American Propaganda and the Suppression of Dissent in World War I

“May we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion. “
– Dwight D. Eisenhower

On June 28, 1914, the Archduke of Austria-Hungary, Franz Ferdinand, was assassinated. That event marked the first phase of World War I (Grayzel 10). Soon afterward nations throughout Europe announced declarations of war. By the end of October countries as far away as Japan, China and Brazil had become involved (Grayzel 11). Susan R. Grayzel in the “Introduction: The First World War and the Making of a Modern, Global Conflict” from The First World War: A Brief History with Documents”, explores a variety of contributing reasons for the Great War (Grayzel 9). The causes most often cited included the rise of nationalism, increased militarism, imperialism, and a willingness among the population to allow their governments to persecute a war (Grayzel 9-10). Ironically, it was a complicated series of competitive alliances and international peace agreements that caused such a rapid global escalation of hostilities (Grayzel 5). With its vast immigrant population, and their own ties to European and Asian interests, America was not immune to finding itself dragged into the war.

Hence, during the first years of the war, President Woodrow Wilson struggled to maintain neutrality. So much so that he issued a declaration of neutrality to Congress on August 14, 1914. In his speech he entreated Americans to remember, “Every man who really loves America will act and speak in the true spirit of neutrality …” (Woodrow par. 2) With even more conviction he strongly suggested that “[t]he United States must be neutral in fact, as well as in name [emphasis added], during these days that are to try men's souls” (Woodrow par. 6). However, after the bombing of the Lusitania in 1915, and the sending of the Zimmerman telegram in January of 1917 (Alexander 1), Wilson had no choice but to enter the war. Furthermore, having based his entire presidential candidacy and career on a platform of neutrality, Wilson now needed to assure all-out public cooperation for a pro-war stand. Chiefly, he needed a national propaganda campaign.

Subsequently, propaganda took on a whole new form during World War I. Susan R. Grayzel points out in her book, The First World War, A Brief History with Documents, the organization and deployment of government sponsored propaganda modernized itself during World War I (Kealey 57). For the first time in history, mass media wed the experience of total war to a national program of propaganda. Carefully crafted propaganda messages filtered through the news and film industries. Billboard advertisements, posters and handbills inundated the public. Factory workers found themselves enlisted to join forces with a nationwide industrial effort to assure cooperation between the industrialized side of society and the armed serices. Plastered on the factory walls throughout America were posters encouraging pride, honor, patriotism, and a sense of duty to one’s own country (Kingsbury 35). Although proponents say that this kind of propaganda during a time of crises was not necessarily a bad thing, there was an ugly side to the manipulation of war enthusiasms during this period.

World War I was not only a watershed event in history in how the US employed its propaganda efforts, it also expanded important legal precedents allowing the government to restrict civil liberties, particularly the rights of citizens to oppose and dissent (McElroy par. 5). Furthermore, key acts of legislation allowed for the mistreatment and forcible deportation of both foreign and American born nationals. Government agency activity was extensive in suppressing dissent. As a rule, specific groups opposing the war, or holding different political views, were singled out and censored. The mobilizing incentives that allowed local authorities and private organizations to carry out some of the worst abuses of that time are also troubling. Governments employ censorship to suppress dissent, but suppression does not invariably take the form of censorship. Cases of overt suppression, which present challenges of their own, are comparatively non-problematic compared to self-censorship. Self-censorship occurs when people remain silent in fear of losing their jobs, their place in the community, even their lives. Or, because they have adopted beliefs to what they believe is the acceptable norm. Understanding how the American people and their government tried to suppress dissent during World War I is important. It is significant because it offers a clue how the pressures of censorship and coercion during times of crises bring about major changes in a nation’s mind and attitudes about an entire range of cherished democratic values including the principles of due process, and free speech.

In order to appreciate why the US propaganda effort during World War I was so successful, and how extensive it was, one only has to look at where America was sitting shortly before entering the war. The nation was on the cusp of an industrial and social revolution, and both the government and society were expanding under an unprecedented spurt of growth through what is known as the Progressive or “beautiful era” (Grayzel 8). During this time the federal government nationalized the shipping, railroad, domestic telegraph telephone, and international cable industries (Holcombe par. 3). It engaged big labor, and began to heavily regulate everything from the securities market, to the production and distribution of the nation’s food supply, to the transportation and distribution of oil and gas (Holcombe par. 4). Even before entering the war the government had more than 5,000 agencies, and had developed a huge appetite for money and credit (Holcombe par. 5). The war only further amplified these needs.

