Was the Lusitania a Legitimate Target in World War One?

Dec 27, 2010 Michael Streich

Lusitania Carried Contraband Munitions - Library of Congress Image

The Lusitania was sunk on May 7, 1915 by an Imperial German U-Boat resulting in a mystery that for decades painted the Germans as vicious and brutal.

The Lusitania was the flagship of the British Cunard line, known for her speed and size. Unlike its competitor the White Star Line, which was owned by a U.S. holding company led by J. P. Morgan, Cunard was wholly British and as such could be placed at Admiralty disposal during war. When Lusitania made her last eastward Atlantic crossing, the cargo included contraband, legitimizing her as a target for Imperial German U-Boats. The sinking of Lusitania off the Irish coast on May 7, 1915, though justified, increased U.S. sympathy for the Allies and almost led to a declaration of war.

The British Government Rescues the Cunard Line

During the early 20th Century, a fierce trans-Atlantic competition between rivaling shipping companies threatened to bankrupt Cunard. Competition arose from the White Star Line but was most keenly felt by the actions of aggressive German shipping companies. Concluding what David Ramsay called a “Faustian” bargain, the British government subsidized, in part, the building of new liners like Lusitania, but exacted a heavy price.

This agreement called upon Cunard to build ships that could easily be transformed into auxiliary ships for use during war. Officers would serve as Royal Navy reservists and cargo areas would be expanded for freighting war material. According to Ramsay, “The admiralty had effectively reduced Cunard to the level of a sub-contractor…”

German Reaction to Shipping Contraband on Liners and by Neutral Nations

The flagrant violation of so-called “cruiser rules” as understood in international admiralty law led Germany to practice unrestricted naval warfare, in essence sinking ships thought to carry contraband, escorted by Allied warships, or flying an enemy flag. In October 1914, First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill ordered ships to ram U-Boats.

Churchill also advised captains to fly the flag of neutral nations in order to confuse the Germans and to paint out their names so that they could not be readily recognized. The Lusitania hoisted the stars and stripes several times when making the crossing to the British Isles. Additionally, the British government declared the North Sea to be a military zone.

Lusitania Departs New York City despite German Warnings to Passengers

On the morning of her departure, warning notifications bearing the endorsement of the Imperial German Embassy appeared in several newspapers in New York, Philadelphia, and Boston. Cunard spokespersons, however, assured journalists that Lusitania was fast and could evade any German U-Boats. The ship sailed with 1,265 passengers and 694 crew.

The newspaper warning was not the first time Germany had put non-belligerent nations on notice. On February 18, 1915, the German government had warned passengers of neutral nations not to travel on British ships. The U.S. response, crafted by Robert Lansing in the absence of Secretary of State Bryan, held Germany to “strict accountability.”

Munitions aboard Lusitania Justified her Sinking

According to U.S. inspectors, it was impossible to verify the contents of all crates being freighted by the ship. The ship’s cargo manifest listed numerous items that could have actually been contraband. What is known factually is that Lusitania carried 4,200 cases of rifle ammunition, 1,248 cases of shrapnel shells, fuses, and aluminium powder used for explosives.

In 2003, National Geographic News reported on Robert Ballard’s discovery of the wreck which corroborated the historical record of contraband on board the vessel. In 1915, however, the ensuing response and propaganda omitted this fact. It was one reason Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan resigned the next month.

Lusitania is Sunk off the Coast of Ireland May 7, 1915

1,198 people died when Lusitania was torpedoed by the U-20, including over 100 Americans. Colin Simpson, in his 1972 book on the disaster, intimates that Winston Churchill knew of the approximate presence of German U-Boats but hoped that the loss of the Cunard liner would bring the United States into the war.

Other historians writing on the tragedy suggest that if President Woodrow Wilson had been more aggressive with earlier sinkings, Lusitania might have eluded its fate. The U-20’s one torpedo set off another, internal explosion, attributed to spontaneous combustion in the empty coal bins. It was this second explosion that caused the ship to sink in twenty minutes.

Although the sinking of Lusitania did not bring the U.S. into the war, it was another potent action to stoke anti-German feeling in America. Although justified under the rules of naval warfare, the deaths of almost 2,000 people, most of them passengers, fed the propaganda mills that ultimately predisposed the U.S. government and population to declare war on Germany in 1917.

