skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Per Scriptum E. Wesley - Mackinac Center Intern
"About 6 o'clock things went positively dead; there was not a sound... The road along there is honestly, as a rule, rather infested with bullets: it seemed so strange to walk along it and never hear a whisper of one."
"Even out here there is a time of peace and good will... Last night a select band of officers and men sang carols to them and they did ditto."
"The most extraordinary scenes took place between the trenches."
"The signing and playing continued all night..."
"What a time? 'Peace on earth, goodwill toward men.' It is hardly to be believed, but nevertheless it is quite true that such was the case this Christmas."
On Christmas Eve, 1914, Germans and English alike threw down their arms to begin a spontaneous, yet far reaching, 48 hour truce. Being pushed by politicians and "high command" through muddy trenches and rotting bodies, the privates of both armies were ready to shake hands with their fellow Christians on the other side. One German stated, "But you are of the same religion as us and today is the day of peace!" An English soldier wrote, "They [the Saxon Germans] said they did not want war, and think the Kaiser is quite in the wrong. They were continually falling out with the Prussians - they are the people who are the cause of the war. They hate the English very much indeed." As high command on both sides caught wind of this erratic truce, they immediately gave orders for the lower officers to rein in the men. But the truce continued despite high command. No earthly prince would destroy the peace of Christ represented in this celebration.
Soldiers who had been shooting at one another a day ago, met in the middle and in each other's trenches; trenches that proved impassible to men with bullets. Men sang carols across the lines, the English sang the "Austrian Anthem," while the German bands played back "God save the King!" This Christmas was far from a silent night. Trench upon trench which once refrained the crack of artillery now rung with praises in many languages and one heart. The "humanness" of the day reminded all of better times. Once Enemies, men gave back the old carols that called all men to hearken to the call. Troops feasted together, exchanged trinkets, rations, and cigars, and even played games. Here are some more accounts.
Lance Corporal Cooper of the 2nd Northampton's wrote:
There was no firing on Christmas Day and the Germans were quite friendly with us. They even came over to our trenches and gave us cigars and cigarettes and chocolate and of course we gave them things in return. Just after one o'clock on Christmas morning I was on look-out duty and one of the Germans wished me Good morning and a Merry Christmas. I was never more surprised in my life when daylight came to see them all sitting on top of the trenches waving their hands and singing to us.
Pte B. Calder, of the 6th Gordons D Coy wrote:
We were in the trenches on Christmas Day. We spent a merrier day than we expected. There was a truce to bury our dead. We had a short service over the graves, conducted by our minister and the German one. They read the 23rd Psalm and had a short prayer. I don't think I will ever forget the Christmas Day I spent in the trenches. After the service we were speaking to the Germans and getting souvenirs from them. Fancy shaking hands with the enemy! I suppose you will hardly believe this, but it is the truth.
Pte Alfred Harding, 1st Leicester wrote:
But there are a decent lot of fellows in front of us now - Saxons; they don't like the Prussian Guards. They haven't fired a shot since the day before Christmas, more (nor?) have we. I believe they will surrender. Our trenches are only 80 yards and we meet each other half way. We give them tins of jam for cigars. It seems strange but it is true.
Rifleman J. Reading wrote to his wife:
I hope you all had a merry Christmas; let me tell you how I spent mine. My company happened to be in the firing line on Christmas eve, and it was my turn - with a non-commissioned officer and four others - to go into a ruined house and remain there until 6.30 on Christmas morning. During the early part of the morning the Germans started singing and shouting, all in good English. They shouted out: "Are you the Rifle Brigade; have you a spare bottle; if so we will come half way and you come the other half." At 4 a.m part of their Band played some Christmas carols and "God save the King", and "Home Sweet Home." You could guess our feelings. Later on in the day they came towards us, and our chaps went out to meet them. Of course neither of us had any rifles. I shook hands with some of them, and they gave us cigarettes and cigars. We did not fire that day, and everything was so quiet that it seemed like a dream. We took advantage of the quiet day and brought our dead in.
