Champ Clark's speech, "Volunteers vs. Conscripts" given before the House of Representatives - April 25, 1917
Transcript
VOLUNTEERS VS. CONSCRIPTS SPEECH OF CHAMP CLARK OF MISSOURI IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WEDNESDAY, APRIL 25, 1917 WASHINGTON 1917
Transcript
[page 3] SPEECH OF CHAMP CLARK, OF MISSOURI. The House in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union had under consideration the bill (H. R. 3545) to authorize the President to increase temporarily the Military Establishment of the United States. Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may desire to use to the gentleman from Missouri, the Speaker of this House (Mr. Clark). (Loud applause.) Mr. CLARK of Missouri. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the House of Representatives, I desire to announce before I begin that I do not want to be interrupted until I get through, and then I will answer any reasonable and pertinent question that any gentleman wants to ask. I know what I want to say and I want to say it in a connected way. Two things are true beyond the shadow of a doubt: First. For a Member of the House or Senate to differ with the President of the Republic - any President - is not pleasant. On the contrary, it is painful, especially when the President is one whom you have helped elect. I have made it a rule to always support the President - any President - when I believe he is right, and on doubtful questions give him the benefit of the doubt. Further than that I will not go , so help me Almighty God! Further than that I can not go and make good the oath that I took when I was sworn into this House. Further than that I can not go and be true to the principles of representative government. (Applause.) The President of the United States is the most powerful personage in the wide, wide world - more powerful than the Kaiser, Emperor, or King, any other variety of potentate. It is because he is the head of 100,000,000 free people. (Applause.) That is the reason he is powerful. He has his functions to perform and, as far as I have been able to observe, he is not bashful about performing them. (Laughter.) The House and Senate have their functions to perform, and if we are men we will perform them. (Applause.) When a Member of House or Senate has thoroughly and conscientiously studied a question with open mind and will all the lights available and has formed a conclusion, he should vote that conclusion, even though it runs counter to the desire of the President. If he does not do that, he is unfit to sit in House or Senate. He should resolutely and courageously do that, be the consequences to him personally what they may. Believing these things, I am about to express my opinion on the pending bill in language as temperate, kindly, and courteous as possible - an opinion arrived at after much investigation and more thought. I regret exceedingly that I can not agree with
Transcript
[page 4] the President and his advisers on everything in this bill. But this is still a free country, and free speech has not yet been prohibited in the House of Representatives. For many years I have served the people in various positions of trust, always with perfect fidelity and with whatever capacity God has blessed me. I shall continue to do so to the end, whether that be near or far. Second. We have entered into a great war - upon a stupendous undertaking. That being the case, this House will vote every man and every dollar needed to press it to a speedy and successful conclusion. On that we are all agreed, and anybody anywhere who disputes that pregnant fact grossly misrepresents a large number of men in House and Senate who are honestly endeavoring to discharge their duties. The only thin about which we debate is how best to accomplish the desired end; how most efficaciously to serve our country and our kind. The principal difference betwixt the contending forces here is this : One side wants a conscription and conscription only; nothing else will satisfy them. The other desire to give patriotic men of military age a chance to demonstrate their courage and their patriotism by volunteering within a reasonable time before the conscription mill is started grinding. Why any man should be denounced by all the vile names found in the dictionaries is utterly beyond my comprehension. Those in favor of giving the traditional volunteer system a chance have never abused or denounced those in favor of conscription. All the foul abuse and malicious slanders are directed against the men who advocate giving a fair, reasonable trial of the old volunteer system which gained us victory in all our wars. (Applause.) It is astounding, and it is a safe and cowardly performance at a distance - much safer than to attempt it at a space of 3 feet. (Applause.) I am unreservedly in favor of the volunteer amendment to the Army bill. (Applause.) Mr. DENT and the majority of his committee deserve great credit for reporting it, notwithstanding the pressure and blandishments used to induce them not to do so. I do not in any way impeach the integrity or the patriotism of the minority who want conscription, notwithstanding they fly squarely in the face not only of our own history but of the history of all English-speaking peoples; but why should Chairman Dent and the majority of the Military Committee be assailed with inhuman rancor because they stand for the American doctrine of giving an opportunity for the brave, the patriotic, to volunteer to fight for their country? Of all men, Missourians should be the foremost to defend the volunteer system, for Missouri is the only State in the Union to send more than her full quota - without a draft, mark you - into both the Union and Confederate Armies. (Applause.) That is a record to which there is no parallel in all history. In 1860 her total vote was only 165,518; yet she sent 111,000 volunteers into the Union Army and, as nearly as can be ascertained, 50,000 volunteers into the Confederate Army, a grand total of 161,000 volunteers (applause), and there can be no question that she will do her full share in this emergency if only given a chance. (Applause.)