Sources:

• James Malcolm Brinnin, The Sway of the Grand Saloon: A Social History of the North Atlantic (Delacorte Press, 1971)
• Daniel Allen Butler, The Lusitania: The Life, Loss, and Legacy of an Ocean Legend (Stackpole Books, 2000)
• Diana Preston, Lusitania: An Epic Tragedy (Walker & Company, 2002)
• David Ramsay, Lusitania: Sage and Myth (W. W. Norton & Company, 2001)
• Colin Simpson, The Lusitania (Little, Brown and Company, 1972)

Copyright Michael Streich. Contact the author to obtain permission for republication.

 

Declaring War on Germany in 1917 and La Follette's Response

Dec 28, 2010 Michael Streich

Senator La Follette Opposes War with Germany 1917 - Library of Congress Image

Wisconsin Senator Bob La Follette answered Woodrow Wilson's war message by detailing why the U.S. should not enter the European conflict.

President Woodrow Wilson asked the U.S. Congress for a declaration of war against Germany and her allies on April 2, 1917. Wilson’s war message reflected his ideals of democracy and freedom, but also his stubborn arrogance and refusal to compromise. It was the Wilson administrations inconsistent handling of Great Britain that resulted in Wisconsin Senator Robert La Follette’s rebuttal speech on April 4, 1917. La Follette detailed these inconsistencies, ending with the admonition that the United States had a right and a duty to “enforce our rights equally against both…,” Britain and Imperial Germany.

Was the United States Right to Support Great Britain in the Great War?

Senator La Follette could well have noted that Wilson’s Cabinet and many in the executive branch were pro-British sympathizers, but he chose not to. Rather, La Follette began with the Armed-Ship Bill, a measure requested by Wilson in the preceding Congressional session but voted down.

La Follette reminded the senators that Wilson proceeded to arm American merchant ships anyway, “without authority” from the Congress. La Follette predicted that U.S. entry in the war would prolong it and that most Americans opposed participation in the European war. The Wisconsin Senator quoted from several of the 15,000 letters his office had received, attempting to demonstrate American dissent with Wilson’s request.

Was the U.S. Truly Entering the War to Make the World Safe for Democracy?

La Follette reminded his listeners that Britain was a hereditary monarchy and that English society was heavily class-oriented, referring to the, “grinding industrial conditions for all wage workers.” He also questioned why any war declaration supporting Britain was not conditional on “home rule” for Ireland, Egypt, and India.

This same argument would be revisited after the war when President Wilson lobbied for U.S. participation in the League of Nations. The Senate debate on the League questioned the colonial status of nations like Ireland. Was the United States not indirectly supporting colonialism and helping to perpetuate imperial goals?

La Follette mentioned Italy and Japan, allies in the war against Germany. According to La Follette, “No one of them has done as much for its people in the…securing of social and industrial reforms as Germany.” La Follette, in all of his examples, was leading up to the equal treatment of belligerent nations. He was not supporting the German Kaiser and such appelations as the "Kaiser's Senator" belie the facts of La Follette's arguments.

La Follette Recounts Past and Recent Historical Events

La Follette noted that Germans had been demonized. But he also provided statistics showing that during the Civil War, foreign born Germans serving in the Union forces totaled 187,858, by far the largest group, followed by the Irish with 144,221 men. Germans who came to America as immigrants were loyal and posed no threat.

He then devoted several paragraphs on the 1909 London declaration which defined the internationally acceptable rules of naval warfare. Although delegates from Britain signed the accord, it was never ratified. Among other items in the declaration, the distinction between contraband and conditional contraband was defined, the latter including foodstuffs. Britain had adhered to this distinction in the Boer War, according to La Follette, but was reluctant to do so in the Great War. (La Follette referred to Lord Salisbury's interpretation)

British Violations of International Law and the Rights of Neutrals

La Follette referred to the RMS Lusitania, “loaded with 6,000,000 rounds of ammunition destined for the English army…” as well as Britain’s violation of “our neutral flag.” First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill had, in late 1914, instructed British ships like the Lusitania to fly the U.S. flag in the North Sea “war zone,” declared as such by the British.

This war or military zone was another point La Follette detailed. According to La Follette, Britain was being disingenuous. British reasons for declaring the war zone related to German mines placed on the high seas.

