University Place

The Great War at Home in Wisconsin: Part I

Good morning, my name is Matt Blessing. I am the state archivist and I am with the Wisconsin Historical Society, one of the organizers of this symposium. The historical society is very proud to be a cosponsor. It’s my job today to welcome you to this session but I’m particularly pleased because I’ve known each of the three presenters for many years. I first want to start by thanking Wisconsin Public Television for recording each of the three Wisconsin-focused sessions today. They will be rebroadcast at a later date. I know Wisconsin residents all agree that public broadcasting in both Madison and Milwaukee does a superb job sharing state and local history. The impact of the first world war in Wisconsin of course was profound and I know that each of the presenters will clearly tease out those complexities. And I’ll be introducing each of the speakers in the order of their presentation and then I’ll get out of the way.

First up is Rick Pifer, my friend and former colleague at the Wisconsin Historical Society. Dr. Pifer has studied the Wisconsin home front during World War I and World War II for over 40 years. In retirement, he has returned to writing history. His recently released book, “The Great War Comes to Wisconsin,” discusses the many ways Wisconsin residents met the demands of the war. In his comments today, he explores the meaning and the manifestations of patriotism. Second will be Kevin Abing. Dr. Abing is the senior archivist at the Milwaukee County Historical Society. His remarks focus on the home front in the state’s largest city. Kevin earned his MA and PhD in history from Marquette University and his interest in Milwaukee during World War I stemmed from his early work processing the papers of socialist mayor Dan Hoan.

He became intrigued by the extent and the ferocity of the anti-German and anti-Socialist hysteria during the war and that interest snowballed into his new book, “A Crowded Hour, Milwaukee During the Great War,” published this past May. Leslie Bellais will close this session. Ms. Bellais is the curator of social history at the Wisconsin Historical Society, responsibilities which include curation of the society’s important textiles collections. Previously, her work at the College of William and Mary’s unique graduate program included numerous museum management apprenticeships at colonial Williamsburg. While continuing to work at the Wisconsin Historical Society Leslie has returned to graduate school at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. She completed her thesis “Bringing Up the Rear, A History of Late 19th Century Bustles” and is currently working on her dissertation “Trader State, A Crisis of Loyalty in World War I Wisconsin.” Rick.

– Thank you, Matt. I’ve titled my paper today “Patriotism in the Traitor State.” In response to the Russian Revolution of 1905, Mark Twain wrote The Czar’s Soliloquy which contains my favorite definition of patriotism. Twain wrote, “Remember this, take it to heart, live by it, die for it if necessary. Our patriotism is medieval, outworn, obsolete. The modern patriotism, the true patriotism, the only rational patriotism, is loyalty to the Nation all of the time, loyalty to the Government when it deserves it.” Wisconsin was the traitor state or so it seemed to many observers in 1917. And look at the record. The people of Monroe, Wisconsin voted overwhelmingly against going to war. Wisconsin’s prominent Socialist Party ejected participation in any way the capitalist conflict. Nine of Wisconsin’s 11 representatives voted against the war. Senator Robert M. La Follette lead a filibuster to prevent arming American merchant ships. He was one of six Senators to vote against the war. He lead opposition to conscription, the sale of bonds to finance the war and repression of free speech.

Everywhere they looked, the Wisconsin Loyalty Legion believed they could see ample evidence of disloyalty, sedition and unpatriotic behavior. On March 21, 1918, the Wisconsin Loyalty Legion graphically portrayed the state’s traitorous reputation in the “Sedition Map,” published in the New York Sun. The map showed seditious areas of the state, places where Socialists and La Follette progressives had polled well in the Senate primary in the spring of 1918. In that primary, especially in German areas, the progressives and the socialists did well. Not surprisingly, the legion identified the areas that had voted that way as pro-German and seditious. Visiting pundits from out of state repeatedly joined Wisconsin super-patriots to question the state’s loyalty. All too often, instead of critiquing reality, critics saw what they wanted to see. Wisconsin, the traitor state, was a mirage of their own imaginations. In response, Governor Emanuel Philipp routinely told audiences, “There is nothing wrong with Wisconsin.” He would then launch into a litany of Wisconsin wartime success stories, stories that demonstrated the patriotic nature of the state. Patriotism fueled self-sacrifice in the name of God and country, it motivated young men on the battle field and civilians who volunteered for the Red Cross or YMCA.

