|
even Republican Robert LaFollette would spin in his grave over what's become of his party.
Robert (Fighting Bob)
LaFollette (1855-1925), a progressive Republican from
Wisconsin, was among a handful of voices in the U.S. Senate
to oppose the American entry into World War I. He remained
critical of U.S. policy thereafter, prompting an effort to
have him removed from the Senate for disloyalty. In October
1917, he addressed the Senate to argue the case for freedom
of speech during wartime. His speech is excerpted here:
Six members of the Senate and 50 members of the House voted
against the declaration of war. Immediately there was let
loose upon those senators and representatives a flood of
invective and abuse from newspapers and individuals who had
been clamoring for war, unequaled, I believe, in the history
of civilized society.
Prior to the declaration of war, every man who had ventured
to oppose our entrance into it had been condemned as a
coward or worse, and even the president had by no means been
immune from these attacks.
Since the declaration of war, the triumphant war press has
pursued those senators and representatives who voted against
war with malicious falsehood and recklessly libelous
attacks, going to the extreme limit of charging them with
treason against their country.
This campaign of libel and character assassination directed
against the members of Congress who opposed our entrance
into the war has been continued down to the present hour,
and I have upon my desk newspaper clippings, some of them
libels upon me alone, some directed as well against other
senators who voted in opposition to the declaration of war.
One ... represents a federal judge in the state of Texas as
saying, in a charge to a grand jury -- I read the article as
it appeared in the newspaper and the headline with which it
is introduced: "District judge would like to take shot at
traitors in Congress (AP), Houston, Texas, Oct. 1 -- Judge
Waller T. Burns, of the United States district court, in
charging a federal grand jury at the beginning of the
October term today, after calling by name Sens. Stone of
Missouri, Hardwick of Georgia, Vardaman of Mississippi,
Gronna of North Dakota, Gore of Oklahoma, and LaFollette of
Wisconsin, said: 'If I had a wish, I would wish that you men
had jurisdiction to return bills of indictment against these
men. They ought to be tried promptly and fairly, and I
believe this court could administer the law fairly; but I
have a conviction, as strong as life, that this country
should stand them up against an adobe wall tomorrow and give
them what they deserve. If any man deserves death, it is a
traitor. I wish that I could pay for the ammunition. I would
like to attend the execution, and if I were in the firing
squad I would not want to be the marksman who had the blank
shell'...."
In this mass of newspaper clippings which I have here upon
my desk ... I find other senators, as well as myself,
accused of the highest crimes of which any man can be guilty
-- treason and disloyalty -- and, sir, accused not only with
no evidence to support the accusation, but without the
suggestion that such evidence anywhere exists....
If I alone had been made the victim of these attacks, I
should not take one moment of the Senate's time for their
consideration, and I believe that other senators who have
been unjustly and unfairly assailed, as I have been, hold
the same attitude upon this that I do. Neither the clamor of
the mob nor the voice of power will ever turn me by the
breadth of a hair from the course I mark out for myself,
guided by such knowledge as I can obtain and controlled and
directed by a solemn conviction of right and duty.
But, sir, it is not alone members of Congress that the war
party in this country has sought to intimidate. The mandate
seems to have gone forth to the sovereign people of this
country that they must be silent while those things are
being done by their government which most vitally concern
their well-being, their happiness and their lives. Today and
for weeks past, honest and law-abiding citizens of this
country are being terrorized and outraged in their rights by
those sworn to uphold the laws and protect the rights of the
people. I have in my possession numerous affidavits
establishing the fact that people are being unlawfully
arrested, thrown into jail, held incommunicado for days,
only to be eventually discharged without ever having been
taken into court, because they have committed no crime.
Private residences are being invaded, loyal citizens of
undoubted integrity and probity arrested, cross-examined,
and the most sacred constitutional rights guaranteed to
every American citizen are being violated.
It appears to be the purpose of those conducting this
campaign to throw the country into a state of terror, to
coerce public opinion, to stifle criticism, and suppress
discussion of the great issues involved in this war.
I think all men recognize that in time of war the citizen
must surrender some rights for the common good which he is
entitled to enjoy in time of peace. But ... the right to
control their own government according to constitutional
forms is not one of the rights that the citizens of this
country are called upon to surrender in time of war.
Rather, in time of war the citizen must be more alert to the
preservation of his right to control his government. He must
be most watchful of the encroachment of the military upon
the civil power. He must beware of those precedents in
support of arbitrary action by administration officials
which, excused on the plea of necessity in wartime, become
the fixed rule when the necessity has passed and normal
conditions have been restored. More than all, the citizen
and his representative in Congress in time of war must
maintain his right of free speech. More than in times of
peace it is necessary that the channels for free public
discussion of governmental policies shall be open and
unclogged. I believe, Mr. President, that I am now touching
upon the most important question in this country today --
and that is the right of the citizens of this country and
their representatives in Congress to discuss in an orderly
way, frankly and publicly and without fear, from the
platform and through the press, every important phase of
this war; its causes, and manner in which it should be
conducted, and the terms upon which peace should be made....
It is no answer to say that when the war is over the citizen
may once more resume his rights and feel some security in
his liberty and his person. As I have already tried to point
out, now is precisely the time when the country needs the
counsel of all its citizens. In time of war even more than
in time of peace, whether citizens happen to agree with the
ruling administration or not, these precious fundamental
personal rights -- free speech, free press, and right of
assemblage so explicitly and emphatically guaranteed by the
Constitution should be maintained inviolable....
It is true, sir, that members of the House of
Representatives are elected for two years, the president for
four years, and the members of the Senate for six years, and
during their temporary official terms these officers
constitute what is called the government. But back of them
always is the controlling sovereign power of the people, and
when the people can make their will known, the faithful
officer will obey that will ... How can that popular will
express itself between elections except by meetings, by
speeches, by publications, by petitions and by addresses to
the representatives of the people? Any man who seeks to set
a limit upon those rights, whether in war or peace, aims a
blow at the most vital part of our government....
-- Robert LaFollette, Oct. 6, 1917. Speech to the Senate.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