During the war the armed forces grew to over four million officers and men (Holcombe par. 9). Materials to support an army of this size to include training, housing, transportation, food, clothing and medical concerns were considerable. More importantly the army and navy needed modern arms and tons of ammunition. Consequently, taxes increased as federal revenue requirements rose by nearly 400 percent between fiscal 1917 and fiscal 1919 (Holcombe par. 10). When America declared war on April 6, 1917, the war departments sent President Wilson a message that they would need the full support of the public to succeed in the war effort. America was staring into the face of total war. Mobilizing a disparate population and acquiring the necessary capital to equip the military needed a communications campaign on an unprecedented scale. One memo submitted by the secretaries of state stated, “America’s great present needs are confidence, enthusiasm, and service and these needs will not be met unless every citizen is given the feeling of partnership …” (Murphy 17). President Wilson responded rapidly to these reports, and within one week of declaring war the Committee on Public Information (CPI) was created. From the very start Wilson did not think to use the CPI for overt domestic coercion or suppression. In fact, the original mission was to strictly censor the flow of information to the enemy (Salmans 8). On April 14, 1917, President Wilson, with an executive order, appointed George Creel as chairman of the CPI to carry out that mission.

Accordingly, Creel made it into one of the most successful media campaigns in history (Gomrad 1). His ability to forge links with non-government agencies like newspapers, poster art printers, local authorities and the more zealous citizen groups as sources to promote government sponsored propaganda was important. He created an "advertising agency" so massive that it was able to reach and influence the lives of nearly man woman and child in the country. Creel held an unprecedented position of power answering only to president, Woodrow Wilson (Mock par. 2). Perhaps this is why an atmosphere distinctly hostile to critics of government policy soon developed in government branches all the way from the US Postal Service, to the US Department of Justice.

This atmosphere of hostility during a time of crises was not new in America. Furthermore, mistreatment of international citizens and foreigners was not without legal precedents. In 1798, as the threat of war with France became more pronounced, immigrants from France and Ireland were increasingly viewed with suspicion (McElroy par. 8). Accordingly, Congress passed several laws known as the Alien and Sedition Acts. These Acts intended to severely curb domestic protest allowed for the arrest, internment and deportation of anyone seen as a dangerous alien (McElroy par. 10). Although, in actuality no one was ever taken under arrest for violating the first three Acts, it did however set a tone for four pieces of legislation during World War I that were particularly important in the assault on American Civil liberties; the Espionage Act, the Trading with the Enemy Act, the Anarchist Exclusion Act, and the Sedition Act.

The Espionage Act made it illegal to aid the enemy, give false reports, and interfere with the war effort (Espionage Act 1917). It gave the power to suppress any opposition to the war, and suspended the mailing privileges of many opposition and peace organizations. According to David Greenberg in his article, “The Hidden History of the Espionage Act”, the law had a justifiable legitimate purpose, but soon became problematic (Greenberg par. 4). Its wording was vague, and left too much opportunity for misinterpretation by overzealous vigilante groups and overly aggressive law enforcement agencies (Greenberg par. 6). Probably the most disgraceful and abusive use of this law was by the Postmaster General Albert Burleson. Viewed as an intolerant belligerent by his peers, Burleson canceled mailing privileges for a number of groups he considered radical or revolutionary (Greenberg par. 8). These included left wing magazines such as, The Liberator, The Masses, and socialist labor organizations such as the IWW (Greenberg par. 9). With nearly complete autonomy, under his direction nearly every newspaper, magazine, booklet or any other printed matter was screened and censored for the remotest criticism of the war. Even ordinary citizens became targets. A Congressman was banned from sending out copies of his speech opposing the war (Greenberg par. 10). Eugene V. Debs, a Socialist Party candidate for the presidency, caught a ten year sentence in prison for his public criticisms of the war. Imprisoned for the movie "The Spirit of ‘76", filmmaker Robert Goldstein apparently violated the law by depicting the British in an unfavorable light. When challenged, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Espionage Act and subsequent convictions citing the “clear and present danger” standard (Greenberg par. 7). Most people today might agree that the postal surveillance and prosecution of people like Goldstein and Debs contributed absolutely nothing towards advancing public safety or winning the war. Even if one could reasonably argue enforcement of these actions were necessary under wartime conditions, historically no evidence exists this is true.

