Opposition to the War Message: Thoughts from Robert M. La Follette & George W. Norris

History becomes alive when one realizes that the more things change, the more they seem to stay the same. Generations come and go, and in betwixt they struggle, they live, they love, they hate, they fight and they die . . . and then the cycle starts over with each new generation.

German philosopher, Arthur Schopenhauer, chalked this cycle up, metaphysically, to a "general" or "universal" Will--Wille der Gattung--Will of the species or genus: The individual dies, the body and intellect perish, but being--the Will--does not. The Will persists and endlessly renews itself through the species by reproduction, heredity, and sexual instinct. Hence, the more things change (technology, etc.), the more they stay the same (human nature).

Readers may agree with Schopenhauer or not. It doesn't matter. The point is to think about the general repetition of human traits through time and space, which is a segue to this post.

President Woodrow Wilson, desiring to enter WWI, delivered his pitch for war to a joint session of the United States Congress on April 2, 1917. Below is a salient and famous part of his speech:

The world must be made safe for democracy. Its peace must be planted upon the tested foundations of political liberty. We have no selfish ends to serve. We desire no conquest, no dominion. We seek no indemnities for ourselves, no material compensation for the sacrifices we shall freely make. We are but one of the champions of the rights of mankind.

Two Senators, responding to Wilson's call to use war to make the world safe for democracy, clapped back at the President in fairly lengthy speeches. The excerpts of said speeches in this post are both interesting within the context of the times and timeless in that it would not be hard to imagine Senators making the same speeches today.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

August Glen-James, editor

Speech by Senator Robert M. La Follette of Wisconsin—excerpt—

Just a word of comment more upon one of the points in the President’s address. He says that this is a war “for the things which we have always carried nearest to our hearts—for democracy, for the right of those who submit to authority to have a voice in their own government.” In many places throughout 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 our support; but in this same connection, and strangely enough, the President says that we have become convinced that the German government as it now exists—“Prussian autocracy” he calls it—can never maintain friendly relations with us. His expression is that “Prussian autocracy was not and could never be our friend,” and repeatedly throughout the address the suggestion is made that if the German people would overturn their government, it would probably be the way to peace.  So true is this that the dispatches from London all hailed the message of the President as sounding the death knell of Germany’s government.

But the President proposes alliance with Great Britain,* which, however liberty-loving its people, is a hereditary monarchy, with a hereditary ruler, with a hereditary House of Lords, with a hereditary landed system, with a limited and restricted suffrage for one class and a multiplied suffrage power for another, and with grinding industrial conditions for all the wageworkers. The President has not suggested that we make our support of Great Britain conditional 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 be contended that if Russia was still an autocratic government, we would not be asked to enter this alliance with her just the same.

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

Is it not a remarkable democracy which leagues itself with allies already far overmatching in strength the German nation and holds out to such beleaguered nation the hope of peace only at the price of giving up their government? I am not taking now of the merits or demerits of any government, but I am speaking of a profession of democracy that is linked in action with the most brutal and domineering use of autocratic power. Are the people of this country being so well-represented in this war movement that we need to go abroad to give other people control of their governments?

Speech by Senator George W. Norris of Nebraska–excerpt–

While I am most emphatically and sincerely opposed to taking any step that will force our country into the useless and senseless war now being waged in Europe, yet, if this resolution passes, I shall not permit my feeling of opposition to its passage to interfere in any way with my duty either as a senator or as a citizen in bringing success and victory to American arms. I am bitterly opposed to my country entering the war, but if, notwithstanding my opposition, we do enter it, all of my energy and all of my power will be behind our flag in carrying it on to victory.

Record, 65 Cong., 1 Sess., pp. 212-214, 223-236. Reprinted in The Annals of America, Vol. 14.

*It is an interesting but not well-known fact of history that England's King George V was the 1st cousin of both Wilhelm II of Germany and Nicholas II of Russia. Wilhelm II and Nicholas II were also cousins, but more distant than 1st cousins (some sources indicate they were 3rd cousins).

**At this time (1917) the horrors of the "democracy" in Russia were still a few years away.