But, as La Follette pointed out, this was merely an excuse to interdict neutral shipping of non-contraband to regions like Scandinavia. The Senator noted that of all floating mines recovered off the coast of Holland, most were of British manufacture.

Enforcing U.S. Neutrality on all Belligerent Nations

Senator La Follette demonstrated that from the very beginning of the war, the U.S. had favored Britain even though Germany had made every effort to respond to American indignities. La Follette told the Senators, “We from early in the war threw our neutrality to the winds by permitting England to make a mockery of it to her advantage against her chief enemy.” The Senator invoked Thomas Jefferson and quoted from American history to prove his thesis.

La Follette correctly demonstrated that Woodrow Wilson’s war message was based on propaganda, duplicity, and the obvious predilection toward Britain. La Follette, however, could not overcome the realities of global finance and debt: if the U.S. had not entered the war and Germany prevailed, key banks, like J.P. Morgan’s in New York, and industrial giants like Bethlehem Steel might have foundered.

La Follette’s Idealism Versus Woodrow Wilson’s

Both Woodrow Wilson and “Fighting Bob” La Follette were idealists and progressives. La Follette began his anti-war speech by asking whether the president was right or wrong and concluded emphatically that Senators, even those representing a majority opinion in the face of minority leadership, must “speak and vote their convictions.”

In the end, La Follette was more prophetic than Wilson. The Great War ended, “open covenants” were scorned by the traditional European powers, and Wilson’s dream of a world made safe for democracy folded in the face of fascism in Germany, Italy, and Spain. Russia devolved into a Civil War and the relentless purges of Stalinism.

Source:

Senator Robert La Follette’s U.S. Senate Speech, April 4, 1917, Wisconsin History.org

Copyright Michael Streich. Contact the author to obtain permission for republication.

 

America Enters World War I in April 1917

Dec 29, 2010 Michael Streich

Woodrow Wilson Addresses Congress 1917 - Library of Congress Image

Woodrow Wilson's war message of 1917 details German submarine warfare and his ideals for a democratic post-war world but omits other motives.

On April 2, 1917, President Woodrow Wilson appeared before the U.S. House and Senate, stating reasons why it was necessary to enter the European war against Imperial Germany. Historians have debated U.S. motivations ever since.

Much of Wilson’s address is devoted to the German practice of unrestricted submarine warfare and he barely mentioned the Zimmermann note. Wilson never spoke of the enormous debt owed to American firms by the Allies. Rather, the war message reflects on Wilson’s own idealism, his deep rooted desire to, “make the world safe for democracy.”

Unrestricted Naval Warfare Resumed by Imperial Germany in 1917

Imperial Germany resumed its policy of unrestricted submarine warfare February 1, 1917. The U.S. government was informed only hours before the effective date. Although the German ambassador Count Bernstorff had warned his government that such action would bring the U.S. into the war, Kaiser Wilhelm II sided with the militarists over the diplomatic fears.

German military strategists gambled that if one million tons of shipping bound for the Allies could be sunk each month, the war would end by mid-summer. In the weeks leading up to Wilson’s congressional address, several American ships had been sunk without warning. During his message, Wilson declared, “The present German submarine warfare against commerce is a warfare against mankind.” But Wilson made clear that his concerns were for the loss of innocent civilian life.

The Zimmermann Note Promises Mexico Lost Territory

On March 1, 1917 the contents of the Zimmermann note were published in the United States after British intelligence officers intercepted and deciphered the telegram. The note, sent by the German Foreign Minister to the German ambassador in Mexico City, promised Mexico the return of Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona in return for an alliance with Germany if war should break out with the United States.

Historian Leon H. Canfield, referring to the telegram, states that, “No other development contributed so much to the crystallization of sentiment in America in favor of war with Germany…” While this was true in terms of American public opinion, Wilson spent relatively little time on the note in his war message.

The Role of the March Russian Revolution in 1917

Tsar Nicholas II abdicated on March 15, 1917. The Romanov dynasty, an autocracy for centuries, was replaced by a popularly elected Provisional Government. Wilson highlighted this in his war message, commenting that, “Russia was known by those who knew it best to have been always in fact democratic at heart.”

Additionally, Wilson alluded to the theory that the earliest Russian dynasties were really of German origin: “The autocracy…long as it had stood…was not in fact Russian in origin, character, or purpose…” Wilson cleverly separated the autocracy, identifying it with Prussian authoritarianism, from the democracy that could be found in the hearts of Russians.

