The advent of the world struggle which still rages between the forces
of autocracy and democracy found our nation as a whole, and many of us
as individuals, unprepared to meet the new conditions and to withstand
the test of the new issues with which we were confronted. But it did
not find the mind of Paul Husting wanting in the needful qualities of
intellect, or his soul in those of courage.
In the brief period of service as senator from Wisconsin he revealed
himself as one of Wisconsin’s greatest sons, and his untimely death in
October, 1917, was a genuine calamity both to state and to nation in
their hour of trial and danger. Not often does the opportunity occur
to a historical journal to publish documents fraught at the same time
with a high degree of historical value and of interest for their
bearing on issues still current. Such an opportunity, we think, is
afforded the WISCONSIN MAGAZINE OF HISTORY in connection with the
documents which follow. The letters speak for themselves and aside
from certain minor typographical corrections we present them unedited.
However, we cannot refrain, in concluding this introductory note, from
calling the reader’s attention to the significance of the dates of the
several letters: the first, following the sinking of the _Lusitania_;
the second, at the time the embargo-on-munitions discussion was rife;
the third, following our entrance into the world war.
Mayville, Wis., May 14, 1915.
---- ----,
----, Wis.
Dear Sir:
Your letter of May 10th, enclosing clipping from a Chilton newspaper,
was duly received and read. The clipping which you have enclosed
entitled “The United States, an Ally of England against Germany and
Austria-Hungary” is a very coarse and vituperative and un-American
attack on President Wilson and his administration. In this article,
the President in substance and effect is portrayed as a weakling, a
tool of England, a hypocrite, who pretends to be what he is not, and
with sanctimonious phrase is trying to mislead the people. The
administration is charged with being in a secret pact with England
against Germany and winds up with asking the people of this country
how long they are going to stand the disgrace of having such a
government.
I do not believe that I have the honor of your acquaintance but,
nevertheless, I feel that the article sent me and your letter should
be replied to because there are other papers and other men engaged in
carrying out this sort of propaganda.
There are, I know, a number of good and patriotic citizens of this
country, who, because of lack of information, and because of their
intense sympathy for relatives and friends now fighting in the old
country, have permitted themselves to be misled in the belief that
this country has unjustly, and, contrary to the laws of nations,
permitted the shipment of munitions of war to European countries.
There are, however, also, a number of men and newspapers who are
merely repeating and spreading a propaganda originating in the old
country with a design and purpose to weaken their own government and
aid and strengthen one of the belligerent nations. I hope that I am
addressing you as one who may be put in the first class mentioned.
Your criticism of President Wilson must be the result either of blind
partisanship, of a lack of familiarity with the facts relating to our
present foreign relations, of a failure to fully comprehend the exact
meaning and difficulties of neutrality, or of a desire to plunge this
country into [the] European embroglio without considering whether we
have any cause or excuse for entering that awful conflict.
Considerations of partisanship are so loathsome in times of great
national crises that I believe you incapable of entertaining such and
I freely acquit you of such base motives. The high-minded attitude of
former President Taft ought to be sufficient to deter everyone from
seeking to make political or partisan capital out of the present
delicate situation. I cannot conceive that you feel yourself in closer
allegiance to Germany than you do to this nation, for then your words
would not be those of an American citizen but of one who is an alien,
at least in thought, and not entitled to the protection or blessings
of our free government. I assume that you are laboring under a
misconception of the facts and upon the assumption that you have been
misguided, I am writing you fully in reply to your letter.
I find no fault with American citizens or American newspapers (in
this, of course, I include those printed in the German language) that
sympathize with Germany as against England nor do I find any fault
with the criticism directed against England’s war policy or methods.
Our government has repeatedly remonstrated and protested to England
against the interference with our commerce with neutral countries, in
the shipment of non-contraband of war to belligerent countries, in the
unlawful seizure of our vessels, and in the general interference with
our rights as a neutral nation. I wish to add my objections and
express my resentment against England for her studied and persistent
violations of many provisions of the international law. We have
protested and have done everything that we lawfully and justly could
do to support and maintain our rights, short of going to war. Withal,
however, no American ships or lives have been lost as a result of
England’s operations upon the sea and no passenger boat carrying
citizens of the United States has been sunk.
In the obstruction of our commerce and our dealings with foreign
nations, Germany has gone as far as its ability permitted and is
certainly subject, in this respect, to the same criticism and
resentment that we have directed against England. It seems that
England and Germany in the operation of the war in retaliation and in
reprisal have set aside the international code and are justifying
anything and everything upon the ground or plea of necessity. So long
as this mode of warfare is directed against one another of the
belligerent countries or their citizens, while we stand horrified and
appalled, we may still have no just cause for interference. We have
suffered these inconveniences and losses to our business because not
only our government, but our people desire peace, and, furthermore,
because we have no desire to interfere between the belligerent
countries. Now, while at most, Germany can only claim that, in respect
to the hindrance to our commerce, she has done no worse than England,
yet, in addition to this, ships flying the American flag have been
assailed and sunk by her and American lives taken without
justification and now the world is appalled by the destruction of over
1,200 lives ruthlessly taken and men, women, and children have gone
down to their death defenseless and undefended.
It is no defense or justification of this act as against our country
that some other nation by its unlawful acts compelled the country at
fault also to commit unlawful acts by way of reprisal.
It is no defense to say that American citizens who lost their lives
were warned and that they lost their lives through their own
contributory negligence. No warning to commit an unlawful act is a
defense or justification of such unlawful act. Such warning, in fact,
negatives the idea of accident and evidences premeditation and design
to commit the unlawful act.
We know that the _Lusitania_ was sunk, that more than 100 American
lives were lost, and we must hold the country directly responsible for
a deed which has shocked the civilized world and which appears to have
been in violation of the law governing, and practices obtaining in,
civilized warfare. Notwithstanding the horror and resentment aroused
in the public mind, our President is still striving to avert war!
