Autograph of Andrew Carnegie

An authentic autograph of Andrew Carnegie on a letter handwritten by him. The piece features one original page bearing the signature of the renowned industrialist and philanthropist, complemented by photocopies of the remaining pages to preserve the integrity of the historical document. The letter is protected with museum glass, ensuring reliable preservation while emphasizing its collectible value. Accompanied by a certificate of authenticity.

Andrew Carnegie writes in support of arbitration in international relations: “To banish the ‘murder of man by man’ — war.” In response to an editorial published in the New-York Tribune on February 5, Carnegie wrote this letter on February 8 following his winter visit to Cumberland Island, Georgia. The Tribune printed Carnegie’s letter in its February 12 issue. As this letter demonstrates, Carnegie was a passionate advocate for international peace and sought to abolish war in the twentieth century, just as slavery — another relic of barbarism — had been abolished in the nineteenth century. The nationalism expressed by the New-York Tribune contributed to the outbreak of World War I, while Carnegie’s views helped inspire the creation of the League of Nations after World War I and the United Nations after World War II.

ANDREW CARNEGIE, Autograph Letter Signed to the editor of the New-York Tribune, February 8, 1907, Cumberland Island, Georgia. Written in pencil; includes Carnegie’s deletions and insertions made during composition. 5 pages, 8" x 10.5". Expected folds; light toning.

Text of the letter:

Cumberland Island, Georgia

February 8, 1907

Editor of the Tribune,

Your editorial of the 6th on “The New Internationalism” truly appears, as you suggest, “ungracious and discourteous,” and to many it will seem entirely inappropriate. That two of the subjects proposed by two hundred and forty members of Parliament are likely to be considered at the forthcoming Hague Conference does not discredit the parliamentarians. Their endorsement of these subjects was timely and will not be without consequence.

The greatest issue is arbitration for the settlement of international disputes, which you say is “in some cases undoubtedly commendable,” yet you are clearly not prepared to admit that it is desirable in all cases. I hear for the first time that anyone doubts the desirability of the peaceful settlement of an international dispute. It is regrettable that in some instances this has proven impossible.

You state: “There are questions which no self-respecting nation can or should submit to foreign arbitration.” Surely all questions may now be submitted. Chile and Argentina have agreed to do so and are erecting a statue to the “Prince of Peace” upon the highest summit of the Andes to commemorate this triumph of Peace. Denmark and the Netherlands, I read, have done the same. Norway and Sweden — except that the former has recently gained separate existence — stipulated that questions involving integrity or vital interests would not be considered. Yet whether such matters are involved should be determined by the Hague Tribunal. No objection can be raised against this form. A great step forward is achieved through general arbitration treaties, even if this class of questions is excluded. They seldom arise.

You say that “when a nation is absolutely convinced of the justice of its claims in a matter touching its integrity or honor, it seems improper to ask it to submit its dispute,” etc. Have there been many wars in which both sides were not convinced of the “justice of their claims”? Take the Crimean War; in that case Lord Salisbury declared that Britain had backed the wrong horse. During the American War of Independence, Britain was certain it was right, yet today it sees that it was mistaken. Both France and Germany claimed to be in the right.

Your position is that nations should sit as judges in their own causes. Nations, however, are only aggregates of individuals. Even you, Mr. Editor, are not permitted to judge your own case — neither your “integrity” nor your honor. As an individual, you are an advocate of arbitration and submit your case — even what you might call “your honor” — to a tribunal; yet on the national level you remain a barbarian who refuses to submit differences to disinterested parties. Under the laws of your country, you are “disgraced” if you attempt to take the settlement of disputes into your own hands. You are entirely willing to rely upon a tribunal regarding your own honor, but not the honor of your country — this seems inconsistent.

Two branches of our race have settled by arbitration every dispute that has arisen for nearly a century, with every prospect of continuing to do so. Almost every possible kind of dispute has arisen, even those concerning territorial possessions that have caused most wars between nations. Such questions at once became matters of “honor” and territorial integrity.

The prestige which has always attended the Tribune was earned by the great editor who championed the abolition of slavery — the ownership of man by man — one of the two principal curses that have disgraced our civilization. The other remains “War.” Would that today’s Tribune, with all its power and prestige, stood in the vanguard of the forces now determined to make every effort to banish the “murder of man by man” — war.

Respectfully yours,

Andrew Carnegie