Sen. Vardaman and President Wilson: World War I & Anti-War Dissent

In 1913, Woodrow Wilson went to Washington, D.C. as President of the United States That same year, James K. Vardaman went to Washington, D.C. as one of Mississippi's two United States Senators. Both Wilson and Vardaman were native-born Southerners, former governors, Democrats, and reform-minded. Both men came to Washington "at a time when the progressive movement stood at the crossroads." Would the movement become more or less radical with Wilson and the Democratic party in control of both the executive and legislative branches? Wilson, although a progressive, was conservative in comparison to Vardaman. Wilson eventually drifted to the left of center by the 1916 election, and Vardaman was but one of the "radicals" willing to support Wilson's new more liberal programs. However, the relationship would deteriorate to the point that Wilson would openly advocate Vardaman's electoral defeat in 1918. World War One was the rock upon which this union of convenience split. It thus becomes imperative to ask why. Why would Vardaman, a Democrat, so consistently oppose the president on this issue? Why would Vardaman, a self-proclaimed servant of the people, so consistently oppose measures that by all accounts enjoyed overwhelming popular support, especially in the South? More importantly, how were Vardaman's actions interpreted to and by his constituents?

James Vardaman had not initially supported Woodrow Wilson's nomination at the Democratic convention of 1912. Only after it became apparent that he would stand alone in opposition did Vardaman change sides. Wilson repaid the favor by snubbing Vardaman's offer to campaign for the party. As Senator, Vardaman proved to be anything but a "team player" for the administration. He consistently expressed disappointment or outright opposed many administration measures. Vardaman felt that the administration's income tax plan didn't tax the wealthy enough. Vardaman, a virulent and notorious racist, strenuously opposed the appointment of a black judge and a black treasury official. But it was the war that would produce the most irreconcilable differences between Vardaman and Wilson.

The advent of war in Europe dealt a harsh blow to the American economy. As revenue from tariffs diminished, President Wilson called for $100,000,000 in new taxes to make up for the shortfall. Vardaman fought against the increase, stating that he was, "not going to put one dime additional tax upon the people in my section of the country." In May of 1915, a German U-Boat sank the British liner Lusitania, killing 128 Americans. Although the American press and public opinion turned decidedly against Germany, Vardaman stated that "New York Times, Vardaman stated, "to my mind the conduct of Germany is not half so reprehensive and offensive to the American people as that of Great Britain." Vardaman blamed Britain for "unwarranted interference with commerce between neutral countries" and thus, the European cotton market has about been destroyed and in consequence disaster confronts the cotton growers of the South." Vardaman further stated that Great Britain should be "forced to respect in the slightest degree the business rights of the American people."

Throughout 1916, the buzz-word around Washington was "preparedness." Preparedness legislation poured into Congress and Vardaman fought against virtually all of it. Despite Vardaman's opposition, Congress passed the National Defense Act, which enlarged the Army, and a bill providing increased Navy expenditures. One bill that Vardaman did support provided for an increase in merchant marine spending, primarily because it provided strong regulatory powers for the shipping board. Tensions between Germany and the United States would again rise in 1916 when in March, a German U-boat sank the French ship Sussex. President Wilson threatened to break off diplomatic relations with Germany if she did not stop attacking all merchant and passenger vessels. Vardaman criticized the president for threatening to "involve the United States in the bloody conflict now being waged in Europe in order that British and French commerce might not be interfered with."

This and other German submarine attacks emboldened those who espoused the idea of inevitable conflict with Germany. However, there was also a sizeable faction of people, of which Vardaman was a part, who rejected this idea. Since 1916 was a presidential election year, Wilson had to walk a very fine line between the two camps. He approved of preparedness legislation, but at the same time, began declaring peace initiatives. Following his narrow election victory, Wilson addressed the Senate on January 22, 1917. In this address, Wilson outlined his plan for "Peace without Victory," a settlement that would place no blame, reward no victors, and promote a League of Nations. Vardaman, like many others was highly enthusiastic about the prospect of "peace without victory," calling the president's proposal "a turning point in the policy of the governments of the world in their relations with each other."