It motivated those who bought war bonds to help finance the war. But in the wrong hands it also motivated attacks on those who were culturally different or who disagreed as La Follette did with government policy. In many cities and towns, patriotic rallies and parades fulfilled a basic need for community expression of loyalty and unity, and a public affirmation of faith in the nation, but we need to keep in mind that most expressions of patriotism went unheralded by public notice because they were small personal actions. The emphasis on loyalty, duty, and patriotism permeated wartime life. Flags flew on street corners, in window displays, and on newspaper mastheads. The war was the topic of discussion everywhere. In the days immediately following the declaration of war, Wisconsinites quickly fell into line supporting the war effort. Congressman John Esch from La Crosse had voted against the war. The next day he told a constituent, “Now that we are at war, it becomes the duty of every citizen to loyally support the government.” Bob La Follette took the same position.

The draft provided one of the earliest opportunities for Wisconsin to show its true colors. Fearing draft riots in Wisconsin because of the German population, Army officials offered to send federal troops to maintain order on draft registration day, which was set for June 5, 1917. Governor Philipp replied to the federal offer with a polite, “No, thank you.” He had full faith in the people of Wisconsin. Without fuss or fanfare, 218,700 young men registered for the draft in Wisconsin, 106% of the number estimated as eligible. On the home front, activities such as food conservation provided one of the most universal ways in which civilians displayed their patriotism and support for the war effort. Herbert Hoover enlisted millions of American housewives to create food surpluses for Europe through conservation. For most housewives and families conserving food, eating wheatless or meatless meals, felt good. These daily sacrifices gave meaning to the term patriotism. High participation resulted from patriotic fervor but also from social pressure.

The two really went hand in hand. For example, on the last day of a drive to encourage women to sign the Hoover pledge, an intimidating “automobile parade” drove through Madison. The caravan stopped at every house not sporting a Food Pledge Card in the window. A woman from the parade would get out of the car, go up to the house and precede to convince the housewife that she needed to sign the pledge. And as one would expect, most complied. Wisconsin farmers responded to the call for more food by bringing approximately 94,000 additional acres under cultivation during the war. By 1918, production of corn, potatoes, oats, and barley, all substitutes for wheat which was going to Europe, they increased production by 10 to 15 percent over prewar output. As agricultural workers entered the military or took industrial jobs in cities, rural communities showed their patriotism by providing stopgap solutions for the shortage in farm labor. In Ashland County, for example, the schools closed for a week in the fall of 1917 to help bring in the harvest.

At home, war gardens brought squash, carrots, turnips, spinach, and a panoply of other produce to the family table, easing some of the strains on commercial agriculture. Perhaps the most important aspect of war gardens, however, was not what they produced, but the sense of participation in the war effort that gardeners felt when they grew their own food. In a society so totally committed to the war effort, gardens gave the young and the old a sense of belonging, of participating, of doing something on their own to win the war. The purchase of war bonds offered another opportunity to express community and personal patriotism. The Liberty Loan drives to sell war bonds were intense affairs that once again drew on patriotism and social pressure to encourage bond purchases. By the third liberty loan drive which was in the Spring of 1918 an army of volunteers canvassed the state, armed with information about each person or family and their ability to buy bonds. Let me say that again. An army of volunteers canvassed the state armed with information about each person or family and their ability to buy bonds. If a subscriber refused to buy the proper amount, the volunteer would reply regrettably that the slacker’s unpatriotic behavior would have to be referred to the county Counsel of Defense for action.

This was patriotic fervor’s dark side. The language of public discourse created a clear dichotomy between the righteous people of the United States and the bestial Hun, between us and them. As Congress assembled for Wilson’s war message in the Spring of 1917, an article in the Wisconsin State Journal helped create the emotional foundation for going to war. It quoted two legislators from the south. Senator Furnifold Simmons of North Carolina stated in the paper, “The interests of America demand that tyranny be beaten.” Texas Representative Joe Eagle made the struggle more basic and visceral, “The Kaiser is a cave man with murder in his heart. He is bent on the unwavering course of brute force and pillage. He must be put down or the democracies of the world are doomed.” What else do you put down but a dog? The language of peace, neutrality, and forbearance had given way to the language of war, bellicose, dehumanizing, and designed to create a noble enterprise worthy of the sacrifice of thousands of lives. The language of the congressmen, tyranny, cave man, put down, doomed, made it clear the nation faced a subhuman rival determined to subjugate its enemies under a brutal and tyrannical regime. According to the State Journal, a war in defense of “humanity and democracy” was the only choice.

