|
Socialist Party of Ohio-- War and Free Speech by Richard A. Folk |
During World War I Ohio Socialists faced the dilemma of what action to take when two "imperialistic-capitalistic" economies come into conflict. According to theoretical Marxism, Socialists could not support a struggle, the purpose of which was to expand the capitalist system. In the United States, the Socialist party's National Executive Committee followed this doc- trine in August 1914 when it proclaimed the party's opposition to the Euro- pean battle. These Socialist leaders saw war as being "destructive of the ideals of brotherhood and humanity to which the international Socialist movement . . ." was dedicated. Blaming the war on the European ruling classes, the committee pledged American Socialist support to "the Socialist parties of Europe in any measures they [thought] necessary to undertake to advance the cause of peace and good-will among men."1 Four years earlier Ohio's George R. Kirkpatrick had expressed these views in his book, War! What For?.2 Contrary to this theory, the Socialist parties in England, France, Russia, and Germany not only failed to oppose the war, but actively supported it.3 This pragmatic decision enabled Socialists to avoid attacks by capitalistic governments while they sought popular support under a shield of patri- otism. Thus, European Socialist parties temporarily abandoned their long range goal of establishing utopia and international tranquility for the im- mediate purpose of party organization and growth. This gulf between theory and practice was incomprehensible to the Ohio Socialist mind. In searching for a solution to their problem, American Socialists aligned into three basic groups. One supported the Socialists in Allied countries and saw the European clash as a battle between freedom and democracy on one side and militarism and ultra-conservative reaction on the other. It was therefore in the best interest of Socialism to see Germany and her partners in militarism crushed. Another group adhered to Marxian philosophy and NOTES ON PAGE 152 |
SOCIALIST PARTY
105
called the war a struggle between two
capitalist camps, fought at the ex-
pense of the working class. Even before
the outbreak of war in Europe,
William D. "Big Bill" Haywood,
an organizer of the Industrial Workers of
the World, had proposed a general strike
against war: "War is Hell--let the
capitalists go to war to protect their
own property."4 The third element
consisted of German-Americans who desired
to see the United States up-
hold neutrality. The vast majority of
American Socialists, also, wanted the
country to remain neutral and work for a
rapid peace. Therefore, between
1914 and the declaration of war by
Congress in April 1917, Socialist efforts
were directed toward keeping America
neutral. It was this neutrality cam-
paign that stimulated Ohio Socialists to
participate in activities that were
destined to alter their political
existence.
Early writings of Ohio Socialists
indicate they feared war with Mexico
more than America's involvement in the
European conflict. The state con-
vention of the Ohio party in 1914 passed
a resolution opposing the war in
general and war with Mexico in particular.5
No other mention of the party's
stand on war is found in the
constitution or by-laws. The Socialist News
(Cleveland) attacked the interventionist
trend of United States policy to-
ward Mexico as intending not to protect
the United States but to protect
"the property of the millionaires."6
Robert Minor, Socialist cartoonist and
war correspondent, toured the
battlefields of Europe in 1915-16 and
reported to Socialist locals a vivid
picture of death and suffering endured
by members of the working class as
a result of modern warfare.7 His
purpose was to rob war of its glamor and
to present a realistic picture of the
agonies involved. He was one of the first
"lost generation" writers to
feel and express disillusionment over the pur-
poses of World War I.
At the state convention held in Columbus
on June 2, 3, and 4, 1916, the
delegates overwhelmingly endorsed a
resolution calling for a "national refer-
endum to recall Victor L. Berger
[co-founder of the Socialist party] from
the National Executive Committee for his
advocacy of preparedness."8 A
flood of anti-preparedness speakers hit
Ohio during the ensuing ten months.
That summer Local Cleveland stationed
two to five speakers daily at various
strategic spots in the city. In
September Allen L. Benson, Socialist candidate
for President, spoke in Cleveland's Gray
Armory. There were the numerous
picnics, social meetings, lecture
courses, bands, and other recreational get-
togethers that comprised Socialist
campaigns.