Transcript
[page 5] Now, when some of these high conscriptionists undertake to give the records of their State let them give one that will approach that. For a chance for that imperial Commonwealth to have the glorious privilege of raising her full quota of her brave and gallant sons by the volunteer system instead of being dragged into the Army by the scruff of their necks, I humbly pray the American Congress. (Applause.) I protest with all my heart and mind and soul against having the slur of being a conscript placed upon the men of Missouri. In the estimation of Missourians there is precious little difference between a conscript and a convict. (Applause.) Missourians wish to serve shoulder to shoulder, elbow to elbow, heart to heart with their neighbors, friends, and kindred and do not desire to be broken up into small squads and distributed among strangers from distant localities. Wounded, their neighbors would render first aid. Sick, their friends would minister unto them. Dead. their friends and neighbors would bury them. Homesick and discouraged, their comrades would cheer them up. All history teaches that men fight better under such circumstances. There can not be any question about it. You can not produce any single great military name that will deny it. Some of these carpet knights may do so. (Laughter.) They want the folks back home to know that they discharged the duties of a soldier bravely, faithfully, and well, even unto death. Whatever else may be said of the Germans, nobody save an incorrigible and congenital idiot will deny that they fight well and know something about warfare. Pick up any newspaper, and what do you see? “The Bavarian Troops”; “The Saxon Troops”; “The Brandenburg Division”; “The Potsdam Guards” ; “The Wurttemberg Infantry”; and so on through all the 26 States comprising the Empire and their subdivisions. Fighting thus, a pride of home is cultivated, thereby increasing their gallantry and their efficiency. So in the British Army troops have local designations such as “The Scotch Greys,” which twice in their experience have been almost absolutely destroyed; “Princess Pat’s Regiment,” which has been nearly wiped out in Europe. Why not have Missouri troops at least in companies, regiments, and brigades; Illinois troops; Kentucky troops; and so on through all the States? I is asserted, however, that such arranging of units, such as I have suggested, into Missourians, Kentuckians, Kansans, Mississippians, and so forth, will be made. My friends, be not deceived by such talk. It is a tub to the whale - a sop to Cerberus, a blind for your eyes, a snare for your feet, a trap for the unwary - merely that, and nothing more. (Applause.) Why do I say that? Because the Senate is this very moment considering War Department bill without the volunteer feature and without local units. The newspapers say that it will pass the Senate in the precise shape in which it was sent to the Senate by the War Department. What they hope is that we will turn down the majority of the House Committee on Military Affairs and swallow the War Department bill hook, line, and sinker. Failing to ram it down our throats in open fight here on the floor of the House, they hope to induce the conferees to give them what they want. If they have their way,
Transcript
[page 6] there is no more chance for the organization of troops by State units than there is for us to be translated in chariots of fire after the manner of the prophet Elijah. (Applause.) It is maliciously asserted that we who desire to give the volunteers a chance to serve their country are endeavoring to retard the creation of an army. That is simply preposterous, and if I did not want to keep within the bounds of parliamentary language I would make it a great deal stronger than that. (Applause.) On the contrary, the call for volunteers would hasten the formation of an army. It is understood that War Department officials say that it will require from three to five months to set the draft going. Why not then call for volunteers at once and secure a large volunteer army while preparing for the draft? (Applause.) Clearly it is those who oppose calling for volunteers and not those favoring the volunteers who are delaying the formation of an army. Another thing, if the President had the day after the war was declared asked Congress to authorize him to call for 500,000 volunteers or even a million, both Houses would have passed the bill in 48 hours, and by this time he would have thousands of volunteers in camp and in training. (Loud applause.) But it is said in answer to all this that anyone desiring to volunteer can enlist in the Standing Army! That is no answer at all, because it is a very different thing to serve as a volunteer with volunteers and to serve in the Standing Army. There is no use to give the reasons. (Applause.) They exist and intelligent people understand them full well. Another serious objection to the War Department bill is the conscription age limit of 19 to 25. If we are to have conscription, it should apply to all men of military age. And if it did there would not be such a hullabaloo in certain quarters. When I went out to Chicago on St. Patrick - I think that is the name of the society - a reporter came to the hotel to interview me about this war. I did not want to be interviewed; I was not in a talkative humor. I said, “I wish all the editors of this country who are shouting for war could be put into the front rank.” (Applause.) I think that interview was never published. (Applause and laughter.) Why single out boys who were too young to vote for President and Representatives? They had nothing to do with bringing on the war, and why should they not be of the exempted classes in this selective or seductive conscription, so they may finish their educations, thereby fitting themselves for the duties of citizenship? (Applause.) Consistency is rated as a jewel. I have always thought that it is better to be right and inconsistent than to be consistent and wrong. However that may be, I beg to leave to call to your attention the most delicious piece of inconsistency ever put into print since Gutenberg invented movable types. All of us read the Washington Post, and it is a bright paper. All of us know that it is one of the stanchest advocates of conscription to be found betwixt the two seas. Homer sometimes nods, and surely the Post editor nodded when he wrote the leader in the issue of Sunday, April 22.