What would you now say if a German liner with Americans aboard had
been sunk by an English torpedo under like circumstances and our
President would not have counseled war against the offending country
but would still have stood for peace? Would you not have said then
that this country was favoring England and would you not have
reiterated and repeated your slander that this country is an ally of
England’s?
In the slanderous clipping sent me, it is charged that this country is
pretending neutrality when in fact, by not forbidding the shipment of
arms and munitions of war, we are violating the law of nations
governing neutrals.
This slander against our country has been repeated over and over again
by thoughtless men and by partisan newspapers. It originated across
the sea with those who well know the falsity and hypocrisy of the
charge and who have passed it on to a well-meaning and sympathetic,
but over-zealous and mistaken, people and press for the purpose of
accomplishing a selfish end. This slander has been fostered and given
currency also by some designing men and by some designing newspapers
who appear to have forgotten their duty to their country and who
appear to be concerned more with the effect that the present war has
upon some foreign country than with its effect upon our own country.
The laws of nations are the rules which determine the conduct of the
general body of civilized states in their dealings with one another.
Its doctrines are founded on legal, not simply on ethical ideas; since
they purport to be rules of justice, not counsels of perfection, the
foreign policies of a country are not founded upon feelings of moral
rightness but upon precedents, treaties, and opinions of those
recognized as authority.
International law is a part of the law of the land and, since the
interest of the United States with foreign nations and the policies in
regard to them are placed by the Constitution in the hands of the
federal government, its decisions upon these subjects are _obligatory
upon every citizen_.
The above are some of the elementary principles of international law.
These nations which are protected by these provisions also are subject
to corresponding duties and obligations. Those which invoke the law
must obey the law. International law, being the joint product of
civilized nations, adopted and made by the common and joint consent of
nations, of course, can not be repealed or amended by any one nation
but only by the mutual consent of all countries. If it were otherwise,
each country would make its own international law to be amended or
repealed at the will of such country and thus would have no effect
either upon itself or any other nation.
Now we have an international law and its provisions are well defined
and recognized. Now is there any provision in this law which forbids
or makes unlawful the shipment of arms by citizens of a neutral
country to a belligerent country or which gives a neutral country the
privilege to forbid such shipment? No. Then why not? Because it has
been the law since civilization began for citizens of neutral
countries to engage in commerce as they chose and at their risk,
subject only to the right of belligerents to intercept and seize
contraband of war in transit to a belligerent enemy. In all the wars
in which this country has been engaged, the citizens of the countries
now warring in Europe have recognized and countenanced this practice
of selling arms to our enemy while we were at war and we have neither
protested nor complained against it, fully recognizing that the
citizens of such countries were entirely within their rights, that we
had no just cause for complaint. We recognized that it would have been
a violation of international law if at that time the said countries
had prohibited the shipment of munitions of war with a purpose clearly
manifested to aid or benefit either ourselves or our enemy.
For scores of years those countries now engaged in the European war
have been arming themselves and fortifying their country with the
positive knowledge that sooner or later a conflict of the kind now
raging would occur. England, France, and Russia did and so did Germany
and Austria. They also well knew that, under the provisions of
international law, the shipment of arms and munitions of war was
permissible subject to the interception and seizure of them by
belligerent enemies. Long before this war, which they knew was
inevitable, started Germany and Austria had the opportunity and the
influence to have changed the international law and there is no doubt
that the United States would have joined them in this amendment.
Far-seeing as its statesmen are and having well in mind the provisions
of international law, yet, notwithstanding, Germany entered this war
with the law as it now stands.
If international law had, at the beginning of the present war,
prohibited the shipment of munitions of war from this country and the
United States nevertheless had violated the rule and permitted the
shipment of munitions of war, _then_ it could be charged and convicted
of a violation of the law and a breach of neutrality by the country
adversely affected by such violation. Why? Because we would then have
been guilty of an affirmative act unlawfully changing the established
law to the injury and prejudice of a country with whom we are at peace
without its consent. Such act would have been a breach of neutrality
because, international law having been established by mutual consent,
we would have no right to repeal and amend that law without the
consent of those adversely affected by the change.
Now to prohibit and prevent the shipment of munitions of war by an
affirmative act on our part, at the behest and for the exclusive
benefit of one of the countries now at war, without the consent of the
nations adversely affected thereby, would be a violation of
international law and would constitute a breach of neutrality on our
part which would be indefensible from the standpoint of good faith and
good friendship to all on our part. Now it must be remembered that the
United States government is not engaged in the shipment of munitions
of war to other countries. A good many misguided and uninformed people
have been led to believe that this country as a nation is thus
engaged. It is true, that citizens of this country as a matter of
business are engaged in manufacturing and selling to individuals, from
whatever country they may come, munitions of war, as citizens of
Germany, Austria, and other belligerent countries have done since time
immemorial. President Wilson has not approved such shipments. It is
entirely probable that, from a moral standpoint, he abhors the
manufacture and sale of instruments and commodities to be used in the
slaughter of human beings. He is a man of peace, and, if he had his
way, wars in the future would be an impossibility.
But, as President of the United States,--a country which is in no
sense responsible for this war--a country whose sole and passionate
desire is to keep out of this conflict--Woodrow Wilson must execute
the laws as he finds them and must maintain the neutrality of this
country in accordance with the law of nations. This he has done
patiently, persistently, and consistently, notwithstanding that blind
and bitter partisanship, now on one side, now on the other, has done
its best to shove him off his balance.
Permit me to say that you, and men like you, and newspapers publishing
like articles commit a base and cruel slander on the President and on
your country when you state otherwise. This country, of all the
countries of the world, has kept its obligations and its poise.
In war-maddened Europe both England and Germany have attempted to
annul the law to suit the exigencies of the moment. Our country,
however, has contended, and, clearly within its rights, has demanded
the observance of the law of nations and has refused to recognize the
right of the warring nations to annul or to amend the same to our
damage or in derogation of our rights.
