Across all of American history, the accumulation of state
power during times of war and national emergency has been the most destructive
threat to human liberty. World War I was no exception. Thousands of books have
been written about the first World War. Despite this, much less has been
written about a mostly-forgotten anti-war perspective put forth by those in the
classical liberal or libertarian tradition. This includes many who are now
considered the “Old Right,” including Albert Jay Nock, who examined the relationship of social power (liberty) and state power. This methodology was adapted and described by
Murray Rothbard as “the great conflict which is eternally waged between Liberty
and Power…."[1] According to Rothbard:
“In those areas of history when liberty—social power—has managed to race ahead
of state power and control, the country and even mankind have flourished. In
those eras when state power has managed to catch up or surpass social power, mankind
suffers and declines.”[2] The central concern of the American story is: “Who will control the state, and
what power will the state exercise over the citizenry?”[3] More
recently, historians such as Robert Higgs have demonstrated how governments
used crises to increase their power.[4]
While some classical liberal and libertarian scholars such as Rothbard, Higgs,
and Ralph Raico have written essays or chapters about the first World War, none
of them did so in a full-length treatise from this classical liberal conflict
methodology. Moreover, libertarian scholars have tended to focus on economic
history. Among more recent works among more orthodox scholars, books such as William G. Ross's World War
I and the American Constitution addresses many important legal issues.[5] Nonetheless, this approach is tied to court cases that are important to, but not
sufficient, to express to full measure of social power eclipsed by the war. This thesis envisions that social power (or human liberty) can be diminished even if
there is court decision on the matter, and even when there might be no legal
cause of action to justify a complaint.
As a result, there is a gap in the scholarly work in this
area. This dissertation seeks to fill that gap by examining the first World War
in the context of its impact on American society through the lens of the classical
liberal conflict theory. The focus of this dissertation will be the major political, legal, and economic events of the First World War in the United States within the context of this Rothbardian methodology. A few examples that stand out are the takeover of the railroads, activities
of the American Protective League and the Council of National Defense (and its
state and local associates), and how these organizations contributed to
surveillance and prosecution for draft evasion, espionage, and other crimes—and
how the courts were complicit in this conversion. Moreover, many victims of
these activities suffered because of state-enforced nativism and
discrimination. Here again, much has been written about these activities in a
substantive manner. The intent is not to duplicate work that has already been
done but to show how these activities were part of an overall scheme to
centralize government at the expense of liberty.
What is the classical liberal conflict theory? This
question is designed to answer and understand the methodology that this research
will be based upon. Class conflict theory is widely attributed to Karl Marx and
is a staple of Marxist historical analysis. But research (mostly in the 20th
century) has demonstrated that this class conflict analysis was seen as early
as the 16th century and predated his work, a fact that he
acknowledged. The existence of this history is due to the research of libertarian scholars Ralph Raico, Leonard Liggio, David M. Hart, Walter E. Grinder, and
others.[6] These scholars showed the
development of this classical liberal or libertarian class analysis as distinct
from Marx. Rather than capitalist vs. working class based upon the payment of
wages, these historians showed that the classical liberal analysis was (and is)
based upon wielding the power of government to achieve one’s means. Rothbard synthesized the ideas of classical liberals and the Old Right, Austrian economic theory, and contributions from the New Left.
How did the war transform the relationship between the
American people and their government as seen through the lens of the Rothardian synthesis? This dissertation is not about the
causes of the war, information about battles or strategy or tactics, nor does
it focus on diplomacy or the peace settlement after the war. All of these
subjects are important to the overall framework, but they are not
intended to be covered in any comprehensive way. Instead, the central argument is the relationship between the American people and their
government that emerged during and immediately after the war—as seen through
the lens of Rothbard's conflict theory. The approach of this dissertation is, first: to explain the convergence of historical factors that served as justifications or rationalizations for the centralization of power; second, to describe the methods by which implementation took place; and third, demonstrate how this power was consolidated.
What is the legacy of World War I, as seen through this
perspective? For many Americans, the First World War is a forgotten war. While millions of Europeans died in over for years of trench warfare, the United States was at war for only 19 months and involved in only a few months of direct combat operations in the summer and fall of 1918. Yet the legacy of the war--especially it unfolded on the home front. The war had immediate effects in areas such as free speech, immigration, and even rent control. Later, much of the administrative structure of the New Deal was directly inspired by the American war effort. Perhaps the legacy of the war impacts us even today.
