NAHA Header


American Press Opinion and Norwegian Independence, 1905 *
    by Terje I. Leiren (Volume 27: Page 224)

*This article is an expanded version of a paper read at the Southwestern Social Science Convention in San Antonio, Texas, on March 27, 1975. The author wishes to thank Professors Irby C. Nichols, Jr., and Gordon D. Healey of North Texas State University for their helpful criticism and constant support.

The year 1905 lacked nothing in surprises and portentous events either for contemporaries or for subsequent generations. The Russo-Japanese War and the resulting Russian Revolution which dominated the press served as the first acts of an even greater sequence of events in the next decade. Theodore Roosevelt, President of the United States, brought the warring nations to the peace table; for his role in concluding the Treaty of Portsmouth the wielder of the big stick was dubbed "Angel of Peace” by the press and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize the following year. While the eyes of the world anxiously viewed events in Asia and eastern Europe, there occurred in the northwestern corner of the European continent an event with its own logic as the small country of Norway dissolved its union with Sweden and entered the family of nations as a fully independent country. {1}

On June 7 the Norwegian Storting (Parliament) passed a resolution declaring the throne of Norway vacant. By this action Oscar II, King of Sweden-Norway and grandson of Napoleon’s former Marshall Jean Baptiste Bernadotte, was deposed. It had been Bernadotte who had forced the union ninety-one years earlier. The dissolution, hailed by Norwegians with overwhelming enthusiasm, appeared as a leading story in newspapers across the United States. {2} Fascination with events in Norway, however, was not limited to reporting the dissolution; the American press also analyzed the significance of the course of events. Despite voluminous literature on the disunion, no study of press opinion in the United States has appeared. This essay, therefore, attempts an evaluation of examples of American reaction to the Norwegian-Swedish separation in order to gain a better understanding of what Americans thought of the emergence of a newly independent country on the Scandinavian peninsula. Specifically, what did the American press regard as most significant in the disunion, and how did it react to the debate over Norway’s future form of government? How did it view the Norwegian decision to remain a monarchy in November, 1905, and what did it think of the new king, Haakon VII?

Viewing Norwegians as generally liberal and democratic, the American press predicated its observations on stereotyped attitudes toward Scandinavians. The "fourth estate” frequently pointed to the high quality and industrious nature of Norwegian immigrants to the United States. Herbert Casson’s comment was typical. In Munsey’s Magazine, he lauded Norwegians for making "no trouble.” He added, "There is not a Scandinavian slum in any American city. . . . In morality and in intelligence they rank with the best of us.” A writer for Everybody’s Magazine saw Norwegians as "more liberal, more democratic [than Swedes], as is natural in a land of mountaineers, sailors, and fishermen.” The Atlanta Constitution maintained that a "passionate love of freedom” ran in Norwegian veins, whereas the New York Times, emphasizing the affinity between Americans and Scandinavians, declared that "no American can fail to know that they [the Scandinavians] contain . . . the very best material for American citizenship.” The disunion, therefore, received the attention of the American press, despite Norway’s geographical position and small-power status. The initial reaction was one of surprise. The New York Tribune speculated that this reaction was due to the fact that Norwegians were not "a noisy people,” but that they seemed to be "off the beaten track.” {3}

Though Norwegians had long voiced disaffection with Sweden, the immediate cause that moved the Storting to sever the union was Norway’s desire to establish a separate consular service. Norwegians and Swedes were divided by basic economic and commercial differences. Sweden supported a tariff to protect her manufacturing and agricultural interests, while Norway advocated a free-trade policy to foster her fishing and merchant marine. Responsive to the antipathy toward the joint consular service, the Storting on March 6, 1905, had passed a law creating a separate Norwegian consular service by a vote of 100 to 17. King Oscar, however, vetoed the measure on May 27, thereby denouncing the principle of separation. Christian Michelsen, Norwegian prime minister, moved quickly and his cabinet resigned to force the Swedish king’s hand. When the Bernadotte monarch ruefully admitted that he could not form a new government, the Storting declared the union dissolved because he already had abdicated his constitutional responsibility. {4}

