PGH .S3 nit*. QjJJ+Sk*sr\ I t .S3 t AMERICANS, AWAKEN! FRANCIS SAVONA '"Cruth Lives in the Light of Vuhlicify." SECOND EDITION COPYRIGHT. 1916, BY FRANCIS SAVONA. NEW YORK THE BERLIN PRESS, INC. 1916 /. it * DEC -6 1916 S)CI.A447722 -a Life is worth while only if we serve ideals and if we are ready to sacrifice everything for them. Hugo Muensterberg. FOREWORD. As the first edition of this little pamphlet has been entirely sold out, the author was constrained to publish this second edition in order to satiate the continual flow of requests received from all parts of the United States. My only object in offering this booklet to the reading public has been to cultivate a sense of fair play, impar- tiality, and justice among our midst towards all the people embroiled in the European War. We are legally neutral— are we so, morally? At first we were looked at as the one nation to produce the man to play the part of a "Prince of Peace," to lead war mad Europe from the paths of crime and self-destruction back to peace and civilization. However, 1 am sorry to say— this one hope of the war-stricken people is rapidly fading away. This world war will knell together the broken hearts of suffering humanity, irrespective of nationality. The cry of peace upon earth will ring forth louder than the roaring cannons of death. Every drop of blood shed to-day will add to the force that will make for a future lasting peace. Bleeding Europe will soon realize that it is not on the battlefield that differences are settled but in the arena of conscience and good will towards all men. It rests with us here on this side — away from the blood- stained and agonized lands across the sea, to strive at the end of this world calamity, for the redemption of mankind from ail future bloodshed and waste of its in- tellectual and physical powers. Let us all go forth and undauntedly steer our energies of thought, feeling and material force towards the eradication of that deadly foe — the enemy of civilization — War ! Francis Savona. Merrick, L. I., Nov. 18, 1916. A Rejoinder by Francis Savona to a Pamphlet entitled "Suppressed History," by Robert Flaherty, Esq. I. After reading your black-covered pamphlet -entitled, "Suppressed History," I had no other alternative than to issue a reply in refutation of your statements. I have read innumerable books and pamphlets bearing on the European War, both pro-Ally and pro-German, but yours is far more prejudiced than any other I have ever read. It is violently pro-British and un-American. My honest opinion is that your pamphlet was written only for one purpose, and that was to further the cause of England, at the expense of the United States, not con- sidering whether that cause is just or vice versa. Your manner of writing appears factitious, which is subject to the repellance of the impartial American reader, while on the other hand it does not fail to win the continued confidence of an Anglophile. I shall endeavor to en- lighten you, if it is the truth you seek, on the question as to whether England or Germany has been our worst enemy. My thoughts and actions are always dictated by the highest regard for the interests of the United States, my adopted country. I care not for any other country in the whole wide world but my own, our dear U. S. A., be it either England, Germany, Italy or any other country; but I do care for justice and honesty. II. First of all I wish to dispose of your claim, which is founded on a story narrated by L. E. Chittenden in his volume of "Recollections" that "an Englishman saved Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Atlantic coast towns from bombardment during our Civil War," by his offer to deposit $5,000,0000 in gold for the issue of an order to prevent the departure of two rebel armored vessels from England. The necessity of making the de- posit was avoided, however, for when Adams realized that it was only a clever contrivance to deceive the United States, (as it was practically an impossibility for the Union to furnish that amount within the short period allowed) so that the two Confederate vessels could make a dash to sea, he made it manifest to Earl Russell that we would rather go to war with England than yield to her underhandedness. In a book which was published for the purpose of celebrating the one hundred years of unbroken peace between the United States and Great Britain the author says (Dunning, The British Empire and the United States, 1914, p. 219) : "He (Adams) brought Earl Russell to realize that the Alabama should not be permitted to sail from Liverpool, though the earl's order to detain her arrived too late to serve its purpose. A year later when a far more serious menace to the Northern cause was prepared by the clever Confederate agents in England, and two great ironclads were nearing completion by the same firm that built the Alabama, Adams went to the verge of a hostile rupture before he persuaded Russell to seise the vessels." III. On the basis of the reply to your letter of April 14, 1915, by the Counsellor of the Department of State, Robert Lansing (now Secretary of State), dated June 2, 1915, you purport to prove that England respected our blockade of Southern ports during the Civil War although it "had good grounds for protest and could and should have com- pelled the keeping open of the ports." The following communication, dated December 30, 1863, which flatly contradicts you, was sent by Mr. Adams, our Minister at the Court of St. James, to Earl Russell (Foreign Rela- tions 1863, VoL 1, p. 42) : "It is a fact that few persons in England will now be bold enough to deny, first, that vessels have been built in British ports, as well as manned by her Majesty's subjects, with the design and intent to carry on war against the United States ; secondly, that other vessels owned by British subjects have been, and are yet, in the constant practice of de- parting from British ports laden with contraband of war, and many other commodities, with the intent to break the blockade and to procrastinate the war; thirdly, that such vessels have been, and are, insured by British merchants in the commercial towns of this kingdom with the understanding that they are des- patched for that illegal purpose. It is believed to be beyond denial that British subjects have been, and