Nothing less than the future of the nation was at stake. A flippant comment could bring social retribution instantly. A Brown County farmer stopped in a local saloon for some refreshment. According to the bartender, the farmer stood at the bar “decrying the strength of the American Navy and Army, and sneering at the fighting ability of the soldiers.” The barkeep found the remarks intolerable, perhaps in part because the farmer was an alien. As he told the municipal court officials the next day, “I reached over, I grabbed him, I hit him. “I hit him again and threw him out of my bar. The story came to light because the saloon keeper had gone to the municipal court to find out if a warrant had been sworn for his own arrest. Having admitted to assaulting the farmer, the barman walked away from the courthouse a free man. The farmer was unlikely to be as lucky.

Municipal court officials were going to report the matter to Federal authorities. During the war, 90 people in Wisconsin were indicted under the Espionage Act for praising Germany, criticizing the United States, or calling the conflict a rich man’s war. Additional indictments were handed down to others for criticizing Liberty Bonds, the Allies, charities such as the Red Cross, or food laws, obstructing military recruiting, insulting the flag or uniform, or praising the sinking of a ship. The culture of war eventually had an impact on children as well. Across Wisconsin the study of anything German, especially language, became suspect as a vehicle for insinuating “German Kulture” into American life. In Milwaukee the number of German teachers dropped from two hundred to just one. All over the state English was the language of patriots. Into this hostile environment came young Bobby Bizzell of Kaukauna. One day he was playing with friends when two workmen walked by, speaking to each other in German.

Bobby picked up a large club and struck one of the men a hard blow. When taken into the house for punishment, his little sister, as little sisters will do, chided him, “Bobby, you shouldn’t have hit that man. How do you know but that he was Jesus in working clothes?” To which Bobby replied, “Jesus, do you think he’d be talking German?” Governor Emanuel Philipp believed in the loyalty and patriotism of the entire state regardless of ethnicity. He had little patience for the vigilante justice or for super patriots determined to find traitorous behavior in their communities. In his most strident denunciation of super patriots, Governor Philipp told an audience that the willingness to charge others with disloyalty “is a type of impudence that is indulged in by a class of self-asserted patriots who are the greatest menace to the country today, because they discourage what the country needs above all things during a crisis, and that is the hearty cooperation of all the people in support of the war.” Most Americans drew great satisfaction from volunteer work, food and fuel conservation, bond and fund-raising drives, and farm and factory production. The true mark of patriotism on the home front was not the great heroic act or the super patriot worried about imaginary traitors in Wisconsin. It was the small sacrifices made every day by average people to win the war. Thank you very much. (audience applause)

– Right, well, thank you everyone for attending, appreciate that. I’ve titled my talk “Milwaukee Goes to War.” And, World War I brought out the best in some people but also the worst in others. My book delves into these extremes and everything in between from the local perspective of Wisconsin’s largest city. The war’s anti-German hysteria certainly was not exclusive to Milwaukee, but as one of the country’s most Teutonic cities, it certainly suffered from the cloud of suspicion that patriots cast over it. The presence of a strong Socialist Party which, in general, opposed all wars as capitalistic conquests to dominate world markets heightened Milwaukee’s taint of treason and added a sense of urgency to patriots’ efforts to redeem the city’s reputation. Milwaukee was governed by a Socialist mayor, Dan Hoan, and was also home of one of the party’s guiding forces, Victor Berger, a native of Austria-Hungary and the first Socialist elected to the U.S. Congress. Despite this double curse, Milwaukeeans answered every call to support the war. They easily fulfilled the city’s draft quotas and they oversubscribed its allotments in all four Liberty Bond drives by millions of dollars. Milwaukee factories churned out every conceivable product for the military with only minor labor disturbances. Women demonstrated their loyalty by moving into factory jobs, thus avoiding a potentially severe labor shortage, and ordinary citizens planted victory gardens, they did Red Cross work and abided by government meatless, wheatless, lightless and gasolineless restrictions.