The American press reacted quickly to the steps taken by the Norwegian parliament, describing them as "revolutionary.” The New York Times called the action a "coup d’etat,” whereas the Review of Reviews voiced the qualified opinion that it was "the most methodical and businesslike of revolutions.” Norwegians, however, rejected the epithet "revolution” and insisted that they had abided by the Constitution of 1814. A Norwegian writing in the North American Review maintained that the break was not revolutionary, insisting that the term was "incorrect and misleading. . . a willful or ignorant misuse of language.” That the Norwegian government held a similar view is indicated by a letter from Christian Hauge, the Norwegian chargé d’affaires ad interim in Washington, to Elihu Root, the newly appointed secretary of state, on July 12: "It is not a case of a new state springing up into existence, nor has there been any splitting up of or separating from any sovereign entity.” {5}

Revolution or not, the press recognized the Norwegian action as unique. On June lithe St. Louis Post-Dispatch contrasted the dethronement of Oscar to the more traditional manner of removing monarchs: "In England and France they chopped off their king’s heads with all due brutality of ceremony. In Servia they butchered king and queen alike. They do things much better in Christiania [Oslo]. If royalty can be on and off as easily as matrimony, revolution may soon become as popular as divorce.” Though not alone in likening the dissolution to a divorce, the St. Louis paper took the opportunity to poke some provincial fun at its midwestern neighbor, Chicago. The severing of ties "could not have been done with nicer taste and in better spirit if it had been a routine case in a Chicago divorce court.” While also alluding to a "divorce for incompatibility of temper,” the New York Times feared that the disunion was "a grave political mistake,” the result of too many Norwegian politicians playing the role of demagogue. Undoubtedly remembering the Civil War forty years earlier, the Times declared that "a more prefect union” for Scandinavia, including Denmark, was preferable to separation. Given New York’s large Norwegian population, opposition to such criticism of disunion was inevitable. On June 11 the Times published a letter from a "Norwegian” who objected to its "imperialistic” proposals. {6}

While the eastern and midwestern newspapers debated the issue, William Randolph Hearst’s San Francisco Examiner, with its reputation for radicalism and sensationalism, became the protagonist of Norwegian independence. Included on its editorial pages were clever ethnic poems by William Kirk which were faintly reminiscent of Finley Peter Dunne’s Mr. Dooley. One such poem entitled "The Norsk Nightingale” appeared on July 18:

My country, it ban of yu
Sveet land of Wiking crew,
Of yu Ay seng.
Norway, yu can’t ban ruled -
By Oscar yu ant fooled,
And not by Maester Gould -
No sir, by ying. {7}

American editors not only disagreed on the principle of Norwegian separation, but they also feared it could precipitate war. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch argued that Norway would have broken away long before had it not been for fear of Russia, but with the war and revolution in the Tsar’s realm, that attitude had changed. The Literary Digest echoed the anxiety of the Neue Freie Presse of Vienna by conjuring up for its readers images of rejoicing leaders in St. Petersburg. Nonetheless, the press soon realized that Tsar Nicholas II was in no position to intervene in Norway, even if he wanted to. Some editors, however, seemed obsessed by the need for a bête noir; because they could not cast Nicholas in this role, they turned to Wilhelm II. The great fear in Norway and the United States was that separation would lead to a war with Sweden, but that threat was more imaginary than real. King Oscar had sent his assurances to Christiania that Sweden would not mobilize, and Social Democrats, expressing sympathy with Norwegian workers, announced that they would not respond if called. The Hearst newspapers applauded the decision, saying "nothing could be finer.” The ambivalence of the Examiner is evident, however, for on June 11 it proclaimed that the Norwegians were ready to answer the call to arms; two days later, however, it expressed disappointment over increasing tensions and the prospect for war. {8}

In retrospect, it appears that ignorance of Scandinavian attitudes and affairs played a major role in editorial speculation. Indeed, Miss A. G. Nickelsen, a native of Drammen, Norway, and superintendent of the reading room in the Smithsonian Institution since 1889, observed in a Washington Post article of August 13 that Norway was a popular topic of conversation in Washington. She commented that she was "surprised at the little that is generally known concerning the people.” Those who were well informed, such as Bjørnstjerne Bjørnson, the author of Norway’s national anthem, insisted that the affair could be settled without fighting. Many Norwegian Americans concurred and thought that the American government should do more to preserve peace and support the Norwegian cause. Roosevelt, however, adopted a policy of neutrality and refused to recognize Norwegian independence until Sweden had done so. Most American newspapers supported his stance, despite the well-organized minority clamor for recognition of Norway. Petitions and letters flowed into Washington from most major cities. From Chicago a petition bearing 20,000 signatures was sent by prominent Norwegian Americans. The Norwegian-born Senator Jonathan P. Dolliver of Iowa urged Roosevelt to recognize Norwegian independence immediately. A Norwegian visitor to Chicago expressed the concern of most of his countrymen when he assured the editor of the Tribune that "the opinion of the President is. . . of the greatest importance to Norway in the present situation.” {9}