continue to be, enlisted in this kingdom in the service of the insurgents, with the intent to make war on the United States or to break the blockade legiti- mately established, and, to a proportionate extent, to annul its purpose. It is believed that persons high in social position and in fortune contribute their aid, directly and indirectly, in building and equipping ships-of-war, as well as other vessels, and furnishing money as well as goods, with the hope of sustaining the insurgents in their resistance to the government. ... In short, so far as the acts of these nu- merous and influential parties can invoke them, the British people may be considered as actually carrying on war against the United States." IV. As to the English having "made two blades of grass grow where one grew before," I will cite you some facts which will no doubt prove amazing. Take India for example. I have before me a little pamphlet entitled "British Rule in India" written by former Secretary of State, William Jennings Bryan, which should interest all lovers of truth, fair-play and impartiality. Comment on the following extracts is absolutely unnecessary; the au- thenticity and veracity of these statements cannot be questioned : "The government of India, is as arbitrary and despotic as the government of Russia ever was, and in two respects it is worse. First, it is administered by an alien people, whereas the officials of Russia are Russians. Secondly, it drains a large part of the taxes out of the country, whereas the Russian government spends at home the money which it collects from people, (p. 7.) "The poverty of the people of India is distressing in the extreme ; millions live on the verge of starva- tion all the time, and one would think that their very- appearance would plead successfully in their behalf." (P- 9.) In the face of these facts, England dares to come to our country to purchase newspapers and magazines, and bribe editors, with her blood stained gold stolen from the op- pressed Irish and the starving population of India, for the criminal purpose of buying American public opinion on the pretext that she is fighting the world's battle for the preservation of civilization against "barbarism." The English profess Christianity while continually committing the most iniquitable acts of cruelty and barbarism. Bri- tish misrule in India is not an occasional but an incessant and systematic practice. The treatment accorded the na- tives, taken as a whole, is a deliberate violation of the laws of humanity, justice and liberty, which the British Empire is claimed to stand for. Freedom — that which is so pre- cious to Englishmen that they would fight and die for it, they withhold from their own adopted people ; and espe- cially from a people whose country is forcibly made to yield enormous revenues for the maintenance of the Eng- lish oligarchy. The real truth is that the English love liberty so much that they won't permit others to share it. ''Taxation without Representation" was considered suf- ficient justification for our War of Independence. Under no conceivable circumstances did the Thirteen Colonies suffer greater tyrannical rule than is now experienced in India. British rule of the Colonial days comes nowhere near to the reign of terror in force in India to-day to merit comparison. No crime so great has ever denigrated the annals of the human race than British subversion and demolition of India. Famines, death, poverty, devastation, calamitousness and rebellion spell British rule in India. England, the propagator of indigence and destitution! England, the exterminator of a great and wonderful race! And for what reason? For no other than her own selfish purposes, for the complacency of her vile passion of com- mercial pre-dominance. This mania of national destruc- tion and devastation will only condescend to the breeding of hate and abomination in the hearts of the people so subjected, which will sooner or later satiate in an enthu- siastic rebellion for freedom and independence. V. Can there be freedom in a country (as is the case with England) where one-third of the people are always on the verge of starvation, as has been proven, and where every fourth man is buried in a pauper's grave? The great scientist, Alfred Russel Wallace in his book on "Social Environment and Moral Progress," N. Y., 1913, declares that "the responsibility of Parliament is really criminal, since it always allows its legislation to be made ineffective by the fear of diminishing the employers' profits, thus deliberately placing money-making above hu- man life, and human well-being." (p. 53.) "Who has mur- dered the 100,000 children," he asks, "who die annually before they are one year old?" (p. 58.) He sums up (p. 63) with good reason, that the conditions of lnbor in Great Britain through lack of government intereferer.ee "are a disgrace to civilisation." VI. The claim that England stands for liberty rests mainly on the fact that she was the first country to free her negro slaves. An American authority of Celtic blood, who lived in England for more than twenty-five years,' writes: "It was pointed out at the time, that after losing her chief North American colonies the large profits Bri- tain had been making out of the slave traffic had fallen away to a small amount and that bv freeing her slaves she only wished to read to the United States a lesson which would cost them infinitely more than it cost her." During the American Civil War it was this same England that did all in its power, while professing to be neutral, to dismember our country. "Of all the nations," wrote Seward on December 27, 1864, in his Diary or Notes on the War, "Great Britain seems to us the last that could justly or wisely become, directly or indirectly, an opponent of the United States in a civil war begun and waged and persisted in by insurgents for the extension of African slavery." (Works of William H. Seward, Vol. 5, 1884, p. 168.) VII. Have we so soon forgotten the only friends we had when we really needed friends? Why not read anew the history of our Civil War, when this nation was really made, and learn again what Germany did for us in that hour of need? I will cite a few extracts from the speeches in Congress taken from the Congressional Globe of the 41st Congress, 3rd session, Part 