Appendix B Speech on the Declaration of War Against Germany By the Honorable Robert M. La Follette, Sr., U.S. Senator from Wisconsin, Opposing President Woodrow Wilson’s Request for a Declaration of War from Congress for World War I Introduction

Senator Robert M. La Follette, Sr. (1855–1925) was one of the most courageous U.S. senators in American history. He earned the nickname “Battling Bob” for his vigorous political tactics. He was born in Primrose, Wisconsin, and worked his way through the University of Wisconsin. He became a lawyer and within a year was elected district attorney of Dane County, Wisconsin. Four years later, he was elected to the United States House of Representatives. He was the youngest congressman to be sworn in to the House in 1885.

La Follette was defeated in the election of 1890 and returned home to Wisconsin to practice law in Madison for ten years. He continued to take an active role in Republican Party politics and became the leader of a group which was opposed to the state administration. This particular group became influential enough to elect him governor in 1900. He immediately began to make governmental reforms, which included direct primaries, equalization of taxation, and control of railroad rates. He resigned in 1905 to become one of the United States senators from Wisconsin and was reelected in 1910, 1916, and finally again in 1922.

While in the U.S. Senate, La Follette became the leader of a group of progressive Republicans called the “Insurgents,” and he continued to work for reform legislation. He established everlasting fame, however, as a result of his opposition to President Wilson in regard to the declaration of war for World War I by voting against American entry into that ill-advised and unnecessary war.

Probably the most important provision of the Constitution for the protection of individual liberty is the clause which grants Congress the exclusive power to declare war. The Founders recognized that the executive could not be trusted with the warmaking power, since war always enhanced the power and prestige of that office. The clause granting the exclusive war making power to Congress has been ignored by American presidents for the second half of the twentieth century. Presidents have plotted numerous ways to place pressure on Congress to declare war, such as provoking the enemy to fire the first shot. However, a few courageous and patriotic members of Congress who have understood the Constitution and the reasons for the separation of powers have braved the outrage of the public and the press to oppose the president of the United States regarding his request for a declaration of war.

La Follette not only stood against President Wilson regarding the declaration of war, but he later opposed the United States’s membership in the League of Nations and signing of the Treaty of Versailles. Wilson’s alleged purpose of fighting the war to “make the world safe for democracy”—participating in the “war to end all wars”—instead produced the fraudulent and vindictive Versailles treaty, which virtually made another war in Europe inevitable and set the stage for continuous warfare throughout the twentieth century. This was the prelude to America’s role as world policeman today. Americans who love individual freedom should always revere La Follette for his courageous stands.[1]

The Senate passed the war resolution on April 4, 1917, by a vote of 82 to 6; two days later, the House adopted it by a vote of 373 to 50.[2] President Wilson then proceeded to bring a “reign of terror” down upon American citizens who objected to the war. Not since the excesses of Abraham Lincoln and his administration had there been such violations of the constitutional rights of individuals. The French Revolution had come to America and dissent was to be stamped out.[3] Much of the criticism and dissent related to the fact that this was a war between capitalist countries for a determination of whether Germany or England would be the superior economic force. It was widely recognized that J.P. Morgan and his banking interests were supporting England and thereby making a fortune.[4]

In 1924, La Follette broke with the Republican Party when Calvin Coolidge was nominated for president. A group of Republicans met in Cleveland, Ohio, and formed the Progressive Party. La Follette ran as an Independent candidate for the presidency but carried only the state of Wisconsin. Upon his death in 1925, his son Robert M. La Follette, Jr. was appointed to fill his senate seat and subsequently was elected in 1928 and reelected in 1934 and 1940. Bob La Follette, Jr., continued to lead the Progressives in Wisconsin until 1946, when the party rejoined the Republicans under his leadership. He was finally defeated for renomination in 1946.

The following speech was delivered by Robert M. La Follette, Sr., on the floor of the Senate on April 4, 1917, and forever established him as one of the great U.S. senators of all time.

The Speech

Mr. President, I had supposed until recently that it was the duty of Senators and Representatives in Congress to vote and act according to their convictions on all public matters that came before them for consideration and decision.

Quite another doctrine has recently been promulgated by certain newspapers, which unfortunately seems to have found considerable support elsewhere, 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 shall support the President in the measures he proposes when I believe them to be right. I shall oppose measures proposed by the President when I believe them to be wrong. The fact that the matter which the President submits for consideration is of the greatest importance is only an additional reason why we should be sure that we are right and not to be swerved from that conviction or intimidated in its expression by any influence of power whatsoever. If it is important for us to speak and vote our convictions in matters of internal policy, though we may unfortunately be in disagreement with the President, it is infinitely more important for us to speak and vote our convictions when the question is one of peace or war, certain to involve the lives and fortunes of many of our people and, it may be, the destiny of all of them and of the civilized world as well. If, unhappily, on such momentous questions the most patient research and conscientious consideration we could give to them leave us in disagreement with the President, I know of no course to take except to oppose, regretfully but not the less firmly, the demands of the Executive.