How, then, in view of these facts, could we hold belligerents to their
lawful duties if we were at the same time to violate the law and put
ourselves in the same class with them. But this is what you and other
critics ask this country to do. It is clear that you do not want this
country to be neutral; you want it to take an affirmative and active
part by governmental action to help one country and hurt another. Your
and my government is endeavoring to maintain the status quo of a real
neutrality. Those who are responsible for this movement which you
approve of are endeavoring to shake and disturb it. Those who complain
of our want of neutrality are complaining only because we have not
become an ally of the country they favor.
If we listened to the insidious demands made by these countries that
would have us violate our lawful obligation to respect the law of
nations by affirmatively aiding and assisting their side, would we not
be stopped from demanding reparation for the misconduct of the other
countries who have been prejudiced by our unlawful and unneutral act?
And would not such a flagrant breach of international obligation on
our part justify reprisals against us, or worse than that, probably
eventuate in a war with those countries who would thus be unlawfully
and unfairly prejudiced by our act?
These countries who would have us place an embargo on arms and
munitions with an eye solely to their advantage might well favor an
act on our part which would plunge us into war with their enemies and
thus make us their own ally. From the standpoint of _their_ own
material advantage, and owing this country no duty whatever, it is
easy to understand the motive back of their wishes.
But what motive, I ask, prompts you or any other American citizen who,
owing a duty only to this country, should have in mind at all times
primarily the welfare of his own country, to aid and promote a foreign
propaganda, which has for its object and end the plunging of this
country into war with one side or the other.
I say I acquit you of any base motive and can only believe that your
utterances and your actions are the result of a want of information
and understanding and not a willful desire on your part to injure the
country which you are bound to support.
You could not be either misguided or mistaken, however, if you had not
blindly accepted as true the statement of facts and the statement of
international law as promulgated by a foreign government and its
emissaries rather than the statements of fact and the statements of
law promulgated by your own government. What right have you to doubt
the utterances of our President, who is serving this country with that
singleness of purpose which has always distinguished the acts of our
presidents?
What right have you to believe the utterances of emissaries, who have
been sent from abroad with a singleness of purpose to serve their own
government at whatever cost to ours by sowing discord and falsehood
among our people and who are trespassing upon our forbearance and are
violating obligations which we believe a visitor to our shores owes to
our people?
To put it in another way, may I not ask you, as a citizen, what reason
or right you have to believe or expect that a foreign country and its
emissaries are safe advisers for the citizens of the United States to
consult or follow? And may I not also ask you, what there is in the
life of President Wilson as a man and his record as a president that
warrants you or any American citizen or newspaper in believing or
asserting that he is not a man to believe or a safe president and
counselor to follow? These questions answer themselves.
This country is now confronted with a crisis. Notwithstanding the wave
of popular indignation that has been aroused in this country, the
President is straining every nerve to preserve peace and still
maintain the honor and dignity of this country. You, and others that
have been uttering the same charges that you have, have made the task
more difficult than it otherwise would be. There appears to be a
feeling in some foreign countries that our country is divided.
A short while ago, a prominent citizen of a foreign country, whose
utterances are recognized as semi-official, stated in substance that,
while his country was a unit, that that was more than could be said of
the United States in all cases.
In the Milwaukee _Journal_ of Wednesday, May 12th, a translated
article from the Frankfurter _Zeitung_ was quoted as stating “that
because of the fact that we have naturalized German citizens and a
number of natural-born Americans of German descent that a war between
this country and Germany would be impossible because of the necessity
of placing these citizens in the detention camp and that it would
require our entire army to watch over them.”
These statements can only mean that the belief is entertained in that
country that, in case of certain eventualities, this country would be
divided and that certain of our citizens would side with Germany
against our government. Such a belief if indeed prevalent in that
country is a serious obstacle to a peaceful termination of our
negotiations in the present crisis.
But to those of us who have read the history of the Revolutionary War,
of the rebellion, and of every other war in which we have been engaged
as a nation--those of us who love and admire our German friends and
neighbors, who are familiar with their spirit of American citizenship
and patriotism, who have lived amongst them and have felt and feel one
with them, know that these statements are unfounded and we resent them
as a base calumny upon some of our most respected citizens. It is an
insult to American citizenship. It in effect amounts to a charge of
disloyalty and treason against some of our best citizens. Such a
statement should be publicly resented, however, first of all by those
against whom this slander is directed, not because their loyalty and
patriotism is doubted here, but because it is doubted elsewhere. It is
necessary for the world to understand and know that America is united
as one man. This will do more to keep us out of war than all the
clamor and all the pressure that can be brought to bear upon our
President to abandon our neutrality and to violate our international
obligations.
Permit me to say that in a time like this it is your duty and the duty
of every citizen of the United States to stand loyally and
patriotically back of our government. Not only as a matter of law is
it your duty but from a natural sense of obligation as a citizen of a
great nation, whose benefits and blessings you enjoy, and whose
existence you are at all hazards bound to preserve. We are fortunate
indeed that we have a president like Woodrow Wilson at the head of our
affairs at this time. A man less capable, less patriotic, less
intelligent, less courageous might have precipitated us in the war
before this. He is now standing four square to all the winds that
blow, in an endeavor to preserve peace with honor, dignity, and safety
to ourselves. Let all of us unite to do all we can to keep firm and
[word illegible] any extreme and ill-considered speech.
In times like these, permit me to say that we should not only feel but
act together. This is no time for petty partisanship or petty
politics. This is a time for deliberation and moderation in thought,
word, and deed. It is a time for the submersion of all our
differences, sympathies, and feelings in a unity of purpose and desire
for our country’s good.
In conclusion, permit me to say that all of us who may trace our
ancestry across the sea no matter to what particular country, should
be the first to speak out loudly and clearly that our undivided
loyalty and allegiance is with America, always, no matter what may be
our tie.
Yours very truly,
PAUL O. HUSTING.
Washington, D. C., Apr. 1, 1916.
Rev. ---- ----,
----, Wis.