Transcript
[page 7] Here is an excerpt from it - all that is pertinent to this discussion: THE ROOSEVELT VOLUNTEERS. Officers in the War Department are said to be opposed to granting permission to Col. Thoedore Roosevelt to raise a division of volunteers for early service in France, because they think it would be inconsistent with the plan for raising a regular army by selective draft. If this objection were valid, Col. Roosevelt’s patriotic offer should be declined. But where is there any inconsistency? Where would the two plans conflict, and how? Roosevelt is a fighting man. Nobody denies that. I think a great deal of him, because he knows a little about more things than any other human being I ever clapped my eyes on. (Laughter.) And he is not mealy-mouthed about telling it, either. (Laughter.) Col. Roosevelt proposes to raise a division of volunteers, to be commanded by Regular Army officers. He proposes to accept men above the age of 25, who would not be subject to draft. But they ought to put into parenthesis “Regular Army officers under him.” He proposes to accept men above the age of 25, who would not be subject to draft. In that he is entirely correct. The President’s plan for selective draft would not be affected in the slightest degree by raising a division of volunteers. If it will not be infringed upon in the slightest degree by raising one division of volunteers, how would it be infringed upon by raising a hundred times a thousands volunteers? (Applause.) Then he says: The President’s plan for selective draft would not be affected in the slightest degree by raising a division of volunteers. That is what Prof. Squeers, of Dotheboy’s Hall, would denominate “richness.” I am reasonably certain that could Isaac Disraeli return to earth and get out a new and enlarged edition of his Curiosities of Literature he would give a prominent place to the foregoing excerpt from the Post. Col. Roosevelt is one of the most famous Americans, but is not giving him a division of volunteers a clear infringement of the selective draft? Why should the honor of volunteer service be granted to him and denied to all other American citizens? There is no question about his fighting qualities; but there are others. (Applause.) Now, there is another thing: Nor will the statement, oft repeated in the public press and in debate, that the volunteers will be less efficient than conscripts, because they will elect their own officers, and in many cases elect incompetent men, stand for an instant the light of truth. Under the present volunteer act the officers would be taken from the Officers’ Reserve Corps, selected by the War Department after proper examination. In fact, a volunteer army would be officered in exactly the same way that the conscript army would be. Another thing: These gentlemen insist that they would have to drill an army if you would have conscripts. Now, will some of them rise and state how it happens that they can drill conscripts, who do not want to go into war at all, any quicker than they can drill volunteers? WHat is the sense in that sort of twaddle? (Laughter.)