Yet another assault on Civil Liberties was The Trading with the Enemy Act. Intended to regulate and punish trading with the enemy, the Act allowed for the seizure of all enemy property. The Sedition Act which followed a year later supported and broadened the powers of the Espionage Act. The act made it illegal to publicly speak against the war. It punished writers who with $10,000 fines and up to 20 years in jail (Sedition Act 1918). Over 1000 convictions made under the charge of inciting others to resist the government occurred over this period(McElroy par. 8). Legal challenges to these acts were again upheld by the Supreme Court. Clearly many of those who voiced their conscience, as well as others innocent of any crimes, fell under the oppressing thumb of these punitive actions. Social activists on the left were specifically targeted and made to feel vulnerable because of their alleged lack of patriotism (McElroy par. 12). By the end of the War of 1918, punitive actions directed at those regarded as unpatriotic redirected to just about anything that sounded foreign. For example, on November 8, 1919, the New York State Police rounded up more than a thousand alleged communists in New York City (McElroy par. 13). Most who found themselves deported without due process. In total over 3,000 others faced deportation. The infamous Palmer Raids soon followed. Likewise an estimated 10,000 people were arrested in these raids (McElroy par. 15). Later, since no evidence of sedition or revolutionary activity was found, most of the confirmed American citizens were later released (McElroy par. 17). Apparently the only "crime" committed by these people was one of being affiliated with either an unpopular labor union or political party. Granted, these Acts effectively eliminated left-wing political opposition to the war. Nevertheless, the need to standardize along acceptable party lines the thoughts, beliefs, and behaviors of a vast and diversified population required the media use techniques of a modern propaganda machine. Thereafter, with respect to the goal of manipulating support for the war, the CPI played an important role in suppressing dissent.

One aspect often overlooked in World War I propaganda research is the cooperative roles between local authorities, institutions and the private sectors. Patriotic zeal, as well as institutional self-interest, created a powerful incentive to coöperate with the government in whatever way possible. The linkages the CPI forged between public libraries, publishing, and movie industries were crucial in the government’s effort to control dissent and opposition to the war (Wells par. 37). With regards to the record on censorship and suppression, the government apparently had far greater powers to directly remove anti-war activists from the public assembly. However, as with most propaganda campaigns, the most oppressive examples of censorship and suppression occurred out of the state and local level, often with a nod of tacit approval from national authorities (Wells par. 38). For example, State councils of defense enforced social conformity (Wells par 39). Chief areas of scrutiny included transportation systems, hospital, medical services, industry, volunteer organizations, and supervising aliens.

Arbitrarily, these state councils of defense sometimes enforced contribution quotas from various volunteer organizations during war bond drives. One incident relates to an Indiana woman who was forcibly removed from her home, locked in a cage, and paraded around the town square because she failed to make an adequate effort to support the Liberty Loan drive (Wells par 39). German-Americans, Irish Americans, even Native American Indians often found themselves targets of the State councils of defense. Other domestic groups such as the NSL and the APL fostered fear in the public sphere. They organized book removals from libraries, the firing of teachers, and imposed rigid rules of conduct from local citizens (Wells par. 41). These super patriotic volunteer groups created a national wave of war hysteria which resulted in the physical or mental harm to thousands of innocent citizens. Additionally, there is evidence that the CPI participated in these campaigns of suppression including efforts to force compliance among the African-American community, particularly the black press. Black newspaper editors brought to Washington were either commended for their coöperation or directly threatened with legal action if the CPI did not see desired results (Wells par. 50). In actuality, the black press was largely supportive of the war, and The CPI really had little reason to fear widespread dissent among the black community.

Most importantly, the CPI, directed by George Creel, worked diligently to fan the flames of patriotic fervor, focusing on two main goals – an unwavering hatred of the enemy, and an unflagging support for the nation. For this reason, the CPI attacked anything that looked anti-American, produced pamphlets, poster art, and even war movies that highlighted German atrocities. False accusations levied against German, Mexican, Irish, and even Native American Indian loyalties to the nation were persistent. Consequently, anyone who questioned the war found themselves under scrutiny. These unleashed demands for complete conformity and allegiance to the United States were vicious, and successful. Brett Gary, in his book, The Nervous Liberals, conjectures that pro-war efforts orchestrated by the CPI simply crushed the opposing social forces, many of which never recovered from their lost fights (Gary 54-75). Murphy writes in his report, Propaganda: Can a Word Decide A War, on the activities of the government and the CPI, "A deliberately planned program of federal suppression was underway and was about to be expanded, in the form of opinion molding, Americanization, homogenization, the coercing of patriotic support, and the rooting out of disloyalty" (Murphy 9). Consequently, the kind of exuberant patriotic mania the CPI infused into the public led to a long list of crackdowns on free expression and a gross diminishment to Civil Liberties.