A Maryport Private wrote:
Christmas in the trenches! What a time? "Peace on earth, goodwill toward men." It is hardly to be believed, but nevertheless it is quite true that such was the case this Christmas. Who can realise it? It will astound everyone who hears about it, which everyone will do in good time. Of course I am speaking about the part of the firing line we are situated in. On Christmas Eve at four p.m. we had orders that unless the "enemy" advanced we were not to fire, and the same applied to Christmas Day. Whether the Germans had the same order or not I don't know but no shot was fired on either side. In Christmas Eve we shouted "Compliments of the Season" to each other, and passed pleasant remarks. We sang the "Austrian Anthem" and they replied with "God save the King." On Christmas Day after service in the trenches, we went halfway and we shook hands, and had a fine crack with them. Quite a number of them speak English. I got one's autograph and he got mine, and I exchanged a button with another, and exchanged cigs and got cigars galore. Altogether we spent a very pleasant two hours with them, and found them a nice lot of fellows. Men, every one of them, and white ones, too. There is heaps more I should like to tell, but I know it would never get passed so it will have to wait.
Private Dixon, 9100, D Company wrote:
At Christmas we got quite friendly with the Germans. There was no firing on both sides for about ten days, and we used to go over the trenches and talk to them and exchange souvenirs, but every one we spoke to that could speak English said they wished it was over. I was surprised when one told me he had a wife in Piccadilly and another said he drove a taxi at Fulham.
A unknown Highland officer wrote:
You need not have pitied us on Christmas day; I have seldom spent a more entertaining one despite the curious conditions. We were in the trenches and the Germans began to make merry on Christmas Eve shouting at us to come out and meet them. They sang songs (very well); our men answered by singing Who were you with last night? and of course, Tipperary (very badly). I was horrified at discovering some of our men had actually gone out imbued more with the idea of seeing the German trenches than anything else; they met halfway and there ensued the giving of cigarettes and receiving of cigars and they arranged (the private soldiers of one army and the private soldiers of the other) a 48 hours armistice. It was all most irregular but the Peninsular and other wars will furnish many such exploits; eventually both sides were induced to their respective trenches but the enemy sang all night and during my watch they played Home Sweet Home and God Save the King at 2.30am. It was rather wonderful: the night was clear, cold and frosty and across to our lines at this unusually miserable hour of need came the sound of such tunes very well played, especially by a man with a cornet who is probably well known. Christmas day was very misty and out came these Germans to wish us “a happy day”; we went out told them we were at war with them and that really they must play the game and pretend to fight; they went back but again attempted to come towards us so we fired over their heads; they fired a shot back to show they understood and the rest of the day passed quietly in this part of the line, but in others a deal of fraternising went on. So there you are; all this talk of hate, all this firing at each other that has raged since the beginning of the war quelled and stayed by the magic of Christmas. Indeed one German said “But you are of the same religion as us and today is the day of peace! It is really a great triumph for the church. It is a great hope for future peace when two great nations hating each other as foes have seldom hated, one side vowing eternal hate and vengeance and setting their venom to music, should on Christmas day and for all that the word implies, lay down their arms, exchange smokes and wish each other happiness.
An officer from the Royal Army Medical Corps wrote:
This has been a strange Christmas. All has been peaceful except for some occasional sniping on our right but none on our front. The most extraordinary scenes took place between the trenches. In front of our bit our men and the Germans got out of their trenches and mixed together talking, exchanging cigarettes etc. Some of our people actually went in to their trenches and stayed for some time being entertained by the enemy! The Colonel and the Adjutant of the 107th Saxon Regiment came out and talked to our people in a very friendly manner. All joined together in a sing-song each side taking it in turns to sing a song and finally they ended up with “God Save the King” in which the Saxons sang most heartily. This is absolutely true. One of our men was given a bottle of wine in which to drink the King’s health. The regiment actually had a football match with the Germans who beat them 3-2. These people said they would not shoot our men but warned them against those on their (Saxons) left. Some men of one of our regiments opposite them then went out of their trenches just as the others had done, but the enemy - now thought to be Prussians - told them to go back and fired on them before they had regained their trenches. The Saxons and our people opposite them have arranged a sing-song for tonight having mutually agreed not to reopen hostilities before midnight. The men in the trenches were singing carols last night. All the chickens in the countryside have been bought up for their Christmas dinner and yesterday I saw a machine gun wagon going through laden with barrels of beer! After all this has been almost a happy though strange Christmas.