Dear Sir:
Your letter of some time ago, expressing the disapproval of the
pastors of the Lutheran Conference of the Iowa Synod held in Beaver
Dam, in January, of my attitude on the embargo on munitions question
was duly received. The letter appeared in the Milwaukee papers on the
Saturday before and therefore its contents were familiar to me before
receiving the same by mail. The reason that this letter was not
answered was because it seemed to me that it called for no reply but
that it was merely intended to give public expression to your
disapproval by your Conference of my attitude and vote on these
questions.
Now in reply to yours of the 20th inst. and also to that above
referred to let me first say that I regret very much that any act or
attitude of mine as Senator from Wisconsin should meet with the
disapproval of any number of my fellow citizens. I am not insensible
of the support that I received from many citizens of German extraction
in the last campaign nor do I think that there is anybody representing
the state of Wisconsin who is more anxious to please and to retain the
confidence, respect, and good will of his fellow citizens of German
extraction or ancestry, for that matter, than I am, provided that I
can do so without acting inconsistently with my oath of office or my
sense of duty.
In justification of my attitude let me say then that my vote and my
attitude on our foreign relations are the result of deep-seated
convictions based upon study and a great deal of thought upon this
subject and I am maintaining such attitude and convictions upon the
subject (notwithstanding that some of my fellow citizens disagree with
me) because I am convinced that if I did otherwise I would be
committing my country to a wrong and dangerous policy--a policy which
not only might, but which probably would, force us into war and this
is a result which I understand neither you nor any other citizen
desires, if it can honorably be avoided. Holding such convictions (at
least honestly formed) I feel that would be violating my oath of
office and my duty as a Senator if I voted contrary to my convictions
in order to please you or others. This I manifestly cannot and of
course will not do. I consider it my first duty as a Senator and as a
citizen to support and sustain my government in a crisis like this.
The criticism expressed in your letter is confined to two matters
only, namely: First--My attitude on the embargo question. Second--My
vote on the Gore Resolution. And you tell me that my attitude on the
one and my vote on the other is not in accordance with the wishes or
sentiments of the people of Wisconsin.
The substance of your criticism is contained in the sentence which I
quote from your letter: “We therefore have a perfect right to expect
that those men, whom we sent to represent _our_ interests, whom we
sent to represent us before the President we have elected, should vote
as we would vote, if we had an opportunity to cast our vote. We know
full well that you are not an instructed delegate, this being
impossible, and yet you ought to vote as you know that your
constituents _require_ you to vote.”
Now let me ask you upon what you base your assertion that I am not
voting the way the majority of my constituents “require” me to vote?
The people of the state of Wisconsin have never yet recorded or had an
opportunity to record their sentiment or opinions on these questions,
and consequently I have no means at my command that will enable me to
inform myself as to how my constituents would “require” me to vote. I
believe that you will admit that you have no means of ascertaining or
knowing how the people of Wisconsin would “require” me to vote and
that you are merely assuming that all the people of Wisconsin feel as
you and your associates do upon these matters. I believe furthermore
that you will admit that sympathizing with Germany as you do that you
are not an impartial and unbiased judge of the facts involved in the
issue. I am sure that there are thousands of others in this state who
believe and claim that the people of Wisconsin are overwhelmingly
supporting President Wilson’s attitude on both of these questions. Of
course these expressions of opinion come from many who also are not
impartial and unprejudiced or unbiased in the premises although I may
add that I have received scores and scores of letters from men of
German ancestry who hold a like opinion to mine. With such conflicting
opinions as is perfectly natural to be the case in a state of mixed
population like Wisconsin even you must admit that the sentiment of
the people of our state is by no means unanimous on the subject
matter. At the beginning of and so long as our country was not in
danger of being drawn into this terrible war, I also indulged myself
in sympathizing with a certain side in this world’s struggle. But for
over a year this country has stood and now stands on the very verge of
a volcano and no one could, nor now can, know when we will be drawn
into its crater. Consequently, ever since this danger has arisen, I
have tried to dismiss from mind all interest in connection with the
war except in so far as it affects or might affect the interests or
rights of our people and our country and I harbor no motive in my
consciousness in connection with my office other than to protect and
promote our own country’s rights and interests. With such motive and
such thought, I feel that I ought to be able to vote upon this
European situation fairly and impartially as between the belligerents.
I am at least conscious of this: That whatever attitude I take and
whatever vote I cast is cast with reference solely to its effect on
this country and regardless of its effect upon the welfare of any
other country in the world.
Now under such circumstances do you think that I should allow your
sympathies or the sympathies of your associates or my sympathies to
outweigh and overcome my settled convictions, and that I should
violate my oath of office as United States Senator and act and vote in
direct contradiction to what I conceive to be my duty as a Senator and
as a citizen of the United States? I cannot think that you would have
me do so. I cannot in a letter repeat my reasons, which I have so
often stated in public speeches and interviews, why I am opposed to
our government placing an embargo on munitions of war and,
consequently, I must refer you to such speeches and interviews for
such information. I can only state that such action on the part of our
country would in my judgment be a gross breach of neutrality which not
only might, but probably would, involve us in a war with those foreign
countries adversely affected by such action on our part. I voted
against the Gore Resolution because I am opposed, _by governmental
action_, to curtailing or abandoning the rights of our citizens upon
the high seas or wherever they have a right to be, as an act unworthy
of a great nation and of a great people, and, furthermore, because I
am sure that with the passage of such a resolution our troubles in
that respect would not have been ended but would have only just begun.
With the abandonment of one right, we would soon have been called upon
to abandon another and still another, and, having said “A,” we would
not only have had to say “B” but we would have had to continue clear
down the alphabet to “Z,” and we would finally find ourselves bereft
of all rights cravenly and uselessly abandoned by us to wrong-doing
countries. Personally, I would not now travel on the high seas unless
I was obliged thus to travel and I would not ask or in fact advise any
friend of mine to travel upon the high seas under present conditions,
but what I am opposed to is that our government by affirmative action
should warn our citizens not to travel upon the high seas and in
effect then to license the world to kill and slaughter our citizens in
the act of exercising their God-given and lawful rights so to do. Such
authoritative action would be a puerile abandonment of the rights of
our citizens and of our country and a cowardly withdrawal of the
protection which our flag owes to our people and would not only invite
the contempt and aggression of the belligerent nations but would bring
us into contempt in the eyes of our own citizens themselves.