Nevertheless, these accomplishments did not quiet the pro-war clamoring in Milwaukee. President Woodrow Wilson’s administration fueled the drive for 100% Americanism through a barrage of movies, posters, pamphlets and speeches by Four Minute Men. Every American was encouraged to do their part to defeat Germany, whose soldiers were demonized as raping, child-butchering, cannibalistic apes. Wilson’s message found a receptive home among many city residents, and the bluster of its most rabid patriotic citizens was alarming. The Socialist newspaper, the Milwaukee Leader, reported that John Stover, a member of the American Protective League and Wisconsin Loyalty Legion, told a crowd he feared some traitor would cause him to take his revolver and “kill him like a dog.” And former Socialist Algie Simons argued that, though he desired peace and freedom of speech, he was willing “for the time to fight under military orders “and to gag all those who would destroy free speech forever. “We are at war. War means killing. We are as much justified in killing those who stab our soldiers in the back as those who spray liquid fire upon their faces.” Clearly, zealous patriots did not allow for any gray areas in their thinking. Any dissent was fused into an all-encompassing anti-American bogeyman that had to be stamped out, no matter what the cost.

And it’s that misguided and misspent time and energy to prove the city’s loyalty that I’d like to examine today. This time undoubtedly was a bitter pill to swallow for Milwaukee’s German-Americans. For years, they had been praised for being industrious civic and business leaders. German theater, music and intellectual endeavors were at the pinnacle of the city’s cultural landscape. But the war turned everything upside down. Patriots viewed these beloved traditions as treacherous plots to Prussianize America. By 1917, most German-Americans in Milwaukee were 2nd or 3rd-generation Americans and certainly loyal to the U.S., but even those who were natives of Germany recognized their obligation to their adopted homeland. Frederick von Cotzhausen, for example, came to Milwaukee after the 1848 revolutions in Germany. And in July 1918, he celebrated his 80th birthday and looking back, he was satisfied that he had returned a full equivalent for the opportunities and advantages the U.S. provided.

He acknowledged it was difficult to suppress sympathy for his homeland, but that in no way detracted from his allegiance to the U.S. “I do not need to drop the hyphen, he wrote, as I dropped it many years ago. He was not ready to accord to any one of my fellow citizens, whoever he may be, a higher standard of patriotism and Americanism than I claim for myself.” But the war’s unsettled circumstances certainly distressed many German-Americans. The prospect of seeing his sons fighting in a war weighed heavily upon Julius Gugler, a founder of a successful lithographic company. He confided to a friend that since the U.S. declared war, he had “been praying for an altered state of mind. “One that would permit me to become enthusiastic concerning the issues involved in this strife, a state of mind that would kindle in me the spirit of sacrifice for a great object.” But it was all in vain because he failed “to feel the driving power in my heart that I experienced on other occasions during my long life.” It was best, he thought, to avoid discussing the war at all. But maintaining an uneasy silence placed Gugler and fellow German-Americans in a no-win situation. If they did not enthusiastically support the war, they were deemed unpatriotic. But if they embraced the Allied cause, they were suspected of being hypocrites. That conundrum as well as the tensions between Germans and other ethnic groups was expressed by Michael Kruszka, editor of the Polish newspaper Kuryer Polski.

Shortly after the U.S. declared war, Kruszka informed the U.S. Attorney General that he had many German friends who were “so honest and so trustworthy that I would without hesitation trust them with everything I have.” But at that particular time, he added, “I would not trust them with the guarding of a five foot American bridge. Though they may swear loyalty to the U.S., the slightest discussion of war with Germany changes them into the most fanatic Germano-maniacs and Americanophobes, and then some of them are ready to kill every American and every anti-German on sight, even if they should die for it on the spot.” Given this mentality, it’s not surprising that war’s first casualty was toleration for anything German, and Milwaukee Germans were unprepared for the firestorm that scorched the community. German enemy aliens, defined as anyone over 14 who was not a naturalized citizen, could not live, work or even pass through restricted industrial zones unless they carried a pass authorized by the U.S. Marshal after they had been photographed and fingerprinted. German theater was essentially shuttered. German music was torn out of school books, and teaching of the German language was eliminated from elementary schools. A patriotic organization even tried to rewrite the city’s history. In 1918, the Wisconsin Loyalty Legion tried to stop a local publishing company from circulating a Milwaukee guide book that praised the Germanic influence on the city’s development. “Milwaukee is not the German Athens of America, and we do not wish it to be advertised as such,” was the Legion’s decision. The toxic environment motivated many Milwaukee Germans to deny their ancestry. Within four months of the declaration of war, 250 people shed their German-sounding names, and that trend continued throughout the war.

