjustment” and the repeated efforts of the belligerent nations to shape sentiment were bound to fail, he asserted. Not only did the European powers fail to weigh fully “the forces and counter-forces at work in a different nation than their own,” but such efforts “may turn the scales in an undesirable direction.” The journalist found already “signs that the strenuous efforts being made on all sides to prejudice this neutral people have excited a certain amount of amusement.” Furthermore, “to join in what threatens to become a scramble for American goodwill promises more harm than good.” He concluded simply: “Undue effort to influence public opinion” in America will certainly not have the desired effect.[48]

The consensus in the media was clear – the public, well informed through press reports, stood behind Great Britain and its allies who “are fighting on behalf of the civilized world to destroy a false and brutal idea,” wrote an editor for The Saturday Review in October 1914. “America is firmly united with Great Britain today in feeling that the Will to Power of a nation which has thrust honor and justice from the way of its ambition is a grave and instant menace to the whole world.”[49]

Already in the first months of the war magazines and newspapers turned to established scholars of European affairs for their views on the war, on the question of responsibility for launching the conflict, as the media strived to offer its readers thoughtful analyses. The number of these accounts, though difficult to accurately measure, was large. Most reflected the position of the editorial board of the respective publication. The historian Roland Usher placed the immediate responsibility for the outbreak of war upon Austria. Its ultimatums, he wrote in The Atlantic Monthly, the “language in which they were couched, the circumstances of their presentation, and of the receipt of the reply, render it improbable that Austria wished to force upon Servia [sic] the solution by war of an infinitely larger issue than that raised by the murder of the unfortunate Archduke and his wife.”[50] For Austria, “the war is literally a war of self-preservation,” crucial to ruler’s aim to hold together its vast and diverse population, Usher explained. Austria expected “great results” from these efforts and firmly believed these policies would “knit the various peoples together and give them a common object to strive for and a common victory to celebrate.” The conflict served other purposes. “It is none the less a war of ambition and aggression,” wrote Usher in August 1914, a means of guaranteeing Austria’s century long dream of “dominating southeastern Europe,” of ruling the Balkans.[51] Austria’s ambitions were, Usher asserted, well known “to every diplomat in Europe,” especially those states “whose interests would be much injured by the annihilation of Servia [sic].” Nonetheless, “the fears of general European war” would cause other nations on the continent to pause and to be slow to interfere, he added. The “domestic difficulties” of England, France, and Russia, Usher argued, would prevent each from acting decisively.[52]

While a number of the scholars quoted in the press placed much of the blame on Austria, “many an editorial finger points at William II of Germany, as he is admitted to be the one overshadowing personality of the opening days of the war.”[53] As an editor with the New York City’s Globe newspaper commented: “It is difficult to admit that German interests were menaced beyond reasonable tolerance, that Austria took a stand against her dominative neighbor which was arbitrary in the extreme without full sanction of the Kaiser, or that there was any doubt in Wilhelmstrasse that Austria’s attitude would compel Russia and France to intervene. It is for these reasons that American opinion is almost solidly arranged against Germany as the aggressor, ruthlessly plunging Europe into what looks like the bloodiest of wars to satisfy the overwhelming ambition of the Emperor.”[54]

The press of New York State almost universally laid the blame on Germany, the responsibility for war in August 1914 and its rapid expansion from a regional conflict to a European wide conflagration. The Outlook magazine published a survey of the press in mid-August and found widespread agreement on the issue of responsibility for the horrible conflict. “Monarchial cliques, absolutists, and those in Germany in particular, are held responsible,” it concluded and offered a number of examples.[55]

The German Reich still had its defenders. “The haste in which the powers of Europe have rushed to arms is exceeded only by the haste in which the anti-German press of America is seeking to place the blame for the commencement of hostilities,” wrote Karl F. Geiser, a professor at Oberlin College in an August 11th letter to The Nation. He presented a long argument in Germany’s defense, as he attempted to refute that journal’s editorial comments. [56] Geiser remained one of a handful of vigorous defenders of Germany. He was joined by, among others, Herman Ridder, the editor of New York City’s Staats-Zeitung.[57]

Newspapers throughout New York State carried hundreds of articles on the conflict during the first months of the war, covering every conceivable topic such as the sheer size of the armed forces involved, the novelty of the conflict, the unprecedented conditions, the brutality of the fighting, and the loss of life. Frequently, newspapers and magazines turned to experts on military affairs for their view points and opinions. There was among them one general point of agreement: “The resources of the world are not sufficient to maintain a conflict of such dimensions for a long period.” It would not be a long war; most experts estimated that the conflict would last from one month to a year at the most. While only a few, however, anticipated the “decisive blow” within the next six months, almost no one expected it to be a protracted and bloody struggle, going on for several years, costing the lives of so many.[58]

The rivalries, the imperial ambitions, economic pressure, domestic strains, growing military strength, had long been present in Europe. There was keen interest in what precipitated war in 1914, as journalists and scholars sought to identify who was responsible for the bloodshed and destruction. They also covered the unfolding conflict, the combat on the western and eastern fronts. By the fall of 1914 America’s views of the war in Europe had pretty much been shaped and determined, as the public read the daily accounts of the war and the debates on who was responsible for the terrible conflict. The American public was, an editor of The Living Age wrote in November 1914, well informed about the events on the battle field. “No people of the world are getting more information about the war than are the Americans,” James Whelpley asserted. “Their press is uncensored, scores of correspondents in England, France, Germany, and elsewhere are laboring night and day to fill American publications with news; thousands of returning travelers from all parts of Europe are daily contributing their stories to eager pressmen; and of all nationalities the American alone has been accorded facilities in Germany, and with the German army to see and judge for himself as to the real situation so far as the conduct of the war devastated region is concerned.”[59]

While the New York media, the press and magazines, followed closely the unfolding of the war, offering their readers daily accounts of the fighting and also analyses of the conflict, many readers felt securely distant, sheltered and protected by the vastness of the Atlantic Ocean. That offered a broad sense of relief as well as a feeling of security. As an editor of The Literary Digest commented in the August 8, 1914, issue, “Our isolated position and freedom from entangling alliances inspire our press with the cheering assurance that we are in no peril of being drawn into the European quarrel.”[60] An editor for The Sun newspaper added, the United States “will inevitably to some extent benefit from the waste and destruction abroad, but it has permanent cause of gratitude in its insulation from the worst.”[61] This attitude was reflected in editorial writings in newspapers and magazines across the nation.

The New York media, namely the daily newspapers as well as financial and commercial publications, speculated on the economic impacts of the conflict on American trade, finance, manufactures and the agricultural sector. Initial reports were encouraging. On July 30th, a headline on page one of the Buffalo Courier announced: “Wall Street Not Alarmed At News of Europe’s War.”[62] New York City banks and the financial institutions continued to operate as their European counterparts suspended operations, but not for long. News of the close of the London Stock Exchange, “an unprecedented action,” was carried in the press. The mounting “strains upon credits” “made New York fearful” and it led to the closure of the New York Stock Exchange on July 31st. The official announcement, carried widely in the New York press, stated simply, “The governing committee decided that the exchange be closed until further notice, and that all deliveries be suspended until further notice.” The front page of Albany’s Times-Union carried the headline: “War Scare Suspends the World’s Business.” As an editor of the newspaper wrote, “New York, and with it the rest of the United States has stood the strain until now.”[63] Another journalist observed: “The closing of our stock exchanges, the exportation of gold to Europe, the rise in wheat and corn, the failure of business firms, help to remind our editors that a war which involved all Europe could not but have its effects among us.”[64]

A lengthy survey from mid-August of the press on the potential economic impact of the war began: “The price the United States pays for the madness of warring Europe is the upset of our money market and the blockade of our commerce.”[65] The war had the potential, observers commented and often discussed at length, to have far reaching and lasting ramifications for the economy of the United States. Trade with Europe was severely disrupted. Ports on the Atlantic seaboard halted operations as “The carrying ships of the world have been diverted into war activities and millions of tons of cotton, food stuffs and other articles destined for foreign markets must remain on the remain in storage while millions of tons of manufactured goods expected by merchants in this country from Europe must remain on the other side of the ocean,” wrote Gilson Gardner, a prominent journalist.[66]

