Before the war is ended, the war party assumes the divine right
Before the war is ended, the war party assumes the divine right to denounce and silence all opposition to war as unpatriotic and cowardly.
Hear now the voice of Robert M. La Follette, a senator of fiery spirit and unbending conscience, who declared: “Before the war is ended, the war party assumes the divine right to denounce and silence all opposition to war as unpatriotic and cowardly.” These words were not whispered in comfort, but spoken amid storms, when the drums of war drowned reason and the fever of patriotism was wielded as a weapon against truth. They remind us that in times of conflict, it is not only armies that are threatened, but the very freedom of thought and speech upon which a just society rests.
La Follette, a son of Wisconsin, raised his voice during World War I, when the United States, stirred by fear and fury, entered the blood-soaked fields of Europe. He opposed the war not out of weakness, but out of conviction that the cries for battle were drowned in the interests of money and empire. Yet for this stance he was reviled, branded a traitor, spat upon in the streets, and nearly expelled from the Senate. Still he endured, for he knew that to question war is not cowardice, but courage of the highest order. His words reveal a truth eternal: that those who hunger for war will often cloak themselves in the language of patriotism, silencing dissent with the accusation of disloyalty.
Consider the fate of others who dared question war in their time. In 1917, a woman named Emma Goldman, fiery and unyielding, denounced the draft as slavery of the body to the ambitions of the state. For her defiance she was imprisoned and later exiled. Like La Follette, she bore the weight of society’s wrath, but her stand became a torch for future generations. Her tale shows the cost of speaking truth in a world blinded by the banners of battle, and the ease with which dissent is crushed under cries of “coward” and “traitor.”
La Follette’s wisdom speaks beyond his own age, for the temptation he warned of is timeless. Whenever nations march to war, leaders often claim a monopoly on virtue, declaring that to support the war is to love one’s country, and to oppose it is to betray it. This is the “divine right” he denounced: the arrogance of those who believe their cause is so holy that no question may be raised against it. Such arrogance is dangerous, for it blinds societies to truth, and truth lost in war is seldom regained.
The lesson is this: patriotism is not blind obedience, but steadfast devotion to justice, even when justice demands speaking against the clamor of the crowd. To question war is not to betray the nation, but to protect its soul from folly. Those who dare dissent when the world calls for silence are guardians of democracy, defenders not of armies, but of conscience. Their courage is often unrecognized in their time, yet their legacy is freedom itself.
What, then, must we do? We must hold fast to the right of conscience, defending the voices of dissent even when we disagree with them. We must teach our children that love of country does not mean unthinking loyalty, but rather the willingness to challenge it when it strays from justice. We must listen before we condemn, and weigh before we denounce. For a nation that silences dissent in war plants the seeds of tyranny in peace.
Therefore, let La Follette’s words be carved into memory. When the war party rises, when the air grows thick with slogans and cries of patriotism, remember that freedom is not preserved by silence, but by the courage to speak. Defend the right of opposition, for in that right lies the strength of a people who remain free. Let us vow that no generation shall surrender its conscience to the roar of cannons or the pride of leaders, but will keep its spirit unchained, even in the darkest hours of war.
NTThanh Thuy Nguyen Thi
There’s a bitter truth in this statement: war doesn’t just destroy lives, it erodes the capacity for independent thought. Once fear takes hold, people crave certainty, and the loudest voices often belong to those demanding obedience. I wonder how history might have been different if more citizens had refused to be silenced under the guise of patriotism.
TH10 Nguyen Thi Thu Hong
La Follette’s insight feels eerily relevant today. We still see governments and media labeling dissenters as threats whenever conflict arises. It makes me ask — have we really progressed in how we handle disagreement, or do we just use more sophisticated methods to suppress it? Maybe every war tests not only military strength but also the moral integrity of a nation.
SLsen lethi
Reading this, I think about how political leaders often weaponize language to manipulate public opinion. Words like 'coward' or 'unpatriotic' are used to shut down debate before it begins. Why is it that in wartime, the desire for unity becomes a tool for control? It’s a powerful reminder that freedom of conscience should never be suspended, even during war.
NNNgoc Nguyen
This quote exposes the dark side of patriotism — when loyalty to the state outweighs loyalty to truth. It raises a tough question: can a democracy truly function if dissent is seen as weakness? Maybe the greatest act of patriotism isn’t blind support, but the courage to speak against unnecessary suffering, even when everyone else is waving flags.
Hhihi
La Follette’s words strike me as both courageous and tragic. He captures that moment when democracy begins to crumble under the pressure of conflict. If citizens can’t question war without being branded traitors, then how free is that society really? It makes me think about how fragile freedom of speech becomes in times of crisis — often when it’s needed most.