An Exchange of Letters bearing on the British Ideal of Cecil Rhodes

IN MY PREVIOUS POST, I INCLUDED THE STUNNING ARTICLE by F. F. Schrader published in the March 22, 1916 issue of THE FATHERLAND, relating the facts about the Secret Will of Cecil Rhodes in its relation to the United States and the pro-England, pro-war element rising in that country: The Great Conspiracy Exposed. A month later there appeared in the April 26 issue an open letter from Mr. Sinclair Kennedy, author of the book “The Pan-Angles” that was quoted in Schrader's article. A Massachusetts native and graduate of Harvard Law School, Kennedy sought to give a different interpretation of his work than that thought to be given by Schrader. The letter from Kennedy is followed by a brilliant rebuttal by Frederick Schrader. I'm posting both so you, the reader, can judge for yourself what relevance, if any, might exist between Rhodes' plan and the ongoing war. -cy

vol. 4 no. 12    April 26, 1916   Page 5

ENGLISH PLUTOCRACY VS FREE AMERICANISM

An Open Letter from the Author of “The Pan-Angles” and reply from Frederic Schrader

To the Editor of THE FATHERLAND:

An anonymous donor has sent me an excerpt from THE FATHERLAND of March 22, 1916, entitled “The Great Conspiracy Exposed.” In it, you charge certain Americans with secretly plotting with certain Britishers to bring about the “absorption of the United States by Great Britain.” You imply also that what they are doing they do because of the “corruption of Cecil Rhodes' gold in their systems.”

You refer to my book “The Pan-Angles” and give it a place among the first branches of your poisonous upas tree of treason [an illustration adorning the article which I could not reproduce -cy]. Your contributor [Schrader], eager to make violent charges, could not have been expected to read “The Pan-Angles” with care nor with an unprejudiced desire to understand its thesis. Let me summarize for him.

The civilization of Western Europe—and this includes America—presents, in contrast with the other civilizations of the earth, a very real homogeneity. In the great conflicts of the future, the nations of this civilization must stand together or they and it will be obliterated. I do not wish it to be obliterated. I wish my nation to strengthen itself by effectively joining forces with other nations of this Western European civilization, first of all—because their language, ideals and habits of Government most closely resemble ours—with the six Britannic nations. A patriotic and far-seeing German, whose vision reached beyond the dreams of temporary glories and profits to the great future when this civilization is to be tested as to its right to survive, would have wished his nation to ally itself with such an association. He would have seen that his country will inevitably need the assistance of the Pan-Angles as the Pan-Angles, when that day comes, will inevitably need the assistance of his. (See pages 154-156) That Germany did not see this, and that by the short-sighted policy of the present war it has weakened itself and the whole civilization, are matters for the gravest concern and may be the undoing of us all. [Wow, what a statement! -cy]

English-Speaking Reunion

The passage you give as from Rhodes' 1877 will is not in my book. You, of course, did not mean to imply that it was. Your second quotation (barring what are doubtless slips in proof-reading) is to be found on page 190 of my book. Possibly the idea that “the peace of the world” might be “secured for all eternity” so horrified your contributor that he did not read to the bottom of the page. It is as well that he did not, for the facts that Rhodes in 1891 was ready to consent “to the absorption of the British Empire in the American Union” and that he felt the importance of English-speaking reunion so great “as to justify even the sacrifice of the monarchial features and isolated existence of the British Empire” are difficult to twist into cause for alarm. But your contributor has a mania for brevity. Otherwise he would, in the interests of the spirit of truth, have completed his quotation from the 1899 will of Rhodes and written the “etc.” in full, thus, “but without I hope withdrawing them (American Rhodes scholars) or their sympathies from the land of their adoption or birth.” He might even, had space been available, have mentioned the fifteen scholarships for students of German birth, totalling a sum of over $18,000 annually—appointment you will remember lay with the German Emperor—and he might have mentioned Rhodes' reason for establishing them, which was that “a good understanding between England, Germany and the United States of America will secure the peace of the world and educational relations from the strongest ties.” But that, of course, brings up again the question of peace as an ideal.

The Pan-Angle Federation

Your third quotation, the one from pages 202 and 203 of “The Pan-Angles” is (barring mistakes this time less negligible) correct. The whole purpose of the book is to advocate the federation of the seven English-speaking, self-governing white nations. Of what federation means you cannot be ignorant. If you are, read “The Pan-Angles.” It does not mean the “delivering” of one country into the hands of another country. From necessity our thirteen original states, among which were New York and Massachusetts, federated. In so doing no one of them became an “integral part” of another, but each became an integral part of a new whole, the United States of America. In like manner in the Pan-Angle federation neither Great Britain nor the United States will be absorbed in the other. This, Rhodes, who was a student of the American Constitution, should have known.