Transcript
[page 8] Gentlemen, I am going to read a few words from an old document. I am not certain but that I ought to apologize for reading it at all. Nevertheless I am going to read it. It is the Constitution of the United States. (Laughter and applause.) It is an instrument that Gladstone said was the greatest performance ever struck from the human mind at one time, an instrument at whose making George Washington presided. And by the way, he was simply a plain volunteer. (Applause.) He was not a Regular Army officer. He was not a conscript, bless your soul! (Applause.) And while I am at it, and while it has nothing in the world to do with this debate, I am going to give you briefly my opinion about him; and, that is, that we do not do him honor enough, even yet. (Applause.) In my judgment he rendered greater service to his country and to the cause of human liberty as the President of the Constitutional Convention that he did either as Commander in Chief of the Army of as President of the United States. (Applause.) If it had not been his vast influence we never would have had any Constitution agreed upon, and if it had not been for the certainty that he would be the first President they never would have ratified it. (Applause.) They cam mighty near not ratifying it anyhow. I want to read to you from the Constitution. I still believe we are living under the Constitution. (Applause.) Here is what it says about armies; it is in the eighth section of Article I, where the powers of Congress are granted: To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years. To provide and maintain a navy. To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces. To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrection, and repel invasions. That is prefatory. Then - To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the States, respectively, the appointment of the officers and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress. My fellow Representatives, has the Constitution of the United States also become “a mere scrap of paper”? (Applause.) There was once a man in this country named Ulysses Simpson Grant, who had some vogue as a soldier. I take it that those who are howling for conscription and nothing but conscription would rather take the opinion of those modern carpet knights than that of the silent soldier. So far as I am concerned, I pin my faith in this matter to the invincible warrior. In his memoirs, by the way, one of the most readable books in our vernacular, he says: While at Cairo I had frequent opportunities of meeting the rebel officers of the Columbus garrison. They seemed to be very fond of coming up on steamers under flags of truce. On two or three occasions I went down in like manner. When one of their boats was seen coming up carrying a white flag a gun would be fired from the lower battery at Fort Holt, throwing a shot across the boy as a signal to come no farther. I would then take a steamer and, with my staff and occasionally a few other officers, go down to receive the party. There were several officers among them whom I had known before, both at West Point and in Mexico. Seeing these officers, who had been educated for the profession of arms both at school and in actual war, which is a far more efficient training, impressed me with the great advantage the
Transcript
[page 9] South possessed over the North at the beginning of the rebellion. They had from 30 to 40 per cent of the educated soldiers of the Nation. They had no standing army, and consequently these trained soldiers had to find employment with the troops from their own States. In this way what there was of military education and training was distributed throughout their whole army. The whole loaf was leavened. The North had a greater number of educated and trained soldiers, but the bulk of them were still in the Army and were retained generally with their old commands and rank until the war had lasted many months. In the Army of the Potomac there was what was known as the “regular brigade,” in which, from the commanding officer down to the youngest second lieutenant, every one was educated to his profession. So, too, with many of the batteries; all of the officers, generally four in number to each, were men educated for their profession. Some of these went into battle at the beginning under division commanders who were entirely without training. This state of affairs gave me an idea, which I expressed while at Cairo: That the Government ought to disband the Regular Army, with the exception of the Staff Corps, and notify the disbanded officers that they would receive no compensation while the war lasted except as volunteers. The register should be kept up, but the names of all officers who were not in the volunteer service at the close should be stricken from it. No, gentlemen, I take it that the witness is competent, and that he is intelligent about the things he is talking about; and it strikes me that we had better pay some attention to such men as that, rather than to a lot of fellows that have never been under fire. I want to read now an article that was published in the Baltimore Evening Sun. It is signed by a veteran. I read: HARK, FROM THE TOMBS COME AN ARGUMENT AND A SONG ABOUT EQUAL IN QUALITY. TO THE EDITOR OF THE EVENING SUN. SIR: Within the last six months a great deal has been said about regulars, volunteers, and drafted men. Nearly every old soldier of the Union Army knows that during the Civil War the volunteer regiments did more than nine-tenths of the fighting. In Fox’s report of the 300 regiments that did nearly all the fighting, he has 296 volunteer regiments, four regiments of Regulars, and no drafted regiments. They would not push them in the front. (Applause.) They were afraid to trust them. (Applause.) I read further: Also, of the 46 regiments that lost between 200 and 300 killed in action, the whole 46 were volunteer regiments. Pennsylvania’s share was 11, nearly one-fourth; and a New Hampshire regiment had the highest number (298) killed in action. No regiment