Stockton Axson to Colonel House
Title
Creator
Identifier
Date
Source
Text
THE AMERICAN RED CROSS
Paris,October 26th, 1918.
I think you know me too well to suspect that I should intrude on your attention, in these tremendous times, any extraneous matter unless I believed it to be of prime importance. There is a situation between the War Department and the American Red Cross which is growing critical, and which is so unnecessary that I am throwing myself on your generosity and sagacity for a word of advice -- as to what you think ought to be done in the premises.
The crisis, if it is a "crisis", has been precipitated by the refusal of the War Department to incorporate a limited number of Red Cross field officers in the United States Sanitary Corps, in order that they may perform their work more effectively, a provision voluntarily suggested by General Pershing, in fact ordered by him, and approved by General Ireland in terms as enthusiastic as any Red Cross official could have employed. The disapproval of the measure comes as a shock, because it was understood that the Secretary of War, before he left France, had become convinced that this action should be taken. I myself heard General Ireland report his final interview with the Secretary and summarize a cable message which the Secretary had concluded to send to America, an unqualified endorsement of the plan "“ which plan, by the way, is equivalent to that which many other governments adopt. His subsequent reconsideration and disapproval have produced an unhappy effect.
Unfortunately, this is only the latest chapter in a long series of events which show too plainly that the Secretary does not sympathize with the motives and purposes of the Red Cross "“ and this is the more marked because it is in striking contrast to the attitude of the Secretary of the Navy. Mr. Daniels is as encouraging as Mr. Baker is discouraging.
I myself like to think that Mr. Baker's attitude is merely negative, a failure to grasp the full significance and importance of organized voluntary relief, a failure similar to that of some previous heads of the Depratment, and even of President Lincoln himself when the United States Sanitary Commission was first proposed to him "“ though he soon grew to see, to appreciate, and to approve its useful finctions. It would not be strange if Mr. Baker, overwhelmed with his vast responsibilities, had failed to give the matter enough attention to understand it fully. But even though his position is only negative, it is having as much effect, and as mischievous effect, as if it were positive opposition, and I fear that this factor is going to be farreaching unless he can be brought to another way of thinking.
If his motive is to make the Army self-sufficient, independent of volunteer assistance, he is proceeding on too narrow a theory. Over against such a position, there is the practive of the past sixty years of civilization (for Red Cross grew out of modern civilization's attempt to render the sufferings of war less barbarous), there is the generous and active cooperation of the Secretary of the Navy, the eager endorsement of United States Army surgeons all through the theatres of war and their constatn demands for additional Red Cross aid, the cordial, dazzling approval of American Red Cross by the French and Italian governments, the hearty cooperation of the British government with the British Red Cross, and finally the will and desire of the American people to express their participation in their own war through their Red Cross. No one can travel in America for ten months, as I have traveled on Red Cross errands, without coming to realize that it would be a terrible shock to the people, of all social strata, of all religious sects, and of all political persuasions, to be informed that their day-in-and-day-out efforts to reach their soldiers through their Red Cross were unimportant and unnecessary. Yet the Red Cross officials are made to feel that they have to fight at every step to bring the American people's assistance to the American Army. It is an unhappy situation, and as unnecessary as it is unhappy. If I could help it in any way, I should be a proud and grateful person. Hence my application to you for advice.
The situation exists, not in fancy, but in fact. Jesse Jones feels it as keenly as does Mr. Davison, and I myself as keenly as either. On the eve of entering Red Cross service, I followed the President's advice and sought interviews with both the secretaries. Mr. Daniels was so perceptive of the true need and function of Red Cross, so illuminating in his interpretation of its practical necessity and its inestimable value as a link between the people and their armed forces, that the memory of the interview has inspired and helped me in all my subsequent efforts to be of some service to Red Cross and coutry. Mr. Baker, on the other hand, while most courteous, was so "detached", so obviously uninterested, so negative (even his praise of Red Cross was in terms of negation), that I left his office disappointed and depressed. I recovered my spirits when I concluded that his attitude was more personal to me than to Red Cross, that I was not a person of sufficient impotance to engage his acute attention, and I say truly that until recently I have been loyal to that interpretation, not in the least "hurt" (these things are too big to give us time or space to nurse our little personal chagrins), refoicing in the Secretary's vindication before the country, in the magnificent accomplishment of the Department under his direction, and constantly believing that time and events would bring him and Red Cross into full harmony of motive and purpose. It seemed to me better, after my one experience, to let others represent Red Cross to him, but always when Jesse Jones or others have expressed their discouragements I have prognosticated a better day, and eagerly seized on even the little signs that pointed that way. But at last I am compelled, against my will, to see that the Secretary is not friendly to Red Cross, and has never been, and gives little evidence that he will ever be.
