Political parties choose their 1916 nominees: Hughes and Wilson

Published by carolyn on Mon, 2019-04-15 13:38

Republican Presidential nominee Charles Evans Hughes and his wife (the former Antoinette Carter) campaigning in Winona, Minnesota in August 1916 on the Milwaukee Road's Olympian.

THE VERY ASTUTE FREDERICK F. SCHRADER COVERS the June nominating conventions and subsequent presidential campaign in his weekly "Behind the Scenes" column for THE FATHERLAND. -cy

vol. 4 no. 20    June 21, 1916    Page 8

Behind the Scenes at the Capital

The crushing defeat of Roosevelt at the Chicago convention is here looked upon as the most significant incident of the gathering. Never in American history has there been such a tragedy of fate. Roosevelt's whirlwind campaign was a marvelous feat of endurance and self-confidence. Wherever he went he belched war like the demon of the fable. The earth trembled under his tread and the welkins rang with his speeches at Detroit and St. Louis. For weeks he monopolized public attention, usurping the space daily alloted to war news on the first pages of all the papers. The country heard nothing but Roosevelt. Wm. J. Bryan in his palmiest days of a campaigner was a mere sideshow compared with the only P. T. Barnum of our day. It is estimated that he drew a small fortune out of his bank, staked it all on one card—and lost.

* * * *

What is the meaning to be read in the events of the past week in Chicago? The one thing that stands out beyond all others is the wholesome rebuke and repudiation of the pro-British idea in American politics and the elimination of the chief persons who embodied the doctrine of Knownothingism: Roosevelt—Root—Lodge!

I look for Roosevelt to come out and declare that the German Americans proved their disloyalty to the country by compelling the Republican convention to nominate [Supreme Court] Justice Hughes. [On] the morning of the last day of the convention … the Associated Press described [Roosevelt] as brooding over his impending fate. “He feels keenly,” the dispatch said, “what he characterizes as a failure by the Republicans to come out strongly against the pro-Germans.”

Well, the pro-Germans this time did their share to help put the political hoo-doo on him … but to support a knownothing candidate on a J.P. Morgan platform, made by Lodge and his crowd, was asking a little too much of human nature.


vol. 4 no. 21    June 28, 1916    Page 8

Behind the Scenes at the Capital

Washington, D. C., June 20—The Republican and Democratic conventions over, the field is open for the garners, the reviewers and the political prophets.

Wilson (left), as a Democratic leader remarked to me, ruled the Democratic convention as no boss ever ruled one, and since down in his heart every Democrat of importance feels the deepest resentment against the President, the leaders decided to let him have his way, define the issues, write the platform and give him all the rope he wants. This is not a charitable attitude, but in this case conservatives like Senator Stone, Speaker Clark and others reached the conclusion that rather than give Wilson the excuse of attributing disaster to causes for which they might be held responsible, they would give in and leave him to bear the responsibility of the campaign.

In this manner, my informant continued, Wilson's men succeeded in quelling the pacifist wave that swept over the convention at ex-Gov. Glynn's speech, in forcing the convention to reject the plank expressing sympathy with the Irish Republic, and to adopt the Knownothing plank directed against a mythical group of German Americans who are supposed to be a danger to the country.

When Representative Bennet of New York, some time ago, in the House, called on Attorney-General Gregory to name the German American conspirators, Gregory was unable to answer, for the plain reason that they do not exist. The administration has been pursuing the shrewd policy of fostering the belief that various acts committed by citizens of the German Empire in pursuance of a policy which they regarded as a patriotic duty to their country, were committed by American citizens.

* * * *

Just what is popular sentiment on the question of the President's pro-British policy? I put this question to a veteran political observer who represents a Republican constituency out West with a large sprinkling of German and Swedish Americans. He thought that there was an overwhelming sentiment against Wilson's conduct of foreign affairs. The symptoms of this condition he thought the more remarkable because so far Wilson has had practically the entire American press on his side, more than nine-tenths of the popular writers, all the magazines and more than half of the college professors.


“Michigan defeated its favorite son, Senator Alden Smith, and voted overwhelmingly for Henry Ford, although he refused to let his name be used as a candidate. Nebraska did almost as well by Ford, and in Pennsylvania his strength and that of the anti-British element was great enough to keep Penrose from backing Roosevelt.

* * * *

“The cry that Wilson kept us out of the war is shown up in all its hollow pretext by the proceedings in Congress and by the letter of Senator Stone after his interview with the President. It was the good sense of the American people in the West that kept us out of the war and the timely concessions of Germany on the U-boat controversy.

“Where is the Wilson prosperity? Ask the importers and exporters. Ask the cotton growers. What there is of prosperity is based upon crime and bloodshed. Every dollar is tainted with the blood of a slain soldier or a life cripple, and bedewed with the tears of widows and orphans. Chickens come home to roost, and in the end we shall have to pay dearly for Wilson prosperity.


vol. 5 no. 1    August 9, 1916    Page 8

Behind the Scenes at the Capital

Washington, D. C. August 1—The New York World is regarded as the court organ of the White House. It is said to be the keeper of the conscience of the Administration. It is supposed to know more about the secret thoughts of the President, the State Department and the Secret Service than any other newspaper. It is important to bear this in mind in estimating the significance of an editorial which appeared in that paper a day or two ago in which appears this passage:

“The hundreds of millions that we are voting for defense are the price that we are to pay for security because Germany proved itself a bad neighbor. And while those staggering appropriations are being made, the German vote, in partnership with the Republican organization [party], decrees the defeat of the President of the United States.”