By February 1917 the movement had
reached its peak. Bold headlines ap-
peared in Socialist papers: "With
All Our Force We Demand Peace," "A
Great Peace Meeting,"
"Americans Want No War."9 In the drive to keep
America out of war, Cleveland's local
sponsored an international peace
meeting. The Engineers Auditorium was
filled with people representing
practically every nationality involved
in the European war. Charles E. Ruth-
enberg addressed the gathering in
English, followed by Paul Madaski speak-
ing in Slovak, Leo Frankl in Hungarian,
and Joseph Jodlbauer in German.
One Socialist publication observed that
"the many Germans present were of
varied opinions, some supporting peace
propaganda because they loved the
106 OHIO HISTORY
Kaiser, while others supported it
because they considered the lives of work-
ers too dear to be sacrificed for
capitalist profits."10
Two thousand people in Cleveland heard
Eugene Debs, the most noted
Socialist in America, urge his party to
organize politically and industrially to
"checkmate . . . the master class
and eventually make wars impossible by in-
augurating the Co-operative Commonwealth."11
While Debs spoke, C. E.
Ruthenberg, Arthur Wagenknecht, and Tom
Clifford addressed an over-
flow crowd of five hundred. During this
last effort before the declaration of
war was passed by Congress, anti-war
meetings were sponsored by Socialists
in Akron, Dayton, Hamilton, Cincinnati,
Toledo, Canton, and in numerous
smaller cities with strong locals. But
the Congressional action of April 6,
1917, marked the end of efforts to keep
the United States out of war, and
so the Socialist party lost its campaign
for neutrality.
In viewing the history of the Socialist
party in America three conferences
stand as milestones in the movement. The
Indianapolis convention of 1901
marked the party's birth and the Chicago
convention of 1919, for all practi-
cal purposes, marked its death. Between
these two historical meetings oc-
curred the equally important St. Louis
Emergency National Convention of
the Socialist Party, April 7 to 14,
1917. It was this convention's task to decide
what the party policy would be in the
event America entered the war. The
day after war was declared, nearly two
hundred delegates assembled at the
Planters Hotel in St. Louis. The policy
created at this convention and later
adopted through referendum was to change
the course of the party's history.
One recent historian maintains that the
delegates to the St. Louis con-
vention were a good cross section of the
Socialist party. He also discredits
earlier charges that the delegates were
wild-eyed aliens or Irish Nationalists
who were interested in England's defeat.12
It is reasonable to say that the
Socialists constructing the anti-war
policy were neither pro-German nor
foreign-born radicals. They were
American Socialists, each voting for a peace
policy based upon what he thought
best for the Socialist movement.
Two Ohioans, Frank Midney and Charles E.
Ruthenberg, served on the
eleven-member "War Committee"
and drafted the party's declaration upon
the questions of war and militarism.
Marguerite Prevey of Akron and Tom
Clifford of Cleveland worked on the
resolutions committee; Charles Baker
of Hamilton was a member of the ways and
means committee; and William
Patterson of Toledo and state secretary
Alfred Wagenknecht served on the
platform committee and committee on
organization, respectively. The Ohio
delegation took an active part in the
convention and voted with the majority
on every issue.13
The St. Louis Declaration said, in part,
that "The working class of the
United States has no quarrel with the
working class of Germany or any
other country. [The American people]
have been plunged into this war by
the trickery and treachery of the ruling
class . . . ."14 Morris Hillquit and
Charles Ruthenberg wrote the majority
report pledging the party to the
following course of action for the
duration of the war: 1) 'Continuous, ac-
tive, and public opposition to the war .
. .'; 2) "opposition to military con-
scription, sale of war bonds, and taxes
on the necessities of life . . ."; 3)
SOCIALIST PARTY
107
"'vigorous resistance' to all
measures curtailing freedom"; 4) 'Consistent
propaganda against military training and
militaristic teaching in the public
schools'; 5) "extension of the
Socialist program of education for the workers
in an effort to shorten the war and
establish a lasting peace . . ."; 6) 'Wide-
spread educational propaganda to
enlighten the masses as to the true rela-
tion between capitalism and war . . .';
and 7) "a demand for the restriction
of food exports . . . to protect the
'American masses from starvation.'"15
Two other plans were also presented to
the convention. Louis B. Boudin,
of New York City, representing the
middle ground position, drew up a re-
port similar to the majority report
except that it omitted a plan of action.