The men of Massachusetts and New York who, in 1783, advocated federation were not traitors, nor yet unpatriotic, nor, as the events have proved, unwise. For the score and more Americans besides myself whom you expose as conspirators, I need not speak. Most of them I have, unfortunately, never met and I could presume to state the views of none. I can, however, conceive that some of them are moved by a lofty and purposeful patriotism.

You talk much of the influence of “funds.” Of course, you expect no answer to that charge. If I should claim the THE FATHERLAND had been bribed from “Rhodes' Millions” to give publicity to this whole matter, I could not prove it. Could you disprove it? But are your readers to infer from your article that THE FATHERLAND does not understand how men or associations of men or newspapers can believe and act according to principles that have no financial backing? If they do so infer, they do you, I am sure, an injustice. ----(Signed ) SINCLAIR KENNEDY, 1080 Beacon Street, Brookline, Mass. April 5, 1916

*     *     *

Below: British colonies shown in pink reveal the almost complete control from the Cape to Cairo in 1914. It was Rhodes' dream to build a "Cape to Cairo Railway" to facillitate governance, enable the military to move quickly, and foster trade. Germany proved to be a main obstacle until the United Kingdom seized Tanganyika (green) from the Germans as a League of Nations mandate in 1919.

A REPLY TO MR. SINCLAIR KENNEDY

The article to which Mr. Kennedy takes exception did not primarily concern itself with the public will of Cecil Rhodes, but with his secret will of 1877, and to read correctly the ultimate purpose of the maker of the will of 1891 it becomes essential to read it by the light shed upon it by the will of 1877. In my article only an excerpt was printed, but for a better understanding the Rhodes secret will is here printed in full [all caps used for emphasis by Schrader not in the original -cy]

“To and for the establishment, promotion and development of a SECRET SOCIETY, the true aim of which and object whereof shall be the extension of the British rule throughout the world, the perfecting of a system of emigration from the United Kingdom and of colonization of British subjects of all lands where the means of livelihood are attainable by energy, labor and enterprise, and especially the occupation by British settlers of the entire continent of Africa, the Holy Land, the Valley of the Euphrates, the Islands of Cyprus and Candia, the whole of South America and the Islands of the Pacific not heretofore possessed by Great Britain, the whole of the Malay Archipelago, THE ULTIMATE RECOVERY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE; the inauguration of a system of Colonial representation in the Imperial Parliament, which may tend to weld together the disjoined members of the Empire, and finally the foundation of so great a power as to hereafter render wars impossible and promote the best interests of humanity.”

These provisions are explicit. Under the will a sum was set aside as a trust fund for carrying into effect the announced design of “the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an intregral part of the British Empire.”

Seducing American Scholars

Years after, following a conference with the German Emperor in regard to the great railway line that was to bisect the African continent, Rhodes in a state of impulsive enthusiasm at the reception of his plan by the Kaiser, made provision for some Rhodes scholarships for the benefit of German students. He also, as Mr. Kennedy says, added the words quoted by him from Rhodes' American scholarship provisions.

But these are immaterial facts in their bearing on the vital issue with whose public advocacy by men under suspicion of being paid from the secret propaganda fund in our own country we are profoundly concerned, the Tory preachers of the doctrine of “one people, one government, one Capital”—a capital either at Ottawa, London—or alternating in sessions—five years in Washington and five in London. These facts do not lull the suspicion that Rhodes' nominally liberal concessions covered far-reaching plans which could not well be openly avowed. No Englishman ever wavered in his reliance on one article of faith, confidently repeated times innumerable, “Let Germany build warships and acquire colonies. England will take them whenever she chooses.” In that conviction Rhodes threw the sop of a few scholarships to Germany as a compliment to the Emperor and entered into a working agreement with him to extend his African railway scheme.

The mischief implanted in the Rhodes American scholarship scheme was clearly set forth in the Saturday Evening Post of July 13, 1912, wherein the writer says:

“Twenty years hence and forever afterward there will be between two and three thousand men (Rhodes graduates) in the prime of life scattered over the English-speaking world, each of whom will have had impressed upon his mind at the most susceptible period the dreams of A UNION OF OUR PEOPLE.”

