in the war when the U.S.had been shipping great amounts of war materials to Germany's enemies.In early 1915,the British liner Lusitania was torpedoed and sunk by a German submarine.She sank in eighteen minutes,and 1,198 people died,including 124 Americans.The United States claimed the Lusitania carried an innocent cargo,and therefore the torpedoing was a monstrous German atrocity.Actually,the Lusitania was heavily armed:it carried 1,248 cases of 3-inch shells,4,927 boxes of cartridges(1,000 rounds in each box),and 2.000 more cases of small-arms ammunition.Her manifests were falsified to hide this fact,and the British and American governments lied about the cargo. Hofstadter wrote of "economic necessities"behind Wilson's war policy.In 1914 a serious recession had begun in the United States.J.P.Morgan later testified:"The war opened during a period of hard times...Business throughout the country was depressed, farm prices were deflated,unemployment was serious,the heavy industries were working far below capacity and bank clearings were off."But by 1915,war orders for the Allies (mostly England)had stimulated the economy,and by April 1917 more than $2 billion worth of goods had been sold to the Allies.As Hofstadter says:"America became bound up with the Allies in a fateful union of war and prosperity." Prosperity depended much on foreign markets,it was believed by the leaders of the country.In 1897,the private foreign investments of the United States amounted to $700 million dollars.By 1914 they were $3'billion.Wilson's Secretary of State,William Jennings Bryan,while a believer in neutrality in the war,also believed that the United States needed overseas,markets;in May of 1914 kepraised the President as one who had "opened the doors of all the weaker countries to an invasion of American capital and American enterprise." Back in 1907,Woodrow Wilson had said in a lecture at Columbia University: "Concessions obtained by financiers most be safeguarded by ministers of state,even if the sovereignty of unwilling nationg be outraged in the process....the doors of the nations which are closed must be battered down."In his 1912 campaign he said:"Our domestic markets no longer suffice,we need foreign markets."In a memo to Bryan he described his aim as "an opeh door to the world,"and in 1914 he said he supported "the righteous conquest of foreign markets." With World War T,England became more and more a market for American goods and for loans at interest.J.P.Morgan and Company acted as agents for the Allies,and when,in 1915,Wilson lifted the ban on private bank loans to the Allies,Morgan could now begin lending money in such great amounts as to both make great profit and tie American finance closely to the interest of a British victory in the war against Germany. The industrialists and the political leaders talked of prosperity as if it were classless, as if everyone gained from Morgan's loans.True,the war meant more production,more employment,hut did the workers in the steel plants gain as much as U.S.Steel,which made $348 million in profit in 1916 alone?When the United States entered the war,it was the rich who took even more direct charge of the economy.Financier Bernard Baruch headed the War Industries Board,the most powerful of the wartime government agencies.Bankers,railroad men,and industrialists dominated these agencies. A remarkably perceptive article on the nature of the First World War appeared in May 1915 in the Atlantic Monthly.Written by W.E.B.Du Bois,it was tided "The African Roots of War.It was a war for empire,of which the struggle between Germany
in the war when the U.S. had been shipping great amounts of war materials to Germany's enemies. In early 1915, the British liner Lusitania was torpedoed and sunk by a German submarine. She sank in eighteen minutes, and 1,198 people died, including 124 Americans. The United States claimed the Lusitania carried an innocent cargo, and therefore the torpedoing was a monstrous German atrocity. Actually, the Lusitania was heavily armed: it carried 1,248 cases of 3-inch shells, 4,927 boxes of cartridges (1,000 rounds in each box), and 2,000 more cases of small-arms ammunition. Her manifests were falsified to hide this fact, and the British and American governments lied about the cargo. Hofstadter wrote of "economic necessities" behind Wilson's war policy. In 1914 a serious recession had begun in the United States. J. P. Morgan later testified: "The war opened during a period of hard times. ... Business throughout the country was depressed, farm prices were deflated, unemployment was serious, the heavy industries were working far below capacity and bank clearings were off." But by 1915, war orders for the Allies (mostly England) had stimulated the economy, and by April 1917 more than $2 billion worth of goods had been sold to the Allies. As Hofstadter says: "America became bound up with the Allies in a fateful union of war and prosperity." Prosperity depended much on foreign markets, it was believed by the