Now, in the sentence quoted, you characterized me as one of those “* *
* whom we sent to represent _our_ interests * * * .” Now let me ask
you whether you or your associates have any interest which I am
representing other or different in any degree from that of any other
citizen of Wisconsin? You surely can have no interest, which I
represent, in the success of any foreign nation in this war. You may
have _wishes_ or _hopes_ in regard to the outcome of the war in Europe
but as an _American_ citizen you certainly have no _interest_ in the
result. The interests of our country, your interests, my interests,
are identical and are limited to this: That we keep our hands off and
let the warring nations fight it out according to the rules of
international law and, if we can, protect the lives of our people and
maintain their rights and the rights of our country and preserve our
national honor. While it is not my _duty_ to _represent_ your _wishes_
(which may stand in direct contravention to the dictates of our own
national welfare), it is my duty to represent (and it is my conviction
that I am performing that duty and am properly representing) the
interests of the country, _your_ interests, _my_ interests, and the
interests of all the people of the United States, when I take the
attitude I am taking and vote as I have voted.
Now while I have grown up among people of German ancestry and have
grown to love and respect my German-American neighbors, among whom I
count you and many others of your cloth, I cannot and will not forget
that as Senator I represent all of the people of Wisconsin regardless
of ancestry or accident of birth and as such Senator I represent not
only the people of Wisconsin but the people of the United States as a
whole, and I want to say further that as long as I remain in the
Senate I shall count the interests of my country first, wholly without
regard to its effect upon my political fortunes or upon the fortunes
of any foreign country.
While I have no authority to talk for anyone but myself, I believe
that President Wilson is actuated by the same motives as I am. Can any
man doubt that the President of the United States is doing what he
does and acting as he acts with any thought in his mind other than the
welfare of his country and of our people? Now you say in your letter,
“I admit that we have not the insight into the inner affairs and for
that reason leave it to the discretion of our representatives to cast
their vote to the best welfare of the State”; and further you say in
substance that you have taken a vital interest in this matter and that
the consensus of opinion of your associates, the majority of whom are
university men, is that an embargo should be placed upon munitions of
war. Now you admit that your opinion is based upon imperfect,
incomplete, unreliable, and (what at times must be) false information.
You also inferentially admit, as you must admit (indeed as everybody
knows is the fact) that the President and his Cabinet are in
possession of the most perfect, the most complete, most reliable and
most trustworthy information obtainable. Moreover, the President is
also a university man (if that has anything to do with it) and is he
not also a citizen of the United States who loves his country? Is he
not a man of intellect, of integrity, of patriotism, of ability, of
courage, a man possessing all those attributes that go to make up our
idea of a good American citizen? As President, in the handling of
domestic affairs, has he not shown himself mindful of the welfare of
the masses of the people? In this world’s crisis has he not kept us
out of war during the most trying times--under the gravest
difficulties--when there was not a Congress in session and when there
were no warning resolutions; when newspapers, politicians, partisans,
and sympathizers were trying to provoke him into the most drastic
action against one or the other side of this controversy? And this at
a time when scores of incidents have occurred, each one alone of
sufficient importance to have provoked us into war against one side or
the other side of the belligerents, had the President been so minded.
When you and I and all of us during the summer of 1915 were pursuing
our peaceful occupations in Wisconsin, the President was left alone to
carry a load that would have staggered and borne down any ordinary
man! During all this time, in waking or in sleeping, has he had
anything in his mind but the peaceful solution of his monumental task
without dishonor to our country?
And now let me ask whether you ought not to admit that it is a little
presumptuous on your part to think or claim that you are more
patriotic, more desirous of doing, and better able to do justice
between the belligerents of Europe--more desirous and better able to
safeguard and protect the national honor and the welfare and rights of
our people than our president, Woodrow Wilson? In other words, are you
not willing to concede that, under all the facts and circumstances
surrounding this vital matter, Woodrow Wilson ought to be better
qualified in all respects to properly pass upon these questions and to
protect our rights than anyone else who neither has the responsibility
or the opportunity nor has devoted the thought and time to this
matter, that he has?
Now would you and your associates, with all due respect to your
learning and information, which at best (as you admit is, and which
necessarily can be, based only on imperfect and uncertain premises)
have me accept your judgment in this matter in preference to that of
the President of the United States? Not only that, but would you have
me under _such circumstances_ disregard the judgment of the President
and his Cabinet who are lawfully invested with the authority and
business of determining these questions which as a matter of law is
and as a matter of common sense ought to be final and binding upon the
people of the United States and with this also abandon my own judgment
and accept yours in lieu thereof? If each citizen of the United States
would set _his_ judgment and opinion above that of the President of
the United States in our foreign affairs and refuse to abide by his
conclusions in time of acute crises such as these, could anything but
national chaos be the result? In domestic affairs that do not concern
the life of the country we all have a right to insist upon our
opinions and, even then, we must bow when overruled by the majority.
Then how much more in foreign affairs must we lodge somewhere
authority for determining matters affecting our national life itself.
And where else shall we lodge them than in the hands of our President
and Secretary of State, at least until all diplomatic means shall have
been exhausted? Now I do not say that citizens have no right to
express their opinions even on foreign affairs; but what I do say is
that they ought not to so exercise that right and so conduct
themselves as to embarrass and hinder our government in its diplomatic
negotiations with foreign countries _at times like these_, and thus
imperil, if not absolutely prevent, a peaceful solution of our
difficulties, great enough in themselves, but made still greater by
the utterances of some papers and persons which give color and basis
for the claim and impression abroad that we are a disunited and
demoralized people, a people who have lost their faith and confidence
in their own government, and who will not give it their loyal and
undivided support in all eventualities. We can maintain peace best by
presenting a solid front to all nations to the end that they may know
and understand that we are one and indivisible no matter what may
come!