In June 1918, Edward Lutzenberger changed his name to Edward Lutze because his friends ridiculed him for having a name with berger in it. And Judge John J. Gregory granted Emma Carson a divorce as long as she changed her maiden name, Emma Kaiser. This trend did not sit well with some German-Americans. Anita Nunnemacher Weschler was angered when she learned her neighbors had changed their name from Schwartzburg to Harrison. To Anita, this was an insult to everyone bearing a German name. As though one had to change their name to be patriotic. “I feel I am as loyal to my country as anyone else and I am doing as much as I can to help but I can’t see the use of changing one’s name.” German-Americans weren’t the only ones to suffer. Socialists were inviting targets. Patriots decorated Victor and Meta Berger’s lawn nearly every morning with garbage and broken milk bottles.

Mayor Hoan received enough violent threats that he carried a gun wherever he went. The party’s right to peaceful assembly was flouted as government agents and police broke up several Socialist rallies, and during the spring 1918 mayoral campaign, Wheeler Bloodgood, a leader of the patriotic camp, threatened to defy the will of the people if Hoan were reelected. He vowed to prevent Hoan from taking office, calling upon the federal government to indict the mayor for violating the Espionage Act and declare Milwaukee a military zone under the control of military courts to eliminate all treasonable talk and printed material. Fortunately, Bloodgood’s demands went unfulfilled. Milwaukee’s labor movement was also subjected to harassment. Factory owners labeled any worker agitation for increased pay or improved conditions as pro-German plots to disrupt production and government agents were quick to silence any troublemakers. In July 1918, a manager of the Wisconsin Gun Company met with John Stover about some labor troubles he suspected was caused by disloyal influences. Stover interviewed four suspected ring leaders and all four asserted that Stover badgered them and accused them of trying to incite a strike. Moreover, they claimed that Stover threatened to change their draft classifications and send them to the military, give them 30 years in prison, or, one said, “To back you up against the wall.” On a more personal level, war-time tensions shattered families and friendships.

Jeanette Fillman, for example, divorced her husband because he lived in the “twilight zone of patriotism” and wouldn’t allow her to participate in any patriotic demonstrations or display an American flag in the window. Erich Stern was a well-respected lawyer, a member of the Progressive wing of the Republican Party and a member of the celebrated Wisconsin legislature that passed the nation’s first workers’ compensation laws as well as measures that reined in child labor. But he also was a pacifist a stand that cost him professionally and personally. In January 1918, students at Marquette University’s Law School circulated a petition trying to have Stern removed as a faculty member because of his anti-war position, but Stern’s forceful defense of his First Amendment rights saved his job. Even more dismaying was the loss of his friendship with Arthur Van Dyke and his mother. “With all our beautiful common memories as recent as last summer,” he lamented, “how can they judge so harshly, condemn without giving me a hearing of any kind.” Not even religious convictions shielded people from overly zealous patriots. During the fall 1918 Liberty Bond drive, flying squadrons or trains of automobiles carrying anywhere from 35 to 100 people visited Milwaukee County farmers deemed “slackers” because they had not purchased their designated share of Liberty Bonds. On one occasion, a squadron stopped at the farm of William Eschrich. The squad leader asked Eschrich if he would invest $200 as his fair share, but he refused because, as a member of the Russellite religious sect, he would not in good conscience as a Christian contribute to any purpose that violated God’s commandment, “Thou shalt not kill.” The squad leader remarked men had been imprisoned for less than what Eschrich had said and claimed that anyone who did not buy bonds was “no better than a worm of the earth.” Others in the crowd called Eschrich a “dirty dog,” and someone yelled that he should be hung.

Despite the pressure, Eschrich refused to compromise his religious principles. As a result, he suffered the indignity of having a yellow placard posted on his home that read, “The occupant of these premises has refused to buy his fair share of liberty bonds. Do not remove this notice.” Even after the war ended, this rage was not easily let go. In February 1919, the acting company at the Pabst Theater decided to stage plays in German to raise funds for destitute actors and actresses. The theater manager thought, with the war over, resuming plays in German would not cause any problems. But he was sorely mistaken. At a public meeting James Stover, father of John Stover, wondered why a benefit performance was necessary. Couldn’t these people, he asked, have worked in Milwaukee shops and factories? Instead, he added, they “loll around here and drink their beer and talk their language and help to carry on propaganda of Germanism here in Milwaukee and then ask us to give a benefit for them in their own language, that they may have some money with which to live a little longer.” Every shot fired at his sons in France, Stover charged, was ordered in the German language. His blood boiled “at the idea that this miserable language “in this country should be assisted.” Not surprisingly, the benefit was postponed.

