5. Lafollette.antiwar Speech

of 11 Anti-War Speech

Subject: Progressive Era (1900-1920), World War IAnti-War Speech

Robert M. Lafollette

DOI: 10.1093/acref/9780199794188.013.0118

Abstract and Keywords

The decision of the United States to go to war in 1917 was not unanimous.The war resolution in support of President Wilson’s request for a declarationof war against Germany passed the senate 82–6 and passed the house373 to 50, with nine representatives not voting. While these would havebeen healthy margins for a normal piece of legislation, the votes revealeda significant degree of anti-war sentiment in congress and in the nationat large. Senator Robert LaFollette (1855–1925) of Minnesota, a championof progressive reform, was the most out-spoken critic of the rush towar. On April 4, 1917, LaFollette delivered a long speech to the senatein opposition to the war resolution, challenging point by point Wilson’sargument in support of war with Germany. While LaFollette’s efforts failedto prevent American entry into the First World War, he continued to criticizeWilson’s war policies and became a symbol of opposition to Americanintervention in foreign wars.Source: “Old Bob” LaFollette’s Historic U. S.Senate Speech Against the Entry of the United States into the World War,Madison Wisconsin, The Progressive Publishing Co., 1937), 1–30.

Document:

MR. PRESIDENT, I had supposed until recently that it was the duty ofsenators and representatives in congress to vote and act according to theirconvictions on all public matters that came before them for considerationand decision.

Quite another doctrine has recently been promulgated by certainnewspapers, which unfortunately seems to have found considerable supportelsewhere, and that is the doctrine of “standing back of the president,”without inquiring whether the president is right or wrong.

For myself I have never subscribed to that doctrine and never shall. I shallsupport the president in the measures he proposes when I believe themto be right. I shall oppose measures proposed by the president when I


believe them to be wrong. The fact that the matter which the presidentsubmits for consideration is of the greatest Importance is only an additionalreason why we should be sure that we are right and not to be swerved fromthat conviction or intimidated in its expression by any influence of powerwhatsoever.

If it is important for us to speak and vote our convictions in matters ofinternal policy, though we may unfortunately be in disagreement withthe president, it is infinitely more important for us to speak and vote ourconvictions when the question is one of peace or war, certain to involve thelives and fortunes of many of our people and, it may be, the destiny of all ofthem and of the civilized world as well.

If, unhappily, on such momentous questions the most patient research andconscientious consideration we could give to them leave us In disagreementwith the president, I know of no course to take except to oppose, regretfullybut not the less firmly, the demands of the executive.

On the 2d of this month the president addressed a communication to thesenate and the house in which he advised that the congress declare waragainst Germany and that this government “assert all its powers and employall its resources to bring the government of the German empire to terms andend the war.”

In his message of April 2 the president says:

“I was for a little while unable to believe that such things (referring toGerman submarine methods of warfare) would in fact be done by anygovernment that had heretofore subscribed to the humane practices ofcivilized nations. International law had its origin in the attempt to set upsome law which would be respected and observed upon the sea, where nonation had right of dominion and where lay the free highways of the world.By painful stage after stage has that law been built up with meager enoughresults indeed, after all was accomplished that could be accomplished,but always with a clear view at least of what the heart and conscience ofmankind demanded.”

The recognition of the president that Germany had always heretoforesubscribed to the humane practices of civilized nations is a most importantstatement. Does it not suggest a question as to why it is that Germany hasdeparted from those practices in the present war?


What the president had so admirably stated about international law and thepainful stage by which it has been builded up is absolutely true. But in thisconnection would it not be well to say also that it was England, not Germany,who refused to obey the declaration of London, which represented the mosthumane ideas and was the best statement of the rules of international law asapplied to naval warfare? Keep that in mind.

Would it not have been fair to say, and to keep in mind, that Germanyoffered to cease absolutely from the use of submarines in what wecharacterized an unlawful manner if England would cease from equallypalpable and cruel violations of international law in her conduct of navalwarfare?

The president in his message of April 2 says:

“The present German warfare against commerce is a warfare againstmankind. It is a war against all nations.”

Again referring to Germany’s warfare he says:

“There has been no discrimination. The challenge is to all mankind.”

Is it not a little peculiar that if Germany’s warfare is against all nations theUnited States is the only nation that regards it necessary to declare war onthat account?