The fall of the Russian autocracy was also a sign that the war would bring dramatic changes to the world. These changes aligned perfectly with Wilson’s Utopian League of Nations, an idea he had fostered long before the outbreak of World War I, according to Canfield.

Wilson’s Idealism and the Realities of Pro-British Support

Wilson agonized several weeks over the decision to seek a declaration of war. Historian Kendrick A. Clements suggests that Wilson was finally motivated by his Secretary of State, Robert Lansing, who suggested that any delay might hinder U.S. opportunities to help shape a post-war world based on Wilson’s ideals.

Barbara Tuchman also alludes to other motivations, writing that, “nothing that Wilson said about the danger to democracy could not have been said all along. For that cause we could have gone to war six months or a year or two earlier, with incalculable effect on history.”

Others have argued that the huge debt owed by the Allies to U.S. firms played a decisive role in entering the war, pointing to the 1934 conclusions of the Special Committee on Investigation of the Munitions Industry, chaired by Senator Gerald Nye. The Nye Committee documented $2.3 billion in U.S. loans to the Allies in World War I, a figure not including debts owed to private industries.

Congress Votes to Enter World War One

At the close of his address, President Wilson stated, “It is a fearful thing to lead this great peaceful people into war…” Wilson, the son of a Presbyterian minister and a follower of Calvinism, may have been alluding to Hebrews 10:31: “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”

After several days of debate, notably by those senators opposing war like Wisconsin’s Bob La Follette, the Senate voted 82-6 in favor of war. The House vote was 373-50. American resolve ultimately ended the war, but Wilson’s ideals were never realized. World War I resulted in the rise of terrible dictators and paved the way to an even more devastating war.

Sources:

• Leon H. Canfield, The Presidency of Woodrow Wilson: Prelude to a World in Crisis (Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1966)
• Kenrick A. Clements, The Presidency of Woodrow Wilson (University Press of Kansas, 1992)
• Barbara Tuchman, “How We Entered World War I,” Practicing History (Ballantine Books, 1981)
• Woodrow Wilson, War Message April 2, 1917, 65 Congress, I Session, Senate Document No. 5

Copyright Michael Streich. Contact the author to obtain permission for republication.

 

Teddy Roosevelt's Concept of Peace and National Preparedness

Jan 5, 2011 Michael Streich

Roosevelt's Big Stick and Peace Prize - Library of Congress Image

Theodore Roosevelt was awarded the 1906 Nobel Peace Prize but his concept of peace was tied to righteousness, justice, and military preparedness.

The Russo-Japanese War ended with the signing of a treaty at Portsmouth, New Hampshire on September 5, 1905. President Theodore Roosevelt mediated the negotiations and was awarded the 1906 Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts. Roosevelt’s detailed and personal speech in Oslo, Norway would not occur until May 5, 1910, however, during his celebrated tour of Europe following his African safari. Roosevelt’s speech presaged Woodrow Wilson’s League of Nations and called for greater international restrictions on warfare.

The Rising Power of Japan in Asia in the Early 20th Century

Some historians note that while Roosevelt admired and respected the Japanese, he also feared growing Japanese militarism and influence in Asia. Ever since Japan emerged from feudalism in the mid-19th Century, it had transformed itself into an equal power, embracing imperialism. The Russo-Japanese War demonstrated that an Asian nation could defeat a European power. Russia lost two fleets during the war and was battered by Japanese ground forces in Korea.

Japan’s surprise attack on the Russian fleet at Port Arthur jolted the Russian admiralty and provided an agenda which some historians equate with the December 7, 1941 Japanese surprise attack at Pearl Harbor. Japanese victory in Asia led to revolution in Russia. Virginia Cowles writes that when Tsar Nicholas II read the telegram advising that his Baltic fleet had been sunk by Japan, he put it into his pocket and continued his tennis game.

Teddy Roosevelt’s Concept of Peace and World Order

Third party mediation of international conflicts had been utilized before the Portsmouth Conference. Roosevelt capitalized on this and viewed himself as a fair mediator. Mediation was also a vehicle by which the United States could exert a more forceful and dynamic role among the other industrialized powers. In his 1910 speech, Roosevelt called for “treaties of arbitration” between the “civilized communities.”

