Opposition to War

Image: NORRIS, GEORGE W. SENATOR. Harris & Ewing. Library of Congress. https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2016856728/
What link did Norris make between foreign policy and economics? What critique was he offering of the economic class structure in the United States?
How did Norris challenge Woodrow Wilson’s rationale for going to war? Who had the better argument, Norris or Wilson?

No related resources

Introduction

Congress declared war against Germany on April 6, 1917, with votes of 373–50 in the House and 82–6 in the Senate. Senator George W. Norris (1861–1944), a Progressive Republican from Nebraska, cast one of the opposing votes. Norris’s suggestion that United States could avoid war with more stringent neutrality policies resonated in the Midwest and South. Nebraska had a sizable German American population, and these communities had urged President Wilson (1856–1924) to hold Britain, not just Germany, accountable for violations of international law. Norris’s animus toward Wall Street echoed the now-defunct, late-nineteenth-century Populist movement that had attacked East Coast financial institutions for exploiting farmers. His speech also addressed concerns in rural communities that the conflict would be a “rich man’s war, poor man’s fight.”

For the moment, Norris was free to express these sentiments without penalty. Tolerance for dissent quickly evaporated once Congress enacted new laws (See Espionage Act and Sedition Act) that criminalized speaking out against the draft or war. The objections he expressed in this speech became popular once again during the Great Depression in the 1930s, a moment when many Americans distrusted bankers and believed entering the war had been a mistake.

—Jennifer D. Keene

Senator George Norris, April 4, 1917, Congressional Record, 65th Congress, 1st Session (Washington, DC, 1917), vol. 55, part I, 213, 39. Available at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/GPO-CRECB-1917-pt8-v55/GPO-CRECB-1917-pt8-v55-7.


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.

The resolution now before the Senate is a declaration of war. Before taking this momentous step, and while standing on the brink of this terrible vortex, we ought to pause and calmly and judiciously consider the terrible consequences of the step we are about to take. We ought to consider likewise the route we have recently traveled and ascertain whether we have reached our present position in a way that is compatible with the neutral position which we claimed to occupy at the beginning and through the various stages of this unholy and unrighteous war.

No close student of recent history will deny that both Great Britain and Germany have, on numerous occasions since the beginning of the war, flagrantly violated in the most serious manner the rights of neutral vessels and neutral nations under existing international law, as recognized up to the beginning of this war by the civilized world.

The reason given by the President in asking Congress to declare war against Germany is that the German government has declared certain war zones, within which, by the use of submarines, she sinks, without notice, American ships and destroys American lives. . . .

. . .The first war zone was declared by Great Britain. She gave us and the world notice of it on, the 4th day of November 1914. The zone became effective Nov. 5, 1914. . . .This zone so declared by Great Britain covered the whole of the North Sea. . . .

The first German war zone was declared on the 4th day of February 1915, just three months after the British war zone was declared. Germany gave fifteen days’ notice of the establishment of her zone, which became effective on the 18th day of February 1915. The German war zone covered the English Channel and the high seawaters around the British Isles. . . .

. . .It is unnecessary to cite authority to show that both of these orders declaring military zones were illegal and contrary to international law. It is sufficient to say that our government has officially declared both of them to be illegal and has officially protested against both of them.

The only difference is that in the case of Germany we have persisted in our protest, while in the case of England we have submitted.1 What was our duty as a government and what were our rights when we were confronted with these extraordinary orders declaring these military zones? First, we could have defied both of them and could have gone to war against both of these nations for this violation of international law and interference with our neutral rights. Second, we had the technical right to defy one and to acquiesce in the other.2 Third, we could, while denouncing them both as illegal, have acquiesced in them both and thus remained neutral with both sides, although not agreeing with either as to the righteousness of their respective orders. We could have said to American shipowners that, while these orders are both contrary to international law and are both unjust, we do not believe that the provocation is sufficient to cause us to go to war for the defense of our rights as a neutral nation, and, therefore, American ships and American citizens will go into these zones at their own peril and risk. Fourth, we might have declared an embargo against the shipping from American ports of any merchandise to either one of these governments that persisted in maintaining its military zone. We might have refused to permit the sailing of any ship from any American port to either of these military zones.3 In my judgment, if we had pursued this course, the zones would have been of short duration. England would have been compelled to take her mines out of the North Sea in order to get any supplies from our country. When her mines were taken out of the North Sea then the German ports upon the North Sea would have been accessible to American shipping and Germany would have been compelled to cease her submarine warfare in order to get any supplies from our nation into German North Sea ports.

There are a great many American citizens who feel that we owe it as a duty to humanity to take part in this war. Many instances of cruelty and inhumanity can be found on both sides. Men are often biased in their judgment on account of their sympathy and their interests. To my mind, what we ought to have maintained from the beginning was the strictest neutrality. If we had done this, I do not believe we would have been on the verge of war at the present time. We had a right as a nation, if we desired, to cease at any time to be neutral. We had a technical right to respect the English war zone and to disregard the German war zone, but we could not do that and be neutral.