The war affected not only the major trade and merchant marine companies of New York, Boston, Philadelphia, and Baltimore, nor solely the financiers of Wall Street, Chicago and Pittsburgh, nor largely the manufacturer centers of the mid-West. The war impacted the farmers in the South who produced cotton that was sold abroad and the farmers of the Great Plains who grew corn and wheat for the world market. All were concerned with how the war in Europe would hit their bottom line. “We cannot get away from the hard fact that war is a destroyer,” observed a reporter for The Wall Street Journal in early September. “In the present case it would not be so bad if only two of the great powers were engaged. With all fighting – a condition deemed unthinkable a few weeks ago – the effects are incalculable.”[67] A host of questions and uncertainties faced America’s banking and commercial leaders as the financial markets were thrown into turmoil. Already on August 1st prominent New York City bankers met in the offices of J.P. Morgan “to discuss the financial situation and arrange for whatever precautionary steps might be considered necessary to protect the United States from the indirect effects of the European war,” The Evening World newspaper reported. The bankers decided to await further news before taking action.[68] The Dean of New York University’s School of Commerce, Joseph French Johnson, wrote disheartedly: “The war has blocked the wheels of industry in every country on the globe. It has turned back the hands of the clock of our material or industrial civilization.”[69]

Already in early August a few observers anticipated economic gains for the nation. New York’s Governor Martin Glynn saw in the war an opportunity but also a responsibility for this nation. “With Europe plunged into bloody strife, with its manhood removed from useful production, its intelligence devoted to destruction, and its farms and industries lying idle, the burden of human progress at this time rests upon the men and women of America,” he stated in an August 25th speech.[70] The President of New York’s Investment Bankers Association saw a decided advantage for American trade because at the end of the war “it will be extremely difficult for European countries to finance their oversea trade.” The surge in manufacturing after the war would favor American industry. “I believe that the future for this country is brighter today than it has ever been,” he concluded.[71] New York’s financial institutions acted quickly to reassure the American market and to protect this nation’s supply of gold.[72] A number of newspapers urged the US government and American business to “take up the world’s trade, which Europe has forsaken for the battlefront.” New York’s The Sun newspaper saw in the conflict the opportunity to vastly expand this nation’s merchant marine. Reports circulated that President Wilson had in mind a plan to bring much of the world’s shipping under the American flag, to the gain of American business, by offering registration to ships of other nations. The President discussed this with leaders of Congress already on July 31st who supported the idea and they agreed to investigate it further. By sailing under the flag of a neutral power, the vessels could not be pressed into service by a belligerent nor seized as war booty.[73]

Another New York City newspaper termed the moment “a supreme opportunity for American manufacturers to gain world-wide markets.” In spite of the military conflict crippling Europe, “the needs of the world must be supplied.”[74] New York’s Journal of Commerce quoted an “authority” who asserted that the war “may mark the beginning of a new commercial and industrial era in the United States.” The amount of the economic boost would depend only upon “the alacrity with which the American business man will seize the opportunity, and upon the wisdom with which the American legislator will face the situation.”[75] Joseph French Johnson, a prominent economist, summarized “the chief items of profit and loss to the American people” in a 1914 article. According to Johnson, the conflict would drain gold from the nation, thereby restricting credits. This would, however, give America’s banks the opportunity to increase their prestige and connections in the world. The closure of the European market to American securities might permanently divert capital from this nation. Such would give American banks a greater opportunity to enter South American and Asian markets and to secure a larger percentage of this market. The war cut off raw materials, some essential to the manufacturing sector, and this would certainly affect profits. While the conflict interfered with this trade, the sale of foodstuffs and military supplies for high prices in the European markets would be a gain. “We know that Europe will come to us for our goods,” voiced Henry Lee Higginson, a noted American businessman, in a letter to President Wilson. Other experts offered a variety of points of view.[76]

Termed by The New York Times “one of the most distinguished economists of the country,” Joseph Johnson had mixed views on the war’s impact. “A striking feature of the situation is the uneven influence of the war on American industries,” he wrote. “We shall probably see, if the situation continues, certain industries and commercial organizations working at top speed and making enormous profits, while besides them will be the empty offices and deserted factories of other industries.”[77] Johnson foresaw significant gains for American agriculture, a major part of the economy. With the interruptions in shipping and the shift of vast amounts of manpower out of agriculture, American producers were well positioned to step forward, meet the heightened demand and reap, as a result, significant profits. Other sectors of the economy faced an uncertain future. The closure of the European market to American securities and the diversion of large amounts of foreign capital would adversely impact the financial centers, Johnson argued. He was especially concerned with the drain of gold from this country to Europe, a trend that began in 1913 which could lead to restriction on credit and inflation.[78]

Nations of Europe needed American products. Although the official neutrality of the United States restricted sales to the belligerents, export and sale of weapons to Great Britain continued; they were delivered through Canada. German Americans protested, but the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives permitted sales by American manufacturers to any government, “provided they do not discriminate between belligerents.” With the blockade of the Atlantic already in effect, that meant trade with Britain could continue.[79] Agriculture products from the American heartland would be welcome abroad as the war shut down the trade routes of traditional suppliers. But, economists cautioned, breaking into new markets would not come easily.[80]

The efforts made by the government and private enterprise were rewarded, and in October the President reported that business conditions were improving across the nation, that orders for goods from abroad were rising, as the initial impact of the war had passed. To facilitate foreign trade, Wilson made the bold announcement that “the United States is prepared to protect to the utmost the rights of shippers of American exports when such goods are being transported in vessels flying neutral flags.”[81] The press in New York City called this “an unexampled opportunity for American shipping,” The State Department followed quickly with guidelines for exports to belligerents, and these two efforts went far in boosting trade. The measures were intended to reassure traders that the government, with all its power and authority, stood firmly behind their right to trade freely with belligerent nations, something they were initially reluctant to do. “The president’s announcement on Monday and the state department’s memorandum are regarded as constituting the biggest boost given American foreign trade since the outbreak of the war,” observed Henning.[82] President Wilson’s statement and State Department announcement on free trade clearly favored Great Britain and led to German protests.

The economic dimensions of the war in Europe also impacted the domestic politics of the United States and especially New York State. President Wilson had early in 1914 predicted an industrial boom, which also meant electoral success for his party. The gains were interrupted by the outbreak of the conflict. Wilson was very concerned with the state of the American economy because “business revival meantime is vital to the chances of the democratic party in the next Presidential election,” commented The Wall Street Journal.[83] The war and its disruption of trade resulted in a drop in customs’ revenue of more than $10.6 million dollars when compared to the previous year. President Wilson went before Congress on September 4th to request a massive tax increase to offset the loss of custom duties from trade with Europe. The President asked for emergency legislation to raise $100 million of additional revenue. “We ought not to borrow. We ought to resort to taxation,” the President explained to Congress. “The occasion is not of our own making. We had no part it making it.” The legislation, the emergency Internal Revenue Tax Bill, passed quickly.[84]

The President moved quickly to reassure the American public that the administration would initiate immediate measures to guarantee the nation’s fiscal well-being. Already on July 31st, Wilson and his advisers adopted “peace measures” aimed to strengthen the “financial conditions in the United States to withstand the effects of the liquidation in Europe and the tremendous demand for gold in the countries on the brink of war.” These "strong steps to protect the United States against the tremendous financial and commercial pressure caused by the European war” were praised by the financial press.[85] Albany’s Times-Union carried front-page articles on the President’s measures to keep America’s financial system stable and in operation. The headlines stated “Unlimited Millions Available to Banks to Meet Any Crisis” as it reported the House of Representatives voted to make available to the nation’s banks “because of the European crisis practically unlimited millions of currency.” The House, furthermore, authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to “issue further millions if he finds it necessary.” All this was good news for New York’s thriving financial market. Other measures were geared to safeguard the currency and the gold supply.[86]

The President next announced seven steps which included losing the restrictions on the amounts of currency banks must hold in reserve, depositing gold held by the Treasury in banks, the organization of a new banking system to better regulate currency and gold flows to Europe, proposed legislation to permit the registry in the US of foreign trading vessels, as the President moved quickly to gain the cooperation of the financial industry. He called a special meeting in Washington for leading bankers who assembled on August 2nd. Secretary of the Treasury William Gibbs McAdoo addressed the group and called for “intelligent co-operation on the part of the government and the banks” to guide the nation through the financial crisis sparked by the outbreak of war.[87] A day later Congress moved to stabilize the currency markets. By an overwhelming majority it passed a bill that made available to national banks “unlimited millions of currency.” The distribution of funds began immediately.[88]

The President faced other issues pressuring the economy. Already in early August “the swift advance in the prices of food-stuff, with the European situation as the pretext, has brought to the first place in American discussion the question of government interference in the interest of the consumer,” reported the Christian Science Monitor.[89] President Wilson directed the attorney general to investigate the rise in prices and to advise him on measures to combat this alarming trend. Congress followed the President’s lead and called upon both the Department of Justice and the Secretary of Commerce to determine the causes for the rapid rise in prices when exports had come to a virtual standstill.[90]