Roosevelt’s concept of peace was tied, however, to “righteousness.” Peace must never become “a mask for cowardice and sloth.” Roosevelt argued that, “No man is worth calling a man who will not fight rather than submit to infamy or see those that are dear to him suffer wrong.” When World War I began in August 1914, this became one of his chief criticisms of Woodrow Wilson.

For Roosevelt, Wilson’s neutrality and the pursuit of peace was really cowardice. According to Roosevelt, peace as the “handmaid of righteousness” implied a willingness to confront evil and pursue actions that ended “despotism or anarchy.”

The World Court and League of Peace

Roosevelt’s second observation referred to the need for a world court. Referring to the Hague Conference as a “Magna Charta for other nations,” he likened the Hague Tribunal to the United States Supreme Court that settled disputes between states. Although acknowledging differences, Roosevelt saw “certain valuable analogies.”

His final recommendation involved a League of Peace. Such a league would permit “police power to enforce the decrees of the court.” The purpose of the league would “prevent violence” between nations. In all of his observations, however, Roosevelt stressed the active leadership of “civilized” industrial nations as well as preserving individual national sovereignty.

Did Roosevelt’s Mediation at Portsmouth Outweigh His Militarism?

Roosevelt was the first U.S. president to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Ironically, Roosevelt’s years as president also included a strong militarism. In 1902, Roosevelt presented Kaiser Wilhelm II an ultimatum regarding threats of war between Venezuela and Germany. Roosevelt orchestrated an independence movement in Panama so that the U.S. could build a canal. At the end of his second term, he sent the Great White Fleet around the world, demonstrating U.S. naval might.

This was the righteousness of Roosevelt’s peace, however. Roosevelt stated in 1910, “No nation deserves to exist if it permits itself to lose the stern and virile virtues…” Roosevelt suggested that the loss due to “heartless…commercialism,” “prolonged indulgence in luxury…,” or a “warped and twisted sentimentality” could not be used to justify the decay of virtue.

Roosevelt Called for Preparedness to Ensure Peace Among Nations

Writing in 1916 about the on-going Mexican crisis, Roosevelt referred to the “professional pacifists and professional anti-preparedness advocates” and their inability to act with justice. U.S. failure to prepare and take action did not avert bloodshed but invited it. Roosevelt concludes that, “Our Mexican failure is merely the natural fruit of the policies of pacifism and anti-preparedness.”

Roosevelt builds his argument so that he can logically make the connection to World War I. In 1916, the United States was still neutral and President Wilson was planning a reelection campaign with the slogan, “He kept us out of war.” Roosevelt’s comments were made February 3, 1916. Referring to that war, Roosevelt bemoaned U.S. anti-preparedness, suggesting that had Wilson acted differently, “…we would now be sure of peace for ourselves.”

Peace at Any Price was Weakness According to Roosevelt

A strong peace depended on the willingness to go to war to defend that peace. It also meant preparedness, the so-called Roman Doctrine. In this, Roosevelt boosted the global status of the United States. According to Roosevelt, had America prepared, the war might not have lasted so long, resulting in the “loss of thousands of lives of men, women, and children…” That was the fault of the “peace-at-any-price men…”

This was Roosevelt’s concept of peace and this was the message he conveyed in Norway in 1910. Peace required a willingness by civilized nations to enforce harmony among the community of nations. It also required the necessity of preparedness.

Sources:

John Milton Cooper, Jr., The Warrior and the Priest: Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt (The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1983)

Edmund Morris, Theodore Rex (Random House, 2001)

Theodore Roosevelt, Fear God and Take Your Own Part (George H. Doran Company, 1916)

Theodore Roosevelt, Nobel Speech, New York Times, May 6, 1910

Copyright Michael Streich. Contact the author to obtain permission for republication.

 

Reagan's Alzheimer's and Wilson's Thrombosis

Jan 15, 2011 Michael Streich

Wilson and First Lady After His Stroke - Library of Congress Image

Several of America's greatest presidents suffered from disabilities and long-term illnesses, but Woodrow Wilson was incapacitated part of his second term.

Ron Reagan’s new book, My Father at 100, with a publication date of January 18, 2011, postulates that President Ronald Reagan, first elected in 1980 at the age of sixty-nine, may have shown early signs of Alzheimer’s disease while still in the White House. If true, Reagan would not have been the first chief executive to suffer from illness while in office. A number of U.S. presidents were at times incapacitated, but the most notable example is Woodrow Wilson who, in 1919, was disabled for seventeen months after suffering from thrombosis of the brain.