The continuation of the war’s feverish repression helped spawn a profound disillusionment among many Americans. Victor Berger summed up that mood in a fall 1919 speech. “I’ll tell what you got out of this war,” he said. “You lost your liberties. About 700,000 spies were watching you. Men were arrested for saying things to their neighbors. Well you got prohibition and flu, all you got out of this war, prohibition and flu.” He oversimplifies things a bit, but the post-war failure of President Wilson’s peace efforts, widespread race riots and labor unrest, the frightening specter of Bolshevism, the onset of Prohibition, and foundering of Progressive ideals all contributed to a sense that the war, a crusade to make the world safe for democracy fell far short of that goal. Thank you very much. (audience applause)

– My presentation today is based on research from my dissertation which is called “Traitor State: The Crisis of Loyalty in World War I Wisconsin” and my primary focus is on those zealous patriots that Kevin just mentioned. My questions about them were– Well first off there was a national perception– How did a national perception form that Wisconsin had a unique issue with disloyalty. And then how did that perception affect the Wisconsin self- described patriotic leaders that are sometimes called super or I tend to call them hyper-patriots? I wanted to know who were these patriots and what were their motivations, their fears and obsessions? We know that as you’ve heard hyper-patriots in Wisconsin worked hard to quell disloyalty and dissent, sometimes resorting to violence. Incriminations. And this is the sedition map that Rick mentioned. And threats. And this is a piece from a West Bend newspaper stating that names of those who failed to subscribe to their fair share of the Fourth Liberty Bond would be printed in the newspaper. I’ve actually looked in this newspaper and they were not. So this is what they, how they reacted. This is what they were reacting to. These are quotes from newspapers from around the country that helped create a national perception of Wisconsin as disloyal.

So these hyper-patriots felt the need to make an aggressive effort to clear Wisconsin’s name and subdue disloyalty in the state. They probably– The worst epitaph they heard was this one, “Traitor state.” The earliest I could find traitor state mentioned in regards to Wisconsin was this quote from July 17, 1917 in the Princeton Indiana Daily Democrat which asked “Will Wisconsin be known when the war is over as the traitor state?” My research shows that this editor was primarily responding to the perceived disloyalty of Wisconsin’s national representatives, not its German population, pacifists or socialists, who came under attack internally within the state. So the hyper-patriots made their primary goal to remove from office those who they believed stained Wisconsin’s reputation. So who were these hyper-patriots who organized to defend the state against these slurs to its reputation? And that’s been really my main focus of my research. You can identify them by who their enemies were who we heard about to a certain extent but who are well recognized in this cartoon that’s titled, “How Long Would Germany Stand For It?” So this is Uncle Sam throwing out the enemies which include labor and union agitators, conscientious objectors, pacifists, spies, German sympathizers, the Irish who were anti-British, food speculators, of course socialists and then some strange category called sentimental obstructionists, who I need to do more research on. But what I have found out is these hyper-patriots, Wisconsin’s hyper-patriots who you heard a little bit about so far were generally business leaders and white-collar professionals. They were men and women used to being in power and having their word obeyed. They were definitely not used to having their leadership and authority questioned. I find that in Wisconsin, they were predominantly of New England and New York ancestries and that they generally felt they knew how to be American better than any hyphenated immigrants or their descendants, especially German Americans.

This Wisconsin Yankee population from descendants of New England and New York appeared to have used the war effort to reinforce their definitions of Americanism patriotism and loyalty. Their number one target during this time was Robert M. La Follette, Wisconsin’s senior senator. Early on, he became a national symbol of treasonous and seditious behavior, primarily first for not supporting the arming of merchant marine ships in March of 1917. This made the paper in quite an angry way. And for voting against, a few weeks’ later, America’s participation in the war. And as you’ve heard, unlike other Wisconsin congressmen who voted against entrance into the war but later supported the war effort once war was declared, La Follette continued to speak out against the war and all of its supposed concerns for the war’s duration. Anger against La Follette came to a head in September of 1917 when he was misquoted by the Associated Press as saying to the nonpartisan league in a speech to them that America had, “no grievance against Germany.” Actually he had just said the opposite however this got published, that he had no grievance against Germany all over the United States. The United States Senate immediately considered expelling him from Congress and state legislators here in Wisconsin urged them to do so. Governor Philipp, a couple weeks after this came out, publicly stated that Wisconsin’s loyalty problems primarily stemmed from Robert M. La Follette.