Though the campaign among Norwegian Americans for recognition of an independent Norway was unsuccessful, it stimulated patriotic passions for the native land. On June 18, 1905, a Carnegie Hall concert featured fifty students of the Choral Union of Norway. The Sunday afternoon gathering displayed "hundreds of miniature flags of the new Norway,” but it was the singing of the Norwegian national anthem that most affected the audience. A newspaper reported: "The stirring melody cast a spell over the audience which was broken only when the students, waving their white caps, withdrew from the rostrum amid a vociferous demonstration. Then a man in an orchestra seat sprang to the platform and proposed three times three cheers for an independent Norway. And didn’t the audience whoop!” {10}

Equally stirred by Norwegian patriotism was Knud Lawrence ("Larry”) Knudson of Chicago. Known as the "wealthiest office building chief janitor of the city,” Knudson announced he would have the flag of Norway tattooed on his chest. According to Knudson: "In all history, all mythology, all the doings of things Norway has always led, but Sweden got the honor. Now we are going to change it, and after this when you dig for a Norwegian you’ll find one, and not a Swede. Yes, I’m going to have myself tattooed to mark this event forever. . . . There are many expert tattooers in Chicago, but I know how to do it myself. It will require about seven weeks’ work.” While the outcome of Knudson’s enthusiasm is not recorded, it remains indicative of the emotionalism Norway’s independence inspired in the United States. {11}

Reacting to lobbying activities, the New York Times severely criticized those who tried to influence the government in favor of Norway. It looked with special disfavor on the activities of Norwegian Americans, stating:

"Norwegians naturalized in this country have ceased to be politically Norwegians. If they had legitimate complaints, the editorial continued, these should be set forth in a bill of particulars, a "declaration of independence.” Some weeks later, however, the Times affected a judicious tone, advising its readers to defer to tile knowledge possessed by the President and conceding that the United States should not take a "decisive course” in the dispute. The Chicago Tribune also urged Americans to "remain quiescent and watch in silence.” {12}

The possibility of recognition by the United States was greatly enhanced when a plebiscite, held August 13, showed nearly unanimous Norwegian support for the dissolution. Of 368,392 votes, only 184 were negative. Commenting on the result of this vote, Calvin Thomas, a professor at Columbia University, claimed that Norway was "in a state of patriotic eruption more interesting to the seasoned traveller than even its fjords and glaciers.” In any case, the Stockholm government correctly interpreted the Norwegian mood and agreed to negotiations resulting in the Treaty of Karlstad of September 23, 1905, which specified the details of separation. The American press, relieved that war had been averted, hailed the news as a second Treaty of Portsmouth. The Nation congratulated the Scandinavians for setting the world a "good example in settling their differences peacefully.” The Atlantic Monthly concurred and praised the agreement’s portent for international arbitration. {13}

None described the situation as enthusiastically as the Reverend Thomas B. Gregory, who claimed that it signaled the coming of the "millennium”: "The protocol just signed between Norway and Sweden is the most encouraging piece of political business that has been transacted since the foundation of human society. Since the signing of that protocol my hopes for the future of the race have gone up several points. It is the biggest boost that the optimistically inclined have received for many, many centuries. It really begins to look now as though the millennium . . . [is] at last actually moving our way.” {14}

As the Treaty of Karlstad intensified the debate between monarchists and republicans, the form of government to be established in Norway became a major issue in the American press. The official position in Norway was, of course, monarchist. Prime Minister Michelsen had no intention of seeing his country become republican. To do so, he reasoned, would require a constitutional change. Repeating this view, Chargé Christian Hauge assured Elihu Root that Norway must remain a monarchy. "The form of government,” he declared, "has by the recent events undergone no change, but remains a kingdom. . . and a constitutional monarchy.” According to Hauge, there was no "question of altering the constitution of the country.” {15}

It probably was this conviction that had caused the Storting on June 7 to request a Bernadotte prince for the Norwegian throne, if he would relinquish any right to become king of Sweden. This polite gesture - characterized by the New York Times as "comic opera” - indicated that the Norwegian government realized that the success of its action depended on the support of the monarchies of Europe. Britain’s King Edward VII thought a republic would be most unfortunate. When his son-in-law, Denmark’s Prince Carl, was approached to assume the throne, Edward urged him to "go to Norway as soon as possible to prevent some one else taking your place.” {16}