On the second of this month the President addressed a communication to the Senate and House in which he advised that the Congress declare war against Germany and that this Government “assert all its powers and employ all its resources to bring the Government of the German Empire to terms and end the war.”

On February 26, 1917, the President addressed the Senate and the House upon the conditions existing between this Government and the German Empire, and at that time said, “I am not now proposing or contemplating war or any steps that needs lead to it. . . . I request that you will authorize me to supply our merchant ships with defensive arms, should that become necessary, and with the means of using them” against what he characterized as the unlawful attacks of German submarines.

A bill was introduced, and it was attempted to rush it through the closing hours of the last session of Congress, to give the President the powers requested, namely, to arm our merchant ships, and to place upon them guns and gunners from our Navy, to be used against German submarines, and to employ such other instrumentalities and methods as might in his judgment and discretion seem necessary and adequate to protect such vessels. That measure did not pass.

It is common knowledge that the President, acting without authority from Congress, did arm our merchant ships with guns and gunners from our Navy, and sent them into the prohibited “war zone.” At the time the President addressed us on the second of April there was absolutely no change in the conditions between this Government and Germany. The effect of arming merchant ships had not been tested as a defensive measure. Late press reports indicate, however, that the Aztec, a United States armed merchant man, has been sunk in the prohibited zone, whether with mines or a torpedo, I believe, has not been established, so the responsibility for this sinking can not, so far as I know at this time, be placed.

When the request was made by the President on February Twenty-sixth for authority to arm merchant ships, the granting of such authority was opposed by certain Members of the House and by certain Senators, of which I was one. I made at that time a careful investigation of the subject, and became convinced that arming our merchant ships was wholly futile and its only purpose and effect would be to lure our merchantmen to danger, and probably result in the destruction of the vessels and in the loss of the lives of those on board. The representatives of the President on this floor then having that bill in charge saw fit, by methods I do not care to characterize, to prevent my speaking upon the measure and giving to the Senate and to the country such information as I had upon the subject.

Under the circumstances, I did the only thing that seemed practical to me, and that was to give such publicity as I was able through the press to the fact that the proposition to arm merchant ships would be wholly futile, and could only result in loss of the lives and property of our own people, without accomplishing the results intended. I regret to say that the President, according to statements in the public press purporting to emanate from him, and which have never been denied, saw fit to characterize as “willful” the conduct of the Senators who, in obedience to their consciences and their oaths of office, opposed the armed-ship bill, and to charge that in so doing they were not representing the people by whose suffrages they are here. I know of no graver charge that could be made against the official conduct of any Member of this body than that his official action was the result of a “willful”—that is, an unreasoned and perverse—purpose.

Mr. President, many of my colleagues on both sides of this floor have from day to day offered for publication in the RECORD messages and letters received from their constituents. I have received some 15,000 letters and telegrams. They have come from 44 States in the Union. They have been assorted according to whether they speak in criticism or commendation of my course in opposing war.

Assorting the 15,000 letters and telegrams by States in that way, nine out of ten are an unqualified endorsement of my course in opposing war with Germany on the issue presented. . . .

Mr. President, let me make another suggestion. It is this: That a minority in one Congress—mayhap a small minority in one Congress—protesting, exercising the rights which the Constitution confers upon a minority may really be representing the majority opinion of the country, and if, exercising the right that the Constitution gives them, they succeed in defeating for the time being the will of the majority, they are but carrying out what was in the mind of the framers of the Constitution; that you may have from time to time in a legislative body a majority in numbers that really does not represent the principle of democracy; and that if the question could be deferred and carried to the people it would be found that a minority was the real representative of the public opinion. So, Mr. President, it was that they wrote into the Constitution that a President—that one man—may put his judgment against the will of a majority not only in one branch of the Congress but in both branches of the Congress; that he may defeat the measure that they have agreed upon and may set his one single judgment above the majority judgment of the Congress. That seems, when you look at it nakedly, to be in violation of the principle that the majority shall rule; and so it is. Why is that power given? It is one of the checks provided by the wisdom of the fathers to prevent the majority from abusing the power that they chance to have, when they do not reflect the real judgment, the opinion, the will of the majority of the people that constitute the sovereign power of the democracy. . . .

We need not disturb ourselves because of what a minority may do. There is always lodged, and always will be, thank the God above us, power in the people supreme. Sometimes it sleeps, sometimes it seems the sleep of the death; but, sir, the sovereign power of the people never dies. It may be suppressed for a time, it may be misled, be fooled, silenced. I think, Mr. President, that it is being denied expression now. I think there will come a day when it will have expression.