John Spargo, of Vermont, submitted his
own report stating that "the war
is an accomplished fact, . . . we hold that it is our Socialist duty to make
whatever sacrifice may be necessary to
enable our nation and its allies to win
the war as speedily as possible."
These were submitted to the delegates
along with the Hillquit-Ruthenberg
report. The majority report received
136 votes to Boudin's 32 and Spargo's
5.16
The Hillquit-Ruthenberg report and the
Boudin report were combined
and presented to the party membership,
with Spargo's report submitted as
an alternate proposal. In a national
party referendum each section of the
reports was voted upon separately. All
sections but one of the majority
report received over 21,000 votes, while
no section of the Spargo report re-
ceived over 8,000 votes, clearly
evidencing the membership's anti-war senti-
ments.17
Scott Nearing, the Socialist economics
professor at the University of To-
ledo prior to America's entrance into
World War I, recently stated: "The
anti-war stand destroyed the party as a
political force in the United States."18
If Dr. Nearing is correct, it is
necessary to answer the question, "How?"
Two facts are pertinent. First, the
party's anti-war declaration and its cam-
paign to oppose the war created
antagonism against Socialists. This is clear-
ly evidenced in reviewing the numerous
arrests and trials between 1917 and
the 1919 free speech drive. Second, is
the inner-party split that occurred after
the St. Louis meeting. Carl D. Thompson,
writing to the Cleveland Citizen
in May 1918, expressed many Socialists'
sentiments by calling for the repeal
of the St. Louis platform on the grounds
that it "violates the principle of
majority rule."19 Thompson
and others maintained that after the nation
had declared war through its legally
constituted authorities, the principle of
majority rule required submission. For
this reason, many prominent leaders
in the national movement left the party,
including the writers Jack London
and Upton Sinclair; George Herron, the
Christian Socialist leader; Robert
Hunter, the social worker; J. C. Phelps
Stokes, the party's millionaire; and
Allen Benson, the party's 1916
Presidential candidate. Among the Ohioans
who left were the editor of the
Cleveland Citizen, Max Hayes and the prom-
inent Akron Socialist, Jim McCartan.
McCartan felt that it was "his duty to
back up the boys in the trenches. It was
like a strike; he might think it un-
wise, but if the majority voted for it
he would be on the picket line with
his fellow workers."20
These losses were more than balanced by
those persons who joined the
108 OHIO HISTORY
Socialist party because of its war
stand. The foreign language federations had
grown in strength and influence from
1912 to 1919. By the later year, over
57,000 members belonged to the
federations out of a national total of 108,000
card-carrying members. In part, the
Russian revolution stimulated this
growth, but a substantial percent joined
to protest America's entrance into
the war.21 Local Cleveland
membership increased from 1,362 in September
1916 to 1,460 in May 1917, and this gain
was made in spite of the fact that
a branch of nearly one hundred members
withdrew from the party to af-
filiate with the Industrial Workers of
the World.22 This change in party
composition resulted in the formation of
a new left wing that was eventually
to solidify opposition to the
Berger-Hillquit controlled right wing. If the
St. Louis declaration destroyed the
Socialist party's political force, it was not
apparent until 1919, and even then other
elements must receive equal con-
sideration.
In accordance with the St. Louis
Resolution, Ohio Socialists launched
their anti-war campaign. Four thousand
persons assembled in Cleveland's
Public Square on May 20, 1917, to
"listen to denunciation of the govern-
ment which got [them] into war."23
Socialists in Columbus circulated leaf-
lets opposing conscription. Public
meetings were held in Cincinnati, Hamil-
ton, Dayton, Toledo, Canton, Akron,
Lorain, and Marietta denouncing the
war and American intervention. The
Socialist plea for peace was sent out
from all parts of the state. Ohio's
Socialist press, the Ohio Socialist, Miami
Valley Socialist, and Socialist News, joined in propagandizing the
party's
stand.
The party's efforts were limited,
however, by its radical nature and by the
deficiency of its press. Work by local
organizations and individual action
constituted the bulk of anti-war
endeavors. The initial form of Socialist
protest was the simple failure or
refusal to register for the draft. For exam-
ple, the Youngstown Vindicator, October
22, 1917, reported that many men
registering to vote were found to be
"shy of serial numbers."24 Many men
failed to appear for their pre-induction
physical examinations. Pamphlets
and street speakers urged young men to
oppose conscription. Such agitation
against Federal policy was certain to
foster grave repercussions as a wave of
super patriotism took hold of the
American public.