leaders of the country. In 1897, the private foreign investments of the United States amounted to $700 million dollars. By 1914 they were $3'^ billion. Wilson's Secretary of State, William Jennings Bryan, while a believer in neutrality in the war, also believed that the United States needed overseas, markets; in May of 1914 he praised the President as one who had "opened the doors of all the weaker countries to an invasion of American capital and American enterprise." Back in 1907, Woodrow Wilson had said in a lecture at Columbia University: "Concessions obtained by financiers must be safeguarded by ministers of state, even if the sovereignty of unwilling nations be outraged in the process. . . . the doors of the nations which are closed must be battered down." In his 1912 campaign he said: "Our domestic markets no longer suffice, we need foreign markets." In a memo to Bryan he described his aim as "an open door to the world," and in 1914 he said he supported "the righteous conquest of foreign markets." With World War T, England became more and more a market for American goods and for loans at interest. J. P. Morgan and Company acted as agents for the Allies, and when, in 1915, Wilson lifted the ban on private bank loans to the Allies, Morgan could now begin lending money in such great amounts as to both make great profit and tie American finance closely to the interest of a British victory in the war against Germany. The industrialists and the political leaders talked of prosperity as if it were classless, as if everyone gained from Morgan's loans. True, the war meant more production, more employment, hut did the workers in the steel plants gain as much as U.S. Steel, which made $348 million in profit in 1916 alone? When the United States entered the war, it was the rich who took even more direct charge of the economy. Financier Bernard Baruch headed the War Industries Board, the most powerful of the wartime government agencies. Bankers, railroad men, and industrialists dominated these agencies. A remarkably perceptive article on the nature of the First World War appeared in May 1915 in the Atlantic Monthly. Written by W. E. B. Du Bois, it was tided "The African Roots of War." It was a war for empire, of which the struggle between Germany no profit use only
and the Allies over Africa was both symbol and reality:"..in a very real sense Africa is a prime cause of this terrible overturning of civilization which we have lived to see." Africa,Du Bois said,is "the Land of the Twentieth Century,"because of the gold and diamonds of South Africa,the cocoa of Angola and Nigeria,the rubber and ivory of the Congo,the palm oil of the West Coast. Du Bois saw more than that.He was writing several years before Lenin's Imperialism,which noted the new possibility of giving the working class of the imperial country a share of the loot.He pointed to the paradox of greater "democracy"in America alongside "increased aristocracy and hatred toward darker races."He explained the paradox by the fact that"the white workingman has been asked to share the spoil by exploiting'chinks and niggers.""Yes,the average citizen of England,France,Germany, the United States,had a higher standard of living than before.But:"Whence comes this new wealth?...It comes primarily from the darker nations of the world-Asia and Africa, South and Central America.the West Indies.and the islands of the South Seas. Du Bois saw the ingenuity of capitalism in uniting exploiter and exploited-creating a safety valve for explosive class conflict."It is no longer simply the merchant prince,or the aristocratic monopoly,or even the employing class,that is exploiting the world:it is the nation,a new democratic nation composed of united capita and labor." The United States fitted that idea of Du Bois.American capitalism needed international rivalry-and periodic war-to create an artificial community of interest between rich and poor,supplanting the genuine community of interest among the poor that showed itself in sporadic movements.How conseious of this were individual entrepreneurs and statesmen?That is hard to know:But their actions,even if half- conscious,instinctive drives to survive,matched such a scheme.And in 1917 this demanded a national consensus for war The government quickly succeeded in creating such a consensus,according to the traditional histories.Woodrow Wilgo'biographer Arthur Link wrote:"In the final analysis American policy was dereymined by the President and public opinion."In fact, there is no way of measuring public opinion at that time,and there is no persuasive evidence that the public wanted war.The government had to work hard to create its consensus.That there was ro spontaneous urge to fight is suggested by the strong measures taken:a draft of young men,an elaborate propaganda campaign throughout the country,and harsh punishment for those who refused to get in line. spite the rousing words of Wilson about a war "to end all wars"and "to make the world safe for democracy,"Americans