If it is true, as the president says, that “there has been no discrimination,”that Germany has treated every neutral as she has treated us, is it notpeculiar that no other of the great nations of the earth seem to regardGermany’s conduct in this war as a cause for entering into it?

Are we the only nation jealous of our rights? Are we the only nation insistingupon the protection of our citizens? Does not the strict neutrality maintainedon the part of all the other nations of the earth suggest that possibly thereis a reason for their action, and that that reason is that Germany’s conductunder the circumstances does not merit from any nation which is determinedto preserve its neutrality a declaration of war?

Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Denmark, Spain, and all thegreat Republics of South America are quite as interested in this subject aswe are, and yet they have refused to join with us in a combination againstGermany. I venture to suggest also that the nations named, and probablyothers, have a somewhat better right to be heard than we, for by refusing to


sell war material and munitions to any of the belligerents they have placedthemselves in a position where the suspicion which attaches to us of a desirefor war profits can not attach to them.

On Aug. 4, 1914, the Republic of Brazil declared the exportation of warmaterial from Brazilian ports to any of these powers at war to be strictlyforbidden, whether such exports be under the Brazilian flag or that of anyother country.

In that connection I note the following dispatch from Buenos Aires appearingin the Washington papers of yesterday:

“President Wilson’s war address was received here with interest, but noparticular enthusiasm. * * * Government officials and politicians haveadopted a cold shoulder toward the United States policy—an attitudeapparently based on apprehension lest South American interests suffer.

The newspaper Razon’s view was illustrative of this. “Does not the UnitedStates consider this an opportune time to consolidate the imperialistic policyeverywhere north of Panama?” It said.

This is the question that neutral nations the world over are asking. Are weseizing upon this war to consolidate and extend our imperialistic policy?

We complain also because Mexico has turned the cold shoulder to us, andare wont to look for sinister reasons for her attitude. Is it any wonder that sheshould also turn the cold shoulder when she sees us unite with Great Britain,an empire founded upon her conquests and subjugation of weaker nations?

There is no doubt that the sympathy of Norway, Sweden, and other countriesclose to the scene of war is already with Germany. It is apparent that theyview with alarm the entrance into the European struggle of the stranger fromacross the sea.

It is suggested by some that our entrance into the war will shorten it. It is myfirm belief, based upon such information as I have, that our entrance into thewar will not only prolong it, but that it will vastly extend areas by drawing inother nations.

In his message of April 2, the president said:


“We have no quarrel with the German people—it was not upon their impulsethat their government acted in entering this war; it was not with theirprevious knowledge or approval.”

Again he says:

“We are, let me say again, sincere friends of the German people and shalldesire nothing so much as the early reestablishment of intimate relations ofmutual advantage between us.”

At least, the German people, then, are not outlaws. What is the thing thepresident asks us to do to these German people of whom he speaks so highlyand whose sincere friend he declares us to be?

Here is what he declares we shall do in this war. We shall undertake, he says—

“The utmost practicable cooperation in council and action with thegovernments now at war with Germany, and as an incident to that, theextension to those governments of the most liberal financial credits in orderthat our resources may, so far as possible, be added to theirs.”

“Practical cooperation!” Practicable cooperation with England and her alliesin starving to death the old men and women, the children, the sick andmaimed of Germany. The thing we are asked to do is the thing I have stated.

It is idle to talk of a war upon a government only. We are leagued in thiswar, or it is the president’s proposition that we shall be so leagued, with thehereditary enemies of Germany. Any war with Germany, or any other countryfor that matter, would be bad enough, but there are not words strong enoughto voice my protest against the proposed combination with the entente allies.

When we cooperate with those governments we indorse their methods,we endorse the violations of international law by Great Britain, we endorsethe shameful methods of warfare against which we have again and againprotested in this war; we endorse her purpose to wreak upon the Germanpeople the animosities which for years her people have been taught tocherish against Germany; finally when the end comes, whatever it may be,we find ourselves in cooperation with our ally. Great Britain, and if we cannotresist now the pressure she is exerting to carry us into the war, how can wehope to resist, then, the thousandfold greater pressure she will exert to bendus to her purposes and compel compliance with her demands?


We do not know what they are. We do not know what is in the minds ofthose who have made the compact, but we are to subscribe to it. We areirrevocably, by our votes here, to marry ourselves to a non divorcableproposition veiled from us now. Once enlisted, once in the co-partnership, wewill be carried through with the purposes, whatever they may be, of whichwe know nothing.