It was not long after the St. Louis
Resolution was adopted that Ohio
newspaper headlines signified the
reaction:
Anti-war meet here
rouses U.S. Jail Socialists for "No Draft" Tirade [in
Cleveland].
Nation-wide
conspiracy is unearthed in Columbus.
Eleven men charged
with treason in Cincinnati.
Three Ohioans face
death for treason.
W. O. McClory
imprisoned in Tiffin for having Socialist literature in his
pockets.
Arrested while
crowd riots. A. Wagenknecht, state secretary of the Socialist
party jailed.25
Throughout the country anti-Socialist
and anti-pacifist groups organized to
SOCIALIST PARTY
109
suppress opposition to the war.26 When
meeting such organized resistance,
the Socialist party was helpless since
it could look for neither police pro-
tection nor public support. Its own
organization was not prepared to protect
either the locals or individual members.
The Socialists, Charles Ruthenberg,
candidate for mayor, Alfred Wagen-
knecht, state secretary, and Charles
Baker, the state organizer, conducted
an anti-war meeting in Cleveland's
Public Square which was broken up
by city police. The three leaders were
arrested on June 27 and 28 and
charged with persuading a certain
Alphonse Schue not to register for the
draft. In reporting the resulting trial
a Socialist newspaper described the
jury as "a dozen Rip Van
Winkles." The basis for the charge was Schue's
testimony that he had attended several
meetings held on the Public Square
where Baker, Wagenknecht, and Ruthenberg
had spoken. The young man
maintained that these speeches had
caused him not to register.27
The Socialist paper questioned the
prosecution's case, contending that
"there was no evidence other than
his unsupported statement that the
speeches had caused him not to register."28
District Attorney Edwin S.
Wertz was unable to prove that Schue had
been on the Public Square on
the days in question, but he secured a
verdict of guilty from the jury and a
sentence of one year in the Canton, Ohio
jail for the three Socialists. Be-
fore receiving sentence, Ruthenberg told
the court: "I am not conscious of
having committed any crime. The thing
that I am conscious of is having
endeavored to inspire higher ideals and
nobler lives. If to do that is a crime
in the eyes of the government, I am
proud to have committed that crime."
While the case was being appealed to the
Supreme Court of the United
States, the three men were released on a
$5,000 bond.29
In Columbus, Ammon A. Henacy, Harry E.
Townsley, and Cecil Baily,
members of Local Columbus Socialist
party were arrested for circulating
an anti-conscription pamphlet which
urged men not to register for the
draft.30 The three were
charged first with treason, but later convicted on a
lesser charge and sent to prison. Thirteen
Socialists were arrested in Cin-
cinnati on June 1, 1917, for printing
and distributing handbills "which de-
nounced conscription, quoted the first
and fifth amendments of the federal
constitution and a portion of Daniel
Webster's anti-draft speech of 1814,
and boldly urged all to refuse to
register."31 Their trial was delayed for
several years, eventually ending in
conviction.
In Toledo Eugene Debs, who was also
under indictment, was scheduled
to deliver a farewell address on Sunday,
March 30, 1919. The Socialists ar-
ranged with the Metal Workers' Council
to use Memorial Hall which the
council had rented for that date. City
authorities took the position that if
the Metal Workers' Council did not use
the hall, then some "patriotic or-
ganization" should have first
chance. The council replied that they would
keep the date and offer their full
support for a Debs meeting. One Socialist
newspaper reported that Toledo Mayor
Cornell Schreiber then gave orders
to the police department that "No
meeting will be permitted to be held
anywhere in this city where it is
suspected a man of radical tendencies is
to speak."32
110 OHIO HISTORY
By two-thirty that afternoon a crowd of
over five hundred had assembled
at the depot to greet Debs. Suffering
from an attack of lumbago, the cham-
pion of Socialism was unable to make the
Toledo meeting but the state
headquarters had sent Charles Baker,
Socialist organizer just out of prison
on bail, to fill the engagement. Baker
entered a car and the crowd formed
a line behind him to march to the hall.