In addition to trade, banking, labor, and price issues, the President faced a major dip in revenue due to the loss of customs fees, a shortfall estimated at more than $2 million a week in early September.[91] Wilson prepared to address Congress and to call for a sharp rise in taxes to cover the anticipated shortfall. While the federal government had sufficient revenue to cover expenses, an increase in taxes was, Wilson asserted, necessary to prevent a deficit. He recommended that Congress raise taxes on such commodities as beer, whisky, tobacco, railway and theater tickets, and even soft drinks. The President called upon federal agencies to reduce their expenses.[92]

“In common with the rest of the country, Washington waits with breathless interest news from the warring nations of Europe,” wrote Charles S. Groves, a journalist, in mid-September. “But one will have to look far to discover an outward sign of excitement.” The various branches of government, including the White House, Congress, as well as the War, State and Treasury Departments “find new and important problems presented as a result of the conflict on the other side of the Atlantic,” but these have “all come to be part of the day’s work.”[93] Despite the importance of the war in Europe for America, its position in the world, its economy, and its status as a neutral, Congress devoted remarkably little attention to the war during these first months of fighting. After spending about two weeks on emergency legislation related to the European conflict, to international trade and shipping, the President turned to revenue. It was but a matter of time before President Wilson asked Congress for a war tax.[94] Still, the Congressional Record Index for 1914 identifies some 60 items as dealing directly with the war in Europe, and many of these were newspaper articles reprinted in the Congressional Record. Members of Congress introduced such materials into the record, and also added specific appeals, such as the “Antiwar Proclamation” from the Labor Council of Greater New York from August 25.[95] A member of the Senate moved to include in the Congressional Record President Wilson’s September 8th peace proclamation in which he called for a day of prayer for peace.[96]

A few members of Congress did occasionally make their own predictions on the outcome of the war. New York Congressman Herman Metz, who The New York Times described as having a “wide knowledge of Germany and things German,” told the press on September 23rd that “victory for Germany as the final outcome of the war is beyond all question.” He predicted that peace “would come soon” and that it would find German troops still on French soil in the west and Russian soil in the east.[97]

Throughout the spring and early summer of 1914, President Wilson followed closely the unfolding events in Europe, the New York press reported. He had, of course, been informed immediately by telegram of the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. The President responded with a telegram to the Austrian emperor expressing that he was “deeply shocked at the atrocious murder.”[98] When war did break out on the continent the American Ambassador to France, Myron Timothy Herrick, telegrammed the Secretary of State in Washington: “Situation in Europe is regarded here as the gravest in history. It is apprehended that civilization is threatened by demoralization which would follow a general conflagration.” Herrick urged the President to step forward and serve as an arbitrator.[99] At a July 27th press conference a reporter had asked the President: “Whether the United States is in a position to maintain to peace of Europe.” Wilson answered non-committedly, “Well that is a matter which it would be, perhaps, unwise for me to say anything about. I can only say that the United States has never attempted to interfere in European affairs.”[100]

American diplomats urged the President to take action, to use his influence and prestige to curb the drive toward war. Ambassador Herrick in Paris cabled Washington: “I believe that a strong plea for delay and moderation from the President of the United States would meet with the respect and approval of Europe.”[101] The U.S. Ambassador to the United Kingdom, Walter Hines Page, notified Wilson that he had immediately and on his own initiative gone to the Prime Minister and asked “if he saw any way in which the good offices of our Government cd. Be used and that, if he did or should see any way, I prayed that he wd. Inform me.” Page wrote the President that “It’s the Slav and the German. Each wants his day and neither has got beyond the stage of tooth and claw.” He added, “If they do have a general war they will so set back the march of progress in Europe as to set the day forward for American leadership.”[102] On July 31st the Chargé ďAffaires in Russia cabled Washington: “Situation becoming steadily more hopeless.”[103]

On July 30th President Wilson addressed a Press Conference in Washington. Asked if he had taken any action in to stem the likelihood of war in Europe, Wilson responded simply “No, sir…” and added that no request for his services had been received.[104] Even after war broke out, Wilson’s deep seated feelings toward the conflict, his views on responsibility and his immediate reactions to the events of the war, particularly those that most affected the United States, are exceedingly difficult to discern. As President, he notoriously resisted seeking advice and he left no body of private writings that might offer insight. His public utterances were guarded. His advisors complained about him being withdrawn and uncommunicative. Yet it is clear that Wilson held America’s neutrality, its impartiality in the conflict and the well-established right to unencumbered trade over the Atlantic, as fundamental principles that had to be recognized by the belligerents. Neutrality was of foremost importance to this country and central to his guidance of American foreign policy.[105] To a large degree, Wilson was also an isolationist, unwilling to become involved in the conflicts of Europe, his isolationism was based on the presumption that the western hemisphere was impregnable and that the consequences of a war in Europe would be limited. Those initial views were, however, soon challenged by events of the conflict. Wilson came to recognize that the nature of the war would go far in shaping the world order. The President had a distinct view of America as a bastion of freedom, and he viewed the US as an economic powerhouse whose presence could not easily be ignored by the European powers. American interests, especially trade by sea with Europe, had to be respected. Still, Wilson desired above all for the nation to remain neutral, a view he shared with most Americans. The President remained convinced that the nation’s trade, the ability of its merchant vessels to navigate the oceans, particularly the Atlantic, had to be respected by the European powers. This had long been a guiding element of American foreign policy. In the summer of 1914, America was in the position to have its expectations acknowledged and recognized by the European powers, for the nation had become the strongest economic power in the world, even though its military strength stood well behind that of Germany and England.[106]

President Wilson’s first public remarks on the European war came on August 3rd when he met with correspondents for his semi-weekly press conference. The outbreak of war in Europe clearly weighed heavily upon him. Furthermore, “The strain and the tremendous burden he has been carrying for the last week has drawn deep lines of care across his face,” wrote a correspondent for the Chicago Daily Tribune. Wilson began addressing the press corps as soon as they had assembled, without waiting for a question. He was clearly eager to reassure the nation and he urged calm.[107] In spite of the furor in Europe, the President told the press that “the excitement ought not spread to the United States.” Noting the magnitude of the situation, “perhaps the gravest…in modern times,” he stated that “it need not affect the United States unfavorably in the long run.”[108] Wilson went out of his way to reassure leaders of business and commerce that “there was no cause for alarm,” a statement he repeated to the press and to representatives from Congress who called upon him at the White House. “I know from my conferences with the secretary of the treasury there is no cause for alarm.” He added that the Treasury Department was closely monitoring the financial situation throughout the country. “The bankers and business men of the country are cooperating with the Government with a zeal, intelligence, and spirit which make the outcome secure.” “America is absolutely prepared to meet the financial situation and to straighten everything out without any material difficulty.” Wilson also took the opportunity to urge members of Congress not to delay “not to delay the pending trust legislation programme [sic]…until the next session of Congress.”[109]

Also on August 3rd, just several days after the initiation of hostilities, the press carried reports that the President was deeply engaged and closely following developments in Europe. The President did urge his fellow Americans to remain calm, insisting “there is no cause for excitement.”[110] New York’s governor, Martin Glynn, made a plea to workers “to play the part of a patriotic and loyal American in the great crisis now at hand.” In an editorial titled simply “President Wilson’s Peace Proffer” Albany’s Times-Union newspaper noted that “President Wilson’s good offices will be at the service of Europe.” The offer would, the editor added, “be given a prominent place on the desks of the European statesmen.” Furthermore, he wrote, as the conflict in Europe intensified “the greater will be the need of a clear, impartial auditor of the accounts that will have to be paid. “American ambassadors in the capital cities of Europe were “ordered to do everything possible to prevent general conflict,” read the headlines in other newspapers. “All hope not gone.”[111] Along with directing American diplomatic representative abroad to keep the State Department in Washington fully abreast of any opportunity for the US to mediate the conflict, Wilson took steps to insulate the economy from any blows. The President met with Congressional leaders and obtained their agreement to a proposal to permit foreign ships to sail under American registry in order to keep international trade and commerce operating.[112] Wilson also directed Secretary of the Treasury William McAdoo, to New York City to confer with bankers and to reassure them.[113]