Sir, if we are to enter upon this war in the manner the president demands, letus throw pretense to the winds, let us be honest, let us admit that this is aruthless war against not only Germany’s army and her navy but against hercivilian population as well, and frankly state that the purpose of Germany’shereditary European enemies has become our purpose.

Again, the president says, “we are about to accept the gauge of battle withthis natural foe of liberty and shall, if necessary, spend the whole force of thenation to check and nullify its pretensions and its power.”

That much, at least, is clear; that program is definite. The whole force andpower of this nation if necessary, is to be used to bring victory to the ententeallies, and to us as their ally in this war.

Remember, that not yet has the “whole force” of one of the warringnations been used. Countless millions are suffering from want andprivation; countless other millions are dead and rotting on foreignbattlefields; countless other millions are crippled and maimed, blinded, anddismembered; upon all and upon their children’s children for generations tocome has been laid a burden of debt which must be worked out in povertyand suffering, but the “whole force” of no one of the warring nations hasyet been expended; but our “whole force” shall be expended, so says thepresident, so far as he can pledge us, to make this fair, free, and happy landof ours the same shambles and bottomless pit of horror that we can see inEurope today.

Just a word of comment more upon one of the points in the president’saddress. He says that this is a war “for the things we have always carriednearest to our hearts—for democracy, for the right of those who submitto authority to have a voice in their own government.” In many placesthroughout the address is this exalted sentiment given expression.

It is a sentiment peculiarly calculated to appeal to American hearts and,when accompanied by acts consistent with it, is certain to receive oursupport; but in this same connection, and strangely enough, the president


says that we have become convinced that the German government as it nowexists—”Prussian autocracy” he calls it—can never again maintain friendlyrelations with us.

His expression is that “Prussian autocracy was not and could never be ourfriend,” and repeatedly throughout the address the suggestion is made thatif the German people would overturn their government it would probably bethe way to peace. So true is this that the dispatches from London all hailedthe message of the president as sounding the death knell of Germany’sgovernment.

But the president proposes alliance with Great Britain, which, howeverliberty-loving its people, is a hereditary monarchy, with a hereditary landedsystem, with a limited and restricted suffrage for one class and a multipliedsuffrage power for another, and with grinding industrial conditions for all thewageworkers.

The president has not suggested that we make our support of Great Britain’sconditional to her granting home rule to Ireland, or Egypt, or India.

We rejoice in the establishment of a democracy in Russia, but it will hardly becontended that if Russia was still an autocratic government, we would not beasked to enter this alliance with her just the same.

Italy and the lesser powers of Europe, Japan in the Orient; in fact, all ofthe countries with whom we are to enter into alliance, except France andnewly revolutionized Russia, are still of the old order—and will be generallyconceded that no one of them has done as much for its people in the solutionof municipal problems and in securing social and industrial reforms asGermany.

+ + +

Is it not a remarkable democracy which leagues itself with allies alreadyfar overmatching in strength the German nation and holds out to suchbeleaguered nation the hope of peace only at the price of giving uptheir government? I am not talking now of the merits or demerits of anygovernment, but I am speaking of a profession of democracy that is linked inaction with the most brutal and domineering use of autocratic power.

Are the people of this country being so well represented in this warmovement that we need to go abroad to give other people control of their


governments? Will the president and the supporters of the war bill submitit to a vote of the people before the declaration of war goes into effect?Until we are willing to do that, it ill becomes us to offer as an excuse for ourentry into the war the unsupported claim that this war was forced upon theGerman people by their government “without their previous knowledge orapproval.” …

When in the middle of the summer of 1914 the great war broke out in Europeour relations with every one of the unfortunate countries involved werein every way friendly. It is true that many years before we had had somedifferences with France, but they had long since been adjusted, and we felttoward the French people and toward the Government of France, like oursrepublican in form, nothing but sincere and disinterested friendship.

With England the situation was a little different. We had fought two bloodywars with England—one to obtain our independence as a people, and laterthe War of 1812, with theaccuses and consequences of which we are allfamiliar. But the ties of race and language and long commercial associationhad taught us to forget much in British conduct and diplomacy which wehave felt was wrong and unfair in her dealings with us and with othercountries.