The police arrested the driver of
the car; another man took his place, and
the procession continued. Upon
reaching Memorial Hall, it was found to
be locked by city authorities, who
had refused even the Metal Workers use
of the building for a Debs meeting.
An estimated 10,000 persons were in the
streets around the hall. M. H.
Toohey, secretary of Local Toledo,
mounted a speakers platform and began:
"We will hold a meeting here this
afternoon, and enjoy Democracy, if we
must wade through blood to do it!"33
Toohey was then arrested by one of
the three hundred policemen detailed to
keep peace and was rushed to jail
in a patrol wagon. William Harris, also
of Local Toledo, was next to mount
the platform. After a short speech
consisting of "Ladies and Gentlemen," he,
too, was taken to jail. A soldier just
back from France and a member of the
same local was next to be arrested. They
were followed by fourteen others,
including Thomas Devine, Toledo's
Socialist councilman.34
State organizer Baker then called
Socialist leaders to meet in their head-
quarters where the battle plan was
outlined. The Socialists proposed to fill
the jail, and over two hundred people
pledged to take their turns speaking.
Within half an hour after their return
to the crowd, sixty speakers had been
arrested. Baker then mounted a car and
called upon the vast crowd to go
to the jail. The crowd--by this time a
mob--marched on the city jail. Coun-
cilman Devine convinced Chief of Police
Herbert to release all prisoners and
allow the Socialists to make their
speeches in order to avoid bloodshed. A
police car was pulled into the street
and Thomas Devine, Charles Baker,
and M. H. Toohey delivered their
speeches in front of the jail. Shortly
thereafter, the crowd dispersed and
violence was avoided.35
Socialist battles against pro-war
elements in Ohio generally followed the
four examples herein presented. All
Socialist meetings, whether originally
organized as anti-war meetings,
anti-conscription programs, free speech as-
semblies, or merely municipal election
campaigns, were constantly harrassed
by well-meaning citizens, who, through
mass hysteria and fear, denied both
natural and civil rights in order
"to preserve democracy." Dedicated to the
preservation of those rights without
which Socialists maintained there was
no democracy, one by one the leaders of
the movement martyred themselves
to the cause. Eugene Debs could not
stand by and watch others pay for the
cause he had championed without entering
into the fray. After Kate
Richards O'Hare of St. Louis, Rose
Pastor Stokes of Kansas, Ruthenberg,
Wagenknecht, and Baker of Ohio, and
numerous other Socialists had been
indicted and sentenced under the
Espionage Act, Debs left his home and
wife in Terre Haute for another
campaign, not for office, but for the ideal
of free speech.
It may have been a confused feeling of
guilt as well as a sincere desire
to help those who were paying the price
for opposing war that motivated
SOCIALIST PARTY
111
Debs to crusade for free speech. When
the Socialist leader was asked to ad-
dress the Ohio Socialist convention at
Canton, he decided to make his stand.
He had written to Kate Richards O'Hare
in December 1918: "I cannot yet
believe that they will ever dare to send
you to prison for exercising your
constitutional rights of free speech but
if they do ... I shall feel guilty to be
at large."36 In the
weeks preceding the Canton speech, Debs orally attacked
the President, criticized the war, and
denounced the Federal war policies
without being arrested.
Early in the afternoon of June 16, 1918,
a reception committee of local
Canton Socialists met Debs at the Courtland
Hote1 to drive him to
Nimisilla Park to address the
convention. A reporter for the Cleveland
Plain Dealer, Clyde R. Miller, intercepted the famous radical and
Debs
agreed to be interviewed. When asked if
he still supported the St. Louis
Manifesto, Debs answered: "I
approved of the adoption of the platform
in form and substance at the time it was
created but in the light of the
Russian situation I think we should put
forth a restatement of the aims
of the Socialist Party."37 Miller
then asked Debs about the United States
involvement in the war. Debs said the
war was "a contest, between power-
ful imperial forces in Germany and
precisely the same kind of ruthless,
rich and greedy men in England .... The
pawns in the contest were
the millions of young men in the various
armies--young men who had
not the faintest understanding of the
real issue of war."38 Miller, believ-
ing Debs had violated the Espionage Act
of 1917, placed a telephone call
to the District Attorney's office.