Now you further say: “As to the notion that under all circumstances
the opinions of the President must be upheld, in order to be loyal
Americans, that is pure and simple ‘rot.’” Let me say to you that
supporting the President under present circumstances is not “rot”
unless loyalty to one’s country is also “rot”! Upholding the President
under present circumstances does not mean the upholding of an
individual in his opinion or judgment. For a Senator or a citizen of
the United States to back the President and to accept his conclusions
based upon known facts in foreign matters of gravest importance at a
time of the nation’s peril like this is not a servile following of an
individual and is not “rot.” On the contrary such backing and such
acceptance is only supporting and maintaining one’s government. It is
evidence of loyalty to one’s country. Such action and such acceptance
is not merely supporting President Wilson as a man, it is supporting
the United States--our government--our country, which the President
for the time being represents and for which he is authorized to act
and must act.
I quote further from your letter: “Our slogan is ‘America first, last,
and all the time, regardless of party lines, President, or
representatives.’” Our President for the time being within certain
limitations is America and he acts for America. And in my judgment it
is the first duty not only of Senators but of citizens who are for
_America_ first, last, and all the time, to be for our _government_
first, last, and all the time that for the time being is our
government. _No citizen can be against_ our government and still at
the same time justly claim that he is _for America_. One cannot be for
and against the same thing at the same time.
Now there is another matter in relation to the Beaver Dam letter of
Jan. 27 which was a communication entitled from the “pastors of the
German Lutheran Church in Conference at Beaver Dam, Wis., Assembled.”
It appears from this letter that you have assumed to put your church
on record as opposed to the foreign policy of this government at a
time when it was essential that the government should have the united
support of its citizens and to make public your disapproval in your
pastoral capacity, evidently for the purpose of bringing the President
and the representative of your state into political disfavor with your
church.
Now what I have to say in this connection is said in all friendliness
to the members of the Conference, many of whom I personally know and
respect. I acknowledge the right of any man, no matter what his
profession or calling may be, to speak his mind freely on political
matters and to vote as he pleases at elections and consequently every
pastor has a right to express his own personal opinions on any subject
that he may desire to speak upon and, furthermore, he has a right to
express his own opinion without in any way injecting religion into
politics so long as he merely expresses his own personal opinion and
does not attempt to talk for his church or for the purpose, as pastor,
of influencing the people of his church. I wish, however, to express
my opinion that no matter what the merit or excellence of their
motives or principles that may underlie such organizations or their
actions, it will be an unhappy and unfortunate thing for the country
and for the church when churches will be used as political
organizations or utilities and when its pastors will become the heads
of such organizations.
This country is and has been the refuge and the shield of all men who
desire to worship God as they please. This is a country of freedom of
religion as well as freedom of thought. We have been endeavoring for
more than a century to keep our government and our politics divorced
from religion. We have been endeavoring to permit these to run along
parallel lines but at the same time to keep them separated and prevent
them from impinging one upon the other. The separation of Church and
State has been one of the keynotes in our arch and has thus far done
much to strengthen and sustain our national structure. But in the last
few years there has been a growing tendency to inject religion into
politics. I have always steadfastly and consistently discouraged and
criticized such tendency wherever I could. I consider it a most
dangerous tendency--a tendency which bodes no good either to the
nation or to the church. It is bad indeed to inject the _Church into
Politics_. It is as bad or worse to inject _Politics into the Church_.
If you inject the _Church into Politics_ you will brush aside the
traditions of our country since its existence and you will be laying
the axe to the very roots of our government. And if you inject
_Politics into the Church_ you will also be laying the axe to the very
roots of your religion. You cannot have politics in your church
without having _factions_ in your _church_ and when you have
_factions_ in your _church_ you will _divide_ your _church_, which
history shows has ever been the case when governments and churches
mixed. Our Revolutionary fathers wisely profited by the experience of
other nations and by the teachings of history when they provided that
the State and Church should be forever kept separate. All good
citizens will deplore anything that endangers our country; and all
good people, regardless of religion, will deplore anything that will
injure the Church--an institution [which] when properly separated from
the government exercises an infinite influence for good in this
country. For these reasons I hereby respectfully record my deep regret
at the action of the Beaver Dam Conference because I fear that you may
be setting an unwise precedent fraught with consequences of a
dangerous character both to the Church and to the State in thus, as
pastors, using the influence of your church in the manner attempted.
One thing to me seems certain; if we desire to continue the freedom of
religion in our country, it can only be done by keeping it free from
politics and if we are going to have freedom of politics it can only
be done by keeping it free from religious interference. The one
proposition is interdependent upon the other and the rule cannot be
violated without lasting injury and damage to both Church and State. I
trust that the great Lutheran Church and all of the other great
churches of the country will never put themselves into the attitude of
attempting to control the politics of the country. I most fervently
hope that religious and racial influence and prejudices may never be
permitted by any church or body of men to promote or prevent the
election of any man to public office or to dictate to or to influence
our government in its relations or negotiations with foreign nations.
Let me conclude by saying that in all of these troublous times we
should remember that we are at peace--that we have been kept out of
this war thus far by a president and an administration which have
dedicated their efforts to promote the public welfare--that they are
doing the very best they can to continue to keep us out of war if this
can be done without loss of national honor or without surrendering or
abandoning our national rights or the rights of our citizens. In this
effort, the government should be sustained by all good citizens,
regardless of race or religion. It is the duty of every citizen to
sustain it! This is _the_ country in which all our interests are
centered--the only country to which we owe any loyalty or
allegiance--the country which safeguards and protects us--the country
which we in return are bound to protect and defend always. It is easy,
of course, to be a good citizen in fair weather but it is in foul
weather that the best citizenship is needed. It is in the storm and
stress of national peril that loyalty and devotion to the public
welfare is put to the acid test. Let us lay aside all of our
differences, all of our sympathies, all of our prejudices, so far as
they relate to other countries, and let us think and speak and act
solely with regard to the good of our own country.