On August 4th, President Wilson made known to the U.S. and to the world that this nation stood “strictly neutral” in the conflict. The President meant neutral in sentiment and practice for the nation and its people. “Whereas a state of war unhappily exists between Austria-Hungary and Servia [sic] and between Germany and Russia and between Germany and France,” the President identified as illegal 11 acts, most involving enlistment or service in the armed forces or merchant marine of one of the belligerents. Along with this stern warning to nationals not to join one of the combatants’ armed forces, Wilson cautioned the belligerent powers to keep their naval vessels out of US waters. Such a move, he stated forcefully, “must be regarded as unfriendly and offensive.”[114] A day later, the President offered to mediate and “offered his good offices to all the European powers involved in the war,” The Times-Union reported in a front page article and it carried the short message sent by Wilson to the rulers of the belligerent nations. Clearly aware that this offer would likely be rejected, the Albany newspaper wrote that “The messages leave the way open in case of present refusal for negotiations in the future.” Still, the press hoped that Wilson’s offer might be accepted because the United States was “in no way party to the European dispute.”[115]

The President followed on August 5th with two Executive Orders, one to aid American citizens stranded in Europe by the outbreak of the war and the other to further ensure the neutrality of this nation by prohibiting radio stations from transmitting “messages of an unneutral nature” from any of the belligerents. At a press conference the very next day no member of the press asked the President about the assassination, a striking omission in light of the media’s otherwise extensive coverage of European affairs. The act that had launched the crisis was perceived as a regional incident.[116] President Wilson did receive requests to take a side in the conflict, much as the American public had been able to read in the press appeals from the belligerents. On August 6th, Charles William Eliot, the highly influential president of Harvard University wrote directly to Wilson urging him to take the lead and organize “an effective international police method, suited to the present crimes,” that “would overpower Austria-Hungary and Germany with all possible promptness and thoroughness.” Eliot envisioned a US led blockade of Germany and Austria-Hungary, “an alliance to rebuke and punish” the two nations “for the outrages they are now committing.” Wilson did not answer this letter.[117] Speakers at the pro-German rallies in New York City condemned the press coverage.[118]

Throughout these weeks Wilson faced a traumatic personal situation at the White House that certainly drew his attention and energy. The President’s wife of 29 years, Ellen Louise Axson, lay mortally ill with kidney disease. “Mrs. Wilson In Critical Condition” read a front-page headline in the August 5th edition of Albany’s Times-Union newspaper, as news of the seriousness of her illness spread across the state and the nation. “Every moment that could be spared from his office the President spent here, by her side who had been his constant coworker in the past,” wrote an editor for The Literary Digest. He added that “President Wilson’s tender to the warring nations of his good offices for peace in Europe was written while he was sitting at the bedside of Mrs. Wilson.” She died on August 6th. That same day a Times-Union editor called upon the nation to “stand by him,” now that the President was “passing through the greatest of trials.”[119] Wilson continued to remain focused on the unfolding war in Europe, although deeply affected by his wife’s death.[120]

On August 18th President Wilson addressed the American people and issued a forceful call for neutrality “in speech and conduct,” as he viewed with concern the energetic campaign of the belligerents to influence public opinion. His address was carried in a number of newspapers, and it began: “Every man who really loves America will act and speak in the true spirit of neutrality, which is the spirit of impartiality and fairness and friendliness to all concerned.” Wilson stated that the country was made up of individuals from many nations, “chiefly from the nations now at war,” and this would invariably shape their views of the war. He argued against the divisive influence on the country and work against “the proper performance of our duty as the one great nation at peace” to serve as a mediator. “The United States must be neutral in fact as well as in name during these days that are to try men’s souls.”[121]

Efforts to mediate the conflict on behalf of the President continued at his urging, largely through close advisers to Wilson, particularly Edward Mandell House, who initiated The , a group that advised the President on peace strategy and war aims.[122] In early August, House presented Wilson with a letter he had received from Arthur Zimmermann, a ranking official in Germany’s Foreign Ministry. “I have a feeling that Germany will soon be glad to entertain suggestions of mediation, and that the outlook is more hopeful in that direction than elsewhere,” House commented. Wilson’s advisor then wrote to Zimmerman expressing the President’s “deep regret” that he had not been able “to bring about a better understand between the great Powers of Europe,” but added that the “offer of mediation was not an empty one.” House, who acted on the President’s behalf – Wilson termed him “my second personality” and stated “His thoughts and mine are one” – noted in the letter to Zimmermann, “Now that His Majesty has so brilliantly shown the power of His army, would it not be consistant [sic] with His life long endeavor to maintain peace, to consent to overtures being made in that direction?”[123] Later in August other developments followed. At a diplomatic conference in Washington the German ambassador, Johann Heinrich von Bernstorff, was approached with an offer of American mediation. “Here everyone desires peace, for the United States suffers heavily because of the war,” the Ambassador wrote in a telegram to his superiors in Berlin. “I, therefore, did not reject the offer, since I wanted to leave the odium of rejection to our enemies.” Bernstorff urged serious consideration of the offer “because public opinion here, which has already been strongly influenced by England, will unquestionable turn against the belligerent whom they hold responsible for prolonging the war.”[124]

While diplomats strived to find some basis for peace in August, the German American Chamber of Commerce picked up its public assault on Britain. On August 21st the New York City based group released a statement by a “German military expert” who claimed that England had sent troops to Belgium even before it declared war. He added that there was a secret French-Belgium-England agreement which he asserted justified the German invasion that had spread the conflict. England’s entry in the conflict was, the expert wrote, “to rid herself, once for all of her hated rival,” namely Germany.[125] The German American Chamber stepped up its backing of Germany. On August 27th it issued a statement “intended to prove that the Kaiser was a man of peace, and that the ambition of his life had been to make Germany the foremost country of the world in the arts of peace,” wrote reporter for The New York Times. The Chamber issued the statement because it believed “that many persons in the United States were of the opinion that the Kaiser war responsible for the present war, and that it was his ambition to become the greatest warrior of all time.” The Chamber kept up its attack on Britain for the agreement with France and Russia not to make peace without their full consensus. This was, it asserted, “in keeping with the traditions of perfidious England.” Once again the Chamber insisted that Germany was a peace loving nation, that “the military machine of Germany…has never made an aggressive war, has never endangered international peace.” At fault for the present conflict were, the Chamber maintained, “the selfish interests of England, who wants to be the undisputed ruler of the shipping and commerce.” This was “the most dangerous proposition that the world has had to face.”[126]

While organized defenders of Germany increased the intensity of their public attacks on England, President Wilson sent his personal confidant Colonel House to Europe to speak directly with leaders of the belligerent nations. Upon his return to the America he met with President Wilson on August 30th. During a lengthy conversation with the President, House wrote later, he had “told of my experiences in Europe and gave him more of the details of my mission.” More than a mere advisor, House provided Wilson intelligence he had gathered, information that had shaped his own strongly held views. During these weeks efforts to mediate the conflict had intensified, but met with little favorable response. While House was on his way to meet the President, the Secretary of State relayed a message from the Czar regarding the “offer of mediation” and expressing his gratitude. However, the Czar explained, “Russia did not desire war and did everything to avoid it, but from the moment this war was imposed upon her she cannot fail to defend her rights by force of arms.” That was the fifth response received from belligerents and this led William Jennings Bryan to tell the President that “Each one declares he is opposed to war and anxious to avoid it and then lays the blame upon someone else.” In the end, “All the nations to whom President Wilson proposed mediation have now definitely refused the offer,” observed The Wall Street Journal.[127]

On September 8th, with little progress to show for the effort to persuade the belligerents to agree to American mediation, President Wilson issued a proclamation calling for a national day of prayer. A number of newspapers including The New York Times carried the full text of the President’s proclamation. Noting that the “great nations of the world have taken up arms” and “the counsel of statesmen have not been able to save [them] from the terrible sacrifice,” Wilson turned to “prayer and counsel” and designated Sunday, October 4th as “a day of prayer and supplication” and urged “all God-fearing persons to repair…to their places of worship there to unite their petitions to Almighty God that, overruling the counsel of men, setting straight the things they cannot govern or alter, taking pity on the nations now in the throes of conflict, in His mercy and goodness showing a way where men can see none.”[128]

On September 10th The New York Times and The Sun newspapers reported that the Kaiser had written personally to Wilson asserting that “Belgian civilians drove his generals to be severe.” Although the President and his staff were keeping the contents of the cable secret – “no one at the White House or state department would even admit officials that it had arrived,” the message was clearly timed to be there shortly before the arrival of an official commission from Belgium which the President did receive.[129] Wilson responded directly to the Kaiser on September 17th. “I received your Majesty’s important letter,” he wrote, “and perused it with great care.” The President used the opportunity to assert the neutrality of the US and that he foresaw a day of reckoning coming when the European powers would confer on “the evils committed in this war and [assign] the appropriate responsibility.”[130]