I have no quarrel to find with the man who does not desire our country to remain neutral. While many such people are moved by selfish motives and hopes of gain, I have no doubt but that in a great many instances, through what I believe to be a misunderstanding of the real condition, there are many honest, patriotic citizens who think we ought to engage in this war and who are behind the president in his demand that we should declare war against Germany. I think such people err in judgment and to a great extent have been misled as to the real history and the true facts by the almost unanimous demand of the great combination of wealth that has a direct financial interest in our participation in the war.

We have loaned many hundreds of millions of dollars to the Allies in this controversy.4 While such action was legal and countenanced by international law, there is no doubt in my mind but the enormous amount of money loaned to the Allies in this country has been instrumental in bringing about a public sentiment in favor of our country taking a course that would make every bond worth a hundred cents on the dollar and making the payment of every debt certain and sure. Through this instrumentality and also through the instrumentality of others who have not only made millions out of the war in the manufacture of munitions, etc., and who would expect to make millions more if our country can be drawn into the catastrophe, a large number of the great newspapers and news agencies of the country have been controlled and enlisted in the greatest propaganda that the world has ever known to manufacture sentiment in favor of war.

It is now demanded that the American citizens shall be used as insurance policies to guarantee the safe delivery of munitions of war to belligerent nations. The enormous profits of munition manufacturers, stockbrokers, and bond dealers must be still further increased by our entrance into the war. This has brought us to the present moment, when Congress, urged by the president and backed by the artificial sentiment, is about to declare war and engulf our country in the greatest holocaust that the world has ever known. . . .

To whom does war bring prosperity? Not to the soldier who for the munificent compensation of $16 per month shoulders his musket and goes into the trench, there to shed his blood and to die if necessary; not to the brokenhearted widow who waits for the return of the mangled body of her husband; not to the mother who weeps at the death of her brave boy; not to the little children who shiver with cold; not to the babe who suffers from hunger; nor to the millions of mothers and daughters who carry broken hearts to their graves. War brings no prosperity to the great mass of common and patriotic citizens. It increases the cost of living of those who toil and those who already must strain every effort to keep soul and body together. War brings prosperity to the stock gambler on Wall Street—to those who are already in possession of more wealth than can be realized or enjoyed. . . .

Their object in having war and in preparing for war is to make money. Human suffering and the sacrifice of human life are necessary, but Wall Street considers only the dollars and the cents. The men who do the fighting, the people who make the sacrifices are the ones who will not be counted in the measure of this great prosperity. . . .The stockbrokers would not, of course, go to war because the very object they have in bringing on the war is profit, and therefore they must remain in their Wall Street offices in order to share in that great prosperity which they say war will bring. The volunteer officer, even the drafting officer, will not find them. They will be concealed in their palatial offices on Wall Street, sitting behind mahogany desks, covered up with clipped coupons5—coupons soiled with the sweat of honest toil, coupons stained with mothers’ tears, coupons dyed in the lifeblood of their fellowmen.

We are taking a step today that is fraught with untold danger. We are going into war upon the command of gold.6 We are going to run the risk of sacrificing millions of our countrymen’s lives in order that other countrymen may coin their lifeblood into money. And even if we do not cross the Atlantic and go into the trenches, we are going to pile up a debt that the toiling masses that shall come many generations after us will have to pay.7 Unborn millions will bend their backs in toil in order to pay for the terrible step we are now about to take.

We are about to do the bidding of wealth’s terrible mandate. By our act we will make millions of our countrymen suffer, and the consequences of it may well be that millions of our brethren must shed their lifeblood, millions of brokenhearted women must weep, millions of children must suffer with cold, and millions of babes must die from hunger, and all because we want to preserve the commercial right of American citizens to deliver munitions of war to belligerent nations.

Footnotes
  1. 1. The U.S. government officially protested the British blockade in 1915 but accepted higher prices for goods (like cotton) and payments for confiscated cargo as acceptable restitution.
  2. 2. By 1916, U.S. trade with Britain and France had tripled, but with Germany had dropped to less than 1 percent of what it had been in 1914.
  3. 3. Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan (1860–1925) made the same proposal after the sinking of the Lusitania and resigned in protest when Wilson rejected the idea.
  4. 4. By 1917, private banks were loaning the British nearly $10 million a day.
  5. 5. Fixed-interest bonds had coupons attached to them that investors clipped to redeem for cash as interest payments came due.
  6. 6. Norris was echoing a famous line from William Jennings Bryan’s speech at the 1896 Democratic National Convention that helped him become the party’s nominee for president. He proclaimed, “You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold” to criticize the high profits banks enjoyed due to the gold standard. Bryan supported “free silver”—using both gold and silver to back the nation’s currency, thus putting more money into circulation and making it easier for the common man to secure credit and repay debts.
  7. 7. It was still unclear at this point whether the United States would make a substantial military contribution or support the Allied side primarily with money and munitions.
Teacher Programs

Conversation-based seminars for collegial PD, one-day and multi-day seminars, graduate credit seminars (MA degree), online and in-person.

Coming soon! World War I & the 1920s!