reached 500 killed in action. The old song that I sang in war times - “Our troops are the best the world ever saw; Our men are the bravest that ever went to war; Our people, they are good wherever you go; Our boys, they are fast, and our girls, they are not slow.” Chorus: “Then hoist up the flag,” etc. VET. Baltimore, April [1917] (Laughter and applause.) One of the very best books ever written about the Civil War - I think Gen. Dick Taylor’s Destruction and Reconstruction is the best - is a book entitled “Stonewall Jackson in the American Civil War,” by Col. Henderson. I advise all of you who think well of the American volunteer to get it and read it. Here is what he said - and remember he was a colonel in the British Army: Of the prowess of Lee’s veterans sufficient has been said. Their deeds speak for themselves. But it was not the battle field alone that bore witness to their fortitude. German soldiers have told us that in the war of 1870, when their armies, marching on Paris, found to their astonishment, the great city strongly garrisoned and hosts gathering in every quarter for its relief, a singular apathy took possession of the troops. The explanation offered by a great military writer is that “after a
Transcript
[page 10] certain period even the victor becomes tired of war “ ; and “the more civilized.” he adds, “a people is, the more quickly will this weakness become apparent.” Whether this explanation be adequate is not easy to decide. The fact remains, however, that the Confederate volunteer was able to overcome that longing for home which chilled the enthusiasm of the German conscript. And this is the more remarkable inasmuch as his career was not one of unchequered victory. In the spring of 1863 the Army of the Potomac, more numerous than ever, was still before him, firmly established on Virginian soil; hope of foreign intervention, despite the assurances of the politicians, was gradually fading, and it was but too evident that the war was far from over. Yet at no time during their two years of service had the soldiers shown the slightest sign of that discouragement which seized the Germans after two months. And who shall dare to say that the southerner was less highly civilized than the Prussian or the Bavarian. Political liberty, freedom of speech and action, are the real elements of civilization, and not merely education. But let the difference in the constitution of the two armies be borne in mind. The Confederates, with few exceptions, were volunteers - (Applause) - who had become soldiers of their own choice, who had assumed arms deliberately and without compulsion, and who by their own votes were responsible that war had been declared. The Germans were conscripts, a dumb, powerless, irresponsible multitude, animated, no doubt, by heriditary hatred of the enemy but without that sense of moral obligation which exists in the volunteer. We may be permitted, then, to believe that this sense of moral obligation was one reason why the spirit of the southerners rose superior to human weakness, and that the old adage which declares that “one volunteer is better than three pressed men” - (Applause.) I wish you gentlemen would recollect who it is that is saying this - a trained soldier of the British Army, who observed the war with the eye of a military critic. We may be permitted, then, to believe that this sense of moral obligation was one reason why the spirit of the southerners rose superior to human weakness, and that the old adage which declares that “one volunteer is better than three pressed men” is not yet out of date. (Applause.) I do not know whether Col. Henderson is dead or not. I hope he is not. If he is alive it will make his eyes pop open like morning-glories when he finds out what they are trying to do here. (Applause.) Nor is it an unfair inference that the armies of the Confederacy, allied by the “crimson thread of kinship” to those of Wellington, of Raglan, and of Clyde, owed much of their enduring fortitude to “the rock whence they were hewn.” I stand on these quotations from Gen. Grand and Col. Henderson without any ceremony, and put them against every word that has been said in this country, high or low, in favor of conscription. (Applause.) And with those two witnesses only I might close the evidence on our side. But I want to read to you another little piece. One of the greatest writers on army matters that ever lived in any country, and who has written a great many books, is Col. F. N. Maude, of the British Army. Whether he is the man who is conqueror of Mesopotamia and the capturer of Bagdad I do not know, but he is a British Colonel, at any rate. Here is just a short extract from him. After telling what the British have done he says: What more in numbers could compulsion afforded us; and what about the quality? After the distinction already won by many territorial units in the field - You know what territorials are - it is hardly necessary to say anything on this point, and as to the regulars, also volunteers, we will let the Prussian Guards and the Ger-
Transcript
[page 11] man staff tell us now what they really think of our armies. Compulsion had done all that it could do, and more than even the best Prussian dared to expect for their troops. It has carried them forward to almost certain death in a manner which has exacted the admiration of all our men and officers; but at that critical moment when the fate of empires hangs in the balance it has always failed them, and our men - territorials and regulars alike - And he takes pains to say that the regulars are volunteers - territorials and regulars alike have sprung forward upon them with the bayonet with a determination never dreamt of in warfare since the days of Waterloo and the Peninsula. Now, my friends, some gentlemen with more zeal than discretion have been trying to make out that everybody who is in favor of the volunteers is in some strange manner attacking the President of the United States and opposing him. We are not doing anything of the sort. We are supporting him better than