Woodrow Wilson’s Physical and Mental Health in 1919

Wilson had always suffered from headaches and minor strokes. Historian Page Smith writes that, “The man who aspired to become the twenty-eighth president of the United States was a physical wreck.” On September 3, 1919, the day Wilson boarded a train in Washington, DC to take his plan for a League of Nations to the American people, he was already physically exhausted.

Wilson’s physician, Dr. Cary Grayson, strenuously argued against the 9,981 mile trip during which Wilson would deliver an average of ten speeches a day. But Wilson’s physical ailments were balanced by an indomitable will and determination. His mind was clear, his speeches lucid. Yet the signs of exhaustion became more evident at every stop.

While in Paris attending the Versailles peace conference that ended World War I, Wilson suffered from influenza, or so his doctors believed. There was even a nasty and unfounded rumor that Wilson had contracted syphilis. It may have been the onset of the thrombosis that would, in September, incapacitate him. By the time his train arrived in Spokane, he developed double-vision. The high altitudes exacerbated his asthma and intensified his headaches.

Wilson’s Schedule leads to a Complete Physical Breakdown

Wilson had a medical history of hypertension, occasional memory loss, and cerebrovascular disease. Since early life as a college student, he suffered from indigestion. The intense schedule Wilson himself approved in September 1919 was an itinerary for a medical disaster. As his train sped south to California, Wilson displayed twitching in his face. Insomnia drained his last remaining energy.

After leaving Pueblo, Colorado, Wilson suffered a massive stroke. He lost all feeling in his left arm and leg. The presidential train was rerouted back to Washington where Wilson was rushed to the White House. For the next seventeen months, Wilson would remain on the second floor while his second wife Edith acted as liaison between all those who attempted to see the president. In recollections published by the chief usher at the time, Ike Hoover “would speak of countless deceptions carried out at the White House during Wilson’s illness.” (See Phyllis Lee Levin, below)

Presidential Illnesses Kept from the American Public

Wilson’s incapacitation was never revealed to the public, the Congress, reporters, and even certain members of his Cabinet. In much the same way, President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s polio was never published and no photographs of him in a wheelchair were ever disseminated. Critics have postulated that FDR’s illness hastened his frailty, contributing to hand-shake decisions made at the 1945 Yalta Conference that ultimately benefited Soviet Russia.

Writer and columnist Richard Reeves wrote in 2003 about John F. Kennedy: “…few people knew or suspected that the man entrusted with the fate of nations was always accompanied by doctors and aides carrying an array of steroids, amphetamines, painkillers and other pills and potions that kept him alive and going day after day.”

Biographers of Abraham Lincoln, perhaps the greatest U.S. president, suggest that he suffered from bouts of melancholy. Lincoln left evidence of periods of depression and a mild case of smallpox in 1863. His illness was kept from the public.

President James Garfield was incapacitated from July through September 1881 after being shot in an assassination attempt. The executive branch functioned through Garfield’s secretary. In this case, however, the public knew the facts and when Garfield died Chester Arthur became the next president.

Ronald Reagan and Alzheimer’s Disease

If Ron Reagan’s observations about his father ever prove to be true, they will never match the realities of the Wilson White House of 1919 or other celebrated cases of presidential ailments and disabilities. Lincoln, Wilson, Kennedy, and Reagan are considered great presidents, “larger than life” and served at crucial periods in American History. Like other great men and women in history, they refused to succumb to personal disabilities in order to achieve their perceptions of a greater good.

Sources:

• Phyllis Lee Levin, Edith and Woodrow: The Wilson White House (Scribner, 2001)
• Richard Reeves, “JFK: Secrets and Lies,” Reader’s Digest, April 2003
• Gene Smith, When the Cheering Stopped: the last years of Woodrow Wilson (William Morrow and Company, 1964)
• Page Smith, America Enters the World: A People’s History of the Progressive Era and World War I (McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1985)
• Ronald C. White, Jr., Lincoln’s Greatest Speech: The Second Inaugural (Simon & Schuster, 2002)

Copyright Michael Streich. Contact the author to obtain permission for republication.