did not rush to enlist.A million men were needed, hut in the first six weeks after the declaration of war only 73,000 volunteered.Congress voted overwhelmingly for a draft. George Creel,a veteran newspaperman,became the government's official propagandist for the war;he set up a Committee on Public Information to persuade Americans the war was right.It sponsored 75,000 speakers,who gave 750,000 four- minute speeches in five thousand American cities and towns.It was a massive effort to excite a reluctant public.At the beginning of 1917,a member of the National Civic Federation had complained that "neither workingmen nor farmers"were taking "any part or interest in the efforts of the security or defense leagues or other movements for national preparedness." The day after Congress declared war,the Socialist party met in emergency
and the Allies over Africa was both symbol and reality: ".. . in a very real sense Africa is a prime cause of this terrible overturning of civilization which we have lived to see." Africa, Du Bois said, is "the Land of the Twentieth Century," because of the gold and diamonds of South Africa, the cocoa of Angola and Nigeria, the rubber and ivory of the Congo, the palm oil of the West Coast. Du Bois saw more than that. He was writing several years before Lenin's Imperialism, which noted the new possibility of giving the working class of the imperial country a share of the loot. He pointed to the paradox of greater "democracy" in America alongside "increased aristocracy and hatred toward darker races." He explained the paradox by the fact that "the white workingman has been asked to share the spoil by exploiting 'chinks and niggers."' Yes, the average citizen of England, France, Germany, the United States, had a higher standard of living than before. But: "Whence comes this new wealth? ... It comes primarily from the darker nations of the world-Asia and Africa, South and Central America, the West Indies, and the islands of the South Seas." Du Bois saw the ingenuity of capitalism in uniting exploiter and exploited-creating a safety valve for explosive class conflict. "It is no longer simply the merchant prince, or the aristocratic monopoly, or even the employing class, that is exploiting the world: it is the nation, a new democratic nation composed of united capital and labor." The United States fitted that idea of Du Bois. American capitalism needed international rivalry-and periodic war-to create an artificial community of interest between rich and poor, supplanting the genuine community of interest among the poor that showed itself in sporadic movements. How conscious of this were individual entrepreneurs and statesmen? That is hard to know. But their actions, even if halfconscious, instinctive drives to survive, matched such a scheme. And in 1917 this demanded a national consensus for war. The government quickly succeeded in creating such a consensus, according to the traditional histories. Woodrow Wilson's biographer Arthur Link wrote: "In the final analysis American policy was determined by the President and public opinion." In fact, there is no way of measuring public opinion at that time, and there is no persuasive evidence that the public wanted war. The government had to work hard to create its consensus. That there was no spontaneous urge to fight is suggested by the strong measures taken: a draft of young men, an elaborate propaganda campaign throughout the country, and harsh punishment for those who refused to get in line. spite the rousing words of Wilson about a war "to end all wars" and "to make the world safe for democracy," Americans did not rush to enlist. A million men were needed, hut in the first six weeks after the declaration of war only 73,000 volunteered. Congress voted overwhelmingly for a draft. George Creel, a veteran newspaperman, became the government's official propagandist for the war; he set up a Committee on Public Information to persuade Americans the war was right. It sponsored 75,000 speakers, who gave 750,000 fourminute speeches in five thousand American cities and towns. It was a massive effort to excite a reluctant public. At the beginning of 1917, a member of the National Civic Federation had complained that "neither workingmen nor farmers" were taking "any part or interest in the efforts of the security or defense leagues or other movements for national preparedness." The day after Congress declared war, the Socialist party met in emergency no profit use only