Someone from the London Rifle Brigade wrote:
On Christmas Eve, the Germans burned coloured lights and candles along the top of their trenches...
J C Dunn, of the Royal Welsh Fusiliers wrote about the end of the truce:
At 8.30 I fired three shots in the air and put up a flag with "Merry Christmas" on it, and I climbed on the parapet. He [the Germans] put up a sheet with "Thank you" on it, and the German Captain appeared on the parapet. We both bowed and saluted and got down into our respective trenches, and he fired two shots in the air, and the War was on again.
Christmas of 1914 was an island of civility in a sea of destruction. Yet the singing of the men would not have been so audible to us now had they not been carrying arms in the first place. The Christmas of 1914 will be remembered far clearer than many a Christmas amidst a peaceful year, because vast hosts truly gave way to kindness for a time.
Yet with the woes of sin and strife
The world has suffered long;
Beneath the angel strain have rolled
Two thousand years of wrong;
And man, at war with man, hears not
The love-song which they bring;
O hush the noise, ye men of strife
And hear the angels sing.
For lo! the days are hastening on,
By prophet-bards foretold,
When with the ever circling years
Comes round the age of gold;
When peace shall over all the earth
Its ancient splendors fling,
And the whole world send back the song
Which now the angels sing.
Sources:
Image of Christmas_Truce from Wikipedia
http://www.historicaleye.com/xmastruce.html
http://archive.timesonline.co.uk/tol/viewArticle.arc?articleId=ARCHIVE-The_Times-1915-01-01-03-001&pageId=ARCHIVE-The_Times-1915-01-01-03
http://www.christmastruce.co.uk/letters.html
http://www.christmastruce.co.uk/beds.html
http://www.christmastruce.co.uk/bucks.html
http://www.christmastruce.co.uk/cumbria.html
http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/i/t/itcameup.htm
Per Scriptum E. Wesley - Mackinac Center Intern
On December 15, 1791, Virginia approved ten of the twelve amendments in the Bill of Rights, giving the Bill of Rights the two-thirds majority needed for ratification. They read as follows [emphasis added]:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Amendment VII
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Sources:
Image of Bill of Rights from Wikipedia
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history.do?action=Article&id=7112
Per Scriptum E. Wesley - Mackinac Center Intern
In 1931, the sun never set on the British Empire. At the petition of Canada, Ireland, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand, the British parliament passed a resolution that virtually emancipated the requesting provincial parliaments. For all its glories and failures, the Empire's time had practically come to an end. Confederacy would soon take the place of empire.
As a document, the Statute of Westminster 1931, calling for provincial parliamentary sovereignty, is in keeping with the larger British tradition, and exemplifies the English expansive style to the fullest when proclaiming liberty. Unlike the American experience, the British tradition of liberty has always centered on a king or queen. Liberty, whether inherently due to all citizens or bestowed as a special gift or exemption, comes down from God, through the blessing of the king, and finally disseminated to the receiving citizenry. However obscure the crown becomes in real political proceedings, it has always been the figurative mouthpiece for the rights and liberties for the people. The Statute's preamble almost reads like a royal proclamation,
"Whereas the delegates of His Majesty’s Governments in the United Kingdom, the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, the Irish Free State and Newfoundland, at Imperial Conferences holden at Westminster in the years of our Lord nineteen hundred and twenty-six and nineteen hundred and thirty did concur in making the declarations and resolutions set forth in the Reports of the said Conferences:" (Westminster).
The imagery gets bolder. Solidifying provincial autonomy by following the old tradition of liberty, the Statute continues,
And whereas it is meet and proper to set out by way of preamble to this Act that, inasmuch as the Crown is the symbol of the free association of the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and as they are united by a common allegiance to the Crown, it would be in accord with the established constitutional position of all the members of the Commonwealth in relation to one another that any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom: (ibid).
Liberty is a right, and English rights have always been granted by the king. The above declaration is literally intended to be a royal "seal" on independence. Although these sentiments seem authoritative to the American ear, the British intent is just the opposite.