Through mid-September the belligerent nations and their supporters continued their attempts to sway American public opinion and to gain the sympathy of the President. They were most active in New York City. “More than 2,000 men and women of German blood who thronged Terrace Garden last night,” The New York Times reported on September 17, 1914, listened to a former German government official. He told them that “the position of Germans and their friends in the United States at the present time was difficult because Germany had not been fairly judged by a large part of the American people.” He added that “The German motives, and the German humanity are not fairly judged in this country.” [131] On September 19th, newspapers carried a report that Wilson refused to meet with a representative of several German-American associations “protesting the charges of atrocities made by the Belgian commission against the German army.” The President asserted that, in accordance with his strict stand on neutrality, he had consistently refused to meet with representatives of the nations at war. He was, newspapers reported, deeply upset by such efforts to influence American policy and to steer the nation away from its strict neutrality.[132]

To conclude, during the summer and early fall of 1914 those nations involved in “this terrible European war” scrambled to gain support abroad, in the United States, and especially in New York. This task proved challenging, to say the least, especially for Germany and its allies. Journalists, such as the editor of The Outlook who wrote in late September, “because under our free institutions public opinion has great facility both for formation and expression partly because we are remote from the conflict and our jury is less prejudiced,” proudly announced the objectivity of their coverage and the open minds of their readers. A similar sentiment applied to the fundamental question of who was responsible in the first place for the outbreak of war. Here, too, the American media came to a consensus. Asking “who brought on this war,” The Outlook’s editor concluded: “History will hold Austria-Hungry and Germany responsible for the terrible tragedy which is now spreading dissolution throughout Europe.”[133]

These two points of view sum up sentiment during the first months of the conflict. To a large degree, the coverage of the war by New York’s magazines and journals reflected the outlooks of their editors and their owners, their views on international relations, power politics, American national security, and militarism. These conflicting points of view fought their own battles within New York’s media as they sought public support, and aimed to affect the nation’s stand on the war. The success of each in shaping public opinion can at best be gauged by a thorough review of the media, the newspapers and magazines that American relied upon for information and points of view. Lacking public opinion polls which first were developed in the 1930s, a broad survey of the media offers the best view of American opinion. It is that public sentiment shifted over the course of the war. As a scholar wrote in 1937, when tensions were once more increasing on the continent, Americans had “lost interest” in the war by the winter of 1914-1915. “The truth is that the epic scale of the war was beyond popular comprehension. So, in the ensuing months, we informed ourselves indifferently of the progress of the conflict through dull communiqués,” he wrote.[134] This struggle for public opinion and support continued through 1917 and America’s entrance into the conflict. It persisted even through the peace settlement as the political leaders and the public strived to articulate America’s role in the world.[135]

Throughout these years, Woodrow Wilson strived to articulate not only his view on neutrality but to shape the nation’s as well. Already by late September 1914, the President had reached certain conclusions about the European conflict and these guided him through the American declaration of war in April 1917. Wilson came to believe that a German victory would seriously threaten America’s security; that it would spark the growth of domestic militarism; that the Allies would prove victorious because they had thwarted the German assault and were now in greater control of the war; and that the Allies showed interest in building a post-war world based on disarmament. These assumptions led Wilson to believe that the best way to build a world free of military arms race was to offer limited assistance to the Allies. Wilson had aimed to play the honest broker to the Allied and Central powers, a mediator who sought a fair peace, a true neutral party.[136] For Wilson and America central to this policy was strict neutrality. But that proved increasingly more difficult as his policies clearly favored Britain and as Germany became more desperate, more aggressive. Its declaration of unrestricted submarine warfare defied Wilson and widely held American principles. This action above all made continued neutrality improbable. By early April 1917, the President explained in an address to a joint session of Congress: “Neutrality is no longer feasible or desirable where the peace of the world is involved and the freedom of its peoples, and the menace to that peace and freedom lies in the existence of autocratic governments backed by organized force which is controlled wholly by their will, not by the will of their people. We have seen the last of neutrality in such circumstances.” The declaration of war followed.[137]


About the author: Robert G. Waite has a Ph.D. in modern European history from SUNY Binghamton and is a resident of Shushan, New York. Currently, he is a research historian at the German Resistance Memorial Center in Berlin.

---

[1] “All Europe Prepares For A Mighty War;” “Actual War Begun By Austria. Czar and Kaiser Near Clash;” and “War Bulletins,” Evening World (July 28, 1914).  “War Crisis At Glance,” Times-Union (Albany). 

[2] “Russian and German Armies Called Out,” Evening World (July 31, 1914).  On the response of US diplomats to the declaration of war, see Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States.  1914 Supplement.  The World War (Washington, D.C.:  United States Government Printing Office, 1928), 16-48.

[3] “Germany Declares War;” and “7,474,000 Answer First Call,” Evening World (August 1, 1914).  “The Cost of War,” Binghamton Press (August 1, 1914).

[4] New York Tribune (August 2, 1914).

[5] “How the War Affects America,” Literary DigestLXIV(August 15, 1914),  256.

[6] “Address of Governor Glynn to the delegates of the fifty-first annual convention of the State Federation of Labor at Schnectady,” August 25, 1914, in Martin Henry Glynn Papers, 1913-1924, New York State Library, Manuscripts and Special Collections, Box 2, Folder 1.

[7] “The War News For Busy Readers,” Times-Union (August 3, 1914).  “Some Aspects of War” Times-Union (August 4, 1914).   See, for example, “War Bulletins,” Madrid Herald (Madrid, New York) XI (August 6, 1914). 

[8] “Who Is Responsible?” The Outlook(September 30, 1914), 245.  There was some effort at the time to gauge public opinion; see, for example, “American Opinion on the War.  A Poll of the Press,” Outlook 107(15 August 1914), 907-908, which did just that, survey a range of newspapers and magazines.  Dale E. Zacher, The Scripps Newspapers Go to War, 1914-18 (Urbana:  University of Illinois Press, 2008), 20-22, 26, 33-50. 

[9] “Europe’s War and America’s Sympathies,” Current Opinion LVII (October 1914), 221.  “The War in Europe.  An International Symposium,” Outlook 107(15 August 1914), 897-907.

[10] “Germany Interpreted By a German-American,” Outlook107(22 August 1914), 954-956.  “Europe’s War and America’s Sympathies,” 221.  “Europe Appealing to America,” Literary DigestLXIX(September 19, 1914), 495-496.  “Ridder on War Situation,” Times-Union(September 13, 1914); Hermann Ridder was the editor of New York City’s German language newspaper, the Staats-Zeitung.

[11] “Europe’s War and America’s Sympathies,” 221.  Enclosure II, Telegram from the Belgian Ministry for Foreign Affairs to the Belgium Minister in Washington, in Arthur Link, editor, The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Volume 30, May 6-September 5,1914 (Princeton, New Jersey:  Princeton University Press, 1979), 458.  A Draft of a Reply to William II; Remarks to the Belgian Commissioner; and Poincaire’s Telegram, Enclosure (translation), September 10, 1914, in Arthur Link, editor, The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Volume 31,  September 6 – December 31, 1914 (Princeton, New Jersey:  Princeton University Press, 1979), 32-33, 33-34, 38-39.  “Truth About Germany,” New York Times (September 7, 1914).

[12] See Fraser J. Harbutt, “War Peace, and Commerce.  The American Reacton to the Outbreak of World War I in Europe 1914,” in Holger Afflerbach & David Stevenson, An Improbable War.  The Outbreak of World War I and European Political Culture before 1914 (New York:  Berghahn Books, 2007), 320-334.  On the issue of public opinion, see James Davenport Whelpley, American Public Opinion (New York:  E.P. Dunton & Company, 1914), a contemporary collection of his essays on opinion on international issues.  Published in May 1914, before the outbreak of war, the book was an early effort to gauge public sentiment on international issues.

[13]For a fuller discussion of these issues, see Ross A. Kennedy, The Will to Believe.  Woodrow Wilson, World War I, and America’s Strategy for Peace and Security (Kent, Ohio:  Kent State University Press, 2009), 1-24.  Kennedy differentiates between what he identifies as the pacifists who saw the arms races and diplomatic issues that led to war as an European issue and who were convinced that America was largely insulated from the war by geography,  the liberal interventionists who feared a German victory, and the Atlanticists who viewed a German victory as posing a serious threat to America.  James Hay, “The War Terror,” Sunday Star (Washington D.C.) (January 10, 1915), reprinted in Congressional Record Appendix and Index, 63^rd Congress, 3^rdSession, Volume LII, Park VI, 103-105.  See the collection of newspaper articles written by former president Theodore Roosevelt, a vocal proponent of preparedness published as America and the World War (NY:  Scribner’s Sons, 1915). 