Scheme of Anglo-American Plutocracy

Mr. Kennedy's book was brought into the question as a mere side issue. Perhaps unconsciously he confounds his own ideals with those of Cecil Rhodes and asks us to accept his interpretation of the latter's secret purpose. He speaks of “the federation of the seven English-speaking, self-governing white nations. … It does not mean the 'delivering' of one country into the hands of another country.” Now, call it by the milder term of “reunion” or “reclaiming,” the result is the same. We have the interpretation of Whitelaw Reid, of Andrew Carnegie, of Lord Haldane and others, some openly, some surreptitiously, and we must accept as conclusive that evidence which substantiates the avowed purpose of Cecil Rhodes. Mr. Carnegie has gone into print, as I have shown, with his solemn prediction of “the British-American Union.” In the North American Review for June, 1893, he already outlined the process by advocating the subordination of our fiscal policy to that of England's. Hear him:

“I do not shut my eyes to the fact that reunion, bringing free entrance of British products, would cause serious disturbance to many manufacturing interests near the Atlantic Coast which have been built up under the protective tariff system. Judging from my knowledge of the American manufacturers, THERE ARE FEW WHO WOULD NOT GLADLY MAKE THE NECESSARY PECUNIARY SACRIFICES TO BRING ABOUT A REUNION OF THE OLD HOME AND NEW.”

In a like manner Mr. Carnegie spoke at Dundee in 1890, and in the North American Review he explicitly stated: “National patriotism or pride cannot prove a serious obstacle in the way of reunion. … The new nation would dominate the world.”

Backed by the Tories

Mr. Kennedy says it does not mean delivering us over to England, but that Rhodes will distinctly specifies “the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of the British Empire.” Joseph H. Choate publicly proposes “a good old loyal toast to the President and the King,” and Ambassador Page makes our ears ring with the future destiny of “the Anglo-Saxon race” and “God-led Englishmen,” while his predecessor, Mr. Reid, on July 17, 1902, declared in a speech: “The time does visibly draw near when solidarity of race—IF NOT OF GOVERNMENT—is to prevail.” What is the ulterior purpose of Mr. Carnegie's subscription of the enormous sum of $10,000,000 as “a peace fund,” yielding $500,000 annually? To what does it point in the case of a man holding Mr. Carnegie's opinions?

I believe that the difference between Mr. Kennedy's interpretation and that of the evidence of Mr. Rhodes' avowed purpose is material. Mr. Rhodes' American disciples whose statements were quoted by me—Whitelaw Reid, Lord Haldane, Andrew Carnegie, Joseph H. Choate, and others, such as Prof. Usher, Prof. Wm. C. Eliot and Ambassador Page in London, assuredly have not spoken in the altruistic spirit of Mr. Rhodes “to establish a good understanding between Germany, England the United States.”

Mr. Kennedy admits that he is a Pan-Angle, and Pan Anglicism cannot possible embrace Germany in face of the violent attitude of our Tory element. What he understands by civilization is what Thomas Jefferson described as the “bastard liberty” of England, and he declares “this civilization must stand together or be obliterated. I do not wish to be obliterated.”

Unfortunately for Mr. Kennedy's argument, the attempt at obliteration did not emanate from Germany, but from the boasted civilization which is restricted to Russia, to England and France with their hordes of Indian Gurkhas, Zulus, Senegalese, Maoris and Cossacks. The public utterances of our Tories have made it but too plain that the attempt to establish bonds of friendship was accepted as a jest.

The Plot to Impose English “Liberty” on Free Men

Does Mr. Kennedy or any sane man suppose that Mr. Rhodes, so close in his relations with the aristocracy of Great Britain and the throne, seriously intended to depose the royal family and merge the United States and Great Britain into a republic? Such an assumption would land a man in a madhouse.

If Parliament was to convene five years in Washington and five in London, as proposed by Mr. Rhodes, in what political relationship would we be represented in this scheme—AS A REPUBLICAN APPENDAGE TO THE BRITISH MONARCHY WITH NO OBLIGATIONS TO THE CROWN, OR AS A PROVINCE OF GREAT BRITAIN? From any angle that I am able to approach the problem I see nothing but political chaos or national self-obliteration. At best it leaves no alternative except the abolition of the British Crown and the uprooting of the whole system of British aristocracy, or else to abolish the independence of the United States and reduce them to their original state of vassalage to England. In the eyes of Mr. Kennedy and in the eyes of other American writers and speakers, this may be the sub-limitation of American patriotism. But it will astonish him how unpopular this project is outside of New England and New York City. He forgets that this independence was dearly bought from England not by Englishmen alone, but by Germans, Dutch, Irish and Swedes. He overlooks the important fact that the present-day population of the United States is made up of a mixed race only 30 per cent of which is of English blood while 70 per cent is made up of those who refuse to recognize in England the champion of liberty—their liberty, and who will fight to the last ditch against the proposal to merge them with Great Britain under whatever name the attempt may be made. To 70,000,000 American people England is not “the mother country,” and if the agitation which the secret trust fund of Rhodes and the $10,000,000 peace fund of Carnegie are fostering is not high treason to this government, Rhodes and Carnegie have spent their money in vain. ---- FREDERIC FRANKLIN SCHRADER