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.