Very respectfully,
PAUL O. HUSTING.
May 19, 1917.
Mr. ---- ----,
----, Wisconsin.
My dear Sir:
Yours of May 16th was duly received and contents noted. In reply I
want to say that your letter bears evidence of conscientious thought
and your conclusions are, no doubt, honest. I assume you have written
me not only for the purpose of giving your own views but also are
inviting mine in return. And inasmuch as you have volunteered a doubt
as to whether or not your German ancestry has colored or biased your
judgment in the premises, I take the liberty of giving you my judgment
on that point as I gather it from the context of this and your
previous letter.
I believe your reasonings and your conclusions are from the German,
not the American, standpoint. In other words, you are holding a brief
for Germany and not for the United States. “How important a part” your
“German ancestry plays” in this, it may be difficult for you to
apprehend but your bias will readily be apparent to anyone who reads
your letter. Now, you are an American-born citizen, I take it. You are
an attorney-at-law and a member of the bar of Wisconsin. You owe a
duty to your country which sympathy for Germany, no matter how genuine
it may be, cannot diminish, much less nullify. Now the premises from
which you as an American must reason are these: This country is at war
with Germany. Your President, my President, our President, backed by a
declaration of your Congress, my Congress, our Congress, has
proclaimed that war exists. This was done for reasons which appeared
sufficient to the President and the Congress to make this declaration
imperative. The loyalty and the fidelity of the President and of
Congress to the people of the nation has never been questioned or
challenged and I do not understand you to challenge or question them
now. You are merely attempting in your letter to set your judgment
against theirs. Germany is now an enemy of the United States which
means that she is your enemy, my enemy, our enemy. Now, it is plain,
as the Vice President remarked in a speech some time ago, that we
cannot have a hundred million presidents or secretaries of state,
meaning, of course, that we can only have one of each at a time and
that when these officers, to whom this power has been delegated, have,
with the aid of Congress, committed this government to a war, that
question to all intents and purposes of the war is settled for all men
who are citizens of the United States. And when the status of our
relations with a foreign country is once fixed as that of war, then
the time for argument has ceased and there is no longer any room for
controversy between citizens upon that question. The question then,
for the time being, that is to say, during the pendency of the war, is
a closed and not an open one. And for the sake of your peace of mind
as well as in justice to yourself as an American citizen who does not
desire his loyalty questioned or to have his honorable reputation
permanently impaired, you should respect, obey, and support the
mandate of your country in the spirit of true and devoted American
citizenship.
Now, I assume you love this country and that you love it because it is
a free country and that you are here practicing your profession
because of your desire to live in and to practice law in a country
where fullest and freest opportunity is afforded you to work out your
own destiny in your own way. In short, I assume that you favor a
republican form of government and that you are devoted to America and
its free institutions. I am sure that you would not have anyone
believe otherwise of you because that would impute to you disloyalty
and moreover it would impute to you a lack of intelligent enterprise
by your remaining in a country that according to your ideas is
improperly governed instead of removing yourself to the jurisdiction
of another country which more nearly squares with your ideas of good
government. So, I repeat that I assume that you are here because you
like to be here under a government that suits you and which you love
better than any other government on earth. Now, it is evident in your
letter that you love and sympathize with Germany but the question
arises in my mind whether your love is for the German people or for
the German government. You can easily put yourself to the test. If you
love the German people then you must desire them to have as good a
government as you enjoy here and it ought to make you happy that your
country, if it prevails in this war, will make the German people as
free and as happy as you are. If, on the other hand, you are mostly
concerned in the success of the German government, that is to say, if
you are mostly concerned in having the present Hohenzollern dynasty
remain in power, then it would seem to be quite clear that your love
is not for the German people but for the Hohenzollern dynasty and the
German autocracy. In other words, your love would then be of the form
and not of the substance. You cannot love this country and its
institutions and at the same time love the German autocracy. These are
incompatible and repugnant one to the other. They cannot both exist in
the same heart at the same time. Your love for the German people, as
is your love of mankind generally, is entirely compatible with your
love of this country but it must be clear to you, as it must be
perfectly clear to every American, that you cannot love your country
and the German people and mankind generally and at the same time love
the fearful German autocracy which is trying to impose or impress its
system, its frightfulness, and its wish and will upon the world and
which in its mad lust for power silences the promptings of conscience,
scoffs at the weakness of love for human-kind, deafens its ears to the
dictates of humanity, and which in pursuit of its fell purpose sets at
naught all law human and divine. Now let me ask you to search your
heart and see whether your love for the German fatherland is a love
compatible with your duties as an American citizen--whether it is
compatible with your love of liberty and humanity--whether it is
compatible with the principles enunciated in the Declaration of
Independence that all men are entitled to the right of “life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness”! If such love is compatible with all
these then your love for the German fatherland is a virtue and not a
vice. But, if searching deeply into your heart you find that your love
of the fatherland means that you love the relentless, ruthless, and
despotic Hohenzollern dynasty and its system, pluck it out as you
would a cancer, for it is a thing of evil and you cannot love it and
be a good and true American.
You write “The President’s statement to the effect that the War is not
directed against the German people never appealed to me.” For the
reasons I have just given it should appeal to you as an American and
as a lover of liberty and it should appeal to the German people
themselves and their sympathizers in this country. It should appeal to
lovers of liberty the world over--this statement that we are warring
on a Power and not a People. We are warring on the Power because it
has set its hand and might against the world and setting aside all
laws of God and man it has outlawed itself and has no right to live.