The fact that the throne was vacant was most responsible for speculation in the American press about Norway’s form of government. The Review of Reviews argued that the failure to find a Scandinavian prince willing to take the throne made chances for a republic "exceedingly bright.” The Literary Digest, in reviewing the world press, presented the issue as "Norway’s Quandary.” But quandary or not, the American press made no secret of its preference for a republic, a bias which undoubtedly stemmed from the American experience. Alexis de Tocqueville had reported the American romance with republicanism as early as 1831, calling the dogma a "faith.” It was not only faith in the common sense of human beings, but also an abiding belief in the perfectibility of human institutions. {17}

The form of government chosen by Norway obviously would not depend upon American sentiment, but upon political realities as Norwegians perceived them. By late August, 1905, official negotiations for the selection of a king had committed Norway to a monarchy. If the commitment were to be nullified, that action would be considered a "slap in the face of England, Denmark, and all Europe.” The republican tradition in America nonetheless impelled newspapers there to maintain a fairly consistent pro-republican position. The New York Times, always equivocal and occasionally skeptical of Norwegian trends, had noted in mid-July that the lack of republican talk in Norway indicated that monarchy had never been "intolerably oppressive.” Calvin Thomas thought that Norwegians favored a republic, but believed that a change in the constitution would lead to civil strife. It is doubtful, however, that most Americans followed Thomas’ lead and gave thought to the delicate constitutional question. Fewer still understood it. To them and to the domestic press, the issue seemed to be more a struggle between the old and the new, the outdated and the modern, and monarchy was outdated. Writing in Cosmopolitan Magazine, Hjalmar Boyesen II, son of the Norwegian-born American scholar, regretted that, since the separation had occurred, Norwegians had not formed a republic, "instead of perpetuating the ancient monarchical system.” But he, like the New York Times, realized that monarchy had never been oppressive in Norway. {18}

Notwithstanding the moderate tone of most American commentators, some writers were anti-monarchical to the point of being antagonistic. In the vanguard was the New York American, which declared: "Deposing a King is always good business. There ought not to be any more Kings, and the chief folly committed by the patriotic Norwegians was in suggesting that a young Prince of the royal house be selected to ascend the throne. Surely this is the time for them to get rid of young and old Princes, of Kings, thrones and hereditary monarchs generally.” Similarly, the Washington Post expressed little sympathy for the Norwegians, because they stubbornly insisted on merely exchanging one king for another. {19}

In the South, the Atlanta Constitution seemed to view the whole affair as a game and refused to take it seriously. On June 12 the paper, supposing that the Norwegians favored a republic, warned that "this would be sure to cause Kaiser Bill to butt in.” Then, on the next day, it began making its tongue-in-cheek nominations for Norway’s chief executive. "If the Norwegians want an A 1 president they will find plenty of good Americanized native material in Minnesota,” the paper suggested. On June 14 a proposal from the Charleston (South Carolina) News and Courier, that Vice-president Charles Fairbanks become King of Norway, prompted the Constitution to ask if he was "Scandihoovian.” On June 18, after it had been announced that William Jennings Bryan would take a world tour, the Atlanta paper suggested he "might feel out the Norwegian people on the proposition of taking on an eligible President.” Even the Republican president was humorously proposed: "If the Norwegians wait four years they may be able to secure Theodore Roosevelt for their throne.” {20}

On the other side of the continent, similar suggestions appeared in the San Francisco Examiner. This Hearst paper in late summer printed its nominations in an article entitled "Norway in Search of a King” and included William Howard Taft, then Secretary of War, former president Grover Cleveland, and Roosevelt himself. The Chicago Tribune, also bitten by the frivolity bug, proposed unemployed (indicted) "insurance kings” in that city . {21}

While some papers took the opportunity to amuse their readers, others gave the situation serious attention. The Independent, a journal inclined toward socialism, quoted the Bible and offered what was probably the most pro-republican writing to appear in print. Mixing fact with opinion, it lamented the fact that Norwegians did not follow American examples and, at the same time, severely criticized American newspapers for failing to take a firmer stand. Since the entire spirit of monarchy had decayed, the Independent argued, Norway ought to become a republic. Why, the journal asked, should a nation maintain a form of government reminiscent of divine right, when all its authority is lost? "Norway,” it reiterated, "needs no kings.” For the Independent, monarchy was "abnormal and injurious . . . a drag on the will of the people.” {22}