This is the first semi-official intimation that the entire preparedness propaganda is being directed against Germany and proves conclusively that the former campaign of arousing antagonistic sentiment against Germany and German Americans is being revived. The recrudescence of the old spirit of trouble-making indicates, in the opinion of close observers here, a connected movement on the part of the munition makers and political advisers of the Administration to prepare the public mind for a new crisis with Germany to cover our retreat from Mexico and continue the present state of “prosperity” by increased orders for munitions of war.

So far as I can learn, the German American element throughout the United States is by no means unanimously pledged to the Republicans, and almost every German language paper has been for preparedness, under the delusion that it was meant to put the country in readiness for emergencies from any direction.

This emanation from the personal organ of the Administration ought to open the eyes of the public to the truth of what I have repeatedly stated in this column, […] that Germany is to be driven into a position, if possible, to do something that will afford us a cue for war-like action. Three months have gone by since Germany agreed to our terms on the submarine dispute, provided steps would be taken by this government to make the Allies observe the rules of war, but nothing has been done either to break the “ineffective, illegal and indefensible blockade,” or to send Red Cross supplies to the Central Powers, or to more than make a formal reservation against certain decrees of the British council. No attention has been paid to any protests of the Central Powers, and further evidence of unfriendliness has been furnished in the court decision repealing the treaty of 1799 and turning the Appam back to its original English owners.

[…] While even the New York Times has just sounded a note of alarm regarding the danger which threatens us from Japan, the supposed personal organ of the President now drops the mask and begins to harp on the old string that Germany is “a bad neighbor” and that the overburdened taxpayers of the country must be prepared to bear still heavier burdens to defend themselves against Germany. […]

* * * *

As regards the pro-German element and its attitude in the election, I fail to find the unanimity of sentiment in favor of the Republican candidate that the World intimates, even if this element is opposed to Wilson. From what I can learn from members who have their ear close to the ground, if the suspicion grows that men like Roosevelt and Root are to be drawn into close council and appointed to responsible positions in Justice Hughes' cabinet, should Hughes be elected, thousands of them will vote the Socialist ticket rather than vote for either Hughes or Wilson, and let the friends of these two fight it out among themselves.

This increasing tendency to take up Socialism is creating no little alarm among the supporters of the two regular parties. The argument is that if Socialism [meaning modest social programs that today are considered mainstream -cy] has done so much to make Germany efficient, why not try it in the United States? If the Socialist candidate receives some millions of votes it will serve as a significant object lesson. Political students are not misled by the thought that third parties have sooner or later come to grief before ever being able to carry their policies into effect. It is pointed out that the Granger, Greenback, Free Silver and Progressive movements have been conducted on local issues, whereas Socialism is a universal question and has been been idealized in Germany by practical demonstration of its potential benefits.

If it should be able to enlist the support of the solid element that has formed the backbone of the Republican party and has been an element of strength to the Democratic organization in the past, Socialism will become a formidable factor in the future political career of the United States. [...]  -F. F. S.


You appear to be an expert on 20th century Germany. Christopher Jon Bjerknes speaks in depth about Hitler and his rise to power in this podcast. Things I have never heard before, although I'm not a fraction towards his knowledge or yours on this subject.
It's a long podcast, but if you have the time or interest, even to skip through it, is what Bjerknes says true? (It amounts to Hitler being controlled opposition to Bolshevism.)

No, what Christopher Jon Bjerknes says about Hitler being a Bolshevik is NOT TRUE. You should know that without asking. This is why the Internet [especially youtube) is such a cesspool - people like 'Adam Green' put anyone on and those who WANT to believe certain things will willingly accept it.

I wrote and podcasted about Bjerknes a pretty long time ago already. He is half-Jewish and "proud of it." He passes himself off as a scholar, but what he does is lie by omission by only giving part of the story. Very common, and definitely a Jewish tactic.

The whole story about Adolf Hitler upon his return to Munich when he was still attached to the German Army is very simple. He writes about it in Chapter 8 and 9 in Mein Kampf here and here. The communist revolution in Bavaria was underway, and he lived in the Army barracks bc he had no money and no connections to do anything else. He associated with the patriots in the Freikorps but was not active. He was such a persuasive speaker to the other soldiers that the loyalist political wing asked him to give some talks to groups they arranged. They were impressed and he was then sent out to scout political party meetings for them. That is how he went to the meeting of the German Worker's Party. Since the government/military in Bavaria had been taken over by the communist party "Reds" during the short-lived revolution, all soldiers living in the barracks were organized under the communists. It didn't mean anything, really. Hitler always hated communism but he was interested in socialism bc of his sympathy for the despised working class. That's why he combined it with Nationalism ... to win over the working class.

I haven't listened to that 2 hour program, so I don't know all Bjerknes says, but it's probably the same as he's been saying for a long time. One thing is that Magda Goebbels was Jewish (along with many high NS party officials), which is totally false and used in some of those fake books put out by his enemies. When Magda was 10, her mother married a German Jew named Friedlander. He adopted Magda, who had not known her father, and she took on his name. Creeps like Bjerknes use that to claim she was a Jew, knowing that she was not.

Notice the word "jerk" is central to his name.

If you want to bring up a specific question, I'll do my best to answer it.

Thanks for your quick response, Carolyn.
When I see a U.S. military man (usually) in the supermarket, I'll first ask him where/when/what branch in which he served. I then point blank ask him who attacked America on 9-11. (None have ever responded Israel, sadly, by the way.) I have been reading and watching Christopher Bollyn for many years and trust the integrity of his research and claims. So, asking a military man who did 9-11 dosen't mean I don't know. Asking the question as I did above was/is simply the most succinct way to make my message.
There is so much to learn regarding Hilter and the NSDAP, I'm not sure I'll ever master the subject.