Name __________________________
Date: ________________
Section: 11.1 11.2 (circle one)
U. S. History II
HW 4.14: The Senate Debates
the League of Nations
Instructions
1. Carefully read and annotate the following text. (Source: Adapted from Choices for
the 21st Century Education Program, To End All Wars: World War I and the League of
Nations Debate, Providence, RI: Watson Institute for International Studies, 2006.)
2. Define the following terms in your own words, using a dictionary or drawing
inferences from the context of the reading:
a. Sovereignty
b. Ratification
c. Isolationism
3. Answer the following questions in complete sentences.
a. How was the League of Nations supposed to prevent another world war?
b. What was Article X of the League of Nations Covenant? Why were some
Senators concerned about Article X?
c. Why would Lodge and other Republican Senators drag out the debate over
the Treaty of Versailles? What was their goal in doing this?
d. Why did Wilson decide to go on a nationwide trip to promote the Treaty of
Versailles? What was his goal in doing this?
e. What did each of the three major groups in the Senate (described under
“Options in Brief”) want to do about the Treaty of Versailles? Why? Explain
each group’s reasoning.
Background
At the Paris Peace Conference, one of US President Woodrow Wilson’s major goals was to
establish a League of Nations – an international organization whose member countries
would agree to defend each other if they were invaded or if another country tried to take
away territory guaranteed to them by the Treaty of Versailles. The participants at the Paris
Peace Conference would ultimately agree to create a League of Nations, but Wilson alone
could not get the United States to join the League. Instead, at least two-thirds of the United
States Senate would have to vote to approve the Treaty of Versailles and join the League of
Nations. Many senators were less enthusiastic than Wilson about the League of Nations.
Wilson in Paris (continued from HW 4.12)
How did Senators react to the covenant?
Wilson knew the specifics of the League
of Nations Covenant [founding agreement] would
face resistance at home in the Senate… Wilson invited members of the Senate
and House
committees on foreign affairs to dine with him at the White House [on February 26, 1919],
where he provided them a draft of the entire proposed covenant of the League. Some
Republican Senators thought that the League of Nations would threaten the Monroe
Doctrine (designed to limit European involvement in North America) as well as diminish
the freedom of the United States to choose how
it wanted to act overseas. The United
States, Wilson replied, should relinquish [give up] some of its sovereignty [control over
its own affairs] to benefit the world community. Many of his guests did not agree.
What was Article X of the League of Nations Covenant?
At the heart of the covenant was Article X, which spelled out the new “collective security”
arrangements. Many felt that Article X would obligate the United States to intervene
overseas. Article X stipulated [provided] that all states would respect the territorial
integrity
of the borders drawn at Versailles and that
the League of Nations would act to
maintain them against aggression. The League would safeguard these new postwar borders
through economic sanctions as well as through the use of military force. Wilson saw this
approach as a moral and responsible move away from the traditional power politics that
had led to the catastrophic destruction of the Great War.
On the day before Wilson returned to Paris, Senator [Henry Cabot] Lodge [a Republican
senator from Massachusetts, the chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations,
and a longtime opponent of President Wilson] circulated a document to his colleagues
stating that he rejected the draft covenant. He asked that the peace conference set aside the
question of the League of Nations until the completion of a peace agreement with Germany.
Thirty-nine Senators signed the document indicating their agreement
with Lodge’s
statements. This was more than enough signatures to deny Wilson the two-thirds majority
needed to ratify the treaty.
The Treaty at Home
Despite Wilson’s resounding faith in the creation of the League of Nations and other
agreements that came out of the Paris Conference, Americans had numerous questions
about the decisions made there. Though there were many, particularly Democrats, who
unhesitatingly advocated American membership in the League—among them teachers,
members of the clergy, and others who favored a rapid restoration of peace—others had
their doubts.
Some doubters wondered if the League of Nations would have the power to implement its
decisions and to put a stop to aggressors. Others felt the League of Nations Covenant was
too liberal and too internationalist. They argued that it would compromise the sovereignty
of the United States and entangle U.S. soldiers in the conflicts of far away places…
How was the treaty received in Congress?