The poor, sir, who are the ones called upon to rot in the trenches, have no organized power, have no press to voice their will upon this question of peace or war; but, oh, Mr. President, at some time they will be heard. I hope and I believe they will be heard in an orderly and a peaceful way. I think they may be heard from before long. I think, sir, if we take this step, when the people today who are staggering under the burden of supporting families at the present prices of the necessaries of life find those prices multiplied, when they are raised a hundred per cent, or 200 per cent, as they will be quickly, aye, sir, when beyond that those who pay taxes come to have their taxes doubled and again doubled to pay the interest on the nontaxable bonds held by Morgan and his combinations, which have been issued to meet this war, there will come in awakening; they will have their day and they will be heard. It will be as certain and as inevitable as the return of the tides, and as resistless, too.

I promise my colleagues that I will not be tempted again to turn aside from the thread of my discussion as I have outlined it here, and I will hasten with all possible speed.

Now that the President has in his message to us of April second admitted the very charge against the armed-ship bill which we made, I trust that he is fully convinced that the conduct of the Senators on the occasion in question was not unreasoned and obstinate, but that it was inspired by quite as high purposes and motives as can inspire the action of any public official.

I would not, however, have made this personal reference did not the question it suggests go to the very heart of the matter now under consideration. If the President was wrong when he proposed arming the ships; if that policy was, as he now says, “certain to draw us into the war without either the rights or the effectiveness of belligerents,” is it so certain he is right now when he demands an unqualified declaration of war against Germany? If those Members of Congress who were supporting the President then were wrong, as it appears from the President’s statement now they were, should not that fact prompt them to inquire carefully whether they are right in supporting the proposed declaration of war? If the armed-ship bill involved a course of action that was hasty and ill advised, may it not well be that this proposed declaration of war, which is being so hotly pressed, is also ill advised? . . .

The President in his message of April second says:

“The present German warfare against commerce is a warfare against mankind. 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.”

It is not a little peculiar that if Germany’s warfare is against all nations the United States is the only nation that regards it necessary to declare war on that 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 not peculiar that no other of the great nations of the earth seem to regard Germany’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 insisting upon the protection of our citizens? Does not the strict neutrality maintained on the part of all the other nations of the earth suggest that possibly there is a reason for their action, and that that reason is that Germany’s conduct under the circumstances does not merit from any nation which is determined to preserve its neutrality a declaration of war?

Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Denmark, Spain, and all the great Republics of South America are quite as interested in this subject as we are, and yet they have refused to join with us in a combination against Germany. I venture to suggest also that the nations named, and probably others, have a somewhat better right to be heard than we, for by refusing to sell war materiel and munitions to any of the belligerents they have placed themselves in a position where the suspicion which attaches to us of a desire for war profits can not attach to them.

On August 4, 1914, the Republic of Brazil declared the exportation of war materiel from Brazilian ports to any of these powers at war to be strictly forbidden, whether such exports be under the Brazilian flag or that of any other country.

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

“President Wilson’s war address was received here with interest, but no particular enthusiasm. . . . Government officials and politicians have adopted a cold shoulder toward the United States policy—an attitude apparently based on apprehension lest South American interests suffer.”

The newspaper Razon’s view was illustrative of this. “Does not the United States consider this an opportune time to consolidate the imperialistic policy everywhere north of Panama?” it said.

This is the question that neutral nations the world over are asking. Are we seizing upon this war to consolidate and extend an imperialistic policy? We complain also because Mexico has turned the cold shoulder to us, and are wont to look for sinister reasons for her attitude. Is it any wonder that she should 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 countries close to the scene of war is already with Germany. It is apparent that they view with alarm the entrance into the European struggle of the stranger from across the sea. It is suggested by some that our entrance into the war will shorten it. It is my firm belief, based upon such information as I have, that our entrance into the war will not only prolong it, but that it will vastly extend its area by drawing in other nations. . . .

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 again 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 wage-workers. 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 of the countries with whom we are to enter into alliance, except France and newly revolutionalized Russia, are still of the older 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 talking 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? Will the President and the supporters of this war bill submit it to a vote of the people before the declaration of war goes into effect? Until we are willing to do that, it illy becomes us to offer as an excuse for our entry into the war the unsupported claim that this war was forced upon the German people by their Government “without their previous knowledge or approval.”

Who has registered the knowledge or approval of the American people of the course this Congress is called upon to take in declaring war upon Germany? Submit the question to the people, you who support it. You who support it dare not do it, for you know that by a vote of more than ten to one the American people as a body would register their declaration against it.