On November 12-13, by a vote of 259,563 to 69,264, the people determined that Norway would be a monarchy and called Prince Carl to the throne. Though republicans protested the phrasing of the ballot used in the election - the voters were not asked if they favored a republic, but only if they wanted Carl to be king - the outcome showed overwhelming support for the thirty-three-year-old prince. The new king, born the same year that Oscar II had assumed the throne, took the name Haakon VII and renamed his two-year-old-son Alexander, Olav. (Haakon VI, who died in 1380, had been the last king of an independent Norway.) An editorial in the Chicago Tribune called the choice of names "a little thing, but a gracious and a wise one.” {23}

American reaction to the election revealed that there was no clear consensus. The Atlanta Constitution feared that the plebiscite might turn out to be a mistake, as it would "be a long time between King elections in Norway.” At the same time, the paper recognized that the new king "will have to be a mighty meek and negative sort of a chief executive.” The editors of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, like so many other Americans, discovered republican overtones in the plebiscite: "The election of Prince Charles of Denmark as King of Norway when the issue for Norway was a King against republic is doubly remarkable. While the prince of royalty seems to triumph, it is only because royalty adopted republican principles before risking the test.” {24}

The New York Times expressed surprise that such a democratic country as Norway should be so reluctantly republican. This newspaper, however, did believe that the election itself would limit the new king’s power; it insisted that he could not "assume any Prussian swagger,” because "everybody knows he is King merely by grace of the people of Norway.” The San Francisco Examiner, though disappointed by the election, reminded its readers that liberty and justice were just as possible under a monarchy as under a republic. {25}

Erling Bjørnson, eldest son of Norway’s Nobel Prizewinning author, assured the New York Times that the decision to choose a king rather than a president was merely a matter of "diplomatic convenience.” Be that as it may, the Norwegians saw no reason to apologize. Their new king, who took the motto "Alt for Norge” (Everything for Norway), would in his fifty-two-year reign experience a remarkable growth in popularity. While Europeans might measure Haakon by his extraordinary lineage - grandson of the Danish king, nephew of both the king of Greece and the dowager empress of Russia, and son-in-law of the king of Great Britain -Americans regarded him as a tall, liberal-minded monarch with "republican sentiments.” Everybody’s Magazine pictured him as "a copiously well-related and excellent person,” while Current Literature portrayed him as "one of the most likable and human of men . . . [with] democratic tastes.” The Chautauquan wrote a few years later that "it would be impossible to find a prince better qualified.” {26}

Haakon, for various reasons, favorably impressed the American newspapers. True, Norway opted for monarchy, but the king and his family could be presented as just plain folks. The syndicated columnist Marquise de Fontenoy did just that by identifying Queen Maud, Haakon’s wife, as the princess called "Harry” by her relatives and by affirming that she mixed with people as though she were "a young girl of ordinary station in life.” What better way to promote a democratic, if not a republican, spirit in Norway than by giving Haakon’s queen the qualities the American press associated with Alice Roosevelt, the President’s popular daughter? {27}

The dogmatic Independent, however, remained unconvinced that anything good could result from the November plebiscite. That Haakon was "a liberal-minded chap,” the Independent did not question, but it decried the loss to republicanism signaled by his election. Ruefully, the journal concluded: "So after all is said and done - after the festive time of beer and schnapps - these bitter opponents of royalty, whose Viking forefathers had to have their necks broken by a ruler like Harald Haarfager before they could be made to pull together, they are to have a King, a Seventh Haakon, a Prince of Denmark - Denmark, the ancient usurper of Norway’s independence!” {28}

The great majority of American newspapers and popular magazines, however, did not share the pessimism of the Independent. The American press in general had distrusted Norwegian motives in June, 1905, had supported a republic so long as the issue remained unresolved, and had hailed the election of Haakon VII as "the culmination of a national struggle for independence.” Out of historical evolution and philosophical conviction, Americans, of course, preferred republican institutions, but they never questioned the right of the Norwegians to determine their own destiny nor forgot the role played by Scandinavian immigrants in building the nation. Thus cordial Norwegian-American relations were in no way undermined by Norway’s decision to remain a monarchy. {29}