With Germany likewise our relations were friendly. Many hundred ofthousands of the subjects of Germany had emigrated to this country, andthey and their descendants had shown themselves to be in every way mostworthy and desirable citizens. The great Civil war which saved the Unionwas successful largely through the services rendered by Germans, both asofficers and as men serving in the ranks.

The German people, either in this country or in the fatherland, need notribute from me or from anyone else. In whatever land they have lived, theyhave left a record of courage, loyalty, honesty, and high ideals second to nopeople which ever inhabited this earth since the dawn of history.

If the German people are less likely to be swept off their feet in the presentcrisis than some other nationalities, it is due to two facts.

In the first place, they have a livelier appreciation of what war means thanhas the average American, and, in the second place, German speaking andreading people have had an opportunity to get both sides of the presentcontroversy, which no one could possibly have who has depended for hisinformation solely on papers printed in English and English publications.


I have said that with the causes of the present war we have nothing todo. That is true. We certainly are not responsible for it. It originated fromcauses beyond the sphere of our influence and outside the realm of ourresponsibility. It is not inadmissible, however, to say that no responsiblenarrator of the events which have led up to this greatest of all wars has failedto hold that the government of each country engaged in it is at fault for it.

For my own part, I believe that this war, like nearly all ethers, originatedin the selfish ambition and cruel greed of a comparatively few men ineach government who saw in war an opportunity for profit and power forthemselves, and who were wholly indifferent to the awful suffering they knewthat war would bring to the masses.

The German people had been taught to believe that sooner or later war wasinevitable with England and France and probably Russia allied against her.It is unfortunately true that there was much in the secret diplomacy of theyears immediately preceding the war in 1914 to afford foundation for suchbelief.

The secret treaty between France and England for the partition of Morocco,while making a public treaty with Germany, the terms of which werediametrically opposite to those of the secret treaty, did much to arousethe suspicion and hostility of the German people toward both France andEngland. …

At this point, sir, I say with all deference but with the absolute certaintyof conviction, that the present adminstration made a fatal mistake, and ifwar comes to this country with Germany for the present causes it will bedue wholly to that mistake. The pressent administration has assumed andacted upon the policy that it could enforce to the very letter of the law theprinciples of international law against one belligerent and relax them as tothe other.

That thing no nation can do without losing its character as a neutral nationand without losing the rights that go with strict and absolute neutrality. …

Jefferson asserted that we could not permit one warring nation to curtail ourneutral rights if we were not ready to allow her enemy the same privileges,and that any other course entailed the sacrifice our our neutrality.

That is the sensible, that is the logical position. No neutrality could everhave commanded respect if it was not based on that equitable and just


proposition; and we from early in the war threw our neutrality to the windsby permitting England to make a mockery of it to her advantage against herchief enemy.

Then we expect to say to the enemy, “You have got to respect my rightsas a neutral.” What is the answer? I say Germany has been patient withus. Standing strictly on her rights, her answer would be, “Maintain yourneutrality; treat these other governments warring against me as you treatme if you want your neutral rights respected.” …

Had the plain principle of international law announced by Jefferson beenfollowed by us, we would not be called on today to declare war upon any ofthe belligerents. The failure to treat the belligerent nations of Europe alike,the failure to reject the unlawful “war zones” of both Germany and GreatBritain, is wholly accountable for our present dilemma.

We should not seek to hide our blunder behind the smoke of battle, toinflame the mind of our people by half truths into the frenzy of war, in orderthat they may never appreciate the real cause of it until it is too late. I do notbelieve that our national honor is served by such a course. The right way isthe honorable way.

One alternative is to admit our initial blunder to enforce our rights againstGreat Britain as we have enforced our rights against Germany: demand thatboth those nations shall respect our neutral rights upon the high seas to theletters and give notice that we will enforce those rights from that time forthagainst both belligerents and then live up to that notice.

The other alternative is to withdraw our commerce from both. The meresuggestion that food supplies would be withheld from both sides impartiallywould compel belligerents to observe the principle of freedom of the seas forneutral commerce.

Review

1) According to Senator Lafollette, why does President Wilson wantthe United States to declare war on Germany?2) What arguments does LaFollette make against going to war withGermany?3) How does LaFollette does LaFollette characterize the Germanpeople in the United States and in Germany? Why might LaFollette


think so highly of the German people? What does he fear willhappen if America goes to war with Germany?

5. Lafollette.antiwar Speech

Documents

Transcript of 5. Lafollette.antiwar Speech