convention in St.Louis and called the declaration "a crime against the people of the United States.In the summer of 1917,Socialist antiwar meetings in Minnesota drew large crowds-five thousand,ten thousand,twenty thousand farmers-protesting the war, the draft,profiteering.A local newspaper in Wisconsin,the Plymouth Review,said that probably no party ever gained more rapidly in strength than the Socialist party just at the present time."It reported that "thousands assemble to hear Socialist speakers in places where ordinarily a few hundred are considered large assemblages."The Akron Beacon- Journal,a conservative newspaper in Ohio,said there was "scarcely a political observer ..but what will admit that were an election to come now a mighty tide of socialism would inundate the Middle West."It said the country had "never embarked upon a more unpopular war." In the municipal elections of 1917,against the tide of propaganda and patriotism,the Socialists made remarkable gains.Their candidate for mayor of New York.Morris Hillquit,got 22 percent of the vote,five times the normal Socialist vote there.Ten Socialists were elected to the New York State legislature.In Chicago,the party vote went from 3.6 percent in 1915 to 34.7 percent in 1917.In Buffalo,it went from 2.6 percent to 30.2 percent. George Creel and the government were behind the formatton of an American Alliance for Labor and Democracy,whose president was Samuel Gompers and whose aim was to "unify sentiment in the nation"for the war.There were branches in 164 cities; many labor leaders went along.According to James Weinstein,however,the Alliance did not work:"Rank-and-file working class support for the war remained lukewarm...."And although some prominent Socialists-Jack London,Upton Sinclair,Clarence Darrow- became prowar after the U.S.entered,most Socialists continued their opposition. Congress passed,and Wilson signed,in June of 1917,the Espionage Act.From its title one would suppose it was an act against spying.However,it had a clause that provided penalties up to twenty years in prison for"Whoever,when the United States is at war,shall willfully cause or atrempt to cause insubordination,disloyalty,mutiny,or refusal of duty in the military or naval forces of the United States,or shall willfully obstruct the recruiting or enlistment service of the U.S...."Unless one had a theory about the nature of governments,it was not clear how the Espionage Act would be used.It even had a clause that said "nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or restrict...any discussion,comment,or criticism of the acts or policies of the Government...."But its double-talk concealed a singleness of purpose.The Espionage Act was used to imprison Americans who spoke or wrote against the war. Two months after the law passed,a Socialist named Charles Schenck was arrested in Philadelphia for printing and distributing fifteen thousand leaflets that denounced the draft law and the war.The leaflet recited the Thirteenth Amendment provision against "involuntary servitude"and said the Conscription Act violated this.Conscription,it said, was "a monstrous deed against humanity in the interests of the financiers of Wall Street." And:"Do not submit to intimidation." Schenck was indicted,tried,found guilty,and sentenced to six months in jail for violating the Espionage Act.(it turned out to be one of the shortest sentences given in such cases.)Schenck appealed,arguing that the Act,by prosecuting speech and writing, violated the First Amendment:"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech,or of the press
convention in St. Louis and called the declaration "a crime against the people of the United States." In the summer of 1917, Socialist antiwar meetings in Minnesota drew large crowds-five thousand, ten thousand, twenty thousand farmers-protesting the war, the draft, profiteering. A local newspaper in Wisconsin, the Plymouth Review, said that probably no party ever gained more rapidly in strength than the Socialist party just at the present time." It reported that "thousands assemble to hear Socialist speakers in places where ordinarily a few hundred are considered large assemblages." The Akron BeaconJournal, a conservative newspaper in Ohio, said there was "scarcely a political observer ... but what will admit that were an election to come now a mighty tide of socialism would inundate the Middle West." It said the country had "never embarked upon a more unpopular war." In the municipal elections of 1917, against the tide of propaganda and patriotism, the Socialists made remarkable gains. Their candidate for mayor of New York. Morris Hillquit, got 22 percent of the vote, five times the normal Socialist vote there. Ten Socialists were elected to the New York State legislature. In Chicago, the party vote went from 3.6 percent in 1915 to 34.7 percent in 1917. In Buffalo, it went from 2.6 percent to 30.2 percent. George Creel and the government were behind the formation of an American Alliance for Labor and Democracy, whose president was Samuel Gompers and whose aim was to "unify sentiment in the nation" for the war. There were branches in 164 cities; many labor leaders went along. According to James Weinstein, however, the Alliance did not work: "Rank-and-file working class support for the war remained lukewarm. .. ." And although some prominent Socialists - Jack London, Upton Sinclair, Clarence Darrow - became prowar after the U.S. entered, most Socialists continued their opposition. Congress passed, and Wilson signed, in June of 