The New York Times, following the coronation of Haakon in June, 1906, reflected the good will felt by most Americans and best summed up American press opinion at the conclusion of Norway’s fateful year: "From no quarter of the globe can the felicitations which attend the crowning of the new Norwegian King. . . be more sincere and hearty than from these United States. For nowhere so well as in these United States is it known what admirable material for citizenship is formed by the traditions and the training of all Scandinavia. . . . And no country owes so much to the Scandinavian Peninsula as does this continental expanse of North America which we have the happiness to inhabit.” {30}


<1> Contemporary accounts carried a vast amount of information for any American reader who wished to be informed about the disunion. See, for example, the following: Hjalmar Hjorth Boyesen II, "The Crisis in Scandinavia: Benefits Coming from the Split between Norway and Sweden,” in Cosmopolitan Magazine, 39:629-630 (October, 1905); "Norway and Sweden,” in the Outlook, 80:413-415 (June 17, 1905); "Why Norway and Sweden Are at Odds,” in Review of Reviews, 3:208-209 (August, 1904); Harry Seaton Karr, "The Rupture between Norway and Sweden,” in Nineteenth Century and After, 58:539-544 (October, 1905); H. L. Braekstad, "Norway’s Right to Independence,” in North American Review, 181:281-288 (August, 1905); "The Secession of Norway,” in Everybody’s Magazine, 13:42021 (September, 1905); "The Case of Norway,” in the Nation, 81:92-93 (August 3, 1905); Julius Moritzen, "The Rupture between Norway and Sweden,” in the Forum, 37:141-152 (July, 1905); the New York Tribune, June 8, 1905; the Chicago Tribune, June 8, July 15, 1905. Fridtjof Nansen’s Norway and the Union with Sweden (New York, 1905), a book published just prior to the dissolution, provides an invaluable source for understanding the Norwegian point of view. Several general histories help to place the events of 1905 in their historical perspective. See, for example: Karen Larsen, A History of Norway, (Princeton, 1948); Raymond E. Lindgren, Norway-Sweden: Union, Disunion and Scandinavian Integration (Princeton, 1959); Folke Lindherg, Scandinavia in Great Power Politics 1905-1908 (Stockholm, 1957); John Midgaard, A Brief History of Norway (Oslo, 1963); and T. K. Derry, A History of Modern Norway 1814-1972 (New York, 1973).

<2> New York Times, June 8, 1905; St. Louis Post- Dispatch, June 8, 1905; Chicago Tribune, June 8, 1905; San Francisco Examiner, June 8, 1905; Washington Post, June 8, 1905; New York Tribune, June 8, 1905; and Atlanta Constitution, June 8, 1905. I have examined these newspapers as representative of the regional distribution of opinion in the United States. However, I have avoided the inclusion of ethnic newspapers because their views can be taken for granted as supportive of Norway. The interested reader can consult Skandinaven (Chicago), Decorah-Posten (Decorah, Iowa), and Nordisk Tidende (Brooklyn). An excellent survey of the Norwegian-American press may he found in Leola Bergmann’s Americans from Norway, 171-184 (Philadelphia, 1950). See also Juul Dieserud, "Den norske presse i Amerika: En historisk oversigt,” in Nordmands-Forbundet, 5:153-176 (April, 1912).

<3> Herbert N. Casson, "The Scandinavians in America,” in Munsey’s Magazine, 35:618 (August, 1906); "The Secession of Norway,” in Everybody’s Magazine, 13:420 (September, 1905); Atlanta Constitution, June 9, 1905; New York Times, June 23, 1905; Chicago Tribune, June 8, 1905; New York
Tribune, June 18, 1905.

<4> Boyesen, "The Crisis in Scandinavia,” in Cosmopolitan Magazine, 39:629-630 (October, 1905); "The Progress of the World,” in Review of Reviews, 31:528-529 (May, 1905); A Danish Observer, "Why Norway Has Separated from Sweden,” in Review of Reviews, 32:65-66 (July, 1905); Margaret Noble, "Ole Bull As a Patriotic Force,” in Century Magazine, 70:767 (September, 1905). The long-standing disaffection had been expressed twenty-five years earlier in the memoirs of the American professional traveler and diplomat, Bayard Taylor, in his Northern Travel: Summer and Winter Pictures, Sweden, Denmark, and Lapland, 272 (New York, 1880).