And then in February of 1918, this round robin that you’re seeing here on the right, this round robin petition was sent among UW faculty condemning his behavior. The petition protested “against those utterances and actions of senator Robert M. La Follette which have given aid and comfort to Germany and her allies in the present war. We deplore his failure loyally to support the government in the persecution of this war.” 400 of the 404 faculty at UW-Madison signed this petition. Strangely, in the end– strangely from a hyperpatriotism point of view– he remained in office because the senate realized he had been misquoted and eventually he was vindicated in this round robin which had originally one of his friends had wanted to burn on the grounds of the state capital, was preserved as Robert La Follette asked it to go to the historical society to be preserved for future generations to see what had happened during this tense time. Their second major target which you’ve also heard about and here’s pictures of them now, are the Milwaukee Socialists. Milwaukee had the largest and most vocal group of socialists in Wisconsin, perhaps in the United States, and Victor Berger, who you’ve heard about who is on the right here was probably the most harassed of them. In September of 1918, the postmaster general denied his newspaper which was the Milwaukee Leader, a socialist newspaper, second class mailing privileges and this meant that most of their papers which were sold by subscription through the mail could not get out to their subscribers. He also finally in February of 1918 suffered probably the worst, the worst of these harassments when he was indicted by the U.S. government for treason and sedition. He was later convicted and was told he would be serving three years in Leavenworth.

But more about him later. You’ve also heard about Daniel Hoan, the mayor of Milwaukee, another socialist, and you can see maybe why the hyper-patriots would have a problem with him with this quote that I have up here that says, “The American people did not want and do not want this war. They were plunged into this abyss by the treachery of the ruling class of the country.” So interestingly, and you’ve heard about Wheeler Bloodgood so I won’t go too much more into that anymore that Wheeler Bloodgood asked the federal government to impose martial law if Hoan won the election in April of 1918. As you heard, Hoan did win and there was no martial law. So in the end, the socialists remained in power in Milwaukee for several more decades, meaning that these hyper-patriots in Milwaukee and in Wisconsin did not successfully get rid of this group. The third group, which you’ve also heard about, are German Americans. German Americans posed a problem to their Yankee neighbors because in many ways they considered themselves at least equals, if not better, than these neighbors, especially as you’ve heard, in arts and education. And World War I gave the hyper-patriots a chance to change this dynamic. So you see war propaganda like keep back the Huns with Liberty Loans from the federal government.

This is from the committee on public information, that left many nervous about German spies and traitors. And as we’ve noted before, Germans were often portrayed as monsters or subhuman creatures like this Hun in this picture. hyper-patriots attacks against German-Americans seemed to primarily be about suppressing German-American pride, and as you’ve heard, eliminating the German language from schools, churches and other institutions. And in this picture on the right, It says, “here lies the remains of German in BHS,” which is Baraboo High School. We’re now beginning to think that this picture which was taken the day after high school graduation, the burning occurred the day of the high school graduation, may have been a high school prank against a German teacher and not directly related to the war. However, its timing is awfully suspicious and we do know that other communities like Shell Lake, Spooner and Westby, Wisconsin also burned books and images of the Kaiser in public bonfires. So in the end, as you’ve also kind of heard, from the previous speakers, the hyper-patriots were fairly successful in destroying German culture in Wisconsin. So let’s look at a couple of these hyper-patriots. I’m gonna start with Wheeler Bloodgood who you’ve heard about already.

He was a lawyer in Milwaukee and he was from Dutch New York background. So he fit into this definition of what a hyper-patriot should be. He was the founder in March of 1917 of the Wisconsin Defense League who’s stated purpose was among other things to ultimately destroy the idea prevalent throughout the country that Wisconsin was a hotbed of sedition and disloyalty. When they realized that their name of the Defense League was too similar to the Counsel of Defense, the state organization, Wheeler Bloodgood and his fellow members changed the name to the Wisconsin Loyalty Legion in September of 1917. Their pledge was to unite the people of Wisconsin in loyal, active and efficient support of the government and to bring traitors to punishment, hold up slackers to public contempt and oppose disloyalty and ascension wherever it may appear and however disguised. After his sons left for France in early 1918, Bloodgood seems to have become more agitated about Wisconsin and Milwaukee’s especially perceived disloyalty. And you can see that in the quote that I have here that, “While my sons and yours are facing bullets, “the noble Berger,” that’s Victor Berger, “with a satanic smile on his Bolsheviki countenance listens to patriotic addresses and La Follette sulks in the senate, forgetting country in his blind demand for unlimited speech and abuse.” Another hyper-patriot who was fairly well known back then was the junior senator from Wisconsin, Paul O. Husting. Senator Husting was definitely part of the preparedness movement before the war and was definitely pro America’s entrance into the war. And you can see that from his quote from April 4, 1917 from a speech War with Germany that he gave to the U.S. Senate on that day.

