World War I

Silencing Dissent During the War

Despite widespread pleas for peace, the United States entered the so-called “War to End All Wars” on April 6, 1917 after Germany began unrestricted submarine warfare against neutral ships, including American ships, and attempted to instigate Mexico into war against the U.S. To strengthen homeland security during the war, Congress sought to silence opponents of the war. Congress debated but ultimately rejected a provision allowing the President to censor the press, but did enact five new laws: Threats Against the President Act, Selective Service Act, Espionage Act, Trading-with-the-Enemy Act, and Sabotage Act.1 These acts were both intended to and actually used to punish not only citizens’ behavior, but also their speech.

John Stevens has written as excellent review of arrests and convictions in WWI Wisconsin.2 Stevens found that of the 105 citizens arrested for their speech under these laws, 22 were convicted, 38 plead guilty, 39 were dismissed, and 6 were acquitted. The most frequent words prosecuted were “it’s a rich man’s war.” A Grant County farmer and father of seven, for example, got a year and a day in Leavenworth plus $1,000 fine for saying this.

Some cases involved threats against the president. For example, a young Eau Claire County farmer got a year and a day in the federal penitentiary at Leavenworth for saying if he had an airplane he would “get that damned Wilson.”

Some people were arrested for saying we would lose the war. A Grand Rapids man, for example, got six months in the county workhouse and a $500 fine for saying the Germans would win the war and sink all the American troop ships.

Others were arrested for criticizing the draft. For example, a religious evangelist in Portage was convicted for saying the Constitution does not permit a draft forcing Americans to fight a foreign war.

Two cases, both involving a requirement that foreign language newspapers provide English translations, were quite bizarre. In one case, Jacob Auer, editor of the Eau Claire Herald, a man who was both very old and nearly senile, was sentenced to a year and a day in Leavenworth for a series of sloppy articles in which he claimed such things as small pox was going to wipe out the U.S. Army, the U.S. had used the submarine issue to enter the war, the German-Russian peace treaty was a good thing, and readers should not believe everything our government tells us. Fortunately, it is hard to imagine someone being jailed for stating such opinions today. In the other bizarre case, Jacob Mueller, editor of the German-language Dodge County Pioneer in Mayville, wrote, “German newspapers have been under the knout and have not been permitted to print war news unless a true translation is filed with the postmaster. Since we have no desire to pester the police with translations we print absolutely no war news.” Unfortunately for Mueller, the local district attorney considered this “war news,” and since it was not translated, he succeeded in convicting Mueller even though the war had been over for four months.

We must remember, of course, that legal prosecutions are not the only indicator of the health and vitality of free speech, or lack thereof. Dictatorial blood ran hot in some Wisconsinites. For example, some members of the Wisconsin Defense League, a citizen-patriot organization, urged the shooting of “seditious traitors,” conducted tar-and featherings, and demanded English language monopoly.

Notes

1 Stevens, p. 39; Rabban, p. 1218.

2 Stevens, John D. “When Sedition Laws were Enforced: Wisconsin in World War I,” Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters (Vol. 58, 1970), pp. 39-60.