1917, the Espionage Act. From its title one would suppose it was an act against spying. However, it had a clause that provided penalties up to twenty years in prison for "Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully cause or attempt to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall willfully obstruct the recruiting or enlistment service of the U.S. .. ." Unless one had a theory about the nature of governments, it was not clear how the Espionage Act would be used. It even had a clause that said "nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or restrict . . . any discussion, comment, or criticism of the acts or policies of the Government. .. ." But its double- talk concealed a singleness of purpose. The Espionage Act was used to imprison Americans who spoke or wrote against the war. Two months after the law passed, a Socialist named Charles Schenck was arrested in Philadelphia for printing and distributing fifteen thousand leaflets that denounced the draft law and the war. The leaflet recited the Thirteenth Amendment provision against "involuntary servitude" and said the Conscription Act violated this. Conscription, it said, was "a monstrous deed against humanity in the interests of the financiers of Wall Street." And: "Do not submit to intimidation." Schenck was indicted, tried, found guilty, and sentenced to six months in jail for violating the Espionage Act. (it turned out to be one of the shortest sentences given in such cases.) Schenck appealed, arguing that the Act, by prosecuting speech and writing, violated the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.. . ." no profit use only
The Supreme Court's decision was unanimous and was written by its most famous liberal,Oliver Wendell Holmes.He summarized the contents of the leaflet and said it was undoubtedly intended to "obstruct"the carrying out of the draft law.Was Schenck protected by the First Amendment?Holmes said: The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic....The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. Holmes's analogy was clever and attractive.Few people would think free speech should be conferred on someone shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.But did that example fit criticism of the war?Zechariah Chafee,a Harvard law school professor, wrote later(Free Speech in the United States)that a more apt analogy for Schenck was someone getting up between the acts at a theater and declaring that there were not enough fire exits.To play further with the example:was not Schenck's act more like someone shouting,not falsely,but truly,to people about to buy tickets and enter a theater,that there was a fire raging inside? Perhaps free speech could not be tolerated by any reas person if it constituted a "clear and present danger"to life and liberty;after all,free speech must compete with other vital rights.But was not the war itself a "clear and pesent danger,"indeed,more clear and more present and more dangerous to life than any argument against it?Did citizens not have a right to object to war,a right tobe a danger to dangerous policies? (The Espionage Act,thus approved by the Supreme Court,has remained on the books all these years since World War I,and although it is supposed to apply only in wartime,it has been constantly in force sice 1950,because the United States has legally been in a "state of emergency"since the Korean war.In 1963,the Kennedy administration pushed a bill [unsuceessfully]to apply the Espionage Act to statements uttered by Americans abroad;it asconcerned,in the words of a cable from Secretary of State Rusk to Ambassador Lodge i Vietnam,about journalists in Vietnam writing "critical articles...on Diem and his government"that were "likely to impede the war effort.") The case of Eugene Debs soon came before the Supreme Court.In June of 1918, Debs visited three Socialists who were in prison for opposing the draft,and then spoke, across the street from the jail,to an audience he kept enthralled for two hours.He was one of the country's great orators,and was interrupted again and again by laughter and applause."Why,the other day,by a vote of five-to-four-a kind of craps game,come seven,come eleven-they declared the child labor law unconstitutional."He spoke of his comrades in jail.He dealt with the charges that Socialists were pro-German."I hate,I loathe,I despise Junkers and Junkerdom.I have no earthly use for the Junkers of Germany,and not one particle more use for the Junkers in the United States." (Thunderous applause and cheers.) They tell us that we live in a great tree republic;that our institutions are democratic;that we are a tree and self-governing;people.That is too much,even for a joke.... Wars throughout history have been waged for conquest am!plunder...-And that is war in a nutshell.The master class has always declared the wars;the subject class has always fought the battles