And I think you can read it, “It is disgraceful and disastrous submission on one hand or the use of armed force on the other. To me, this presents but one possible choice.” This also speaks to his, I believe– Well he basically said this: he was very much an anti-pacifist. He spoke out against what he called “peace at any price advocates.” Especially those who disagreed with Wilson’s move to armed merchant ships, as you heard in March of ’17. Husting and his supporters argued that those who question the president’s action not only weakened Wilson’s ability to preserve an honorable peace but practice a perverted patriotism. It’s interesting to note that pacifists were frequently women and that Hustings often spoke, as I think he does in this quote, of the war in pro masculine terms. Unfortunately for Wisconsin’s hyper-patriots, Husting decided to take a vacation in October of 1917 and he went duck hunting with his brother. And if you don’t know on October 21st, 1917, his brother accidentally shot and killed him. If you’re looking at it from a hyper-patriot’s point of view, we had a disloyal senator in Robert La Follette and a loyal senator in Paul Husting. So what happened is we need to replace Paul Husting.

Are we gonna replace him with a loyal candidate or a disloyal candidate? In the end, Governor Emmanuel Philipp called for an election to replace him in the Spring of 1918. The actual election happened on April 2nd. So as I said, this brought the disloyalty crisis to a head, in part because starting with the Republican primary election we had two Republican candidates, one Irvine Lenroot, who was considered a Stalwart Republican or called himself a Stalwart Republican, was considered the loyal candidate but he was running against James Thompson, a supporter of La Follette and therefore by definition, a disloyal candidate. Luckily for the hyper-patriots, Lenroot went on to win. But now he had to face two more candidates in the general election. He faced Democrat Joseph E. Davies and strangely enough Victor Berger in the Socialist Party. Both Davies and Lenroot were considered acceptable candidates even though they’re from different parties by the hyper-patriots in Wisconsin. Victor Berger was the problem. You might remember at this point, by this point in April, he had already been indicted but not convicted yet of treason and or sedition.

So here is someone who is being accused of treason running for U.S. Senate. This caused Wisconsin’s loyalty, because of this reached a fevered pitch in the national press. The Colorado Springs Gazette stated that the unity of the nation and the cause of humanity is on trial in Wisconsin. The verdict is awaited with impressive patience. The Chicago Daily News described Berger as an anti-American candidate who asked folks for disloyalist from quitters, yellow bellies, Germans, anti-nationalists, pacifists and hollow headed ultraists. In the end, Lenroot won but Berger received 25% of the vote. This caused some consternation but in the end the national consensus, at least among newspaper editors that Wisconsin was 75% patriotic and that was good enough. Berger did go on to win a seat in the House of Representatives in the fall of 1918 but Congress sent him home. He had been convicted by that time of treason and they were not gonna let him sit in the House of Representatives.

Milwaukee reelected him once and he was sent back, and then twice, or the third time and he was sent back to Congress again and finally in 1920, after being cleared of treason charges, he was allowed to take his seat. I found when I’m studying the national press that they lost interest in Wisconsin’s loyalty or disloyalty after the election. However, as we’ve heard, coercive acts, especially violent ones, continued to escalate in Wisconsin at least until armistice day but I hear that they went past that. Wisconsin’s hyper-patriots not only attacked German-Americans, but also socialists, pacifists and those who they labeled disloyal politicians. In a way, my thinking is that all of these groups challenged their understanding of what it meant to be American while questioning their right to define Americanism. I argue that the Wisconsin hyper-patriots were threatened by socialists, often German-Americans who disdained capitalism and promoted communal welfare while the hyper-patriots viewed capitalism as the cornerstone of the American economic experience and considered rugged individualism more American than a concern for public wellbeing. The pacifist challenged the view of Americans, or the hyper-patriot’s view of Americans as tough, strong, masculine individuals who would not step back from a fight. And Senator Robert M. La Follette disgusted hyper-patriots with his ego, alleged narcissism and his unwillingness to submit to their authority.

Wisconsin’s patriots worked tirelessly to put him in his place though ultimately without success. In the end, Wisconsin’s World War I hyper-patriots have not been remembered as true patriots if anyone remembers them at all. Instead, it’s their enemies, Berger and La Follette, they’re the ones who have been honored and frequently treated as the true emblems of American ideals. Thank you very much. (audience applause)