But in destroying this Power there is no intent, or disposition, or
wish to destroy the People. The President’s statement means, as I
interpret it, that the one thing that stands between peace and war
with Germany is the Hohenzollern dynasty. Once let that obstacle be
removed either by the German people themselves or by the arbitrament
of arms and our troubles and differences with Germany are over. Now
can an American citizen of German extraction who puts the welfare and
happiness of the people of Germany ahead of that of the Kaiser or, in
other words, ahead of the Hohenzollern dynasty and the autocratic
system which that dynasty embodies and typifies, enlist himself, his
sympathies, his resources, his life, in a higher and holier cause than
to join in emancipating the German people from the thrall of the
Hohenzollern dynasty and to save the German people whom he professes
to love from a doom which an outraged world has pronounced and sealed
against the ruthless and frightful Hohenzollern system? Now and here
is the opportunity for all who love the German people to give proof of
it. Let them all get back of the President and of their government and
to the extent of their influence, ability, might, and power help to
bring to their brothers in blood across the sea that priceless boon of
liberty and independence which they or their ancestors sailed the
perilous seas to find here in America. Let them make sacrifice and
help and fight to give to their friends and kinsmen across the ocean
that which was given to most of them here without cost or sacrifice on
their part.
It is quite apparent to almost everyone that there can be no peace--no
permanent peace--in the world so long as one power seeks to impose its
autocratic straight jacket upon the world. Since the birth of the
American Republic, the world has been marching away from autocracy and
toward universal democracy, gathering irresistible momentum with the
advance of time. All rulers, all statesmen, all men recognize this
fact.
Even in countries autocratically ruled greater liberties and rights
have been accorded the common people and it is only a question of time
when the doctrine of the divinity of kings will become a tradition and
the world will become one vast democracy. I repeat that the world is
turning with irresistible momentum to a world democracy and the rulers
of the world recognize that the logic of events is bound to substitute
governments “of, by and for the people” in place of “of, by and for”
kaisers, czars, and kings. There is practically one autocracy in the
world which still has the power and efficiency to make that power felt
in its attempt, its will and purpose upon the world; but one power on
earth that today constitutes a menace and obstruction to the onward
tread of democracy and that power is Germany! It is the Hohenzollern
dynasty which is illogically, in indifference and contempt of the
world’s sentiment, ignoring the teachings of history, unheeding the
warnings of history with that fatuousness which always blinds the eyes
of those who look only for their self-aggrandizement, that is trying
to turn the world backward. It is the Hohenzollern dynasty that has
thrown itself in the path of the onward march of liberty and progress,
trying not only to stem the irresistible physical and spiritual forces
of the world but actually trying to rout and drive them back into the
dark ages of despotism. It must be obvious to every thinking man that
this attempt will fail. No man or set of men in this day or age will
be permitted to rule the world. Every ruler, every dynasty which
unyieldingly places itself in the pathway of liberty and progress will
be overthrown; every people, no matter how powerful or great, which
blindly and absolutely places itself behind, follows, and clings to
such ruler and dynasty, will inevitably sooner or later be crushed and
utterly destroyed with it. And so the German autocracy which today
menaces the world and obstructs its progress will be overthrown and
the German people if they continue blindly and absolutely to cling to
their dynasty will inevitably share the same fate. Whether Germany
prevails in this war or not, there will be and can be no lasting peace
until the inevitable end is reached. So that in the end, be it sooner
or later, democracy will be established and autocracy will perish. The
destruction of the autocratic Hohenzollern dynasty would be a blessing
to the world. The destruction of the German people would be a calamity
to the world. I do not believe that the German people are going to
commit national suicide. I do not believe that they are long going to
continue to sacrifice the substance for the form. I do not believe
that they will deem it wise to suffer a national death in order to
uphold the life of a government that is based on error, not on truth,
which the world tried and found wanting, and which is responsible for
the catastrophe which has befallen themselves and the world at large.
It is unthinkable--it is unbelievable--that the German people are
unaffected by the onward movement of democracy and that they alone
will continue to hug the despotism and the system that is unsuited to
the requirements and unworthy of a modern civilization. Wherefore, it
would seem clear to me that all citizens of German extraction would be
quick to realize and appreciate the force of the President’s
declaration that we are not warring against the German people but
against the German autocracy and would enthusiastically support their
own government in a purpose which means freedom to the German people,
and in thus giving their whole hearted support to their own government
they would be discharging their duty, they would be true to their
allegiance as American citizens, and at the same time they would be
furthering the best interests of the German people and aiding them in
the only way in which they properly can.
I have received a number of letters of the same purport as yours and I
am going to publish my letter to you so that it may serve as an answer
likewise to others who are minded as you are. I know that there are in
our midst a number of serious, well-meaning men who hold the ideas and
sentiments which you have expressed--sentiments which, it is perfectly
clear, are incompatible with the duties and responsibilities of
American citizenship in a crisis like this as well as incompatible
with the intelligence and the character of the men entertaining them.
In the various public speeches I have made and communications I have
published during this crisis, I have sought to speak only in the
furtherance of what I understand and conceive to be the truth of the
matter and the welfare of our country. I have been animated solely by
a purpose to dispel error and to promote the interests of our country
and not by the slightest ill-feeling or malice toward any man. I have
sought to express myself frankly and without reserve but, at the same
time, I hope fairly, courteously, and without malice or feeling.
Having lived amongst Americans of German extraction all my life and
counting amongst them many of my best and dearest friends, I believe
that I know their processes of thought, their sentiments, their
prejudices, and their intelligence. I know that they would not prefer
to remain in error if once convinced that they are in error. They do
not want to be deceived. They do not want to be flattered into silence
or apparent conviction. They like to hear straight, plain, blunt talk.
Loving law and order and respecting authority, as I know they do, I
have always believed that the great mass of our citizens of German
extraction would never permit themselves to be placed in an attitude
of hostility to the orderly and just administration of the law or
permit their loyalty or fidelity to be suspected or challenged. I know
that when once convinced they are quick to abandon a position once
they see that it is untenable.
And so I have written this letter in the hope that I might be
instrumental in showing you that your position is untenable and in the
hope that you will abandon it for one which will reflect credit on
your patriotism, your judgment, and your citizenship and which at the
same time will afford you the best opportunity for advancing the
interests and welfare of your kinsmen across the sea.
Very truly yours,
PAUL O. HUSTING.