The Supreme Court's decision was unanimous and was written by its most famous liberal, Oliver Wendell Holmes. He summarized the contents of the leaflet and said it was undoubtedly intended to "obstruct" the carrying out of the draft law. Was Schenck protected by the First Amendment? Holmes said: The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. ... The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. Holmes's analogy was clever and attractive. Few people would think free speech should be conferred on someone shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. But did that example fit criticism of the war? Zechariah Chafee, a Harvard law school professor, wrote later (Free Speech in the United States) that a more apt analogy for Schenck was someone getting up between the acts at a theater and declaring that there were not enough fire exits. To play further with the example: was not Schenck's act more like someone shouting, not falsely, but truly, to people about to buy tickets and enter a theater, that there was a fire raging inside? Perhaps free speech could not be tolerated by any reasonable person if it constituted a "clear and present danger" to life and liberty; after all, free speech must compete with other vital rights. But was not the war itself a "clear and present danger," indeed, more clear and more present and more dangerous to life than any argument against it? Did citizens not have a right to object to war, a right to be a danger to dangerous policies? (The Espionage Act, thus approved by the Supreme Court, has remained on the books all these years since World War I, and although it is supposed to apply only in wartime, it has been constantly in force since 1950, because the United States has legally been in a "state of emergency" since the Korean war. In 1963, the Kennedy administration pushed a bill [unsuccessfully] to apply the Espionage Act to statements uttered by Americans abroad; it was concerned, in the words of a cable from Secretary of State Rusk to Ambassador Lodge in Vietnam, about journalists in Vietnam writing "critical articles ... on Diem and his government" that were "likely to impede the war effort.") The case of Eugene Debs soon came before the Supreme Court. In June of 1918, Debs visited three Socialists who were in prison for opposing the draft, and then spoke, across the street from the jail, to an audience he kept enthralled for two hours. He was one of the country's great orators, and was interrupted again and again by laughter and applause. "Why, the other day, by a vote of five-to-four-a kind of craps game, come seven, come eleven-they declared the child labor law unconstitutional." He spoke of his comrades in jail. He dealt with the charges that Socialists were pro-German. "I hate, I loathe, I despise Junkers and Junkerdom. I have no earthly use for the Junkers of Germany, and not one particle more use for the Junkers in the United States." (Thunderous applause and cheers.) They tell us that we live in a great tree republic; that our institutions are democratic; that we are a tree and self-governing; people. That is too much, even for a joke.. . . Wars throughout history have been waged for conquest am! plunder. . . -And that is war in a nutshell. The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles. . .. no profit use only
Debs was arrested for violating the Espionage Act.There were draft-age youths in his audience,and his words would "obstruct the recruiting or enlistment service." His words were intended to do much more than that: Yes,in good time we are going to sweep into power in this nation and throughout the world.We are going to destroy all enslaving evil degrading capitalist institutions and re- create them as free and humanizing institutions.The world is daily changing before our eyes.The sun of capitalism is setting;the sun of Socialism is rising....In due time the hour will strike and this great cause triumphant...will proclaim the emancipation of the working class and the brotherhood of all mankind.(Thunderous and prolonged applause. Debs refused at his trial to take the stand in his defense,or to call a witness on his behalf.He denied nothing about what he said.But before the jury began its deliberations, he spoke to them: I have been accused of obstructing the war.I admit it.Gentlemen,I abhor war.I would oppose war if I stood alone....I have sympathy with the suffering,struggling people everywhere.It does not make any difference under what flag they were born,or where they live.... The jury found him guilty of violating the Espionage Act.Debs addressed the judge before sentencing: Your honor,years ago I recognized my kinship within all living beings,and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth.I said then,and I say now,that while there is a lower class,I am in it;while there is a criminal element,I am of it;while mere is a soul in prison,I am not free. The judge denounced those "who would strike tho sword from the hand of this nation while she is engaged in defending herself against a foreign and brutal power."He sentenced Debs to ten years in prison.C Debs's