Parliament will not interfere with the parliaments of Canada, Ireland, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand without their respective consents, "no law hereafter made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall extend to any of the said Dominions as part of the law of that Dominion otherwise than at the request and with the consent of that Dominion." In other words, the legislative bands of the British Empire only apply to these provinces insofar as the respective parliaments ratify them. The Statute closes with an affirmation that the previous individual requests for this act have been answered positively. Practically, these provinces are now countries, but not according to the American example. Emancipation has come down as a right to the province. This is why Britain immediately following this resolution in 1931 was a confederacy, with power resting with the provinces but being expressed as a whole.
Sources:
Image of Westminster Abbey from Wikipedia
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=1081723
Gamble, Richard. Liberty in the Western Tradition. Northwood University. Griswold Lecture Hall, Midland, MI. 28 October 2010. Guest Lecture.
Per Scriptum E. Wesley - Mackinac Center Intern
In light of the probable future of Spanish military intervention in Central and South America to reclaim its newly emancipated colonies, Great Britain offered America an interesting proposition. British Foreign Minister George Canning recommended that the United States and Great Britain jointly issue a declaration forbidding any other powers in Europe from reinstating or expanding their influence in the Americas. On December 2nd of 1823, U.S. President James Monroe responded during his address to Congress with an emphatic rejection of such an alliance, and in what has since become known as the Monroe Doctrine, pledged that the United States would treat all attempts of any renewed European influence in the American continents with impartial hostility.
Indeed, Americans of the early 19th century were seeing two sides of the same coin. After all, Unites States had concluded the War of 1812 (1812-15) less than nine years previously (otherwise known as the American War for Independence: Part 2). The ideals of Thomas Paine which held in contempt British colonialism in America were still fresh in the minds of many Americans who now bore scares for this experiment in liberty. Liberty could not survive if it relied on political support from a mother country 3,000 miles away. George Washington had warned in his Farewell Address of 1796: "It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it." However, Washington was not prohibiting free trade with Europe; on the contrary "the great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible" (ibid). America's business with the world was business, or as President Coolidge put it, "the chief business of the American people is business. They are profoundly concerned with producing, buying, selling, investing and prospering in the world." What Washington feared was that tieing oneself to the political situations of Europe would drag the new United States into "primary interests" and "frequent controversies" which were "essentially foreign to our concerns." Colonialism, mercantilism, and growth of empire were three European ideals which ran opposite to early American systems of commerce and individual and state liberty. Military alliances with Europe would inevitably bring these three monsters to the surface of international agreements; just like it had done in 1815 throughout Europe with the Congress of Vienna's conclusion of the Napoleonic wars. In 1823, Monroe didn't have the luxury of risking British intentions for a complete expulsion of Spanish and Russian threats to the Americas. In keeping with Washington's vision for America, Monroe begins his bold declaration:
At the proposal of the Russian Imperial Government, made through the minister of the Emperor residing here, a full power and instructions have been transmitted to the minister of the United States at St. Petersburg to arrange by amicable negotiation the respective rights and interests of the two nations on the northwest coast of this continent. A similar proposal has been made by His Imperial Majesty to the Government of Great Britain, which has likewise been acceded to. The Government of the United States has been desirous by this friendly proceeding of manifesting the great value which they have invariably attached to the friendship of the Emperor and their solicitude to cultivate the best understanding with his Government. In the discussions to which this interest has given rise and in the arrangements by which they may terminate the occasion has been judged proper for asserting, as a principle in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved, that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers...
