History homework help

Opposit ion to the League of Nat ions (1919)

When the peace eonfercnee conuened in France in 1919, President Woodrow Wilson attended and took an aetive role in negotiations in the hope of preseruing his proposed idealktic blueprint for peacemaking, the Fourteen Points. The resulting Tieaty of Wr- sailles eontained little of the original Fourteen Points except a Itague of Nations, whieh Wibon belieued would correct the mistalees of the peace treaty. The heat of the new Itague of Nations was Article 10, which urged league members “to rcspect and preserue” the territory oJ members from extemal agression. When Demoerat Wilson submitted the treaty to the U.S. Senate for rutifcation, it came under the close scrutiny of Republican Henry Cabot Lodge, chair of the Foreign Relations Committee. Born in Massachusetts and Harvard eilueated (the frst Ph.D. in political seience), Iadge was knoum for his clear and forceful arguments in the 37 years he serued in Congress. In a speech on the Senate floor, which k excerpted following, I’tdge ofercd his reasons

for opposing theTieaty of Versailles (and the l*ague of Nations).The Senate would defeat the treaty ratifcation in two sepante votes, mainly along partisan lines.

= E

.9

. a

I

f,

E

-g =

Edward Penfield, art ist (1918)

396 CHAPTER 22 MAKING THE WORLD SAFE FOR DEMOCRACY

Ques t i ons t o Cons ide r

1. For what reasons does Henry Cabot Lodge oppose the treaty?

2. ‘V/hat

changes would he make to the treaty?

3. How does he propose to maintain world peace? Is that possible?

4. Is Lodge an isolationist?What is the significance of his opposition to the ratification of the Tieaty of Versailles?

I object in the strongest possible way to having the Uruted States agree, directly or indirecdy, to be controlled by a league which may at any time, and perfecdy lawfully and in accordance with the terms of the covenant, be drawn in to deal with internal conflicts in other countries. no matter what those conflicts may be.We should never permit the Uruted States to be involved in any internal con-flict in another country except by the will of her people expressed through the Congress which represents them.

With regard to wars of external aggression on a member of the league, the case is perfectly clear. There can be no genuine dispute whatever about the meaning of the first clause of article 10. In the first place, it differs from every other obligation in being individual and placed upon each nation without the intervention of the league. Each nation for itself promises to respect and preserve as against external aggression the boundaries and the- political independence of every member of the league. . . .

Any analysis of the provisions of this league covenant, however, brings out in startling relief one great fact. Whatever may be said, it is not a league of peace; it is an alliance, dominated at the present moment by five great pow- ers, really by three, and it has all the marks of an elli2nsg.The development of international law is neglected.The court which is to decide disputes brought before it fills but a small place. The conditions for which this league really provides with the utmost cere ere political conditions, not judicial questions, to be reached by the executive council and the assembly, purely political bod- ies without any trace of a judicial character about them. Such being its machinery the control being in the hands of political appointees whose votes wjll be controlled by interest and expedience it exhibits that most marked characteristic of an ellixn6e-that its decisions are to be carried out by force. Those articles upon which the whole structure rests are articles which pro- vide for the use of force; that is, for war. This league to enforce peace does a great deal for enforcement and very litde for peace. It makes more essential provisions looking to war than to peace for the setdement of disputes….

Taken altogether, these provisions for war present what to my mind is the gravest objection to this league in its present form.We arg told that of course nothing will be done in the way of warlike acts without the assent of Con- gress. If that is true let us say so in the covenant. But as it stands there is no

“Lcaguc of Natioro I’ Congresional Record, 66th Congrcs, 1st scssion, prrt 4 (August 12, 7919′),377V3784.

170 OPPOSITION TO THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS (1919)

doubt whatever in my mind that American troops and American ships may be ordered to any part of the world by nations other than the United States, and that is a proposition to which I for one can never assent. . . .

Those of us, Mr. President, who are either wholly opposed to the league, or who are trying to preserve the independence and the safecy of the United States by changing the terms of the league, and who are endeavoring to make the league, if we are to be a member of it, less certain to promote war instead of peace have been reproached with selfishness in our oudook and with a desire to keep our country in a state of isolation. So far as the question of isolation goes, it is impossible to isolate the United States. . . . But there is a wide difference between taking a suitable part and bearing a due responsibil- ity in world affairs and plunging the United States into every controversy and conllict on the face of the globe. By meddling in all the differences which may arise among any portion or fragment of humankind we simply fritter away our influence and injure ourselves to no good purpose. . . .

. . . In the prosecution of the war we gave unstintedly American lives and American treasure.When the war closed we had 3,000,000 men under arms. ‘We

were turning the country into a vast workshop for war.We advanced ten billions to our allies. We refused no assistance that we could possibly render. All the great energy and power of the Republic were put at the service of the good cause.’We have not been ungenerous.’We have been devoted to the cause of freedom, humaniry and civilization everywhere. Now we are asked, in the making of peace, to sacrifice our sovereignty in important respects, to involve ourselves almost without limit in the affairs of other nations and to yield up policies and rights which we have maintained throughout our his- tory.We are asked to incur liabilities to an unlimited extent and furnish assets at the same time which no man can measure. I think it is not only our right but our duty to determine how far we shall go. . . .

No doubt many excellent and patriotic people see a coming fulfillment of noble ideals in the words “league for peace.”We all respect and share these aspirations and desires, but some of us see no hope, but rather defeat, for them in this murky covenant. For we, too have our ideals, even if we differ from those who have tried to establish a monopoly of idealism. Our first ideal is our country and we see her in the future, as in the past, giving service to all her people and to the world. Our ideal of the future is that she should con- tinue to render that service of her own free will. She has great problems of her own to solve, very grim and perilous problems, and a right solution, if we can attain to it, would largely benefit mankind.We would have our coun- try strong to resist a peril from the’West, as she has flung back the German menace from the East. We would not have our politics distracted and embit- tered by the dissensions of other lands. We would not have our country’s vigor exhausted or her moral force abated, by everlasting meddling and mud- dling in every quarrel, great and small, which aflicts the world. Our ideal is to make her ever stronger and better and finer, because in that way alone, as we believe, can she be of the greetest service to the world’s peace and to the welfare of mankind.