appeal was not heard by the Supreme Court until 1919.The war was over. Oliver Wendell Holmes,for a unanimous court,affirmed Debs's guilt.Holmes discussed Debs's speech:"He then expressedopposition to Prussian militarism in a way that naturally might have been thought to be intended to include the mode of proceeding in the United States."Holmes said Debs made "the usual contrasts between capitalists and laboring men...with the implication running through it all that the working men are not concerned in the war."Thus,Holmes said,the "natural and intended effect"of Debs's speech would be to obstruct recruiting. Debs was locked up in the West Virginia state penitentiary,and then in the Atlanta federal penitentiary,where he spent thirty-two months until,at the age of sixty-six,he was released by President Harding in 1921. About nine hundred people went to prison under the Espionage Act.This substantial opposition was put out of sight,while the visible national mood was represented by military bands,flag waving,the mass buying of war bonds,the majority's acquiescence to the draft and the war.This acquiescence was achieved by shrewd public relations and by intimidation-an effort organized with all the power of the federal government and the money of big business behind it.The magnitude of that campaign to discourage opposition says something about the spontaneous feelings of the population toward the war. The newspapers helped create an atmosphere of fear for possible opponents of the war.In April of 1917,the New York Times quoted Elihu Root(former Secretary of War,a
Debs was arrested for violating the Espionage Act. There were draft-age youths in his audience, and his words would "obstruct the recruiting or enlistment service." His words were intended to do much more than that: Yes, in good time we are going to sweep into power in this nation and throughout the world. We are going to destroy all enslaving evil degrading capitalist institutions and recreate them as free and humanizing institutions. The world is daily changing before our eyes. The sun of capitalism is setting; the sun of Socialism is rising.... In due time the hour will strike and this great cause triumphant... will proclaim the emancipation of the working class and the brotherhood of all mankind. (Thunderous and prolonged applause.) Debs refused at his trial to take the stand in his defense, or to call a witness on his behalf. He denied nothing about what he said. But before the jury began its deliberations, he spoke to them: I have been accused of obstructing the war. I admit it. Gentlemen, I abhor war. I would oppose war if I stood alone.... I have sympathy with the suffering, struggling people everywhere. It does not make any difference under what flag they were born, or where they live. . . . The jury found him guilty of violating the Espionage Act. Debs addressed the judge before sentencing: Your honor, years ago I recognized my kinship within all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth. I said then, and I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it; while there is a criminal element, I am of it; while mere is a soul in prison, I am not free. The judge denounced those "who would strike the sword from the hand of this nation while she is engaged in defending herself against a foreign and brutal power." He sentenced Debs to ten years in prison. Debs's appeal was not heard by the Supreme Court until 1919. The war was over. Oliver Wendell Holmes, for a unanimous court, affirmed Debs's guilt. Holmes discussed Debs's speech: "He then expressed opposition to Prussian militarism in a way that naturally might have been thought to be intended to include the mode of proceeding in the United States." Holmes said Debs made "the usual contrasts between capitalists and laboring men ... with the implication running through it all that the working men are not concerned in the war." Thus, Holmes said, the "natural and intended effect" of Debs's speech would be to obstruct recruiting. Debs was locked up in the West Virginia state penitentiary, and then in the Atlanta federal penitentiary, where he spent thirty-two months until, at the age of sixty-six, he was released by President Harding in 1921. About nine hundred people went to prison under the Espionage Act. This substantial opposition was put out of sight, while the visible national mood was represented by military bands, flag waving, the mass buying of war bonds, the majority's acquiescence to the draft and the war. This acquiescence was achieved by shrewd public relations and by intimidation-an effort organized with all the power of the federal government and the money of big business behind it. The magnitude of that campaign to discourage opposition says something about the spontaneous feelings of the population toward the war. The newspapers helped create an atmosphere of fear for possible opponents of the war. In April of 1917, the New York Times quoted Elihu Root (former Secretary of War, a no profit use only