Blogs > Cliopatria > The Solitary "No"

Dec 9, 2007

The Solitary "No"


by Cliopatria


Cross-posted from Blog Them Out of the Stone Age

According to Technorati, yesterday over 2,500 blog posts made mention of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. I thought that probably the world could do without one more, but at least one of my readers disagreed, albeit without sufficient guts to offer his name or a valid email address. Of my post on political jui jitsu, he wrote,"This is the best post you could come up with…. typical."

At first I thought this was merely an attempt to bait me. Then I noticed that preceding the sentence was the notation,"12/7/41."

Although I can't slake his thirst for one more remembrance of the day that FDR correctly predicted would live in infamy, I can at least commemorate the day on which FDR asked Congress for a declaration of war. That event occurred sixty-six years ago today.

Roosevelt addressed a joint session of Congress at 12:30 p.m. His address took six and a half minutes to deliver, after which the Senate and House of Representatives met separately to vote on a joint resolution for war. In the Senate, the resolution passed unanimously. Not so in the House. Majority Leader John W. McCormack (Democrat - Massachusetts), presented the resolution and urged suspension of the rules so that it could be voted upon immediately. Jeannette Rankin (Republican - Montana) instantly objected. Speaker of the House Sam Rayburn (Democrat - Texas) instantly ruled her out of order.

Minority Leader Joseph W. Martin (Republican - Massachusetts) rose to endorse the resolution in a seven paragraph statement, commencing with the sentence,"Our country is today in the gravest crisis since its establishment as a republic." Seven more members of congress, including the prominent isolationist Hamilton Fish (Republican - New York), also went on record with statements of support. Throughout the"debate," Rankin repeatedly tried to gain the floor to register her dissent. Rayburn repeatedly refused to recognize her.

"Sit down, sister," came a voice from the Democratic side of the aisle.

As soon as the statements of support had ended, Rayburn ordered a vote on the resolution."I rise to a point of order," Rankin said. Rayburn ruled that the vote could not be interrupted.

Then, at the rate of twenty names per minute, the clerk called the roll. Several Republican congressmen approached Rankin and tried to persuade her to vote in favor of the resolution.

It took about seventeen minutes to reach the"R's."

"Rabaut, of Michigan."

"Aye."

"Ramsay, of West Virginia."

"Aye."

"Ramspeck, of Georgia."

"Aye."

"Randolph, of West Virginia."

"Aye."

"Rankin, of Montana."

"No."

It was the sole negative vote. At 1:10 p.m. the resolution passed, 338 to 1. The Washington Post reported that when she answered the roll call Rankin spoke in"a firm soprano," and noted that she was a confirmed pacifist who had also voted against U.S. entry in the First World War (one of fifty representatives to do so). On that occasion when her name was called, Rankin had risen and declared,"I stand by my country but I am against war." Then she collapsed into her seat, weeping.

In 1918 Rankin did not run for a second term but instead unsuccessfully sought the Republican nomination for U.S. senator. After spending twenty-two years in social work, in 1940 she made another bid for Congress, winning election on an explicitly anti-war platform.

On December 8, 1941, however, her fidelity to principle meant nothing. Boos and hisses came from the gallery. And the main New York Times report on the declaration of war ran a photo, not of FDR's address, but of Rankin taking refuge in a phone booth until the House corridors were cleared. In the photo, Minority Leader Martin, his back to the camera, talks to Rankin through the glass. Over his right shoulder can be seen Rankin's grandmotherly face (she was then sixty years old). She appears to be daubing her eyes with a tissue or handkerchief, as if she were weeping.


comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Oscar Chamberlain - 12/10/2007

I remember vaguely some comparisons with Dec. 7 in the context of memorializing 9/11. I think the gist was that the World War II generation was uninterested at that time in memorializing a defeat, whereas the generation of 9/11 seemed far more obsessed with it.

However, I'm not sure if that reflects differences in the wars (as profound as those differences are) so much as a sea change in the place of memorial events and structures in our culture.

Mark Grimsley - 12/8/2007

It's a good question, and I really don't know. There are a number of works on the USS Arizona memorial, but that's the closest I can come.

I wonder if there's even a history to be had here, in the sense of change over time. Unless I'm very much mistaken, the American public memory of Pearl Harbor has remained static, and so, I imagine, would be the content of observances. However, I'd be fascinated the evolution of the public memory of the event in Japan. I know that a large number of those who visit the USS Arizona are from Japan.

Alan Baumler - 12/8/2007

Mark,
Has anyone done anything on American observances of Dec 7? I ask because I don't remember it being of any great importance when I was a kid (born in '65). It would turn up in This Day in History in the paper, and a teacher might mention it, but I don't recall it being a time for lots of editorializing and of course no blog posts at all. I remember seeing more about it in the 80's, which may have been been me becoming more aware, or that there was more of a need to acknowledge the WWII generation (who were becoming them instead of us) or maybe just Japan bashing. Now it seems to be becoming (I assume for your commenter) the first attack on Fortress America, sort of a pre 9/11.

Mark Grimsley - 12/8/2007

When on December 11 Congress declared war on Germany and Italy, Rankin voted "present," thereby preserving the vote's unanimity. She did so after prolonged urging by several Republican colleagues, including Everett Dirksen of Illinois.

(<em>Chicago Daily Tribune</em>, Dec. 12, 1941, p. 5)