they are, and I am going to prove it by him. (Applause.) He might not acknowledge it, but nevertheless it is true. This may be a little dry, but it is what Horace Greeley would have called “mighty rich reading.” In the months of January and February, 1916, there took place considerable correspondence between Secretary of War Lindley M. Garrison and President Wilson over certain measures proposed for preparation for national defense. Secretary Garrison indorsed and warmly advocated the continental army plan of the General Staff as opposed to the National Guard plan proposed by Mr. Hay, chairman of the Military Affairs Committee. You all know Hay. He is one of the ablest men we have had in Congress in some years. (Applause.) The Hay plan, Secretary Garrison declared in a letter to President Wilson bearing date of January 12, 1916, was the entire abandonment of the idea of a Federal force of national volunteers He added: There is unfortunately very little knowledge and very little intense personal interest personal interest in any Members of the House concerning military affairs. It has always astonished me that men who know everything, who could pass a tariff bill over night, who can pass any other great measure while you wait, do not come down here and get into one House or the other of Congress. (Laughter.) About two years ago, when we had up the Federal reserve bank bill, one of these men came into my room and was telling me that we were all a lot of lunkheads in both the House and Senate, and he kept on in that way until I got somewhat warm. I said, “I have always wanted to know why men like you young Solomons, who know everything instantly, right off the bat, and do not have to investigate anything, do not get elected to Congress and come down here and do these things.” He said, “Why, everybody does not want to come to Congress.” I said, “There are not a thousand men in the United States who, if they could, would not come either to the House or the Senate.” (Applause.) “And I will tell you the reason you do not come down here and get into the House or the Senate, because you can not get the votes enough.” (Laughter and applause.) “People have not confidence enough in you.” I have not heard anything out of him since. (Laughter and applause.) Secretary Garrison urged upon the President the imperative necessity of his seeking an occasion at the earliest possible moment to declare himself with respect to the matter, and in doing so to make it clear beyond peradventure that nothing excepting
Transcript
[page 12] national forces, raised by the Nation and subject to its exclusive authority, responsibility, and control, is any real settlement of this issue. To this letter the President replied on the 17th of January, 1916, following, in part, as follows: I am not irrevocably or dogmatically committed to any one plan of providing the Nation with such a reserve, and am cordially willing to discuss alternative proposals. On February 9, 1916, Secretary Garrison wrote the President that he desired to be informed of the determination reached by him with respect to the so-called Clarke amendment to the Philippine bill - to which he was also unalterably opposed - and to the continental army bill. On February 10, 1916, the President wrote Secretary Garrison in part as follows: As I have had occasion to say to you, I am not yet convinced that the measure of preparation for national defense which we deem necessary can be obtained through the instrumentality of the National Guard under Federal control and training, but I feel in duty bound to keep my mind open to conviction. The bill in which it will be embodied has not yet been drawn, as I learned to-day from Mr. HAY. I should deem it a very serious mistake to shut the door against this attempt on the part of the committee in perfect good faith to meet the essentials of the program set forth in my message, but in a way of their own choosing. As you know, I do not agree with you in favoring compulsory enlistment for training, and I fear the advocacy of compulsion before the committee of the House on the part of representatives of the Department of War has greatly prejudiced the House against the proposal for a continental army, little necessary connection as there is between the plan and the opinion of the Chief of Staff of compulsory enlistment. Upon receipt of the above letter Secretary Garrison immediately tendered his resignation as Secretary of War, and it was promptly accepted by the President. In the account of Secretary Garrison’s resignation, published in the Washington Post of February 11, 1916, that paper stated that the President declined “to take any irrevocable stand on the ground that it would not be proper for him to say to a committee of Congress that it would have to take his plan or none. He declared he did not believe Members of the House dealing with military affairs were ignorant of the military necessities of the Nation, but had found them well informed. Should a bill be presented to him which he could not accept as accomplishing the essential thing sought, he said, it would be his duty to veto it and go to the country on the merits. Now, I say, we come nearer to backing up his well-considered opinion than Brother KAHN and his confreres. I want to read another sentence or two from the President. He is a great and good man. He writes with a great deal of facility. There has not been a more skillful artist hold of the English language in a century than he. On Memorial Day, May 30, 1916, he made a speech at Arlington. In that speech he used these refreshing words: I have heard a great many people talk about universal training, Universal voluntary training with all my heart, if you wish it, but America does not wish anything but compulsion of the spirit of America. Those words were fitly spoken and are “like apples of gold in pictures of silver.” Now, I challenge Brother KAHN, who is the head and center of this thing. It reminds me of the knighting of an Englishman, “Kneel, Julius; rise up, Sir Julius.” (Laughter and applause.)