The idea of "peace without victory" would become yet another casualty of the Great War on January 31, 1917. Germany, sensing the imminent collapse of the Russian line, rebuked the United States and declared its intention to resume unrestricted submarine warfare. The move would probably mean war with the United States, but Germany gambled that it could smash the British and French before American troops could arrive. The following day, Wilson broke off diplomatic relations with Germany. Vardaman said that the president's actions were not, "wise, prudent, or justified at this time." Vardaman further warned Americans to stay out of the declared war zone, "for our country to be drawn into this vortex of blood and plunder would be a blunder on the part of this Administration."

On February 22, President Wilson asked Congress for the authorization to arm merchant vessels. Three days later, the infamous Zimmerman Telegraph was published, inciting fierce pro-war hysteria. The armed ship bill passed the House overwhelmingly, and went to the Senate. Regarding the armed ship bill and current hysteria, Vardaman said, "if ever in the history of this Republic it were imperative that the United States should keep its head . . . now is the time." Vardaman restated his position that "if we are going to hold Germany to a strict accountability for her infractions of international law, it is cowardly and pusillanimous for the United States to supinely submit to the contemptuous treatment we have received at the hands of Great Britain." When consideration of the armed ship bill resumed after Vardaman's comments, four Republicans blocked every attempt to vote on the bill. These men, who included leading progressive Robert La Follette of Wisconsin, prevented voting on the bill so effectively that the 64^th Congress adjourned without passing the bill. Wilson denounced the "little group of willful men" who "have rendered the great government of the United States helpless and contemptible." Included in that "little group" was Vardaman, whose only contribution to the filibuster was refusing to sign a document protesting it. In a blistering response, Vardaman stated: "Mr. President, I am very sorry that the President of the United States is displeased with the conduct of the Congress. I myself am not altogether happy and pleased with the work that has been done by the Congress, but since I have not a corner on all the wisdom and patriotism, and do not arrogate to myself the divine attributes of inerrancy , my sense of justice will not permit me to indulge in the luxury of denouncing those who differ from me.

Vardaman also stated, "now these are my views-if it be treason, make the most of it."

On April 2, 1917, President Wilson appeared before a joint session of Congress to ask for a formal declaration of war against Germany. Vardman addressed the Senate during deliberation of the declaration, saying that "nothing will be settled by the United States entering into this war except the question of superiority of strength." Ultimately, Vardaman felt that, "America should keep out of this slaughter pen." Vardaman's rhetoric met with immediate opposition from the other Senator from Mississippi, John Sharp Williams. Williams branded all opponents of war as pro-German traitors. By a vote of 82-6, the Senate approved the declaration. Vardaman cast one of the six votes in opposition. He was the only Southern Senator to do so and one of only three Democrats. Despite his opposition to the war, he immediately filed an application for his son to receive a commission as a second lieutenant in the Marine Corps. The application was denied, but the younger Vardaman did volunteer and serve abroad.

Public and press response to Vardaman's pre-war actions was surprisingly mixed. Following Vardaman's denunciation of the diplomatic break with Germany, the Vicksburg Evening Post stated the Vardaman was not "willing to send half a million or more American youth to Europe to be sacrificed . . . just . . . to insure an open free market for the sale of American goods." Regarding the questioning of Vardaman's patriotism after his refusal to endorse the severing of relations with Germany, The Aberdeen Weekly Dispatch responded:

[Vardaman's] disagreement with the President does not involve the question of patriotism at all, but is of deeper concern . . . Patriotic men differ as to the best methods of conserving the national welfare; one may favor war, another may counsel forbearance to reach the ends of peace and happiness.