<5> Reviews of Reviews, 32:6 (July, 1905); New York Times, June 8, July 15, 1905; A. Maurice Low, "Foreign Affairs,” in the Forum, 37:36 (June, 1905); Karl Staaf, "The Grounds of Sweden’s Protest,” in North American Review, 181 :295 (August, 1905). The most poetic reference came from the New York Tribune, on June 10, 1905, which called the separation "a revolutionary act with Chesterfieldian grace and politeness,” See also "The Week,” in the Nation, 81:133 (August 17, 1905), the Chicago Tribune, June 20, 1905, and H. L. Braekstad, "Norway’s Right to Independence,” in the North American Review, 181:286-287 (August, 1905). An American who concurred was Richard Weightman in his article "Assent to Autonomy of Norway Declared Duty of United States,” in the Chicago Tribune, July 10, 1905. Of interest is Christian Hauge to Secretary of State, July 12, 1905, in United States, House of Representatives, Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, 856 (Washington, 1906, hereafter cited as FRUS).

<6> St. Louis Post-Dispatch, June 11, 1905. See also J. Engh’s letter to the editor, New York Times, August 27, 1905; St. Louis Post-Dispatch, June 11, 1905; New York Times, June 23, 24, July 9, August 27, September 13, 1905. See also a letter to the editor of the New York Times on June 11, 1905. The population of Greater New York in 1905 can only be estimated, but records show that 11,387 Norwegians lived in the city in 1900. In 1910 there were 33,179; of these the ratio of those born in Norway to those born of immigrant parents was about 2:1. These statistics are quoted in A. N. Rygg, Norwegians in New York, 1825-1925, 140-141 (Brooklyn, 1941), and in Knight Hoover, "Norwegians in New York,” in Norwegian-American Studies, 24:221-234 (Northfield, 1970).

<7> William Kirk, "The Norsk Nightingale,” in San Francisco Examiner, July 18, 1905. See also Kirk, "Oscar of Sveden, Tremble Yu!” in the San Francisco Examiner, July 12, 1905.

<8> St. Louis Post-Dispatch, June 8, 1905; "Oscar of Sweden and the Throne of Norway,” in the Literary Digest, 31:56 (July 8, 1905); E. John Solano, "Scandinavia in the Scales of the Future,” in the Living Age, 246:323 (August 5, 1905); San Francisco Examiner, July 7, 14, 21, 29, August 5, 1905. See also Everybody’s Magazine, 13:421 (September, 1905), Chicago Tribune, June 15, 1905; Derry, A History of Modern Norway, 164; San Francisco Examiner, June 11, 13, 1905. The Chicago Tribune on July 19, 1905, published a private letter from Norway to Carl Vernau of La Crosse, Wisconsin, which said that Norwegians were more than ready for war if it came.

<9> Washington Post, August 13, 1905. Miss Nickelsen’s claim to fame also includes her having taught Theodore Roosevelt to ski in 1898 - perhaps the winter before the Spanish-American War. See William Wallace Whitelock, "Norway’s Uncrowned King: A Talk with Bjørnson in Rome,” in the New York Times, August 13, 1905. See also New York Tribune, June 11, 1905; Chicago Tribune, June 11, 1905; St. Louis Post-Dispatch, July 3, 1905; San Francisco Examiner, June 9, 1905; New York Times, June 15, July 1, 1905; and Odd Sverre Løvoll, "The Norwegian Press in North Dakota,” in Norwegian-American Studies, 24:89. Swedish Americans were represented by the press as not having exhibited any comparable activity. At the annual meeting of the Evangelical Lutheran Synod in Stanton, Iowa, however, the representatives (on behalf of 225,000 Swedish Lutherans in America) sent a cablegram of sympathy to Oscar II; New York Times, June 11, 1905. See Chicago Tribune, June 11, 22, 1905.

<10> New York Times, June 19, 1905.

<11> St. Louis Post-Dispatch, June 13, 1905.

<12> New York Times, June 16, August 1, 1905; Chicago Tribune, June 20, 1905.

<13> Calvin Thomas, "The Plebiscite of the Norsemen,” in the Nation, 81:161 (August 24, 1905); San Francisco Examiner, August 14, 15, 1905; Chicago Tribune, August 14, 190.5; Arthur Holmesland, et. al., Norge: En oversikt over landets naturforhold, befolkning, næringsliv, styresett, kulturliv, historie, m. m., 255 (Oslo, 1971); "The Week,” in the Nation, 81:249 (September 28, 1905); "The Peaceful Independence of Norway,” in World’s Work, 11:6808 (November, 1905); "The Progress of the World,” in Review of Reviews, 32:534 (November, 1905); Benjamin F. Trueblood, "The Hague Conference and the Future of Arbitration,” in the Atlantic Monthly, 97:725 (June, 1906).