[14] Whelpley, American Public Opinion, 28-38, 260, 264.

[15] “Alexander Konta, “What Russia’s Trial Mobilization Really Means,” New York Times (April 12, 1914).

[16] “Financiers Serve Notice On Powers There Will Be No Money to Carry on General War,” Times-Union (August 1, 1914).

[17] “Albanians Who Are In Europe,” Times-Union (August 1, 1914).  “Our Brethren Abroad” and “30 thousand Americans to Return,” Times-Union(August 6, 1914).

[18] Quoted in “American Opinion of the War.  A Poll of the Press,” The Outlook 107(August 15, 1914), 907.

[19] “The Military Preparedness,” The Nation99(August 6, 1914), 150.  Samuel Taylor Moore, America and the World War (New York:  Greenberg Publishers, 1937), 2, 9.

[20] The Ambassador in Great Britain (Page) to the Secretary of State, London, August 6, 1914, in Foreign Relations, 1914, Supplement, 46.

[21] “Austria Bombards Servia” and “France Makes Preparations For War,” Binghamton Press and Leader (July 29, 1914).  “Kaiser Rushes To Mobilize German Army;” “Austria’s Declaration of War;” Binghamton Press (July 30, 1914).  “Europe Is Ready To Plunge Into Abyss of War,” Binghamton Press (July 31, 1914).  “Germany Rushes to Mobilize,” Binghamton Press(August 1, 1914). 

[22] “Not the Slightest Hope That a General Conflict Can Now Be Averted,” and “When All Europe Lines up on the Battlefield,” Times-Union (July 31, 1914). 

[23] “Reports of Ultimatum By Kaiser Offset Peace Hope,” New York Times (August 1, 1914); and “All Military Eyes Fixed on War Stage,” New York Times (August 1, 1914).

[24] “Why People Shout for War,” Madrid Herald XI (August 6, 1914). 

[25] “The War Situation,” Times-Union (August 1, 1914).  “Summary of War News,” New York Times (September 2, 1914).  “The War News For Busy Readers,” Times-Union (August 3 and 4, 1914).  “Review of the War Developments,” Times-Union (August 6, 1914). 

[26] “Why Europe Is At War,” Atlantic MonthlyXLIX(August 7, 1914), 253.  “The Germans in France,” Literary DigestXLIX(September 5, 1914), 400-401.

[27] “Some Aspects of the War,” Times-Union (August 4, 1914).

[28] “The Cost of War.”

[29] “Some Aspects of the War,” Times-Union(August 4, 1914).  “Military Preparedness,” 151-152.

[30] “Europe Now Aflame With Five Nations in Supreme Fight,” New York Tribune (August 5, 1914).  “The War in Belgium,” Literary Digest XLIX(August 22, 1914). 289-294.   “The Greatest War of History Breaks Over Europe,” Current Opinion LVII(September 1914), 149-153.  “How the War Wages,” Washington Post (September 2, 1914).  “Summary of War News,” New York Times (September 2, 1914).  “The Germans in France,” Literary Digest LXIX(September 5,1914), 399-406.

[31]Quoted in “Why Europe Is At War,” 253.  “Powers Looked for a War Excuse,” Times-Union(August 28, 1914).

[32]H.C.G. von Jagemann, “Germany’s Struggle for Existence,” Outlook 108(September 16, 1914), 144-145.  “Bavaria in War Time,” Outlook 108(September 30, 1914), 251-253.  “Germany’s Object in the War as Interpreted by a Prussian Military Officer,” Outlook108(September 9, 1914), 68-71.  “With the Germans in Belgium,” Outlook108(September 16, 1914), 139-143.  See, “Appeal of Warring Nations to American Sentiment” and “German Efforts to Influence American Opinion,” in Current OpinionLVII (October, 1914), 222ff.

[33]Ernst Richard, “The German Point of View of the War,” Outlook 107(August 15, 1914), 903-904.  “Berlin Is Gone War Mad,” Times-Union (August 1, 1914).  See also “Germany Interpreted By a German-American,” Outlook 107(August 22, 1914), 954-956.

[34] “Kaiser Appeals to White House,” New York Tribune (August 19, 1914).

[35] “Blaming Germany for the War,” Literary Digest(August 22, 1914), 293.  “Mr. Ridder On War Situation,” Times-Union(September 19, 1914).

[36] “Blaming Germany for the War,” 293.  “Germany Ready To Fight the World To Protect Her Honor,” Times-Union (August 4, 191).

[37] Quoted in “American Sentiment and the German Viewpoint,” Current Opinion LVII (September 1914), 150.

[38] “Germans Denounce All But the Irish,” New York Times (August 21, 1914).

[39] “German Appeal to America,” Nation 99(October 15, 1914), 455.

[40]Ibid.  “The Truth About Germany,” New York Times (September 7, 1914).  “Truth About Germany.  Facts About the War,” emphasis in original, 6, 86.

[41] Quoted in “Mr. Ridder On War Situation,” Times-Union (September 19, 1914).

[42] “Germans to Celebrate,” New York Tribune(September 26, 1914).  “War Rally Here By German-Americans,” New York Times(September 28, 1914); and “Bartholdt Bids U.S. Press Beware,” New York Tribune (September 28, 1914).  See, “The ‘Anti-German’ Press,” Nation 99(August 20 1914), 221-222.

[43]; “Professor Darmstaedter Replies,” “England’s Violation of Neutral Territory,” and “Argument From Germany,” Nation99(November 4, 1914), 548-549.

[44] “German Appeals to America,” 455.  “British Lies and American Sentiment,” Nation99(November 26, 1914), 621.

[45] “German Appeals to America,” 455-456.

[46]Ross A. Kennedy, The Will to Believe.  Woodrow Wilson, World I, and America’s Strategy for Peace and Security (Kent, Ohio:  Kent State University Press, 2009), 12-14.

[47]See, for example, “The War in Belgium,” Literary Digest XLIX(August 22, 1914), 289-290.  “The War in Europe.  An International Symposium,” Outlook107(August 15, 1914), 896-907.

[48]Whelpley, “Courting of America,” 323-324.  “England Still Makes … Favorite Weapon, Says Staats-Zeitung,” Washington Post (September 28, 1914).

[49] “The American Attitude,” The Saturday Review, reprinted in Living Age 283(October 3, 1914), 52-53.

[50]Usher, “Reasons Behind the War,” 444-445.  See the editorial, “The War’s Motives,” Times-Union (August 5, 1914).

[51] Usher, “Reasons Behind the War,” 444-445.  See also, “Why Europe Is At War,” Literary Digest XLIX(August 15, 1914), 254-262.  “The Quarrel Between Britain, Austria-Hungary, and Servia,” Nation 99(August 13, 1914), 186.

[52]Usher, “Reasons Behind the War,” 446-448.  For a differing view, see Constantin Theodor Dumba, Ambassador of Austria-Hungry, “The Austro-Servian Conflict,” Outlook 107(August 29, 1914), 1028.

[53] “Why Europe Is At War,” 253-254.  See also, “The Lust of Empire,” Nation 99(October 22, 1914), 493.  “The Responsibility For War,” Nation 99(August 6, 1914), 151.  “Blaming Germany for the War,” Literary Digest XLIX(August 21, 1914), 293-294.  “German Jingoism,” Outlook 97(April 22, 1911), 8-9.

[54]Quoted in “Why Europe Is At War” 254.

[55] “American Opinion on the War, 907.  See, “Germany Interpreted By a German-American,” Outlook107(August 22, 1914), 954-956.

[56]Karl F. Geiser, letter, “The Anti-German Press,” Nation 99(August 20, 1914), 221-212.

[57] “Ridder on War Situation,” Times-Union (September 13, 1914).

[58] “Why Europe Is At War,” 255.  “Naval Experts See Small Chance For Germany in a Great Sea Fight,” Times-Union (August 5, 191).

[59]James Davenport Whelpley, “The Courting of America.”

[60] “How The War Affects America,” Literary DigestXLIX (August 15, 1914), 256.  Kennedy, Will to Believe, 26-29.

[61]Quoted in “How The War Affects America,” 25.

[62] “Wall Street Not Alarmed At News of Europe’s War,” Buffalo Courier(July 30, 1914).  “Profit and Loss of War,” Wall Street Journal (August 1, 1914).

[63] “War Scare Suspends the World’s Business,” and “The World’s Business Suspended,” Times-Union (July 31, 1914).

[64] “Europe’s Call to Arms,” Literary Digest XLIX (August 8, 1914), 215.  Roger W. Babson, “Why the New York Stock Exchange Should Reopen,” The Sun(September 13, 1914).