Transcript
[page 13] I want to say in all seriousness that if this conscription fad is to be put on the American people there are two men in this House who deserve more credit for it than any other two men on top of the ground. One is the gentleman from California (Mr. KAHN) and the other is the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. GARDNER). I am in favor of giving the devil his due. (Laughter and applause.) For several years there has been a systematic effort in Congress, in certain clubs in this city, in newspapers, by some public speakers, and in sundry magazines to belittle, depreciate, and minimize the American volunteer. I resent such performance in the name of the living and the dead, in the name of the brave men who gave us our freedom and who have maintained it, in the name of the volunteers who have shed imperishable luster upon American arms and upon the American Republic. Our Regulars have always done well, but there have been few of them by comparison. God knows that I have not the slightest disposition to disparage them; but after all due honor has been done to the Regulars, the fact remains that the volunteer has done most of our fighting. The American volunteer is one of the glories of the Republic. Under young George Washington he saved the remnants of Braddock’s army from destruction. In the French and Indian War he fought side by side with the British regulars. From April 19, 1775, when on the village green of Lexington and at the Concord Bridge the embattled farmers and the Minute Men of Massachusetts fired the shot heard around the world down to the last shot in the Spanish-American War, the American volunteer has been a very present help in every time of trouble. He made Bunker Hill a name to conjure with forever. He captured Burgoyne at Saratoga. He upheld Washington amid the horrors of Valley Forge; he destroyed the Hessians at Trenton; he achieved the astounding victory at Kings Mountain against Ferguson’s British regulars, thereby turning the tide of the Revolutionary War. On a hundred fields, sometimes victorious, sometimes defeated, hungry, naked, footsore, and weary, he fought on with dogged pertinacity until he stood with the glorious and victorious Washington on the bloodstained heights of Yorktown, where Jefferson’s declaration was made good and America was free indeed. (Applause.) The critics of the American volunteer are always harping on the rout of a handful of untrained militia at Bladensburg by British regulars; why do they never, even by accident, mention Gen. Harrisons’ splendid men at the River Thames? How does it happen that they never can remember Andrew Jackson, and how at New Orleans, with 5,500 untrained backwoods volunteers armed with flint-lock, muzzle-loading rifles, he defeated Wellington’s Peninsular army, who had snatched the iron crown of Charlemagne from the brow of Napoleon. That was the most amazing peace of shooting done by any army in any battle anywhere since the invention of gunpowder. And God be praised, American Volunteers did it. (Applause.) But, strange to tell, these belittlers of the American volunteer are silent as the voiceless grave when it comes to Andrew Jackson and New Orleans! God forgive them for their lack of apprecia-
Transcript
[page 14] tion of the heroic deeds of the brave men who won imperishable renown on that bloody field! The volunteer was our chief reliance in the War with Mexico. He conquered at Buena Vista, Churubusco, and Chapultepec, and placed the Starry Banner of the Republic on the palace of the Montezumas. In that war Col. Alexander Doniphan, with 1,100 green Missouri volunteers, marched from Fort Leavenworth, [Kansas], conquered Arizona, New Mexico, and Chihuahua, fighting dozens of battles, never losing even a skirmish, though frequently fighting ten times his own numbers, and finally reported to Gen. Taylor, ragged, hungry, but invincible, on the red field of Monterey - the most astounding march in the annals of war. That is what a Missourian would do! The march of Xenophon and his 10,000 has been proclaimed by historians for 30 centuries, because he had sense enough to write a book giving an account of his own performances; but here is this brave Missourian, who made the most astounding march in the history of the human race, and Xenophon with his 10,000 is not a marker to it, and his glorious name does not appear in some of the great American encyclopedias. Why, if he had been a Massachusetts man, followed by Massachusetts volunteers, the world would hardly contain the books that would have been written about it. (Laughter.) I am a Missourian, thank God, and proud to be a countryman of Doniphan. In the Civil War the volunteer did nine-tenths of the fighting on both sides. It is said that men will not volunteer; but nevertheless there was no draft until the North and the South had raised about 2,000,000 men - the best soldiers the sun has looked upon in 6,000 years of slaughter. At the first tap of the drum an entire people sprang to arms. We had, North and South, then only 33,000,000 people; now we have more than 100,000,000. Why doubt their love of country? Where is the man with sufficient temerity to stand up in a