Upon leaving Miller, Debs went directly
to the Stark County Work-
house to visit Wagenknecht, Baker, and
Ruthenberg. Debs was told that
the three Socialists had been assigned
to work in the laundry. Refusing
this work as a judgment against their
political views, they were punished
by hanging by their wrists for two days.
Filled with anger, Debs left the
workhouse and proceeded to Nimisilla
Park where he delivered the famous
Canton speech.
After being introduced to the
convention, the tall, gaunt figure stepped
to the front of the stage and observed
that it was "extremely dangerous
to exercise the constitutional right of
free speech in a country fighting
to make democracy safe in the
world." He then spoke of Ruthenberg,
Wagenknecht, and Baker as symbols of the
Socialist movement, stating
that the authorities could put
individuals into jail "but they cannot put
the Socialist movement in jail."39
The Socialist leader attacked capitalism
and its war as the evil exploita-
tion of working class youth. Debs spoke
of war in general saying: "The
master class has always declared the
war; the subject class has always
fought the battles. The master class has
had all to gain and nothing to
lose, while the subject class has had
nothing to gain and all to lose--especial-
ly their lives."40 In
repudiating the propaganda linking the party with
"pro-Kaiserism," he declared
that Socialists had "been fighting it [Prussian
militarism] since the day the Socialist
movement was born .... I hate,
I loathe, I despise junkers and
junkerdom. I have no earthly use for the
112 OHIO HISTORY
junkers of Germany, and not one particle
more use for the junkers of
the United States."41 Also
in this vein, Debs challenged them "to find
any Socialist who was ever the guest of
the Kaiser [as Theodore Roosevelt
had been] except as one of his prison
wards."42 Not content with attack-
ing capitalism in general terms, he
aimed at the "cowardly" institutions
upholding that system. Debs cried that
"when Wall Street says war, the
press says war and the pulpit promptly
follows with its Amen."43
Department of Justice agents went
through the crowd demanding to
see the draft registration cards of
young men present as Debs spoke. A
government stenographer, Virgil Steiner,
was sent to Nimisilla Park to
record Deb's speech. Steiner could not
keep up with the speaker, catch-
ing only sentences here and there. The
Socialist party had hired Edward
R. Sterling, a Canton attorney, as a
stenographic reporter for the Debs
meeting. Steiner's copy of the speech
was turned over to the United States
Attorney's office for the Northern
District of Ohio.
After underlining passages which he
thought were in violation of the
Espionage Act, Edwin S. Wertz, United
States Attorney for the Northern
District of Ohio, sent the copy to the
Attorney General in Washington.
The Attorney General and his advisors
did not forbid prosecution but
found that "In the opinion of the
Department, most of the passages marked
by you, in and of themselves, do not
violate the law."44
Wertz decided to prosecute, however, and
on June 29, 1918, a Federal
grand jury in Cleveland indicted Eugene
V. Debs. Arrested and taken
to the Federal Building in Cleveland,
Debs again met Clyde R. Miller, the
Plain Dealer reporter. Miller asked Debs if he wanted to repudiate
the
St. Louis Manifesto and the Socialist
replied: "I do not and, if necessary,
I shall die for those principles."45
Two Socialist party members, Marguerite
Prevey and A. W. Moshowitz of Cleveland
posted a $10,000 bond and
Debs was released.
Clarence Darrow offered his service as
defense attorney but Debs refused
to be represented by the great lawyer
because of his pro-war views. There-
fore, four Socialists (Seymour Stedman
and William A. Gunnea of Chicago,
Joseph W. Sharts of Dayton, and Morris
H. Wolfe of Cleveland) prepared
Debs' defense. The defendant was
prepared to admit that he had delivered
the Canton speech but he denied that the
speech or any part of it was
criminal. The Socialists' only argument
was that the Sedition Act, an
amendment to the Espionage Act, violated
the First Amendment which
meant that their battle must be fought
in a higher court.
The government first entered the two
versions of Debs' speech as
evidence for the prosecution. Charles
Ruthenberg was called into court
to identify the St. Louis Manifesto. For
three days the prosecution read
its evidence into the records, with
Clyde R. Miller as chief witness against
Debs. As the trial drew to a close, Debs
and his legal advisors were
certain the verdict would be guilty.