[65] “The Financial Side,” The Literary Digest XLIX (August 15, 1914), 257. 

[66] Gilson Gardner, “War Effects and Finance,” Times-Union(August 13, 1914).  See, “War and Our Merchant Marine,” Literary DigestLXIX (August 22, 1914), 290-293

[67] “Stock Exchange May Open in a Few Weeks, Says Adams,” Wall Street Journal (September 2, 1914).  Gilson Gardner, “War Effects and Finance,” Times-Union (August 13, 1914).

[68] “Bankers Confer to Keep American Gold at Home,” Evening World(August 1, 1914).  “Fear Premium for Gold Here,” New York Tribune (August 1, 1914).

[69] Alba B. Johnson, “America’s Industries as Affected by the European War,” American Academy of Political and Social Sciences (hereafter AAPSS) 61(September 1914), 1.  Joseph French Johnson, “The Probable Condition of the American Money Market After the War is Over,” AAPSS 60(1915), 133.

[70] “Address of Governor Glynn.”  See “How American Finance Faced the European War Panic,” New York Times(August 23, 1914) and “President to Call for $100,000,000,” New York Times (September 3, 1914).

[71] A.B. Leach, “The Effect of the European War on American Business,” AAPSS 60(1915), 143-144. 

[72] “Unlimited Millions Available to Banks to Meet Any Crisis” and “Gold Supply Fully Safeguarded,” Times-Union (August 3, 1914).  “Further Gold Releaf,” Wall Street Journal (August 8, 1914).

[73] A News Report (August 1, 1914) New Shipping Bill Will be Pushed Through Monday, in Link, Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Volume 30, 325-326.  “Wilson Gets More Business Ideas,” Binghamton Press (July 29, 1914).   “Bill to Save Our Sea Trade,” New York Times (August 1, 1914).  “Say We Can Plenty of Ships,” New York Times (August 3, 1914).  “How the War Affects America,” 256.   “Foreign Trade Council,” Wall Street Journal(August 4, 1914).

[74]Quoted in “How the War Affects America,” 256.  Gardner, “War Effects and Finance.”

[75] “American’s Loss and Gain in Europe’s War,” Literary Digest 49(August 29, 1914), 330.

[76]Joseph French Johnson quotes are from New York’s Evening Post newspaper and were cited in “America’s Loss and Gain in Europe’s War,” 330.  “How We Will Gain and Lose by War.  Dean Johnson Sees Opportunities for Us to Extend Our Financial Influence,” New York Times (September 6, 1914).  “Government to Investigate Advance in Foodstuffs,” Wall Street Journal(August 13, 1914).  From Henry Lee Higginson to Woodrow Wilson, August 20, 1914, in Link, Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Volume 30, 420-421.

[77] Quoted in “America’s Loss and Gain.”

[78] “How We Will Gain and Lose by War.”  Johnson added his voice to the debate over responsibility for the war:  he wrote that Germany had increased its holdings of gold from $194 million in 1913 to $336 million in mid-July 1914, a “highly significant” measure from “one of the world’s powers [that] deliberately planned and promoted this war.” 

[79] “House Committee Will Ask Ruling On Sale of American War Supplies,” Washington Post (September 2, 1914).  “Foreign Trade,” Wall Street Journal (August 7, 1914).

[80] “Export Situation,” Wall Street Journal (August 11, 1914).  “How We Will Gain and Lose by War.”  “Expert Estimates Profit and Loss to U.S. by War,” Chicago Daily Tribune(August 17, 1914). 

[81] “Chance for This Country to Create Merchant Marine,” Wall Street Journal (August 3, 1914).   Arthur Sears Henning, “U.S. To Protect Export Shippers, Wilson Assures,” Chicago Daily Tribune (October 13, 1914). 

[82] Arthur Sears Henning, “Americans Free To Ship Supplies to Belligerents,” Chicago Daily Tribune (October 15, 19114).

[83] “Stock Exchange May Open in a Few Weeks.”

[84]  From William Gibbs McAdoo, September 2, 1914; and An Address to a Joint Session of Congress, September 4, 1914 in Link, Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Volume 30, 467-468, 473-474.   “Pay War’s Toll, President Urges,” Washington Post(September 5, 1914).  “What We Pay to See Europe At War,” Literary DigestXLIX(September 19, 1914), 491-492.  The President’s call for additional tax revenue gained widespread coverage; see, for example, “Wilson Asks Congress For War Tax,” Times-Union (September 4, 1914).

[85] “Guard America From Losses By War in Europe.  Wilson and Congress Move to Prevent Money Shortage and Other Ills,” Chicago Daily Tribune (August 1, 1914).  “President Takes Steps to Protect Country,” Wall Street Journal (August 1, 1914).

[86] “Unlimited Millions Available to Banks to Meet Any Crisis,” and “Will Issue Clearing House Certificates for Protection,” Times-Union(August 3, 1914).

[87] Ibid.  “Bankers Arrange for More Currency,” New York Times (August 1, 1914).  “Unlimited Millions Available to Banks top Meet Any Crisis,” Times-Union (August 3, 1914).  “New York Bankers See McAdoo,” Wall Street Journal (August 3, 1914).  “The Financial Situation in America and Europe,” New York Times (August 6, 1914).  “McAdoo Calls Conference,” Wall Street Journal(August 8, 1914).  “How American Finance Faced the European War Panic,” New York Times (August 23, 1914).

[88] “Unlimited Millions Available to Banks to Meet Any Crisis,” front page.  “Washington Alert to Aid Situation,” New York Times(August 1, 1914).

[89] “American Events in Review,” Christian Science Monitor (August 15, 1914).  “Government to Investigate Advance in Foodstuffs,” Wall Street Journal (August 13, 1914).

[90] “Government to Investigate Advance in Foodstuffs.”  “Guard America From Losses by War in Europe,” Chicago Daily Tribune(August 1, 1914).

[91] “Plan for War Tax to Restore Revenue,” New York Times (August 8, 1914).   “The Financial Situation in America and Europe,” New York Times (August 24, 1914).

[92] Address to a Joint Session of Congress (September 4, 1914), in Link, Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Volume 30, 473-475.  “The Financial Situation in America and Europe,” New York Times (August 31, 1914).  “Cut in Revenue To Be Met With More Economy,” Christian Science Monitor (September 18, 1914).

[93] Charles S. Groves, “How Official Washington Views War in Europe,” Boston Daily Globe (September 13, 1914).  “Washington and Wall St. Work for Common Good,” Wall Street Journal (August 7, 1914).

[94] “Congress Proceeds With Work,” Christian Science Monitor(August 19, 1914).

[95] Congressional Record Index, Volume 51, 63-2, 137-138, 477.  These items were listed under the headings “Europe” and “War and Preparations for War.”  “Antiwar Proclamation,” Congressional Record-Senate, Volume 51, Part 14 (August 25, 1914), 14194.  Congressional Record-Senate, Volume 51, Part 15(September 16, 1914), 15192.  “A Good Example for Congress,” New York Times (August 11, 1914).

[96] “President’s Peace Proclamation,” Congressional Record-Senate, Volume 51, Part 15(September 8, 1914), 14803.

[97] “America Must Intervene to End War, Says Metz,” New York Times (September 23, 1914).

[98]The Ambassador in Austria-Hungary (Penfield) to the Secretary of state, Vienna, July 13, 1914, in Foreign Relations, 1914, Supplement, 22-23.  From Frederic Courtland Penfield, Vienna, June 28, 1914, and To Francis Joseph I, Washington, June 28, 1914, Remarks at a Press Conference, June 29, 1914, in Link, Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Volume 30, 222-223.  Wilson’s own views can be discerned in his public papers and official correspondence, the only material available to historians; see, Kurt Wimer, “Woodrow Wilson and World Order,” in Arthur S. Link, editor, Woodrow Wilson and a Revolutionary World, 1913-1921 (Chapel Hill:  University of North Carolina Press, 1982), 146-150.

[99]Myron Timothy Herrick to William Jennings Bryan, Paris.  July 28, 1914.  Rec’d 7:30 P.M., in Link, Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Volume 30, 313.  See the editorial, “President Wilson’s Peace Proffer,” Times-Union(August 5, 1914).

[100]Portions of Remarks at a News Conference, in Link, Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Volume 30, 307.

[101]Cable, Paris, Myron Timothy Herrick to WJB, July 28, 1914, in Link, Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Volume 30, 313.  The Ambassador in France (Herrick) to the Secretary of State, July 28, 1914, in Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, 18.

[102]From Walter Hines Page, Dear Mr. President, London July 29, 1914, in Link, Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Volume 30, 314-316.