2 of 1870-71 (pp. 954 to 955) : Mr. Pomeroy: They (the Germans) sent us men; they recruited our armies with men ; they helped to save the life of this nation. Mr. Stewart (later, on p. 955) : Allow me to call the attention of the Senator from Tennessee to the fact, which he must recollect, of the amount of our bonds that were taken in Germany at the time we needed that they should be taken, and when they were prohibited from the exchange in London and from the Bourse in Paris, and not allowed to be on the markets there at all on account of the state of public opinion there, while Germany alone came in and took five or six hundred million dollars at a time when we needed money more than anything else to sustain our credit. That is a fact showing sym- pathy certainly. Had the Union fallen to pieces in the Civil War who would have been to blame to your opinion? My answer is contained in the following words, being an extract from a lengthy note written by Secretary of State Seward on June 2, 1862, to our minister to England, Charles Francis Adams : "The revolution is now approaching its end, and it is just at this moment that the proof becomes irresistible that, if it had been successful, its success would have been due to the aid and assistance it derived from the people of Great Britain, notzvithstanding the appeals and remon- strances of this government. (Foreign Relations, 1862, p. 108). VIII. Now as to the Monroe Doctrine, — are you aware of the actual circumstances leading to its promulgation? You appear to be ignorant on this point, for, regardless of the following facts, you insist that it is of English origin. In the proceedings at the Second Congress of Verona, held by the Holy Alliance in 1822, "the subject of helping Spain recover her revolting colonies in America was discussed." (Tucker, The Monroe Doctrine, Bost., 1885, pp. 7-8.) "This action of the powers threatened English commercial interests already established with these States, and England, through George Canning, promptly proposed to the United Sates a joint declara- tion by the two governments against their action." (New Int. Encyc. Vol. 16, Ed. 2, 1916, p. 169). If Spain suc- ceeded in recovering her American colonies, a restrictive commercial policy would follow which would mean the loss of a considerable and increasing trade then enjoyed by England. Canning's object was to prevent this if pos- sible, hence his proposal, which you no doubt know was not agreed to by the United States. However, "in so far as the message was construed to interdict future coloni- zation, it was generally opposed (in Europe) even by Canning." (same p. 170.) The purpose which the doc- trine was intended to serve as declared by President Monroe was apparent to Canning to be different to that desired by him. IX. I protest against the abuse and ridicule being heaped upon the German people. Let us be fair to this great and wonderful race, so competent in industry, science, music, arts and letters. I believe that Col. Roosevelt recently said that Germany is the teacher of the world. Don't they prove themselves to be the most industrious, peace-loving and progressive of citizens? Are they not better fitted to become American citizens, both socially and morally, than any other nationality coming from Europe or Asia? It has been well said by a member of Congress, that as law-abiding citizens they are unsurpassed and perhaps unequaled by any race of people. Did the Americans of Anglophile sympathies, in which category you belong, object for a moment to such men as Muh- lenberg, Steuben, Herkimer and Pastorious, who fought against England for our independence? German-American citizens are accused of treason and disloyalty just because they are pro-German, while Amer- ican citizens of Anglo-Saxon blood expousing the Allied cause are hailed as patriots. Is it a crime, then, under the Constitution to be pro-German? Does not the Con- sitution confer upon all citizens, native and naturalized, the right of free speech? I have as perfect a right to favor Germany as my opponent has England ; I respect his opinion and in justice to the constitutional right of free speech, I see no reason why my opinion should not be respected in cordial reciprocation. Nevertheless, it appears to me, in view of existing conditions, that in order to be respected and treated as a loyal American citizen one must be pro-British; in other words, if you want to be acclaimed a patriotic American, you must meekly submit to John Bull's dictation. If we have again come to be a colony of and dependent on Great Britain ; if it is obligatory upon me, as an American citizen, to foster Britannia's interests at the expense of those of my adopted country; if I am obliged to uphold the administration, right or wrong, and if I have no more right to criticize the national policy of public servants whose salaries are paid out of the people's treasury, than a Russian subject, then I will quietly sub- mit my patriotism to be adjudicated as treasonable, but my freedom of speech in the criticism and denunciation of those who do so adjudicate me will continue to be more forcible and passionate. I will support the Presi- dent of my adopted country only when my conscience tells me that he is in the right, and not merely because he is President. We are not in despotic England, the oppressor of India and Ireland, or autocratic Russia. If I, or my father I should say, had been willing to sub- mit to England's tutelage, he would have kept me in my native country, — Italy. If the Administration is willing to surrender the independent rights of the American people, it is travelling on the wrong road. If it has for- gotten that the United States of America is a free and independent nation, it is badly mistaken. If it feels or is inclined to the belief that it is best that we bow to the behests of English domination, as Belgium did, for in- stance, it is also mistaken. The American people as a whole have not forgotten their own right to live free and independent, and if their liberty is threatened,— well, Eng- land in one way, and the Democratic regime at Washing- ton in the other, better be on the lookout ! LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 006 636 478 1 .S3 nic t I fctftf of co^ o 006 ^ Hollingjcr pH 83 MiU Run F03-2193