Somewhere along the line there occurred that which Wilson had feared the most. Mob hysteria and a long list of repressive laws governing free speech and writing replaced tolerance, compassion and mercy.

In conclusion, the complex machinations employed to create a cultural hegemony over a society is not always caused by those in authority. Propaganda campaigns can only be won through the support of subordinated groups, and individuals who believe that allowing government domination and control either makes good sense, or is not worth fighting. World War I, like all wars, offered many opportunities to those who wanted to promote their own self-interests. It opened a playing field in which commercial, artistic, and industrial opponents claimed clear winners and losers. By collaborating with national authorities big business weakened, and in some cases defeated labor organizations. Social and political conservatives were able to discredit and dismantle social reforms. Social progressives led to believe if they supported the war effort would be rewarded later, found out they were wrong. Propaganda is not just about psychology. Too often it is about exploiting people for profit and power. Its use even during times of national crises is unavoidable, but it should always be tempered by knowing the key to truly changing society is through honest and open dialogue, and truthful education.

Works Cited
Alexander, Mary and Marilyn Childress. "The Zimmerman Telegram." Social Education 45, 4 (April 1981) 266. National Archives. The National Archives and Records Administration, 8 Oct. 2009. Web 13 Aug 2013. http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/zimmermann/
Brett Gary. The Nervous Liberals: Propaganda Anxieties from World War I to the Cold
War. New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1999. Print.
“Espionage Act.” Spartacus Educational N.p., n.d. Web. 6 Aug. 2013.
Honors Papers. Paper 7. http://digitalcommons.conncoll.edu/govhp/7
Greenberg, David. "The Hidden History of the Espionage Act." Slate Magazine. The Slate
Group, 27 Dec. 2010. Web. 07 Aug. 2013.
Gomrad, Mary. “Visual and Verbal Rhetoric in Howard Chandler Christy’s War-Related
Posters of Woman During the World War I Era: A Feminist Perspective.” MA thesis. U of Central Florida. N.p., 2007. Web. 6 Aug. 2013. .
Grayzel, Susan R. "Introduction: The First World War and the Making of a Modern, Global
Conflict" The First World War: A Brief History with Documents. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2013. 1-38. Print.
Holcombe, G. Randall. “Government Growth Before the New Deal. Lincoln and Wilson
Set Precedents for Government Spending.” The Freeman. Foundation for Economic Education, 01 Sept. 1997. Web. 23 July 2013. http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/federal-government-growth-before-the-new-deal#axzz2afsN57rK
Kealey, E.V. "Woman of Britian say – ‘Go!’” The First World War: A Brief History with Documents. Ed. Susan R. Grayzel. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2013. 57. Print.
Kingsbury, Celia Malone. Introduction. For Home and Country: World War I Propaganda on the Home Front. Lincoln: University of Nebraska, 2010. 33-39. Print
McElroy, Wendy. "World War I and the Suppression of Dissent." The Independent
Institute. The Independent Institute, 1 Apr. 2001. Web. 23 July 2013.
Wilson, Woodrow “Declaration of Neutrality” Digital History. Digital History
Web. 24 July 2013 http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=3&psid=3889
Mock, James R., and Cedric Larson. "American Propaganda in World War I." Words That Won the War: The Story of The Committee on Public Information, 1917-1919. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Universal Press, 1939. Print.
Murphy, Dennis M., and James F. White. "Propaganda: Can a Word Decide A War?" US Army War College. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 July 2013.. http://www.carlisle.army.mil/DIME/documents/Propaganda%20Can%20a%20Word%20Decide%20a%20War.pdf “Sedition Act of 1918.” United States History. N.p., n.d. Web. 6 Aug. 2013.
Salmans, Brian R., Major, USAF. An Examination of The Committee on Public
Information During World War , and Application to Current Strategic Communication Campaign of the US Government. Air Command and Staff University. Maxwell Air
Force Base, Alabama. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 July 2013. .
Wells, Robert. "Mobilizing Support for War: An Analysis of Public and Private Sources of
American Propaganda During World War II" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, Hilton Hawaiian Village, Honolulu, Hawaii. All Academic.com All Academic, 05, Mar. 2005. Web. 6 Aug. 2013. http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p69897_index.html