[103]The Chargé ďAffaires in Russia (Wilson) to the Secretary of State, July 31, 1914, in Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, 26.

[104]Remarks at a Press Conference, July 30, 1914, in Link, Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Volume 30, 317. 

[105]Robert W. Tucker, Woodrow Wilson and the Great War.  Reconsidering America’s Neutrality 1914-1917 (Charlottesville:  University of Virginia Press, 2007), 19-24.

[106]Ibid., 3-6, 49-50.  Woodrow Wilson, Fourth of July address, July 4, 1917, in Link, Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Volume 30, 248-255.  “President Wilson Advises All to be Calm,” Times-Union (August 3, 1914).  “Bill to Save Our Sea Trade,” New York Times (August 2, 1914).

[107]“Wilson Pleads ‘Remain Calm’,” Chicago Daily Tribune (August 4, 1914).  “Pres. Wilson Advises All To Be Calm.” 

[108]Quoted in “President Advises Nation to be Calm,” New York Times (August 4, 1914). 

[109]“Wilson Pleads ‘Remain Calm.’” “President Advises Nation to be Calm.”  “Pres. Wilson Advises All To Be Calm.”

[110]“Pres. Wilson Advises All To Be Calm,” Times-Union(August 3, 1914).

[111]“President Wilson’s Peace Proffer,” Times-Union(August 5, 1914).  “U.S. Diplomats Work for Peace,” Atlanta Constitution(August 2, 1914).

[112]“U.S. Diplomats Work for Peace.”  “President Wilson’s Peace Proffer.”  See Wilson’s comments, Remarks at a Press Conference, August 3, 1914, in Link, Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Volume 30, 331-335.  “U.S. Diplomats Work For Peace,” Atlanta Constitution (August 2, 1914).

[113]“Wilson Watches War in Europe,” Los Angeles Times (August 3, 1914).  “Pres. Wilson Advises All To Be Calm.”  “Address of Governor Glynn.”

[114]The proclamation was published in its entirety in the New York Times, see “President Wilson Proclaims Our Strict Neutrality; Bars All Aid to Belligerents and Defines the Law,” New York Times (August 5, 1914).

[115]“Pres. Wilson Offers to Mediate, and “President In His Proffer Leaves Way Open to Future Negotiations in Case of Present Refusal,” Times-Union (August 5, 1914). 

[116]“Our Diplomats Will Aid,” New York Times(August 2, 1914).  “To Send Gold to Tourists,” New York Times (August 4, 1914).  “Notes of Tourists Trapped in Europe,” New York Times (August 7, 1914).  “Executive Order 2011 – To Enforce Neutrality of Wireless Stations,” August 5, 1914.  Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project.  http//www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=75364.  “Executive Order 2012 – For the Relief, Protection and Transportation Home of Americans in Europe at the Outbreak of the European War of 1914,” August 5, 1914.  Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project.  http//www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=75365. 

[117]From Charles William Eliot.  Confidential. Dear President Wilson:  Asticou, Maine 6 August 1914, in Link, Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Volume 30, 353-354.

[118]“Germans Denounce All But the Irish.”

[119]“Mrs. Wilson In Critical Condition,” Times-Union(August 5, 1914).  “Mrs. Wilson Dies in White House,” New York Times (August 7, 1914).  “Mrs Woodrow Wilson,” Literary Digest XLIX(August 15, 1914), 258.  “President Wilson’s Trial,” Times-Union (August 6, 1914).

[120]“The President’s Bereavement,” Times-Union(August 8, 1914).  See the letter the letter to Mary Allen Hulbert, September 6, 1914, in which he wrote with regard to the death of his wife:  “I am lamed and wounded more sorely than any words I have can describe,” in Link, Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Volume 31, 3.  “President Wilson’s Trial,” Times-Union (August 6, 1914).  “Mrs. Woodrow Wilson,” 258. 

[121]An Appeal to the American People.  My fellow countrymen:  [Aug. 18, 1914], in Link, Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Volume 30, 393-394.  “President Wilson Bids All His Countrymen be Neutral Both in Speech and Action,” Christian Science Monitor (August 18, 1914).  Wimer, “Woodrow Wilson and World Order,” 151-156. 

[122]From Edward Mandell House, with Enclosures, September 5, 1914, in Link, Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Volume 30, 488.  On the importance of House in formulating America’s war aims and peace strategy, see Inga Floto, “Woodrow Wilson:  War Aims, Peace Strategy, and the European Left,” in Link, Woodrow Wilson and a Revolutionary World, 129-130; Tucker, Woodrow Wilson and the Great War, 38-49; and Godfrey Hodgson, Woodrow Wilson’s Right Hand.  The Life of Colonel Edward M. House (New Haven:  Yale University Press, 2006).

[123]Enclosure I, Edward Mandell House to Arthur Zimmerman (July 8, 1914); and Enclosure II, Edward Mandell House to William II (July 8, 1914), in Link, Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Volume 30, 265-267.  Tucker, Woodrow Wilson and the Great War, 38.  From Edward Manelll House, with Enclosures.  Dear Governor:  Prides Crossing, Mass. September 5^th, 1914; and Enclosure I.  Edward Mandell House to Arthur Zimmermann.  My dear Herr Zimmermann:  Washington, September 5, 1941, in Link, Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Volume 30, 488-489.

[124]“Russia Also Declines Mediation,” Wall Street Journal (August 29, 1914).  Count Johann Heinrich von Bernstorff to the German Foreign Office.  Washington, den 7. September 1914; and Translation.  Washington, September 7, 1914, in Link, Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Volume 31, 9-10.

[125]“Accuse the British of Double Dealing,” New York Times (August 22, 1914).

[126]“Attacks on England’s ‘All or None’ Pact. Chamber of German American Commerce Says It is Designed to Prolong War,” New York Times (September 7, 1914).  “Move to Suppress Belgian Pictures,” New York Times (September 16, 1914). 

[127]From William Jennings Bryan.  My Dear Mr. President:  Washington August 28, 1914, in Link, Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Volume 30, 456-457.  The five responses came from the Czar, the governments of France, Austria-Hungary, Great Britain, and Germany.  See also the Telegram from the Belgian Foreign Minister in Ibid., 458-461.  Secretary of State Bryan did not give up his plea for mediation and on December 1^st he wrote to Wilson and urged the President to once more attempt to mediate; From William Jennings Bryan.  My dear Mr. President: 

Washington December 1, 1914, in Link, Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Volume 31, 378-379.  “Russia Also Declines Mediation,” Wall Street Journal(August 29, 1914).

[128]A Proclamation.  [Sept. 8, 1914], in Link, Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Volume 31, 10-11.  “President Wilson Formally Proclaims Oct. 4 a Day of Prayer in America for European Peace,” New York Times (September 9, 1914).

[129]  “The Kaiser’s Message;” and “Peace Message From the Kaiser,” New York Times (September 10, 1914).  “Hints of Peace in the Kaiser’s Note to Wilson, The Sun(September 10, 1914).

[130]A Draft of a Reply to William II, September 15, 1914; and To Count Johann Heinrich von Bernstorff, September 16, 1914, in Link, Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Volume 31, “President Wilson Sends Reply to Kaiser,” New York Times (September 17, 1914); and “President Wilson and the Kaiser,” Shanghai Times (October 2, 1914).  A Draft Reply to William II, September 15, 1914; and To Count Johann Heinrich von Bernstorff, September 16, 1914, in Link, Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Volume 31, 32-33, 34-35..

[131]“Germany Unfairly Judged – Dernburg,” New York Times (September 17, 1914).  Efforts to present a favorable picture of Germany persisted.  See, the full page of articles “The War Discussed from the German Side,” in The Sun (November 1, 1914 and November 15, 1914). 

[132]“German-Americans:  Wilson Refuses to See Delegation from Middle West on Alleged Cruelty Protest” Wall Street Journal (September 19, 1914).

[133]“Who Is Responsible?,” 245-249. 

[134]Moore, America and the World War, 12.

[135]Tucker, Woodrow Wilson and the Great War, 188-191.  Kennedy, Will to Believe, 163-167, 182-186.

[136]Kennedy, Will to Believe, 65.  Wilson, letter to House, in Link, Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Volume 34, 271. 

[137]Congress Lining Up With Wilson,” New York Times (April 1, 1917).  An Address to a Joint Session of Congress, April 2, 1917; and Enclosure, April 6, 1917, in Link, Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Volume 41, 519-527, 552; the quote is from page 523.  “President’s War Message Ready for Congress,” New York Times (April 1, 1917).  “President Calls for War Declaration,” and “The Text of the President’s Address,” New York Times (April 3, 1917).