| U.S. congressional opposition to American involvement in wars and interventions |
|---|
 |
| 1812North America |
| House Federalists’ Address |
| 1847Mexican–American War |
| Spot Resolutions |
| 1917World War I |
| Filibuster of the Armed Ship Bill |
| 1935–1939 |
| Neutrality Acts |
| 1935–1940 |
| Ludlow Amendment |
| 1970Vietnam |
| McGovern–Hatfield Amendment |
| 1970Southeast Asia |
| Cooper–Church Amendment |
| 1971 Vietnam |
| Repeal of Tonkin Gulf Resolution |
| 1973 Southeast Asia |
| Case–Church Amendment |
| 1973 |
| War Powers Resolution |
| 1974 |
| Hughes–Ryan Amendment |
| 1976Angola |
| Clark Amendment |
| 1982Nicaragua |
| Boland Amendment |
| 2007Iraq |
| House Concurrent Resolution 63 |
| 2011 Libyan War |
| House Joint Resolution 68 |
| 2013 Syrian Civil War |
| Syria Resolution |
| 2018–2019Yemen |
| Yemen War Powers Resolution |
TheLudlow Amendment was a proposedamendment to theConstitution of the United States which called for a nationalreferendum on anydeclaration of war byCongress, except in cases when the United States had been attacked first.[1][2]RepresentativeLouis Ludlow (D-Indiana) introduced the amendment several times between 1935 and 1940. Supporters argued that ordinary people, who were called upon to fight and die during wartime, should have a direct vote on their country's involvement in military conflicts.[3][4]
The idea of a nationalreferendum on any declaration of war was first suggested in 1914, and was supported by such notable politicians as three-timeDemocratic presidential candidateWilliam Jennings Bryan andUnited States SenatorsRobert M. La Follette, Sr. andThomas P. Gore.[5][6] In the1924 election campaign, both theDemocratic andProgressiveparty platforms endorsed the idea of a popular vote on war, "except in case of actual attack" (Democrats) or "except in case of actual invasion" (Progressives).[7]
Public support for the amendment was very robust through the 1930s, a period whenisolationism was the prevailing mood in the United States, but began to erode as the situation in Europe deteriorated at the end of the decade. AGallup survey in September 1935 showed that 75% of Americans supported the amendment; the approval rate was 71% in 1936, and 73% in 1937. In January 1938, when it was voted on in Congress, 68% of the US population still supported the amendment. But by March 1939, support had dropped to 61%; and six months later, following theGerman invasion of Poland, support for the amendment dropped to 51%. In addition,Good Housekeeping magazine, theNational Council for Prevention of War, andRoger Nash Baldwin, president of theACLU, endorsed the amendment.[4][8][9][10][11]
Others also opposed the amendment.MichiganSenatorArthur H. Vandenberg, who was normally anisolationist, argued that the amendment "would be as sensible to require a town meeting before permitting the fire department to face a blaze". AuthorWalter Lippmann argued that the amendment would make "preventive diplomacy" impossible and would ensure "that finally, when the provocation has become intolerable, there would be no remedy excepttotal war fought when we were at the greatest possible disadvantage." Protestant theologianReinhold Niebuhr opposed the amendment stating that war was a policy area where pure democracy was mostpernicious.[4][7][12][13]
Congressional debate on the amendment was prompted by the December 12, 1937bombing of the USSPanay byJapanese warplanes. ThePanay, agunboat, was anchored in theYangtze River nearNanjing,China and flying the American flag. PresidentFranklin D. Roosevelt discussed with his cabinet and the military high command the possibility of economic or military retaliation against Japan. Roosevelt drew back, however, when he realized that there was no public outcry for retaliation, and that, in fact, peace sentiment in the country had actually strengthened. "We should learn that it is about time for us to mind our own business,"Texas DemocratMaury Maverick declared in the House of Representatives. Two days after thePanay was sunk, Congress took up the Ludlow amendment.[12][14][15]The Roosevelt administration attempted to keep the bill in theHouse Judiciary Committee, where it had been buried since Ludlow introduced the amendment in 1935; but at the end of 1937 the amendment got enough congressional support, including the signatures of nearly half the Democrats in the House, for a House vote on adischarge petition designed to permit debate on the proposed amendment.[7][16]
The amendment came closest to overcoming adischarge petition on January 10, 1938, when it was defeated in Congress by a vote of 209 to 188. The difference in votes may have been provided by Postmaster GeneralJames Farley, who Roosevelt asked to sway the votes of the Irish Congressmen who wereisolationists. Despite Roosevelt's fears, this vote was far short of the two-thirds vote required by both houses of Congress (290 in the House) for later passage of a constitutional amendment.[2][4][17]
Before thedischarge petition vote, speaker of the HouseWilliam B. Bankhead read a letter written by President Roosevelt:
I must frankly state that I consider that the proposed amendment would be impracticable in its application and incompatible with our representative form of government.
Our Government is conducted by the people through representatives of their own choosing. It was with singular unanimity that the founders of the Republic agreed upon such free and representative form of government as the only practical means of government by the people.
Such an amendment to the Constitution as that proposed would cripple any President in his conduct of our foreign relations, and it would encourage other nations to believe that they could violate American rights with impunity.[2][8][18]
In his 1993 bookWar and Responsibility: Constitutional Lessons ofVietnam and its Aftermath, notedconstitutional scholarJohn Hart Ely made a proposal that "[brought] back memories" of the Ludlow Amendment,[19] writing that, when initiating military action, "even notice to the entire Congress is insufficient to satisfy the constitutional requirement: We the people are part of the process too."[20]