Yet, England struggled with its success in paying off its debt; it looked, with great disdain, upon its ever-hated neighbor, still in debt to the United States. "England thought only of herself," Smith wrote, "and her prestige when she undertook to begin payment of her debt to us - a financial gesture without parallel in history." While it was clear that Smith was grateful for England's eagerness to repay America, and the American taxpayers by turn, it was also evident that he understood this gesture to be what it was - a political declaration of strength and sovereignty by England, pointed directly at France. Smith perceived a less than subtle snubbing of France by its companion, and wondered if, indeed, the Americans should fall prey to the demands of the lobbyists in English media to expect the same from the French as the British provided.

Smith reflected, in his amateur letter to the editor, a special understanding of the modern western world. His hesitation to buy into the British media's demands was two fold: first, based on the ability of France, second, based on the actual place of America to make demands upon France. "American opinion was thus led to conclude that because England had settled for full payment, devastated France and Italy could as easily do the same, which is distinctly not true."

At the same time, England and France had different levels of indebtedness to the United States that were not based upon expenditures in war effort, but were instead historical. The Revolution still lived brightly in the national consciousness as recent history; much as, for many Americans in the South, the Civil War remains theoretically recent.

Until this last war we have never had an opportunity to requite the good turn France did us in our War of Independence. No Englishman...

And France helped us in a peculiarly generous manner which ahs never been fully realized by our people and which we have far not imitated." In that light, the American patriots felt a disarming lack of association with the British; this contrasted starkly with the popular sentiment for the French government, who had come to the aid of America in its time of need.
The letter to the editor that appeared on this day received special status for its intellectual adaptation of civil truths - indebtedness to France, historical barriers with England, and the aftermath of the war as it imprinted not only social and political changes but also new international dimensions. While all of this was important to the editor then, whose dominion placed it directly under the masthead for mass attention, its significance to history is found beneath the meaning and inside the words. Addressing the efforts of France that made American liberty possible, Smith wrote, "She did not so much lend us money as spend it in our behalf." These pronouns, simple as they seemed then, provide understanding now to future generations, shedding light on a time gone by when nations were not just people and states were not just land. They were one and the same, a motherland and fatherland, powerful enough to launch war and fight. In those days, we had a nation, and she was the reason for battle; the right to war was not so cut and dry on economic issues and political theology. The editor of the Times understood that Smith's Letter to the Editor was significant, yielding it not just front-page status on January 24th, but a lasting historical relevance.

Basis for Favoring France." Letter to the Editor. New York Times. December 24, 1924. Page 1. (From PROQUEST Historical Newspapers)