public place and assert that the volunteers who fought in the Civil War on both sides were not first-class soldiers? Who will dare to say that the men who charged with Pickett up the slippery slopes of Gettysburg or the men in blue who rallied around George H. Thomas, “The Rock of Chickamauga,” for three dreadful days did not arise to the highest standard of military excellence? American volunteers, God bless them every one! (Applause.) On Fame’s eternal camping ground Their silent tents are spread, And glory guards with solemn round The bivouac of the dead! If this stupendous war continues long, conscription may become necessary; but in the light of the history of English speaking people we contend that it is not necessary now. Conscription has always been repugnant to men of our blood. (Applause.) In this very war Great Britain never ordered a conscription until she had raised 5,000,000 volunteers, a somwhat sizable army, certainly; and not one British conscript is fighting on the Continent now. Canada, with only 7,000,000 population, 3,000,000 less than that of New York, has sent 400,000 volunteers across the sea. The Canadians have done such splendid deeds as to fill the world with their acclaim; and Canada has done her full share
Transcript
[page 15] without a draft, and will have none of it. The Australians and New Zealanders have furnished their full quotas and acquitted themselves handsomely without a draft, and refused the draft on a referendum vote. Why do gentlemen doubt the courage and the patriotism of the present generation of Americans? There is not a scintilla of evidence that we have degenerated into a race of cowards or mollycoddles. As for myself, I love to think well of my countrymen. Patrick Henry said: I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. The poet Campbell expanded Henry’s thought into these lines: Go watch the wheels of nature’s mazy plan And read the future from the past of man. Assuming that the great lyric orator and the great Scotch poet were correct in formulating a rule for predicting human action, why do gentlemen jump to the conclusion that Americans of our time will fail in their full measure of duty and service in this time of stress? What right have they to assume any such preposterous condition of things? Our fathers did their duty; we will do ours, never fear. For we are the same our fathers have been, We see the same sights our fathers have seen; We drink the same streams and view the same sun And run the same course our fathers have run. I am sure that the House will pardon a word purely personal. My only living son is, with my full consent, going into the Army in any capacity in which he can be useful, either as an officer or a private. (Applause.) Of course I hate to see him go, but he thinks it his duty, and I would not have it otherwise. Naturally he is dear to me - no dearer to me than other men’s sons to them. I hope and pray that when the hour may come when he is subjected to the ordeal of fire, he may go into battle not by the side of the slackers and loafers whom the advocates of this bill say they desire to reach but shoulder to shoulder with free men who serve gladly, willingly, to fight for the honor, the safety, and the perpetuity of this Republic. Should he fall, I want the privilege of carving on his tombstone these words: “This man, a Missouri volunteer, died fighting for his country.” (Prolonged applause.)
Details
Title | Champ Clark's speech, "Volunteers vs. Conscripts" given before the House of Representatives - April 25, 1917 |
Creator | Clark, Champ |
Source | Clark, Champ. Champ Clark's speech, "Volunteers vs. Conscripts" given before the House of Representatives. 25 April 1917. Clark, Champ (1850-1921) and Bennett Champ (1890-1954), Papers, 1853-1973. C0666. The State Historical Society of Missouri, Columbia, |
Description | In this April 25, 1917 speech before the House of Representatives in Washington D.C., Champ Clark argued against H.R. 3545, a bill to authorize the President to increase the United States military through conscription. Champ Clark, a long-time resident of Bowling Green, Missouri, was a politician in the Democratic Party. He served as a representative of Missouri from 1893 to 1895 and from 1897 to 1921. From 1911 to 1919 he served as the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives. |
Subject LCSH | Clark, Champ, 1850-1921; Draft; Wilson, Woodrow, 1856-1924; Roosevelt, Theodore, 1858-1919; World War, 1914 |
Subject Local | WWI; World War I; Conscription; Selective Service Act of 1917; Selective Draft Act |
Site Accession Number | C0666 |
Contributing Institution | The State Historical Society of Missouri |
Copy Request | Transmission or reproduction of items on these pages beyond that allowed by fair use requires the written permission of the State Historical Society of Missouri: 1020 Lowry Street, Columbia, Missouri, 65201-7298. (573) 882-7083. |
Rights | The text and images contained in this collection are intended for research and educational use only. Duplication of any of these images for commercial use without express written consent is expressly prohibited. |
Date Original | April 25, 1917 |
Language | English |