Though the outcome of the Paris Peace Conference was a topic of great discussion and
disagreement throughout the United States, nowhere was it as hotly debated as
it was in
the Senate. When Wilson set sail back to America after signing the Versailles Treaty, he did
not realize that the struggles he experienced with the Big Four would pale in comparison to
the fight he was about to have with members of the United States Senate. Storm clouds had
been gathering for months over what the treaty meant for America’s foreign policy.
Fall 1919: The Moment of Decision
Wilson submitted the Versailles Treaty
to the Senate in July 1919. The election results in
1918 had brought a Republican majority to Congress, which meant that Republicans could
control the pace of debates. Many Republican Senators, Lodge foremost among them,
hoped to drag out the proceedings so that the public would become disengaged
and
withdraw its support of the treaty. Senator Lodge began deliberations on the treaty
by
reading it out loud, which consumed two weeks. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee
also held public hearings for six weeks in another attempt to slow the process…
At ten o’clock in the morning on August 19, 1919, members of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee gathered with President Wilson in the East Room of the White House. Wilson
perceived that enough opposition to the treaty existed in the Senate to prevent it from
being ratified [approved] by the required two-thirds majority. During the meeting he
attempted to explain the covenant and the obligations of the United States under the
League, hoping that he could persuade them to vote in favor of its ratification. The meeting
lasted over three hours but did nothing to sway the Senators. Unable to convince the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee of his views, Wilson opted to go on a nationwide trip where
he hoped to explain the League of Nations to the American people and put pressure on
doubting Senators.
On September 3, 1919, President Wilson set off on a whirlwind tour, giving forty speeches
in the space of twenty-two days… However, the pace of the trip, coupled with his
preexisting medical problems, proved to be too much for Wilson physically… On October 2,
Wilson suffered a stroke. Incapacitated [unable to work] and partially paralyzed, Wilson
was unable to continue his campaign to engage the American public on the Senate
ratification debate. From his bed, Wilson sent notes to members of the Senate, urging them
to support the League.
In November, the Senate met to debate and vote on the ratification of the Treaty of
Versailles and its controversial League of Nations, which made up the first 26 of 440
articles. The Senate had fallen into three distinct groups. One group supported the treaty as
it stood, one group sought to make changes to it in order to maintain the power to act
unilaterally [without consulting other countries] in foreign affairs, and one group hoped to
reject it altogether, preferring to isolate the United States from European issues.
Options in Brief
Option 1 – Progressive Internationalists: Support the Treaty
The Great War [World War I] has taught us that reliance on isolationism [the belief that
America should not get involved with the rest of the world] and a unilateral foreign policy
is no longer feasible. Because of these changes and the fact that our old buffers of the
Atlantic and Pacific Oceans can no longer shield
us from the rest of the world, we must
accept the mantle of leadership that has been thrust upon us. The League of Nations will
insure the peace by providing economic, legal, and security organizations to address global
problems. This “general assembly of states” will offer a place for nations to come together
and discuss issues and complaints with other members in order to solve problems before
conflict occurs. The League is essential to the peace of the world, and we must support it.
Option 2 – Reservationists: Make Changes to the Treaty
The Great War demonstrated that the world is a dangerous place where nations base their
actions solely on their own interests. The terms of the Versailles Treaty do not guarantee
that international relations have changed. Accusations that we are isolationist are
completely false. We support America playing an active role in the new world order,
however, long-held traditions governing American foreign policy, such as “avoiding foreign
entanglements,” are just as true today as they were before 1914. Article X, with its
declaration that all members would be obligated to enforce postwar borders, violates this
principle. The Versailles Treaty also provides for too many instances in which a body other
than Congress makes laws concerning the citizens of the United States. We suggest making
changes to the treaty to resolve these flaws.
Option 3 – Irreconcilables: Reject the Treaty
Because of Europe’s incessant [never-ending] wars over ancient hatreds and power
politics, it has always been in our interest to separate ourselves as far as possible from that
volatile [unstable] continent. President Wilson’s attempt to make “the world safe for
democracy” was doomed from the start. Those who put any faith in “collective security”
through the proposed League of Nations are deluding themselves. Membership in any such
organization would risk our security and embroil us in constant wars. Have we not learned
from our mistakes? The time has come to cut off our relationship with the troubled
continent of Europe. We should not ratify the Versailles Treaty.