<14> The Reverend Thomas B. Gregory, "A Real Sign of the Millennium,” in the San Francisco Examiner, October 18, 1905. Also enthusiastic in congratulating the Norwegians for taking "the first great step in advancing to higher civilization” was the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, November 24, 1905.

<15> Hauge to the Secretary of State, July 12, 1905, FRUS, 857. See also John Lund, "The Scandinavian Crisis: Monarchy or Republic,” in the Independent, 59:790 (October 5, 1905).

<16> New York Times, July 26, 1905; Review of Reviews, 32:6-7 (July, 1905); Edward VII to Prince Carl, July 30, 1905, quoted in Sir Sidney Lee, King Edward VII: A Biography, 2:318 (New York, 1927).

<17> Review of Reviews, 32:8 (July, 1905); Literary Digest, 31:256 (August 19, 1905); George Wilson Pierson, Tocqueville and Beaumont in America, 152 (New York, 1938). For the same view, see Frederick J. Turner, "Middle Western Pioneer Democracy,” in Minnesota History Bulletin, 3:396-399 (August, 1920).

<18> Fredrik Wedel-Jarlsberg, quoted in Lindgren, Norway-Sweden, 165. For a brief analysis of republicanism in Norway, see Derry, A History of Modern Norway, 170-171; New York Times, July 15, 1905. See also Julius Moritzen, "The Rupture between Norway and Sweden,” in the Forum, 37:145 (July, 1905); Calvin Thomas, "The Karlstad Convention,” in the Nation, 81:296 (October 12, 1905); Hjalmar Boyesen II, "The Crisis in Scandinavia,” in Cosmopolitan Magazine, 39:630 (October, 1905); St. Louis Post-Dispatch, June 9, 13, 1905.

<19> New York American, June 8, 1905, quoted in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, June 8, 1905; Washington Post, June 11, 1905.

<20> Atlanta Constitution, June 12, 13, 14, 18, 20, 1905.

<21> San Francisco Examiner, August 23, 1905; Chicago Tribune, June 12, 1905.

<22> "Are Kings Out of Fashion?” in the independent, 59:882-883 (October 12, 1905); "A King for Norway,” in the independent, 59:1001 (October 26, 1905).

<23> Chicago Tribune, November 28, 1905; New York Times, June 24, 1905; Holmesland, Norge, 256.

<24> Atlanta Constitution, November 17, 19, 1905; St. Louis Post-Dispatch, November 24, 1905.

<25> New York Times, November 16, 1905; San Francisco Examiner, November 27, 1905.

<26> New York Times, December 31, 1905. In 1930 Haakon VII was called the "nation’s living flag” by Norway’s bishop Eivind Berggrav. The affection which the Norwegians developed for their folkekongen only served to reinforce their belief that they had made the correct choice in 1905. See Magne Skodvin, "Haakon VII: Folkekongen,” in A-Magasinet: Uketillegg til Aftenposten, 24-33 (December 23, 1972); Lindgren, "Norway’s Golden Jubilee,” in the American-Scandinavian Review, 43:237-245 (September, 1955); Lithgow Osborne, "King Haakon VII: In Memoriam,” in American-Scandinavian Scientific Review, 45:337-339 (December, 1957). See also Mary Bronson Hartt, "Haakon VII: The New King of Norway,” in the Outlook, 83:464 (June 23, 1906); Hrolf Wisby, "The New King of Norway,” in Review of Reviews, 32:703 (December, 1905); "The Attractive Personality of Norway’s New King,” in Current Literature, 40:101 (January, 1906); "Haakon VII,” in Everybody’s Magazine, 14:131 (January, 1906); Arthur E. Bester, "Christian X of Denmark, Gustaf V of Sweden, Haakon VII of Norway: Democratic Monarchy,” in the Chautauquan, 69:161 (January, 1913).

<27> Marquise de Fontenoy, "Norway’s New King and His Lineage,” in the Washington Post, October 23, 1905.

<28> Baron de Stampenbourg, "Once More a King of Norway,” in the Independent, 59:1197 (November 23, 1905).

<29> ‘‘Independent Norway,” in the Outlook, 81:882 (December, 1905).

<30> New York Times, June 24, 1906.

<<   Previous Page   |   Next Page   >>

To the Home Page