The defense called no witnesses, but
attorney Morris H. Wolfe secured
for Debs the right to address the court
in his own behalf. He told the
jury:
SOCIALIST PARTY
113
I have been accused of obstructing the
war. I admit it. Gentlemen,
I abhor war. I would oppose the war if I
stood alone . . . . I wish to
admit everything that has been charged
against me except what is em-
braced in the indictment . . . . I can
not take back a word. I can't
repudiate a sentence. I stand before you
guilty of having made this
speech . . . prepared to take the
consequences of what there is to em-
brace.46
After the jury "of retired farmers
and merchants" had found him guilty,
Debs was offered the opportunity to make
a statement before sentencing.
He faced the court and said:
Your honor, years ago I recognized my
kinship with all living be-
ings, and I made up my mind that I was
not one bit better than the
meanest of earth. I said then, and I say
now, that while there is a lower
class I am in it; while there is a soul
in prison, I am not free . . . . I
look upon it [the Espionage Law] as a
despotic enactment in flagrant
conflict with democratic principles and
with the spirit of free institu-
tions
. . . .47
Judge D. C. Westenhaver sentenced Debs
to ten years imprisonment.
When Debs' case was appealed to the
Supreme Court, Gilbert E. Roe,
a New York attorney, filed a brief
attacking the constitutionality of the
Espionage Act. Justice Oliver Wendell
Homes delivered the unanimous
opinion of the court which accepted
Westenhaver's original decision on
the ground that Debs had intended to
interfere with the war and that
interference was the effect of his
words.48 So far as the Supreme Court
was concerned, Eugene V. Debs would have
to pay for his right to speak
against American policy by serving ten
years behind bars.
After his arrest the party had arranged
many meetings in Ohio seek-
ing money to be used as a Debs Defense
Fund.49 Among the corps of
speakers who rushed into Ohio offering
aid were Ross D. Brown (Ohio
Negro organizer), Lotta Burke
(Cincinnatian who faced prison herself),
Kate Richards O'Hare (the pretty
midwestern radical), and Thomas
"Proletarian Tom" Lewis
(organizer of party locals in several states). In
December Charles Ruthenberg, Alfred
Wagenknecht, and Charles Baker
were released from the Stark County
Workhouse and joined the crusade.
Socialist speakers from Akron, Bellaire,
Dayton, Columbus, Fostoria,
Canton, Conneaut, Coshocton, East
Liverpool, Hamilton, Lorain, Martins
Ferry, St. Marys, and several smaller
towns raised funds by holding free
speech meetings. Although the Ohio party
made an admirable effort to
defend those facing prison, achievements
in this campaign were limited
by a lack of organization, outside
harrassment, and the unwillingness to
foster cooperation between the state and
national Socialist campaigns.50
During the summer of 1918 the National
Executive Committee launched
a Million Dollar Campaign and Defense
Fund drive for the "Free Speech
Struggle." Cleveland organizer and
acting state secretary (while her husband
was in jail), Hortense Wagenknecht, in
an open letter to Ohio Socialist
party members attacked the national office
for sending five different men
114 OHIO HISTORY
into the Cleveland area to collect
funds. She implied that local state control
of this operation would cost less and
issure the rank and file that proper
records of money collected would be
kept. She also questioned the wisdom
of sending representatives from local,
state, and national organizations to
the same people for money. Such demands
would surely place a financial
burden on members. Speaking for the state
office, she called on all Ohio
Socialists to protest against this
"undemocratic" practice.51
At the Socialist Party Chicago
Conference of August 10, 1918, the Ohio
delegation brought the matter to the
floor to be considered by all delegates:
The Socialist Party of Ohio through the
state office and the state
executive committee, opposed the plan
from the very beginning. We
saw it as another attempt on the part of
the national office to centralize
party activities in the national office
and we saw in the centralization
of party activities the greatest enemy
to organization.52
The Ohio delegation proposed two plans
to establish better relationships
between national and state organization
fund-raising attempts. Under
plan "A" the national office
would divide all state organizations into
three categories: well organized, fairly
well organized, and poorly organized.