The Red Cross has done nothing to incur his unfriendliness. All the responsible representatives have been careful to make it clear at all times that Red Cross is merely an emergency aid to the Army, at no point superseding the Army, but standing ready to aid when the Army authorities should command or request. I have yet to meet an American man or woman who assumes that Red Cross aid is a criticism of Army efficiency. The spirit which brought international Red Cross into existence is so modern and widespread that all modern people seem to understand the basic principle of Red Cross "“ namely, that in the great emergency and disaster of war, voluntary aid is always necessary, and that the organization of that voluntary aid is the best method of making it effective. The position that this aid is unnecessary is quite indefensible, both historically and in view of the experiences of this war. American Red Cross has met thousands of emergencies, major and minor, in this war, of which, I am sure, Mr. Baker knows nothing, of which I believe he, as a patriotic American, would be proud if he knew them. The splendor of the American spirit is in the Army, in Red Cross, in Y.M.C.A., and in all the other American agencies at work over here in this great debacle.
It seems to us that Mr. Baker fails to see that clear distinction which we conceive between Red Cross and other organizations, such as the Y.M.C.A. Speaking for myself, and I believe for the great mass of Red Cross workers, there is no jealousy of Y.M.C.A., rather a gratification at its fine accomplishment, and a good speed to its future endeavors. But we do conceive that Red Cross created by international convention and by Congressional charter, is peculiarly the people's agent for doing the substantial work of emergency relief. In doing this work Red Cross does not seek glory. It seeks merely an opportunity to do this work unimpeded and fruitfully. It wants to help save the lives of American soldiers without having to fight all the time for an opportunity. Visiting hospitals and "fronts" now, getting reports from incoming transports of the ravages of influenza (it is heartrending to hear of the wholesale sea burials), makes one feel that this is not a time to stand on officialdom, but to reach out and take hold on all intelligent trained effort which can assist "“ and that is the sort of effort which Red Cross offers.
I am such a believer in the vast and far reaching consequences of "attitudes of mind" that I am earnestly desirous that there may be no unnecessary strains and lesions among loyal, intelligent, farseeing Americans. At a time when the intelligence and the conscience of mankind should be united in a great cause, I am anxious to see all true Americans lined up behind the Administration.Even a little stay in Europe impresses one (or at any rate this is my experience) with an oppressive sense of the much that must be done to have Europe get conclusively the American vision, to persuade Europe that there are larger issues in this war than punishing the Boche and making special alliances to humiliate him in the future. The world community, of which the President has given us the vision, will surely need all the pressure of combined intelligent opinion in America. I find so much of this in Red Cross. I hear, for example, Mr. Davison say, in public and private, things about the future which show that his mind is in close accord with the President's mind, things in striking and disconcerting contrast to things which I hear, also in public and private, from representative Europeans, who merely "see red", and want nothing but to "brush Germany", and as for the future "“ that's as it may be.
I want to see the best intelligence of America in a solid block behind the President in his great foreign policy, however much individuals may continue to differ on domestic policies at the polls. I know Mr. Davison, and I think I know a great many other Red Cross leaders, and I know that they have not been thinking and planning politics, and I am so anxious that there shall not grow up any needless differences with the Administration. Though I am writing this letter without Mr. Davison's knowledge, I believe he would subscribe to what I have just said. I know that all that he desires is to make the great American Red Cross useful. I don't want to see all of that spoiled. It seems lamentable that when America is trying to bring the world into unity there should be any useless seeds of discord planted at home.
It has been my dream from the beginning of my association with Red Cross that it might be a great organized non-partisan agency working to establish among the peoples of our country a solid basis of informed opinion in support of the great vision and purpose of the President "“ a great non-partisan mass supporting a great non-partisan principle, the only principle by which the world can be saved. With all my energy, and with whatever ability I could command, I have sought to spread the President's doctrine while talking about the things that belong more concretely to Red Cross. The mere attempt has been inspiring.
Pardon this very long letter, but can you give me a word of adcive?With all best wishes for your health and the prosperity of your great and important work,
Yours very sincerely,(Sgd) Stocton Azson
Col. E. M. House
78 rue de la University,Paris.
Original Format
To
Files