In the sense that this war is being forced upon our people without their knowing why and without their approval, and that wars are usually forced upon all peoples in the same way, there is some truth in the statement; but I venture to say that the response which the German people have made to the demands of this war shows that it has a degree of popular support which the war upon which we are entering has not and never will have among our people. The espionage bills, the conscription bills, and other forcible military measures which we understand are being ground out of the war machine in this country is the complete proof that those responsible for this war fear that it has no popular support and that armies sufficient to satisfy the demand of the entente allies can not be recruited by voluntary enlistments. . . .

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

That is the sensible, that is the logical position. No neutrality could ever have 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 winds by permitting England to make a mockery of it to her advantage against her chief enemy. Then we expect to say to that enemy, “You have got to respect my rights as a neutral.” What is the answer? I say Germany has been patient with us. Standing strictly on her rights, her answer would be, “Maintain your neutrality; treat those other Governments warring against me as you treat me if you want your neutral rights respected.”

I say again that when two nations are at war any neutral nation, in order to preserve its character as a neutral nation, must exact the same conduct from both warring nations; both must equally obey the principles of international law. If a neutral nation fails in that, then its rights upon the high seas—to adopt the President’s phrase—are relative and not absolute. There can be no greater violation of our neutrality than the requirement that one of two belligerents shall adhere to the settled principles of law and that the other shall have the advantage of not doing so. The respect that German naval authorities were required to pay to the rights of our people upon the high seas would depend upon the question whether we had exacted the same rights from Germany’s enemies. If we had not done so we lost our character as a neutral nation, and our people unfortunately had lost the protection that belongs to neutrals. . . .

Had the plain principle of international law accounted by Jefferson been followed by us, we would not be called on today to declare war upon any of the belligerents. The failure to treat the belligerent nations of Europe alike, the failure to reject the unlawful “war zones” of both Germany and Great Britain, is wholly accountable for our present dilemma. We should not seek to hide our blunder behind the smoke of battle, to inflame the mind of our people by half truths into the frenzy of war in order that they may never appreciate the real cause of it until it is too late. I do not believe that our national honor is served by such a course. The right way is the honorable way.

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

The other alternative is to withdraw our commerce from both. The mere suggestion that food supplies would be withheld from both sides impartially would compel belligerents to observe the principle of freedom of the seas for neutral commerce.[5]

---

[1] Two other U.S. senators spoke out against the war. Senator George W. Norris warned:

“[W]e are going into war upon the command of gold.” He argued that munitions makers and bankers were instrumental in taking the country toward war. “I would like to say to this war god,” he exclaimed, “You shall not coin into gold the lifeblood of my brethren.” Then he told his colleagues, “I feel that we are about to put the dollar sign upon the American flag.” (H.C. Peterson and Gilbert C. Fite, Opponents of War, 1917–1918 [West Point, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1957], p. 5)

Senator James K. Vardaman spoke against the declaration of war as follows:

The President . . . suggested that if the people who are now engaged in this war in Europe had been consulted there would have been no war. If I may be permitted to indulge in a little speculation I will say, Mr. President, that if the people of the United States—I mean the plain, honest people, the masses who are to bear the burden of taxation and fight the Nation’s battles, were consulted—the United States would not make a declaration of war against Germany to-day. . . .

If it is wrong for a king to plunge his subjects into the vortex of war without their consent it can not be less reprehensible for the President of the United States and the Congress to involve their constituents in a war without their consent. (Ibid., p. 6)

[2] Ibid., p. 8.

[3] Tom Watson, the Georgia politician and prominent objector to the war declared:

Upon the pretext of waging war against Prussianism in Europe, the purpose of Prussianizing this country has been avowed in Congress, with brutal frankness, by a spokesman of the administration.

On the pretext of sending armies to Europe, to crush militarism there, we first enthrone it here.

On the pretext of carrying to all the nations of the world the liberties won by the heroic lifeblood of our forefathers, we first deprive our own people of liberties they inherited as a birthright.

On the pretext of unchaining the enslaved people of other lands, we first chain our own people with preposterous and unprecedented measures, knowing full well that usurpations of power, once submitted to, will never hereafter be voluntarily restored to the people. (Ibid., p. 155)

[4] The following poem was read into the Congressional Record on November 10, 1919. (Ibid., p. 157):

“And how goes the battle today, J.P.?

How many thousands were slain?

How many blind eyes lifted up to the skies

In pitiful pleading and pain?

And how many curses of hate, J.P.,

And how many agonized groans?

And how many dollars were lent today,

At how many per cent for the loans? . . .

But what is our life or our death, J.P.,

And what are our tears and our moans—

The grief-stricken mother, the life without light—

As compared with a great banker’s loans?”

[5] Arthur A. Ekrich, Jr., ed., Voices in Dissent: An Anthology of Individualist Thought in the United States (New York: The Citadel Press, 1964), pp. 211–22. See also Robert M. La Follette, “Speech on the Declaration of War Against Germany,” from the Congressional Record, Sixty-fifth Congress, First Session (April 4, 1917), pp. 222.