But why should the United States be the spokesman for two continents? Some would argue that this is in itself a demonstration of American imperialism. One must remember that the Monroe Doctrine was a response to international intervention, not an initiation of power. Europe, not America, was presently pushing into the continents, with Russia coming down from Alaska, Spain responding to South American emancipation, and Britain antagonistically offering to "save" liberty from the clutches of colonialism. Being so thrust in the international scene, Monroe responded in broad terms:
It was stated at the commencement of the last session that a great effort was then making in Spain and Portugal to improve the condition of the people of those countries, and that it appeared to be conducted with extraordinary moderation. It need scarcely be remarked that the results have been so far very different from what was then anticipated. Of events in that quarter of the globe, with which we have so much intercourse and from which we derive our origin, we have always been anxious and interested spectators. The citizens of the United States cherish sentiments the most friendly in favor of the liberty and happiness of their fellow-men on that side of the Atlantic. In the wars of the European powers in matters relating to themselves we have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy to do so. It is only when our rights are invaded or seriously menaced that we resent injuries or make preparation for our defense. With the movements in this hemisphere we are of necessity more immediately connected, and by causes which must be obvious to all enlightened and impartial observers. The political system of the allied powers is essentially different in this respect from that of America. This difference proceeds from that which exists in their respective Governments; and to the defense of our own, which has been achieved by the loss of so much blood and treasure, and matured by the wisdom of their most enlightened citizens, and under which we have enjoyed unexampled felicity, this whole nation is devoted. We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered and shall not interfere. But with the Governments who have declared their independence and maintain it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration and on just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European power in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States. In the war between those new Governments and Spain we declared our neutrality at the time of their recognition, and to this we have adhered, and shall continue to adhere, provided no change shall occur which, in the judgment of the competent authorities of this Government, shall make a corresponding change on the part of the United States indispensable to their security.
Monroe clearly indicated that the Doctrine was not about political gain for the United States, and declares that "with the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered and shall not interfere." Only those nations who have already rightfully secured liberty for themselves will be defended against foreign molestation. Why? Because they, having seen the United States as an example of rightful resistance against the shackles of Europe, endured such sacrifice to make men free. Monroe is willing to protect liberty in the immediate vicinity from the old grasp of European colonialism, but not to expand liberty. Long term expansion of liberty requires that a nation admires the principles of freedom, and as such, no superpower can force them into lasting freedom. Furthermore, Monroe seems to imply that left alone, the South American nations would not chose the European, colonial systems:
The late events in Spain and Portugal shew that Europe is still unsettled. Of this important fact no stronger proof can be adduced than that the allied powers should have thought it proper, on any principle satisfactory to themselves, to have interposed by force in the internal concerns of Spain. To what extent such interposition may be carried, on the same principle, is a question in which all independent powers whose governments differ from theirs are interested, even those most remote, and surely none of them more so than the United States. Our policy in regard to Europe, which was adopted at an early stage of the wars which have so long agitated that quarter of the globe, nevertheless remains the same, which is, not to interfere in the internal concerns of any of its powers; to consider the government de facto as the legitimate government for us; to cultivate friendly relations with it, and to preserve those relations by a frank, firm, and manly policy, meeting in all instances the just claims of every power, submitting to injuries from none. But in regard to those continents circumstances are eminently and conspicuously different.
It is impossible that the allied powers should extend their political system to any portion of either continent without endangering our peace and happiness; nor can anyone believe that our southern brethren, if left to themselves, would adopt it of their own accord. It is equally impossible, therefore, that we should behold such interposition in any form with indifference. If we look to the comparative strength and resources of Spain and those new Governments, and their distance from each other, it must be obvious that she can never subdue them. It is still the true policy of the United States to leave the parties to themselves, in hope that other powers will pursue the same course...
All told, the Monroe Doctrine is reminiscent of Washington's farewell address. It was an assessment of the European "political system," and how it ought not to be reinstated in the Americas where democratic republicanism existed (patterned after the U.S.). Monroe was speaking after two wars with Britain for U.S. liberty and to an entirely unstable Europe after the Napoleonic wars. Europe was the addressee; not Central and South America. Throughout the entire 19th century, Europe was extending imperialism, mercantilism, and colonialism, and it was time that the United States partitioned off itself and its neighbors from the doom of the rest of the world. The Monroe Doctrine ought to be understood as harkening back to Washington's principles and the old Common Sense ideals of anti-colonialism. Much like the constitution today, the Monroe Doctrine became subjected to new interpretations such as by Manifest Destiny and President Theodore Roosevelt's Corollary. Monroe himself must not be blamed for these problems. The Monroe Doctrine was a solution to a nagging problem from a particular time, and yet contained those ideal American truths of anti-colonialism, free trade, and a separate spheres of influence.
Sources:
Image of James Monroe from Wikipedia
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/monroe.asp
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/jd/16321.htm
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/nr/14319.htm
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=old&doc=15&page=transcript
http://www.victorianweb.org/history/forpol/vienna.html
http://www.calvin-coolidge.org/html/the_press_under_a_free_governm.html