The national office would then seek to
aid groups two and three with the
help of group one. Under the alternate
proposal, plan "B," a "good" state
and a "poor" state,
geographically close, would share organizers and
speakers.53 In this way the
state office in Ohio hoped to preserve local
control of organizational and fund
drives.
Ohio delegates at Chicago were unable to
muster a majority vote in
support of either of their plans. When
Eugene V. Debs sent out a plea
for support of the Million Dollar
Campaign and Defense Fund, Ohio
Socialists answered only half-heartedly.
Keeping in mind the Ohio party's
left-wing position, another motive
entered the picture. A majority of the
National Executive Committee were
conservatives. The Ohio delegates and
other left-wing state organizations
formed a coalition seeking to oppose
conservative "reformism." The
issue of local autonomy became a factor
in the battle for power and control of
the whole party on a nationwide
basis. This conflict between the party's
left and right wings was a revival
of the factionalism that had remained
dormant since 1906. Radicals believed
that the attempt to build a strong,
dominant national office was a right-
wing plot to retain control of the
party. At the next Chicago convention
in 1919 this conflict was to develop
into an intra-party civil war, ultimately
destroying it as a political force.
The story of Ohio Socialist struggles in
behalf of peace and free speech
ends in defeat. Opposition to war and
the defense of free speech in normal
times are noble positions shared by most
Americans. Unfortunately for
the Socialists, the trying years of 1917
and 1918 were beyond the realm
of normality. From its conception in
1901 the Socialist party had failed
to realize that in the United States
political parties succeed only through
compromise and practical politics.
Philosophically consistent, Ohio So-
cialists refused to alter the basic
ideas presented in George R. Kirkpatrick's
War! What For? In 1917 political pragmatism dictated a prudent course, such as that followed three years earlier by European Socialists. At St. Louis, Ohio Socialists dogmatically declined compromise and in so doing helped place their party outside America's traditional political model. Throughout the state Socialist campaigns to oppose conscription and ef- forts to obstruct the war clashed with conservative forces allied to a power- ful press. Socialist threats to national security, real or imagined, created mass hysteria which was manifested in super patriotism during and after the war. One by one Ohio Socialists martyred themselves on the altar of free speech. In this way they became estranged from the laboring class, the very group they had hoped to represent. In the end, Ohio Socialism's struggle for peace and free speech, rather than eliciting popular support, further alienated the majority, in whose eyes Socialism was already un- American. THE AUTHOR: Richard A. Folk is a doctoral candidate at the University of Toledo. |
|
Socialist Party of Ohio-- War and Free Speech by Richard A. Folk |
During World War I Ohio Socialists faced the dilemma of what action to take when two "imperialistic-capitalistic" economies come into conflict. According to theoretical Marxism, Socialists could not support a struggle, the purpose of which was to expand the capitalist system. In the United States, the Socialist party's National Executive Committee followed this doc- trine in August 1914 when it proclaimed the party's opposition to the Euro- pean battle. These Socialist leaders saw war as being "destructive of the ideals of brotherhood and humanity to which the international Socialist movement . . ." was dedicated. Blaming the war on the European ruling classes, the committee pledged American Socialist support to "the Socialist parties of Europe in any measures they [thought] necessary to undertake to advance the cause of peace and good-will among men."1 Four years earlier Ohio's George R. Kirkpatrick had expressed these views in his book, War! What For?.2 Contrary to this theory, the Socialist parties in England, France, Russia, and Germany not only failed to oppose the war, but actively supported it.3 This pragmatic decision enabled Socialists to avoid attacks by capitalistic governments while they sought popular support under a shield of patri- otism. Thus, European Socialist parties temporarily abandoned their long range goal of establishing utopia and international tranquility for the im- mediate purpose of party organization and growth. This gulf between theory and practice was incomprehensible to the Ohio Socialist mind. In searching for a solution to their problem, American Socialists aligned into three basic groups. One supported the Socialists in Allied countries and saw the European clash as a battle between freedom and democracy on one side and militarism and ultra-conservative reaction on the other. It was therefore in the best interest of Socialism to see Germany and her partners in militarism crushed. Another group adhered to Marxian philosophy and NOTES ON PAGE 152 |