Despite the positive spin on Vardaman's actions, there was a definite backlash. In response to the his refusal to denounce the filibuster on the armed ship bill, the Gulfport-Biloxi Daily Herald denounced the filibuster as "the most reprehensible in the history of any civilized nation." The Herald also called Vardaman one of the Senators "who defeated the will of democracy," and "the most unpopular man in the state today." The Jackson Clarion-Ledger severely castigated the Senator for apparently not standing during a performance of the "Star-Spangled Banner." "Probably if had been some little German band playing 'The Watch on the Rhine,'" the Clarion-Ledger read, "Senator Jim would not only have recognized it immediately, but stood if he had to stand on his head." Reporting on the same incident, the Jackson Daily News referred to the senator as "Herr von Vardamann" and stated that "the worst inebriate in Washington has more patriotism in his little toenail than Jim Vardaman has in his whole body."
Even the New York Times commented, "Not the mighty-maned Vardaman, but [John Sharp] Williams, the patriotic Williams, represents the sentiment of Mississippi."

The press was not the only avenue in which Vardaman was castigated. At Meridian, an effigy of Vardaman was burned by local high school students. A Gulfport resident commented, "I have voted for Vardaman for everything that has ever run for . . . but under no circumstances would I ever again vote for him." Thomas Collins, a rural blacksmith, forged a 40-pound iron cross with the inscription "Lest the Kaiser Forget" to send to Vardaman. With tongue planted firmly in cheek, Collins stated "I thought maybe his valor would not reach the ears of the Kaiser . . . so I thought I would decorate him with the Iron Cross myself." Collins also remarked that he was also sending the emblem "for giving President Wilson the Double Cross."

Vardaman was not alone in public scorn either. Asle Gronna of North Dakota was one of the "willful men" and an opponent of the war resolution. Gronna was said to have "no friends in North Dakota outside of a small German element." Another Vardaman ally, George Norris of Nebraska, was met with a resolution from the Nebraska state legislature declaring that Norris does not "voice the sentiment of Nebraska nor reflect the patriotic judgement of its citizens." Regarding the indomitable progressive Robert La Follette of Wisconsin, the New York Times predicted that "his last term has begun," and reported that "even the German-language newspapers condemned him."

It thus begs to question why Vardaman, in the face of overwhelming public support of the war, would so ademately defy it and seal his political fate. The answer to a complex question is equally complex. Vardaman was anti-business from the time he began his political career. To him, the most active pro-war agitators were businessmen whose only "object in having war and in preparing for war is to make money." Vardaman further stated that he "was not going to be a party to a measure which I believe may possibly bring on war . . . in order that a few men may grow rich and richer still in carrying on commerce between New York and London." To Vardaman, and like-minded individuals like La Follette, their opposition to the war was a manifestation of their anti-business, populist/progressive stance.

Political ideology alone does not serve to explain Vardaman's actions. Vardaman, by all accounts, genuinely felt the entry into the war was wrong. Despite his friends' insistence that he vote for war, Vardaman was resolute. "I cannot compromise," he siad, "with that which I am convinced is wrong." Another possible insight into Vardaman's psyche may be seen in his own personal history. Vardaman, a veteran of the Spanish-American War, was familiar with the experience of war. Thus, the Senator may have been reluctant to rush to send American boys into battle, knowing what awaited them.

WORKS CITED
BOOKS

Holmes, William F. The White Chief: James Kimble Vardaman. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1970.

Murrin, John M., et al. Liberty, Equality, and Power: A History of the American People, 2nd ed. Fort Worth: Harcourt College Publishers, 2001.

Osborn, George Coleman. James Kimble Vardaman: Southern Commoner. Jackson, MS: Hederman Brothers, 1981.

NEWSPAPERS

Aberdeen Weekly Dispatch, 1917.
New York Times, 1915, 1917.
Jackson Daily News, 1917.
Greenwood Commonwealth, 1917.
Gulfport-Biloxi Daily Herald, 1917.
Vicksburg Evening Post, 1917.